Rethinking the mindset for mass retrofit - a provocative idea

[Dillsue]

1 minute ago, JoeBano said:

My friend works on new builds sites and his uncle signs the gas safe certificate… 

Last time I looked at gas safe rules, a fitter can only sign off work theyve done themselves?

[JamesPa]

7 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

But PD also states it can be an equivalent standard. 

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping you or I, writing a standard that is almost word for word the same as MCS, but without the wording stating MCS registered etc.

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

[gregh]

7 hours ago, markocosic said:

 

Sue them for damages. Cost of additional energy and CO2 offsets for the next 50 years. Haul them in front of their MP and the papers. Indefensible behaviour not in the overall public interest.

 

Or just render your property including 200 mm of EPS in the render and invite them to go do one.

 

Planning is not required for EWI any more so than it is for render. It is not legally an extension. Permitted development in the cast majority of cases.

 

(my brother told Cambridge city council to go do one when they demanded a planning application for EWI; and you'll find that in their own solid walled properties that for EWIed there's no record of a planning application)

 

The mistake that many make is asking permission of somebody who just loves any excuse to make you jump through hoops.

Yes. A friend was trying to do external as part of planning app for extension. Brick 1930s semi in South London. Planners refused (it would "ruin the character of the street", his house being rendered), he appealed, and they came out to see him. Woman said something like "if we allow this, it would become a precedent that we allow people to externally insulate their house!" to which he replied, "well, yes." Appeal refused 🤯

[markocosic]

19 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

There is absolutely nothing stopping you or I, writing a standard that is almost word for word the same as MCS, but without the wording stating MCS registered etc.

 

Exactly this.

 

With direct technical equivalence they wouldn't have a leg to stand on should any enforcement action be attempted with regards noise.

[markocosic]

9 minutes ago, gregh said:

Yes. A friend was trying to do external as part of planning app for extension. Brick 1930s semi in South London. Planners refused (it would "ruin the character of the street", his house being rendered), he appealed, and they came out to see him. Woman said something like "if we allow this, it would become a precedent that we allow people to externally insulate their house!" to which he replied, "well, yes." Appeal refused 🤯

 

Yet nothing to stop him rendering it afterwards under PD?

[markocosic]

13 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

I wrote to flexi-orb (who are developing competing standards) about this point, and apparently its not that simple.

 

It's not simple to be a "recognised compliance scheme" (for grant funding eligibility purposes) but it's simple to word for word copy the noise requirement for planning purposes.

[JamesPa]

2 hours ago, markocosic said:

 

- Pay a premium for an assurance scheme on top of the MCS such as heat geek etc (if they'll take on a difficult job and or client whilst easy ones are available)

 

- Go for a manufacturer backed umbrella scheme (where a non MCS installer works under e.g. the Viewsmann umbrella and Viessmans design guidance/warrant and MCS certification) but again expect this to only be available with expensive kit and for easy jobs such is demand 

 

- Pay somebody you trust what they could be making on another installation (£1k a day next / £2k a day gross for time on site)

 

- Become that professional you can trust and job out the plumbing.

 

- Roll the dice with an Octopus etc and hope they dub out the installation to somebody competent 

 

 

- Wait for more folks to be trained, supply to better match demand, and margins for the above to drop

 

Supply and demand problem. This will not be available for £0.20 in the UK.

 

In summary - (a) pay even more money (!), (b) Pay someone you trust...but only if they are MCS accredited or you have applied for and received express planning consent (else its unlawful) (c) learn to do it yourself, or (d) wait 'until more folks are trained'. 

 

I would submit that 

 

(a) is not even faintly practical (and certainly not attractive) for most folks

(b) is perhaps the most practical, but unlikely to be attractive other than to the very persistent (like me)

(c) is not possible other than for a select few and

(d) well fair enough, but (seriously) where are they coming from - the 'mcs accredited garbage' scheme?

 

Unless the industry bucks up its socks, gets some traction with Government and changes things bigtime then we are all messed up.  My fear is that 'the industry' is quite happy being a niche player making good margins on a small number of jobs.  My hope is that this is incorrect.

 

Meanwhile the 'Hydrogen Ready' brigade have a plumber on every street corner ready and able to install with no planning consent needed for a few £K.

 

According to its website MCS became a charitable foundation independent of Government in 2018, and decided to do so in 2015. its revenue comes almost exclusively from trading (Yellow = trading activities, Green = Investments)

 

 

And its tts trading arm, MCS service company, states in its most recent accounts that 

 

 

So it appears that it is funded by the industry.

 

Are you so sure that 'the industry hates MCS'?

 

However it seems we do agree on one thing, that MCS is part of the problem not part of the solution.  The question then becomes, how to abolish/replace it?

Edited April 23, 2023 by JamesPa

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, markocosic said:

 

It's not simple to be a "recognised compliance scheme" (for grant funding eligibility purposes) but it's simple to word for word copy the noise requirement for planning purposes.

Run it through ChatGPT.

Better still, find the official government act and get that rewritten.

[JamesPa]

10 minutes ago, markocosic said:

It's not simple to be a "recognised compliance scheme" (for grant funding eligibility purposes) but it's simple to word for word copy the noise requirement for planning purposes.

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

 

Bad drafting of the regs, I grant, but fact nonetheless

[markocosic]

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

or you have applied for and received express planning consent (else its unlawful)

 

I view that as "not expressly lawful" rather than "expressly unlawful"

 

Else yes. It's something lots of people want right now. Prices are therefore high because there are currently plenty of folks for whom throwing money at the problem (a) is practical vs the number of suppliers.

 

 

The  "industry" is not a homogenous blob.

 

The installers are indeed very happy with the current situation.

 

The manufacturers and energy companies would prefer greater volumes.

 

They make their money on the boxes and the subsequent energy supplies not the installs. They'll be the ones encouraging additional installers BUT they'll not be independent installers sufficiently skilled / free to do any old job but rather only just good enough to install their manufacturer / energy company supplied kit.

 

 

[JamesPa]

2 minutes ago, markocosic said:

The installers are indeed very happy with the current situation.

 

Thaks for confirming that

 

4 minutes ago, markocosic said:

The manufacturers and energy companies would prefer greater volumes.

 

They make their money on the boxes and the subsequent energy supplies not the installs. They'll be the ones encouraging additional installers BUT they'll not be independent installers sufficiently skilled / free to do any old job but rather only just good enough to install their manufacturer / energy company supplied kit.

 

so tied basically.

 

Meanwhile the 'Hydrogen Ready' brigade have a plumber on every street corner ready and able to install with no planning consent needed for a few £K.

 

Strikes me that the Hydrogen Ready brigade are the winners here, and we are all the losers.

[JohnMo]

So going back to your original question, of getting heat pump to the masses

 

A standard equivalent to MCS should exist, to allow permitted development. But using this equivalent standard would expressly not allow the application of any government grants.

 

This standard could mirror MCS but exclude the registration and training requirements.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by JohnMo
Spelling

[JamesPa]

16 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So going back to your original question, of getting heat pump to the masses

 

A standard equivalent to MCS should exist, to allow permitted development. But using this equivalent standard would expressly not allow the application of any government grants.

 

This standard could mirror MCS but exclude the registration and training requirements.

 

 

Seems like a good start.  What, if anything, do you think the 'mirror' standard should cover, just noise, or other stuff also included within MCS.

 

(currently the PD requirements include, in addition to MCS:

• <=0.6 cu m,
• >= 1m from boundary
• >= 1m from edge of a flat roof if installed on a flat roof, not on a pitched roof
• only one for any dwelling or block of flats
• used solely for heating
• sited so as to minimise effect on external appearance and amenity of the area)

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by JamesPa

[TonyT]

5 hours ago, Radian said:

You'll need to search for an installation manual for your boiler. Most are easy to find even if decades old.

Found the installation and commissioning manual at the boiler  as it’s also the bench mark service manual. 
however it then refers to engineers service manual which i don’t have/ I can’t find online WB high flow 550 boiler☹️

it’s trying to makes sense of the 2 x 7 segment led display 

[TonyT]

Found this 

incase it’s helpful for anyone else

 

https://vivatraining.co.uk/blog/training/how-to-range-rate-a-boiler/

 

[JohnMo]

5 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

What, if anything, do you think the 'mirror' standard should cover, just noise, or other stuff also included within MCS.

The full subset of standards that apply to heat pumps including guidance notes, but these could also include some if, what, ifs, and maybe.

 

The permitted development doesn't state anything about the noise standard, just MCS or equivalent standards.

[MikeSharp01]

8 hours ago, markocosic said:

eTRVs don't set flowrates before you ask.

Market opportunity then - IoT rules....

[JamesPa]

7 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

The full subset of standards that apply to heat pumps including guidance notes, but these could also include some if, what, ifs, and maybe.

 

The permitted development doesn't state anything about the noise standard, just MCS or equivalent standards.

Why the full set may I ask. 

 

a) Only the noise standards affect the neighbourhood, and planning rules are supposed to be about the effect on the neighbourhood.  Anything internal to the property is a matter for building regulations not planning.

 

b) And if you reproduce the full set of MCS standards without certification, how is it enforced, and aren't you just perpetuating the restrictions on innovation?

 

Seems like a half-hearted measure which you are proposing which preserves the status quo, except for those who are complete cowboys.   No such planning requirements for gas boilers, why for heat pumps?

Edited April 23, 2023 by JamesPa

[markocosic]

7 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Market opportunity then - IoT rules....

 

It's been proposed and attempted but is not viable on battery power.

[MikeSharp01]

1 minute ago, markocosic said:

It's been proposed and attempted but is not viable on battery power.

Still an opportunity then - does it need continuous modulation or would occasional set and forget be an option I wonder?

[markocosic]

4 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

No such planning requirements for gas boilers, why for heat pumps?

 

Noise noise noise noise noise noise

 

And visual amenity

 

 

 

Boilers are indoors hence fewer restrictions.

 

 

 

Heat pumps can also be indoors.

 

For example:

 

https://www.qvantum.com/ISH23/

 

The non-retail utility companies (i.e. not the Ovo/Octopus sort but the ones who are interested in hard buried assets) are trying to work out how to offer communal ground arrays.

 

Pay £200 a year for a low grade heat source at your boundary. It could be some buried plastic pipe full of an antifreeze mix that sucks heat from the ground. It could have other heat dumped into it; doesn't matter to you sir.

 

Then chuck a small box under the sink that upgrades this to 70C supply temperature; and a box on the wall that stores enough hot water to be useful; and away you go.

 

To me that's far more appealing. No noisy bulky junk in the garden waiting for the gypsies to steal it. No practical flow temperature limitations. No complex design between your heat pump and the heat source. Just pay the service fee as you do for cold water and excrement in the other direction.

 

Scalable if you can persuade a sufficient number on the same street to switch. Installed alongside upgraded electricity supplies for EV charging etc. (as these are what will melt the LV system not heat pumps)

[markocosic]

3 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Still an opportunity then - does it need continuous modulation or would occasional set and forget be an option I wonder?

 

The players active in the space (Danfoss etc) concluded that the market for a mains powered TRV that could take the place of properly commissioned mechanical valves would be vanishingly small.

 

[JamesPa]

4 minutes ago, markocosic said:

Noise noise noise noise noise noise

 

agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed (agreed).

 

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

Edited April 23, 2023 by JamesPa

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, markocosic said:

Pay £200 a year for a low grade heat source at your boundary. It could be some buried plastic pipe full of an antifreeze mix that sucks heat from the ground. It could have other heat dumped into it; doesn't matter to you sir.

I can see about 500 homes at the moment, and a huge liquid heat resource.

Shame that it is not used.

 

But if I look in the other direction, I see £1.2m wasted on a geothermal project that failed, then had a GSHP fitted.

Why not a WSHP.

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, Dillsue said:

Last time I looked at gas safe rules, a fitter can only sign off work theyve done themselves?

Anyone could do the water plumbing of a gas CH system then the gas safe engineer comes along connects the gas, signs it off and everyone is happy.

 

A bit like mu UVC The G3 plumber just made the final water connection checked it all and signed it.