Newspaper article on ASHP

[Bozza]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/13/are-heat-pumps-more-expensive-to-run-than-gas-boilers

[AppleDown]

"In the UK, the majority of homes are expected to opt for an air source heat pump, which costs on average just more than £12,500 to buy and install, according to industry accreditors at MCS." - proof that the MCS mafia are inflating prices by including the BUS grant on top of the job.

[ProDave]

It really is simple.  Run an ASHP at a COP of 3 or better and the cost is comparable to mains gas heating.  I expect very few people actually save money by switching to an ASHP.

 

The problem with retro fitted ASHP's (boiler replacements) is to get a reliable COP of 3 or better you need low temperature heating which really means UFH or vastly over sized radiators.  And that is where the problems start.  Who wants to rip the whole house apart to fit UFH (and the under floor insulation that would be needed)?  So most will stick with radiators, perhaps a bit over sized, but I bet they will still be running what most of us consider to be "hot" and with a poor COP.

 

ASHP's should NOT be sold to the general public as a way to save money.  Yes a way to reduce CO2 emissions but not a way to save money.  That is just asking for lots of people to complain very loudly when they do not save money.

 

When I chose an ASHP for my new build, it was not because I thought it was going to be cheaper. I am happy to settle for similar running cost.  It was because there is no mains gas here and I did not want an oil tank in the garden.

[JohnMo]

3 minutes ago, ProDave said:

UFH or vastly over sized radiators. 

Or fan coils, more expensive but you never have to run above 35 degs and you only need them in the main living spaces, design bedrooms for 19 degs not 21 and a smaller radiator will do.

[sharpener]

Not bad for a daily newspaper. And the graph of cost vs SCOP on various tariffs is useful.

 

3 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

design bedrooms for 19 degs not 21 and a smaller radiator will do

 

Heat Engineer seems to use a default setting of 18 for bedrooms which is I think in MCS or CIBSE guidance (but 21 for bathrooms seems unnecessarily high). Even using 18 means we need 6 replacement radiators as per other thread. But contrary to what is implied the cost of rad replacement (~£2k) is not a big part of total bill.

 

My running cost is predicted to breakeven with current oil boiler at an electricity price of 34p 24/7. But ToU tariffs such as E7 will reduce that somewhat and Cosy by more. So even with 50C flow temp and hence a (reduced) SCOP of 3.92 I am still expecting lower running cost, ?thanks in part to R290 refrigerant.

 

However this alone would not give a sensible payback on the capital expenditure. Replacing the 25 y/o oil boiler is the justification here, it would be expensive as flue would allegedly need to be replaced also.

 

Economics for a gas boiler just do not make sense without a significant increase in BUS grant, even supposing it would not be creamed off by MCS installers. So increasing the supply (and use) of other HP-trained ppl is perhaps the only way forward.

[Guest28]

I've noticed a recurring problem with ASHPs that largely stems from improper installations. Channels like Skill Builder and Heat Geek have highlighted multiple issues in their video series, which are definitely worth checking out.

 

One of the root causes appears to be the lax regulation in the UK's construction industry. Unfortunately, this has allowed a proliferation of unqualified tradesmen who often perform substandard work. These "cowboy tradesmen" not only tarnish the reputation of ASHPs but also leave homeowners facing costly repairs. It's a disturbing cycle where these companies bodge jobs, file for bankruptcy, and then simply start anew under a different name, escaping accountability.

 

To combat this, I believe we need much tighter regulations. It's crucial that anyone performing paid construction work should hold a personal license. This license should be revocable if standards are not met, preventing repeat offenders from continuing to operate. Currently, the system does little to discourage malpractice, allowing these individuals to repeatedly start over without facing significant consequences.

 

Stricter oversight would not only improve the quality of work but also protect consumers from fraudulent practices. 

 

 

 

Edited May 13 by MBT6

[JamesPa]

1 hour ago, MBT6 said:

To combat this, I believe we need much tighter regulations. It's crucial that anyone performing paid construction work should hold a personal license. This license should be revocable if standards are not met, preventing repeat offenders from continuing to operate. Currently, the system does little to discourage malpractice, allowing these individuals to repeatedly start over without facing significant consequences.

 

Stricter oversight would not only improve the quality of work but also protect consumers from fraudulent practices. 

This is, IMHO, never going to happen in the UK, particularly 'This license should be revocable if standards are not met, preventing repeat offenders from continuing to operate'.  The costs and complexity of administering such a scheme are too great for our government, whatever the shade, to contemplate and we don't (and wont) have the skilled inspectors to 'police' it.  Also regulation stifles innovation, which we desperately need in the retrofit market (which is the market that needs to be addressed a) because retrofits make up the majority of our housing and b) because retrofits are to houses which, unlike newbuilds, emit most carbon).

 

Currently we have a half way house, where the industry is essentially a closed shop (MCS), but there is little or no enforcement.  That's the worst of all worlds.

 

The alternative is to open it up properly to competition by abolishing the closed shop thus making it possible for local plumbers and electricians, who value their reputation to compete.  Personally I would advocate that as a practical solution.  Its not perfect but its way better than the current 'worst of all worlds', in practice almost unregulated, monopoly.

Edited May 13 by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

ASHP's should NOT be sold to the general public as a way to save money.  Yes a way to reduce CO2 emissions but not a way to save money.  That is just asking for lots of people to complain very loudly when they do not save money.

100%.  Unless the existing heating it resistance electric, selling an ASHP on the basis that it will save money is mis-selling.  Roughly the same is reasonably honest (the exact numbers of course depend on the ratio of oil/gas to electric price, which fluctuates, and the quality of the installation).

Edited May 13 by JamesPa

[joe90]

This makes me think about the way the French work, (correct me if wrong) any trade, plumbers, electricians etc have to be qualified and accountable but they can not pay/reclaim the VAT therefore making it almost not worthwhile getting “cowboys” in. (Or doing DIY !).

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, MBT6 said:

To combat this, I believe we need much tighter regulations. It's crucial that anyone performing paid construction work should hold a personal license. This license should be revocable if standards are not met, preventing repeat offenders from continuing to operate.

I am just retiring from 20+ years self employed.  If such a draconian scheme had existed I would not have remained self employed.  It has been proven again and again that having a bit of paper does mot make someone good, just as not having that bit of paper does not make them bad.

[sharpener]

2 hours ago, MBT6 said:

To combat this, I believe we need much tighter regulations. It's crucial that anyone performing paid construction work should hold a personal license. This license should be revocable if standards are not met, preventing repeat offenders from continuing to operate. Currently, the system does little to discourage malpractice, allowing these individuals to repeatedly start over without facing significant consequences.

 

No, we need the existing standards properly enforced (as with cyclists).

 

The unwritten deal in allowing the existence of monopolies has been (ever since the Guilds in the middle ages and the granting of Letters Patent by the crown) that the grantees enforce satisfactory standards amongst themselves.

 

Unfortunately it seems to be difficult for affected customers to get redress from MCS or get sanctions applied to unsatisfactory installers. That is the process step that needs to be fixed, or the monopoly broken in which case market forces may take care of it.

[Guest28]

It’s clear that there are valid concerns about the feasibility and effectiveness of a stringent licensing system. However, I believe there could be a simpler and more feasible approach.

Local authorities already manage a "street trader license" for those selling goods on public streets. What if we expanded this framework slightly to include a "construction trader license"? The concept would be straightforward: anyone wanting to perform paid construction work on property they don't own would need this license.

 

The barrier to obtain this license could be intentionally low—perhaps just filling out an application form and completing a basic health and safety course. The primary goal here wouldn’t be to create hurdles but to provide a mechanism to help filter out those who consistently underperform or engage in dishonest practices. Honest, hard-working tradespeople would likely welcome this as it legitimizes their professionalism.

 

This system would empower local authorities to revoke the license of those with multiple complaints or proven malpractice, effectively preventing them from continuing to perform substandard work. This would not only deter "cowboy tradesmen" but also encourage them to improve their standards, as the risk of losing their license—and livelihood—could be a significant deterrent.

 

Furthermore, this could bring peace of mind to consumers. When hiring, they could simply verify a tradesperson’s licensed status. Those without a license would be less likely to be hired, gradually weeding out the unscrupulous operators.

 

This idea isn’t about stifling innovation or creating bureaucracy; it’s about using existing frameworks to protect consumers and elevate trade standards.

[SteamyTea]

I seem to remember that when I did my Part P, to get legal cover I would have had to join a trade association and pay a fee.

Think it is similar with gas.

So we already have two systems that work reasonably well already, I am sure something similar could be set up for low temperature domestic heating systems.

 

Would not stop all the cowboys, they just do whatever suits them, and then vanish, but some 'quality of  service', policed through Trading Standards is needed.

[JamesPa]

3 hours ago, MBT6 said:

It’s clear that there are valid concerns about the feasibility and effectiveness of a stringent licensing system. However, I believe there could be a simpler and more feasible approach.

Local authorities already manage a "street trader license" for those selling goods on public streets. What if we expanded this framework slightly to include a "construction trader license"? The concept would be straightforward: anyone wanting to perform paid construction work on property they don't own would need this license.

 

The barrier to obtain this license could be intentionally low—perhaps just filling out an application form and completing a basic health and safety course. The primary goal here wouldn’t be to create hurdles but to provide a mechanism to help filter out those who consistently underperform or engage in dishonest practices. Honest, hard-working tradespeople would likely welcome this as it legitimizes their professionalism.

 

This system would empower local authorities to revoke the license of those with multiple complaints or proven malpractice, effectively preventing them from continuing to perform substandard work. This would not only deter "cowboy tradesmen" but also encourage them to improve their standards, as the risk of losing their license—and livelihood—could be a significant deterrent.

 

Furthermore, this could bring peace of mind to consumers. When hiring, they could simply verify a tradesperson’s licensed status. Those without a license would be less likely to be hired, gradually weeding out the unscrupulous operators.

 

This idea isn’t about stifling innovation or creating bureaucracy; it’s about using existing frameworks to protect consumers and elevate trade standards.

I wouldn't have a problem with this and it seems to me that local authorities could cope provided the system was self-funding.   There would have to be a disclaimer on the licence that the local authority doesn't guarantee standards, and a fee to cover both the admin cost and the cost of enforcement, so that it is self funding.  Much better IMHO that this is done by a local authority than a private company like MCS.  Of coures it begs the question of why the existing bodies of which most traders are members wont suffice (NAPIT, GasSafe etc) as suggested by @SteamyTea

 

The other avenue is building regulations.  MCS standards, if they are required at all (which, for the most part IMHO, they are not) should be folded into building regs.  Again this is an established system and building inspectors are well used to checking the work of others as intelligent interrogators not necessarily experts in their own right.

 

The combination of these two would be a winner as far as I am concerned.  It allows plumbers and electricians back into the renewables market, gets rid of the monopoly, and leverages existing infrastructure.  

 

As an aside I have been told that MCS exists largely because of the need to have 'standards' associated with government grants.  Im not sure if that is the case or not.

 

None of this would stop the cowboys and nothing will.  But proper competition from local traders, combined with enforcement through existing channels, will make them less likely to get business.  Currently that is frustrated by the monopoly position in renewables held by MCS

 

Edited May 13 by JamesPa

[MikeSharp01]

3 hours ago, JamesPa said:

Much better IMHO that this is done by a local authority than a private company like MCS.

It must not be a private organisation it needs to be publicly accountable and with enough power to get things done. In my view getting all the leading bodies under this on wing would make sense. So include EG MCS / FENSA / GASSAFE etc should also be accountable.

 

 

 

[Guest28]