Roger440

They won't. It's not debatable. They won't do it. The publically stated position is as you say. However, when you read the detail of the policy, there are so many get outs and exclusions, most people won't get it. It's great PR, significantly divorced from reality. Happy to take that debate offline, as it's not really for this thread.

Dave says sensible real world things.

Heat pumps and solar panels absolutely are not cost neutral for most people if they already have a house with heating and power. Suggesting otherwise is complete nonsense. If it was, literally everyone would be doing it. The actual reality is payback periods are long and uncertain, and require considerable upfront costs Let's not try to pretend otherwise.

Steady with those outbreaks if common sense. Government could sort out the false market forcing our electricity prices up tommorow. But they won't, as making mad money for chums is way more important than worrying about mere climate change. See post above.

Again, you misundestand my point. Let's assume all the research is 100% correct. Great. Chances of the world adopting the outcomes of that research. None. Never going to happen. You want people to be significantly poorer, to reduce their quality of life, for intangible benefits at some unknown point in the future at an unknown cost. Humans don't work like that. Especially when we all know, those in power will disapply any such pain from themselves. That's the real world. You might not like it, but it's how it is.

Im not sure you read or understood what i said. Climate change is real. I have eyes, i can see. Its the idea that we are going to stop it thats a fantasy. The idea that paying out extra dosh will somehow stop or reduce the effects is bonkers. We should be spending money to prepare for the inevitable, not spending money to try and stop it. Sadly, we will go bankrupt trying to stop it. Im pretty convinced of that.

Agreed, we are are way off the original post.

It IS a domestic connection. Ive tried everything. Point blank refusal on the basis there only 2 properties on the transformer. Pay up or dont have it. Their policy document outlines their justification. I have no further argument to make. They make the rules. The heat pump and EV charger angle did not work. If i want those things i will need to generate my own power.

Long story discussed elsewhere. Its mostly for the non contestable work. Needs a new transformer. And therefore a new double pole arrangement too. Therefore i must pay to upgrade THEIR infrastructure in full. Which you wont be surprised to know, im not going to do. Its like filling up at the petrol station, then being told you need to pay for the petrol pump.

Why have you involved the local authority? No good can come from that. Either, find a Fensa installer (they self certificate, fensa themselves wil be nowhere to be seen) that is happy to fit without based on the lack of air tightness, Or do as Marshian suggested up there ^^^^ Or tell no one and just crack on. Which would be my preferred option.

Why cant you have a borehole? Likely to be the easiest and cheapest solution.

Id suggest ludicrous electricity connection quotes are not an "outlier" if this forum is anything to go by. Its a regular topic on here. That most on here can afford multiple tens of thousands for their supply, doesnt make it reasonable. I only refer to the barn as its nearer to the house. The house is 200 ft away. Lets call it a connection to the house. But it would still be £20k. Had our government adopted such a short termist view back when it decided to make electricity available across the nation, no one outside big towns and cities would have got electricity. Fortunately, they were a bit more forward thinking. Meanwhile, i will struggle on with my 60 amp supply. Not expecting sympathy, its my problem and my problem alone, but dont try to suggest government is serious or suggest i should be paying for the worlds problems (yes, i know that wasnt you) Have they fixed the nonsense of linking renewables prices to gas? Thought not. A more relevant example that affects everyone of us. Which if fixed would transform the economics of ASHP's to being a no brainer.

You say such needs to be included. They dont, and they arent. The idea that you can somehow change the outcome of climate change is fantasy. Especially by fitting a ASHP. Save your hyperbole for others. You are wasting your energy with me. If government were serious, it wouldnt be costing £20k to get the power to run an ASHP 50ft from a pole in my field to my barn. That it IS £20k is merely a measure of how little importance is attached to allowing people to have the necessary power. I might start taking it seriously if government does....... Chronic thread drift.

No. The climates going to change irrespective of my heating choices. Nothing i do, or the country does will make one iota of difference to the future of that. If you want to believe that you fitting a ASHP will, you are of course welcome. If you want to pay to change my curently perfectly functioning heating,for a more expensive type, i am of course happy to accept your generous donations. Im guessing if i wait long enough, the government will pay me to change it anyway, so ill wait.

We may be talking cross purposes? I meant your quoted pence per kWh.

A nice diesel genset. Proved invaluable last winter during the storm when we lost power for over 2 days. I need a quieter one though.

Nothing to stop you running your oil boiler at a lower temp. Could even get it to condense! Ive screwed mine well down. Big reduction in cycling. Lower radiator temps. Much lower. Im not uncomfortable. Fortunately im able to understand the concept. Sadly most people dont, and never will, so will complain their ASHP system is no good, even if its just fine. Whatever you may or may not think, perception is reality.

Id bet good money that electricity isnt getting cheaper anytime soon. Indeed, quite the opposite. Oil will of course continue to fluctuate based on global events, but unless government artifically raise it be some devious tax means, then im confident it will continue to be a cost effective method of heating.

But you have failed to consider your capital investment to get you to that point. Which is considerable, or certainly would be had you paid to have it done. If i factor in the capital cost, ill likely be dead before i break even. Of course, if you are starting with no heating system at all then that skews thing a bit more in favour of ASHP and solar.

Eh? Theres literally millions of houses with gas boilers, including the OP. I think if it was a "massive risk" they wouldnt be in said millions of homes.

No tinkering, except the tinkering you needed to do to get it to work as its best!!!! Amusing, if nothing else, but your average customer just isnt going to do that. Nor is the average installer, as he will be long gone. If i asked the average man on the clapham omnibus, if they had weather comp on their heating, how many would even know what you were on about? How much less efficent would it have been if you hadnt optimised it? Oil is currently the cheapest form of heating. Its going to be a mighty good installation to be cheaper. Can it be done? i would think so. Is it going to be without lots fine tuning by the owner (as per many on here)? No.

Im on a few groups of people with old houses. Lots of unhappiness there, but, i know a fair few people with them. None of them are happy with them. Some are because it doesnt respond like their old system, but generally its the running cost. ie, much more than the previous system they had (mostly oil). Theres a reason take up is low. Primarily ludicrous cost, but we know thats just grant harvesters driving the price up, along with the MCS cartel, but people talk to each other still. Mad i know, but it does happen. But running costs seem to be a close second. High running costs says not installed/designed properly to me. Accepting that my sample of actual real world experience isnt very big, I would be very surprised if it wasnt the case that the majority of installations are poor to hopeless. It seems unlikely that the trades doing ASHP's are streets ahead of the rest of the building trade and doing a great job. All that said, ive started to ignore the ASHP thing as i, realistically, will struggle to have one with my weedy incoming supply and still run everything else. I was reasonably confident i could make it work, primarily as i know how much energy the house uses.

Agreed. But the source of heat doesnt actually matter if the tank cant be any bigger, its still not going to deliver 4 consecutive showers.

Based on your comments, id say fit an electric shower. Then you can have a shower all day if you want. Problem solved. Meanwhile, back to your boiler. Yes, you can fit an ASHP and yes it will be ok. In theory. The reality out in the realkworld is that its likely not to be well installed. People on here are not a good cross section of the population at large, as they are invariably much better informed and likely to take a very active part in the decisions on what gets installed. And because they understand, are willing and able to adapt their behaviours to suit the way an ASHP works. Again, most of the population dont and wont. They expect to turn the thermostat and the rads to be toasty hot 10 mins later. If you can/want to do all that, thats fine. If not, id just nail another gas boiler in. Cheap and simple. There are no downside risks to that. With ASHP there are lots of downside risks unless you are actively involved.

This is what i did. broke it up as far down as i could reasonalby achieve, filled and then for good measure capped it with a bit of concrete.