Skip to content

Heat pumps and EV batteries could save grid £4.7bn, says Ofgem

Atchully:

The regulator estimates it could save households between £3.2bn and £4.7bn a year compared to the alternative, which is keeping gas power plants running.

Instead, its preferred proposals will give households a bigger role in fine tuning supply and demand for electricity, by consuming or generating power through smart devices such as batteries, electric cars and heat pumps when required.

Households, not the grid. Households who will have the interesting experience of getting up in the morning to find their car batteries flat.

But rather more than that. What’s the cost to the Grid of being able to do this?

15 thoughts on “Err, no”

  1. The Terriblegraph gets worse. I saw that story, decided that the headline was BS and didn’t bother reading it.

    Thank you for saving me the bother Tim.

  2. As far as I’m concerned, the grid exists to serve me. I don’t exist to serve the grid.

    Nor does my car battery. I would indeed be really, really pissed off if I tried to start the thing and the bastards had pinched my power.

  3. And elsewhere in the same newspaper: “Heat pumps have triggered a revolt against Net Zero”.

    Are the batteries revolting? There’s a resistance against net zero! Is that in the current affairs section?

  4. I would be more interested in what the experts who are directed to make this stuff happen, i.e. National Grid, have to say rather than some idiot regulator.

  5. Martin Near The M25

    I think the experts have been replaced with political appointees who will do as they’re told. As they’re zealots already they might not even need telling.

  6. There is a cost – enabling local grid/local switching has significant issues both in cost and processes but enabling a house to access its own storage is not too bad (anyone with a fuel cell or powerwall and solar does it – but in general no point on flat consumer tariffs) though its non standard for an EV to support it (and that should be addressed anyway). The main issue is how to give the consumer – rather than the grid – informed control. Of course this should all have been finalised in principle at least and the API built into the smart meters as simply deferring energy use would be valuable but they f*cked that project up massively – we have dumb meters with sensors and non standard approaches piece meal.

  7. Makes sense to replace a storage heater with a heat pump. Doesn’t make sense to replace a gas boiler with one. That might be what they meant.

  8. If the amount of energy now provided by electricity is X, and that provided by motor fuels is Y and that provided by gas is Z, then Net Zero means the grid will have to be able to carry and distribute X + Y + Z and electricity demand will increase by Y + Z.

    Nowhere have I seen any understanding that shifting Y + Z to electricity will require more generating output and massive extension and upgrades to the electricity delivery infrastructure. Cost, resources?

    Therefore, apart from other factors, nobody has calculated how much more copper wire will be required and since this madness will not be exclusive to the UK, will it be physically possible to increase, maybe double or treble, copper wire production – from mines through processing and fabrication – globally within a ten year time span?

    I don’t think we have ever done that before with anything.

  9. “By consuming or generating power through smart devices such as batteries, electric cars and heat pumps “

    None of those items actually generates* power, they either store power generated elsewhere or make use of it…

    * Yes, I know a primary battery produces power, but no one (not even the Net Zero lunatics) has suggested running our houses on a bunch of AA cells…

  10. As this is just time-shifting wouldn’t centralised storage be much cheaper and more efficient than hoping enough people have topped up their storage in time for the shortage, what happens if you need to lean on the storage in the morning just as people are unplugging their cars

  11. “If the amount of energy now provided by electricity is X, and that provided by motor fuels is Y and that provided by gas is Z, then Net Zero means the grid will have to be able to carry and distribute X + Y + Z and electricity demand will increase by Y + Z.

    Nowhere have I seen any understanding that shifting Y + Z to electricity will require more generating output and massive extension and upgrades to the electricity delivery infrastructure.”

    One logical conclusion of the above is that our rulers have no intention of providing us with X+Y+Z electricity, because they plan to make personal travel and domestic heating so expensive that they know the demand for electricity in the future will hardly be any greater than today, so there will be no need to plan for more generating and distribution capacity.

    Or they are stark staring underpants on head dribbling into their cereal bonkers.

    Its got to be one of the above.

  12. As I have mentioned before, 39 million road vehicles and 25 million homes that use fossil fuels for heating are to be added to the mix. Can the net zero nutters please explain where that juice is going to come from when we don’t have enough wind power to supply the level of demand we have right now?

    Show us where our energy is going to come from in this fossil fuel free utopia and how much it is going to cost first.

    p.s. I would suggest a net zero referendum, but as the plebs come up with the wrong answer the last time they were given a vote on something important, there isn’t a snowballs chance of that happening………………

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *