What next for heat pumps after BUS and MCS?

[joth]

I've seen a bunch of press and commentary  in recent days that's broadly for (at least agnostic about) heat pumps but against MCS and the current state of subsidies

1/ MCS weakening the process for pre-contract heat loss calcs (read the comments!) disliked by all sides it seems

2/ HPA report 39% of workforce (MCS) trained in HP install don't go on to work on heat pumps, due to lack of demand that they put down to confusion and high electricity prices

3/ Today's report  that government set to drop the 2035 ban on gas boilers.

(plus my own experience this week that the MCS "tax" on installs is bloating prices of all components, making post-install maintenance/replacement of parts 10x what it should be)

 

common themes are

- the mandatory/monopoly on training is a barrier to take up and not yielding better consumer experience

- the various government incentives are just meddling and confusing the market

- the existing domestic gas subsidy, and electricity "green transition tax" work against the HP goals and intention

 

Far too early to write an obituary for MCS, but grumbling is getting louder so lets imagine what may be next.

 

It's political suicide to talk about dropping the gas subsidy within my lifetime, but it's clear the financial incentives for electric / heat pumps need to move away from install time and to long-term usage being guaranteed to be lower than gas.

 

So as a first step, how about making gas disconnection free, and allow domestic properties to opt into electricity price subsidy for  any house that removes gas? i.e. whatever costs savings they would be having via their gas bill could be received in electricity prices instead. This will skew the market in another way, and no doubt have its own unintended consequences, but broadly does mean as people increasingly electrify cars/cooking/etc it becomes a "no brainer" to disconnect gas to get a lower price for everything. 

Then step two is introduce a higher price for gas reconnection, and lower subsidy if switching back. Make a rachet mechanism.

And eventually when a critical mass have switched, the gas subsidy be removed and replaced by a welfare mechanism for those that need it most (equally targeted to insulation and HP migration investments as keeping hydrocarbons artificially cheap to burn)

 

But IANAP

 

Edited January 7 by joth

[ProDave]

MCS is the root of the problem, I am sure many agree.  Their heat loss calculations often come up with silly answers and result in an over large heat pump, particularly for new builds, and their pricing structure seems to end up with a very large figure, even after deducting the £7500 grant, leading many to conclude the only person benefiting from the grant is the installers who pocket a very large sum for the install.

 

A TOTAL re think is needed.

 

Zero VAT on heat pumps even to retail customers would be a good start.

 

Get rid of the MCS monopoly.  Allow anyone to install them, and then submit their invoice for parts, labour and material to receive some of the cost back as a grant.

 

Make fitting of ASHP's permitted development under planning.

 

Of course it won't happen, too many vested interests.

 

Ask Norway how they do it?  I bet they don't have anything like MCS?

 

First thing is ensure from NOW (not some date in the future) all new builds have a heat pump for heating.  Just write it into building regs.  No heat pump, no completion certificate. No bureaucracy, simple.  Or just make a properly calculated SAP EPC A mandatory for new builds.

 

Same for at least some PV on the roof.

 

Swapping out boilers for heat pumps is not proving value for money under the current schemes, concentrate on new builds first then find a better way to encourage heat pumps in existing houses.

 

 

[Bramco]

Another interesting take on this is the date from the Electrification of Heat trial. The data has recently been published and Trystan Lea from the Open Energy Monitor crew who run the on-line HP comparison site has input the data into a parallel database so that the results can be analysed.

 

Doesn't make good reading as the CoPs are very low, mainly down to poor installations and oversized systems - but I'll bet that the headline of 'poor CoPs' ends up being what drives any future legislation.

 

More detail at -> https://community.openenergymonitor.org/t/electrification-of-heat-trial-data/27445

 

And the on-line data from running systems is at -> https://heatpumpmonitor.org/  some systems were also on the trial - the installed HPs on here do considerably better as, in the main, they have been adjusted to run well.

[SBMS]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

their pricing structure seems to end up with a very large figure, even after deducting the £7500 grant

Does MCS have a pricing structure? I would have assumed it was up to the supplier to quote accordingly?

[JohnMo]

Truth is, heat pumps for a new build are no more expensive than a good gas boiler. So that really should be be manditory now anyway.

 

Boilers without weather compensation and Opentherm should be banned anyway. PDHW and weather compensation (or Opentherm control) should be mandatory for ALL boilers anyway. This should be mandated by making them only run that way. So have nowhere to plug on off control into.

 

Smart meters made manditory (for suppliers and the public) to allow ToU tariff to be utilised for heat pumps. Then everything @ProDave said.

[gravelld]

I don't know why there's such a fixation on the heating system for new build. If they were built properly it really wouldn't make much difference because the heat demand would be so low. It would be better to just fix the problem at source.

[BotusBuild]

Scrap MCS - period. Scrap BUS and do not introduce any other form of market skewing grant or subsidy system. Maybe the only concession I would have is that OFGEM force all suppliers to offer a ToU tarrif to incentivize adoption.

 

Make @Jeremy Harris's heat loss calculator freely and widely available (assuming he is happy for it to open sourced).

 

Let market economics take over. I predict that more properly sized heat pump installations will take place and prices will fall as uptake rise due to the reduction of the negative stories about cost of installation, cost of running and poor CoP.

 

It may take a few/several years but this is the way to do it.

 

[joth]

32 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

do not introduce any other form of market skewing grant or subsidy system

So do you mean leave the existing gas subsidy and electricity surcharge in place indefinitely, or remove them too? If so how and when? That's the crux I was driving towards.

 

6 hours ago, ProDave said:

Zero VAT on heat pumps even to retail customers would be a good start.

Excellent point I forgot about this. Same as insulation and heating controls and solar, the VAT should be removed from the materials without a requirement for paid labour to qualify.

(I have similar thoughts on bicycles vs the regressive cycle to work incentive scheme but that's for a different forum lol)

 

55 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

So that really should be be manditory now anyway.

 

Boilers without weather compensation and Opentherm should be banned anyway. PDHW and weather compensation (or Opentherm control) should be mandatory for ALL boilers anyway. This should be mandated by making them only run that way. So have nowhere to plug on off control into.

Tricky thing here is legislation always tries to avoid naming and locking in specific technology as it suppresses the market incentive to invent something completely different that's even better.  I see the argument there, but somehow EV legislation has got over that hurdle. 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, BotusBuild said:

Scrap MCS - period. Scrap BUS and do not introduce any other form of market skewing grant or subsidy system. Maybe the only concession I would have is that OFGEM force all suppliers to offer a ToU tarrif to incentivize adoption.

 

Make @Jeremy Harris's heat loss calculator freely and widely available (assuming he is happy for it to open sourced).

 

Let market economics take over. I predict that more properly sized heat pump installations will take place and prices will fall as uptake rise due to the reduction of the negative stories about cost of installation, cost of running and poor CoP.

 

It may take a few/several years but this is the way to do it.

 

 

Agree with that in principle

 

However, if you let market economics take over, it will stall. Electricity is too expensive. And the real issue is, it its going to get a lot more expensive, further disincentivising switching.

 

Worth remembering that many here are getting good results. Out in the rest of the world however, as posted by the OP, thats not the reality for many. Its the running costs, not the installation that puts off people i know. Almost everyone i know with an ASHP is saying its more expensive than the gas or oil it replaced. And of course, they tell people.

 

Whilst theres a couple of things going on, for the bulk of installations, if it costs a ton to run, tough. Your problem. 

 

Even if, by some miracle, installation improved from tommorow, the results so far will take many years to be erased from public perception. Perception IS reality.

 

The decomissioning the gas network is interesting. Theres a government report knocking about that examines how this could work and the costs involved. It was eye watering numbers. And i dont recall it covering off the commercial aspect for what is a private supply industry.

 

 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, joth said:

So do you mean leave the existing gas subsidy and electricity surcharge in place indefinitely, or remove them too? If so how and when? That's the crux I was driving towards.

 

Excellent point I forgot about this. Same as insulation and heating controls and solar, the VAT should be removed from the materials without a requirement for paid labour to qualify.

(I have similar thoughts on bicycles vs the regressive cycle to work incentive scheme but that's for a different forum lol)

 

Tricky thing here is legislation always tries to avoid naming and locking in specific technology as it suppresses the market incentive to invent something completely different that's even better.  I see the argument there, but somehow EV legislation has got over that hurdle. 

 

Thats not quite right is it. The EV legislation effectively mandates that technology. Whilst there might not be a truly viable alternative right now, we have ruled out any future innovations if/when they occur. Still no surprise, politicians were involved.

[SteamyTea]

19 hours ago, ProDave said:

Ask Norway how they do it?

https://phscom.co.uk/why-has-norway-succeeded-with-air-source-heat-pumps/

 

 

[marshian]

33 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

https://phscom.co.uk/why-has-norway-succeeded-with-air-source-heat-pumps/

 

 

Thanks for sharing @SteamyTea That was a good read

[Mike]

On 07/01/2025 at 15:43, ProDave said:

Ask Norway how they do it?  I bet they don't have anything like MCS?

No idea about Norway, but in France there is a similar scheme with means-tested subsidies + interest free loans + 5,5% VAT. BTW, France now installs the most heat pumps in Europe, banned gas central heating in new-build from January 2022, and gas standing charges are going up due to the number of users quitting gas (despite having to pay for disconnections).

 

Since 2000 the French scheme requires installers to have a sample of their installations audited each year (for appropriate design & installation, correct paperwork, legal & financial aspects, etc.) with the risk of suspension or removal in case of unresolved problems. If the MCS scheme doesn't already include that (I've not seen it mentioned), that may well help resolve many problems.

 

Edited January 8 by Mike

[joth]

23 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Thats not quite right is it. The EV legislation effectively mandates that technology. Whilst there might not be a truly viable alternative right now, we have ruled out any future innovations if/when they occur. Still no surprise, politicians were involved.

Sorry yes I was making same point as you are on this one, that the legislation pretty much reflects the technology with cars. 

I feel the difference is, in society, cars are special. Not transportation. Cars.  Folks love the solution more than the problem. 

 

Whereas in homes, it's the problem space - being cosy, solving fuel poverty - that's special. It's very rare for anyone to get excited about the solution space.

[YodhrinForge]

On 07/01/2025 at 20:23, BotusBuild said:

Scrap MCS - period. Scrap BUS and do not introduce any other form of market skewing grant or subsidy system. Maybe the only concession I would have is that OFGEM force all suppliers to offer a ToU tarrif to incentivize adoption.

 

Make @Jeremy Harris's heat loss calculator freely and widely available (assuming he is happy for it to open sourced).

 

Let market economics take over. I predict that more properly sized heat pump installations will take place and prices will fall as uptake rise due to the reduction of the negative stories about cost of installation, cost of running and poor CoP.

 

It may take a few/several years but this is the way to do it.

 

Market economics is why we are where we are, but okay let's get government out of things. Including rigging the prices to subsidise gas, grid connection charges based on the time when coal fired stations were the only source of electricity, and gas disconnect charges that are more than strictly the cost of labour & materials required to do the work. If we were paying what electricity actually costs to generate and distribute up here in Scotland, you could run an ASHP for the leakiest old Victorian tenement flat and it would still be slightly cheaper than a gas-fired system, but instead with prices pegged to gas and connector fees passed on to customers you need a near-passive level of eco retrofit and a very well designed heat pump system competently installed to hit break even and a home battery with solar to start getting ahead.

 

If you just take away subsidies and incentives without also fundamentally changing how the energy market works in the UK it won't take several years, it'll take several decades.

Edited January 8 by YodhrinForge

[BotusBuild]

On 07/01/2025 at 21:03, joth said:

So do you mean leave the existing gas subsidy and electricity surcharge in place indefinitely, or remove them too?

They are skewing the market and need to go too. Do it over a 5 year period starting now.

 

On 08/01/2025 at 16:26, Mike said:

French scheme requires installers to have a sample of their installations audited each year (for appropriate design & installation

I do like this idea if MCS is overhauled instead of being scrapped.

 

Regarding the fuel poverty aspect of this, owners of property must be "carrot and sticked" towards properly improving the insulation of those properties. We need to get all homes upto a minimum C EPC rating - I would suggest 75C to start with, but with a road map outlined for steady improvement over a 10 year plan, so those who want to can move faster if necessary. How about linking stamp duty not only to value of house but EPC rating as one of a package of  incentives?

[marshian]

24 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

I do like this idea if MCS is overhauled instead of being scrapped.

 

I think it's a brilliant idea - accountability for the taxpayers coinage being rinsed thro the MCS scheme

 

24 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

TRegarding the fuel poverty aspect of this, owners of property must be "carrot and sticked" towards properly improving the insulation of those properties. We need to get all homes upto a minimum C EPC rating - I would suggest 75C to start with, but with a road map outlined for steady improvement over a 10 year plan, so those who want to can move faster if necessary. How about linking stamp duty not only to value of house but EPC rating as one of a package of  incentives?

 

Trouble is EPC isn't much better for giving stupid results - now I haven't had an EPC survey done on my house because we have lived here 34 years - they didn't exist when we bought it and I don't need to do one unless we sell it - However it is needed for the BUS grant so I looked into it when I was making the decision to either go for replacement gas boiler or ASHP.

 

Had a bat and ball email chain with a local EPC "inspector" in detail about the process and to be honest I was totally unimpressed with the responses to questions I asked - got the feeling it was a box ticking exercise and at £70 was an expensive box ticking exercise with very little value

 

Examples of why I think this

 

I have 75 mm of PIR under my suspended wooden ground floor it made a massive difference to heat loss in the property but it's not easily accessible to inspect - I said would photo's taken from when I was doing it help to prove that it was insulated

 

This was the response

 

The survey itself is a 'non-intrusive', it is purely a visual survey, meaning an Assessor can only enter information into the software that creates the EPC if they can see and photograph it, for instance if a loft cannot be accessed for any reason (may be the hatch is sealed because it has been painted over) an Assessor would record the loft insulation as unknown, the software would then assume the insulation levels to be 'as built' dependant on the age of the property, where as in reality there may well be 300mm in place.

 

So in summary my suspended floor would be assumed to be un-insulated because Building regs at the time did not require it and because the openings have been covered by a solid oak floor it's not viewable

 

All my rads are sized for flow temps in mid 30's to maximise condensing efficiency and the work I've done to improve the house has driven gas usage for CH and HW down from 25,000 kWh per year to under 9,000 I asked if this had a bearing on EPC results

 

This was the response

 

To answer the question about Kwh usage stated on the EPCs of the properties around you, these figures are all estimated from assumptions of occupancy based on the things such as the size of property, for instance for a four bed house it would be assumed that there will be five occupants and with a two bed house three occupants and therefore more usage in the four bed property. Now this of course is not always the case and the occupancy levels could be very different in reality! 

 

Now I can get that HW demand changes with occupancy and 20% of my gas usage is HW generation that's fair enough but CH usage reduces with insulation and to my mind doesn't change with occupancy!!!!

 

Same size house as mine that does have EPC similar double glazed windows and doors is 18,000 kWh for Ch and 3,000 for HW

 

EPC is 49 - E

 

So that and a provisional guide from Octopus of £13,500 for ASHP install (less the 7500 BUS grant) I didn't bother and bought a new gas boiler

 

I'm convinced the whole world is quite mad!!!!

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, BotusBuild said:

They are skewing the market and need to go too. Do it over a 5 year period starting now.

 

I do like this idea if MCS is overhauled instead of being scrapped.

 

Regarding the fuel poverty aspect of this, owners of property must be "carrot and sticked" towards properly improving the insulation of those properties. We need to get all homes upto a minimum C EPC rating - I would suggest 75C to start with, but with a road map outlined for steady improvement over a 10 year plan, so those who want to can move faster if necessary. How about linking stamp duty not only to value of house but EPC rating as one of a package of  incentives?

The housing market needs to wake up, and surveyors place a lower value on houses with a poor EPC to reflect the extra running cost, or money you are going to have to spend to bring them up to a reasonable standard.  the idea of paying the same money for a quaint old house. then spending lots upgrading it, and it makes no difference to the value is just bonkers.

 

Re fuel poverty.  If you are struggling to heat your house, then paying a lot of money to swap your gas boiler for an ASHP which at best might give you a very marginal saving in running cost, and at worst will cost you more to run than your gas boiler is not going to be a high priority is it?

[MikeSharp01]

Somebody - maybe us, needs to put together a briefing paper / manifesto / letter to HMG via the MPs and the PM to let them know what's going on, why it's all wrong and offer some solutions. We could probably send a letter to the majority of MPs, we all live in a constituency somewhere don't we. The challenge will be getting us all to agree what needs to be said.

[saveasteading]

34 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Somebody - maybe us,

Good idea. Who starts it? It needs either a leader who has the final say on the submission, or a defined group of editors.

[marshian]

1 minute ago, saveasteading said:

Good idea. Who starts it? It needs either a leader who has the final say on the submission, or a defined group of editors.

 

Agreed it's a great idea - however I'm sorry to say that my view is it would be as effective as below

 

 

[joth]

19 hours ago, ProDave said:

Re fuel poverty.  If you are struggling to heat your house, then paying a lot of money to swap your gas boiler for an ASHP which at best might give you a very marginal saving in running cost, and at worst will cost you more to run than your gas boiler is not going to be a high priority is it?

Absolutely. The problem with the current subsidy on gas is it's ostensibly there to avert people from falling into fuel poverty, but has the unintended side effect of skewing the market to make ASHP unattractive for other people that have homes that could work with it and could afford the capital cost if the payback worked out. And worse, is effectively penalising those that have already made the shift off of combustion, as many of us on here have - albeit for unavailability of gas to site or for more moralistic reasons, it doesn't matter. Disconnect gas and you're they paying the inflated cost of electricity in order to subsidise your gas burning neighbours.

 

So my OP is basically "how can we move in a direction where the gas subsidy is removed, but without having a cliff edge where some large percentage are thrown into fuel poverty overnight (as such cliff edges are politically unpalatable so never introduced, or if they are they get repeatedly walked back and back).

 

I think an important step is any house without a gas connection should be eligible for an ongoing energy subsidy on their electricity bill,  proportionate to whatever domestic gas supply subsidy is in effect at that time. As and when the national energy subsidy is reduced, then it's reduced from both the legacy gas users and the converted all-electric users alike. 

 

Edited January 10 by joth

[North80]

Removing standards will result in a lot more bodged installs like happens in the solar panel and spray foam industries. All these cowboy operators will bodge installs bankrupt the limited company and open a new one then rinse and repeat. The construction industry in the UK is far too unregulated.

 

The vast majority lot of the heat pumps installed in France are reversible ones that can be used for heating and cool. They install a lot of air-to-air heat pumps and hardly any air-to-water ones.

 

In France they put them in as part of a proper HVAC systems.

[MikeSharp01]

Found this https://www.nesta.org.uk/project-updates/how-could-generative-ai-change-the-heat-pump-skills-sector/ article and associated heat pump AI chat bot. Give it a go and see if it tells the truth (or your truth depending upon your view. 

 

I asked it "How do I calculate the heat demand to size the heat pump in our new build?" and received the following output:

 

" To calculate the heat demand for sizing a heat pump in your new build, you'll want to follow these steps:

1. Conduct Heat Loss Calculations: Start by performing heat loss calculations for the building. This involves assessing the heat loss through various elements such as walls, roof, windows, and floors, as well as considering ventilation and infiltration losses. It's important to calculate these on an elemental basis and then aggregate the results.
2. Use MCS Guidelines: Refer to the MCS Standard MIS 3005, which requires the heat pump to meet 100% of the heating demand at an external temperature condition that is exceeded for 99.6% of the year. This means you'll need to ensure the heat pump is sized to handle the worst-case scenario for heating demand.
3. Consider Hot Water Demand: If your heat pump will also supply domestic hot water, factor in the hot water demand as well. The hot water load can be significant, especially in well-insulated buildings. Consult BS EN 16147 for guidance on determining loads for domestic hot water production.
4. Consult with Clients: Discuss the typical consumption patterns with your clients, including their hot water usage and re-heat times, to ensure the system meets their needs.
5. Avoid Simplistic Sizing Methods: Avoid using rules of thumb for sizing, as these can lead to inefficiencies. Instead, rely on detailed calculations that take into account the specific characteristics of the building and its heating requirements.

By following these guidelines, you'll be able to accurately size the heat pump to ensure efficient operation and comfort in the new build. If you need further assistance or resources, feel free to ask!"

 

MIS 3005 is publicly available but now 12 years old - presumably nothing has moved on since then!

BS EN 16147 is not and would cost you £250+ so that would be an investment. As a member of the public I can get to see that at the British Library, but unless you live in London you will probably spend that amount getting there. Ho Hum.

 

On the upside it exists, it is basically open source, you can fork your own version from their git repository and better yet they wany to hear from people who experiment with it - so something to play with when it's cold outside.

[gravelld]

On 09/01/2025 at 22:25, MikeSharp01 said:

Somebody - maybe us, needs to put together a briefing paper / manifesto / letter to HMG via the MPs and the PM to let them know what's going on, why it's all wrong and offer some solutions. We could probably send a letter to the majority of MPs, we all live in a constituency somewhere don't we. The challenge will be getting us all to agree what needs to be said.

 

This is constantly done - review the select committees and various research committees investigations on the .gov.uk site. The issue is the annoying tendency of people ("stakeholders" i.e. including non humanoids like corporations etc) with different incentives and different goals also chipping in with quite different recommendations. Government, quite reasonably, cite the impact on economy and jobs as being as important, for example. Then, between a crusty self builder and a smart, well spoken, polished type flashing some credentials, who do you think gets called to give evidence and shape policy?

 

For example, in a call-for-evidence on housing performance, we can all chip in with how we think all new homes should target Passivhaus levels of performance and give some good engineering and scientific evidence for our opinion, but all the Persimmon guy who employs thousands and donates to The Party needs to do is rub his fingers together. 🤌

 

It's the age-old story of lobbying.

Edited January 11 by gravelld