Process, Controls & Plant Focus on: CHP 20 | Plant & Works Engineering www.pwemag.co.uk June/July 2026 As many of the UK’s CHP installations approach major overhaul intervals, plant managers are being forced to balance maintenance costs, asset condition, heat utilisation and decarbonisation targets. The question facing many sites is no longer whether CHP has a future, but whether existing assets continue to justify further investment. When does CHP asset life extension still make sense? Gas-fired CHP has spent much of the past two decades being promoted as one of the most efficient ways to generate energy on site, yet many of the organisations that invested heavily in the technology are now reassessing its place within long-term decarbonisation strategies. As the UK’s electricity grid continues to reduce its carbon intensity and net zero commitments move closer to operational reality, plant managers are increasingly being asked whether existing CHP assets remain fit for the future. For many operators, however, the debate looks rather different from the way it is often presented in policy discussions. The immediate concern is rarely whether CHP has a theoretical role in a low-carbon energy system several decades from now. Instead, attention is focused on assets that have accumulated tens of thousands of operating hours, major overhauls that can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and the practical question of whether further investment can still be justified. Timing The timing is significant because a large proportion of the UK’s CHP fleet was installed between the mid-2000s and mid2010s. Many of those systems are now reaching an age where decisions that have been postponed for years can no longer be avoided. Engines require major refurbishment, control systems are becoming obsolete, spare parts are becoming harder to source and maintenance costs are beginning to rise. At the same time, organisations face increasing pressure to reduce emissions, manage energy costs and demonstrate progress towards sustainability targets. Much of the uncertainty surrounding CHP stems from the changing nature of the UK’s electricity system. When many existing installations were commissioned, coal-fired generation still formed a substantial part of the national energy mix and the carbon benefits of generating electricity on site were relatively easy to demonstrate. Producing electricity while recovering useful heat often delivered a clear advantage over purchasing grid electricity and generating heat separately through conventional boilers. That calculation has become more complicated as renewable generation has expanded and the carbon intensity of grid electricity has fallen. It would be difficult to argue that CHP delivers the same environmental benefits it did 15 years ago, particularly on sites where heat demand is inconsistent or poorly matched to plant output.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ0NzM=