Gas boiler lobby obstructing heatpumps

[JamesPa]

6 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Exactly, and yes, if you can get away with heating only to 55 or 50C then great. 

 

That's an optimisation that can occur after you've fitted the heatpump. You can dial back slowly until you hit the point you're running out of hot water.  

 

But you can only do that once you've got a HP installed.

 

The current system attempts to get your system to max efficency before install, which results in alot of upfront work, and because they add margins to make sure you aren't cold, they often end up overspeccing the system which adds a bunch of cost, and then if the system estimation has gone a bit wrong they still need up paying a bunch.

 

If we could get installs cheap and easy and allow a "running in period" to get the system right, I think we'd get alot more installs *and* probably higher efficiency at the end 

Exactly.  We are discussing engineering alternatives, but at the level we are discussing I'm not sure it's about engineering.  The real question with dhw is what can you persuade an installer to do.  So it needs to be guaranteed by someone else, meet all the regulations, save enough time to mean they can do more than one per week and still give them a reasonable profit.  A HT pump with dhw run at 65-70 has the potential to do this.  A more nuanced solution which might be a few percent better from an efficiency standpoint currently doesn't, I fear.

 

I will be testing this in the next couple of weeks as it happens.  I have 3 more flexible installers poised to give me quotes. I will see how they react to a HT dhw solution.

[Beelbeebub]

26 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Exactly.  We are discussing engineering alternatives, but at the level we are discussing I'm not sure it's about engineering.  The real question with dhw is what can you persuade an installer to do.  So it needs to be guaranteed by someone else, meet all the regulations, save enough time to mean they can do more than one per week and still give them a reasonable profit.  A HT pump with dhw run at 65-70 has the potential to do this.  A more nuanced solution which might be a few percent better from an efficiency standpoint currently doesn't, I fear.

 

I will be testing this in the next couple of weeks as it happens.  I have 3 more flexible installers poised to give me quotes. I will see how they react to a HT dhw solution.

All the faff is to do with the grant.

I've looked at grants because I have potentially 30 odd properties to do. 

 

So I'm thinking £5k a property....nice.

 

But the key bit is the cost to me. The fact that I'm getting £5k off something that would cost £14k still means I pay £9k, and if I could get a system for less than £9k without a grant it'm still better off.

 

I plan intialky to tackle the electric only properties because they are going to win whatever.

 

Then the gas properties, that will be harder as I will have to hit financial break even or the tenants will get cross.

 

The other wrinkle, is I asked our EPC assessor what effect swapping to a HP would have (on an electric flat). His answer was "almost none".  The EPC appears to be based on the state of play 10, 15 years ago when the grid was 50% coal and heatpumps were assumed to get cops of less than 2 at best. Until that's solved the EPC is a barrier (in fact it drove us to install gas in several properties as the easiest (almost only way) to get a C in an old property was stick a gas boiler in.

[JamesPa]

6 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

All the faff is to do with the grant.

Sadly not entirely.  To install a hp under permitted development requires MCS.  So if you want to avoid the faff you need express planning consent which, depending on your LPA, makes it nearly impossible to install a heat pump.

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Sadly not entirely.  To install a hp under permitted development requires MCS.  So if you want to avoid the faff you need express planning consent which, depending on your LPA, makes it nearly impossible to install a heat pump.

That almost sums up "the problem"

 

Anyone would think there was a government policy in place to make it hard to install a heat pump, either by impossible red tape, or just make it plain too expensive.

[JamesPa]

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That almost sums up "the problem"

 

Anyone would think there was a government policy in place to make it hard to install a heat pump, either by impossible red tape, or just make it plain too expensive.

That's crediting the government with a greater degree of competence than is reasonable.

 

However others, more competent or more to the point better funded, do have interests which align with the current situation, including many in the grant harvesting/heat pump installation industry. 

 

Their influence on a government that really isn't up to the challenge is all too evident.

[dpmiller]

45 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I have potentially 30 odd properties to do. 

 

Are you a business?

[Beelbeebub]

36 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Sadly not entirely.  To install a hp under permitted development requires MCS.  So if you want to avoid the faff you need express planning consent which, depending on your LPA, makes it nearly impossible to install a heat pump.

Ahem, there might be specific spots on the building that a box can be put and not be visible at all. It's a bit tight for the larger monoblock HPs, which is why I'm thinking the external boxes need to be as small as possible to help with retrofit.

 

But again, planning rules which make installing solar panels, heatpumps, carchargers etc are all political decisions that slow up adoption.

 

I often hear noise cited as an issue, but that could be solved by just having a standard noise limit on the units. As long as it has the "hush mark" you don't need permission. 

 

Manufacturers making the damn things in almost any colour other than bloody white would help!

 

As far as I can see the default white comes from air con units which are used in hot, sunny countries and any additional absorbed solar radiation hurts their efficiency.

 

For aheat pump, any additional (however slight) gain from a dark casing on bright winters day can only help, and a black or brown or brick red box on the outside of a building is much less intrusive than a bright white box.  How many of those plastic "garden lockers" are proposed up against the side of houses in the UK? Are planners up in arms over the visual blight?

[Beelbeebub]

9 minutes ago, dpmiller said:

 

Are you a business?

Kinda.

[JamesPa]

34 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Ahem, there might be specific spots on the building that a box can be put and not be visible at all. It's a bit tight for the larger monoblock HPs, which is why I'm thinking the external boxes need to be as small as possible to help with retrofit.

 

But again, planning rules which make installing solar panels, heatpumps, carchargers etc are all political decisions that slow up adoption.

 

I often hear noise cited as an issue, but that could be solved by just having a standard noise limit on the units. As long as it has the "hush mark" you don't need permission. 

 

Manufacturers making the damn things in almost any colour other than bloody white would help!

 

As far as I can see the default white comes from air con units which are used in hot, sunny countries and any additional absorbed solar radiation hurts their efficiency.

 

For aheat pump, any additional (however slight) gain from a dark casing on bright winters day can only help, and a black or brown or brick red box on the outside of a building is much less intrusive than a bright white box.  How many of those plastic "garden lockers" are proposed up against the side of houses in the UK? Are planners up in arms over the visual blight?

All, or at least mostly true however...

Unfortunately MCS have written their installation 'standards' into planning law.  They shouldn't be there, if they belong anywhere they are part of building regulations.  But that's not what has happened.

 

Basically the government has outsourced writing the rules for permitted development to MCS.  MCS is funded by a limited installation industry whose interests are, at least at present, aligned to low volume high price.  It doesn't take a genius to work out what happens.  

 

The alternative is express consent which is down to LPAs.  LPAs have been subject to 10plus years of council tax caps imposed by the government.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that that frustrates their ability to hire people who have the skills needed to deal intelligently with new technology.

 

Underfunded government, whether local or national, hasn't got a chance against well funded private vested interests.  Underfunded government with politicians whose personal interests align with the worst of the vested interests even less so.

 

That's what you get if you bang on about low taxes without regard to the need for public services, don't hold governments to high moral standards at the polling booth, don't evaluate the plausibility of arguments made by politicians and others, and have a press which is in bed with those who seek to prolong their personal privilege at the expense of the long term good of the population.  

Edited July 22, 2023 by JamesPa

[sharpener]

3 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Really you are running your system too hot. The last thing you want with a heat pump is to gag the flow rate, running like that equals rubbish CoP, comprising flow rate and too higher flow temp and may need a buffer to compensate with the effect of worse CoP.

 

@Lofty718 is talking sense, managing a heat pump system with TRV's isn't.

 

 

ATM I have an oil boiler. As mentioned elsethread I am still trying to agree a spec with >0 HP installers, and in any case am waiting for my planning application to be validated.

 

So posts about the control of an HP based system are purely conjectural at this stage. I agree with the received wisdom to run on WC using the TRVs only as high temp backstop limit and as zone valves for rooms that are out of use (don't start!)

 

But I also hope to have a thermal store which I plan to heat to 55C at the same times as the HW cyl is heating, this should act as a big heat sink and avoid the HP short cycling with the (small) coil, so avoiding the need to change the cylinder.

 

I calculate that heating the TS to 55 off-peak will still be cheaper than running the HP on weather comp at peak rate. And if there is surplus PV it will be entirely free and a good way to store the energy which would otherwise be exported to the grid without any recompense.

[Rob99]

8 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Unfortunately MCS have written their installation 'standards' into planning law.  They shouldn't be there, if they belong anywhere they are part of building regulations.  But that's not what has happened.

 

Basically the government has outsourced writing the rules for permitted development to MCS.  MCS is funded by a limited installation industry whose interests are, at least at present, aligned to low volume high price.  It doesn't take a genius to work out what happens.  

Everytime I read this it makes me so cross.

 

You're absolutely right, any installation standards have no place in planning law. It's criminal that MCS have been allowed to write the permitted development planning rules. I think actually they might be the only non-governmental body to have been given the approval to do so.

 

I can build a large extension as PD and the only people that care about HOW it's done (quite rightly) are Building Control.

 

 

[JamesPa]

9 hours ago, sharpener said:

I calculate that heating the TS to 55 off-peak will still be cheaper than running the HP on weather comp at peak rate. And if there is surplus PV it will be entirely free and a good way to store the energy which would otherwise be exported to the grid without any recompense

Interestingly it may also even be more, or at worst no less, carbon friendly.  Off peak electricity is cheap because there is excess capacity before gas/coal fired power stations are switched on.  Mass load shifting will become increasingly important as we move from fossil fuel heating and transport to electricity.

[JamesPa]

9 hours ago, Rob99 said:

Everytime I read this it makes me so cross.

 

You're absolutely right, any installation standards have no place in planning law. It's criminal that MCS have been allowed to write the permitted development planning rules. I think actually they might be the only non-governmental body to have been given the approval to do so.

 

I can build a large extension as PD and the only people that care about HOW it's done (quite rightly) are Building Control.

 

 

Why not write to your MP.

 

Here is the response from MCS when I challenged them on the point.  Basically they are saying that DLUHC approved the text.

 

"Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DHLUC) developed the permitted development rights as a way for heat pumps to be installed legally without having to go through full planning permission. DHLUC set all the requirements to meet permitted development rights, including all noise specifications, not MCS. However, as a way for contractors to understand whether their installation will meet permitted development rights, DHLUC approached MCS to develop a methodology for installers to calculate whether the installation meets the thresholds. Therefore, MCS developed MCS 020 via our technical working group (made up of installers, manufacturers, certification bodies etc) and in conjunction with DECC (pre-ancestor to BEIS, now DESNZ). Just to be fully clear, all requirements to meet permitted development rights are set out by DHLUC, however, MCS were responsible for developing the methodology set out within MCS 020, which was accepted by DHLUC as it delivered a way of contractors being able to meet permitted development rights.

 

It was also DHLUC’s decision to mandate the installation is installed in accordance with MCS 007 and MIS 3005 as a way to ensure quality and reduce the risk of poor noisy installations."

[Beelbeebub]

I mean I guess it makes sense, "PD rights are for installs to a certain standard. The industry body will set out that standard"

 

I don't directly disagree with that approach.

 

The problem is that the standard is too restrictive and ends up hindering uptake.

 

Anecdotally they have failed to prevent poor, noisy installs.

 

If MCS was altered to be less restrictive and more "good enough" focused they could tackle the issues separately.

 

The noise issue could be tackled by a requirement for a "hush mark", basically a set of noise limits (and testing) that HPs have to meet to get the mark. Same as windows needing kitemark for various glass safety standards. 

 

The performance issue is partly solved by technology. If a "performance mark" were needed, which meant the HPnhad to have a certain performance envelope, specifically 2.5COP at a given flow temp (say 65c) and rated output (and noise!) during certain external conditions. If a HP can achieve that then it can keep someone warm and burning less gas (in the power plant) than a boiler even if it doesn't save them money.

 

So your "good standard" requirement becomes "use an approved HP". 

 

 

The final bit is the gov have to come up with the "price guarantee" scheme to prevent bill shock and align it with schemes and subsidies to bring installs that are below the final (ie. Above the 2.5 figure) efficency required up to that level, 12 month post install tuning using accumulated data, radiator scrappage schemes, more insulation etc.

[Beelbeebub]

One idea just occured.

 

If each install had a subsidy pot, lets say £5k, upto 3k of which can be used for the install and any remaining to subsidise any shortfall between the price it would have been in gas and the actual.

 

After 5 years any left over would be split between the bill payer and the installer.

 

Give an installer and householder an incentive to do a good job? Not go overboard on the install.

[JohnMo]

Just dump the subsidy of £5k, (it really only applies to the rich, as they are the only ones that can justify spend £10k+ on a boiler), let the market place find the correct price, same as it did with PV and price seemed to fall overnight.

 

A smart meter supply on the heat pump, regulated at a different price structure to normal use electric. Done.

 

Open the market to none MCS installs, using the MCS noise tool, without the thy shall be MCS qualified etc. This is submitted through building control. Or allow the installer to do a 5 min online course on how to do the noise sheet. And then a simple online course on why it's important to have low flow temps with a heat pump. If they don't want to do the course, they cannot install or have to be inspected by building control similar to G3 certs.

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

After 5 years any left over would be split between the bill payer and the installer.

 

Give an installer and householder an incentive to do a good job

An incentive to stay in business as well.

[sharpener]

36 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The noise issue could be tackled by a requirement for a "hush mark", basically a set of noise limits (and testing) that HPs have to meet to get the mark.

 

There is a Quiet Mark scheme already, here.

 

But I don't think you can simplify the issue to any go/no go certification scheme as an underlying problem is the wide range of sizes of HP available, another is the different shapes of the unit. This results in a "horses for courses" situation.

 

So for example the Stiebel Eltron 15kW has a single very large fan and a lot of soundproofing inside the case, it is does not have the Quiet Mark but is in fact 5dB quieter than the 12kW Vaillant which has two smaller faster fans and a tall slimline form factor.

 

Either will require a screen between it and my neighbour's window to meet the MCS limit, but for the Vaillant it needs to be a bit bigger as full screening wins back the 5dB difference. However the tall thin unit is preferable for me as I have only a narrow yard to put it in.

 

Whether a fence panel will in actuality give a 10dB reduction in sound power seems unlikely to me, but the MCS process is (thankfully) based on visual lines of sight alone.

[Beelbeebub]

35 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Just dump the subsidy of £5k, (it really only applies to the rich, as they are the only ones that can justify spend £10k+ on a boiler), let the market place find the correct price, same as it did with PV and price seemed to fall overnight.

 

A smart meter supply on the heat pump, regulated at a different price structure to normal use electric. Done.

 

Open the market to none MCS installs, using the MCS noise tool, without the thy shall be MCS qualified etc. This is submitted through building control. Or allow the installer to do a 5 min online course on how to do the noise sheet. And then a simple online course on why it's important to have low flow temps with a heat pump. If they don't want to do the course, they cannot install or have to be inspected by building control similar to G3 certs.

The point is to get the price of the install down to 5 or 6k so the 5k subsidy really does make it affordable for the normal person.

 

I think the Units should end up around 4k or less as the volume increases and the install 1-2k (2 men 2 days).  The key is to not have to upgrade and replace lots of stuff, especially the cylinder! an unvented cylinder is easily north of 1k, more like 2 by the time you've added all the extras.  then another 2 men for a day to remove the old one and install new one (assuming no redecoration!).  You could burn most of the 5k subsidy on the cylinder swap alone!

 

I agree about the opening up the installs.

 

And yes, low flow temp training, but not absolutely mandate them.  that route leads to replacing pipes, rads, cylinder etc.  They are definitely a nice to have and crucial for maximum efficiency.

 

Now we have HPs  that can achieve high flow temps at reasonable efficiency (which we didn't used to have)  Vaillant r290 units can hit 2.5 at rated output at 55C which should do most places heating and can hit 2.0 at 65 to use the existing water cylinder.

 

The issue with the smart meter for the HP with different unit pricing (which was my first thought)  is I can see lots of fraud.  Lots of people wiring the rest of the house up etc.  It also doesn't give any steer on the actual cop.  That's crucial for the feedback loop to the customer so they can see the gap coming up when the subsidy runs out.

[JohnMo]

44 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Units should end up around 4k or less as the volume increases

How many units do you think these factories produce, it's not a cottage industry. They make them in the thousands of million per year to go worldwide, not just the UK.

 

48 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Lots of people wiring the rest of the house up etc.

You can wire any house to miss out the meter is you were that way inclined. I dare some do, but not many.

 

Just don't subsidise then is the other option, just have a correct market rate for electric. In Scotland we are 95%+ renewables already, yet electric price is tagged to gas price, why? Wind doesn't cost more because of gas price fluctuations.

[Beelbeebub]

51 minutes ago, sharpener said:

 

There is a Quiet Mark scheme already, here.

 

But I don't think you can simplify the issue to any go/no go certification scheme as an underlying problem is the wide range of sizes of HP available, another is the different shapes of the unit. This results in a "horses for courses" situation.

 

So for example the Stiebel Eltron 15kW has a single very large fan and a lot of soundproofing inside the case, it is does not have the Quiet Mark but is in fact 5dB quieter than the 12kW Vaillant which has two smaller faster fans and a tall slimline form factor.

 

Either will require a screen between it and my neighbour's window to meet the MCS limit, but for the Vaillant it needs to be a bit bigger as full screening wins back the 5dB difference. However the tall thin unit is preferable for me as I have only a narrow yard to put it in.

 

Whether a fence panel will in actuality give a 10dB reduction in sound power seems unlikely to me, but the MCS process is (thankfully) based on visual lines of sight alone.

But the problem is relying on the install to keep the noise to acceptable levels will *always* result in problems, the upfront planning to get the noise levels down, the installation being done correctly and the process missing edge cases (eg line of sight) mean the process will be more costly and fail more.

 

It would be better to make sure only HPs that are quiet in the first place are sold.

 

Of course this will require manufacturers to put in more effort, and there may be compromises with performance.  We also need a more general national conversation about noise. Nobody has the right to absolute silence. There ahs to be a level of noise below which you can't complain.  Do I complain about my neighbours trees rustling in the wind? We have constant road noise at a low level and sometimes high when someone with a suspect exhaust blasts past.   I think noise is another stick that the foot dragging lobby has bigged up to beat HPs with and slow uptake.  To listen to some people they think a HP next door is equivalent living next to Heathrow.

[Beelbeebub]

Just now, JohnMo said:

How many units do you think these factories produce, it's not a cottage industry. They make them in the thousands of million per year to go worldwide, not just the UK.

 

You can wire any house to miss out the meter is you were that way inclined. I dare some do, but not many.

 

Just don't subsidise then is the other option, just have a correct market rate for electric. In Scotland we are 95%+ renewables already, yet electric price is tagged to gas price, why? Wind doesn't cost more because of gas price fluctuations.

Basic HPs for split Aircon, millions and millions. You can get a 5kw unit for well under £1k. And 8k won't be much more.

 

But stick the monoblock stuff on..... Much lower volumes and much higher prices.

 

A 5kw vaillant is about 4k.  Ok, it's well made but where didn't he £3k it costs over a 5kw Aircon unit go? Diamond Heat exchangers?

 

I think a bare bones 5kw monoblock could be under 2k eventually.

 

And yeah market rate for elec would help.   Anything that drops the unit price for heating elec.  But the difference system they use does drive renewable generation install. So that does need to be considered.

 

The only down side to measuring heat and subsidising is the extra parts needed to do that, but the potential benefits are pretty good when it comes to driving post install optimization (and user awareness)

 

 

[sharpener]

40 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

It would be better to make sure only HPs that are quiet in the first place are sold.

 

But you also want a low unit price. Adding say a further 50mm acoustic insulation inside the casing all round would cost more and the unit would also be 100mm deeper front-to-back. I for one would rather take remedial measures elsewhere on the site.

 

In time the best acoustic design ideas will percolate down to the cheaper models but I don't think you will ever get >10 kW HPs to be completely quiet, they have been trying this with aircon and cooling towers for decades but the physics are against you.

[dpmiller]

19 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I think a bare bones 5kw monoblock could be under 2k eventually.

 

The issue isn't manufacturing cost, it's price gouging en-route to the UK.

[DanDee]

31 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

I think a bare bones 5kw monoblock could be under 2k eventually.

 

https://www.theheatpumpwarehouse.co.uk/shop/heat-pumps/air-source-heat-pumps/samsung-5kw-r32-monobloc-air-source-heat-pump/