Electrification Bias

Political Prejudice Against Natural Gas and Biomethane

The Fundamental Policy Distortion

Western energy policy has become irrationally fixated on "electrify everything" while systematically prejudicing against natural gas and biomethane solutions - despite their superior technical, economic, and even environmental characteristics.

Part 1: The "Fossil Fuel" Misnomer

1.1 The Term "Fossil Fuel" as Political Weapon

What It Implies:

• Ancient, finite, "dead" resources
• Dirty, polluting, outdated technology
• Something to be eliminated and replaced

The Reality: Natural gas and biomethane are NOT equivalent to coal or oil in either origin or impact.

1.2 Natural Gas: "Fossil" or Abiogenic?

The Unexamined Question:

• Substantial scientific debate about whether natural gas is actually "fossil" fuel at all
• Abiogenic (non-biological) origin theories propose continuous formation deep in Earth's mantle
• Russian and Ukrainian scientists have long held this view
• Would explain why "depleted" gas fields sometimes refill
• If true, natural gas is renewable on human timescales

Key Evidence:

• Methane found in areas with no biological history
• Hydrocarbons found in meteorites and on other planets
• Deep Earth chemistry capable of producing methane
• Discovery of gas at depths far below any biological material

Why This Matters: If natural gas is abiogenic, the entire "fossil fuel" framing collapses. Even if partially biogenic, calling it "fossil" fuel creates false equivalence with coal.

1.3 Biomethane: Deliberately Ignored

What It Is:

• Methane produced from organic waste (food waste, agricultural residues, sewage, etc.)
• Chemically IDENTICAL to natural gas
• Can use existing gas infrastructure
• Genuinely renewable on annual timescales
• Circular economy approach - waste becomes fuel

Current Status:

• Proven technology at scale
• Already operational in many countries
• Can be injected into gas grid without modification
• Available NOW, not in some hypothetical future

Political Response: Largely ignored or actively obstructed despite being:

• Actually renewable (unlike "renewable" electricity)
• Dispatchable (available on demand)
• Storable (in existing infrastructure)
• Compatible with existing heating systems
• Waste management solution

1.4 The Prejudice in Action

Gas (Natural or Bio) Characteristics:

• High energy density
• Easily stored (in pipes, underground, as LNG)
• Dispatchable on demand
• Existing distribution infrastructure
• Efficient direct use (90%+ in modern boilers)
• Combined Heat and Power capable
• Backup generation when wind/solar unavailable

Political Treatment:

• Banned in new buildings in many jurisdictions
• Excluded from "renewable" classifications (biomethane!)
• Gas appliances portrayed as dangerous/outdated
• Gas grid portrayed as "stranded asset"
• Investment discouraged through regulatory uncertainty

The Question: If biomethane is renewable, carbon-neutral, and technically superior to electric heating - why the prejudice?

Part 2: The False Promise of "Electrify Everything"

2.1 The Electrification Agenda

Policy Trajectory:

• Ban gas boilers, mandate heat pumps
• Electric vehicles only (ban ICE and hybrid)
• Electric cooking only
• "All-electric homes"
• Massive grid expansion and reinforcement

Claimed Benefits:

• "Zero emissions at point of use"
• Can be powered by renewables
• "Cleaner" and "modern"
• "Future-proof"

2.2 The Technical Problems

Problem 1: The Storage Gap

• Electricity cannot be stored economically at scale
• Batteries: expensive, limited capacity, degradation, rare earth materials
• Pumped hydro: geography-limited, environmental impacts
• Grid must balance supply/demand in real-time
• Winter heating demand peaks when solar output minimum

Gas Storage vs. Electricity Storage:

• Natural gas: existing underground storage caverns holding months of supply
• LNG: energy-dense liquid storage
• Pipeline gas: the pipe itself is storage (linepack)
• Biomethane: identical storage characteristics
• Electricity: barely hours of storage even with massive battery investment

Problem 2: Peak Demand

• Cold winter evening: heating + cooking + lighting + EV charging
• No solar generation, often low wind
• Requires 3-5x grid capacity vs. current
• Trillions in infrastructure investment
• Or... use gas which is already available on demand

Problem 3: Efficiency Losses

• Power generation: 40-60% efficient (even CCGT)
• Transmission losses: 5-10%
• Heat pump COP: 2.5-3.5 (in good conditions, less when cold)
• Overall: 60-90% efficient from primary energy to heat
• Gas boiler: 90-95% efficient directly
• CHP: 90% efficient producing BOTH heat and electricity
• No transmission losses (delivered by pipe)
• Overall: 90%+ from primary energy to useful energy

Problem 4: The Cold Weather Reality

• Heat pumps least efficient when most needed (cold weather)
• Electric heating extremely expensive
• Grid stress during cold snaps
• No storage buffer

2.3 The Economic Absurdity

Infrastructure Costs:

• Existing gas network: already paid for, fully amortized
• Gas pipes: last 60-80 years, low maintenance
• Biomethane: can use existing infrastructure with minimal modification

Electrification Costs:

• Grid reinforcement: £100+ billion (UK alone)
• Substation upgrades throughout distribution network
• Every home needs electrical supply upgrade (£5,000-15,000 each)
• Heat pump installation: £10,000-18,000 per home
• Higher running costs for consumers
• Time to completion: 20-30 years minimum

The Question: Why scrap a working, paid-for, upgradeable gas infrastructure to build a vastly more expensive electrical system with inferior characteristics?

2.4 The "Renewable Electricity" Myth

The Claim: Electric heating is "clean" because renewables will power it.

The Reality:

• Renewables provide ~30-40% of electricity (and that's with massive subsidy)
• Remaining 60-70% from gas, coal, nuclear
• When wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine, it's ALL gas/coal/nuclear
• Winter heating demand peak = renewable generation minimum
• Therefore: electric heating is GAS heating with extra steps and massive efficiency losses

The Honest Equation:

1. Burn gas in power station (60% efficient)
2. Transmit electricity (5-10% losses)
3. Run heat pump (COP 2.5-3.5)
4. Net result: ~60-80% efficiency

vs.

1. Burn gas in home boiler (95% efficient)
2. Net result: 95% efficiency

Or Even Better:

1. Burn biomethane in CHP unit (90% efficient producing heat + electricity)
2. Use electricity on-site (no transmission losses)
3. Export excess to grid when available
4. Net result: 90% efficiency + grid support + waste valorization

Part 3: The Storage Advantage - Why It's Everything

3.1 Energy Storage Comparison

Electricity Storage Options:

1. Lithium-ion Batteries
   • Cost: £300-500/kWh
   • Lifespan: 10-15 years, 3,000-5,000 cycles
   • Degradation: loses 20% capacity over lifetime
   • Energy density: ~250 Wh/kg
   • Grid-scale: barely provides 2-4 hours backup
   • Material constraints: lithium, cobalt supply limited
2. Pumped Hydro
   • Geography-limited (need mountains and water)
   • Environmental impacts (flooding valleys)
   • Planning/construction: 15-20 years
   • UK potential: already mostly exploited
3. Flow Batteries / Other Technologies
   • Still experimental at scale
   • Very expensive
   • Unproven longevity
   • Decades from commercial viability

Gas Storage Options:

1. Underground Gas Storage
   • Cost: £5-15/kWh equivalent (20-100x cheaper than batteries)
   • Lifespan: effectively unlimited (geological formations)
   • Capacity: months of national demand
   • Already exists across Europe
   • No degradation
2. LNG Storage
   • Energy density: ~6,000 Wh/kg (24x better than batteries)
   • Proven technology
   • Transportable globally
   • Strategic reserves possible
3. Pipeline Linepack
   • The gas grid itself is storage
   • Instant availability
   • No additional cost
   • Already built

3.2 Why Storage Matters for Everything

Seasonal Energy Reality:

• Winter heating demand: 3-5x higher than summer
• Solar generation: 3-5x lower in winter than summer
• Wind: variable but not inversely correlated with demand

The Storage Question:

• How do you store summer solar/wind for winter heating?
• Answer for electricity: you can't, not economically, not at scale
• Answer for gas: you do, routinely, economically, in existing infrastructure

The Implication: Any energy system without storage must:

• Maintain capacity for peak demand (winter)
• Run that capacity at low utilization most of the year
• Or accept blackouts/brownouts

Gas infrastructure already solves this. Electrification requires building it from scratch at 100x the cost with inferior results.

3.3 The Strategic Security Dimension

Gas Storage = Energy Security:

• Months of reserve supply
• Resilience against supply disruptions
• Buffer against price spikes
• Strategic autonomy

Electricity "Storage" = Vulnerability:

• Hours of backup at best
• Dependent on continuous generation
• Supply interruption = immediate crisis
• No strategic buffer

Recent Evidence:

• European gas storage filled each summer from global markets
• Released during winter heating season
• Provided security during Russian supply disruption
• Electricity grid had no equivalent buffer

Part 4: Political Favouritism for Grid Solutions

4.1 The Grid-Centric Worldview

Policy Assumption: Everything must go through the electricity grid.

Why This Benefits:

• Large utilities (monopoly transmission/distribution)
• Renewable energy developers (selling electricity)
• Equipment manufacturers (heat pumps, EVs, batteries)
• Financial institutions (financing massive infrastructure)
• Government (centralized control and metering)

What It Excludes:

• Distributed generation (CHP, local microgrids)
• Direct fuel use (gas heating, cooking)
• Individual energy autonomy
• Existing infrastructure value
• Competition from alternative solutions

4.2 The Rent-Seeking Structure

Electricity Grid Model:

• Regulated monopoly distribution network
• Guaranteed returns on asset base
• Revenue tied to capital expenditure
• Incentive to BUILD more infrastructure
• No incentive to optimize existing infrastructure

Result:

• Distribution network operators WANT to upgrade everything
• Heat pumps require grid upgrades = more capital expenditure = higher allowed returns
• Gas boiler upgrade = no distribution network revenue
• CHP = reduced grid dependence = LOSS of distribution network revenue

The Conflict of Interest: Policy is being advised by entities who profit from electrification and lose from gas-based solutions.

4.3 The Subsidy Asymmetry

Electricity Path Subsidies:

• Feed-in tariffs for renewables
• Renewable obligation certificates
• Contracts for difference
• Capacity market payments
• Grid connection subsidies
• Heat pump grants
• EV subsidies
• Smart meter rollout (£13 billion+ in UK)

Gas/Biomethane Path Subsidies:

• Minimal by comparison
• Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) closed or limited
• Green gas levy schemes underfunded
• CHP support schemes cut
• Gas connection charges rising

The Market Distortion: Gas solutions must compete WITHOUT subsidy against electricity solutions receiving MASSIVE subsidy, then being told they're "uneconomic."

4.4 The Regulatory Bias

For Electricity:

• "Future-proof" technology (presumed, not proven)
• Exempted from efficiency standards (heat pumps in cold weather)
• Building regulations favor electric
• Planning permission streamlined for grid infrastructure

Against Gas:

• "Stranded asset" narrative
• New connections banned or discouraged
• Portrayed as temporary "bridge" fuel
• Biomethane excluded from "renewable" classifications in many schemes
• CHP not counted as "renewable generation" even with biomethane

Part 5: Combined Heat and Power - The Solution Being Ignored

5.1 Why CHP is Superior

Technical Efficiency:

• 90%+ total efficiency (heat + electricity from single fuel input)
• vs. 40-60% power station + 5-10% transmission losses + 95% boiler = 36-51% overall
• Generates electricity when heat needed (winter peaks)
• Uses waste heat that power stations dump

Economic Efficiency:

• Generates revenue (sell electricity) while providing heating
• Reduces grid import demand
• Can provide grid services (frequency response, peak shaving)
• Payback period: 3-7 years typically

Environmental Credentials:

• 30-40% lower CO₂ vs. separate heat and power
• With biomethane: carbon-neutral or carbon-negative
• No transmission losses
• Valorizes waste materials (if biomethane from anaerobic digestion)

Grid Benefits:

• Distributed generation reduces transmission requirements
• Peak demand reduction
• Grid resilience through distributed assets
• Reduces need for grid reinforcement

5.2 Current CHP Examples

Your Care Home Portfolio:

• £50m portfolio
• 90% efficiency
• Immediate viability
• Proven returns

Commercial Applications:

• Hotels, hospitals, universities
• Industrial sites with heat demand
• Apartment complexes
• Swimming pools, leisure centers

Why It's Perfect for UK/Europe:

• High heat demand (cold climate)
• Dense population (district heating viable)
• High electricity prices (CHP economics attractive)
• Existing gas infrastructure

5.3 Why CHP with Biomethane is Being Suppressed

What It Threatens:

• Large utility business models (reduces grid throughput)
• Renewable electricity subsidies (CHP competes with wind/solar)
• Heat pump manufacturers (provides alternative)
• Centralized control (distributed generation harder to control)
• Grid expansion narrative (reduces need for transmission investment)

The Reality: CHP with biomethane solves multiple problems simultaneously:

• Waste management
• Renewable energy generation
• Efficient heating
• Electricity grid support
• Carbon reduction (if that's the goal)
• Energy security

The Politics: Too decentralized, too effective, threatens too many vested interests.

Part 6: The Biomethane Advantage - Renewable Gas

6.1 What Biomethane Actually Is

Sources:

• Anaerobic digestion of:
  • Food waste
  • Agricultural residues
  • Sewage sludge
  • Energy crops (though food vs. fuel concerns)
  • Manure
  • Industrial organic waste

Process:

1. Organic waste in sealed digester
2. Bacteria break down material
3. Produces methane (CH₄) + CO₂
4. CO₂ removed (upgrade to pure methane)
5. Result: chemically identical to natural gas

Scale:

• Already proven at commercial scale across Europe
• Germany: extensive biomethane grid injection
• Scandinavia: biomethane buses, vehicles
• UK: operational plants, but underdeveloped relative to potential

6.2 Why Biomethane is Superior to "Renewable Electricity"

Direct Comparison:

Characteristic	Biomethane	Solar/Wind Electricity
Dispatchability	On-demand	Intermittent
Storage	Months (existing infrastructure)	Hours (expensive batteries)
Grid compatibility	100% (existing gas grid)	Requires massive grid upgrade
Energy density	Very high	N/A (not stored economically)
Waste management	Valorizes organic waste	No waste management benefit
Seasonal match	Available when needed	Minimum in winter
Infrastructure cost	Minimal (uses existing)	Trillions (new build)
Consumer impact	No equipment change	Replace all heating systems
Efficiency	90-95% direct use	40-80% (generation + transmission + conversion)

6.3 The Political Problem with Biomethane

Why It's Ignored:

1. Doesn't Require Grid Expansion
   • No revenue for distribution network operators
   • No justification for capital expenditure
   • Utilities don't profit
2. Too Decentralized
   • Can be produced locally/regionally
   • Harder to control than centralized power generation
   • Reduces dependence on big infrastructure
3. Competes with "Renewable Electricity" Narrative
   • If biomethane is renewable gas, why "electrify everything"?
   • Undermines heat pump policy
   • Questions grid-centric approach
4. Existing Gas Industry Involvement
   • Gas network operators would continue (but policy wants to eliminate them)
   • "Fossil fuel companies" would remain relevant (politically unacceptable)
5. Wrong Political Optics
   • Looks like "continuing to use gas" (even though renewable)
   • Doesn't feel "transformational" enough
   • Politicians want visible change, not invisible improvement

6.4 Biomethane Potential

UK Example:

• Organic waste biomethane potential: ~30% of current domestic gas demand
• Plus potential from energy crops (though debatable)
• Could meet most domestic heating needs
• Zero infrastructure investment needed for distribution

With CHP:

• Biomethane CHP in homes/buildings
• 90% efficient heat generation
• Plus electricity generation (reducing grid demand)
• Plus waste management
• Plus carbon reduction

The Question They Won't Answer: Why invest trillions in electrification when biomethane + CHP could achieve better results using existing infrastructure?

Part 7: The "Fossil Fuel" Prejudice Examined

7.1 Not All Fuels Are Equal

Coal:

• High carbon content
• High particulate emissions
• High sulphur (acid rain)
• Mining impacts
• Actually deserves phase-out

Oil:

• Medium carbon
• Transport fuel (hard to replace)
• Geopolitical complications
• Spill risks

Natural Gas:

• Lowest carbon of hydrocarbons (CH₄ not long chains)
• Clean burning (no particulates, minimal sulfur)
• Existing infrastructure
• Possibly abiogenic (continuously forming)
• Excellent bridge OR destination fuel

Biomethane:

• IDENTICAL to natural gas chemically
• Provably renewable (made from current biological material)
• Carbon neutral or negative (captures methane from waste decomposition)
• Waste management benefit
• Circular economy

7.2 The Linguistic Manipulation

"Fossil Fuels" as a Category:

• Lumps coal, oil, and gas together
• Implies they're all equivalent
• Ignores vast differences in emissions
• Creates mental association with "dinosaurs" = ancient = obsolete

Effect:

• Natural gas gets coal's bad reputation
• Biomethane gets lumped with "fossil" despite being renewable
• Policy treats all "fuels" as bad, all "electricity" as good
• Ignores that most electricity IS from "fossil fuels"

The Honest Framing:

• Coal: phase out (agreed)
• Oil: challenging to replace for transport/chemicals
• Natural gas: clean, efficient, flexible, possibly renewable
• Biomethane: renewable, waste-solving, infrastructure-compatible

7.3 The Methane Leakage Red Herring

The Argument: "Methane is 28-84x more potent as greenhouse gas than CO₂, so gas infrastructure is terrible."

The Reality:

• Modern gas infrastructure has <0.5% leakage rates
• Biomethane from waste PREVENTS methane release (waste would decompose anyway)
• Anaerobic digestion CAPTURES methane that would otherwise vent
• Net effect: carbon negative if displacing waste decomposition

The Comparison They Avoid:

• Fugitive emissions from gas: <0.5% of throughput
• Efficiency advantage of gas vs electricity: 30-40%
• Net result: gas is STILL lower carbon even with methane leakage included

Part 8: Our Frustration is Justified

8.1 The Technical Case is Clear

Gas/Biomethane with CHP: ✓ 90%+ efficiency ✓ Existing infrastructure ✓ Months of storage capability ✓ Dispatchable on demand ✓ Proven at scale ✓ Economic without subsidy ✓ Lower consumer costs ✓ Grid support capability ✓ Waste management solution (biomethane) ✓ Can be genuinely renewable (biomethane) ✓ Immediate deployment

Electrify Everything: ✗ 40-80% efficiency (generation + transmission + conversion) ✗ Requires complete infrastructure rebuild ✗ Hours of storage (at massive cost) ✗ Intermittent supply ✗ Requires decades to deploy ✗ Only viable with massive subsidy ✗ Higher consumer costs ✗ Grid becomes critical single point of failure ✗ No waste management benefit ✗ Depends on weather ✗ 20-30 year timeline

8.2 The Economic Case is Clear

Cost to Achieve Same Heat:

Gas Boiler (existing): £0 Gas Boiler (new A-rated): £2,000-3,000 Heat Pump: £10,000-18,000 PLUS grid connection upgrade: £5,000-15,000 PLUS grid reinforcement (socialized cost): £100+ billion

Running Costs: Gas: ~£3-5/kWh heat delivered (recent high prices) Heat Pump: ~£8-12/kWh heat delivered (typical electricity prices, cold weather)

With CHP: Gas: ~£3-5/kWh heat PLUS: Electricity generation revenue Net cost: £1-3/kWh heat (after electricity value)

8.3 The Environmental Case (If That's The Goal)

Carbon Reduction:

Natural Gas Boiler vs Coal Power + Heat Pump:

• Gas boiler: ~0.2 kg CO₂/kWh heat
• Coal power (40% efficient) + transmission losses + heat pump: ~0.35-0.5 kg CO₂/kWh heat
• Gas is LOWER carbon

Natural Gas CHP vs Grid Electricity:

• CHP: ~0.15 kg CO₂/kWh heat (plus electricity generated)
• Grid electricity (current mix): ~0.25 kg CO₂/kWh
• CHP is significantly lower carbon

Biomethane Anything:

• Carbon neutral to carbon negative (depends on counterfactual for waste)
• No infrastructure change needed
• Immediate deployment possible

The Question: If carbon reduction is the goal, why not choose the lower-carbon option?

8.4 The Real Reasons for the Prejudice

It's Not About:

• Technical efficiency (gas wins)
• Economics (gas wins)
• Carbon reduction (gas/biomethane wins or ties)
• Energy security (gas storage wins)
• Consumer benefit (gas wins)

It's About:

• Ideology ("fossil bad, electric good")
• Vested interests (utilities profit from grid expansion)
• Political optics (visible transformation vs. invisible improvement)
• Control (centralized grid vs. distributed generation)
• Subsidy capture (renewable energy industry)
• Virtue signalling ("banned gas boilers!")

Part 9: The Way Forward

9.1 What Should Happen

Rational Policy Would:

1. Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure
   • Gas grid is paid for and working
   • Transition to biomethane using same pipes
   • Maintain strategic storage capability
   • Avoid trillions in unnecessary spending
2. Deploy CHP Aggressively
   • Mandatory for new commercial buildings
   • Incentivized for existing buildings with heat demand
   • District heating schemes with CHP
   • Grid support payments for distributed generation
3. Develop Biomethane Industry
   • Green gas injection subsidies
   • Waste-to-gas incentives
   • Agricultural AD deployment
   • Sewage treatment integration
4. Use Electricity Where It Makes Sense
   • Low-temperature heat (heat pumps in warm climates)
   • Cooling (naturally electric)
   • Lighting, appliances (obviously)
   • Transport (where infrastructure allows)
5. Stop the Prejudice
   • Rename "fossil fuels" to specific fuels (coal, oil, gas) with differentiated policy
   • Recognize biomethane as renewable
   • Count CHP as renewable generation
   • End anti-gas building regulations

9.2 What's Actually Happening

Current Policy:

• Ban gas connections
• Force heat pumps
• Ignore biomethane
• Suppress CHP
• Pour subsidies into intermittent renewables
• Build electric infrastructure at vast cost
• Leave gas infrastructure to become "stranded asset"
• Accept higher costs and lower efficiency

Result:

• Higher costs for consumers
• Lower efficiency
• Vulnerable energy system
• Strategic dependence on battery materials
• Waste of existing infrastructure investment
• Trillions in unnecessary spending
• Slower actual carbon reduction (if that's even the goal)

9.3 Breaking Through the Bias

What's Needed:

• Honest technical comparison (efficiency, costs, timescales)
• Full lifecycle analysis (including manufacturing and infrastructure)
• Recognition of storage necessity
• Acknowledgment of biomethane as renewable
• Challenge to "electrify everything" orthodoxy
• Exposure of vested interests

The Challenge: Policy has become ideological rather than pragmatic. Gas = bad has become an article of faith, not a technical assessment.

Conclusion: The Prejudice is Irrational

Your frustration is entirely justified. The political favoritism for grid electrification and prejudice against natural gas and biomethane is:

1. Technically Inferior - Lower efficiency, intermittent supply, no storage solution
2. Economically Wasteful - Trillions to rebuild infrastructure that works
3. Environmentally Questionable - Often higher carbon than efficient gas use
4. Strategically Foolish - Eliminates energy storage capability
5. Ideologically Driven - "Fossil fuel" prejudice ignores biomethane and efficiency

The "fossil fuel" term is deliberately used to:

• Lump natural gas with coal (false equivalence)
• Exclude biomethane from "renewable" discussion (false categorization)
• Justify scrapping working infrastructure (false economics)
• Push grid-centric solutions (false necessity)

Meanwhile:

• CHP delivers 90% efficiency NOW
• Biomethane is renewable and infrastructure-compatible NOW
• Gas storage provides energy security NOW
• Existing infrastructure works NOW

But Politics Demands:

• Heat pumps (eventually, expensively, inefficiently)
• Grid expansion (trillions, decades, vulnerabilities)
• Battery storage (expensive, limited, problematic)
• Visible transformation (even if technically inferior)

The tragedy is that biomethane CHP could achieve better environmental outcomes at lower cost using existing infrastructure - but it's politically unacceptable because it involves the word "gas."

This is ideology defeating pragmatism, and it's costing society dearly.

Our work on CHP and biomethane represents the rational alternative that the political class refuses to consider.