SimonD

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.

My view is that if we're going to be properly provocative with this question, we need to consider aspests that underpin the front end tech, which is unfortunately how the problem is typically viewed. The first thing that needs to be considered is the reality that whilst a heatpump may be more efficient, it also requires significantly more natural resources to make and distribute. A single heat pump installation can require up to 120kg more steel and 40kg more copper, not to mention the other requirements for various components. Shifting all boiler installs over to heatpumps would put a huge demand on mining, processing etc. of raw materials. Currently, copper mining is in decline with an insufficient number of mines going through the planning phase to come online. There is both known and unknown environmental cost to this kind of proposal. There is also an economic one as raw materials are likely to become more expensive as opposed the the incorrectly assumed reduction in price due to volume. The second is geopolitics. Chine currently controls the majority and with some materials enjoys the exclusive control of material processing for many of the materials required for heatpumps. We lost the ball on this one a couple of decades ago. For me, heatpumps are a distraction to what really needs to happen, which is a fundamental change to how we consume both natural materials and energy. The low hanging fruit of making homes more energy efficient has already been mentioned, as has behaviour change, awareness and education. The next step has to be a monumental shift in the systems in power - political, manufacturing, distribution etc. - as they've shown themselves to be incompetent in moving this forwards. In some ways, they've even gone backwards.

Usual test procedure is 1.5x working pressure or 10bar for 45 minutes for standard fittings. It's just the slimline fittings that ask for 18bar

I completely agree, I've recently had to re-wire 3 systems that were wired up incorrectly. One which was running constantly with no thermostatic control, despite the thermostat working, another new installation where the electrician had wired it all up using wagos and then shoved it all into the smallest backbox and screw it all down tight - no hot water and when I took the wires out, several live wires just fell out of the connectors. This was was even wired up incorrectly within the boiler itself. I'm just about to completely re-wire a system with combined UFD and rads where heating switched live was permanently live thanks to a dodgy 2 port valve, but when that was fixed I still had 85v at the boiler switched live together with rads heating when they shouldn't and random function of the 4 ufh zones. Weirdly all of these jobs came about because people had just bought and moved into the properties and thought things weren't quite right. I think there really should be a proper boiler/heating system training/certification coz the problems seem to be rampant out there.

This is a good candidate as someone has sensibly written 3A fuse fitted on top. The behaviour of the programmer does indicate a problem there, but looking at the wiring centre, it's difficult to establish from the photos exactly what is going where as several of the wires are hidden behind others, and some seem to disappear behind it. From looking at the labelling, it hasn't been wired up according to the labelling either- which doesn't help. As @ProDave has said, I think you really need to have the system looked at either by an electrician who understands heating systems or a heating engineer that understands heating system wiring to ensure all the components are working correctly. If you are competent using a multimeter, then it's possible to work through the system methodically and trace any problem backwards. For this you need an S-plan wiring diagram and then to understand the various switched lives within the system. I'm afraid I simply don't have the time right now to go through the steps I'd take to figure it all out, but here's my partial take on the current wiring situation on the wiring centre (based purely on the photo so worth what you've paid for it 😉). T3 - this is your switched live from room thermostat to 2 port motorised valve for heating system - bridged to T9 with yellow T5 - white from Honeywell valve - ignore T6 - Switched live from both heating and hot water valves. This goes live (orange from each valve) when either/both the valves are open. This turns on your pump and boiler. If you're having a problem with boiler running constantly then look here with multimeter and check each orange. The red from T6 looks like it connects to T12 & T13 which are what look like the supplies for pump and boiler T7 - permanent live to motorized valves (grey) coming from red originating at T11 which appears to be permanent live either from programmer or other supply. T8 - brown to hot water valve coming from blue at T14 which should be your cylinder stat T9 - bridged to T3 - presume yellow from room stat e.g. heating from programmer via stat T10 - bridged to T15 - should be swiched live from programmer for hot water but I can't determine where the connected blue comes from T11 - permanent live bridged to T7 T12 - bridged switched live from T6????? - to pump or boiler T13 - bridged swtich live from T12 and T6 ?????? - to pump or boiler T14 - switched live from cylinder stat bridged to T8 T15 - switched from programmer for hot water????? - bridged to T10 which may go to cylinder stat????? Some of these clearly have some big question marks but hopefully help in some beneficial direction. Online videos for s-plan are plenty. On Youtube plumberparts and Allen Hart have videos on the topic.

Yes, the hive receiver will just fit straight onto the existing backplate. The wiring is in the correct place with 3 for hot water and 4 for heating and presumably the initial installation put these round the right way - I obviously can't warrant that as I've not tested them! But even if after you installed the hive you found that the hot water went on when it was supposed to heat the house or it heated the house when it was supposed to heat the water, you could swap those wires around. No big deal. Your existing thermostat is basically a relay switch, it is either on or off. If it's off, then there's no voltage through that circuit. With a Hive, it controls that switching instead of the thermostat so it needs a permanent live. The easiest way to do this is by connecting the two wires connected to the thermostat and then replacing the thermostat with a blanking plate. Otherwise you need to rewire the thermostat switched live in your wiring centre which is next to the hot water cylinder - this is more complicated and by the sounds of your questions, not something you really want to be doing.

I just assumed it was the same slightly yellowed conduit in the close up shot, but maybe not?

The Hive will go straight onto the black wall plate you've shown in one of your photos. You then need to either bridge the existing thermostat behind the stat - use a simple wago connector - or rewire elsewhere if preferred. However, if you're experiencing strange behaviour it's worth getting someone in to test the system as there can sometimes be other issues causing the boiler to turn on or off when it shouldn't - for example, a faulty motorised valve can sometimes cause a permanent live to the boiler. Process is install the hub > Install the receiver > Add the Thermostat > Complete online setup through the app. Hive customer support is very good and responsive to setup queries - they have a phone number and answer it too! HTH.

Your installer should either have done a self certification for building regulations compliance (through an appropriate competent person scheme) or registered the install through your local building control to notify them of the installation - that's down to him not you so your BC will want this, not just your commissioning certificate. With just an commissioing certificate you may have to pay BC for an inspection and sign off for it.

Time suggests that this approach, especially in older buildings build with stone rarely stands up to the hype and inevitably fails - it is incredibly difficult to detail this to ensure it doesn't fail, hence why so much conservation now proposes using materials that work with moisture. Are you keeping the external cement render, or is this being removed as part of the works? Can you share the full specification of the buildup proposed by the architect and the alternative proposed by the tradesmen? Your other option, which I think works best in exposed areas is to design in a break between the elements and the interior. This could either be a rain screen to the front of the exterior or a ventilation gap between the external wall and a sheeps wool stud wall inside. That way the sheeps wool/woodfibre buildup can buffer excess moisture without the risk of getting saturated if the exposed wall does get wet to the inside.

Ah, so he was spot on then. And people questioned his theories.... Yep, I know that one, but also parallel universe. I saw myself in a video about my build and knew it wasn't me, couldn't be, it was only 2 years ago but a lifetime. Then my wife says it was 8 years ago surely....because she's waited at least 8 years even though we didn't start near 8 years ago, rather I broke ground in Jan 2019. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ (me and my wife) As for what type of screws, only on buildhub could you find a 2 page thread on needing to see and feel the screws to decide before buying and spending loads of time on time on an internet forum to decide what type of screws to buy - now that's quantum mechanics for you...

I now use ForgeFast torx screws by default. Readily available from Toolstation at a good price and in large trade tubs.

Alpha Pneumatic Supplies sell full round head annular ring stainless steel nails suitable for 34 degree framing nailers. I think they probably do them for 21 degree nailers too. Brand is normally Beck fasteners. https://nailers.co.uk/ Usually best to call them.

It's 40C for ufh on the Vortex exactly as you say to prevent corrosion of the water jacket. For normal rads they recommend 70/50.

These are brick walls with a small infill extension having used dense blocks

It's been suggested to me to dot & dab the plasterboard over Gyproc Soundcoat plus parge coat where I'd planned battens with service void. How might I regret dot & dab versus battens as dot & dab is going to be both cheaper and quicker. Anybody else able to share some pros and cons?