Heat Pumps work when installed correctly...

[Marvin]

See why the UK's heat pump market struggles while other countries succeed: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/norway-heat-pumps-cold-heating

[Bornagain]

1 hour ago, Marvin said:

See why the UK's heat pump market struggles while other countries succeed: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/norway-heat-pumps-cold-heating

 

This story is on the one hand completely true, whilst at the same time pretty misleading.

 

It is cheap to operate a heat pump driving underfloor heating in a well insulated shell and slab, or an air2air pump in a well insulated shell.

 

However, using a heat pump to heat water to 60C for radiators in a poorly insulated or draughty house is a licence to spend a lot of money both on the installation and energy bills.

 

The Guardian either does not understand the difference, or is perhaps just keen to support the current Government drive.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

The Guardian either does not understand the difference, or is perhaps just keen to support the current Government drive.

Think it is more to do with carbon dioxide emissions reduction.  They are champions for that.

[ProDave]

One sentence sums it up.

 

"The Norwegians also benefit from well insulated houses"

 

Which brings the conversation back to what do we do with the millions or poorly insulated houses in the UK.  Our traditional answer when energy was cheap was just pump loads of heat into them as fast as it leaks out. 

[nod]

The company that is fitting ours doesn’t fit retrospectively now 

They have been going 25 years and said the  majority of retro fits are expecting bills to be significantly reduced which isn’t  possible with rads and poor insulation levels 

We will be happy with similar running costs to our gas boiler 

He said that's realistic Time will tell 

 

I pointed out that BG are guaranteeing a reduction in bills 

He said that he doesn’t know how that can be possible while electric is so much more expensive than gas 

[billt]

9 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

It is cheap to operate a heat pump driving underfloor heating in a well insulated shell and slab, or an air2air pump in a well insulated shell.

 

However, using a heat pump to heat water to 60C for radiators in a poorly insulated or draughty house is a licence to spend a lot of money both on the installation and energy bills.

 

That's another misleading conflation of 2 separate issues.

 

Yes, you want to insulate as well as you can whatever the source of heat.

 

However, it is possible to use a heat pump effectively in an old, leaky building, you just have to design the system correctly.

 

Our house is old in places and not terribly well insulated, but I've installed a heat pump system with a design flow temperature of 35C and it is heating the house perfectly well, with a SCOP so far of 4.36 so cheaper to run than gas even on standard rate electricity. Currently the grid CO2 intensity in our region is 85g/kWh so 20g/kWh of heat energy. Gas is about 180g/kWh, so nearly 10 times the CO2 emissions.

[SteamyTea]

16 minutes ago, ProDave said:

what do we do with the millions or poorly insulated houses in the UK

Insulate them.

Not difficult, just needs to be got on with.

 

The question you are really asking is 'who pays'.

In all cases it needs to be the property owner.

Stop all the grants and incentives and legislate for improvements.  Let the market sort itself out, no one is forced to buy a house.

[JohnMo]

14 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Insulate them.

Not difficult, just needs to be got on with.

 

The question you are really asking is 'who pays'.

In all cases it needs to be the property owner.

Stop all the grants and incentives and legislate for improvements.  Let the market sort itself out, no one is forced to buy a house.

We just need a government that is REALLY committed to get these things sorted and not one pretending. They back tracked on new build insulation standards, they stopped onshore wind, stopped the homes insulation grants, give huge tax incentives to oil companies an EPC almost gives you extra points for going gas. Just makes to wonder.

[ReedRichards]

When I was looking for a retrofit heat pump I consulted three installation companies.  Two employed teams of fitters and promised me a large reduction in my heating bill over my then oil-fired boiler.  The other installer was a small company saying my heating bill might be slightly reduced.  Since I had done the sums for myself I went with the honest installer and was very pleased that I did because their workmanship and after-sales support were excellent.  Unfortunately with the change of fuel prices since then, oil would currently be cheaper.    

[sharpener]

37 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

The question you are really asking is 'who pays'.

In all cases it needs to be the property owner.

 

Why? The property owner may see a big bill for lots of short-term disruption and a very long payback time. 

 

If the property is rented the owner and occupiers interests are not very well aligned. The landlord will have to increase the rent to get a return on the capital investment, it is easier just to invest in more property.

 

An issue peculiar to the UK is the large proportion of Victorian housing with solid brick walls. Insulating these either inside or outside is costly, disruptive and/or unsightly. Space to fit HPs to terraced housing under current planning rules is often non-existent.

 

37 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Stop all the grants and incentives and legislate for improvements.  Let the market sort itself out, no one is forced to buy a house.

 

Tragedy of the commons. Benefits in terms of CO2 reduction do not accrue to individual households. Legislation gets watered down/delayed by powerful new build industry. Enforcement of building regs is poor leading to e.g. weather compensation being fitted but not actually commissioned to avoid callbacks.

 

Peoples' expectations need managing too. HPs will in most cases not reduce heating bills significantly so why would they embark on retrofitting them? Hence unless part of a larger refurbishment it is a hobby activity for those with lots of interest, time and spare capital.

 

Education about all this from basic science and arithmetic upwards, at all levels from householders to Cabinet is what needs the massive "improvement".

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by sharpener

[Marvin]

When you read the report in full you will probably pick up on the fact that the government has been proactive over 50 years in implementing change.

 

They taxed other ways of heating to discourage not using a heat pump.

 

They trained people to install the systems properly. (to avoid bad publicity)

 

They have well insulated properties.

 

Pretty much everything we have not done.

 

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, Bornagain said:

However, using a heat pump to heat water to 60C for radiators in a poorly insulated or draughty house is a licence to spend a lot of money both on the installation and energy bills.

Hi @Bornagain

 

You are quite right! 

 

However our radiators are at 38 degrees C today and our home is fine. So radiators can be an option.

However we DID insulate and air-tighten the property when we renovated (but this was to save on heating however the building was warmed - bottled gas boiler at the time).

 

[Bornagain]

4 hours ago, Marvin said:

Hi @Bornagain

 

You are quite right! 

 

However our radiators are at 38 degrees C today and our home is fine. So radiators can be an option.

However we DID insulate and air-tighten the property when we renovated (but this was to save on heating however the building was warmed - bottled gas boiler at the time).

 

As you have experienced, if the radiators are large enough that 38C water can heat the house then a HP is fine, not as good as UFH which in our case is fed with water in the mid twenties.

 

There are many factors that influence the cost of heating, but insulation and air tightness are king.

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

A key thing to note is that there is a difference between carbon and cost.

 

15 or so years ago there was a solid argument that gas central heating (about 200g/kwh) was a lower carbon method than using a heatpump running on a grid that used alot of coal and gas (5-600g/kwh).  You would need a SCOP of 3 or better to be lower carbon.

 

 

 

Now the grid is much lower carbon.  There is an argument that even direct electric is now lower carbon than a gas boiler.

 

Heatpumps not only lower the carbon emissions, but also reduce the amount of generation we need to build.

 

So from a carbon perspective, heatpumps are an absolute "no brainer" even in a leaky old house with tiny radiators

 

Cost is a different matter. The UK pricing structure means getting a heatpump to be cheaper than a gas boiler is much harder.

 

 

My proposal is a 5-10 year subsidy for new heatpump installations that guarantees the cost to the consumer is no higher than if they used gas.  This would be paid for by extra taxes on gas.  The subsidy would taper out after 5 years so there is an incentive for users who aren't quite efficient enough (eg not enough insulation, too small radiators etc) to improve before the subsidy tapers out.

 

 

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Cost is a different matter. The UK pricing structure means getting a heatpump to be cheaper than a gas boiler is much harder.

Yes we supplement the electricity purchased with our PV production to reduce the cost. Works very well between April and October.

[HughF]

‘Works in UK homes’ means ‘costs less than a gas boiler’ to most folk.

 

We installed one because we couldn’t realistically find a way to get a flue out of the house without it getting in the way.

[SteamyTea]

8 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

My proposal is a 5-10 year subsidy for new heatpump installations that guarantees the cost to the consumer is no higher than if they used gas

Isn't that what the RHI tried to do a decade ago?

Then we had the Green Investment Group (The Green Bank) offering subsidies loans to industry.

 

The simplest and easiest solution is to directly tax carbon dioxide at a high rate.  The argument that 'people cannot afford it' does not hold true.  In the last year we have seen the price of energy double, most households and companies are managing to pay it (not nice and there are always people that can't afford it), but it shows that the nation can stand a higher price.

[HughF]

I think the RHI was really meant to help cover the capex of these ‘new fangled heating things’ 🤣 and it, weirdly, ended up rewarding the largest consumers the most.

 

Taxing the dirty stuff seems to work for cars, so it should work for home heating too, we just need more cheap, clean electric available. Bring on Sizewell C is all I can say.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

29 minutes ago, HughF said:

Bring on Sizewell C is all I can say

Shall we wait until we have Hinkley Point C working, and Flamanville Unit C.  Olkiluoto is up and running after 18 years.

 

[HughF]

HPC is progressing, not as fast as it should, but it’s progressing. They’ll get it done. Hopefully the Chinese reactor design at Sizewell C will be easier/cheaper to build.

 

EPR is probably one of the most complex

[sharpener]

Think where we would be now if we had pressed on with the Sizewell B design and built a fleet of those as was the original intention.

[Beelbeebub]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Isn't that what the RHI tried to do a decade ago?

Then we had the Green Investment Group (The Green Bank) offering subsidies loans to industry.

I don't think so. The RHI paid a fixed amount per kWh of heat generation.

 

I'm proposing monitoring the electricity input via a smart meter in the unit and the heat output via a smart heat meter. 

 

The data is sent to the energy supplier who integrates in into the bill.

 

The cost of that heat output if that were generated using gas at the current prices is then calculated and consumer is paid back the difference between the cost of the electricity they used and the cost of the gas they would have used.

 

The bill might look like this

 

Electricity domestic 50kwh @ 30p = £15

Electricity heat 200kwh @ 30p = £60

 

Total Bill = £75

 

Total Heat 500kwh

 

Your COP was 2.5

 

Subsidy ref price 500kw @ 10p = £50

Subsidy = £60-£50 = £10

 

Amount payable = £75-£10 = £65

 

Effectively the consumer is guaranteed that their heating won't cost more than it would have on gas for 5 years and then it tapers out over the next 5. They also get a COP readout and can see if they are in a position to be lower cost when the subsidy ends.

 

Consumer's who aren't cost neutral are given info on schemes to help them meet the cost neutrality performance target before the subsidy runs out. Say radiator scrappage vouchers and insulation subsidies.

 

it would take away a big chunk of that "but what if it costs me more" fear.

 

it would also generate (ha!) a huge database of actual HP performance across the country and different housing types and different interventions which could feed in (ha!) to better estimation and best practice in the industry.

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, sharpener said:

Think where we would be now if we had pressed on with the Sizewell B design and built a fleet of those as was the original intention.

Or if we still had a UK nuclear industry and we would be building our own designs.

[Beelbeebub]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Or if we still had a UK nuclear industry and we would be building our own designs.

To be fair the AGR family a bit crap.

 

Maybe the RR small modular reactors have a future though 

[HughF]

3 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

I don't think so. The RHI paid a fixed amount per kWh of heat generation.

 

I'm proposing monitoring the electricity input via a smart meter in the unit and the heat output via a smart heat meter. 

 

The data is sent to the energy supplier who integrates in into the bill.

 

The cost of that heat output if that were generated using gas at the current prices is then calculated and consumer is paid back the difference between the cost of the electricity they used and the cost of the gas they would have used.

 

The bill might look like this

 

Electricity domestic 50kwh @ 30p = £15

Electricity heat 200kwh @ 30p = £60

 

Total Bill = £75

 

Total Heat 500kwh

 

Your COP was 2.5

 

Subsidy ref price 500kw @ 10p = £50

Subsidy = £60-£50 = £10

 

Amount payable = £75-£10 = £65

 

Effectively the consumer is guaranteed that their heating won't cost more than it would have on gas for 5 years and then it tapers out over the next 5. They also get a COP readout and can see if they are in a position to be lower cost when the subsidy ends.

 

Consumer's who aren't cost neutral are given info on schemes to help them meet the cost neutrality performance target before the subsidy runs out. Say radiator scrappage vouchers and insulation subsidies.

 

it would take away a big chunk of that "but what if it costs me more" fear.

 

it would also generate (ha!) a huge database of actual HP performance across the country and different housing types and different interventions which could feed in (ha!) to better estimation and best practice in the industry.

I really like this idea, won’t lie.