Featured Post from Aston University

Gas boiler ban: how to make sure everyone can afford low-carbon heating

Jul 2, 2021

4 min

Dr Ahmad Beltagui


Most of us only think about central heating when it stops working or when the fuel bills arrive. So reports of an impending ban on gas boilers in the UK – and news that green alternatives such as heat pumps can cost over £10,000 – might have been a nasty shock for many.


Most UK households rely on gas boilers, which are more efficient than ever, but still burn fossil fuels. As a result, domestic heating accounts for over a third of greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of energy consumption nationwide.


Tackling climate change means changing how we heat our homes. But this is possible without turning warmth and comfort into unaffordable luxuries. Our research has looked at how business models can break this trade-off between people and the planet. One involves reimagining heating as a service.


When buying a boiler, a customer typically pays someone to buy and install it. They then sign a contract with an energy company to provide the fuel and find another service provider to fix the boiler when it breaks down. Wouldn’t it be simpler to sign one contract with one company that could guarantee a steady supply of heat?


A manufacturer would be responsible for installing the heating system and for ensuring it works. Since the manufacturer would be paid for delivering heat, you wouldn’t be billed for repairs or have to pay steep upfront installation costs – you’d simply have to keep up with flat monthly payments. By aligning the objectives of all parties, “heat as a service” allows the risks and rewards of investing in new technologies like heat pumps to be shared.


Fuelling poverty


Low-carbon technologies such as heat pumps can go a long way to achieving net zero targets. Unlike a boiler, heat pumps move heat from warm to cold spaces rather than generate it, operating in a similar way to air conditioning.


Heat pumps run on electricity and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions if their power comes from low-carbon sources. Waste heat from sewage plants and other facilities can even be redirected to supply home central heating systems with the right infrastructure, such as district heat networks. But most UK homes have gas on tap, and new heating technologies are expensive to install and manage. Much of the required infrastructure needs to be funded.


Heat pumps decarbonise home heating by replacing fossil fuel burning boilers. I AM NIKOM/Shutterstock


Over two million households in England suffer from fuel poverty. This means that paying fuel bills would leave them with nothing left over for food and other necessities. More efficient, low-carbon heating can bring those bills down, but when faced with the decision to heat or eat, is it fair to expect people to invest in expensive technology? If these technologies are unaffordable, can we hope for the needed revolution in domestic heating?


The slow adoption of rooftop solar panels and electric cars demonstrates what a hard sell these technologies can be for cash-strapped consumers. Technology is not enough. Instead, we need to change the business logic for bringing technology into our homes.


Heat as a service


Digital technology has made it easier for almost everything we use, from music to cars and clothing, to be delivered as a service. Record stores selling albums now compete with online streaming services which offer a vast library of music ready to be played with a monthly subscription. Taxi drivers and car dealers have had to adjust to ride-sharing services and even fast-fashion companies are now threatened by online rental services, which help old clothes find new purpose.


Businesses offer software as a service and even manufacturing as a service, which take away the need for upfront investment and unexpected bills and allow customers to access and pay for what they need with a single fee or subscription. Heat as a service does something similar by cutting out the complexity of installing, maintaining and fuelling a boiler or heat pump.


In the winter of 2017, over 100 UK homes were offered a heat plan, which guaranteed an indoor temperature for an arranged monthly fee. Customers often struggle to keep track of how much they spend on heating, so the plan offered some peace of mind. The trial involved collaboration between local authorities, an energy company and a boiler manufacturer, plus digital tool providers that helped monitor and control the temperature. Most participants found they were more comfortable and were more likely to consider low-carbon heating on its own, and particularly as part of an arrangement like heat as a service.


Paying for heating technologies that are kinder to the planet is likely to be too expensive for lots of people. Relying on households to make these preparations on their own would also be disastrous for decarbonisation. A recent report by the International Energy Agency forecasted that less than 5% of the total emissions reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050 can be expected to come from such behaviour changes among the general public. Rather than expecting households to buy heat pumps, states and energy utilities should offer them low-carbon heating as a service.


This article was co-written by Ahmad Beltagui, Andreas Schroeder, and Omid Omidvar, of Aston University
Connect with:
Dr Ahmad Beltagui

Dr Ahmad Beltagui

Associate Professor of Service Operations and Innovation Management

Dr Beltagui has expertise in design-led management, service business model innovation and industry transition.

ServitizationDesign-Led ManagementInnovationService OperationsSupply Chain
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by