Professor Dawid Hanak

Delivering net zero transition

Tag: decarbonization

  • Path to net zero: decarbonising my heating via heat pump

    Path to net zero: decarbonising my heating via heat pump

    Key takeaways

    • Discover how a personal commitment to decarbonisation led to replacing a nearly new gas boiler for a bold, eco-friendly upgrade.
    • Uncover the hidden emissions costs of gas heating revealed by a detailed household carbon footprint analysis.
    • Learn how government incentives and long-term savings make switching to a heat pump not just green, but smart financially.
    • Explore the thorough evaluation of alternatives—why waiting for hydrogen or sticking with gas wasn’t the answer.
    • Get a first-hand look at real-world performance data and insights that could redefine home heating in the quest for net zero.

    Decarbonisation has been a personal mission of mine for years. After recently unpacking my household carbon footprint and seeing how much gas heating dominated my emissions, I felt responsible for taking action at home. Our house was only built in late 2022 – complete with a brand-new, efficient gas boiler. Replacing a barely 2-year-old boiler isn’t a typical move, but this is part of my ongoing journey to net zero.

    In this article, I’ll explain why I decided to swap out that new gas boiler for an air-source heat pump, how I weighed the alternatives (including the temptation to “wait for hydrogen”), and why I ultimately landed on a Daikin heat pump over other options. This is a personal story backed by data, and I hope it offers insight into the decision-making process for those considering a similar leap.

    Why replace a (fairly) new gas boiler?

    Standing in front of my gleaming gas combi boiler, I had a moment of doubt: it was only installed in 2022, running at ~92% efficiency – wasn’t it too early to retire it – or at the very least pass it on to someone who may need it? However, carbon emissions were at the forefront of my mind. Burning gas for heating our well-insulated home produces 1.3–1.5 tonnes of CO₂ per year. Over the boiler’s remaining lifetime (10-15 years), well over 10+ tonnes of CO₂ would have been emitted to keep our family warm. In contrast, a heat pump running on grid electricity would emit roughly 70–80% less CO₂ per kWh of heat (around 80 g vs 280 g), cutting our heating footprint by about 1 ton of CO₂ annually. As an early adopter of a home decarbonisation mindset, I felt those emissions were something I could start eliminating now rather than a decade from now.

    There’s also the bigger picture: the UK has clear signals that gas heating’s days are numbered. The government is moving to ban gas (and even “hydrogen-ready”) boilers in newbuild homes from 2025, and has considered phasing out new gas boiler sales in the 2030s. The reason is simple – you can’t hit net zero by 2050 with millions of gas boilers still firing. Heat pumps are expected to become the default heating system in new homes. So even though my boiler was new, sticking with gas felt like clinging to a technology on borrowed time.

    What is a heat pump?

    A heat pump is a device that uses electricity to transfer heat from a colder place to a warmer place. Specifically, the heat pump transfers thermal energy

    Another motivation was financial foresight. Right now, the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) offers a generous £7,500 grant for installing an air-source heat pump. That grant, available through 2025, dramatically lowers the upfront cost of a heat pump. I realised if I waited 5-10 years until my boiler was older, that grant might no longer exist – I’d potentially miss out on thousands of pounds of support. Plus, acting now, I could take advantage of current electricity tariffs that reward smart heating (more on that later) and avoid what could be rising carbon costs on gas. In short, replacing a fairly new boiler is counterintuitive, but it aligned with my long-term energy and climate goals (and was made easier by government incentives).

    Finally, I had to acknowledge an emotional component: as someone professionally invested in decarbonisation, I want to walk the talk at home. It felt odd to raise awareness about clean energy by day and then come home to a gas-heated house at night. This upgrade is part of my personal commitment – an investment in the kind of future I believe in.

    Alternatives Considered: Stick, Wait, or Switch?

    Before committing, I explored all the alternatives: doing nothing (sticking with gas), waiting for hydrogen, or switching now to a heat pump. Each had pros and cons:

    • Do Nothing (Keep the Gas Boiler) – The default choice was to leave the new boiler in place until end-of-life. Economically, this is easiest short-term – no immediate capital outlay and gas is still cheaper per kWh than electricity. Our boiler still works flawlessly and could last another 10-15 years. However, “doing nothing” means continuing to emit ~1.4 tons of CO₂ every year from heating.  It also means locking in ongoing reliance on fossil gas. At ~6.5 pence per kWh, gas has been relatively cheap, but prices are volatile and likely to rise with carbon taxes or reduced supply. In contrast, electricity (around 20 p/kWh for grid power currently) costs more per unit but is getting cleaner and, with smart tariffs, can be cost-competitive. Sticking with gas would save me from an upfront install headache, but at the expense of higher carbon emissions and potentially higher lifetime costs (I’ll show data on this shortly). There’s also an opportunity cost – every year I delay switching, I forego the carbon and efficiency gains a heat pump would bring. Given my net-zero target, “do nothing” felt like treading water instead of swimming forward.
    • Wait for Hydrogen – What about holding out for the much-hyped hydrogen boilers? In theory, hydrogen could replace natural gas in future networks, allowing us to use similar boilers with zero-carbon fuel. My current boiler isn’t officially “hydrogen-ready”, but many modern boilers can handle a ~20% hydrogen blend. The allure here is to keep using familiar gas infrastructure and possibly just swap to a hydrogen supply later. However, after a lot of research, I grew very sceptical that hydrogen heating would be practical or affordable for homes anytime soon. A huge body of evidence (54 independent studies and counting) indicates hydrogen will have no significant role in heating buildings. It’s simply too inefficient and costly to make green hydrogen for millions of homes. Even if it were technically feasible, the cost per kWh of hydrogen would likely be several times that of natural gas or direct electricity​. One recent analysis pegs hydrogen heating as at least 2-3 times more expensive than running a heat pump, when you factor in the energy losses in producing and distributing H₂​. The UK government itself has hedged on hydrogen – cancelling most of the planned trial hydrogen towns and (in new building standards) effectively ruling out hydrogen boilers in new homes because there’s “no practical way” to reconcile them with climate goals​. Waiting for hydrogen would mean burning natural gas for many more years on the mere hope that sometime in the 2030s a hydrogen network arrives – and even then, I’d likely need to buy a new hydrogen-ready boiler. In my assessment, that strategy was a high-carbon gamble. Unless some miracle occurs in hydrogen tech, betting my home’s decarbonisation on it didn’t sit right. To put it bluntly, hydrogen is not a viable option for mainstream home heating in the foreseeable future​.
    • Switch Now (Heat Pump) – The third option was to bite the bullet and install an electric heat pump now, replacing the gas boiler. This has the obvious climate benefit: immediately slashing my home heating emissions by roughly 70-80%. It also “future-proofs” my home – I’d be on the solution (electric heating) that the UK and others are pushing for net zero. Financially, the BUS grant of £7,500 would bring the upfront cost down dramatically (essentially making the heat pump free or low-cost, as I’ll show). Running costs were a crucial consideration: could I heat my home on electricity without breaking the bank? The key is efficiency. Modern air-source heat pumps can reach 300-400% efficiency in seasonal performance, meaning 1 kWh of electricity yields 3-4 kWh of heat. Even at a unit price 3x higher, the math can work out in favor of the heat pump. In fact, analyses show that if electricity costs around twice the price of gas per kWh, a typical heat pump already breaks even or saves money over a boiler in total ownership cost. In the UK we’re a bit above that ratio right now, but my heat pump would have a seasonal COP around 3.3–3.7, which makes it very competitive. And if I leverage a smart tariff (like Octopus’s “Cosy” tariff for heat pumps) to run the pump during off-peak times, the effective cost per kWh can drop closer to 15p. Additionally, I plan to add solar PV in the future, which a heat pump can take full advantage of (using excess solar to heat the house or charge a hot water cylinder). You can’t do that with a gas boiler – you can’t generate your own gas on your roof!​ All these factors made switching now appealing. The downsides? The hassle of installation (new piping to integrate the heat pump, likely installing a hot water cylinder since combi boilers don’t have one, and possible minor radiator upgrades). Also, I’d be effectively scrapping a nearly new boiler – not exactly a trivial decision or one that most homeowners would make lightly. To ease my conscience, I intend to resell or re-home the old boiler (so it doesn’t end up as waste). In the end, the argument for switching now – with strong financial support and clear environmental benefit – won out.

    Having decided to pursue a heat pump, the next question was: Which heat pump, and from which provider?

    Comparing Heat Pump Options: Daikin vs. Octopus Cosy vs. Panasonic

    I researched and obtained quotes for a few different heat pump options before making my choice. The three contenders that emerged were:

    • Octopus Energy’s “Cosy” Heat Pump system – Octopus Energy (my electricity provider) has invested heavily in heat pumps and even developed their own model, the Cosy 6, built in a new UK factory. The Cosy package includes the heat pump unit, smart controls (“Cosy” app integration), and often a hot water cylinder and up to 4 smart thermostat “pods” for zoning. It’s marketed as a quiet, efficient 6 kW unit that can handle flow temperatures up to 65 °C. Octopus offers it at a very attractive price point (thanks to their vertical integration and the BUS grant) and an 8-year warranty with ongoing support/monitoring​. Essentially, it’s a one-stop shop: they survey, install, and maintain it with their in-house team.
    • Daikin Altherma 3 (Monobloc) – Daikin is one of the largest and most established heat pump manufacturers globally. Their Altherma line of air-source heat pumps has a strong reputation for reliability and performance. I was quoted for an ~4kW Daikin monobloc unit (which, like the Cosy, sits entirely outside and just plumbs into my heating system – no refrigerant work needed internally). Daikin’s unit would be installed by Octopus as well (they sometimes supply Daikin units as an alternative to their Cosy, depending on stock or if the home needs a different size). The Daikin came with similar warranty terms. However, it doesn’t have the same integrated app as Cosy – it would use Daikin’s controls (and I’d likely use a third-party smart thermostat). Daikin’s brand reliability and performance stats were a big plus, and Octopus was offering it at essentially the same cost as their own Cosy unit in my case.
    • Panasonic Aquarea – I also got a quote from a local installer for a Panasonic Aquarea heat pump (Panasonic’s well-regarded line of ASHPs). Panasonic’s units actually boast slightly higher efficiency on paper than both Daikin and Cosy, and are known for quiet operation. The model in question was around 7-9 kW capacity. This option, however, seemed substantially oversized for my home and came in at a much higher upfront cost (as we’ll see) since it was a more traditional install (private installer pricing, albeit with the grant applied). Panasonic is a trusted brand and their heat pumps can perform very well, but the cost difference and the fact I wouldn’t have the integrated support from Octopus made this option less attractive in the end.

    Let’s dive into the performance and cost comparisons of these options. I gathered data on their efficiency (COP), seasonal performance, noise levels, and of course detailed cost of ownership. Below is a summary of key performance metrics:

    Heat Pump Performance Comparison (vs. gas boiler)

    table comparing key performance indicators for gas boiler and heat pump
    Table Notes: COP = Coefficient of Performance (ratio of heat output to electrical input). sCOP is seasonal COP (annual average efficiency) at the given water flow temperature. Higher COP/sCOP means better efficiency (more heat per kWh of electricity). Sound levels are manufacturer sound power levels; in practice, 55–60 dB(A) is about the noise of a normal conversation or moderate rainfall. Gas boilers have no external unit, hence no external sound or size. All three heat pumps are monobloc style units.

    As the table shows, all the heat pumps have excellent efficiency relative to a gas boiler. Even in cold weather requiring 55 °C water (for radiators), they achieve sCOPs of ~3.0–3.5, meaning ~300-350% efficient over the season. At lower temperatures (e.g. when heating underfloor or on milder days with 35 °C flow), efficiency jumps to ~4–5×. The Panasonic edged out others in specs – boasting around 4.9 sCOP at 35 °C – likely because the quoted model was a high-performance unit. The Daikin was in the middle, and the Cosy a bit lower (around 3.36–3.98 sCOP depending on flow temp). In practical terms, this means for my estimated 7,000 kWh/year heating demand, the Cosy would consume ~2,080 kWh/year of electricity, the Daikin ~1,890 kWh, and the Panasonic ~1,700 kWh.

    All three can technically supply domestic hot water; Cosy advertises up to 65 °C output which is plenty for hot water tanks (and allows periodic legionella pasteurisation). Daikin and Panasonic standard models typically run up to ~55 °C efficiently; higher temps would reduce their COP or require a boost. I’m planning to keep water flow temps as low as possible (~35-40 °C day), since our radiators will be changed and oversized by 30-50%.

    On noise, the numbers are fairly close: 55–60 decibels. For context, 60 dB is about the sound of a refrigerator or conversational speech. In other words, these units are quiet. Standing a few meters away, you’d hear a gentle hum or fan whir, but nothing disruptive – and certainly a far cry from the myth of heat pumps sounding like “jet engines.” (Modern units also often have night modes to drop fan speeds further in the evenings.) The Cosy and Panasonic claim a slight advantage (mid-50s dB), whereas the Daikin unit was rated ~60 dB(A). This wasn’t a big differentiator for me, but it’s nice to know none of them will annoy us or the neighbours when running.

    Physically, the Daikin unit is widest but flattest, whereas the Cosy is more of a cube. Space wasn’t a major issue in our installation, but I did note the Daikin’s slim profile could tuck against a wall more easily. The Cosy’s spec includes the “4 pods” for zoning – a cool feature, as it comes with wireless thermostats/actuators that can create up to four independent heating zones in the house. In our current setup we mostly heat the whole house together, but having built-in zoning could be a plus for saving energy (Octopus bundles those pods with the install). With Daikin or Panasonic, multiple zones would require additional plumbing/controls (and cost). However, even though Cosy supports this, zoning is usually not a good option for heat pumps as they tend to work less efficiently.

    Now, onto the cost comparison, which was arguably the deciding factor in choosing Daikin. I analysed the total cost of ownership for each option – including upfront investment, the BUS grant, annual energy costs, maintenance, and subsequently the net present value (NPV) over 15 years (my chosen analysis period, roughly the pump’s expected life). I also compared these to the baseline of keeping my gas boiler, and a hypothetical future hydrogen boiler scenario. Here’s a summary of the economics:

    Cost of Ownership: Gas vs Hydrogen vs Heat Pumps (15-year horizon)

    table comparing key cost indicators for gas boiler and heat pump
    Table Notes: Annual energy costs assume grid electricity at £0.20/kWh and gas at £0.065/kWh (current typical rates) with the efficiencies from the performance table. Maintenance includes an annual service plan or warranty cost – I estimated ~£109/yr for heat pumps (for Cosy/Daikin via Octopus) and ~£196/yr for the Panasonic (third-party warranty), based on quotes. Gas boiler servicing is assumed ~£100/yr. “Upfront cost after grant” reflects the out-of-pocket cost to me with the £7,500 BUS grant applied – e.g. Cosy/Daikin would have been about £8k without the grant, brought down to only ~£500 with it. NPV is net present value discounted at 4.8% annually over 15 years (approximating the mortgage or opportunity cost of money).

    Looking at the table, a few points jump out:

    • The heat pumps (Cosy & Daikin) come out cheaper in total lifetime cost than sticking with the gas boiler, even in this conservative scenario. For example, the Daikin’s ~£5,600 NPV cost beats the gas boiler’s ~£6,300. This is remarkable, because it counters the old assumption that “gas is always cheaper.” Thanks to the heat pump’s high efficiency and the current grant, I’m basically getting lower heating bills and comparable (or lower) 15-year costs by switching to a heat pump. In simple terms (no discounting), gas would cost me ~£8.9k over 15 years, whereas the Daikin would cost ~£7.8k – a saving of over £1,000 in today’s money. This aligns with wider findings that at roughly a 2–3:1 electricity vs gas price ratio, heat pumps can break even on total cost or even save money. And that’s before considering any future increase in carbon pricing on gas or additional savings from smart tariffs/solar.
    • The Daikin vs Cosy vs Panasonic comparison: The Daikin option edges out Cosy by a small margin in cost. Upfront, both were ~£500 to me (virtually a rounding error on a home improvement budget), since Octopus priced the Daikin unit similarly aggressively to their own. The Daikin’s better efficiency means about £40/year less in running cost than Cosy, which over 15 years gave it a roughly £400–£500 advantage in NPV. The Cosy, meanwhile, was still a close second – and certainly vastly cheaper than the Panasonic option. The Panasonic heat pump, with an out-of-pocket of £4.8k, ends up with a much higher total ownership cost (£10k NPV). In fact, opting for the Panasonic would cost about £4,000 more over the period compared to Daikin. That was too big a gap for me to justify, given that the performance differences weren’t game-changing. Essentially, Panasonic’s extra efficiency couldn’t financially overcome its steep install price in my scenario.
    • Hydrogen is a clear outlier in cost, as expected, a hypothetical hydrogen heating setup would be extraordinarily expensive (~£12k NPV, nearly double Daikin’s cost). Even if my current boiler could be converted for free (which it can’t), the fuel cost of hydrogen (assumed ~15p/kWh here) makes it hugely uneconomic. This reinforces the earlier point: waiting for hydrogen would likely mean paying more to emit more CO₂, which doesn’t make sense.

    It was enlightening to see that the lowest-cost path (in the long run) was actually the heat pump – specifically the Daikin. If I only looked at short-term, keeping the gas boiler has zero immediate cost, yes. But over a 15-year view, that “free” boiler turns into higher operating expenses that sum to more than the cost of a heat pump. The BUS grant really tilts the scales: without it, the heat pump options would look much less attractive (e.g. Daikin would be ~£8k upfront, which would make the 15-year cost ~£13k, clearly worse than keeping gas). With the grant, though, it’s a different ballgame – essentially a heavily subsidised upgrade that pays back in both lower bills and carbon savings.

    Why I Chose Daikin: Key Factors in the Decision

    After weighing all of the above, I decided to go with the Daikin heat pump, installed via Octopus Energy’s scheme.

    pictorial representation of a house with heat pump installed
    Image source: Daikin

    Here’s a summary of why Daikin won me over among the heat pump choices:

    • Lowest Long-Term Cost: As the tables showed, Daikin offered the best economics. With virtually no upfront cost (after grant) and lower annual energy use than the Cosy, it had the lowest total cost of ownership in my case. Essentially, I’d spend a few hundred pounds now and then enjoy slightly lower heating bills every year going forward with much better thermal comfort compared to existing gas boiler. The Cosy was a close second, but its slightly higher running cost meant it wasn’t quite as strong financially. I also didn’t want to be ‘beta’ tester for the 1st generation Cosy when it comes to my heating system, given it was only launched in 2024. Since both were offered at the same price to install, it came down to whether I value a bit of extra efficiency (Daikin) or the extra features (Cosy).
    • Efficiency and Performance: Daikin’s specs and real-world track record gave me confidence that it would achieve the advertised COPs (e.g. HeatPumpMonitor.org). Daikin units have been tested by many homeowners and have a solid reputation in the field. The Panasonic actually had the best specs, but again, at a large cost premium – diminishing returns for my needs. And while Octopus’s Cosy is designed to be efficient (and even capable of high-temp operation), it’s a newer product with less field data available. Some early reports I found suggested Cosy’s real-world performance was still evolving (as Octopus refines the product). By contrast, Daikin’s Altherma line is on its 3rd generation – a mature tech.
    • Reliability and Support: Daikin is a known global brand with decades in heat pumps. That gave me peace of mind about reliability, spare parts availability, and finding technicians who know the system. Octopus’s Cosy, while backed by Octopus’s support, is brand new – essentially a first-generation device from a company that, until recently, was an energy retailer, not a manufacturer. Octopus does provide an 8-year warranty and monitors the Cosy remotely
    • Features and Integrations: The Cosy’s main allure (aside from cost) was its integrated features: the zoning pods and the seamless integration with Octopus’s app and smart tariff. That’s a really neat package – essentially “Nest meets Heat Pump” under one roof. For a moment, I was tempted by the gadget factor of Cosy. However, my home isn’t very large and is all on one thermostat currently; multi-zone control, while nice, isn’t a huge need for us (we don’t have unused rooms to shut off, etc.). I can replicate smart scheduling with third-party smart thermostats if needed. And Octopus’s tariffs (like the Cosy time-of-use tariff) can be used with any heat pump – you don’t strictly need their heat pump to sign up. So I figured I could still leverage smart charging of the heat pump by using smart plugs or API controls with a Daikin. Daikin’s unit also has some advanced control options (weather compensation, etc.) that I’m happy to tinker with myself. In the end, efficiency beat smart features for me, but this was a close call. If I had a bigger house with more varied heating needs, the Cosy’s integrated zoning might have weighed more heavily.
    • Upfront and Aesthetic: Both Cosy and Daikin were essentially zero-cost upfront, so that was a tie. The Panasonic was eliminated largely due to its ~£4.8k net cost – hard to justify spending that when I could get a top-tier heat pump for 1/10th the price with Octopus. Appearance-wise, all units are fairly modern-looking; I don’t mind the utilitarian outdoor box. The Daikin’s form factor (wider but slimmer) actually suits the side passage of my house better than the chunkier Cosy might have. A minor point, but worth noting – the Daikin can hug the wall and not protrude too much.
    heat pump prepresentation next to home for decarbonisation net zero
    Image source: Daikin
    • Timing and Availability: I also considered the timeline. Octopus indicated they could schedule installation within a few months. They have a growing team of installers and, by their own report, are installing heat pumps at a rapidly increasing rate (20% month-on-month growth). If I opted for the Panasonic via a local installer, I might have had to wait for an available slot and coordinate multiple parties (plumber, electrician, etc.). With Octopus handling everything, it’s more streamlined. Regarding Cosy vs Daikin availability, I did ask if there were any stock constraints – it sounded like either unit could be provided. (Octopus has its own manufacturing for Cosy now, and also stocks Daikins). So no major difference there, but it was good to know I wouldn’t be put on a long waitlist.

    In the end, Daikin ticked all my boxes: it’s efficient, proven, quiet, essentially free to me after grant, and will be installed with a turnkey service. The Octopus Cosy was a very strong runner-up – I applaud what Octopus is doing, and it was almost a coin toss. What tipped me was simply the desire to maximize efficiency and minimize any unknowns. Panasonic’s quote served as a helpful benchmark (and a cautionary tale that not all heat pump installs are as cheap as the Octopus route!), but it wasn’t seriously in the running once I saw the price gap.

    Conclusion & Next Steps

    Making the decision to replace a 2-year-old gas boiler wasn’t easy, but I’m convinced it’s the right move for the long term. The UK’s decarbonisation path means we’ll all have to switch away from gas eventually – I’m just doing it earlier, at a time when I can take advantage of generous incentives and support. By choosing a heat pump now, I’ll immediately cut our home’s carbon emissions by around 1 tonne CO₂ per year, and I’ve likely lowered our 15-year heating costs in the process (thanks to the efficiency and the grant). It’s a satisfying feeling to align financial sense with climate sense.

    The Daikin heat pump installation is now in the pipeline (quite literally!). I’ve scheduled the install for later this spring, before the next heating season. The plan is to also fit a hot water cylinder (for storing heat and providing hot water, since we’re moving away from the on-demand combi setup). I’m eager to see how the system performs in real life – I’ll be monitoring the electricity usage closely and tweaking settings to optimize comfort and efficiency. Expect a future blog update where I share the installation experience and initial performance data (perhaps “Episode #3” of this journey).

    Looking further ahead, I’m exploring solar PV panels for our roof, and possibly a home battery. With those in place, the heat pump’s impact becomes even more powerful: I could run daytime heating or water heating directly from solar energy, and use battery or smart controls to minimize grid use at peak times. As one heat pump enthusiast pointed out, you can’t generate and store your own gas – but you can generate and store electricity. This synergy between renewables and electric heating is, I believe, the future of home energy.

    If you’ve read this far, thanks for following along this personal case study. I hope it provides a useful perspective for anyone considering making the switch. Everyone’s situation will differ (boiler age, house insulation, finances), but the overarching trend is clear: heat pumps are rapidly becoming more accessible and economically sensible, not just environmentally sensible. In the UK, schemes like BUS effectively make heat pumps a no-brainer for many homes – if you can navigate the installation process, the outcome is a win-win.

    I’ll end on a reflective note: two years ago, I moved into a new home with a brand-new gas boiler and thought, “Great, we’re set for heating for a decade or more.” I never imagined I’d be voluntarily swapping it out so soon. But the world is changing fast, and so are the solutions at our disposal. Sometimes, doing what once seemed radical (like replacing a new boiler) becomes the prudent choice when you look at the trajectory we’re on. Here’s to taking bold steps on the journey to net zero – and to a future where our homes are heated cozy and clean, with technologies that would make even our 2023 selves a little surprised.

    Looking ahead

    Stay tuned for the next update where I’ll report on the installation and any hiccups or victories along the way, and eventually the before/after energy performance of gas vs. heat pump in my home!

    Warm regards,

    Professor Dawid Hanak

    Sources

    • https://clade-es.com/blog/how-heat-pumps-compare-to-gas-boilers/
    • https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/129631/pdf/
    • https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/octopus-survey-outcome-with-11kwh-daikin-hp/26765
    • https://drhanak.com/my-household-carbon-footprint/
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
    • https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/grants-and-loans/boiler-upgrade-scheme/
    • https://heatpumpmonitor.org/system/view?id=72
    • https://octopus.energy/cosy-heat-pump/
    • https://www.betterhomesbc.ca/products/are-heat-pumps-loud/
    • https://www.daikin.eu/en_us/product-group/air-to-water-heat-pump-low-temperature/daikin-altherma-3-m-4-8kw
    • https://www.energy-transitions.org/bitesize/its-in-the-charts-heat-pump-lifetime-cost-electricity-to-gas/
    • https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/13/uk-government-backs-plan-ban-gas-hydrogen-ready-boilers-newbuilds-2025

  • Cost-effective decarbonisation: prioritising investments in rail infrastructure

    Decarbonising the rail industry is critical to global efforts to combat climate change. However, achieving significant emissions reductions requires substantial investment, and not all decarbonisation strategies offer the same return on investment. Prioritising cost-effective solutions is essential to maximise environmental benefits while ensuring economic viability. This article explores how rail infrastructure investments can be strategically directed to achieve the most significant impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    The economic challenge of decarbonising rail stations

    Rail stations are complex structures with significant energy demands. Many historical buildings have architectural constraints, making retrofits and upgrades challenging and costly. As I pointed out during a recent webinar on decarbonising rail stations, “Given that Scope 3 emissions account for the majority of the emissions of the train station, do we really need to focus on doing solar panels, doing fabric improvements at buildings?“

    Decisions on where to allocate limited resources are critical. Investments must balance the need for substantial emissions reductions with the practicality and cost-effectiveness of the solutions. High-cost interventions may only sometimes yield proportionate environmental benefits, especially when considering the broader context of the rail industry’s emissions.

    Assessing Decarbonization Options

    Various strategies are available to reduce emissions from rail stations and infrastructure. These include:

    • Building insulation and fabric improvements: Upgrading insulation, glazing, and sealing can reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling.

    • Renewable energy installations: Installing solar panels or other renewable energy sources to supply station energy needs.

    • Modernizing vehicle fleets: Investing in alternative fuel infrastructure and transitioning to electric or hybrid vehicles for associated transport services.

    • Waste management enhancements: Implementing recycling programs and waste-to-energy solutions to reduce emissions from waste disposal.

    Carbon footprint in rail systems

    A case study focused on Bristol Temple Meads (BTM)station provides valuable insights. The research project “Identifying challenges and opportunities in decarbonising UK train stations” that I lead at NZIIC, in collaboration with CPC, evaluated different decarbonisation options, considering both their environmental impact and cost-effectiveness.

    Cost per ton of CO₂ saved: a crucial metric

    The cost per ton of CO₂ saved is an essential factor in prioritising investments. This metric allows decision-makers to compare the efficiency of different interventions in reducing emissions relative to their costs.

    For instance, our research found that fabric improvements like triple glazing and ceiling insulation at BTM could cost around €55,000 per ton of CO₂ avoided – much higher than figures reported for direct air capture (~€500-€1000 per ton of CO₂ avoided). Such high costs raise questions about the practicality of these interventions. “Whether that makes sense from the climate perspective or not, that’s yet to be determined,” I mentioned during the webinar.

    By contrast, other strategies may offer lower costs per ton of CO₂ saved, providing more significant emissions reductions for the same or lower investment.

    Challenges with high-cost interventions

    Historical and listed buildings present unique challenges. Architectural constraints often limit the extent of modifications possible, and specialised materials or construction methods can drive up costs. Additionally, the actual emissions reductions achieved through some high-cost interventions may be relatively small compared to their expense.

    Investing heavily in retrofits that yield minimal emissions reductions may not be the most effective use of resources, especially when other areas offer greater potential for impact. The opportunity cost of such investments must be considered, as funds allocated to expensive, low-impact projects are then unavailable for more effective initiatives.

    Identifying high-impact investments

    To maximise emissions reductions, investments should focus on areas with the highest potential impact per investment. Modernising vehicle fleets and investing in alternative fuel infrastructure offer higher returns for decarbonisation efforts. For example, transitioning from diesel to electric buses and vehicles can significantly reduce Scope 3 emissions associated with passenger and employee commuting. Notably, we can see that the transition to electrification could reduce our carbon footprint, assuming we have enough grid capacity to support this.

    Investing in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging stations, can encourage the adoption of cleaner transportation options. These investments reduce emissions and align with broader trends toward electrification in the transportation sector.

    Waste management as a cost-effective strategy

    Waste management is another area where cost-effective interventions can yield substantial emissions reductions. Improving recycling programs and reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills can lower emissions associated with waste disposal.

    My students at Teesside University estimated that for BTM, annual waste emissions were around 5,000 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent per year. Implementing waste-to-energy or enhancing recycling rates can reduce these emissions at a relatively low cost compared to other interventions.

    Despite often being overlooked, waste management enhancements are practical solutions that can be implemented without the high expenses associated with building retrofits. They offer a tangible way to reduce emissions and engage employees and passengers in sustainability efforts.

    Leveraging innovation and technology

    Innovative technologies can offer better returns on investment by providing efficient solutions to complex problems. The Station Innovation Zone, an initiative led by Connected Places Catapult, exemplifies how innovation can drive cost-effective decarbonisation.

    For instance, one of the projects involved installing panels that extract carbon from the air, capturing emissions from diesel trains idling at the station. These panels can be converted into materials for building infrastructure like benches, creating a circular economy model. Such technologies address emissions directly and can be more cost-effective than extensive building modifications.

    Another example is the use of smart sensors and energy management systems to optimise energy consumption within stations. By reducing energy waste, these technologies lower emissions and operating costs simultaneously.

    Recommendations for investment prioritisation

    Strategic planning is essential to ensure that investments in decarbonisation deliver the greatest possible impact. Recommendations include:

    • Data-driven decision making: Utilise accurate emissions data and cost analyses to compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

    • Flexibility and scalability: Prioritise solutions that can be scaled up or adapted over time, allowing for adjustments as technologies evolve.

    • Stakeholder engagement: Involve employees, passengers, and the community in sustainability initiatives to enhance their effectiveness and acceptance.

    • Policy alignment: Coordinate investments with government policies and incentives to maximize financial benefits and support compliance with regulations.

    By focusing on interventions that offer the highest emissions reductions per dollar invested, rail industry stakeholders can make meaningful progress toward decarbonisation goals while ensuring responsible use of resources.

    Conclusion

    Decarbonising rail infrastructure is both an environmental imperative and an economic challenge. Prioritising cost-effective investments is crucial to maximise the impact of limited resources. By focusing on strategies that offer significant emissions reductions at lower costs—such as modernising vehicle fleets, investing in alternative fuel infrastructure, enhancing waste management, and leveraging innovative technologies—rail stations can make substantial progress toward sustainability goals.

    Data-driven investment decisions, strategic planning, and stakeholder engagement are key components of effective decarbonisation efforts. While some high-cost interventions may be necessary in specific contexts, a careful analysis of cost versus benefit ensures that resources are directed where they can achieve the most significant environmental impact.

    Ultimately, the long-term benefits of cost-effective decarbonisation extend beyond immediate cost savings. They contribute to a sustainable future, enhance the reputation of organisations committed to environmental stewardship, and align with global efforts to combat climate change.

    Acknowledgement

    This article is based on research conducted within a project that has been funded by EPSRC as part of the Innovation Launchpad Network Plus in collaboration with Connected Places Catapult.

    Latest posts

  • Prof. Hanak’s Expertise Supports Parliamentary Briefing on Net Zero Planning

    The Industrial Decarbonisation Group, a leader in technology, energy, and engineering, has made a significant contribution to the UK’s net zero planning efforts. Professor Dawid Hanak, a renowned expert in decarbonisation and the lead of the research group, has shared his extensive knowledge to support the development of a crucial briefing document by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST).

    Planning for Net Zero UK Government Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology

    This POSTnote addresses the challenges and opportunities within England’s planning system and related policies, essential for achieving the UK’s 2050 net zero target. It highlights critical areas such as electricity generation, housing, development, and the necessary resourcing and skills. The document underscores the need for improved coordination between policy areas to capitalize on multiple objectives simultaneously.

    With global competition for low carbon infrastructure investment intensifying, the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has identified the planning system as a significant constraint. The Committee on Climate Change has emphasized the urgency of implementing infrastructure at a faster pace. Despite the Planning Act 2008 establishing a statutory regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, delays persist, particularly at the pre-application and final decision stages.

    Unlike other UK nations, England lacks a national spatial plan. The Royal Town and Planning Institute advocates for such plans to transparently address land use trade-offs and inform public debate on net zero developments. The National Infrastructure Commission suggests that national scale spatial plans could translate national objectives into local plans, fostering a proactive approach.

    “Achieving the UK’s 2050 net zero goal demands a comprehensive overhaul of our planning systems. By addressing these systemic delays, we can pave the way for a sustainable future,” stated Professor Dawid Hanak, Lead of the Industrial Decarbonisation Group.

    The briefing document also notes the commitment of the new National Energy System Operator to deliver Regional Energy Strategic Plans. These plans will outline the distribution networks and technologies required to achieve net zero across the UK mainland, complemented by Strategic Spatial Energy Planning for energy storage and generation infrastructures.

    Local planning processes, while comprehensive, often overlook certain aspects of infrastructure projects. Stakeholders have called for planning reforms to reduce delays and support the net zero transition. The Industrial Decarbonisation Group remains at the forefront of these discussions, advocating for innovative solutions to meet the UK’s ambitious climate goals.

    Full text of the briefing note available at: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0736/

    Check out relevant articles

  • The Last Mile Challenge – How Station Buildings Can Help Achieve Net Zero Emissions

    TL;DR

    • Trains have made progress towards decarbonisation, but stations lag behind.
    • Approximately 15% of rail operational emissions are associated with non-traction activities, with 40-50% coming from stations and other buildings.
    • Many stations date back over a century, making upgrading electrical, heating, and cooling systems a complex task.
    • Transitioning stations to renewable power is a crucial undertaking that requires mounting solar panels on station rooftops, replacing fossil fuel usage with electric heat pumps, and optimising power consumption

    Introduction

    Trains have long captured the public imagination as symbols of mobility and progress. Rail transport has evolved over generations to drive social and economic growth, from classic steam locomotives belching smoke to sleek electric bullet trains. In recent decades, electrifying mainline routes has started decarbonising rail infrastructure – but the journey is far from complete. Approximately 15% of the rail operational emissions can be associated with non-traction activities, with about 40-50% associated with stations and other buildings. Railway stations remain primarily rooted in the past, relying on carbon-intensive power. With over 2,500 stations in the UK, transforming these public hubs represents a monumental task on the road to net-zero carbon emissions.

    Yet, the slow progress made on decarbonising stations threatens rail’s sustainability goals. As major energy consumers, these buildings account for a significant portion of the sector’s overall emissions. From powering lights, signals, and displays to heating cavernous spaces, stations exert colossal power demands around the clock. Taking the Bristol Temple Meads as an example, the electricity demand was at 5.8 TWh and 6.0 TWh, resulting in approximately 1,370 tCO2 and 1,280 tCO2e emitted in 2021 and 2022. It is worth mentioning that such figures seem to be independent of the number of passengers using that station, estimated by the Office of Rail and Road to be approximately 2.0m in 2021 and 6.6m in 2022.

    Modifications are necessary to reduce the stations’ footprint now. Yet, upgrading ageing electrical, heating, and cooling systems requires overcoming daunting challenges. Many stations date back over a century, and balancing preservation with needed upgrades is complex. Considering that the UK government plans to fully decarbonise the electricity supply by 2035, the question remains whether the stations should now invest in low-carbon energy supply, such as PV panels, or offset their emissions while waiting for the grid to become decarbonised.

    Moreover, rail stations are often considered important commercial and community hubs. Any disruptive renovation can pose a threat to their role as economic and social centres. However, solutions are available to ensure these stations remain sustainable and functional. Notably, the public-facing nature of these spaces makes them an ideal setting to showcase carbon-reduction technologies in action.

    Renewable Energy Powers Ahead

    Transitioning stations to renewable power is a massive yet crucial undertaking. Solar panels can be mounted on station rooftops or over platforms to generate clean electricity. Converting heating and cooling systems from boilers and furnaces to electric heat pumps slashes fossil fuel usage. Moreover, intelligent energy management platforms are critical for optimising power consumption minute-by-minute and avoiding waste from excessive heating or lighting.

    Smaller rural stations can pursue completely net-zero operations through 100% renewable sources. This can be achieved by meeting the energy demands through on-site solar PVs on the station and platform roofs. This is also, to some extent, applicable to larger stations. For example, London Blackfriars underwent extensive revamping to integrate solar and heat pumps into a strikingly modern station design.  The array of 4,400 PV panels generates approximately 0.9 TWh of green electricity each year, accounting for about 50% of the station’s electricity consumption. This saves nearly 0.5 tCO2 per year. The prominent sustainability upgrades match the forward-looking redevelopment transforming the surrounding district.

    Decarbonising larger stations may be more challenging, especially when historic appearance needs to be preserved, as in the case of the Bristol Temple Meads. Rather than waiting, such stations with heavier demands can purchase verified carbon credits to offset any lingering fossil fuel reliance as the energy infrastructure is decarbonised.

    Full Steam Ahead on Low-Carbon Construction

    Stations’ sustainability relies on operational energy use and the carbon footprint of maintenance, renovation, and construction. Materials science innovations allow increased use of greener components like recycled metals or lower carbon concrete blends.

    Thoughtful design maximises the reuse of existing materials while minimising waste. Sourcing raw materials locally further shrinks supply chain emissions. For example, the new building for the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre has achieved the BREEAM “outstanding” certification, is net zero in operation, and only 650 kgCO2e needs to be offset per m2. Robertson, the building developer, achieved this by using a low cement concrete mix, 100% recycled steel, and ensuring that the materials are locally sourced. Moreover, the builder used hydrotreated vegetable oil, which is synthesised from renewable raw materials, that allowed for the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy demand during the construction by 90%

    Adopting low-carbon methods showcases sustainability, reduces waste, and cuts costs. Research indicates holistic approaches considering emissions from start to finish could reduce infrastructure projects’ carbon by at least 20-50%.

    All Aboard for Smarter Station Access

    Alongside decarbonising stations themselves, through the reduction of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, encouraging and enabling low-carbon transport options for passengers and staff to access stations is critical. This behavioural shift eases congestion while making station surroundings more liveable.

    Incentivising public transit use through discounted fares and transition to low-carbon fuels reduces reliance on polluting cars. For example, for a single person travelling from home to the train station, the average car would result in 170 gCO2e/km, whereas the average local bus would result in 102 gCO2/km. Therefore, prioritising bus lanes, implementing e-scooter routes (with appropriate certification), and secure bike parking would facilitate the reduction of the station’s Scope 3 emissions. Promoting e-scooters, cycling, and walking for historic city-centre stations offers carbon-free accessibility.

    Commuting to work can also have a significant impact on the environment. Railway employees have a unique opportunity to contribute to decarbonising the workforce, leading others by example. For example, train station crews could reduce their carbon footprint while commuting by using crew buses or participating in car-sharing schemes. These options will also help reduce the number of vehicles on the road, reduce traffic congestion, and lower overall emissions.

    Stations could also consider investing in electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at their facilities to support the further adoption of eco-friendly transportation methods. This would make it easier for employees to transition to EVs and reduce their reliance on traditional vehicles. Additionally, railway companies could encourage their employees to switch to more sustainable transportation options by offering salary-sacrifice schemes that provide tax incentives for using EVs.

    By implementing these measures, railway companies can demonstrate their commitment to reducing environmental impact and encourage employees to do the same. Together, these efforts can help to create a cleaner, more sustainable future for everyone.

    Full Speed Ahead

    Railway stations can lead the way in delivering sustainable solutions despite their challenges. These iconic landmarks, which are an integral part of communities, can demonstrate innovative approaches to climate change. The shift towards net-zero emissions is not just good for the environment, it also enhances passenger experiences, drives economic growth and preserves historic sites.

    Rail transport has a history of driving progress during times of change. By embracing sustainable practices, the sector can lead towards a brighter future. The journey ahead may be extended and challenging, but each step brings us closer to a more sustainable future in transportation.

    Acknowledgement: This publication is based on research conducted within the “Identifying challenges and opportunities in decarbonising UK train stations” project funded by the Innovation Lunchpad Network+ (RIR13221128-3).

  • Unlocking the potential of waste-to-energy and CCUS synergy: Redefining negative emissions in the UK

    TL;DR

    • WtE plants contribute significantly to UK emissions, yet play a vital role in waste management and energy generation.
    • Traditional CCUS methods like amine scrubbing are not ideal for WtE due to high energy demands, negatively impacting WtE’s energy output and economic viability.
    • Our research at the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre explores CaL as a cost-effective and energy-efficient alternative for CO2 capture in WtE plants.
    • CaL offers significant advantages: Competitive cost of CO2 avoided: Lower than traditional methods, potentially incentivising WtE operators to adopt CCUS. Minimal efficiency penalties: CaL maintains or even increases WtE’s energy generation capacity unlike amine scrubbing. Net negative emissions potential: Captured CO2 exceeds plant emissions, contributing to negative emissions goals.

    Crossroads for WtE and CCUS: Redefining Sustainability in the UK

    The UK’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution boldly aspirates for a cleaner future. Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) is critical in delivering this aspiration. The East Coast Cluster stands in the vanguard of this ambitious strategy, aiming to remove nearly 50% of the UK’s industrial cluster emissions and support an average of 25,000 green jobs annually between now and 2050. While most of the current CCUS projects focus on low-carbon power generation or hydrogen supply, another promising pairing can contribute to delivering the net zero aspirations. Although not prioritised in the UK Government Track-1 CCUS cluster sequencing exercise, integration of waste-to-energy (WtE) and CCUS can deliver negative CO2 emissions and reduce the amount of landfilled waste.

    Notably, while WtE offers a valuable waste management solution and generates energy, its contribution to the CO2 emissions in the UK is substantial. In the Teesside Cluster alone, which is a part of the East Coast Cluster, WtE accounts for a staggering 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The projections are also concerning, as the UK’s WtE has been forecasted to emit up to 20 MtCO2e annually by the mid-2020s. Such a figure is higher than 11 MtCO2e annually reported in 2021 for industrial processes in the UK. The preliminary work on WtE and CCS integration by the Energy Systems Catapult showed that the specific CO2 emissions from WtE are 600 gCO2/kWh (excluding biogenic carbon), and flue gas contains up to 12%vol CO2. As a result, their ESME model demonstrated that unabated WtEs must be phased out by 2040 due to reduced carbon budgets, indicating the need to develop low-carbon alternatives.

    This is where CCUS can play a role. By strategically integrating CCUS into existing WtE plants, the UK can achieve a two-pronged victory: significantly curbing its carbon footprint and transforming WtE into a net negative emitter of greenhouse gases. Yet, unlocking the full potential of WtE-CCUS synergy requires careful consideration. Existing CCUS solutions, while potentially effective in larger-scale applications, pose challenges for WtE due to their high energy demands and potential impact on energy output and profitability. The search for alternative CCUS technologies with lower energy penalties and costs becomes paramount.

    Therefore, the future of WtE in the UK’s decarbonisation strategy hinges on two pillars: embracing innovation in CCUS technologies tailored to WtE applications and forging strategic partnerships to navigate the technological and economic complexities.

    The Challenge: Decarbonising WtE without hindering energy or economic performance

    While amine scrubbing has emerged as the CCUS technology of choice for many industrial applications, such as the Net Zero Teesside Power, its application to WtE presents unique and prohibitive challenges. This mature approach to CO2 capture stumbles on the high demand for steam required for its regeneration. In the UK, WtE plants often play a critical role in supplying heating, electricity, and/or industrial steam. Implementing amine scrubbing can have a detrimental impact on these vital functions, jeopardising both WtE’s energy output and economic viability.

    The severity of these challenges is well documented. An AECOM study revealed that amine-based capture units could consume a staggering 66% of the total thermal input to the steam turbine at a combustion-based WtE plant. This translates to a significant reduction in electricity generation, a key revenue stream for WtE facilities. Further research by Magnanelli et al. confirmed this concern, demonstrating that amine scrubbing integration can lead to a 30% reduction in power output and a 12% reduction in heat output from a typical WtE plant. Supplying such an amount of steam will not only be limited by technical considerations but will also substantially impair the economic viability of the WtE plant.

    Adding to the complexity is the lack of readily available information regarding post-combustion CO2 capture for gasification-based WtE plants. These facilities, utilising a different waste processing technology, present additional unknowns regarding CCUS compatibility. This knowledge gap further accentuates the need for alternative CCUS solutions that can overcome the limitations of amine scrubbing and effectively decarbonise WtE without compromising its energy production and economic viability.

    A Promising Solution: Exploring the potential of carbonate looping

    Amidst the challenges of WtE decarbonisation with mature amine scrubbing, our research at the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre has focused on emerging carbonate looping (CaL) technology. Unlike steam-hungry amine scrubbing, CaL offers a potentially cost-effective and energy-efficient solution for capturing CO2 from WtEs. Our past studies have demonstrated the remarkable cost advantages of CaL. Hanak et al. revealed that post-combustion CaL retrofits to coal-fired power plants could achieve a competitive cost of CO2 avoided (~£40/tCO2), significantly lower than the range reported for amine scrubbing by Wood (ranging from £73 to £173/tCO2). This translates to a potential financial incentive for WtE operators considering CO2 capture.

    However, the benefits of CaL extend beyond cost savings. Compared to amine scrubbing, CaL exhibits a demonstrably lower impact on energy efficiency (<7% points) and can actually increase the power output by 20-50%. This means that WtE facilities adopting CaL can maintain their current energy generation capabilities while simultaneously capturing CO2.

    However, our research pushes the boundaries even further. We have proposed calcium looping combustion (CaLC) as a potential breakthrough technology for WtE decarbonisation. By replacing conventional incinerators with indirect heat transfer in the calciner, CaLC can minimise efficiency penalties to an impressive <3% points. For power generation from coal, our research showed a remarkably low cost of CO2 avoided of <£35/tCO2. Notably, municipal solid waste is a lower-quality fuel than conventional fossil fuels. Therefore, the expected efficiency penalties and cost of CO2 avoided are expected to be higher. Yet we forecast it will still be substantially lower than the mature amine scrubbing retrofits. At NZIIC, we are currently working with the UKCCSRC and the major waste-to-energy organisations in the Teesside Cluster to assess the feasibility of such technology.

    Conclusion

    As the UK embarks on its Green Industrial Revolution, the East Coast Cluster stands as a beacon of ambition, aiming to capture nearly half of the UK’s industrial emissions. While the focus is low-carbon power and hydrogen, an often-overlooked pairing holds immense potential: integrating Waste-to-Energy (WtE) with Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS). Such a synergy offers a two-pronged victory, curbing the nation’s carbon footprint and transforming WtE into a net negative emitter.

    However, unlocking this potential requires navigating a complex landscape. While effective in larger applications, traditional amine scrubbing proves problematic for WtE due to its high energy demands and detrimental impact on energy output and profitability. The search for alternative CCUS solutions with lower energy penalties and costs becomes paramount.

    Our research at the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre focuses on carbonate looping (CaL) as a promising alternative. Unlike amine scrubbing, CaL presents a cost-effective and energy-efficient solution. Studies indicate a competitive cost of CO2 avoided and minimal efficiency penalties. This allows WtE operators to embrace carbon capture without compromising their core functions.

    Acknowledgement

    This publication is based on research conducted within the “Techno-economic and carbon footprint assessment of advanced waste-to-energy with carbon capture and storage for East Coast Cluster” project funded by the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Community

  • My household carbon footprint

    My household carbon footprint

    Decarbonization has been at the heart of my career for years. As a professor, I’ve spent countless hours investigating technologies to reduce emissions, from carbon capture and utilization to waste-to-energy systems. I’ve worked on projects that integrate hydrogen production, develop cutting-edge direct air capture technologies, and even reimagine how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere at costs below £100 per tonne. But recently, I realized by that while my work focuses on system-wide solutions, I hadn’t fully explored my own carbon footprint.

    This led me to ask: Am I practicing what I preach? What does my own path to net zero look like?

    Like many of you, I navigate the same daily decisions about heating my home, traveling, and managing household consumption. And while the scale of my footprint is small compared to industrial emissions, I believe that individual actions can add up — especially when shared and multiplied.

    So, I decided to embark on a personal journey to net zero, starting with an honest assessment of where I stand today. This is not just an experiment or a side project; it’s an extension of my professional commitment to a decarbonized future. By sharing my progress in this newsletter, I hope to inspire, learn from, and engage with others who are on similar journeys.

    The Episode #1 lays out my starting point. I’ll reveal my emissions, reflect on the challenges ahead, and outline my plans to make meaningful changes. Whether you’re just beginning to consider your impact or you’re further along in reducing your footprint, I hope you’ll find this series relatable, practical, and maybe even inspiring.

    Unpacking My Carbon Footprint

    When measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, we often categorise them into three scopes. In commercial setting, we use scopes to help understand where GHG emissions come from and who is responsible for them. Here’s a quick overview:

    Scope 1: Direct Emissions

    These are emissions that come directly from activities under your control. For example, burning gas for heating your home or using petrol in your car falls into this category.

    Scope 2: Indirect Emissions from Energy Use

    These emissions come from the generation of electricity or other energy that you use. While the emissions occur at the power plant, they are attributed to you as the end user of that energy.

    Scope 3: Other Indirect Emissions

    These are emissions from activities you influence but don’t directly control. This includes emissions from flights, the water you consume, the goods and services you buy, and even the waste you produce.

    Understanding these scopes helps to map out the sources of emissions and focus on areas where reductions can make the most impact. In my footprint, for example, Scope 1 includes gas heating and driving, Scope 2 comes from electricity use, and Scope 3 includes flights, water, and lifestyle emissions.

    Assumptions

    Here’s the breakdown of my annual emissions and given the following inputs:

    – we live in North East of England

    – our home is standard new-built from Dec 2022, no fancy energy or water recycling tech (yet)

    – my wife and I are working from home quite often

    – we on a single car, Vauxhall Astra, petrol

    – we use gas for heating and cooking, electricity for anything else

    Overview of my household greenhouse gas emissions

    Scope 1: Direct Emissions (3,017 kgCO2/year)

    These emissions come directly from my use of fossil fuels, primarily for heating and transportation using assets that my household owns.

    Gas Heating and Cooking: 1,397 kgCO2/year

    My household consumed 6,832 kWh of gas this year (as of 30/12/24), primarily for heating and cooking. At an emission factor of 0.2044 kgCO2/kWh (DEFRA, 2024), this is one of the largest sources of emissions. While my home is relatively new and efficient, relying on gas still has a significant environmental impact. Transitioning to a lower-carbon heating system could reduce this substantially.

    Car Travel: 1,620 kgCO2/year

    Driving my Vauxhall Astra (a petrol car with 46.4 MPG fuel efficiency) contributed a significant portion of my emissions. With only 5,990 miles driven in 2024, my car emitted approximately 0.2705 kgCO2 per mile (DEFRA, 2024). This highlights the importance of considering alternatives, such as reducing travel, switching to an electric vehicle, or using public transportation where possible.

    Scope 2: Indirect Emissions (394 kgCO2/year)

    These emissions are from 1,900 kWh of electricity my household consumed in 2024.

    Electricity Usage: 394 kgCO2/year

    While electricity is generally cleaner than gas in the location where I live (North East of England), the grid still relies partly on fossil fuels. First, I decided to use location-based emission factor rather than market-based emission factor. This was because my supplier claims the electricity they supply is 100% renewable, but how can I be cartain that my household actually uses 100% renewable energy. Hence, I uses an emission factor of 0.20705 kgCO2/kWh (DEFRA, 2024). My electricity use of 1,900 kWh/year to date this year added 394 kgCO2/year to my footprint. My home already features efficient LED lighting and a heat pump dryer, but adding solar, battery storage or improving household efficiency (i.e better class white goods) could help reduce this further.

    Scope 3: Indirect Emissions from Other Activities (1,518 kgCO2/year)

    Scope 3 emissions cover areas like air travel, water use, and other indirect activities.

    A single return flight from Leeds to Krakow (2 adults, 960 miles one way, DEFRA) contributed a significant portion of my emissions. Air travel remains one of the most carbon-intensive activities we engage in, and even short-haul flights add up quickly. Finding ways to minimize flights or offset their emissions will be critical.

    Water Supply and Treatment: 33 kgCO2/year

    My household uses 269 liters of water per day, totaling 98 cubic meters annually. This is hI Though the emissions from water supply and treatment are relatively small, reducing water consumption through fixtures or behavior changes can have broader environmental benefits.

    Other Activities: 369 kgCO2/year

    This category includes emissions from groceries, shopping, dining out, and other indirect activities. Estimation of this component of my Scope 3 emissions is rather uncertain and based on the figures provided by my banking provider. While these emissions are more uncertain and lower than those from heating or travel, they reflect everyday habits that I’ll aim to refine as part of this journey.

    What Do These Numbers Mean?

    Total Emissions: 4,929 kgCO2/year

    For context, the average UK resident emits approximately 10,000 kgCO2/year. So an average household like ours should emit 20,000 kgCO2/year. While our emissions are lower than average, they’re still significant.

    The numbers highlight areas where I can take action. These are in order of priority:

    – Gas and electricity dominate my home energy emissions.

    – Car and air travel are my largest transportation-related impacts.

    – Indirect activities like water and lifestyle choices, while smaller, are opportunities for improvement.

    Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns

    Known Unknowns

    These are areas I’ve identified as gaps in my data:

    – Waste Emissions: I have yet to calculate the impact of household waste, including landfill, recycling, and composting habits.

    – Embedded Emissions in Purchases: My estimate for lifestyle emissions lacks detail about the specific carbon intensity of the products I consume. In still glad that my bank provides such data.

    – Heating Options: I need to explore which low-carbon heating systems are practical for my home.

    – Offsetting Flights and Car travel: I’ve yet to identify the best carbon offset programs for reducing my travel footprint.

    Unknown Unknowns

    These are surprises that may emerge as I dig deeper:

    – Hidden Carbon Costs: How much do digital activities or financial investments contribute to my footprint?

    – Feedback Effects: Will new choices, like an electric vehicle, increase other emission, such as electricity use, and by how much?

    – Shifting Emission Factors: As the grid decarbonises, how will this affect my future emissions?

    net zero

    What’s Next? My Decarbonization Plan

    This isn’t about perfection; it’s about progress. Here’s where I’ll focus my efforts:

    1. Home Energy Efficiency: Investigating ways to reduce reliance on gas, such as transitioning to electric heating systems (heat pump) and optimising electricity use.

    2. Travel Alternatives: Exploring lower-carbon options for transportation and offsetting emissions from necessary flights.

    3. Water Conservation: Reducing water use through efficiency measures and behavioral changes.

    4. Lifestyle Choices: Examining my spending and consumption habits to identify sustainable alternatives.

    5. Waste Analysis: Calculating and addressing emissions from waste, an area I haven’t yet fully quantified.

    Join Me on This Journey

    Have you calculated your carbon footprint? It’s a great first step in understanding your impact. If you’re curious, try this tool: [Carbon Footprint Calculator](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx).

    Already taking steps to reduce your footprint? I’d love to hear about your journey. What’s worked for you? What challenges have you faced? Your insights could help guide and inspire others—and I’d love to feature them in future editions of this newsletter.

    Looking Ahead

    In the next edition, I’ll take a closer look at home energy use and explore potential upgrades to reduce emissions from heating and electricity. I’ll evaluate the costs, challenges, and benefits of these options to see what’s practical for my household.

    Thank you for joining me on this journey. Together, we can turn awareness into action, one step at a time.

    Warm regards,

    Prof Dawid Hanak