electric boilers are cheaper than heatpumps to run

[Jenki]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Which only brings us back to ProDaves point. Why are they actually costing £15-20K ?

 

To be fair the cylinder should have been circa £1300. Some guy bought surplus stock and sold cheap.

The whole problem with grant funding stuff, you end up with MCS schemes and bigger companies just see the grant as thier profit, and can tell you how lucky you will be.

I could have got a free grant for 9k but I had to use MSC installer. I would guarantee I would have had to chip in more than 3k🤔

[Roger440]

7 minutes ago, Jenki said:

To be fair the cylinder should have been circa £1300. Some guy bought surplus stock and sold cheap.

The whole problem with grant funding stuff, you end up with MCS schemes and bigger companies just see the grant as thier profit, and can tell you how lucky you will be.

I could have got a free grant for 9k but I had to use MSC installer. I would guarantee I would have had to chip in more than 3k🤔

 

Dont worry, i know the answer to my own question.

 

Grant harvesting. And making mad money. All for "chums".

 

I probably need to find the time to apply myself to understanding doing it DIY, as it seems, on the fasce of it, rather complicated. Though my incoming electricity supply capacity is still the biggest issue with adding 2 x heat pump load. One for house, one for barn.

 

 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

Though my incoming electricity supply capacity is still the biggest issue with adding 2 x heat pump load. One for house, one for barn.

A load-shedder (such as the Hager 60060) may be a way around this, temporarily cutting the supply to a number of selected circuits if the total load approaches the maximum.

[Iceverge]

Where are we with high temperature heat pumps as a direct replacement for fossil fuel boilers? 

 

Ideally in a big insulated box with an inbuilt DHW cylinder that could be mounted externally to the house. 

 

Core a 100mm hole in the wall, 4 pipes. DHW in and out. Heating flow and return. Power in and a lead for a controller. 

 

No G3 or F-Gas requirements then and a direct replacement for your old boiler that a monkey could install. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Iceverge]

16 hours ago, billt said:

Pretty much yes. The survivors will be reasonable good or have some other feature interesting enough for people to spend money or effort to preserve them.

 

 

Or they are prohibited from replacing them with something better because of conservative planning restrictions. 

 

16 hours ago, billt said:

I'm old enough to remember the redevelopment fever in the 60s and 70s when it was the done thing to demolish Victorian and Edwardian housing classified as slums. Another sweeping generalisation; many of the houses that were demolished were quite sound, if not well insulated and the replacements were often worse than the houses that were destroyed.

 

Yes, some dreadful buildings were constructed, often with dystopian social engineering at their essence. The resulting social problems were influential in their demise,as well as the delusion of a consequence free fossil fuel powered future.   

 

My point is that continuous gradual improvement isn't needed, it's just a waste of energy, we know the finish line already. Passive houses, made from stuff that used to be plants and with lots of renewables is the end point. There's nowhere else to go after that. 

 

Going half way there and spending a huge chunk of money doing so is a waste of resources. Say we have £300k to spend on 5 houses. We're better off to spend £30k doing simple attic insulation, airtightness and an A2A HP on 4 houses and £270k on replacing one house with a perfect one that'll last 500 years. Then doing the rest when the cash comes. 

 

Spending £60k on each house to be half way there is a waste as it's just postponing the problem.  Ultimately they'll need to be knocked and rebuilt anyway and the entire £300k will be wasted. 

16 hours ago, billt said:

System building sounds good in theory, the trouble is that practice isn't ideal. Factory made buildings will have higher material costs than standard construction methods, relying on low site labour costs to make them economic. The trouble is that you need skilled and conscientious site workers to ensure that the kit parts are assembled correctly, something that seems to be in short supply in the UK.

 

Looking at modern warehouses and industrial buildings I would have to disagree with you. 

 

They're largely steel portal frames, clad in insulted steel panels. Extremely fast to erect with great efficiency of labour. The materials may be dearer than concrete blocks and mineral wool batts but the man hours are so well spent that there's no economic case for old fashioned build methods.

 

Given a system free from restrictive planning regulations and a mandate to build as much top notch accomodation as possible we'd be doing something similar for houses. 

 

Labour is an increasing problem as we shift further towards thinking jobs and not doing jobs and we collectively become older. With less "doers" we need them to be driving a crane installing a wall at a time rather than handballing a single brick into place at a time. 

Edited January 2 by Iceverge

[ProDave]

5 hours ago, Iceverge said:

My point is that continuous gradual improvement isn't needed, it's just a waste of energy, we know the finish line already. Passive houses, made from stuff that used to be plants and with lots of renewables is the end point. There's nowhere else to go after that. 

And that could have been solved 10 years ago at a pen stroke by a change to both planning rules and building regulations.  Think how many thousands of houses are still being built that fall a long way short of passive house standards and will take their turn in the upgrade queue eventually.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, ProDave said:

solved 10 years ago at a pen stroke

Must have been about a decade ago that the Future Home Standard was dropped.

A stroke can go both ways.

[Roger440]

10 hours ago, Mike said:

A load-shedder (such as the Hager 60060) may be a way around this, temporarily cutting the supply to a number of selected circuits if the total load approaches the maximum.

 

Thats interesting. It gives me an option. The overload situation would be relatively infrequent, such as when running the workshop compressor, extract fan or charging the forklift. 

 

Im not keen on such things, as, being full of electronics, it will likely be more unreliable than the equipment it will manage. But it looks standalone, so should be easy to diagnose.

 

I operate a no electronics policy as far as i can. If i have to have it, then it needs to not take down everything when it fails st 3pm christmas eve for example. Definitely no "internet" enabled stuff.

 

Both my internet and electrical supply can be a bit flaky, so i have to take thjis into account in my plans. Hence my reluctance on an "electric only" house solution.

[Roger440]

9 hours ago, Iceverge said:

Where are we with high temperature heat pumps as a direct replacement for fossil fuel boilers? 

 

Ideally in a big insulated box with an inbuilt DHW cylinder that could be mounted externally to the house. 

 

Core a 100mm hole in the wall, 4 pipes. DHW in and out. Heating flow and return. Power in and a lead for a controller. 

 

No G3 or F-Gas requirements then and a direct replacement for your old boiler that a monkey could install. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nowehere?

 

You can have a high temp heat pump today. But no one can afford to run it.

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, Iceverge said:

 

Or they are prohibited from replacing them with something better because of conservative planning restrictions. 

 

 

Yes, some dreadful buildings were constructed, often with dystopian social engineering at their essence. The resulting social problems were influential in their demise,as well as the delusion of a consequence free fossil fuel powered future.   

 

My point is that continuous gradual improvement isn't needed, it's just a waste of energy, we know the finish line already. Passive houses, made from stuff that used to be plants and with lots of renewables is the end point. There's nowhere else to go after that. 

 

Going half way there and spending a huge chunk of money doing so is a waste of resources. Say we have £300k to spend on 5 houses. We're better off to spend £30k doing simple attic insulation, airtightness and an A2A HP on 4 houses and £270k on replacing one house with a perfect one that'll last 500 years. Then doing the rest when the cash comes. 

 

Spending £60k on each house to be half way there is a waste as it's just postponing the problem.  Ultimately they'll need to be knocked and rebuilt anyway and the entire £300k will be wasted. 

 

Looking at modern warehouses and industrial buildings I would have to disagree with you. 

 

They're largely steel portal frames, clad in insulted steel panels. Extremely fast to erect with great efficiency of labour. The materials may be dearer than concrete blocks and mineral wool batts but the man hours are so well spent that there's no economic case for old fashioned build methods.

 

Given a system free from restrictive planning regulations and a mandate to build as much top notch accomodation as possible we'd be doing something similar for houses. 

 

Labour is an increasing problem as we shift further towards thinking jobs and not doing jobs and we collectively become older. With less "doers" we need them to be driving a crane installing a wall at a time rather than handballing a single brick into place at a time. 

 

Your proposal, whilst theoretically cheaper overall, would take far longer to yield a result.

 

Ref industrial buildings, you need to get out more. The vast majority i see being contructed are doing a steel inner skin, insulation batts, then an outer, rather than composite panels. One presumes, because, even with labour, its still cheaper*. And for good measure, all the insulation is sopping wet by the time the outer layer goes on. So it will never dry out, and we all know what a great insulator wet mineral wool is.

 

But hey, box ticked, so its all good. Compliance achieved.

 

And have you ever looked at attention to detail and air tightness on these places? One presumes there are no testing requirements, as the amount of leak paths is just bonkers.

 

* ~Ive looked into this at some length as my large workshop as a single skin compressed cement board roof. I really need to insulate it. I got a quote from a friend of mine to replace with composite roof panels. (its what he does for a living on massive warehouses.) It was just bonkers. Fortunately i was sitting down. Mineral wool was far, far cheaper as a solution, be it undercladding what i have or replacing as per above.

 

The cheapest option is to do the best i can from inside and burn oil. Theres no way doing it properly can possibly pay itself back in my lifetime.

 

[SteamyTea]

32 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Theres no way doing it properly can possibly pay itself back in my lifetime.

But that is because we are not adding in all the costs.

Do you ever factor in the ~£10bn a year the UK oil companies get each year.

That is about £300 per year per tax payer.

Edited January 2 by SteamyTea

[JohnMo]

8 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

But that is because we are not adding in all the costs.

Do you ever factor in the ~£10bn a year the UK oil companies get each year.

That is about £300 per year per tax payer.

Plus most pay zero UK tax, I believe Shell for example of paid zero tax in year April 23, but actually got tax revenue to do stuff. 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

I believe Shell for example of paid zero tax in year April 23

£1.7bn

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64186210

 

The previous years were zero

 

Still (expletive deleted) all in reality, but it does pay to keep my mother in the care home.

[Roger440]

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

But that is because we are not adding in all the costs.

Do you ever factor in the ~£10bn a year the UK oil companies get each year.

That is about £300 per year per tax payer.

 

No, because its not relevant. Its not £300 a year i can have, Not that it would make much difference if i did as the cost of insulation in this case is 10's of thousands.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

No, because its not relevant. Its not £300 a year i can have, Not that it would make much difference if i did as the cost of insulation in this case is 10's of thousands.

But it is money you have already paid for decades.  Just because it is not stated on P60, it does not make it invisible money.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

But it is money you have already paid for decades.  Just because it is not stated on P60, it does not make it invisible money.

 

Its still not relevant, because i dont have it available to spend on improving the insulation.

 

Its a theoretical argument. And a political one. But not one that in any way influences what i do.

[JohnMo]

@Roger440

Why does everything always cost £10s of thousands. It not a case of all or nothing to insulate. Hit the biggest things first.  Drafts, lofts, rooms heated hottest next. Bedroom and windows are long way down the list of jobs that give any value. Insulation is like most things you get a big jump in energy saving for very little cost, then to get those extra few percent it costs a small fortune and most cases isn't worth while.

 

You have an oil boiler, make sure it's operating in condensing mode, most or all of the time, that will around 20% efficiency or 20% reduction in oil costs. If you have to replace a radiator swop for a fan coil or fan assistance radiators instead of like for like, slowly move over to more energy efficient heating, that can operate at low flow temperatures.

 

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

looked into this at some length as my large workshop as a single skin compressed cement board roof. I really need to insulate it.

Get a heated jacket - if you have to open any big doors all the heat has gone insulation or not. Use outdoor UV heaters to you not the air.

[Crofter]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

You can have a high temp heat pump today. But no one can afford to run it.

What is a high temperature heat pump? Does it use some sort of multi stage cycle?

 

And surely any heat pump will be more efficient at lower flow temperatures. So just because it can achieve a reasonable COP at high flow temps, surely it will still make sense to use larger rads etc and run it colder?

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Hit the biggest things first.  Drafts, lofts, rooms heated hottest next

Just done some calculation on a improving a door.

Worked out that the losses though my door at Delta 12 is 10p/day.

Really not worth changing.

Improving the seal, which cost a couple of quid made a huge difference.

 

Edited January 2 by SteamyTea

[JohnMo]

3 minutes ago, Crofter said:

What is a high temperature heat pump? Does it use some sort of multi stage cycle?

Conventional R32 and prior to that refrigerant would use two or more stages to boost the temperature higher each stage. Current propane refrigerant can take the water to 75 in a single stage, with most temps up that at a good efficiency. CO2 refrigerants do really high temperature in a single stage, but do not do lower temperature at all well.

[Roger440]

39 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

@Roger440

Why does everything always cost £10s of thousands. It not a case of all or nothing to insulate. Hit the biggest things first.  Drafts, lofts, rooms heated hottest next. Bedroom and windows are long way down the list of jobs that give any value. Insulation is like most things you get a big jump in energy saving for very little cost, then to get those extra few percent it costs a small fortune and most cases isn't worth while.

 

You have an oil boiler, make sure it's operating in condensing mode, most or all of the time, that will around 20% efficiency or 20% reduction in oil costs. If you have to replace a radiator swop for a fan coil or fan assistance radiators instead of like for like, slowly move over to more energy efficient heating, that can operate at low flow temperatures.

 

Get a heated jacket - if you have to open any big doors all the heat has gone insulation or not. Use outdoor UV heaters to you not the air.

 

Dont know, you tell me? Like the never ending discussions on HP installation that cost £15-20k. But people on here doing them themselves for £3k.

 

The roof for the barn would be just shy of £50k inc VAT. 120mm composite steel panels. Fully installed as i cannot undertake that myself. It would be wonderful. Not going to happen.

 

Ive done all the easy stuff on the house (and barn in fact) as i posted elsewhere.  Theres no easy low cost stuff left to do.

 

Its big invasive work now to make any gains. Even doing it myself its 10's of thousands for the house. If i was paying it would be eye watering.

 

The workshop thing is probably for another thread, indeed i started one a good while back. As its a hobby, i dont want to be cold. Ive bgot a heated jacket, and as good as it is, its not the same thing. My fingers will still be freezing.

 

 

[Iceverge]

3 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Ref industrial buildings, you need to get out more. The vast majority i see being contructed are doing a steel inner skin, insulation batts, then an outer, rather than composite panels. One presumes, because, even with labour, its still cheaper*. And for good measure, all the insulation is sopping wet by the time the outer layer goes on. So it will never dry out, and we all know what a great insulator wet mineral wool is.

 

I must look closer. A big business park near me was all insulated PIR panels surprising tidy construction but maybe that's the exception. A line of FM330 between every panel would be simple to do and make a good job of airtighess. 

 

Labour is becoming a real issue in Ireland. Too many old builders have retired and young people are not interested in the low wages and poor working conditions. Before you write off the quote for your roof make sure you are comparing like for like including labour costs. How much are you valuing your time at?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

3 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Ref industrial buildings, you need to get out more. The vast majority i see being contructed are doing a steel inner skin, insulation batts, then an outer, rather than composite panels. One presumes, because, even with labour, its still cheaper*. And for good measure, all the insulation is sopping wet by the time the outer layer goes on.

Something I know a lot about.

Industrial buildings vary. At its simplest it is keeping the rain off, with no need for any insulation. eg a waste handling shed.   A timber warehouse actively encourages airflow . Avoiding condensation dripping from the roof may be allowed for with the tiniest amount of insulation.

At the other extreme are high quality retail eg you don't want any cold or damp in a sofa shop.

ditto call centres and offices, although called 'commercial' rather than industrial even if built much the same.

In-between there are any level of air-tightness and insulation that may be appropriate.

 

Composite panels to achieve a B rating will probably be 200mm thick, very expensive and requiring a lot of lorries. Then they have to be fitted by crane. thus a built up system becomes favourable.  The labour is reduced but not enough.

For a more background amount of control, a 60mm or 80mm panel can be used,  but this may need supplementary insulation inside.

 

Do they get wet and stay wet. Yes. they shouldn't though so this is workmanship and supervision to blame. In reality, the insulation is laid just before the top sheet, and isn't sitting in the rain for long. On a day like today they should not be laying insulation rolls, and i doubt if anyone is. They will be on the ground sorting panels, preparing flashings or reading the paper.

On walls  of built up cladding, the outer sheet is not sealed, so any damp will dry out.

 

3 hours ago, Roger440 said:

air tightness on these places? One presumes there are no testing requirements, as the amount of leak paths is just bonkers.

As appropriate. There are proven standard details for air-tightness, and the air loss is part of the SBEM analysis, when required.

@Roger440Where do you think the leak paths are? i'm happy to expand on the above if you want.

 

On a barn conversion i would likely recommend 80mm PIR composite panel, with additional insulation inside.  OR built up system, probably 150mm, and again some inside supplement.

OR an osb roof on timber rails, then spacers and the metal cladding only keeping the rain off, and lots of insulation inside.

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Something I know a lot about.

Industrial buildings vary. At its simplest it is keeping the rain off, with no need for any insulation. eg a waste handling shed.   A timber warehouse actively encourages airflow . Avoiding condensation dripping from the roof may be allowed for with the tiniest amount of insulation.

At the other extreme are high quality retail eg you don't want any cold or damp in a sofa shop.

ditto call centres and offices, although called 'commercial' rather than industrial even if built much the same.

In-between there are any level of air-tightness and insulation that may be appropriate.

 

Composite panels to achieve a B rating will probably be 200mm thick, very expensive and requiring a lot of lorries. Then they have to be fitted by crane. thus a built up system becomes favourable.  The labour is reduced but not enough.

For a more background amount of control, a 60mm or 80mm panel can be used,  but this may need supplementary insulation inside.

 

Do they get wet and stay wet. Yes. they shouldn't though so this is workmanship and supervision to blame. In reality, the insulation is laid just before the top sheet, and isn't sitting in the rain for long. On a day like today they should not be laying insulation rolls, and i doubt if anyone is. They will be on the ground sorting panels, preparing flashings or reading the paper.

On walls  of built up cladding, the outer sheet is not sealed, so any damp will dry out.

 

As appropriate. There are proven standard details for air-tightness, and the air loss is part of the SBEM analysis, when required.

@Roger440Where do you think the leak paths are? i'm happy to expand on the above if you want.

 

On a barn conversion i would likely recommend 80mm PIR composite panel, with additional insulation inside.  OR built up system, probably 150mm, and again some inside supplement.

OR an osb roof on timber rails, then spacers and the metal cladding only keeping the rain off, and lots of insulation inside.

 

We all know it csan be done. But frquently just isnt.

 

The most recent one  was just outside kidderminster. Wall had to be 10 meters high. Circa 100 meters long. They were slowly working their way along on an adhoc basis. Sometimes nothing would be done for a couple of weeks. But huge areras of wall with the wool fitted and no outer cladding, all exposed to the emements. And its been a touch wet. 

 

I cant see how wall of that size is going to dry out anytime soon once the outer skin is nailed on.

 

The idea that you can built a 10,000 sqft warehousde with this method, and it not get wet is laughable. Its the UK. It rains. A lot. This year all the time.

 

2 years ago we needed to move warehouses. In the end we got something built in the 60's with just about zero insulation. But looked at few inc new build. Leakpaths? everywhere. Could see daylight past window frames, feel the breeze past the trims at the corners. Could see sunlight peeping through the wall to eaves trim. 

 

My gripe, same as always, is all these standards are utterly useless if what is built bears little relationship to the design. All those expensive composite panels, defeated by simply not joining the walls together. I wouldnt mind betteing there were no seals on the panel joints either.

 

So buildings are being built where the stated performance and actual performance, and hence energy consumption are miles apart. Nobody cares or accepts responsibility. So long as the boxes are ticked, its all good to go.

 

Think of all the composite panels that have been manufactured, with all the chemicals and emmisions that entails that are simply doing nothing due to poor workmanship. Bonkers.

[saveasteading]

20 hours ago, Roger440 said:

composite panels, defeated by simply not joining the walls together

They have an interlocking joint with foam strip so the long edges are not a problem.

 

20 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Could see daylight past window frames, feel the breeze past the trims at the corners. Could see sunlight

Therefore it fails the air test, and badly.

But you are right then that somebody,  or many parties, must be  turning a blind eye..or worse.

 

I was getting a building pressure washed yesterday. I supervised a lot of the construction (14 years ago) When it got a decent air test result. Yet there was water coming in at window heads. Not a lot but some. I have no  idea whether this is a good comparison, as perhaps the jet broke a seal.

20 hours ago, Roger440 said:

these standards are utterly useless if what is built bears little relationship to the design. 

That applies to all construction, and all manufacture.  Who is responsible I wonder, for what you are seeing.

 

I should say for clarity, we used Polish then Hungarian cladders. Because of quality, not cost. They are no longer available.

There are some good UK ones too. 

Edited January 3 by saveasteading