UHI Effect in London
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Category: Urban Heat Island
- Hits: 89
The Urban Heat Island Effect in London:
Implications for Energy Policy & the Case for Combined Cooling, Heat & Power via Bio-Methane
Executive Summary
"London faces a significant and worsening Urban Heat Island (UHI) challenge that current policy approaches are failing to address adequately." The city centre can be up to 10°C warmer than surrounding rural areas, with this differential intensifying at night when buildings release stored heat. This phenomenon directly increases cooling energy demand, creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop through air conditioning waste heat, and imposes substantial health and economic costs—estimated at £453-987 million annually from heat-related mortality alone.
Current policy prioritises carbon metrics over thermodynamic efficiency, inadvertently discouraging solutions that could address both objectives simultaneously. Combined Cooling, Heat and Power (CCHP) systems fuelled by bio-methane offer a technically superior and policy-coherent solution that:
- Achieves 80-90% energy utilisation versus 40-50% from conventional generation
- Captures waste heat for district heating rather than rejecting it to exacerbate the UHI
- Provides cooling through absorption chillers that do not add heat to the urban environment
- Uses renewable bio-methane with negative lifecycle carbon emissions
- Integrates waste management with energy production in a circular economy model
This section presents the scientific evidence for London's UHI problem and demonstrates how CCHP via bio-methane represents a thermodynamically sound, carbon-neutral, and economically viable solution that current regulatory frameworks inexplicably discourage.
Major CHP in UK
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Category: UK Case Studies
- Hits: 18
Based on our research into UK Government DUKES data and related industry sources, here are the most significant CHP and CCHP installations in the UK:
Major Large-Scale CHP Installations
Largest CHP Plants:
- VPI Immingham CHP (Lincolnshire)
- Saltend Power Station (East Yorkshire)
- 1,200 MW CCGT CHP plant on the Humber Estuary Tritonpower
- Provides power and steam to adjacent Saltend Chemicals Park Ssethermal
- Teesside REP/MGT Teesside Biomass CHP (Teesside)
- 299 MW biomass-powered CHP plant Power Technology
- Uses over 2.4 Mt of wood pellets annually Power Technology
- Wilton Power Station (Teesside)
- 197 MW fossil fuel CHP serving chemical complex Wikipedia
- Four CHP units with combined capacity up to 200 MW and 460 tonnes/hour steam output POWER Magazine
Integrated Urban Metabolism
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Category: CHP SOLUTIONS
- Hits: 15
That title is a mouthful but - all possible!
We have created a desk-top study of the energy generation AND energy efficiency Upgrades POSSIBLE for just LONDON - and this would be replicatable for all major cities in the UK and a great many Towns too. If only there was the political WILL to target:
- Energy Efficiency
- Organic Wastes to Bio-Methane - distributed via the UK's extensive Gas Grid/Network
These two easy to understand concepts, would also achieve substantial inroads into the current targets of CO2 reductions and Decarbonisation - as demanded by Government
Back to our Study, in the concluding remarks we have:
The integration of thermal hydrolysis, conversion of incineration to digestion, and deployment of biomethane-fuelled trigeneration systems across London represents a transformational opportunity:
Copper Supply Problems
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Category: UK Energy Security
- Hits: 12
QUESTION:
Given the ‘dash’ to electrify to the UK and European governments - today (30th October 2025) we heard at the FT Energy Transition Seminar - from ABB (Per Erik Holsten); there are Copper supply side problems meaning that ABB transformers have a 5 year lead time! What impact on a practical level will this have?
This is a significant bottleneck that will have cascading practical impacts across the energy transition. Let me break down the key consequences:
Immediate Infrastructure Impacts
- Grid Connection Delays: New renewable projects (solar farms, wind farms, battery storage) will face 5+ year waits just for transformer delivery before they can connect to the grid. This effectively pushes project completion dates well beyond planning timelines.
- EV Charging Infrastructure: Rapid charging hubs require substantial transformer capacity. Fleet electrification plans for logistics companies and public transport will hit delays, as will workplace and destination charging buildouts.
- Industrial Electrification: Factories switching from gas to electric heating, or installing electric arc furnaces, need transformer upgrades. This 5-year wait directly slows manufacturing decarbonization.
Economic Consequences
- Stranded Investment: Renewable developers may have sites ready, planning permission secured, and capital raised - but projects sit incomplete earning nothing while waiting for transformers. This ties up capital and increases financing costs.
- Cost Inflation: Scarcity will drive transformer prices higher. Projects budgeted 2-3 years ago may face 30-50% cost overruns on electrical infrastructure.
- Competitive Distortions: Companies who ordered transformers earlier gain massive first-mover advantages. Late movers face years of competitive disadvantage.
Fabric First Logic
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Category: Decarbonisation vs Waste Reduction
- Hits: 12
Climate Ideology will Cost Every Consumer Dearly
We have looked at this parliamentary briefing [CLICK HERE] to analyze their approach to housing "decarbonization". This is ideological climate policy masquerading as engineering sense. Let us break down the insanity we've identified:
The "Fabric First" Abandonment is Thermodynamically Insane
The parliamentary briefing shows that some organizations like Nesta argue it's not cost-effective to insulate every home to a high standard, and that households should install heat pumps even if their home is poorly insulated. The University of Oxford researchers claim that for many homes the solution will be to put in a heat pump first.
This is fundamentally backwards physics:
Why "Heat Pump First" is Wrong:
- Heat loss is heat loss - Whether you heat with gas, electricity, or magic pixie dust, every watt of heat escaping through poor fabric is wasted energy that costs money
- Bigger heat pumps = higher capital cost - If heat loss is high, the size of the heat pump required increases, making it more expensive, and if the homeowner later makes energy efficiency upgrades, the heat pump can end up being over-specified, leading to systems that use too much power and are difficult to control
- Heat pump efficiency degrades in cold weather - The worse the insulation, the colder the day, the harder the heat pump works, the lower its COP (coefficient of performance), the more electricity it uses
- Running cost comparison flips - A poorly insulated home with a heat pump can cost MORE to heat than the same home with a gas boiler, because:
- Heat pump COP drops to 2-2.5 in very cold weather
- Electricity costs ~3-4x per kWh vs gas
- So 1 kWh of heat from heat pump = ~1.5x the cost of gas boiler heat
The Real Agenda We've Identified:
This is about eliminating gas consumption, not about thermodynamic efficiency or cost: This false agenda is also evident in the OFGEN Consultation Paper - we submitted our response on 17th October 2025 See our article HERE
Page 1 of 9