Rethinking the mindset for mass retrofit - a provocative idea

[Dillsue]

12 hours ago, JamesPa said:

 and then remarked that, as oil ch is a minority in this country, it's not the priority in the grand scheme of things.  I was not saying it doesn't matter, it does.  Sorry if that confused.

No confusion caused. My post wasnt a particular dig at what you said but more a general comment that most of the population dont see their emmissions as part of the problem. Therefore theyre doing didly about them.

[Dillsue]

10 hours ago, markocosic said:

Windows are likely to be closed and blinds pulled whilst cooling if PV powered. Nighttime cooking is the swine for those without cooling as their windows will be open for night cooling.

But those without cooling will likely have their windows open all the time and may not appreciate their neighbours AC/ASHP running 24/7.

 

The other thing to remember about the luxury of cooling is that its almost certainly gas generation powered so just adding to our collective emmissions

[markocosic]

5 hours ago, Dillsue said:

But those without cooling will likely have their windows open all the time and may not appreciate their neighbours AC/ASHP running 24/7.

 

Exactly 

 

5 hours ago, Dillsue said:

 

The other thing to remember about the luxury of cooling is that its almost certainly gas generation powered so just adding to our collective emmissions

 

Not always/ entirely.

 

If coming coincides with PV generation; and heating season coincides with little renewable electrical generation potential; then it makes sense to design houses that need more cooling than heating. (i.e. to overheat)

 

You do need to book them during the surplus period though; not at night; for that to work.

 

Similarly using local cooling as a dump for excess (grid overloading in an overbuilt PV scenario) PV isn't daft.

[markocosic]

8 hours ago, sharpener said:

I don't think this is a likely scenario. Having employed architects and structural engineers (@JamesPa's analogy) and also having run my own technical consulting business I think I can say that it is unlikely that the designers would want to be prime contractors to cover the installation work. There are just too many extraneous factors that could go wrong even with a known and trusted installation partner. Even if things went OK the inevitable contract variations (consumer add-ons, emergent work) would then have to be renegotiated via the design house which they would not want to get involved with. Also the professional indemnity insurance would not be likely to cover the extra exposure.

 

Often designers are subbed out in the MCS model.

 

Prime contractor subs out both design and install.

 

Or they are the designer and they do carry all risks so it's a cookie cutter turnkey everything install or take a hike.

 

They're rarely insured for professional indemnity. Consumers don't ask.

 

If anything goes very wrong the models appear to be that the very small limited company disappears (having dragged this out long enough to extract profits) OR the nationwide installer relies on having more lawyers and more patience than you to exhaust your appetite for risk etc by bringing it out of small claims and into real cost where you're risking costs and having to counter their experts etc.

[MikeSharp01]

52 minutes ago, markocosic said:

They're rarely insured for professional indemnity. Consumers don't ask.

 

If anything goes very wrong the models appear to be that the very small limited company disappears (having dragged this out long enough to extract profits) OR the nationwide installer relies on having more lawyers and more patience than you to exhaust your appetite for risk etc by bringing it out of small claims and into real cost where you're risking costs and having to counter their experts etc.

That's a mess then ...

 

The word 'Design' implies PI insurance and ISO 9001 (or equivalent) surely! Lets all get together on here and build an app that does the design, does not appear to rocket science, and give it away.

[MortarThePoint]

On 22/04/2023 at 19:47, JamesPa said:

I think we all know

1. that ASHPs are the way to go for low carbon heating, and that low carbon heating is an essential part of combating climate change

 

I think this requires more careful consideration. There are a lot of Marketing forces at play and lack of system thinking. Encouraging people to change to electric powered heating creates extra demand, so you have to consider the CO2 output of that extra electricity. You can't use average generation figures as that is slight of hand.

 

Gas heating is 185gCO2/kWh rising to around 200gCO2/kWh if you include grid losses etc.

 

If the extra electricity is gas generated, then it's about 500gCO2/kWh. So you need a COP over 2.5 for an ASHP to *start* being more efficient, and that ignores the carbon footprint of the ASHP manufacture and installation.

 

The UK is still using coal powered electricity to address high demand. That is about 800gCO2/kWh, so would require a COP over 4.0. ASHPs will serve to increase the likelihood of coal being used.

 

I am a fan of the technology and am fitting an ASHP, but it is important to consider the complete picture. If you controlled the whole system (grid & boilers) you would roll out ASHPs at a rate that keeps the coal burning power stations idle. The problem is, ASHPs (and EVs for that matter) are ahead of the grid changes. The government etc can claim to be doing something about climate change by pointing at all the ASHPs and EVs and making absurd claims like they're zero carbon, when in fact they are keeping the worst of the electricity being generated.

[MortarThePoint]

The table below is for an Ecodan ASHP. At a follow temp of 60C, the outside temperature needs to be above +7C for the COP to be above 2.5 and for the ASHP to be more environmentally friendly than gas central heating. Considering all the heat demand that will occur below +7C outside temperature, a 60C flow temp is worse for the environment that gas central heating. That's even before you consider coal!

 

[JamesPa]

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

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.

 

I should start by saying that these arent my suggestions, they come from the forum.  I merely collated them.

 

Of course it does.  Contractor A wont subcontract work to contractor B who he doesn't know.

 

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

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.

 

Many reports on this forum and my own experience.  perfectly usable = equipment which has several years of life left and technically could be configured, at a reasonable cost, to work in the new system. 

 

As I say others on this forum have reported their own experiences and I draw from those.  For my own, I have received 10 quotes for installations, all wanted to swap out the DHW cylinder, most wanted to swap out the CW feeds to the DHW cylinder, several wanted to swap out the primaries to the DHW cylinder and several also wanted to swap out the main heating primaries.  All want to swap out several miscellaneous components.  None of these are necessary (in my case), but they are convenient to the installer because it means that they can use a pre-packaged pre plumbed cylinder and dont have to work out any out of the box solutions or consider water pressures etc.  Oh and did I mention that most of them wanted to install a unit which is 70% ovrsize to cover their backsides.

 

And please feel free to go on about problems, but please remember customers have a choice to pay 5K for a gas replacement and cant afford 15-20K.  So in the real world the solutions currently proposed dont cut it for mass rollout.

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

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

If it means that my local, perfectly competent, plumber and electrician can do the job then it would improve the supply of resource.  And improving the supply of resource will drive competition which eventually drives up standards.  Please don't equate regulation and standards

 

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

 

16 hours ago, JamesPa said:

but are excluded from the market

 

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.

 

Sorry but if the weight of the device is the principal reason then Im sure every one band band plumber has a mate (everyone Ive ever met does.  This is spurious.  I accept they need some additional knowledge, but it wont be the first time in their career that they have had to learn a new technology.

 

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

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?

I dont know, probably because they are happy the the heat pump market is irrelevant to their current mainstream business.  And Government paid for setting up MCS but then spun it off, whereas the other schemes dont have that advantage

 

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

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

Thats not the premise of the thread, but it is a view that is widely held on the thread and appears to have evidence to support it.  That is not to say there arent good MCS companies, Im sure there are, but they seem to be in the minority and targeting a particular class of business (basically 20K rip it all out start again with high sales and overhead costs.  Fine for that market, not for the 1.4M we need to achieve).

10 hours ago, SimonD said:

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.

 

Except that planning consent is required if the customer wants to install other than under MCS.

 

If MCS is so good, whats the roadmap to getting many/most retrofit installs down to 5K without a grant and doing 1.4M per year?  Thats what needs to happen.  If you have one please advise.  Currently it looks awfully like (and others have confirmed) that the installation market is happy to continue with low volume high margin not the 5K/pop needed to get this really going.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

OK, having largely flushed out the regulatory side (albeit with one person above who wants to preserve the stranglehold), lets get back to the technical side.  Having read what people have written Im more than ever thinking that there are opportunities to reduce the design complexity/design uncertainty.

 

Lets start with the whole-house sizing.  Its fundamental.  Get it too low and the customer is cold, get it much too high and the system performance is compromised, you need a buffer tank, the DHW feeds may need upgrading unnecessarily and it costs more. 

 

This is what we achieve using the current method (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606834/Report_on_compliance_with_MCS_installation_standards_v32.pdf), quite frequently a 2 fold oversizing or worse, and sometimes undersizing.  Its pretty poor.  Not surprising really, much of the fabric on which surveyors base their estimates is not visible, so they have to make assumptions which are unlikely to be accurate (particularly if they don't listen to the customer when he tells them how the house construction has evolved.)

 

 

So why dont we do it by simply measuring demand, or at least using demand as a sense check?  At its simplest its really, really, really simple to take annual gas (or oil) consumption and from that work out the load at any chosen design temperature. 

 

For my house this calculation comes out about 8.5kW, against a measured peak of 7.5kW at design OAT.  Meanwhile surveyors (two of them) got to 16kW (because they ignored fabric upgrades that I told them about and double counted room to room losses) and if I use MCS assumptions but put in the fabric upgrades, I get to 10.5kW.  

 

Now there are more sophisticated methods than this crude calculation, using smart meter readings (only applicable for gas of course) or making a specific measurement with sensors and calibrated heat sources, but I would suspect that the simple method, supported by a few questions that the householder has to answer, may well be good enough, and certainly better than we currently manage.

 

Before anyone comments, I know that this is only one part of the design, and I know we may still have to survey for the emitter sizing, but its pretty fundamental to get this one right as its the foundation for everything else.  

 

Comments?

Edited April 30, 2023 by JamesPa

[MortarThePoint]

30 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

If MCS is so good, whats the roadmap to getting many/most retrofit installs down to 5K without a grant and doing 1.4M per year? 

 

1.4M retrofit installations with flow temperatures of 60C or higher would be a climate disaster! That would potentially emit an extra 120gCO2/kWh *12,000kWh/yr * 1.4M = 2,0000,000 tons of CO2 per year compared to gas central heating. {Based on coal and COP=2.5 which are fair based on increased demand and flow temp}

 

That's 2 million tons of extra CO2 per year from one year's 1.4M installations. Even if only 50% of the extra demand came from coal it's an additional million tons of CO2 per year.

 

{120 = (800/2.5) - 200

12,000kWh/yr Link}

Edited April 30, 2023 by MortarThePoint

[JamesPa]

1 minute ago, MortarThePoint said:

1.4M retrofit installations with flow temperatures of 60C or higher would be a climate disaster! That would potentially emit an extra 300gCO2/kWh *12,000kWh/yr * 1.4M = 5,0000,000 tons of CO2 per year compared to gas central heating. {Based on coal and COP=2.5 which are fair based on increased demand and flow temp}

Well actually no it wouldn't be a climate disaster, but your installation methodology is not whats being suggested anyway.  Whats being suggested is 1.4M installations with weather compensation at a sensible flow temp but not necessarily the optimum, so rarely would the unit actually be operating at 60C.

 

But even if it were (which it wouldn't be) COP of eg Mitsubishi at 60C at 7C (a typical OAT in the UK) is 2.4.  The current emission figures (kGCO2e/kWh) are as follows:

 

Electricity: 0.191

Gas: 0.181

 

Electricity has been reducing year on year as the grid greens up.  So at a COP of 2.4 the emissions reduce by over 50%.

 

However as I say nobody is proposing installing at 60C without weather compensation.

 

What is your alternative proposal please to retrofit 1.4M gas units per year with clean technology, starting soon because climate change wont wait for us.

 

 

 

 

[MortarThePoint]

22 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

The current emission figures (kGCO2e/kWh) are as follows:

 

Electricity: 0.191

Gas: 0.181

 

You are adding *extra* demand to the grid, not average demand. The CO2 output of extra demand is that of the 'last generator' turned on. It wouldn't have been turned on if it wasn't for the extra demand. In many cases that 'last generator' will be coal. It will never be zero carbon, as that's the 'first generator' to be turned on

 

So that Electricity figure when considering extra demand should be either 0.500 best case or 0.800 if coal

Edited April 30, 2023 by MortarThePoint

[JamesPa]

18 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

 

You are adding *extra* demand to the grid, not average demand. The CO2 output of extra demand is that of the 'last generator' turned on. It wouldn't have been turned on if it wasn't for the extra demand. In many cases that 'last generator' will be coal. It will never be zero carbon, as that's the 'first generator' to be turned on

 

So that Electricity figure when considering extra demand should be either 0.500 best case or 0.800g if coal

Yes but grid capacity will expand as the demand grows, most likely with wind, which is the cheapest way to generate electricity these days.  

 

Your argument results inevitably in total stagnation, we cant put in heat pumps because green electricity isn't there, and of course we cant build more green electricity generation because we don't have the demand.  We need to let the grid designers do their thing, and the plumbing industry needs to do its thing (both towards the same high level goal) otherwise we get absolutely nowhere. They will never be completely in sync but that's no argument at all for doing nothing. 

 

Of course for some, getting absolutely nowhere, is the objective.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by JamesPa

[DanDee]

35 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

 

flow temperatures of 60C or higher

Based on coal and COP=2.5 which are fair based on increased demand and flow temp

 

 

You do realize that facts make you look like a fool?

COP's.pdf

[MortarThePoint]

24 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

What is your alternative proposal please to retrofit 1.4M gas units per year with clean technology, starting soon because climate change wont wait for us.

 

I'm pointing out that poorly installed ASHP accelerate climate change. It's better for those houses to stay on gas.

 

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

Your argument results inevitably in total stagnation, we cant put in heat pumps because green electricity isn't there, and of course we cant build more green electricity generation because we don't have the demand

 

Investment and leadership means that capacity could grow faster than demand. There's lots of scope for greening the grid before the need to add extra demand to it

[JamesPa]

5 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

 

I'm pointing out that poorly installed ASHP accelerate climate change. It's better for those houses to stay on gas.

 

 

Investment and leadership means that capacity could grow faster than demand. There's lots of scope for greening the grid before the need to add extra demand to it

 

Neither I nor anyone else is arguing for badly installed ashps, just ones which are adequately installed but not necessarily absolutely perfect.  Engineering is about making trade offs to achieve an overall goal.

 

If I understand you correctly what you want to do is delay ASHP roll out and expect the electricity industry to invest before there is demand.  The latter aint going to happen, we live in a capitalist society.  In the mean time we are replacing 1.4M gas boilers per year, each of which will last 10, perhaps 20 years.  So we have lost 10-20 years worth of opportunity to mitigate climate change.  

 

How does that make sense and what is your alternative proposal please?  Its all to easy to argue against anything, what is the solution that you are arguing for.

Edited April 30, 2023 by JamesPa

[MortarThePoint]

3 minutes ago, DanDee said:

You do realize that facts make you look like a fool?

That's unkind and unhelpful. It's the sort of reaction that pushes these discussions out of mainstream consciousness and keeps people from making sensible and informed decisions.

 

I evidenced the COP figure of 2.5 based on 60C flow temp.

 

We're trying to achieve the same goal, less CO2 output. But sometimes burn gas locally results in less CO2.

 

I've never claimed not to be a fool.

[DanDee]

2 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

That's unkind and unhelpful. It's the sort of reaction that pushes these discussions out of mainstream consciousness and keeps people from making sensible and informed decisions.

 

I evidenced the COP figure of 2.5 based on 60C flow temp.

 

We're trying to achieve the same goal, less CO2 output. But sometimes burn gas locally results in less CO2.

 

I've never claimed not to be a fool.

 

with a sCOP of 1.8 you match the gas consumption of a 90% boiler if 2kW gas are burned at the power plant for 1kW electric at HP

with a sCOP of 3.6 you halve the overal gas a 90% boiler would burn.

 

With a SCOP of minimum 3.6 you import 50% less gas, £5k grant helps redirects money towards expanding wind, others install PV and use it directly(some are doing it by matching PV with A/A HP's). There's no point in even trying to argument it, just do it, those that can.

 

[SimonD]

42 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

This is spurious.

 

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.

[JamesPa]

40 minutes ago, SimonD said:

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.

Well Im pleased to hear that you aim to do the minimum necessary.  Obvisously you didnt quote; presumably you arent in my area. 

 

Yes I did ask them why it was being proposed; they couldn't give a rational answer and refused to listen to alternatives (because, I fear, that it didn't suit them).  I also challenged their estimate of load and the calculations that they had done with the facts, but they weren't interested.  I understand why they werent interested, there is plenty of low hanging fruit out there so they dont need to bother.

 

40 minutes ago, SimonD said:

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

No, No, No.  I'm proposing a more flexible engineering approach to the design of the retrofit, rather than the current rigid approach which MCS mandates,  so that, where components can be retained and work avoided, they are, and we can get towards more affordable solutions.  Im also proposing we expand the installation market big time using the only resource we have available and remove from planning law restrictions which have absolutely no place in planning law.

 

The competition, remember, is an £K4-5 retrofit of a gas boiler which does not require government subsidy!

 

I wont respond individually to the other comments because I don't think it will help a lot, but ....  Please explain your road map to 1.4 M retrofits per year at prices people can afford (cost is, whether we like it or not, always part of the spec). That's the requirement, whats the solution?  Its easy to criticise, much less easy to propose solutions.

 

I emphasise once again that the ideas are not my proposal, I have merely collated and rationalised what has been discussed above.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by JamesPa

[MortarThePoint]

38 minutes ago, DanDee said:

2kW gas are burned at the power plant for 1kW electric at HP

You've assumed 50% gas turbine and grid transfer efficiency which is a bit too high I think (link). It's more likely to be around a third. A third would give a required COP of 2.7 for break even.

 

500gCO2/kWh is quite commonly used figure for gas generated electricity. Gas central heating inc boiler efficiency is around 200gCO2/kWh. Hence need for COP above 2.5 for ASHP to be creating less CO2 than gas central heating.

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, SimonD said:

think @JohnMo admitted it took him a year to get his own system right?

I took a year to get my gas boiler running as efficiently as it could, oversize boiler installation in low energy requirements and low flow temp house. Basically got it to around 110% efficiency doing heating. From about 50 to 60% due to short cycling.

 

The heat pump is basically installed now, just a couple pipes at the UFH manifold to sort and fill and bleed, other work keeps getting in the way.

[ProDave]

3 hours ago, MortarThePoint said:

1.4M retrofit installations with flow temperatures of 60C or higher would be a climate disaster! That would potentially emit an extra 120gCO2/kWh *12,000kWh/yr * 1.4M = 2,0000,000 tons of CO2 per year compared to gas central heating. {Based on coal and COP=2.5 which are fair based on increased demand and flow temp}

There you have hit another issue.

 

1.4m retrofits would be hailed as a  green success. Lets not let real figures get in the way of a "green" agenda.  If real figures mattered then we would not be in the ludicrous situation of cutting down trees on an industrial scale, shipping them half way round the world by sea to feed DRAX and claiming it is carbon neutral.

 

You can see this is all being designed by lawyers in a "it's not my fault" aris covering way so when (not if) we fail to hit our CO2 targets out will come all the "it's not my fault" statements.

[Dillsue]

4 hours ago, markocosic said:

If coming coincides with PV generation; and heating season coincides with little renewable electrical generation potential; then it makes sense to design houses that need more cooling than heating. (i.e. to overheat)

 

You do need to book them during the surplus period though; not at night; for that to work.

 

Similarly using local cooling as a dump for excess (grid overloading in an overbuilt PV scenario) PV isn't daft.

Fairly likely that cooling demand will coincide with PV generation, but nationally, we've a pittance of PV generation so any cooling demand is gonna ramp up gas generation. Obviously theres a few people with their own rooftop PV that may be able to power their own cooling during the day and into the evening if they've got batteries, but without personal PV and batteries, any cooling demand will be gas powered.

 

The thread is looking at ways to accelerate ASHP roll out including a big cut in cost. Adding PV to every ASHP capable of cooling to make the cooling grid independant is gonna put the cost way up so its probably best that ASHP with cooling remains outside PD.

 

 

[JamesPa]

24 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

The thread is looking at ways to accelerate ASHP roll out including a big cut in cost. Adding PV to every ASHP capable of cooling to make the cooling grid independant is gonna put the cost way up so its probably best that ASHP with cooling remains outside PD.

 

 

Absolutely, provided that the current wording 'used for cooling' not 'capable of cooling' is retained as the qualification for PD.  The fact is that almost all ASHPs are capable of cooling and if someone suggested tightening PD ruses to say 'capable' instead of 'used' we would be in the do-dos.

 

1.4M retrofits per year at prices people can afford, that's the requirement.  The proposals this thread seems to have settled on seem, prima facie, to go a long way to making that at least possible, but of course wont be sufficient on their own, we also need some engineering and workforce actions (some of which have been touched on above.

 

If anyone (particularly anyone with affiliations to MCS) has another solution/roadmap to this goal please lets hear it!