SimonD

I can just imagine a new thread on shim stock - with or without holes and what material! 😁

Yeah, you're not the only one. It's a lonesome journey and worse when you get in your own head. I've just got into the same situation because as soon as I decided to put my trust in getting in some trades and paying someone instead of doing it myself, the carpenter has cancelled to sets of dates and gone awol when we had an agreed timeframe - now I'm stuck with a load of internal doors about to arrive and figuring out a load of bleedin' logistics and work schedule with me doing the stuff myself again. (expletive deleted) trades! As for the hole situation, I think it's easiest to drill a larger hole, adjust the fixings and then use an epoxy cement to set them correctly. Even with a press, if your drill bit is long and fairly thin, you're going to get some wander through a thick wall. I have a 1m 16mm sds drill bit for getting through my walls and it flexes like crazy. Even a 22mm diamond core drill rarely gives me a clean enough hole to insert a 22mm pipe afterwards either. But then maybe I'm just rubbish at drilling holes.......

Try telling teenage boys that. They only know how to turn it all the way and don't realise you can actually have it at another setting 🙄

Look elsewhere? Plenty of options on the market. We have one where there is a pack of regulators from 16l/min down to 6l so you can test and select the best option. Mine runs absolutely fine on 6l/min and it's a drench head, but only about 200mm diameter head.

Building reg G2 stipulates a reasonable provision to limit wholesome water use to 125l pp/day. But there's also the argument that flow regulation saves water so good for the wallet and good for the environment.

A technique I learned from Germany with thin coat render (especially on ewi) was to apply a first layer of basecoat which you apply with a toothed (8mm usually fine) at an angle. Let this set and then apply another coat within which you embed the mesh.This way it's easier to ensure the mesh is at the correct and uniform depth, especially if, like me, you're not well practised at it. But it also makes it easier to avoid this situation by applying by the meter with each application of mesh. I've also found that this second coat seems to stay wet for a little longer too.

Yes, why use 400mm when 600mm will do. Usually specified by structural design. Whole timber frame in 600c/c here but intermediate floor was 400c/c due to span and a little bit o space saving.

Don't bother trying the change cans between one gun. That's a recipe for disaster. Go and buy yourself 3 of these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Roughneck-ROU32310-Professional-Foam-Gun/dp/B00FAKP5Z0/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2U0OL2C490E3Y&keywords=roughneck+foam+gun&qid=1683373150&sprefix=roughneck+foam+gun%2Caps%2C78&sr=8-4 They're very reliable, highly controllable and last for months and months and months with can attached. They clean well too. What you also need to make sure you do is close the adjustment valve everytime you've finished using the foam gun.

Have you considered blockboard? With longitudinal central blocks, it's a good strong material for shelving and can be bought in lots of different thicknesses. It's also usually faced with a good veneer. A local sheet material supplier, like the one I have near me - https://sydenhamsplywood.co.uk - would be able to cut everything down to size for you. Even the battens. I wouldn't even think about cutting by hand, nor would I go and buy a circular saw to try and do it myself without good practise and a proper straight edge to cut along. With unsupported lengths of 1405mm you'd have to accept a pretty low load, definitely not bookshelves as max recommended span for ply and blockboard is usually about 700mm.

I buy packs from here: https://www.ukdrills.com/sds-drills good value and last absolutely fine with most of my holes being 6mm dia too. I did use the Bosch bits for a while but for some reason the tips kept on shearing off them so stopped using them. All used with a Bosch SDS 18v with 2.6J impact but it has a fairly slow rotational speed with a 70% switch for soft start and slower speed.

I shall sit back and wait for a super @Nickfromwales and @PeterW special which could involve a large diameter mains supply, a mega accumulator, minimum 500l uvc and whole lot more besides - hot water recirculation maybe? In my case, having gone through that kind of design from the kind help here on this forum and costed it up in terms of price and my time, I went down a slightly different route. I only have me,my wife and 2 teenage boys to contend with but still a lot of hot water demand. I currently have limited 15mm mains supply but great pressure and decent flow (I will be trenching and laying upgraded supply pipe at some point), so I opted for a 210l thermal store and have then used relatively small diameter pipework to showers and bath. I've also used flow regulators allowing max 6 liters flow through showers etc. Sounds like too little but is actually fine even with a drench head and allows simultaneous use of 3 outlets without pressure or flow loss and plenty of hot water long enough for showers. I did do a lot of pressure loss calcs with the pipework so flow can be increased when mains is upgraded but so far so good and it has my wife's approval...

Exactly and that does require a complete shift in training approach as to my mind most of the the training industry is targeted largely at the lowest common denominator. It's worrying when you come across trainees who don't know what 10% of 20 is but this is not their fault, it's down to their education. I think the whole industry is guilty here. It has aimed at taking away any indepedent thought by trying to dumb down all the systems - e.g. trying to make boilers and controls plug and play and not letting anybody touch them once they're on the wall or in the boiler. This is now coming back to haunt them.

To an extent - OFTEC's recent push was a 70% discount funded by government through a small number of approved training providers with a time limit of 31st March. Very well subsrcibed but overall not enough. I think what's happening is a market test to see what price entices the punters in and the funding will settle around there.

I completely agree. Whenever the opportunity arises I sneak a normally closed 2 port motorised valve into an s-plan and do a simple re-wire. All my system boiler installs go in priority hot water. On installs I always leave the system with a return temperature below 54 degrees and tell my customers to run the heating for longer periods of time instead - in small properties with combi boilers, this can be a challenge mind you and definitely not perfect. I also only install boilers that have separate ch/dhw temp capability. There does seem to be increasing awareness here where Ideal's Halo heat & system controls support PDHW, for example, which is a great thing, but they don't seem to make a deal of it.

However much you want to wriggle and twist this, it comes down to training and standards whether or it's MCS or otherwise, which goes back to my point about not relaxing the standards to permit easier access. Yeah, you're always going to get variations but as I've said the standards and training need to be enhanced to provide better quality outcomes for all of us. Really? According to whom? I haven't suggested middle aged plumbers are incapable. Perhaps too subtly I've suggested that they should be asked whether they want to or not. Gas Safe did and only about 32% I think said they intended/wanted to train in heatpumps. Locally I know quite a few in their 50s who have good established businesses who just want to retire and are currently kept from retiring because they're still so busy. As it happens I have some personal direct experience here too. A few years ago while building my house, I got my quote for a heatpump. My response to the price was to half fall off my chair and complain about the price. However, I then looked into it and decided to embark on the training myself in order to design and install the system myself. So I found out what I needed to do and became Gas Safe Registered as the first step. I've followed this up with low temperature heating system design and a few other things. I happen to be in my 50s now and I've established a part time business with this recently too. My view is that if I want to affect change within a system I need to know how the system works from the inside, and be on the inside. This does give me a particular insight into the current training regimes and standards and I can categorically state that your assertion that existing plumbers and electricians are somehow excluded is wrong. Like I said, a friend of mine in his 60s has just got the tickets as it's just about signing up for the training and completing the tests. Probably the most problematic part of getting into the industry right now is caused by dogma of existing plumbers/heating engineers as they tend to be reluctant to employ trainees doing their managed learning programme and so they can't complete their practical portfolio. So many trainees give up before starting or drop out of the training specifically for this reason. When I embarked on my training I was insensed that I couldn't just go and do heatpump certification without going through Gas Safe or OFTEC training first. However, I've now realised this has provided me with invaluable experience working with a wide range of heating systems that will serve me well in the heatpump world. It wasn't what I wanted but I'm now very much better than I would have otherwise been. But there is something about the training that existing and highly experienced plumbers/heating engineers will not have recieved. That is in how low temperature heatpump systems need to be approached differently. This has got to be taken into account. Therefore they will all need further training and not just be let loose on these systems. Yes, I am. And the proposals put forward here I don't think would do anything. That's because of serious and fundamental structural problems (including political will and action) to support a transition of that scale; a current lack of suitably qualified and experienced people to do it and a lack of production capacity and resource. To scale up to this kind of installation capacity will take years, possibly decades. The amount of investment required to support it would be in the 100s of billions of pounds, much of it required by government, but also a significant amount by the private sector which is going to be unwilling to invest in such a transformation when there is essentially an unstable policy base such as ours has been since 2016, but also since the tories killed off a load of insulation companies ad solar companies due to policy whims - 'cut the green crap' was one of the more stupid ones I think. The direct cost to consumer in the purchase price of the heatpumps is actually a fairly small proportion of the total cost of this scale of operation. Again, I was perhaps being too subtle. My point was that the Tories have had a tendency over the past few years to make policy announcements without actually talking to anyone outside their little bubble. They didn't bother to ask if people actually wanted to go back to work from retirement before casting assertions about laziness, for example. They didn't talk to anyone about the announcement that we're going to install 600,000 heatpumps the week after next (yes, that's a bit of sarcasm) without actually bothering to do anything bar set up a failure of a grant scheme followed by a totally limp one. Not only does this tendency unfortunately put off investment, it also erodes trust such that both companies and individuals are less likely to engage in that sector. Currently lots of people are put off training for Gas Safe which currently is one of the feeders for heatpumps because they think boilers will be banned in the next couple of years or so, which is in effect hindering new entry into the industry. The MCS is not the whole world here. Do your research in the industry and you'll find increasing murmurings about the use of hybrid heatpumps as a transitional step. In particular how it would approximately halve the installation costs, possibly more, but provide a significant proportion of the benefits without the extent of disruption of full blown heatpumps. To me it makes sense as it is more in line with the 80/20 rule which often has dramatic impact, sometimes better than a reach for 100% With these, the manufacturers could easily circumvent the MCS by providing warranties directly and with manufacturer support you're likely to see the relevant changes to PD too. There are also proposals to provide mini heatpumps that can be added to existing gas/oil boilers so reducing the need to throw them away while they're still working. I know you're keen to ask for specifics about how to install 1.4m heatpumps a year in the next few years, but the answer, like all answers to systemic change is a highly complex one. It's neither simple, nor is it cheap, and nor is it to do with protectionism.

So we've hit the nail on the head here, haven't we? Given the choice would you really want to open up the heatpump market to a load of plumbers/heating engineers, local or otherwise, that are unable to rationalise simple design/installation proposals and explain it to their customer? No, of course not, which takes us back to the nub of proper education and standards, including regulations that are in place to maintain those standards. This also highlights the weakness of separating design from installation and permitting customers to choose different contractors under separate contracts and could potentially end up with a situation tantamount to employing the best architect money can buy and then asking a cheap shite builder to build to the design as if the design mitigates the installation cababilities and skill of the builder. The good installation of a heating system requires good design knowledge as well as good real world experience of how to build that system into a retrofit situation - which is a skillful pursuit. So more skills. I would question whether any of those who quoted you would be willing to put aside their egos to upskill both knowledge and experience only to be told by a designer what they need to do. Is this an intractable situation? No, but it is a tricky one. See above. I think I've been at pains to explain this from the very beginning...... For example: I think that in the first instance the government needs to completely revise the grant funding arrangements and fund the training and development of system designers and installers. The government needs to create and support industry with sufficient long term demand with stable long term policy that isn't going to vanish overnight due to the whims of a PM or Chancellor and bankrupt a load of companies. In parallel there needs to be an overhawl of the education system to promote flow into the trades which becomes a respected and valued career pathway. This should absolutely be on a par with academic education and should be just as rigourous in terms to the required standards so if someone decides to go the route of a heating engineer, it means learning the maths and the engineering principles within the relevant systems. Fundamentally the problem is a socio-cultural one (which includes education) rather than an engineering one and therefore simply looking at an engineering solution isn't going to get us very far at all. If you look at any of the countries with much better heatpump rollout, you'll find that what underpins the policies to support that rollout are socio-cultural approaches, long-term perspectives and often more generous funding arrangements. However, many of them have invested properly in their electricity grid and supply infrastructure whilst our various governments have tried to rely on the free market. And so fro a socio-cultural perspective, I go back to education. If I were to be pushed, I'd also suggest it more sensible to conduct a process of optimising ff central heting systems to run as efficiently as possible before installing a heatpump (like @JohnMo did with his system), and this is what is now required within building regulations for new heating systems, but should perhaps go further to include measures with replacements. Another alternative is to instal mini and hybrid heatpumps running in parallel with ff boilers providing the majority heat demand but being topped up by ff where absolutely necessary. This would be a transitional phase.

The spurious bit @JamesPa is that on the one hand you complain about the general standards of work and the companies providing the services, and then complain that they propose too much work and replacing what you think is unnecessary, yet at the same time want to attract these very trades on a large scale into the heatpump installation market space by reducing regulatory requirements and watering down a simple regulatory mechanism that ensures installation accountability (even with shite installers). When your 10 quotes came through the door, did you stop to ask why that work was being proposed? For me,and those I know doing this job, we actually aim to do the minimum needed to satisfy a job requirement.There is so much work out there that there is no need to work churn. The reason work is proposed is because experience has told us so we can leave knowing the system works and you don't get call backs! I'm not confusing standards with regulation, I think this thread has it confused because regulations often drive standards and frankly standards are, as has been acknowledged here, below par in this service industry. Are you really, seriously suggesting, well by the looks of it you are because you suggested earlier it would somehow magically improve standards and innovation, that relaxing the regulations to allow more people in is somehow going to resolve the problem without a serious proposal to change the culture and train the industry better? But as normal this becomes a tagline, while it is the major problem. It becomes a tagline because it's a complex problem to solve which would be helped by adding practical vocational training in schools in parallel and on a par with GCSEs to start with. At the same time you're essentially proposing to chuck in the heatpumps with fingers crossed that they'll work to customer's satisfaction and within manufacturer's specification at a low price that doesn't cost the earth in terms of resources or energy use, and doesn't make the customer broke because it ends up running at a cop of maybe 2 or 2.8 if you're lucky, and you need 15 call backs to balance system and correctly set the weather comp curve. I think @JohnMo admitted it took him a year to get his own system right? When you're commissioning several heating systems a month and trying to get them relatively well balanced, it's an entirely different proposition - the balancing theory is very different from the reality of how these systems actually work, especially in retrofit. And to my still limited knowledge of heatpumps, they're more sensitive to this balancing act than your typical gas boiler. In some ways what you've proposed in terms of getting the wholesome middle aged local plumber into more work is reminiscent to me of one of those Tory ministers who brazenly suggested that those who had decided to retire early were lazy and they needed to get back to work for their country all the while ignoring the structural problems largely underpinned by government policy. One of the main ones being education. Isn't it rather telling when you see an advert for a gas training organisation specifically target 16 year olds that had failed all their GCSEs that they should train to become a gas fitter? That's the state of this industry right now..... However much you try to repeat it, the fact is that currently the regulations don't stop or exclude anyone as all they need to do is complete the necessary training and demonstrate a minimum standard. That costs some time, effort and money. What we should be doing is increasing the standards of training and professional registration by setting the bar higher and creating an industry that is valued, well trained and well paid. It may also mean that whether we like it of not, we have to pay a reasonable amount of money to those providing the service, otherwise we're taking a step back to lets import loads of cheap labour, which in the end undermines the whole industry and society as whole. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way but as you might have gathered by now, the current strawman is way off base in changing the mindset for a mass retrofit.

This paragraph says that there must be a single point of contract with the customer, therefore, if an installer is not qualified for design then the designer must be subcontracted. Likewise, if the designer contracts directly with the customer, then an installer would be subcontracted. Overall responsibility lies with the direct contracting party. Now, this does not prevent the customer from using preferred suppliers providing there is a single contract, which makes sense because if you have two contracts - one for design and one for installation, then if there are any problems you give rise to lots of potential buck passing - whose problem is it, the designer or installer bla bla. From a practical perspective, this makes a lot of sense, IMHO. So it is possible for a customer to select a high quality designer, who you would assume would e happy to select a high quality installer, rather than the customer having to rely on some random unknown local installer. No, the current regulations do not completely exclude the only workforce capable of scaling up to the required volume. And given that this workforce are very much in short supply (I know because I'm one of them) and reducing day by day, it's a very tall ask. In fact one of my mates, in his 60s has just got the design and installation tickets which only took a few days training and some exams. In recent research by Gas Safe, however, the conclusion showed that only 32% of registered engineers intended training on heatpumps. I'm seem to be repeating myself that the issue is structural, requiring a change in culture, training and policy. The MCS does have many problems - it's expensive and the standards reads like a corporate process and beaurocracy manual. It also seems to be a bit stuffy. Its existence creates a good number of hoops that installers and designers have to jump through, but then if the industry wants to professionalise itself, then hoops have got to be jumped through - what does it take to become a recognised and register professional in other areas the building sector? E.g. a structural engineer or architect? What is your evidence for this statement and how do you judge what is perfectly usable equipment? I can tell you that one of the primary reasons stuff is stripped out is because of the risk of problems over the short term that result in significant cost and resource demand both for the customer and the installer, not because of greed. In the last 2 months I've had call backs and headaches due to customers demanding components are kept because they seemed to think they were fine. One of them was a magnaclean that had originally been installed poorly so that, like so many of them out there, the composite thread was stripped starting a leak as soon as the filter was touched - result: order a replacement and because the model has now changed, re-pipe the installation. The next was a heat only boiler installation where the customer insisted on a heat only boiler as the existing pump was relatively new as was the motorised valve and other bits in the heating system. The pipework was so bad that on installation it took 3 days to clear airlocks and once it was running it lasted just 4 months before I get called back due to a no flow error on the boiler - I should have torn all the old crap out and fitted a system boiler which was what I originally specced as this would have avoided all these problems. Problems that impacted my customer, my reputation and they ultimately have a significant carbon cost too. It's a very difficult balance deciding what to keep and not to when you want to leave a system that works well and reliably for a customer. They're not excluded from the market, they just need to go and get the relevant training and pay the money to get the right tickets. Why they aren't doing so is more the question. Almost all of them need to be trained as low temperature heating systems require a fundamental change of mentality and this is not a technical question. But also it's very difficult to install a heatpump as a one man band due to size and weight of a heatpump. For example, a Vaillant aroTherm 5kW heatpump has a net weight of 85-90kg. This is not something you can carry and lift into place on your own so you need at least one more person. Costs then escalate. The changes you've suggested would do nothing for improving standards and innovation, nor would they improve supply of resource which needs to be trained and experienced. The industry badly needs new blood that has a desire to maintain a decent career, whether as a business or as an employee. This is where the focus needs to be rather than some tinkering with PD, for example. All the current competent person schemes could set up alternative schemes to the MCS as it stands. No regulatory changes are required. The question is: why don't they already? Which is exactly why we have to ensure we think for the long term and don't implement short term solutions that from a life-cycle perspective demand more resources than necessary - such as energy generation, network infrastructure and natural resources. Unfortunately, it's on this kind of statement that I lose respect for the entire premise of the thread. There are plenty installers and designers out there who have their customer's best interests at heart. And the costs, while unpalatable are not always down to people making excess profits, but reflective of the demands of the job and costs of running a business. This is often poorly understood, even by competent DIYers and self builders on this forum. If I now go back to a quote I received a few years ago for the installation of a 7kW heatpump with unvented cylinder, knowing what I do now, I know what work has to go into designing, installing, commissioning and tuning the system. I don't think it was unreasonable any more! The reality is that if a customer wants to forget the BUS grant, then there don't seem to be any preventions to installing the system themselves, or having a non MCS installer doing the job. The risk, however, would be with product warranty.

The wording I was refering to is in the BUS regulations rather than PD - there's a need to be a clear distinction here between the two as well as joined up requirements Where is it stated that this must be the case? In the BUS regulations, which appears to be the relevant regs here for the grant, it simply says that an installation must meet the required scheme standards, which from a design perspective mean designed by someone competent to do this job according to MCS or equivalent body and then installed to those standards. Nothing I've read so far prevents a customer from engaging their own designer and installer. Maybe I've missed something spurious in the MCS rules. And if you read the regs, the MCS doesn't have a regulatory stranglehold, just a free market one - so to break the strangehold, you can just set up an equivalent body! With respect to this, and being someone who has completed the low-temperature heating system design course, the design rules are not particularly complex. Onerous perhaps.... I am of the view that the last thing we want to do is relax the design requirements of new heating systems, simply because good heating system design makes sense from both environmental and economic perspectives. I also think that the last thing we want to be doing is chucking in heat pumps as if that's what's going to save us. You only need to look at UK and European policy on Diesel engines and numerous other ones to understand how that goes. My humble view is that we need to actually take the time and make the investment to do it properly, With my professional background, I've been involved in enough global change initiatives within multinational companies where they've forged ahead with what seems like a good idea in a state of panic because they thought they didn't have the time to do it properly. Rather than proposing a relaxation of standards, I would propose a scheme whereby the customer is provided with a design voucher and told they can choose their own designer and that design cost is covered by the government as part of the grant scheme. Not only would this enable a better non-risk assessment of heating system suitability but also a huge amount of data to be gathered to shape both policy and practise going forwards. Including to shape resource planning. As has already been raised, the complexity does however lie in the retrofit of the heating system and dealing with the historical real world crap of UK central heating systems - look in enough houses and it is something the behold. Some of the ideas and suggestion here that it simply requires a couple of pipes and might just take a plumber and electrician 1 day to fit really do not demonstrate an understanding of working with heating systems in this market. For me it simply has to go back to the reality of good training and development, as well as promoting a cultural shift in how we view 'manual' labour. The reality is that the number of qualified heating engineers is reducing year on year. The reality is also that government policy over the last 25 years or so has kicked this can down the road and it has come back to bite us. For sufficient training to become independent and efficient in this space, you really do need a good 2/3years of onsite experience, even more if, like me, you live and do this work on lots of old victorian and georgian properties. I'm sorry if this doesn't match the idea of getting a fast roll-out, but the whole thing touches upon a lot of complexities that, like it or not, do take time to resolve.

Why? Many A2W pumps also provide cooling which would inihibit product availability/installation. I would suggest that the change is from the existing BUS regulations (Part 3, Regulation 9) stating a heat pumps is eligible if it is "for the purpose of both space heating and hot water heating, using liquid as a medium for delivering that heat" and "it is capable of meeting the full space heating and hot water heating demands of that property" to something that permits heatpumps other than those using a wet medium and that it doesn't not have to satisfy the requirements of both heating and hot water, but a minimum of heating purposes, leaving some flexibility for the use of immersion powered by various means as a potential for hw. Additionally, the BUS regulations (Schedule 4) permit certification schemes other than MCS it's just that nobody seems to have set up an alternative yet. Therefore within the regulations it would be possible to set up an alternative simply taking advantage of the free market. The HHIC tried to do this about 8 years ago and not sure what came of it - probably nowt. The additional comment is that MCS does currently permit the seperation of design and installation as it now has 2 different qualifications and if you're qualified just for installation, you must have a relationship with a designer and provide evidence of the design. Because the focus has recently been to train installers (e.g. discounted training funded by government through OFTEC) several companies are starting to offer design only services for a fee. This is attractive to installers as it also reduces risk and liability on the part of the installers. In terms of other specifics, there definitely needs to be a revision of training requirements as last year they introduced a further requirement that trainees had to have held plumbing/heating qualifications for at least 2 years to attend - bloody silly when you're already allowed to play with gas and oil which I'd argue are a little more dangerous.

Don't forget that there's also a lack of resources when it comes to installation. Human resources in this instance, and not all of them are very well trained or qualified) - https://www.phamnews.co.uk/calls-for-a-legal-minimum-qualification-for-heat-pump-installers/

Perhaps we don't view it as not burning carbon for a start. Then I think we need to diversify (something that is beginning to happen) and to localise heat source/emission. In this sense first look at where heat is currently wasted - e.g. industrial processes and use that waste heat for district heating purposes. Also look at other areas, like where there is a generous source of methane produced from either waste processing/sewerage and then burn this instead of allowing it to leak into the atmosphere. Same thing with geothermal etc. I also think we should utilise the benefits of district heating - yes even with huge heatpumps - due to the potential advantages of scale. I think we need to stop necessarily thinking about an individual heat emitter in each house/flat or whatever and stop thinking about a single solution for it all - this I think limits the potential solutions before even starting.

Perhaps the premise of the original provocation is flawed in that maybe heatpumps aren't the answer and the answer is more radical? That's not a lack of positive suggestions. As I said before, the answer more probably lies in living life differently which uses natural resources better and takes care of a natural environment much better too. None of that implementation fits on a postcard. It would mean re-thinking economics, politics, business and so many other areas of life. Plenty of thinkers out there that grapple with this stuff, from the late David Graber (see a history of everything) , to Kate Raworth (Donut Economics), to Henry Dimbleby (Ravenous) Loads out there. Even the classic EF Schumacher in Small is Beautiful..

Yet what's being discussed is the move from one technology that uses less of those resources to another that uses more. What will satisfy the additional demand? No it doesn't, there are significant structural changes required to enable the new technology for starters, but from a wider perspective we're not merely talking about one heat source to another because the entire energy system is going through a transformation that also demands a similar growth in materials and new technology implementation (although heatpumps are not strictly speaking new technology, I'm using this term as they are a shift in technology). Some links for you: The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy transition metals - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18661-9 Clean energy? The world’s demand for copper could be catastrophic for communities and environments - https://theconversation.com/clean-energy-the-worlds-demand-for-copper-could-be-catastrophic-for-communities-and-environments-157872 To reach net zero the world still needs mining. After 26 years, here’s what I’ve learned about this ‘evil’ industry - https://theconversation.com/to-reach-net-zero-the-world-still-needs-mining-after-26-years-heres-what-ive-learned-about-this-evil-industry-190510 New Study Finds That The Future Of Copper Is Coming At Us Fast - https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2022/08/16/new-study-finds-that-the-future-of-copper-is-coming-at-us-fast/ And a vid:

There we go, I knew what I was saying would be provocative. I wasn't just referring to Co2e but a wider consideration of the environmental effects of a large scale transformation of technology use which requires a vast amount of additional natural resource to implement - which evidenced by both your replies there remain significant blindspots. The additional materials required for a wholesale transfer to heatpumps do not currently exist, therefore they need to be mined, processed, distributed etc. The recyclability argument is another one that is often used to justify something despite potentially highly damaging consequences elsewhere. The example of one heatpump will obviously never reliably scale to the replacement of the current 1.5million boilers installed per year. Recyclability is never, and cannot ever be 100 percent due to the basic physics and cannot be considered such a panacea with regards to resource use. As I said, we don't currently have the necessary mining capacity for projected copper demand, and demand growth, for example as we transfer to greater reliance on green technology. Neither of your comments touch upon the central issue around what would amount to even further unsustainable resource consumption and use.