JamesPa

Note however that, so far as I can tell from the literature, the advantage @DanDeerefers to (heating only the top) is lost should you subsequently fit an ashp. They sell an ashp conversion kit comprising PHE and pump which must surely destratify the tank. Unless I (and @sharpener) misunderstood what they are saying

Meanwhile, in mainland Europe... https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/02/eu-releases-strategy-for-heat-pump-rollout/

I imagine that part of the policy design brief was that it must cost nothing, so that's hardly surprising, sadly. There are at least two organisations that appear to be focussed on 'proper' education, heat geek and ultimate renewables, doubtless there are others that I haven't yet come across. I haven't heard anything from these organisations about planning reform or challenging the mcs position. Does anyone here know if they (or any other organisation with a potential interest) is doing so?

Good to know, thanks. I really don't get why any additional certification (beyond what the DNO accepts) is needed. Payments are based on metered figures after all so why does anyone care provided that the DNO is happy. Bizarre unless I'm missing something..

Unfortunately paying the planning fee might not be enough. If your LPA is anything like mine, and I hear that many are, they impose an expensive to demonstrate and in practice unachievable noise spec if you seek express consent. 9 months downstream I'm still fighting it. Others would give up.

I guess the question is, why did the government build mcs into seg (thus giving the energy companies the opportunity to hide behind it). Someone is still pulling strings even though subsidies have disappeared.

I said it increases the incentive, not that its automatic. The only point I'm making here is that years after subsidies disappeared mcs still have significant control over the pv market because of the export payments, just as they do over heat pumps, even ignoring subsidies, because of PD. @markocosicwas envisaging a time when their control of heat pumps became irrelevant because the subsidy gravy train comes to an end, and I was speculating that, based on solar pv, I wouldn't be so confident. Personally I wish mcs would go up in a puff of smoke tomorrow because they cause me nothing but grief, but that's not going to happen. My comment about murdering the economics was a bit over stated, but the export tariff does help with the economics. I get 15p per kWh for exporting about half my production and thats a useful incentive.

What am I basing what on, no export payments or murders the economics?

Thereby driving up the market for batteries which are environmentally hostile, at least for now.

I had the same thought. Annuity revenues, lovely for those who are capital-rich and perpetual poverty for everyone else. It's the way the world is going though.

Fair enough, no export payments though as @markocosicpoints out, which murders the economics.

Yeah I know, I went down this route. But if your LPA is anything like mine, and I hear that many are, they impose an expensive to demonstrate and in practice unachievable noise spec.

True, but you can't get paid export to the grid without mcs, I think (I believe the providers have discretion over this, don't know if they exercise it, mine doesn't.

I hope you are right about this, seriously. But the pv market remains tied to mcs years after subsidies ceased, and currently the mcs guys are reluctant to install panels without batteries because batteries are where the margins are. How certain are you that the hp market won't suffer the same fate. The latest consultation says nothing about relaxing the pd rules and until this happens mcs has a pretty secure grip.

I didn't say you disagreed, nor did I say you agreed. If I thought you had done either I wouldn't have asked the question - which incidentally I don't think you have answered.

Looks clear enough to me and it must apply everywhere because it points up what MCS must do and MCS does it. Have a look here: https://mcscertified.com/installers-manufacturers/becoming-certified/ It is very much a close shop there but any other body could set up to do the same thing and be able to certify. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1146981/clean_heat_market_mechanism.pdf I agree, on reflection, with @MikeSharp01 The proposals have to potential to create serious market distortion at year end if other organisations don't step in. Good luck to any self builder or anyone who doesn't want to use MCS if manufacturers have shortages of supply, They will simply refuse to sell to anyone who doesn't get them a credit.

Perhaps. As long as the market is open to anyone then whatever is the best that can happen, will happen. Hungrier certainly, the baby boomers have conspired to ensure that is the case. Younger obviously, but shouldn't be a criterion. Smarter, not sure there is any evidence for that (sadly). I hope we can agree that, so long as anyone can apply on an equal footing then we get the best we can get.

I read it the same way. The interest for me was the principle not the application to Mixergy tanks.

Not planners for certain. Its defined (sort of) on page 24 of the consultation, but its unclear, at least to me, whether this definition applies to all 21 times that MCS is invoked in the document, or only the one specifically dealt with on page 24. "Requirements of an appropriate certification scheme (i.e. MCS or an equivalent): Here is the text

Judging by this consultation the Government plan is further to embed MCS in relation to heat pumps. It says 'MCS or equivalent' throughout but there is no equivalent, and, to the best of my knowledge, no equivalent currently being developed https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1146981/clean_heat_market_mechanism.pdf A2A is also excluded from earning a credit for the manufacturers.

Makes sense. Am I to deduce that the flow temp of the CH never goes below the tank temp, or is it the case that when it does you divert out of the coil.

Yes, but lets find out if there is general agreement, which for a while there appeared to be, or two factions, which it appears more recently may be the case. Hence why I asked: @SimonD , @Roger440do you at least agree (as I and many others appear to) with @markocosicon the above quote, if you do then there is actually a remarkable level of consensus, if you don't then there are probably two distinct factions.

All agreed, so long as nobody (kitchen fitters included) are excluded. Aptitude is all that should matter, not history/age. Targetting and exclusion are two different things. That's just big business and governments. Top down direction, regulation and rules give the illusion of control whilst stifling innovation and customer service. I used to work in a large organisation and hated it for that reason (there were some upsides though). Governments the same, lets regulate/measure everything so we can control it, except you cant because there are people at the sharp end. A better plan is to free people to do a good job as they see it within the minimum of guidelines (almost never rules), enable them by training, and have some mechanism first to support then, if support fails, weed out those who cant/wont. @SimonD , @Roger440do you at least agree (as I and many others appear to) with @markocosicon the above quote, if you do then there is actually a remarkable level of consensus, if you don't then there are probably two distinct factions.

Fully agreed, and I cant see any possible legitimate argument against this position, only one where the underlying motivation is to create an effective closed shop under the guise of consumer protection. Planning law is about the effect on the public built environment, nothing more and nothing less, internal design of hidden components play no part. Fully agreed that numeracy and multi-trade is needed (for the design at least), as well as problem solving and thinking on your feet out of the box. To me the design of a retrofit is a fairly typical system engineering problem, not a simple plug-together solution, which is what we are currently being forced to accept. But surely its unfair to assume that no 'middle age plumbers/electricians' are capable or interested in this. People do retrain, sometime successfully sometimes not. Perhaps an aptitude test is needed? Electricians in particular are quite used to calculations, particularly those that bridge the domestic/commercial 'divide' (which some at least do).

Thanks. So if I understand it correctly (which almost certainly I don't!) its plumbed for the CH as a (4 port?) stratified buffer tank (two taps at top two at bottom, or all towards the bottom?) which runs (without WC ?) at FT=42 and with the DHW heat exchanger at (or tapped off from) the top of the tank?