Gas boiler lobby obstructing heatpumps

[JohnMo]

A couple mandatory requirements wouldn't go a miss

 

All new builds to have electric only heating and DHW. End user chooses or architect (in most cases).

 

All planning applications will only be approved with install of minimum insulation levels, and removal of any carbon based boiler system. If you don't want to do that, then all your planning applications will be refused.

 

A simplified permitted development criteria, a simplified noise limit and placement guidance. No need for planning unless on a site of historic importance (they would be exempt from all the above and have their own rules and regs).

 

No VAT on the purchase of electric driven heating equipment or heat pump specific cylinders. This includes standalone purchases or as part of an install package.

 

A 50% tax rate + VAT on all non electric heat appliances and all cylinders without a prescribed coil area.

 

Gas, LPG, biomass and heating oil price uplift to 50% of electric price per kWh. So 30p for electric, 15p for gas, heating oil, biomass, LPG per kWh.

 

Option for DHW heating, via immersion and existing cylinder; Willis heaters are cheap and easy to retrofit to any cylinder, or replace with heat pump suitable cylinder. Electric Tariff available for either option.

 

After that the market would sort it's self out.  Remove £5k or £7.5k (Scotland) grants.

 

 

[sharpener]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Willis heaters are cheap and easy to retrofit to any cylinder

Total rubbish solution. CoP of 1. Increases maximum demand. In what scenario would you do this? Might as well have instantaneous water heaters everywhere. My 80A supply has DNO approval for an HP only, not any supplementary heating.

[JohnMo]

10 minutes ago, sharpener said:

Total rubbish solution. CoP of 1.

Seems from this thread and others, some aren't happy removing their cylinder, so the option is limited, 0.7m2 and and heat pump, equals lukewarm water.

 

Even E7 will give you a price equal to a CoP of 2 and was ok for millions for many decades. Do don't see issue.

 

So what's your better solution if you don't want a heat pump cylinder.

[Beelbeebub]

29 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Seems from this thread and others, some aren't happy removing their cylinder, so the option is limited, 0.7m2 and and heat pump, equals lukewarm water.

 

Even E7 will give you a price equal to a CoP of 2 and was ok for millions for many decades. Do don't see issue.

 

So what's your better solution if you don't want a heat pump cylinder.

does it?

 

A heatpump can crank 65-75C out (Ok maybe not in the depths ow winter) a similar temperature to the gas boiler, so why would the water be lukewarm?

 

Will the heatpump be operating at maximum efficiency? Nope

Will it be as fast to recover as the old gas boiler? probably not.

 

Here is the performance table for an r290 9kw unit

 

 

Note that it can punt out 4-6kw at 75C with a CoP above 1.3 for temps as low as -7C

Edited August 4, 2023 by Beelbeebub

[JohnMo]

So you are saying millions are wrong using E7. People on here still use it and are quite happy.

 

18 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

heatpump can crank 65-75C out (Ok maybe not in the depths ow winter) a similar temperature to the gas boiler, so why would the water be lukewarm?

You can't get an installer or manufacturer to agree with you. So chat all you like, nothing is going to change. Your goal isn't going to get realised without a pragmatic approach to allow everyone an alternative approach to a new cylinder.

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, JohnMo said:

So you are saying millions are wrong using E7. People on here still use it and are quite happy.

 

You can't get an installer or manufacturer to agree with you. So chat all you like, nothing is going to change. Your goal isn't going to get realised without a pragmatic approach to allow everyone an alternative approach to a new cylinder.

we might be at cross purposes. I was thinking in terms of carbon where a HP always wins.

 

If you look at cost per liter of DHW, a HP using standard day rate (about 30pkwh) would need to beat 2.0 to equal an immersion using E7 night rate (about 15pkwh).

 

But then you have to make the assumption that someone with a HP would be on E7 in the first place.  That seems daft given the day rate (when your HP is doing heating) for E7 is much higher (40p).

 

If you were on E7 then you would still have to compare the immersion on E7 with the heatpump on E7, where the HP wins.

 

So, yes, in a subset of circumstances* an E7 immersion will be cheaper to run than a HP running on standard or E7 day (30/40pkwh) rates. But that has to be a very rare set of circumstances.

 

* the HP only drops below 2.0 of you need a flow temp of 65 and it's below zero outside.

 

[Beelbeebub]

25 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So you are saying millions are wrong using E7. People on here still use it and are quite happy.

 

Pretty certain nobody is happy on E7.  It's more expensive than gas, and requires storage heaters to work, which are rubbish.

[JamesPa]

3 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So you are saying millions are wrong using E7. People on here still use it and are quite happy.

 

You can't get an installer or manufacturer to agree with you. So chat all you like, nothing is going to change. Your goal isn't going to get realised without a pragmatic approach to allow everyone an alternative approach to a new cylinder.

If, by the last sentence, you mean force everyone who has a heat pump to have a new cylinder, I refer to my previous comment.  If you mean something else then please lets discuss solutions not kid ourselves that the problem doesn't exist.

 

Gas boiler replacements cost 4-5K and dont involve the disruption of replacing the cylinder.   Thus it follows that replacement of a heat pump with a gas boiler must also cost about the same otherwise its not going to happen.

 

Think of this from the perspective of a low to middle income householder, or a penny pinching landlord, not from the perspective of a self builder, an installer or the HPO industry.  1.4M of them each year replace their heat source (gas boiler) in most cases because the exsiting gas boiler has failed or is uneconomic to repair.  They don't expect to replace their DHW system at the same time.  How can price parity (or near parity) possibly be achieved if you insist on 2-4K worth of unnecessary DHW system replacement (and associated disruption) in addition to replacing the heat source.   It cant, so we have to find a way to accept alternatives otherwise the roll out of heat pumps is forever crippled.

 

Some of the suggestions you make for regulatory reform are spot on, but some rely on market distortion of a nature which costs poor/poorly educated people money.  This  plays directly into the hands of the right wing extremists who are already ruthlessly exploiting climate change to their benefit, so must be used with caution.  Climate change already plays into the hands of the facists/right wing extreme, we simply cannot afford for the Heat pump industry to make it worse.

 

So lets get real, we need two things at pace to address what are surely the two majority use cases for HP retrofits to substitute for the 1.4M gas boiler retrofits which take place each year:

 

1. A way to replace a gas boiler coupled to a DHW tank with a heat pump, that costs (without government subsidy) about the same as a gas boiler replacement alone.  I submit that this rules out replacing the DHW tank in most if not many cases

 

We appear to have this technologically with modern R290 (or even R32) pumps.  We also, as you say, have a solution with pure electric provided the heating is done at cheap rate.  But currently neither are deployable, the first because the industry wont do it apparently and the second because of the silly rules which say that grants are available only for 100% space + DHW heat pump solutions.  Something needs to change so that ideally both of these solutions become deployable.

 

2. As above for the case where there is no existing DHW tank.  We don't appear to have this so, at present, I cant see this yet as a mass market.  Something needs to be invented/change to fix this one.

 

[JamesPa]

2 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Pretty certain nobody is happy on E7.  It's more expensive than gas, and requires storage heaters to work, which are rubbish.

I think @JohnMoprobably meant heat pump space heating and E7 DHW, which is certainly a plausible solution.

[Beelbeebub]

27 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

You can't get an installer or manufacturer to agree with you.

Can you explain why a cylinder that works when you pump 65C water through the coil from a gas boiler won't work when you pump 65C water through it from a Heat pump.

 

HP's have a reputation for not being able to provide hot water - I am pretty sure it's from the days when the maximum temp a heatpump could output was around 45C.

 

In that case, yes, you will get lukewarm water unless you have a cylinder with a big enough coil that the stored water can be heated to very close to the flow water temp.

 

But if your HP can crank out 65C+ water what's stopping it heating the water to a suitible temp?  (the one caveat is is the flow rate is too small because of the pipework)

[JamesPa]

53 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Seems from this thread and others, some aren't happy removing their cylinder, so the option is limited, 0.7m2 and and heat pump, equals lukewarm water.

 

Even E7 will give you a price equal to a CoP of 2 and was ok for millions for many decades. Do don't see issue.

 

So what's your better solution if you don't want a heat pump cylinder.

Expand  

does it?

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't.  I run my gas boiler at FT55 in winter with a 0.7sq m DHW coil.  My water is hot (in summer I run the DHW from PV - the water is hotter, but the winter water is still definitely hot).

[Beelbeebub]

2 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

I think @JohnMoprobably meant heat pump space heating and E7 DHW, which is certainly a plausible solution.

Yeah, but if you have E7 night heating for DHW you're paying E7 day (30% more expensive than regular electricity) from 6am 'til midnight.

 

Unless you have a huge CH thermal store (which would need to be in the 1000's of liters) and plan to onlyrun you HP at night.... you are going to lose by paying 30% more for 80% of your energy to save 50% on 20%.....

[JamesPa]

5 hours ago, DanDee said:

There are millions of heat pumps to be installed outside your particular case

Just to be clear I'm not arguing for my particular case.  I can afford to replace my dhw system when I fit a heat pump.  With my engineering background I find doing so  offensive, but if that is what it takes then so be it.

 

I'm making this argument for the mass retrofit case which, so far as I can see is 1.4m gas boilers per year which will be a mix of system boilers and combis.  We have to do this at a price and disruption the average person will tolerate, most likely when the gas boiler fails or is not economically repairable (because that's when people replace boiler) and also most likely at a time when the dhw tank has not failed. I can't see how that is possibly consistent with insisting on on an unnecessary spend of 2-4k on replacing a functioning DHW system.

 

So to be clear it's not my case I'm concerned about, it's the more general one.

[DanDee]

2 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Just to be clear I'm not arguing for my particular case.  I can afford to replace my dhw system when I fit a heat pump.  With my engineering background I find doing so  offensive, but if that is what it takes then so be it.

 

I'm making this argument for the mass retrofit case which, so far as I can see is 1.4m gas boilers per year which will be a mix of system boilers and combis.  We have to do this at a price and disruption the average person will tolerate, most likely when the gas boiler fails or is not economically repairable (because that's when people replace boiler) and also most likely at a time when the dhw tank has not failed. I can't see how that is possibly consistent with insisting on on an unnecessary spend of 2-4k on replacing a functioning DHW system.

 

So to be clear it's not my case I'm concerned about, it's the more general one.

should've said:

There are millions of heat pumps to be installed outside the ones like your case

 

That doesn't mean you are not right, but then those that make those hp's in order to provide the listed result, aka SCOP, have to request certain device size to be paired with their systems to achieve both the SCOP and longevity of the system. 

 

So where is the middle ground? Keep your cylinder but tweak the coil or use an external HEX to match the HP. 

[JohnMo]

6 hours ago, JamesPa said:

If that's the case, and I fear you are right, we can forget any prospect of heat pumps being installed in the quantity we need to deal with climate change without continued government subsidy, which won't happen.

 

Curtains for heat pumps and humanity.  The gas boiler lobby has won, thanks to the heat pump industry.

 

Seriously.  If anyone can see a route to heat pump installs which is both financially viable (for the average person not the privileged few) and viable in terms of disruption, but where you nevertheless rip out a perfectly functional DHW system, please come forward!

My reply was to the above.

 

A few steps to make heat pumps viable to the masses without ripping out functional DHW systems. Immersions may not the best or only solution. Time of use tariffs, come in many formats. E7 is one, and they don't have to be and could be mandated so they are not inflated prices during the day. Octopus flux export, gives you standard rated in the day and discounts at night it also pays well for exports.

 

Plenty of criticism, no practical solutions voiced, or did miss them? While I was ducking!

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Yeah, but if you have E7 night heating for DHW you're paying E7 day (30% more expensive than regular electricity) from 6am 'til midnight.

 

Unless you have a huge CH thermal store (which would need to be in the 1000's of liters) and plan to onlyrun you HP at night.... you are going to lose by paying 30% more for 80% of your energy to save 50% on 20%.....

Just negatives, simple solution is a decent tariff that doesn't inflate day time prices 

[JamesPa]

21 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Just to be clear I'm not arguing for my particular case.  I can afford to replace my dhw system when I fit a heat pump.  With my engineering background I find doing so  offensive, but if that is what it takes then so be it.

 

I'm making this argument for the mass retrofit case which, so far as I can see is 1.4m gas boilers per year which will be a mix of system boilers and combis.  We have to do this at a price and disruption the average person will tolerate, most likely when the gas boiler fails or is not economically repairable (because that's when people replace boiler) and also most likely at a time when the dhw tank has not failed. I can't see how that is possibly consistent with insisting on on an unnecessary spend of 2-4k on replacing a functioning DHW system.

 

So to be clear it's not my case I'm concerned about, it's the more general one.

 

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Can you explain why a cylinder that works when you pump 65C water through the coil from a gas boiler won't work when you pump 65C water through it from a Heat pump.

 

HP's have a reputation for not being able to provide hot water - I am pretty sure it's from the days when the maximum temp a heatpump could output was around 45C.

 

In that case, yes, you will get lukewarm water unless you have a cylinder with a big enough coil that the stored water can be heated to very close to the flow water temp.

 

But if your HP can crank out 65C+ water what's stopping it heating the water to a suitible temp?  (the one caveat is is the flow rate is too small because of the pipework)

Not everyone will be able to afford your Vaillant heat pump. What do they do, be told sorry you can have DHW until you pay the premium, so no heat pump for you. The alternative could be heat pump for heating, a good solid basic one, and decent time of use tariff and immersion in the original cylinder. I mentioned the Willis heater, because its design basis to heat only the water you need. You can heat a small section of the cylinder only without multiple immersion heaters

 

Do want this to happen sometime soon or in 10 years time?

[JamesPa]

Apologies @JohnMoI might have accidentally reposted something after you had replied.  Intermittent connectivity to blame and no offence or attack intended

[JamesPa]

6 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Not everyone will be able to afford your Vaillant heat pump. What do they do, be told sorry you can have DHW until you pay the premium, so no heat pump for you. The alternative could be heat pump for heating, a good solid basic one, and decent time of use tariff and immersion in the original cylinder. I mentioned the Willis heater, because its design basis to heat only the water you need. You can heat a small section of the cylinder only without multiple immersion heaters

 

Do want this to happen sometime soon or in 10 years time?

My gut feel is that there are a range of solutions involving

 

Tarrifs

Willis heaters

Plate heat exchangers and pumps as add ones

Use of high temp flow

The existing immersion heater where there is one

 

Currently it seems the industry will contemplate none of these, that has to change.

[JohnMo]

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

My gut feel is that there are a range of solutions involving

 

Tarrifs

Willis heaters

Plate heat exchangers and pumps as add ones

Use of high temp flow

The existing immersion heater where there is one

 

Currently it seems the industry will contemplate none of these, that has to change.

In complete agreement.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

Just negatives, simple solution is a decent tariff that doesn't inflate day time prices 

Yes, a tariff where night electricity was cheaper than standard day electricity would help. But in every case, you have the choice between

 

A) Use the HP in a suboptimal mode on existing cylinder 

 

B) Use an immersion fitted to the cylinder.

 

In almost every case A works out cheaper to run. Invoking various tariffs doesn't change that as the same tariff can be used for the HP.

 

If the cylinder is already fitted with an immersion then there is the option to not connect the HP and save on those costs at the expense of higher running costs than HP

 

Fitting a new cylinder will always result in lower running costs at the expense of higher (potentially deal breaking) upfront costs.

 

in summary:

 

From a CO2 perspective HP DHW is almost always best.

 

From a cost perspective there is a balance between lower capital outlay and longer term running costs.

 

IMHO it would be better to get more installs, even if the overall fleet efficency was not as good as the fleet efficency of fewer installs.

 

i.e., lots of good enough beats a few excellent.

 

As for a solution, I've laid out a change to the subsidy regime where, the HP is guaranteed to cost no more to run than a gas boiler for a defined period (say 5 years). That would dramatically lower the pressure to get a very good performing system straight away and make installs much cheaper and quicker.  

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

 

Double post

Edited August 4, 2023 by Beelbeebub

[Beelbeebub]

Double post 

[JohnMo]

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

IMHO it would be better to get more installs, even if the overall fleet efficency was not as good as the fleet efficency of fewer installs.

Same aims.

 

If you have a 120l cylinder that's normally heated to 70 to allow hot water for the family, heating it to 50ish will not keep the family in water without a couple of heats.

 

The other options are bigger cylinder, or to heat it to 70 by another means. That could be immersion, or could be a hybrid of HP and finish with immersion. 

 

We want it all to happen ASAP and manufacturers and installers won't connect to the old cylinder, so option A) is a non starter. And so is the hybrid option for the same reason.

 

New cylinder is a big cost adder to upfront costs.