JamesPa

I would buy that argument if the principal cost was the heat pump itself. But it isn't, it's the installation of the HP and in particular the associated changes. The installed price needs to come down to 4K or thereabouts. How does the industry plan to achieve that? What then? If we need to heat our homes, how are we going to do it without burning carbon? If you have the answer please tell us. If you think we don't need to heat our homes please explain why. However much we rethink economics these seem fundamental, at least to me.

+1, +1, +1 Well exactly. I must say this discussion has proved rather demoralising. Lots of people finding problems with any suggestion for change, very few positive suggestions for alternative ways to eliminate our carbon emissions, or for refinements of the original idea (which I said was deliberately provocative) to move towards a solution. So lets continue with the heat pump industry being a bit-player in the heating market, with no credible plan to scale up to the extent it must, continue burning fossil fuels, and hope magic saves our kids. Alternatively lets have some positive suggestions as to what we can do to get installed heat pumps in a retrofit situation down to, say, £4K (without subsidy), which is what will be needed to achieve mass roll out. Also achieving, say, 1Million installs per year. Or perhaps someone in the industry can tell us what their roadmap is to this.

agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed (agreed). But @JohnMo apparently wants the 'alternative' planning restrictions to extend to the internal engineering as well, mirroring the entirety of the MCS standards. That's got nothing at all to do with noise (or indeed the whole point of planning restrictions).

Why the full set may I ask. a) Only the noise standards affect the neighbourhood, and planning rules are supposed to be about the effect on the neighbourhood. Anything internal to the property is a matter for building regulations not planning. b) And if you reproduce the full set of MCS standards without certification, how is it enforced, and aren't you just perpetuating the restrictions on innovation? Seems like a half-hearted measure which you are proposing which preserves the status quo, except for those who are complete cowboys. No such planning requirements for gas boilers, why for heat pumps?

Seems like a good start. What, if anything, do you think the 'mirror' standard should cover, just noise, or other stuff also included within MCS. (currently the PD requirements include, in addition to MCS: <=0.6 cu m, >= 1m from boundary >= 1m from edge of a flat roof if installed on a flat roof, not on a pitched roof only one for any dwelling or block of flats used solely for heating sited so as to minimise effect on external appearance and amenity of the area)

Thaks for confirming that so tied basically. Meanwhile the 'Hydrogen Ready' brigade have a plumber on every street corner ready and able to install with no planning consent needed for a few £K. Strikes me that the Hydrogen Ready brigade are the winners here, and we are all the losers.

except that the legislation doesn't say 'MCS Noise Standards, it says 'MCS Planning Standards or other equivalent standards'. And the 'MCS Planning Standards', defined by MCS, require MCS installation and design, so an equivalent would (presumably) need to have similar constraints. If it were that easy, why has nobody done it. Bad drafting of the regs, I grant, but fact nonetheless

In summary - (a) pay even more money (!), (b) Pay someone you trust...but only if they are MCS accredited or you have applied for and received express planning consent (else its unlawful) (c) learn to do it yourself, or (d) wait 'until more folks are trained'. I would submit that (a) is not even faintly practical (and certainly not attractive) for most folks (b) is perhaps the most practical, but unlikely to be attractive other than to the very persistent (like me) (c) is not possible other than for a select few and (d) well fair enough, but (seriously) where are they coming from - the 'mcs accredited garbage' scheme? Unless the industry bucks up its socks, gets some traction with Government and changes things bigtime then we are all messed up. My fear is that 'the industry' is quite happy being a niche player making good margins on a small number of jobs. My hope is that this is incorrect. Meanwhile the 'Hydrogen Ready' brigade have a plumber on every street corner ready and able to install with no planning consent needed for a few £K. According to its website MCS became a charitable foundation independent of Government in 2018, and decided to do so in 2015. its revenue comes almost exclusively from trading (Yellow = trading activities, Green = Investments) And its tts trading arm, MCS service company, states in its most recent accounts that So it appears that it is funded by the industry. Are you so sure that 'the industry hates MCS'? However it seems we do agree on one thing, that MCS is part of the problem not part of the solution. The question then becomes, how to abolish/replace it?

I wrote to flexi-orb (who are developing competing standards) about this point, and apparently its not that simple. They say that, to get their standard recognised it has to be independently authenticated. Currently they are working on solar PV only (low hanging fruit?)

Not at all. Id like to do it legally to the correct noise spec but not have to bother with the 'MCS accredited garbage' (your words!). The PD issue is in part an industry problem. The legislation says that an ASHP is PD if it 'complies with MCS Planning standards'. Its MCS (ie the industry, or at least a part of it) that has defined 'MCS Planning Standards' as the noise standard plus the requirement for it to be installed and designed by an MCS registered contractor. So the industry is not innocent here, albeit that the Government remains culpable.

That would work, provided that they couldn't tell that their choice was being limited. So it needs a thermostat control where the dial can be varied over the full range but which doesn't actually affect the control point over that full range. A sort of pseudo placebo! You might have missed my very serious question. If 'MCS accredited' is 'garbage', whats the solution? My personal view is that I'd rather trust a local tradesman who values their reputation to do the right thing and put it right if they don't than some 'MCS accredited garbage' (your words!) company formed for the purpose of hoovering up government grants. But currently these guys are effectively excluded from the market and I don't have the option, unless I go through extraordinary hoops, for the reason set out upthread. Just another comment about 'which over 10-20 years quickly pays for some upgrades to make it work at a lower temp hence it not being popular'. Quite likely true, but cash flow matters and many simply do not have the capital funds available and may prefer a higher running cost in return for a lower capital cost, or to stage the process. Currently they are denied that choice.

Not really Needs express planning consent because its not permitted development unless done by an MCS installer to an MCS design. LPA want me to be 10dB below ambient, ambient is so quiet you cannot hear it inside (thus LPA requirement stupid), 10dB below ambient unachievable.

Nope. The problem is one group is sedentary, the other group is active, and neither understand rate of change. They will just complain. Better I fear to have placebo controls!

Does Tado control flow temp of ASHPs, or is on/off only. if the latter surely not the solution.

So whats the solution then if 'MCS accredited' is 'garbage', bearing in mind a SCOP of 3 is good enough to equal the cost of gas at current prices which are distorted in favour of gas. Currently 'MCS accredited garbage' is mandated by Government.

That's getting much less true with time, but of course there are still a substantial number of people who, as you say, don't consider it a problem. My sense is that the biggest issue now is not the people who don't consider it a problem, its the people who don't feel an urgency to do something and/or somehow think magic will fix it and/or certainly aren't prepared to consider changing the way they live or thinking out of the box to help. That's why I'm suggesting a focus on practical solutions which can be built with technology available now or, say, within 12 months. I, personally, want to put in a heat pump, but the industry and the regulation wont let me unless I do it all myself. I cannot be the only person in this situation and there must be a much larger body of people who could easily be persuaded (perhaps when their gas boiler needs replacing) if it were made easier. But its been made very hard, largely so far as I can see by the 'industry' and the government. Why and how to fix it is the question, the current system is not working that's for sure.

er, same problem I had in a work (community centre) scenario, one group whacks the thermostat up to 30C, the next group, a couple of hours later, turns it down to 10. As mentioned above I seriously considered installing placebo controls as @ProDave says, but never had the guts to implement it. The thing is, people, in all their forms, are part of the system and we have to accept that. A bit can be done with education but people will remain people. Notwithstanding this we need solutions, not perfect ones, just ones which are good enough (or thereabouts). Otherwise we are reliant on @SteamyTeas hopium or unobtainium to fix climate change, a problem we know we have. That is the purpose behind this post, to discover whether we could, at least for some (I suspect fairly large number of) cases, depart from the perceived wisdom that we have to rip out much of a functioning heating system when fitting an ASHP, however desirable it may be to do so. The reason for the discussion is that ripping out much of a functioning heating system when fitting an ASHP is simply not a solution that the customer will buy in many, probably most, cases. My sense remains that we can, maybe not in exactly the way described and certainly not in every case (and possibly not yet in the north, particularly the north east, of the country). Yet currently the regulation and the installation industry leaves us pretty much no choice, unless we are prepared to DiY it. Lets keep discussing, but how about some focus on practical solutions which can be built with technology available now or, say, within 12 months? Its all too easy to find a problem and blame 'the politicians' for not solving it, the real challenge is to find a solution that we can task the politicians with implementing! The 'hydrogen-ready' mob wont wait, they are coming after the ASHP industry with their 'magic' solution which, conveniently, allows us to keep installing gas boilers whilst relieving many of guilt.

On my aging Worcester Bosch system boiler its in the installer 'menu' (not really a menu, the 'display' is a 4 digit 8 segment LED),. You get to this by playing some odd tricks with the DHW flow temp and CH flow temp dials (reminiscent of opening a safe). The manual explains it quite clearly though.

That's certainly not the intention and I apologise if it was perceived that way. We need people from the whole spectrum from 'install crap - install middle ground - install perfection' to comment if only because that represents the customer base! Agree in principle, but back in the real world hardly anybody is going to pay the price of a complete system rip out. So perfection gets in the way of better than doing nothing. Lets Face facts, a mass rip out of existing properties is just not going to happen, desirable though it may be! So we have to accept a less than perfect solution if we are to have any solution at all. No doubt that basic and easy jobs like installing loft insulation, eliminating major drafts, and cavity wall insulation if you have cavity walls (and arguably double glazing) should come first. But we have plenty of houses where the reasonably easy has already been done, where the demand is in the 4-12kW region easily accessible by ASHPs. Are you saying we should obsess with 'fabric first' once these have ben done and we are within the range easily achievable by an ASHP, I would suggest that that's not the right approach as there comes a point where you reach the point of diminishing returns with insulation and its easier to reduce carbon by changing the heating source. I do agree that Octupus should be upfront though, as should this whole industry. I did the calculations based on LGs specs and the temperature profile in the South of England. I am not making any claims for colder climes as I haven't done the maths (but I have posted the model so somebody else can). Someone upthread reports an achieved SCOP of 3 at 55 (versus 3.2 predicted), in a location further north with an earlier model LG HP, suggesting LGs specs aren't that far off. 3 is good enough with the current relationship between gas prices and electricity prices, which is artificially tilted in favour of gas (a tilt which is likely to change). For houses that this suits and for people who will buy, yes. A2W is part of the solution (perhaps the biggest part given our legacy), A2A is part of the solution and niche products like infra red heating is also part of the solution. No one size fits all , each need a workable model. I strongly suspect you are right there, my house runs quite happily at 55C despite the fact it was designed for 70C. like many Ive upgraded the insulation since the CH was first put in. Fortunately that plays to my suggestion not against it, if many houses can already ruin at 55C why insist on all the system upgrades that the 'industry' currently more or less insists on doing. Why not just whack in an ASHP with well adjusted WC running at 55C, and offer the upgrades as an optional add on.

For the avoidance of doubt Im not denying the political issues and agree that they are major, I'm just trying to avoid discussing for now while we work out what we want the politicians to enable. They don't have the solutions, of that I'm convinced, the public wont stand vast subsidies for any length of time, and neither will the public stand being forced to spend 15K on replacing a gas boiler with new technology when replacing it with a gas boiler would cost say 4K (installed). Its just not saleable! The 'hydrogen ready' brigade know this and are ruthlessly exploiting it, even though they also know that hydrogen will almost certainly cost 30% more than electricity, and have only the same efficiency as gas, thus will be 4 times more expensive to run that a heat pump. They dont actually care about this, it simply means that they can keep selling gas boilers and, when the truth is outed, claim that the switch away from gas is 'too expensive to afford'. So we need workable ideas for heat pumps which could be implemented by politicians/the industry. Once we know what these workable ideas are (hence the post and the invitation to critique it), perhaps we could go about lobbying. So far I think the summary is: 1. nobody has yet put forward a solid reason to dispute the basic premise of the post (where is @markocosic - he usually disputes any suggestion that departs from absolute perfection) 2. many agree that it would be helpful, perhaps necessary, to separate control from heat engine 3. all agree that there are regulatory/political barriers 4. several thing that A2A also forms a part of the toolbox 5. most/all agree that the heating technology is only a part of the 'system solution' and that insulation is the other major physical part. Incidentally I agree with this but would argue that the 'system solution' includes the regulatory and industry environments and that these are equally a part, but that until we understand the technical solutions we cant get these right.

+1 but - On/off switch or temperature control? I don't think most people want to freeze at night (some are forced to sadly), but they do want to turn down the central heating quite a lot, which should be achieved by turning down the flow temp (although they shouldn't have to know this!). This may or may not result in the actual heating turning off, again they shouldn't have to know this.

+1 on this one, but a problem which is outside our 'control'. Flow temp, heating/cooling and on/off are the essential controls for the heat pump part, and a standard interface to these would separate the control complexity from the basic heat engine. Individual installers would then become familiar with one or two controllers, and could pick the heat engine suitable to the situation. Homely is an attempt to do this, but, at least in some cases, requires a cloud connection which, as you say, is not on for a central heating system. I fear, however, that the might of the big manufacturers will perpetuate the current situation, so, unless regulation steps in (which would, I imagine, need to be at the level of the EU as a minimum to sway manufacturers), I think it likely that the heat engine and the controls will remain inextricably linked for the foreseeable future.

They do filter installs yes. I think its by house size (demand) and whether there is a convenient location for the HP. I would characterise the post as suggesting to replace the gas/oil boiler with an ASHP configured to be sufficiently close to equivalent that it doesn't necessarily need ancillary works. Currently we make it necessary to do all the ancillary works, in many cases it isn't if we accept a modest loss of efficiency. Sizing (of the system not individual radiators) is a bit of an issue, but we have data here - the existing gas/oil consumption . This, based on my personal experience, is at least as reliable as full, paid for, surveys. Even if you do a full survey its only £300, not several 1000s which the ancillary works cost. In the way its currently done, no, it doesn't and wont (IMHO) ever fly. Hence the post Hence the post. Essentially I am suggesting way to change the way we do things so that the conversion from gas/oil to A2W is relatively straightforward, and results is approximately the same running costs (at current price ratios). The tweaking to make it super efficient, which we currently insist on bundling with the conversion, is essentially what results in all the ancillary works. this can be offered as an optional upgrade, not bundled. It requires a change of mindset (and of regulation) which is what I am tilting at. Agree, lets continue the debate! Once we have some well formed ideas we might be able to find ways to filter up/out. Precisely, that's the only way forward.

Agree. I know one person who has had, and is pleased with, their Octopus install. More power to their elbow if this is typical, and they probably have some clout with Government as they have bailed out quite a few electricity companies. However Octopus alone wont cut it (in fairness they probably know this) and they are still dependent on the 5K grant to get the installed price down to the price of a gas boiler.

Thanks for all the responses, keep them coming, they help innovation. I'm not going to comment on the 'politics', that's for another forum altogether and for an election within the next two years. Nor am I even going to try to solve every problem (eg insulation , north-south climate differences...) at once, that's too difficult, which is why we generally partition things into manageable chunks. However: Which is sort of the whole point of the post. ASHPs are actually pretty simple, they are basically a fridge, but we make the installation complicated by trying to optimise them, leading to ridiculously high installed prices (2 grand - more like 10-15 grand at present). Worse still the 'rules' and the 'established practice' mean that we are bullied into making the installation ridiculously complicated, with the result that hardly any actually get installed. The thinking needs to change otherwise not even those who can afford to pay a little extra will bother. Absolutely I agree. Its a harder sell because the internal fittings are not what we are used to, and the A2A merchants round here at least seem to be a bit reluctant to fit splits (multiple indoor units, one outdoor), but A2A is definitely part of the 'mix'. I would say that's pretty good, 3.0 actual vs 3.2 modelled/sold! Makes me, if anything, more confident about the plausibility of getting to 3 at 65C based on -2/-3 design temp. Bear in mind that 3 is basically good enough to match the running costs of gas, and that's with the current ratio of gas prices to electricity, which is artificially tilted in favour of gas (and likely to change) and the model was based on technology available today (actually since 2019), which can only improve, thus extending the range north. That certainly used to be the case, but not so with more recent devices. The modelling was based on LGs specifications and this does not use a supplemental heater.