Rethinking the mindset for mass retrofit - a provocative idea

[SimonD]

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Copper has an embodies CO_2e

 

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

copper and steel are 100% recyclable, so at end of life can be turned into something else.

 

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.

[JohnMo]

33 minutes ago, SimonD said:

do not currently exist, therefore they need to be mined

Not sure about that. Most copper pipe sold in the UK is made from recycled stock. Most steel has a large percentage recycled steel in it also.

 

If they were/are installing 1.5 million boilers per year, but instead install 1.5 million heat pumps, the scaling of raw materials new or recycled) moves from one heat source to the other.

 

If there was no commerce there would be no money moving around the world, which is great if you don't want public services (from tax), wages etc.

 

The bigger picture would look at carbon input and compare to the time taken to be carbon neutral.  A heat pump lets you use carbon free electric generation, gas, oil, wood etc doesn't.  So a heat pump after being installed a short period will have a much lower carbon foot print than almost any other heating system.

 

And the alternative is what? Suggestions on a postcard, well perhaps email, wait a minute, what about the mined silver and gold in phones and computers, just shout it over the hills.

Edited April 25, 2023 by JohnMo
Spelling

[JamesPa]

43 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

And the alternative is what? Suggestions on a postcard, well perhaps email, wait a minute, what about the mined silver and gold in phones and computers, just shout it over the hills.

+1, +1, +1

 

Well exactly.  I must say this discussion has proved rather demoralising.  Lots of people finding problems with any suggestion for change, very few positive suggestions for alternative ways to eliminate our carbon emissions, or for refinements of the original idea (which I said was deliberately provocative) to move towards a solution.

 

So lets continue with the heat pump industry being a bit-player in the heating market, with no credible plan to scale up to the extent it must, continue burning fossil fuels, and hope magic saves our kids. 

 

Alternatively lets have some positive suggestions as to what we can do to get installed heat pumps in a retrofit situation down to, say, £4K (without subsidy), which is what will be needed to achieve mass roll out.  Also achieving, say, 1Million  installs per year. 

 

Or perhaps someone in the industry can tell us what their roadmap is to this.

 

  

Edited April 25, 2023 by JamesPa

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Not sure about that. Most copper pipe sold in the UK is made from recycled stock. Most steel has a large percentage recycled steel in it also.

 

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?

 

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

If they were/are installing 1.5 million boilers per year, but instead install 1.5 million heat pumps, the scaling of raw materials new or recycled) moves from one heat source to the other.

 

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:

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by SimonD

[RichardL]

21 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Alternatively lets have some positive suggestions as to what we can do to get installed heat pumps in a retrofit situation down to, say, £4K

The answer to that is way up in the thread -  open the market to more than A2W, and for many smaller properties an A2A 2x inside unit multisplit will do the job of space heating.

It even feels like normal heat - i.e. passes the 'I'm cold turn the heater on' => 'I'm warmer and the electric meter isn't going mad/cop 3+'


Hot water then is the challenge - perhaps smart immersion (check the cones. on immersion vs A2W/built in cylinders) integrated with an open interface on the smart meter to trigger that heating at off peak - whatever that happens to be over time.

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

And the alternative is what? Suggestions on a postcard, well perhaps email, wait a minute, what about the mined silver and gold in phones and computers, just shout it over the hills.

 

21 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Lots of people finding problems with any suggestion for change, very few positive suggestions for alternative ways to eliminate our carbon emissions, or for refinements of the original idea (which I said was deliberately provocative) to move towards a solution.

 

So lets continue with the heat pump industry being a bit-player in the heating market, with no credible plan to scale up to the extent it must, continue burning fossil fuels, and hope magic saves our kids. 

 

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..

[Mike]

6 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

lets have some positive suggestions as to what we can do to get installed heat pumps in a retrofit situation down to, say, £4K (without subsidy), which is what will be needed to achieve mass roll out.  Also achieving, say, 1Million  installs per year. 

 

It will happen. Technology adoption follows an S curve. The first domestic microwave cost $1295 in 1955 - roughly $14,000 today.

 

The question is how to speed up progress along the curve. It could be by Government mandate, but typically it's by subsidies. Not necessarily UK subsidies - often the UK prefers to wait for other counties to subsidise and develop new technologies, then import them (and then wonder why we don't make them ourselves).

 

See also the development of the wind turbine market in Denmark in the 1980s & 1990s.

 

[JamesPa]

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

It will happen. Technology adoption follows an S curve. The first domestic microwave cost $1295 in 1955 - roughly $14,000 today.

I would buy that argument if the principal cost was the heat pump itself.  But it isn't, it's the installation of the HP and in particular the associated changes.

 

The installed price needs to come down to 4K or thereabouts.  How does the industry plan to achieve that?

33 minutes ago, SimonD said:

Perhaps the premise of the original provocation is flawed in that maybe heatpumps aren't the answer and the answer is more radical

What then?  If we need to heat our homes, how are we going to do it without burning carbon?  If you have the answer please tell us.  If you think we don't need to heat our homes please explain why.  However much we rethink economics these seem fundamental, at least to me.

Edited April 25, 2023 by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

38 minutes ago, RichardL said:

The answer to that is way up in the thread -  open the market to more than A2W, and for many smaller properties an A2A 2x inside unit multisplit will do the job of space heating.

In part I agree, although I'm not sure that the market discriminates against A2A).  But it's a tough sell and won't suit properties with lots of rooms.  Ideal for open plan I agree.

Edited April 25, 2023 by JamesPa

[MikeSharp01]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

It will happen. Technology adoption follows an S curve. The first domestic microwave cost $1295 in 1955 - roughly $14,000 today.

Very true - in fact the S curve is the pattern of everything BUT (could have used AND but I cannot be bothered) the S-curve is for a single technology. What people don't get is the changeover from one to another and the nature of that changeover. Stone age people got very good at knapping flint, so good in fact that we cannot replicate how good they were with todays technology, in getting good they engineered a whole society around it. People who mined the flint, people who gathered the wood to make arrows, people who knapped the flint to make the arrow heads and cutting implements, people who took the arrows and plunged them into woolly Mammoths, people butchered the meat with flint knives, people who cooked it. Anyway when the Bronze wielding hoards came over the hills at them they needed to defend their way of life strongly as their society was built on flint! 

 

Ever since, and somewhat before for other technologies, there have been two sides in every transition from one S-curve to another. The attacker, in the present case the ASHP, and the defender - the gas boiler. Our whole way of life is being challenged here, it is not just a technology switch.

 

In general the attacker needs first to create a crude product that enough people in a particular niche of the market (that's people like us) will like and purchase (in my view this is about where are). They can then grow into other aspects of the market as their technologies improves - but improve it must and gather around it a band of followers in vanguard of the early adopters who can persuade others of its efficacy, if it does not achieve all these things it will wither and die. Meanwhile the defender needs to make an array of mistakes to be overthrown; misreading the market, not understanding their customers, thinking they are big enough to withstand the onslaught and that they are able to react fast enough not to be displaced. 

 

If the attacker wins then they become the defender and while this whole thing is going along another S-curve starts up some place that makes both the S-curves we have been discussing redundant. Systems thinking 101! (Mostly after Foster, R N, Innovation the attackers advantage, 1986)

 

And my first mobile phone also of 1986 cost £1500 to purchase (£4K at todays prices) - people told me it would never catch on! 

 

 

[JamesPa]

7 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

43 minutes ago, Mike said:

It will happen. Technology adoption follows an S curve. The first domestic microwave cost $1295 in 1955 - roughly $14,000 today.

Very true - in fact the S curve is the pattern of everything BUT (could have used AND but I cannot be bothered) the S-curve is for a single technology

 

 

I would buy that argument if the principal cost was the heat pump itself.  But it isn't, it's the installation of the HP and in particular the associated changes.  Are these going to follow the s-curve and if so why?

 

If your assertion is true then the hp industry should be able to give us the roadmap.  

Edited April 25, 2023 by JamesPa

[JohnMo]

S curve

 

But we are couple of generations along the road with heat pumps, its nothing new, first install for space heating in the late 1930s.  First generation were fixed speed, fixed temperature. We are now have (introduced in 2001) modulating, constantly variable temp, two flow temps one for heating the other for DHW. CoP is night and day different, size of the units reduced also. This change has been driven not by innovation alone, but mostly through legislation.

 

Definitely not new technology 

 

You can buy a 6kW ASHP for circa £2k, but you hear of quotes of £10 to 15k to supply and install. And then the install isn't the best, and the home owner left to sort it out or pay for a poor performance/cost ratio.

[JamesPa]

6 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

S curve

 

But we are couple of generations along the road with heat pumps, its nothing new, first install for space heating in the late 1930s.  First generation were fixed speed, fixed temperature. We are now have (introduced in 2001) modulating, constantly variable temp, two flow temps one for heating the other for DHW. CoP is night and day different, size of the units reduced also. This change has been driven not by innovation alone, but mostly through legislation.

 

Definitely not new technology 

 

You can buy a 6kW ASHP for circa £2k, but you hear of quotes of £10 to 15k to supply and install. And then the install isn't the best, and the home owner left to sort it out or pay for a poor performance/cost ratio.

+1 +1 +1 again. 

 

The installation industry is responsible for the current difference between £2K and £10K-£15K (or even £20K actually once we take out the government grant). 

 

Let us generously suppose that heat pumps aren't quite mature and so come down to £1K or even £500.  The installation industry needs to tell us their roadmap to get the cost of their labour plus the ancillary parts down, so that the total install cost is about the same as a gas boiler (let us say £4K). 

 

Alternatively listen to and critique in positive ways suggestions for reforming things, and stop taking government grants until it has (or at least is working towards) a roadmap to a solution.  At the present time the principal argument (against change) seems to boil down to: Current installations don't achieve anything like the predicted results because they aren't very good.  So we cant consider changing anything to make it cheaper, even though the product specs say its possible,  because it might make them even worse than they are already.

 

A cynic might say that the installation industry is comfortable with low volume, high price.  

 

[sharpener]

I think for well-insulated airtight new build houses the anwer is none of the above. Have been musing ever since I put our MVHR system in in 2008 that a comparatively small HP would recover a great deal more that 100% of the heat that goes to waste in the exhaust air.

 

The trouble is, the specific heat of air is so low compared with water that you need to move enornmous volumes of air to get any reasonable heat output. Hence it will not work as a retrofit solution without massive ductwork*. But for new build I think it could be a no-brainer because the exhaust air is so much warmer than ambient that the CoP will be way better than with conventional A2A.

 

*Even 160mm ducts required a serious amount of diamond drilling in a stone barn conversion.

Edited April 25, 2023 by sharpener

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

What then?  If we need to heat our homes, how are we going to do it without burning carbon? 

 

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.

[JamesPa]

4 minutes ago, sharpener said:

I think for well-insulated airtight new build houses the anwer is none of the above. Have been musing ever since I put our MVHR system in in 2008 that a comparatively small HP would recover a great deal more that 100% of the heat that goes to waste in the exhaust air.

 

The trouble is, the specific heat of air is so low compared with water that you need to move enornmous volumes of air to get any reasonable heat output. Hence it will not work as a retrofit solution without massive ductwork*. But for new build I think it could be a no-brainer because the exhaust air is so much warmer than ambient that the CoP will be way better than with conventional A2A.

 

*Even 160mm ducts required a serious amount of diamond drilling in a stone barn conversion.

Quite probably so (basically I agree with you.  But the majority of our housing stock is not well-insulated airtight new build houses, its a retrofit problem.  Hopefully the current plan to ban gas boilers in new houses from 2025 will hold., but the real challenge is the retrofit.

[DanDee]

9 minutes ago, sharpener said:

I think for well-insulated airtight new build houses the anwer is none of the above. Have been musing ever since I put our MVHR system in in 2008 that a comparatively small HP would recover a great deal more that 100% of the heat that goes to waste in the exhaust air.

 

The trouble is, the specific heat of air is so low compared with water that you need to move enornmous volumes of air to get any reasonable heat output. Hence it will not work as a retrofit solution without massive ductwork*. But for new build I think it could be a no-brainer because the exhaust air is so much warmer than ambient that the CoP will be way better than with conventional A2A.

 

*Even 160mm ducts required a serious amount of diamond drilling in a stone barn conversion.

 

It works only when you think of it as a great solution, but in practice you cannot cover heat requirement with an exhaust air heat pump, you will eventually need that extra source of heat. 

[JohnMo]

11 minutes ago, sharpener said:

comparatively small HP would recover a great deal more that 100% of the heat that goes to waste in the exhaust air

Not sure how this would work.

 

You use the heat pump to supply energy to the house, it takes it heat from the ventilation air.  The heat loss through the walls etc is lost, so cannot be used by the heat pump - energy is just transformed, so you cannot make more than you have.  

[JamesPa]

14 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

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.

Fair enough in some areas.  But the UK de-industrialised from the 1980s on so there are many areas, with high density housing (and in total a lot of houses), that don't have waste heat to harvest.  District heating is all well and good and also has a place, but its counter cultural for the UK ('an Englishmans home is his Castle') and there are no serious proposals for mass roll out.

 

Meanwhile 1.6M gas boilers are installed each year in the UK, of which 1.4M must be retrofits (because we only build 200K houses per year).  Every one of these is an opportunity lost for the next 20 years.  Its now 2024 and we are committed to be carbon neutral by 2050, we can't afford to lose, every year, 1.4M opportunities to move in the right direction.

 

If we wait for the perfect solution based on technology we don't have, we will lose the opportunity to find any solution.  Currently it appears to be impossible even to discuss, let alone deploy, an imperfect solution.  Engineering is about dealing with trade offs, not always finding perfection.  Those who want and can afford a Rolls Royce can buy one, meanwhile the majority survive on something much less perfect, but still good enough. 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by JamesPa

[SteamyTea]

I have rather skimmed most of the replies since my last reply.

 

The IEE has some comments here:

https://www.iea.org/reports/heat-pumps

 

There is the Simon–Ehrlich wager regarding metal prices.

Don't forget that the stone age did not end because of lack of stones.

 

I don't think the world lacks the production capacity to make heat pumps, we make a lot of air conditioning units.

 

Modern factories produce a lot more goods for less resources.

[JamesPa]

3 hours ago, JohnMo said:

If they were/are installing 1.5 million boilers per year, but instead install 1.5 million heat pumps, the scaling of raw materials new or recycled) moves from one heat source to the other.

 

If there was no commerce there would be no money moving around the world, which is great if you don't want public services (from tax), wages etc.

 

The bigger picture would look at carbon input and compare to the time taken to be carbon neutral.  A heat pump lets you use carbon free electric generation, gas, oil, wood etc doesn't.  So a heat pump after being installed a short period will have a much lower carbon foot print than almost any other heating system.

 

And the alternative is what? Suggestions on a postcard, well perhaps email, wait a minute, what about the mined silver and gold in phones and computers, just shout it over the hills.

 

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

+1 +1 +1 again (in response to @JohnMo. 

 

The installation industry is responsible for the current difference between £2K and £10K-£15K (or even £20K actually once we take out the government grant). 

 

Let us generously suppose that heat pumps aren't quite mature and so come down to £1K or even £500.  The installation industry needs to tell us their roadmap to get the cost of their labour plus the ancillary parts down, so that the total install cost is about the same as a gas boiler (let us say £4K). 

 

Alternatively listen to and critique in positive ways suggestions for reforming things, and stop taking government grants until it has (or at least is working towards) a roadmap to a solution.  At the present time the principal argument (against change) seems to boil down to: Current installations don't achieve anything like the predicted results because they aren't very good.  So we cant consider changing anything to make it cheaper, even though the product specs say its possible,  because it might make them even worse than they are already.

 

A cynic might say that the installation industry is comfortable with low volume, high price.  

 

So, do we have any responses to the above?  In summary, for those who find the suggestions made so far unpalatable, what are the alternatives?

 

We need to install about 1.5 million A2W or A2A heat pumps, instead of 1.5 million gas boilers,  per year to retrofit our housing stock in about 20 years.  Alternatively we need to install 1.5M units of some yet to be invented, unnamed technology (so I know which one I would put my bet on!).  In 2021 we installed 42,000, even though the taxpayer contributed 5K to the cost of many of the installs.

 

If people are to be persuaded to pay for them then the installed cost needs to be c4-5k.  Please don't assume taxpayer subsidies are the solution, taxes are paid by the same people.

 

So, unless the installers are going to work for free, which I doubt, and given that the pump itself accounts for perhaps £2K of the cost, how are we going to get from £10-25K per install to perhaps £4-5K per install, if we don't change the installation design methodology ? 

 

I reiterate that the principal argument against change seems to boil down to: 'Current installations don't achieve anything like the predicted results because they aren't very good.  So we cant consider changing anything to make it cheaper, even though the product specs say its possible,  because it might make them even worse than they are already.'.  

 

 

 

 

 

[sharpener]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Not sure how this would work.

 

Surprisingly well. You have a standard ducted MVHR setup which sucks the air out of the warm wet spaces (kitchen, bathrooms, toilets) and pre-heats the air fed to the bedrooms and living rooms. But by using a heat pump instead of a plate HX or a heat wheel you can cool the exhaust air to well below the OAT and apply this higher delta T to the same volume of inlet air. See this write-up.

 

The ultimate limit is probably how much you can cool the exhaust air before condensation and defrosting become too much of a problem.

 

There is a one-sided and highly critical Wikipedia article which focuses on the shortcomings of a particular Nibe setup. Not perhaps surprising, as I would not expect the MVR/HP concept to work well with the temperatures required for hot water supply.

 

I have not done much of a survey of the market but this system from Joule  looks quite interesting.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by sharpener

[SimonD]

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/

[sharpener]

10 minutes ago, SimonD said:

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/

 

Back to the numeracy/understanding of science topic once more then!

[SteamyTea]

There is reams of data and analysis about how well the MCS systems has worked here:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606834/Report_on_compliance_with_MCS_installation_standards_v32.pdf

 

And

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606818/DECC_RHPP_161214_Final_Report_v1-13.pdf

Edited April 26, 2023 by SteamyTea