• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Don’t Fall for the Government’s Latest Heat Pump Con

by Andrew Montford
18 July 2024 8:00 PM

One of the great problems facing the policy – proposed by both Labour and Conservative – to decarbonise domestic heat by replacing gas boilers with heat pumps is that it’s fundamentally uneconomic. As I pointed out in a recent paper for GWPF, while air-source heat pumps are, on average, three times as efficient as gas boilers, electricity is four times the price of gas, so unless your installation is much more efficient than the norm, you will not see operating cost reductions from a heat pump, let alone pay back the extra capital cost.

One of the wheezes dreamt up to address this issue is to remove all the renewables subsidy costs from electricity bills. This has been suggested by the Climate Change Committee today, and the simultaneous picking up of the idea by the BBC and others suggests a fully fledged Green Blob campaign in support of the idea is under way.

Given that the subsidies are for, well, electricity generation, the policy would further divorce consumer bills from the underlying economic realities, and it would therefore be expected to cause harm to the public at large, but it’s interesting to consider just how much harm.

To that end, I’ve done some rough calculations, taking the £13 billion of renewables subsidies and allocating them elsewhere so as to give a flavour of the price changes that might result.

One possibility is to move renewables subsidies to general taxation. However, this only reduces the electricity-gas price ratio to 3.3, which is still higher than the typical efficiency of a heat pump. This means most heat pump installations wouldn’t give an operational saving compared to a new gas boiler, and few would give savings sufficient to justify the extra capital cost.

Another alternative is to move the subsidies to gas bills. Here there are two key observations. Firstly, the policy would increase the cost of gas by around a third, from its current level of 5.4p per kilowatt hour to 7.3p. This would be pretty serious for householders, and it would potentially be terminal for businesses. It’s quite likely that many would go out of business, which would leave householders picking up the cost anyway.

Secondly, the policy would still not deliver on the Government’s decarbonisation plans, since the ratio of electricity to gas prices would only decline to 2.5. This figure would mean that more than half of air-source heat pumps would deliver operational savings, but very few would give a payback on the extra capital cost involved.

A third possibility would be to shifting the renewables subsidy costs onto retail consumers alone. If that were the case, businesses would be okay, but gas prices for householders would nearly double, to 10.9p. This is above the highest level of the price cap at the height of the price crisis, so it’s fair to say that it would be a hard political sell. Excess winter deaths would undoubtedly soar, and it’s hard to imagine that the public wouldn’t take to the streets. However, the electricity-gas price ratio would fall to 1.67, which would be enough to make a heat pump give both operational and overall savings for most installations.

But this is true only if the subsidies for heat pump installation continue at their current, grossly inflated level of £5,000. Without this bounty, heat pumps would still not make economic sense for most people.

And this is where we get to the title of this article. The installation subsidies and the shifting of renewables levies onto gas bills (if it happens) can only ever be temporary. The installation subsidy is already only available to those replacing gas boilers, of course; next time round, you will pay full whack. Similarly, once everyone has a heat pump, the windfarms are still going to want their subsidies, and so the levies are going to have to go onto electricity bills.

This means, at some point in the future, the innocents who have, at Mr. Miliband’s prompting, dutifully ripped out their gas boilers in favour of a heat pump, will suddenly find that their bills have soared. The cheap energy prices that lured them in will be gone. And when the time comes to replace the heat pump unit, it will cost many thousands of pounds more than it did the last time round.

The Government is engaged in a classic bait and switch – possibly the greatest bait-and-switch of all time.

Don’t fall for it.

Andrew Montford is Director of Net Zero Watch.

Tags: Climate AlarmismEnergy CostsGas BoilersHeat PumpNet ZeroRenewable energy

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Hounded Out of Her Job for Publishing Gender Critical Authors

Next Post

News Round-Up

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jnc
jnc
1 month ago

Common Hold is the norm in Scotland, and through out Europe where the Feudal System was abolished hundreds of years ago. It is only England where the Tory landed gentry controlling Parliament prevented changes to our leasing laws, which are heavily skewed in favour the Free Holder, in order to protect their property rights. Tory promises of reform failed due to pressure from their very rich donors. Seems they are now paying a different piper.

6
-1
JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  jnc

Property Rights are protected under Common Law. Nobody can have Rights to property they don’t own.

0
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  jnc
  • Commonhold provides freehold home ownership for flats or other interdependent buildings.
  • Commonhold structures are widely used around the world – for example, in Australia they have the Strata Title system, and in North America the condominium system.
  • First introduced in England and Wales in 2002, commonhold is an alternative to leasehold ownership of flats, and other properties that share communal areas or services.
  • Instead of owning property as a leasehold for a fixed period of time, with commonhold you own your property as a freehold indefinitely.
  • Although take up so far has been low, new homes can currently be sold as commonhold, and existing leaseholders can convert to commonhold if they all collectively agree and meet certain additional criteria.
  • With commonhold, you and other owners have a say in how your building is managed, including the costs and responsibilities that come with this.

So we have Commonhold in England too despite the Tory Scum™️

0
0
adamcollyer
adamcollyer
1 month ago
Reply to  JXB

The problem with Commonhold is the process for forcing flat owners to pay their maintenance charges towards the upkeep of the building. The Commonhold company has to use normal debt collection procedures if a flat owner refuses to pay.

With a lease, the freeholder or management company has the threat of terminating the lease to pressure people to pay.

So I would say a decently long lease with non-onerous ground rent terms is preferable to Commonhold for the flat owner.

0
0
EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
1 month ago

I can see little in common between blatant over charging and conspiracy between freeholders, brokers and insurers on one hand and the second hand car sales commissions on the other.

In the former case the leaseholder has no involvement.

In the second the buyer negotiates the price and borrowing terms and can walk away at any time. I understand that second hand car dealers typically massage the sale price down but get more commission so their overall take is about the same. Buyers, apparently, are keen to boast about the cheap deal they did ignoring their borrowing costs.

The attack on leaseholds per se is completely unjustified and involves the theft of property from owners. If there are unconsionable terms in typical leases then publish better ones – solicitors will soon spot deviant cases. Common ownership of blocks of flats will lead to disputes and minority oppression.

5
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

I tend to agree. On the face of it, share of freehold seems appealing but in practice I expect it’s not as simple as you’d hope.

3
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

It is not uncommon and works well – shared freehold via a limited company or association.

0
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  JXB

Maybe ok in a smaller building but I would have thought awkward in a larger one and much depends on the other tenants

1
0
Jack the dog
Jack the dog
1 month ago

Sharing the costs between people who share the same building is I think a nightmare everywhere.

Fortunately I have a house, full of dogs and guns so as far as possible I try to protect my own.

Needless to say I left fascist little England years ago.

2
0
CGW
CGW
1 month ago

According to my experience in Germany, flat owners from a block of flats meet regularly (two or three times a year) to discuss problems, organize general repairs and coordinate insurance and tax payments. A company and/or a group of people will be chosen to manage everything, including setting up a central fund in which all owners deposit a monthly sum depending on the size of their flat. The central fund, set up as soon as the building is finished, grows to a sizeable amount, ensuring that sufficient money is available for general repairs also after decades. Everything is open to review and is to the benefit of all owners.

2
0
adamcollyer
adamcollyer
1 month ago
Reply to  CGW

Yep. And in most cases, that’s how it works in England too.

1
0
adamcollyer
adamcollyer
1 month ago

This article is bunk. Sorry, but it is.

There may well be some rogue freeholders around. That doesn’t mean they are all like that.

In fact, in many, perhaps even most, blocks of flats, the freehold is owned by a company that is in turn owned and controlled by the leaseholders. Attacking freeholders means attacking these companies too.

Look at this nonsense in the article:

“The broker touts the business round various insurance companies looking for the one that will pay the biggest commission, which he then splits with the freeholder. In one email this author has seen the insurer offered a “50/50 split as before”. In other words, for every £1 spent on the insurance premium, the insurance company charged the leaseholders £2. The other £1 it paid straight back into their freeholder’s pocket in secret ‘commissions’. A 100% mark up!”

Splitting the commission is NOT the same as splitting the insurance premium. In your (ridiculous) example of a £1 premium and another £1 commission, that extra pound would be split 50:50 between freeholder and insurance company.

Flat owners already have the “right to manage” – ie they can club together and take over management of the building including insurance. Why don’t they? Ah – because many don’t want the hassle of managing the building. They want to own their flats – but with all the responsibilities of tenants – which means no responsibilities.

When people are buying flats, of course they need to read the b***y lease, or get their solicitor to do so! Then they will understand the arrangements.

The author of this article seems to be blissfully unaware of the legal protections that already exist for leaseholders, including consultation etc, and of how onerous managing a block of flats can be. Example: does she know intimately the multiple fire regulations that the manager of the building must know and adhere to? Asbestos regulations? Consultation requirements? Leaseholders’ rights to get copies of maintenance accounts? The tax position of management companies? And so on and on and on.

It would be nice if well meaning but ignorant “campaigners” would get off the backs of building managers, who in most but not all cases are working hard on a thankless task and getting precious little gratitude from entitled leaseholders.

1
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  adamcollyer

I was leaseholder (lease duration 125 years) of a flat in a new build. It was as you say, the “landlord” was the Residents’ Company – a limited company – the freehold having been transferred from the builders to the company on completion of the project, with directors elected from among the tenants. Building insurance, maintenance, etc was handled by the company. In the US they call this kind of arrangement a condominium.

A friend lived in leasehold flats where the residents association engaged a management company to deal with such things.

It really is misleading to present all leasehold arrangements as the same and pick out the worst to imply the standard.

And as you say – read the lease.

1
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

In Episode 35 of the Sceptic: Andrew Doyle on Labour’s Grooming Gang Shame, Andrew Orlowski on the India-UK Trade Deal and Canada’s Ignored Covid Vaccine Injuries

by Richard Eldred
9 May 2025
4

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim

9 May 2025
by Will Jones

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

10 May 2025
by Dr Raphael Lataster

News Round-Up

10 May 2025
by Toby Young

Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home

9 May 2025
by Will Jones

Ed Miliband’s Housing Energy Plan Will Decimate the Rental Market and Send Rents Spiralling

10 May 2025
by Ben Pile

News Round-Up

55

Teenage Girl Banned by the Football Association For Asking Transgender Opponent “Are You a Man?” Wins Appeal With Help of Free Speech Union

21

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

21

Ed Miliband’s Housing Energy Plan Will Decimate the Rental Market and Send Rents Spiralling

14

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

27

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

10 May 2025
by Dr Raphael Lataster

Reflections on Empire, Papacy and States

10 May 2025
by James Alexander

Ed Miliband’s Housing Energy Plan Will Decimate the Rental Market and Send Rents Spiralling

10 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies

9 May 2025
by Tilak Doshi

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

9 May 2025
by James Alexander

POSTS BY DATE

July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Jun   Aug »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences