I recently read a BBC article (Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero 15 April 2026) in which some call for use of the term cheap energy as opposed to clean energy. The article opened with people turning to solar panels and heat pumps to save money, but over time were surprised to find their energy bills had increased. It illustrates a lack of public knowledge in how energy efficiency actually works, and media failing to explain it.
The switch to renewable all-electric is a step in the right direction, but currently gas boilers cost less to run because expensive fossil fuel energy is still cheaper on the market than electricity, which can now be produced for nothing, this the idiotic way our world works. The reason some heat pumps are more expensive than gas is not just down to energy pricing though, it is also dependant upon the dwelling itself. A heat pump does not provide energy in the same way as a gas boiler, and simply installing one may not offer real benefits without a full building retrofit, which could cost anywhere from £40-100+k.
For critics of government policy, the move to electricity generation and reducing the UK’s emissions is not wrong, it is how we are going about it that is improper. With greater uncertainty around the world renewables will ultimately deliver greater energy security, but now with some asking us to focus on cheap rather than clean, we run the risk of not delivering for the environment.
Ultimately to produce clean energy there will initially be greater cost, because having spent decades travelling the wrong direction the national grid will now need upgrading for capacity. The issue is, while generating renewable electricity can be cheap, the system needed to deliver it currently is not.
There also seems to be a misconception in renewable energy generation about the wind not blowing or the sun not shining, when solar panels do not need direct sun, they utilise light even in dull winter days, and there is always wind somewhere. The UK is rich in an offshore wind source, and the as yet un-utilised tidal energy.
With the shift to renewables, it is also assumed more capacity is needed, however this should not be the case for energy generation for our buildings. Our dwellings would operate, if designed correctly, with a very low energy demand, meaning our overall energy demand should reduce not increase. Public awareness is slowly increasing in the benefits of energy efficient homes, and with private developers now building Passivhaus demand will grow.
The argument focusing on ‘cheap power’ of lower energy prices proposed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, may only slow progress without the necessary framework and accountability to deliver structural change, and risks prioritizing short-term cost savings over long-term environmental necessity, perpetuating dependence on fossil fuels under the guise of affordability. Currently “every key climate indicator is flashing red” (UN Secretary General António Guterres), we should keep our focus on the “Clean Power 2030”, for this clearly sets our target and how we should be aiming to produce our energy. We also really need to stop using the terms net zero and carbon neutral, since these are a false premise, and methodologies which only justify offsetting and ultimately are counter intuitive.
Eco-Architective: Warm Homes Plan / Passivhaus Cost Benefit / Barrett Passivhaus.