Will the declared objectives of Insualte Britain soon be seen as relevant?

[AM9]

This is a question not about activities such demonstrating, protest, obstruction or outright vandalism*, but concerning the central issue that the movement was setup the highlight. As the cost in both monetary and environmental terms of keeping the nation's homes at a healthy temperature gets higher and higher, the issue of keeping that heat that is expensively generated is not wasted through abysmally poor insulation standards (in the UK). Much of the housing stock, particularly that in the social sector has insulation that is amongst lowest in Europe relevant to the needs dicatated by the climate.
The current 50%+ leap in energy costs will inevitably directly cause destructive poverty, illness and deaths despite the subsidy kludges announced by the government this week. Will this eventually end up more expensive in economical terms than reducing the waste of heat in homes and at the same time undermine any genuine efforts to reduce carbon-based energy usage?


* different posters might choose any of these descriptions (or even worse)

 

[yorkie]

I think it's a fair point that we should do better in terms of insulation standards.

If you wish to start a constructive discussion about insulation that would be great and it could be constructive if it isn't used to give credibility to such a disruptive, unruly mob.

But starting the discussion on such a premise is problematical and I object to that.

 

[AM9]

I think it's a fair point that we should do better for insulation standards and if you wish to start a discussion about insulation that would be great but there is no way this can be used to give such a disruptive unruly mob any credibility.

It is a discussion about insulation that the government should have been involved in continuously, - especially since their failed 'Green Deal' where the government closed it to 'save the taxpayer money'. That is the same taxpayer who will now be paying for the council tax subsidy and interest free loan to pay for energy cost increases.
Insulate Britain's activities last year provided the only headline hitting information that is remotely related the poor standards of domestic insulation in the UK. Of course the media only wanted to report the disruptive behaviour that they used to get the media's attention, but the underlying issue is still there and might be considered much more important in the light of government energy policies exposing the population to prohibitive cost escalation.
The post specifically stated that it was not about their protest activities. I rather thought that the issues were important enough for an adult discussion on the lost opportunities for improving the quality of residential properties and the impact that it would have on both the cost of energy spent replacing the heat loss where insulation is inadequate/absent, and the consequential environmental damage that additional consumption causes.

 

[yorkie]

The post specifically stated that it was not about their protest activities....

Then why mention Insulate Britain?

If we are going to have a healthy debate about insulation we should be able to do so without bringing this group into the discussion!

You could have simply posted your proposals (perhaps backed up with links to, and quotes from, relevant sources) and got straight into the debate without getting side tracked.

 

[AM9]

Then why mention Insulate Britain?

If we are going to have a healthy debate about insulation we should be able to do so without bringing this group into the discussion!

As I said: "Insulate Britain's activities last year provided the only headline hitting information that is remotely related the poor standards of domestic insulation in the UK." Unless somebody has information that has other recent dialogues about insulation receiveding any serious attention by either the media or politicians, it seems that nobody had any forsight about the impending energy crisis.

 

[yorksrob]

Clearly yes. We have millions of homes built before 1930, without cavity walls and which need insulating. Solid wall insulation, which costs several thousands of pounds is necessary for this. There is no conceivable scenario in which the vast majority of these houses will be replaced in the near future, or the timeframes needed to arrest global warming.

Glueing yourself to a tube train is silly though.

 

[yorkie]

As I said: "Insulate Britain's activities last year provided the only headline hitting information that is remotely related the poor standards of domestic insulation in the UK." Unless somebody has information that has other recent dialogues about insulation receiveding any serious attention by either the media or politicians, it seems that nobody had any forsight about the impending energy crisis.

I remain of the view that if you want to have a discussion about insulation and don't want to get bogged down into the views of an extremely dodgy group of people, it would be better not to mention them, especially not in a manner that appears to give them credibility, but clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point! It would have been good if you'd simply made your proposals and provided links to, and quotes from, useful sources to start off an interesting debate.

 

[seagull]

Well, this thread may be as good a place as any to ask this question:

If someone owns a rendered non-cavity wall house (of which there are many) and the render needs replacing, current regs state that if 50% or more of any wall needs re-rendering, the whole wall's thermal insulation has to meet current standards. Which in practice means having to add Exterior Wall Insulation, usually.
The question: this is very expensive, how is the owner supposed to afford the cost? I was in the situation once and had to let the render fall off and damp started to get in as I couldn't afford the EWI on top of the re-rendering cost. And as a person earning just enough to keep me out of any credit/income supplement/benefits, I was entitled to zero assistance.

If this sort of situation is what action groups seek to address then fine, but it seems not to be the case.

 

[AM9]

Well, this thread may be as good a place as any to ask this question:

If someone owns a rendered non-cavity wall house (of which there are many) and the render needs replacing, current regs state that if 50% or more of any wall needs re-rendering, the whole wall's thermal insulation has to meet current standards. Which in practice means having to add Exterior Wall Insulation, usually.
The question: this is very expensive, how is the owner supposed to afford the cost? I was in the situation once and had to let the render fall off and damp started to get in as I couldn't afford the EWI on top of the re-rendering cost. And as a person earning just enough to keep me out of any credit/income supplement/benefits, I was entitled to zero assistance.

If this sort of situation is what action groups seek to address then fine, but it seems not to be the case.

The most pressing change is to deal with the social housing stock. Currently, much of that is poorly insulated having had perfunctory improvements after the '70s oil crises by theri then owners the local authorities, with no further improvements other than cosmetic improvements. Current insulation requirements are much more relevant to the escalating cost of energy, but the downward slide of the quality of social housing has not only allowed deterioration in it's condition, but those who live in it are generally unable to make improvements (both in terms of permissions and ability to pay).
In the private sector, there's the disgraceful saga of multi-floor blocks of flats where the insulation has been deliberately removed following the Grenfell Tower disaster. For over 4 years, the parties involved have dragged their feet, including the Government such that some of the families trapped in them have now to deal with massive condensation and the fungal contamination that it has brought to their living space.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The protest group hasn't done the cause any favours, a simple advert in all the papers saying insulation is environmentally friendly and saves you money, would have got people's attention.
The protests now just bring to mind the disruption caused when people couldn't see dying relatives, when one said they would stop an ambulance, and them targetting public transport, also the newspaper story that one of the founders was very rich and owned houses with poor insulation.

The attitude has damaged the whole campaign, no one likes being shouted at to do anything.

 

[OuterDistant]

Brainwave: walling up members of Insulate Britain in my house's cavity space would solve two problems at once.

 

[507020]

This is a question not about activities such demonstrating, protest, obstruction or outright vandalism*, but concerning the central issue that the movement was setup the highlight. As the cost in both monetary and environmental terms of keeping the nation's homes at a healthy temperature gets higher and higher, the issue of keeping that heat that is expensively generated is not wasted through abysmally poor insulation standards (in the UK). Much of the housing stock, particularly that in the social sector has insulation that is amongst lowest in Europe relevant to the needs dicatated by the climate.
The current 50%+ leap in energy costs will inevitably directly cause destructive poverty, illness and deaths despite the subsidy kludges announced by the government this week. Will this eventually end up more expensive in economical terms than reducing the waste of heat in homes and at the same time undermine any genuine efforts to reduce carbon-based energy usage?


* different posters might choose any of these descriptions (or even worse)

I am in favour of home insulation and efficient central heating, but these are of course not the objectives of Insulate Britain since it’s members have no intention of insulating their own homes and are simply murderers who have caused several deaths of critically ill people in ambulances who they prevented from getting to hospital, which is inexcusable, as well as preventing other road users from reaching their destinations including people on their way to install insulation. If I came across them on a road I wouldn’t hesitate to run any of them over straight away and I would much rather if they lied down on the railway in an attempt to obstruct it, preferably on the Southern Region and see if they can win against a train or a third rail. We all know what manner of execution happens to anyone who has no appreciation for this particular piece of railway infrastructure, but Insulate Britain have no appreciation for the road infrastructure they are obstructing and the nature of it’s use for both essential and urgent journeys, among others, as demonstrated by their refusal to move even when told by paramedics of the need to let an ambulance through, as problematic as overall car and road use ultimately is.

I once received a scam phone call from a criminal posing as a cavity wall insulation salesman. I told him that I live in a modern house which is already correctly insulated and that he had nothing to offer me, but the longer the conversation went on the stranger it became because it was immediately obvious that he didn’t know the first thing about insulation or the construction of houses. The next week he turned up at the house and knocked on every door in the street, which are all of equally modern construction and when we refused to open the door and let the cold in unnecessarily, defeating the object of insulation, he refused to leave and stood directly outside our front door for several hours. He attempted to get the attention of a scaffolder who happened to be at the other end of the street, god knows why and gain entry to the house, but failed. The police were called but refused to attend claiming that they can’t remove doorstep sellers.

I think the main obstacle to sufficient insulation in this country is simply that it is used as a headline by some of the dodgiest individuals in our society who give the word insulation such a bad name that it has come to be avoided as a minefield. There are also those who attempt to genuinely install insulation but do such a poor job of it as to make the thermal properties of a home even worse.

 

[SouthernR]

It's obvious that the one of the best ways to reduce energy use and demand is to improve home insulation. We have the ability to do this. It doesn't take rocket science.
Unfortunately, the government won't treat this as important. (The recent grant scheme failed when contractors weren't getting paid, so they avoided the work.)
They make matters worse by relaxing standards or not introducing tougher standards on new-build housing, because this reduces developers' profits.
New houses near us don't even have solar panels. They do have charging points for cars, which was a planning requirement. (I'm not sure if this was specified by central or local government. I hope there is sufficient supply capacity for these.)

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The law of unexpected consequences may apply, it is bad enough now, people overheat their homes despite alleged high fuel prices, so they can wear t-shirts indoors in winter. Perhaps savings on energy could be used to buy a second fridge or another television.

 

[AM9]

The way I see it is that the Government has three major options here:
1) heavily subsidise the cost of energy to a substantial proportion of the population, - not just for the next few months, but probably years
2) subsidise and mandate where appropriate critical improvements to the insulation of homes where there is no genuine prospect of the occupants doing so
3) effectively, do nothing and expect the home owner to voluntarily upgrade their property to 'save themselves money'
Assuming that even this right wing administration wouldn't take option three, - there would be civil unrest, a vastly increased burden on the health and social services and probably loss of life through hypothermia and starvation.
So the choice would be between a continual underwriting of top-up payments to allow the disadvantaged to heat their homes to acceptable levels or committing to a programme of upgrading homes so that their energy requirements reduce the amount of increasingly costly energy used.
Of course, the short termedness of politics plays in here as even at the beginning of a 5 year term, there would be little net cash return in view before the government would face the electorate again. However, unless this catch 22 is broken somehow, the global scramble for energy will ensure that just perpetuates.
I don't even think the the 'something will turn up' attitude that some have is anything less than cynical kicking the can down the road.
All of this is without the underlying issue of minimising our needless carbon generation.

 

[Dai Corner]

I once received a scam phone call from a criminal posing as a cavity wall insulation salesman. I told him that I live in a modern house which is already correctly insulated and that he had nothing to offer me, but the longer the conversation went on the stranger it became because it was immediately obvious that he didn’t know the first thing about insulation or the construction of houses. The next week he turned up at the house and knocked on every door in the street, which are all of equally modern construction and when we refused to open the door and let the cold in unnecessarily, defeating the object of insulation, he refused to leave and stood directly outside our front door for several hours. He attempted to get the attention of a scaffolder who happened to be at the other end of the street, god knows why and gain entry to the house, but failed. The police were called but refused to attend claiming that they can’t remove doorstep sellers.

I think the main obstacle to sufficient insulation in this country is simply that it is used as a headline by some of the dodgiest individuals in our society who give the word insulation such a bad name that it has come to be avoided as a minefield. There are also those who attempt to genuinely install insulation but do such a poor job of it as to make the thermal properties of a home even worse.

I wonder if your scam caller was connected with this lot?

ICO fines Home2Sense £200k over nuisance calls

ICO says Home2Sense showed 'complete disregard for people's privacy'

www.theregister.com

Home2Sense Ltd, a home improvement biz, is nursing a £200,000 financial penalty from the UK's data watchdog for making well over half a million marketing calls to people that registered to opt out of such botheration.

The company, based in Lampeter, Wales, was behind 675,478 nuisance calls between June 2020 and March 2021, punting insulation services to people signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS).

As Reg readers know, it is illegal to dial up someone that has registered with the TPS for more than 28 days, unless that person has given the marketeer specific consent to contact them.

During the course of its investigation, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) was told by Home2Sense that the customer data it had bought was from an "unknown source", pointing the finger of blame at its own staff for not checking the numbers they called against the TPS database.

Previous posters have given examples of the problems facing the owners/occupiers of older properties but even relatively new ones such as mine, built around the turn of the century, are affected. Presumably meeting the standards of the time it had poorly fitting single glazed windows as built. I negotiated a reduction on the price based on this and quickly had double glazing fitted but I wonder how many buyers would have bothered? Hopefully the increases in energy prices and greater awareness of environmental issues will encourage more to do so.

In the very short term, how about subsidised or free draught proofing supplies (and fitting if required) and warm clothing for the most needy?

 

[AM9]

I wonder if your scam caller was connected with this lot?

ICO fines Home2Sense £200k over nuisance calls

ICO says Home2Sense showed 'complete disregard for people's privacy'

www.theregister.com

Previous posters have given examples of the problems facing the owners/occupiers of older properties but even relatively new ones such as mine, built around the turn of the century, are affected. Presumably meeting the standards of the time it had poorly fitting single glazed windows as built. I negotiated a reduction on the price based on this and quickly had double glazing fitted but I wonder how many buyers would have bothered? Hopefully the increases in energy prices and greater awareness of environmental issues will encourage more to do so.

In the very short term, how about subsidised or free draught proofing supplies (and fitting if required) and warm clothing for the most needy?

Draught proofing is the cheapest fix for a draughty house, but in a poorly insulated property, it can increase humidity levels and cause fungal growth. In city dwellings, spores from damp patches are becoming a major health issue.

 

[The Lad]

I don't understand why building regulations allow a comparatively poor insulation requirement. It is easy and cheap* to build it in at first build rather than to incorporate it later.

* What is a couple of thousand on a new house?

 

[Starmill]

I personally reject the premise that improvements to existing housing aren't relevant? They've been relevant for many years, and highly relevant for the last decade or so.

However, to put a proper source to it, it cannot be argued that this hasn't been an urgent need during the last three years!

In February 2019 the Committee on Climate Change put this very clearly:

3. Retrofitting existing homes. The 29 million existing homes across the UK must be made low-carbon, low-energy and resilient to a changing climate. This is a UK infrastructure priority and should be supported as such by HM Treasury. Homes should use low-carbon sources of heating such as heat pumps and heat networks. The uptake of energy efficiency measures such as loft and wall insulation must be increased. At the same time, upgrades or repairs to homes should include increasing the uptake of: passive cooling measures (shading and ventilation); measures to reduce indoor moisture; improved air quality and water efficiency; and, in homes at risk of flooding, the installation of property-level flood protection.

UK housing: Fit for the future? - Climate Change Committee

This report, by the Committee on Climate Change and its Adaptation Committee, assesses whether the UK's housing stock is adequately prepared for the challenges of climate change.

www.theccc.org.uk

Note that the scale of the challenge is explicitly relevant here, not merely the required policy and conditions. To put it another way, there is too much work that needs to be done to leave this up to business and private individuals. It cannot be done through light touch incentives. It has to be done with very substantial government funding - for smaller houses and low-income households this will be at or near 100%. And the government will have to mandate the work being done.

As far as I can tell the government has ignored this report, and decided to do nothing.

I think that this part of the quote needs more emphasis:

This is a UK infrastructure priority and should be supported as such by HM Treasury.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2022 ==

Unless somebody has information that has other recent dialogues about insulation receiveding any serious attention by either the media or politicians, it seems that nobody had any forsight about the impending energy crisis.

I don't really understand this point I have to say. Just because something doesn't receive lots of media attention that doesn't mean that the good work hasn't been done, it just means that the government / the public have chosen to ignore good advice. I would say that the three year old report I've linked to above is comprehensive in its analysis and recommendations, but it's not the only place where these issues have been raised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2022 ==

The most pressing change is to deal with the social housing stock. Currently, much of that is poorly insulated having had perfunctory improvements after the '70s oil crises by theri then owners the local authorities, with no further improvements other than cosmetic improvements. Current insulation requirements are much more relevant to the escalating cost of energy, but the downward slide of the quality of social housing has not only allowed deterioration in it's condition, but those who live in it are generally unable to make improvements (both in terms of permissions and ability to pay).

When it comes to social housing, there's really just no alternative but for the government to pick up the full cost of doing the work up front. Local authorities simply cannot be expected to fund upgrades piecemeal - the work will not get done. The government should have set out funding for 100% of the existing social housing to be refurbished to modern standards at least three years ago. They could still do this today.

 

[AM9]

I personally reject the premise that improvements to existing housing aren't relevant? They've been relevant for many years, and highly relevant for the last decade or so.

However, to put a proper source to it, it cannot be argued that this hasn't been an urgent need during the last three years!

In February 2019 the Committee on Climate Change put this very clearly:

UK housing: Fit for the future? - Climate Change Committee

This report, by the Committee on Climate Change and its Adaptation Committee, assesses whether the UK's housing stock is adequately prepared for the challenges of climate change.

www.theccc.org.uk

Note that the scale of the challenge is explicitly relevant here, not merely the required policy and conditions. To put it another way, there is too much work that needs to be done to leave this up to business and private individuals. It cannot be done through light touch incentives. It has to be done with very substantial government funding - for smaller houses and low-income households this will be at or near 100%. And the government will have to mandate the work being done.

As far as I can tell the government has ignored this report, and decided to do nothing.

I think that this part of the quote needs more emphasis:


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2022 ==


I don't really understand this point I have to say. Just because something doesn't receive lots of media attention that doesn't mean that the good work hasn't been done, it just means that the government / the public have chosen to ignore good advice. I would say that the three year old report I've linked to above is comprehensive in its analysis and recommendations, but it's not the only place where these issues have been raised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2022 ==


When it comes to social housing, there's really just no alternative but for the government to pick up the full cost of doing the work up front. Local authorities simply cannot be expected to fund upgrades piecemeal - the work will not get done. The government should have set out funding for 100% of the existing social housing to be refurbished to modern standards at least three years ago. They could still do this today.

I know that much good work is taking place but with absolutely no engagement from the Government (and consequently the media) it is just reports between those in the industry. The government of the day has a primary responsibility to inform the public at a far higher level and frequency that I have seen at any time. That must be there even if it is politically inconvenient to the administration, and the public must also be alerted that it will cost everybody. That will include an impact on what the public perceive as 'quality of life', at which point the 'do nothing' option should also be spelt out in terms of QoL and cost. There is no cheap way ahead.

The problem is that there is not just the government's lack of commitment to creating a fit for purpose housing stock, but the general public's apparent lack of interest in climate change, especially when it means changes to their lives. The temperature (of the debate) willl surely rise this year when in spite of the Government's attempts to smooth over the price rises of energy, the steep increase that will still be felt will probably start the "there's plenty of coal left in the ground" cry, looking for somebody else to blame.

 

[Essan]

I want to uninsulate my house, so it's not so hot in summer!

 

[Starmill]

I want to uninsulate my house, so it's not so hot in summer!

That would cause it to become hotter. Unless you have a large source of heat running inside your house in the summer.

 

[AM9]

I want to uninsulate my house, so it's not so hot in summer!

Actually insulation make a house cooler in the summer. Try standing in a tin shed on a sunny day.

 

[MotCO]

If you want to rent your house, it needs an EPC certificate, currently at E level or above, but will need to be at C level or above by 2025. Surely this will provide the required incentive to insulate houses, unless it does not apply to Council owned or Housing Association housing stock. The alternative is that it will lead to a reduction in rental stock.

(I know we are not debating Insulate Britain, but I suspect their campaign has turned people against insulating their homes, rather than the opposite effect which they wanted (allegedly).)

 

[Busaholic]

I once received a scam phone call from a criminal posing as a cavity wall insulation salesman. I told him that I live in a modern house which is already correctly insulated and that he had nothing to offer me, but the longer the conversation went on the stranger it became because it was immediately obvious that he didn’t know the first thing about insulation or the construction of houses. The next week he turned up at the house and knocked on every door in the street, which are all of equally modern construction and when we refused to open the door and let the cold in unnecessarily, defeating the object of insulation, he refused to leave and stood directly outside our front door for several hours. He attempted to get the attention of a scaffolder who happened to be at the other end of the street, god knows why and gain entry to the house, but failed. The police were called but refused to attend claiming that they can’t remove doorstep sellers.

If you live in England or Wales you could say you were being caused 'alarm, distress or harassment' contrary to the Public Order Act 1986, an arrestable offence. Personally, I'd claim all three in those circumstances.

 

[HSTEd]

Unfortunately work has shown that insulation leads to Jevon's paradox in spades. People celebrate their improved heating efficiency by heating more.

If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions there are likely far better ways to utilise your industrial output than trying to modify 28 million houses, all of which are built to slightly different designs.

Resources need to be focused on building a zero carbon energy supply instead

 

[Starmill]

Unfortunately work has shown that insulation leads to Jevon's paradox in spades. People celebrate their improved heating efficiency by heating more.

If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions there are likely far better ways to utilise your industrial output than trying to modify 28 million houses, all of which are built to slightly different designs.

Resources need to be focused on building a zero carbon energy supply instead

The Committee on Climate Change disagrees with you. Strongly. Do you have any evidence to support your idea at all?

In reality what I expect you're commenting on is that insulation will lift people out of fuel poverty, improving their health and wellbeing and reducing long term maintenance costs to their homes by preventing damp in the process. This is a good thing.

 

[HSTEd]

The Committee on Climate Change disagrees with you. Strongly. Do you have any evidence to support your idea at all?

The CCC has an interesting position on many things in climate science but their reputation in serious climate circles is far from perfect.

The problem is that insulation retrofit is enormously labour intensive.
To the point that they are talking about finding half a million workers for years to get it done, all to marginally reduce one class of energy consumption.

Many of the policymakers have an unhealthy respect for money and believe that these workers will magically appear, through the meerkat, when they just press a button - and without causing wages to rise dramatically in the process!
In reality sourcing that many workers will be next to impossible in the current economy, without serious economic and social dislocation.

The same number of workers in say, nuclear construction, wind turbine manufacture or similar, could achieve orders of magnitude more in decarbonisation terms.
Making two hundred nuclear reactors, or 25,000 wind turbines, or a bunch of tidal barrages, is a far simpler task because it involves doing the same thing over and over and over and over - allowing us to leverage the joys of mass production.

 

[Starmill]

The CCC has an interesting position on many things in climate science but their reputation in serious climate circles is far from perfect.

Feel free to begin a new thread to discuss them thoroughly if you wish. Also, I never suggested that they were precisely correct about everything, indeed I'm sure they wouldn't. I was just saying that they're close to the truth and you're not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2022 ==

The problem is that insulation retrofit is enormously labour intensive.
To the point that they are talking about finding half a million workers for years to get it done, all to marginally reduce one class of energy consumption.

It will also maks the housing better to live in and keep it better maintained, and it will benefit people on lower incomes disproportionately because a larger share of their spending goes on basic utilities. Insulation is also a necessary prerequisite for moving away from mains gas for heating. Heat pumps are less able to heat poorly insulated homes. Reducing just one category of energy use is true but so what? It will tackle a very substantial proportion of the energy demand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2022 ==

Many of the policymakers have an unhealthy respect for money and believe that these workers will magically appear, through the meerkat, when they just press a button - and without causing wages to rise dramatically in the process!
In reality sourcing that many workers will be next to impossible in the current economy, without serious economic and social dislocation.

This is one key reason why the government ought to have had the policy in place a decade ago, so we'd have more time to spread the work out. As it is we can get this done in 15 or so years. The sooner we start the sooner we can reap the benefits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2022 ==

The same number of workers in say, nuclear construction, wind turbine manufacture or similar, could achieve orders of magnitude more in decarbonisation terms.

Please show your working.

 

[HSTEd]

It will also maks the housing better to live in and keep it better maintained, and it will benefit people on lower incomes disproportionately because a larger share of their spending goes on basic utilities.

So would fixing the energy system so that energy is not ludicrously expensive.
And that has many more indirect benefits than just somewhat reducing bills for space heating.

Insulation is also a necessary prerequisite for moving away from mains gas for heating. Heat pumps are less able to heat poorly insulated homes. Reducing just one category of energy use is true but so what? It will tackle a very substantial proportion of the energy demand.

This isn't really true.
They are a prerequisite if you wish to adopt heat pumps within the current energy system model of expensive electricity - which is derived from government policy and the energy market structure they have imposed.

If we look to overseas exemplars with heavily decarbonised heating, like Canada, heat pumps are comparatively rare - resistive heating dominates there. Even in provinces without the enormous hydro generating output of Quebec, like New Brunswick.

Also the primary reason insulation is deemed to be required for heat pumps is because electricity is ruinously expensive and thus to keep heating bills comparable to current ones dramatic increases in insulation are required. This is not inherent to the technology but merely the interaction between the technology and the wider energy system.

This is one key reason why the government ought to have had the policy in place a decade ago, so we'd have more time to spread the work out. As it is we can get this done in 15 or so years. The sooner we start the sooner we can reap the benefits.

The sooner we do things about climate change the sooner we reap the benefits, it does not mean that any particular programme this is true for is unique in this regard!

Please show your working.

If we replaced all energy use in the UK with electricity, using resitive heating, you would need something like 210GWe of nuclear or 360GWe of offshore wind, or some combination of the two (in proportion obviously). About twenty percent of that is consumed making synthetic aviation fuel, and I will leave whether that is a good idea as an exercise for the reader. This sort of thing and the industrial mobilisation implications of it is the meat of my current research, and I will have a publication out on it this year I hope.[EDIT: Worth noting that even if we used district heat for all low temperature heat demands in the economy, including space heating, hot water etc, the nuclear figure only falls to about 150GW]


Including the supply chain, building Hinkley Point C is taking ~22,000 staff, which impliest hat a reference workforce approaching half a million staff, even ignoring any mass production benefits, could build something like 23 HInkley Point Cs simultaneously, for around 74GW building at any given time.
Hornsea 2 is expected to produce 2,000 construction jobs for 1.4GW nameplate, implying something like ~350GWe under construction at once! That ignores much of the supply chain but I hope the point is clear.

Half a million workers is an enormous quantity, and once you abandon commitment to an existing energy system model of precious expensive energy, there is no limit to what you can achieve.