Tag: Net-Zero

Sustainability-In-Tech : 3D-Printed Battery Could Speed Up Net Zero

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Researchers at Queen’s University Belfast have developed a low-cost 3D-printed battery that could help overcome one of renewable energy’s biggest obstacles by making long-duration electricity storage cheaper, more reliable and easier to research, potentially accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels.

What Problem Are Researchers Trying To Solve?

Renewable energy generation continues to expand rapidly around the world, yet one major challenge remains unresolved. Wind turbines only generate electricity when the wind blows, while solar panels stop producing power overnight or during periods of poor weather.

That means electricity generated from renewable sources must be stored efficiently so it can be used whenever demand requires it. Without reliable energy storage, electricity grids continue to rely on fossil-fuel power stations to bridge the gaps when renewable generation falls.

As Dr Hugh O’Connor from Queen’s University Belfast explains: “Tackling climate change is widely recognised as one of the major challenges facing modern society.”

He also points out: “The biggest challenge with renewable energy is simple – we cannot control when the sun shines or when the wind blows. The uncomfortable reality is that clean energy still only makes up a small share of our overall energy use – around just 16 per cent in both the UK and Ireland.”

The research team believes solving the storage challenge is essential if renewable energy is to replace fossil fuels on a much larger scale.

Why Flow Batteries Matter

Much of today’s attention seems to be focused on lithium-ion batteries, which already power smartphones, laptops and electric vehicles. Although highly effective for many applications, they become increasingly expensive for storing very large amounts of electricity over long periods.

Unlike lithium-ion batteries, which store energy within solid electrodes, flow batteries store it in liquid electrolytes held in external tanks. This makes them particularly well suited to grid-scale energy storage, where large amounts of renewable electricity may need to be stored for many hours before being released.

Most commercial flow batteries currently rely on vanadium, a metal that is produced in relatively few parts of the world and whose price can fluctuate significantly. Queen’s researchers have instead developed a battery based on iron, which is far more readily available and considerably less vulnerable to supply constraints.

The team also points out that flow batteries use safer aqueous chemistry than lithium-ion systems while avoiding the ethical concerns associated with cobalt mining that has historically been linked with many lithium-ion batteries.

A Battery That Costs A Fraction Of The Price

The breakthrough began during Dr O’Connor’s PhD research when he discovered that purchasing a laboratory flow battery cell could cost between £2,000 and £3,000.

Rather than accepting that cost, he began designing and manufacturing his own using 3D printing.

Describing the project, Dr O’Connor said: “As part of my PhD research, I realised how expensive it was to buy a flow battery cell – anything up to £3,000 – so I started 3D-printing them. After a lot of trial and error, eventually these started to work really well and I was able to create one for around £75.”

Reducing the cost of individual research cells makes advanced battery research accessible to many more laboratories while allowing researchers to test new battery chemistries much more affordably.

Why Standardisation Could Be The Bigger Breakthrough

Perhaps the most significant achievement is not the battery itself but the way the researchers have chosen to share it. For example, Dr O’Connor discovered that laboratories around the world were often obtaining different experimental results simply because they were using different battery designs and testing methods. That inconsistency made it difficult to compare findings or build confidently on each other’s work.

He explained: “For research to move forward, the way we use flow batteries needs to be standardised.”

Instead of commercialising the design, the Queen’s team produced what Dr O’Connor describes as an “Ikea-style” instruction manual and distributed both the battery design and assembly guidance to research groups worldwide.

The initiative has already brought together more than 35 research groups, including teams from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard University and the University of Cambridge, all using identical battery cells and testing protocols.

Dr Josh Bailey, a fellow researcher at Queen’s University Belfast, said: “It’s been fantastic to see that we’re already making global impact. By distributing the Queen’s cell around the world, we have been able to lead a large, international research study.”

He added that the collaboration is “helping to accelerate breakthroughs in long-duration energy storage, advance the transition away from fossil fuels, and firmly position our team at Queen’s as leading the development of clean, reliable energy technologies.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the research highlights that long-duration energy storage is becoming one of the most commercially important technologies supporting the transition to net zero. Reliable, affordable storage allows renewable electricity to be used more efficiently, helping reduce dependence on fossil fuels while making electricity systems more resilient.

The project also demonstrates how sustainability innovation increasingly delivers value by solving several challenges at once. The Queen’s battery reduces costs, uses a more abundant raw material, improves research consistency and encourages international collaboration, all of which could accelerate the commercial deployment of cleaner energy technologies.

Perhaps most importantly, the decision to make the battery design openly available illustrates that collaboration can sometimes create greater long-term impact than protecting intellectual property. As businesses and researchers work towards ambitious climate targets, innovations that are affordable, reproducible and easily shared may prove just as valuable as the scientific breakthroughs themselves, helping sustainable technologies move more quickly from the laboratory into widespread commercial use.

Sustainability-In-Tech : Want A Data Centre In Your Shed ?

Posted on by Paul Stradling

An Essex couple have become the first in the UK to heat their home using a mini data centre in their garden shed, in a trial designed to cut energy bills and support low income households through the transition to net zero.

Pilot Scheme

Terrence and Lesley Bridges live in a modest two bedroom bungalow near Braintree in Essex. Their home is owned by Eastlight Community Homes, a social housing provider, and they are part of a pilot run jointly by UK Power Networks and Thermify through an innovation project called SHIELD. The couple were selected for the pilot because they rely heavily on their heating, especially as Lesley lives with spinal stenosis and is in significant pain when temperatures drop.

Thermify HeatHub – Huge Savings

Since the installation of the Thermify HeatHub, their monthly energy costs have fallen from around £375 to between £40 and £60. Terrence said: “It truly is brilliant. I’m over the moon that we got picked to trial this out. You can’t fault the heating system, it is a 100 per cent improvement on what we had before.” Lesley added: “You don’t need to go to a sauna after coming here.” Their experience is one of the first real world demonstrations of a heating concept that blends clean energy, digital infrastructure and social support.

Who Is Thermify?

The heating unit in the Bridges’ shed is called a HeatHub. It is developed by the British company Thermify, which offers cloud computing services to businesses. Instead of housing its servers in a single large data centre, Thermify installs small clusters in people’s homes, where the heat generated by data processing is captured and used as low cost domestic heating.

The wider programme is actually part of SHIELD, which stands for Smart Heat and Intelligent Energy in Low income Districts. SHIELD is run by UK Power Networks through the Strategic Innovation Fund. Its aim is to help people who would normally be excluded from the shift to low carbon technologies because of high upfront costs. The project brings together Thermify, Eastlight Community Homes, community energy groups and technical partners to develop what they describe as a Social ESCo model. Under this model, equipment such as solar panels, batteries and HeatHubs is funded upfront by an energy services company and repaid over time through the value created by the technologies.

How The Data Centre In Their Shed Works

Inside the HeatHub are around 500 Raspberry Pi Compute Modules, all submerged in a special oil. As these computers run cloud tasks for Thermify’s business clients, the electricity they use becomes heat, which raises the temperature of the surrounding oil. That heat is then transferred into a heat store and the home’s central heating and hot water systems.

The principle is pretty simple. For example, computers turn electricity into information but all the electricity eventually becomes heat. Traditional data centres spend significant amounts of extra electricity on cooling systems that remove the heat and release it into the air. Thermify’s approach uses that unavoidable heat twice by turning it into a resource for the household.

A dedicated network line is installed so the unit can send and receive data without affecting the resident’s broadband. From the resident’s point of view, it behaves much like a boiler, controlled through familiar heating settings. The Bridges’ shed also contains a solar inverter and a battery, meaning their HeatHub is part of a small integrated energy system that stores and manages electricity through the day.

Why It Cut Their Bills

In the Bridges’ case, the combination of the HeatHub, solar panels and battery storage has transformed their energy use. Thermify pays for the electricity needed to run the computing tasks because this is part of its service to business clients. The heat produced from this process is supplied to the home at a low or no cost because the energy is already being paid for. SHIELD tenants who receive HeatHubs also pay a small standing charge for heat, although UK Power Networks expects this to be significantly lower and more predictable than the cost of gas for many low income families.

Thermify points to independent modelling that suggests this kind of distributed computing could reduce carbon emissions from data centre operations by about 75 per cent on average. SHIELD’s own modelling suggests combining HeatHubs with solar and batteries could reduce household energy costs by 20 to 40 per cent and cut heating related emissions by more than 90 per cent.

Data, Energy And Tech Companies

The concept has clear implications for cloud and data centre operators. For example, data centres already account for roughly 2.5 per cent of the UK’s electricity consumption and the sector’s demand is forecast to grow rapidly in the next five years. As more companies expand into artificial intelligence and digital services, pressure is rising to reduce the environmental impact and find practical uses for the heat that data centres produce.

Distributed systems like Thermify’s also offer an alternative to building ever larger centralised facilities. Although HeatHubs cannot handle the heavy workloads required for advanced artificial intelligence, they can run many common tasks such as analytics, apps or batch processing. If rolled out at scale, the model could create a network of tens of thousands of small data nodes that serve business customers while heating homes. SHIELD itself has a long term ambition to deploy up to 100,000 such systems a year by 2030.

The approach may also interest energy companies and grid operators. For example, embedded assets such as HeatHubs can help manage peaks and troughs in local demand and provide flexibility services to the grid. SHIELD is exploring how these devices might be combined with peer to peer energy trading and other smart local energy systems.

Sustainability Advantages

There’s clearly an environmental case for improving overall energy efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. With up to 30 per cent of a data centre’s electricity used solely for cooling, capturing that heat and using it to warm homes can replace the need for gas and reduces the total energy wasted.

There are also potential social benefits to consider here. For example, many low income households cannot afford the upfront investment needed for heat pumps or solar installations. SHIELD’s Social ESCo model aims to solve this by funding the equipment and repaying costs through the value generated by the assets. Early stages of the project show strong interest among tenants who are worried about energy bills but keen to adopt cleaner solutions.

Not A Totally New Idea

It should be noted here that the idea of using data centre heat in buildings is not new. For example, in Devon, a startup called Deep Green operates a washing machine sized digital boiler at a local swimming pool. The servers inside the unit warm the mineral oil surrounding them and the captured heat is used to heat the pool. Reports indicate that the installation has reduced the pool’s gas use by more than half and cut emissions by dozens of tonnes of CO₂ each year. A recent investment from Octopus Energy aims to expand similar units to more than one hundred pools across the UK.

Also, another British company, Heata, attaches small servers to domestic hot water tanks. Homeowners earn a payment for hosting cloud workloads and the heat from the servers warms their water. In mainland Europe, district heating networks in cities such as Odense, Paris and Stockholm already capture heat from large data centres to supply nearby homes and offices.

Key Challenges And Criticisms

Although the Bridges’ results are positive, there are ongoing questions about reliability and long term performance. For example, HeatHubs depend on a steady demand for cloud computing. If business workloads fall or move to other locations there could be uncertainty about how much heat is produced and how backup systems would operate. Trials like SHIELD allow operators to test these scenarios before any wider rollout.

There are also some practical issues to consider. HeatHubs need secure network connections, scheduled maintenance and clear communication so residents understand how the system works. Social landlords also have to consider noise, space and safety. Early feedback from SHIELD has highlighted the importance of strong support and simple user experience.

There is also a broader debate about whether heat reuse can keep pace with the rapid growth in data centre energy demand. Artificial intelligence training and inference use far more electricity than the kind of workloads Thermify deploys. Even with heat capture, growing numbers of data centres will place pressure on local electricity networks. Policymakers and regulators are increasingly encouraging heat reuse but stress that it must be combined with wider grid planning and efficiency measures.

For now, however, the Bridges’ warm bungalow in Essex has become a test case for how computing and heating might come together, offering an early glimpse of a model that could reshape how data centres are built and how homes are heated in the years ahead.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

The trial highlights how digital infrastructure and domestic energy systems can support each other, which is why it is gaining interest across the UK. Data centres are expanding rapidly as businesses adopt artificial intelligence and cloud services, yet their rising electricity use and waste heat are becoming harder to manage. A system that captures this heat and delivers it as affordable, low carbon warmth offers clear benefits for households and creates a more efficient model for the tech companies that rely on constant processing power.

There are important implications for UK businesses here. For example, a distributed network of small data hubs could give companies access to computing capacity with a lower environmental impact, supporting sustainability commitments while easing pressure on the wider grid. Energy providers and local authorities may also see value in systems that help stabilise local demand and offer predictable heating costs for low income residents.

The Social ESCo model is another key part of the story, as it removes the upfront cost barrier that prevents many households from adopting low carbon technologies. If the model proves reliable at scale, it could influence how social housing providers, councils and developers approach retrofit programmes and new energy installations.

Heat reuse is likely to become more common as the UK works towards decarbonising heat. Projects like SHIELD show how data processing, renewable generation and home heating can be combined in a practical way, although long term questions remain around reliability, workload availability and system management. Even so, the Bridges’ experience demonstrates how an integrated approach can reduce bills, cut emissions and provide a template that could be adapted for both homes and businesses in the years ahead.

Sustainability-In-Tech : Repealling Climate Act Sparks Warnings

Posted on by Paul Stradling

A plan to scrap the UK’s Climate Change Act has triggered warnings over energy costs, investor confidence, and the future of net-zero innovation.

What Is The Climate Change Act?

Introduced in 2008 with near-unanimous cross-party support, the Climate Change Act (CCA) is the foundation of the UK’s statutory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It essentially created a legally binding framework for setting five-year carbon budgets, introduced a 2050 target for long-term reductions, and established the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) to advise on progress and hold government to account.

Old Target

In 2019, the original 80 per cent emissions reduction target was amended to require the UK to reach net zero by 2050, a change that also became law. Under the current framework, ministers must now bring forward credible plans for meeting each carbon budget, which are reviewed and assessed by the CCC.

Emissions Have Fallen, Says Government

The CCC’s 2024 progress report states that emissions have now fallen by over 50 per cent compared to 1990 levels. In fact, the government’s own data appears to confirm this, showing that from 1990 to 2022, UK territorial emissions halved while GDP rose by nearly 80 per cent.

The structure created by the Act is widely credited with supporting the growth of offshore wind, driving policy clarity for low-carbon transport, and informing investment decisions across energy, infrastructure, and housing.

What Would Change If The Act Were Repealed?

The recent Conservative Party pledge to repeal the Act would, therefore, remove the legal requirement for the UK to meet its 2050 net zero target and end the system of binding carbon budgets. The CCC’s statutory advisory role would also be removed, taking away a major source of independent oversight.

Without the legal framework in place, ministers would still be able to propose emissions reduction plans, but would no longer be subject to any of the clear targets or formal timelines. The duty to develop cross-government adaptation planning would also fall away, with implications for flood risk management, heat resilience, and long-term infrastructure design.

Repeal would also disrupt the legislative alignment between net zero and other areas of policy, including planning rules, energy regulation, transport decarbonisation plans, and sectoral emissions targets.

What About Energy and Investment?

The UK is already moving towards cleaner energy, e.g. in 2024, low-carbon sources actually generated nearly 74 per cent of Britain’s electricity (up from 68 per cent the previous year). RenewableUK attributed this increase to record solar and wind output, combined with falling demand.

Progress

However, trade groups argue that this progress depends on investor confidence and clear legal and policy structures. Energy UK, for example, has described the Climate Change Act as “the legal bedrock that underpins billions of pounds of international investment,” warning that repealing it would “pull the rug out from under” clean energy growth.

Threat

The UK’s trade association for the solar and energy storage industry, Solar Energy UK, said the Act’s repeal would “threaten the UK’s energy security,” pointing out that solar is now the cheapest form of electricity. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) has also warned that weakening the legal framework could delay project approvals and increase financing costs for clean energy infrastructure.

Globally

For some context, at the global level, BloombergNEF reports that low-carbon energy transition investment reached a record $2.1 trillion in 2024. The UK currently attracts significant capital into offshore wind, grid upgrades, and energy storage, but industry sources have stated that future inflows will depend heavily on predictable, long-term policy (all investors like stability).

Trade and Carbon Border Risks

The EU’s ‘Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism’ (CBAM) is a new policy that puts a charge (tariff) on imports like steel and cement from countries with weaker climate rules. The idea is to stop companies moving production to places with cheaper, high-carbon processes and to encourage cleaner manufacturing globally. The hope is that, as the policy matures, countries with strong domestic carbon governance frameworks can get some preferential treatment, or at least avoid additional charges.

If the UK were to remove its primary legal climate framework, it may, therefore, face difficulties demonstrating continued equivalence with such EU climate regulation. This could expose UK exporters to new administrative burdens or competitiveness risks in carbon-intensive sectors.

Analysts have also highlighted the danger of reputational risks to the UK, i.e. a sudden change in legal commitments may reduce the UK’s leverage in future climate negotiations and make it harder to defend its Paris Agreement targets on the global stage.

Jobs and Regional Growth

The House of Lords Library (drawing on CCC analysis) estimates that between 135,000 and 725,000 net additional jobs could be created by 2030 through the transition to a low-carbon economy. Existing estimates suggest more than 250,000 jobs are already supported by energy transition activities across power, transport, and industrial sectors.

Many of these jobs are concentrated in regional clusters such as Teesside, Humberside, and the East Midlands, where offshore wind, carbon capture, and green hydrogen projects are underway. Trade unions and local authorities have consistently called for long-term certainty to support skills development and investment in supply chains.

Removing the Act would not instantly halt these efforts, but trade bodies argue it would increase uncertainty, potentially deterring future commitments and complicating project timelines.

Impact on Sustainability Tech and Innovation

The Climate Change Act is closely tied to the UK’s net-zero technology ecosystem. For example, it helps create long-term certainty that new low-carbon technologies will be needed and supported, such as green hydrogen, low-carbon heat, battery storage, sustainable fuels, and carbon capture.

Warnings

UK-based renewable energy supplier and tech company, Octopus Energy, has warned that repealing the Act would increase policy risk and make the UK less attractive for future clean tech investment. Also, other firms in areas such as smart grids, EV charging, and electrified logistics have also highlighted the need for legal certainty to support scale-up.

Could Affect Grant Funding Too

The UK’s national funding agency for science and innovation, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), has structured much of its energy and climate R&D around the 2050 net zero target. Grant funding programmes in areas like floating offshore wind, heat decarbonisation, and energy system digitalisation are aligned with CCA commitments. Repeal could, therefore, seriously affect future eligibility and co-funding models.

Also, the CCC’s 2024 progress report warns that several sectors remain underdeveloped, including low-carbon industrial processes, heat pumps, and agricultural emissions reduction. It notes that greater certainty is needed to unlock both public and private capital for innovation.

Harm Industry

Globally, clean tech markets are growing fast, with $1.7 trillion in technology-driven climate solutions deployed in 2024 alone. Analysts warn, therefore, that if the UK weakens its legal climate framework, it could lose industrial ground to jurisdictions offering more predictable pathways to commercialisation and export growth.

Challenges and Criticisms

The proposal to repeal the Climate Change Act has obviously attracted some criticism from a wide range of experts, commentators and institutions, many of whom have emphasised the potential economic, environmental and strategic implications.

For example, a joint letter signed by 124 parliamentarians from Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Green parties described the move as “reckless” and warned that it would damage the UK’s global credibility and economic resilience. They wrote: “Ripping up the Climate Change Act would create uncertainty, stifle innovation, and risk jobs.”

Former members of government, including previous ministers responsible for climate and energy, have also spoken out. Several have publicly defended the 2019 net zero target as a pragmatic, economically grounded goal supported by evidence and investment trends.

While repeal advocates argue that scrapping the Act would reduce bureaucracy and allow more flexible energy policy, critics have said it would simply remove the legal accountability that gives businesses the clarity to invest in the first place.

Others have also raised concerns that the move could weaken consumer and investor trust, particularly among institutions managing green finance and ESG-aligned portfolios, who rely on national legislation as a marker of climate risk.

Where Things Stand Now

Currently, the Climate Change Act remains in force and the UK’s sixth carbon budget, covering 2033–2037, is still legally binding and commits the country to a massive 78 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.

Off Track

However, the CCC’s latest report warns that delivery plans for meeting this target are currently off track, with particular gaps in buildings, transport, and land use. However, it also highlights the growing economic and energy security benefits of continuing the transition at pace.

New Legislation Would Be Needed

It’s also worth noting here that if the Act were to be repealed, Parliament would need to pass new legislation and the outcome would affect not just emissions targets but the entire governance system that has structured UK climate action for more than 15 years.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Repealing the Climate Change Act would not simply remove a symbolic commitment, it would dismantle the legal framework that currently shapes and anchors much of the UK’s energy, industrial, and technology policy. The Act has become embedded in the operations of regulators, investment strategies, funding agencies, and long-term infrastructure plans. Taking it away would introduce a level of uncertainty that cuts across sectors.

For UK businesses, the most immediate consequence would be increased risk around investment planning. Sectors such as manufacturing, transport, construction, energy and finance all rely to some degree on the predictability that the Act provides. Without it, firms may delay decisions, reconsider capital allocations, or struggle to justify long-term net zero strategies to shareholders and investors. This is particularly relevant at a time when international capital is flowing into jurisdictions with strong, consistent frameworks.

Beyond business, the impact would also be felt across government departments, local authorities, and academic institutions whose plans and programmes are currently tied to the Act’s targets. A change in the legal foundation would not just affect high-level goals, but could also cut across planning policy, public procurement, grant funding, regulatory enforcement, and reporting standards.

Also, there is a wider concern that removing a well-established and legally binding framework at a time when global clean technology markets are expanding could make it harder for the UK to compete. Whether in securing supply chain investment, commercialising innovation, or exporting clean solutions, confidence in the UK’s direction of travel remains a critical factor.

While debate will certainly continue around the best route to net zero, the core question for many is not whether climate policy should evolve, but whether it should remain anchored in law. The decision to repeal or retain the Climate Change Act is likely to be seen not just as a political choice, but as a signal to markets, partners, and the next generation of innovators about the UK’s long-term direction.