Are we targeting ASHP's at the wrong market?

[Roger440]

40 minutes ago, Mike said:

Or Councils could be funded to recreate the Direct Labour Organisations that they closed in the 1990s, and build them themselves. Maybe they could call the homes something like, err, Council Houses?

 

Im not sure i could think of a less appropiate organisation to manage a large house building program. Those days have well and truly gone.

 

The mind boggles. The houses would cost 5 times what they were worth, if they got built at all.

 

 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

The inspectors work for whoever pays them, and that isn't the home owner......

 

Daft system that leads to Grenfell

 

Ive discussed this elsewhere, but the system is indeed completely broken. Even in its revised format, essentially inspectors are free to do as they please with almost no chance of comeback. Yes, they can be subject to penalties etc. But as a homeowner, you have no recourse.

 

Theres no solution in the building inspection system for anything. Developers and anyone else who wants to will carry on circumventing things. They are using photos now. I mean, just how wide open to abuse can you get?

[Roger440]

7 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

One massive policy failure that came back to bite us when gas prices soared is our failure to upgrade our housing stock.

 

Having been through several iterations of the various initiatives - they were all bloody nightmares.

 

Costly, convoluted applications that resulted in inappropriate work carried out to a poor standards - if any work coukd be done at all.

 

We applied for one tenant who was told they would qualify for new windows but the only firm authorised to do the work couldnt fit them on for 18 months and the scheme was only valid for 12.

 

 

 

 

Who will pay for this "upgrade" of housing stock?

 

What would the average cost be of doing it "properly"?

 

Lets take a wild guess. Wales are currently doing (only for non gas houses though) this along with a heat pump. £45k max grant.

 

So lets be optimistic, and assume that the grant harverters are not involved. Oh, and there enough people who understand old housing stock available.

 

So £35k per house.

 

Where would such staggeringly large sums come from? Its insanity to even think about it.

 

And as above, it wont be £35k once the usual suspects get involved And theres no people to do it. Never mind, as you observe the inappropiate work that will get done.

 

Nor does it come close to making any economic sense from a payback perspective (glossing over the zero chance of as built matching design). 

 

Ive come up with a plan for my house. Even doing all the work myself, payback is over 60 years. The most cost effective option is simply to do nothing.

 

Genuinely curious to see any credible solution. I cant make to stack up.

[Dillsue]

11 hours ago, Roger440 said:

For clarity, i dont buy into the idea that we will stop or reverse, or even slow done climate change by doing the things we are currently set to do Whats going to happen is going to happen. Best deal with it..

 

One can only assume you believe that if only we all did our bit, the climate will go back to how it was?

There's an awful lot of clever people advising governments around the world that climate change can be slowed then stopped then reversed, to some degree. The full ramifications of climate change, or more accurately climate unpredictability, won't be known until they happen but it's a massive risk to leave it to happen and "best deal with it" after it's happened.

 

How would you forsee we deal with this- global population is forecast to peak at 10 billion, 2 billion more than current. African population is forecast to grow by 1 billion in a continent not known to be able to always feed itsself. Let's say future unpredictable weather events trigger half a billion Africans to go on the march looking for food. How do you see the global community dealing with that?

 

The farmer at the back of us told me last year he'd lost circa £60k of root veg and winter wheat in the last few years due to flooding. Looking at the areas that were flooded I'd guess at 20% of his land was under water for a prolonged period. There's around half of an 80 acre field of carrots still in the ground at the back of us that got left when the field partly flooded at the end of November. It's all looking pretty dead now but I don't know if they'll be salvageable if it dries out. This winter Our plot has been the wettest it's been in the 24 years we've been here so I don't see the farmers rate of flooding getting anything other than worse than it is now. How do you see the global farming community dealing with increasingly destructive weather events?

 

You're correct in assuming I believe that if everyone did their we can manage climate change. You, me and everyone in the first world caused the problem so we need to all do our bit to sort it out

[Roger440]

5 hours ago, JamesPa said:

Sorry to ask again, but what would you do differently (within the bounds of political reality and physics)?

 

Political reality prevents anything useful being achieved.

 

I already outlined my thoughts. Move towards renewables at a pace that, a) achievable, b) affordable. And in a manner compatible with keeping the price of energy low.

 

A much slower pace, will by default be more affordable as we slowly build up our capacity to do so. Thats the work of decades.

 

As it stands now, we cant build a short railway from london to birmingham. Our victorian ancestors would weep watching that carry on. Bugger all chance of a huge electricity transmission program.

[Beelbeebub]

18 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Ive discussed this elsewhere, but the system is indeed completely broken. Even in its revised format, essentially inspectors are free to do as they please with almost no chance of comeback.  comeback. an be subject to penalties etc. But as a homeowner, you have no recourse.

 

Theres no solution in the building inspection system for anything. Developers and anyone else who wants to will carry on circumventing things. They are using photos now. I mean, just how wide open to abuse can you get?

Th coree problcoree that inspectors are employed by the builders.

 

Builders will choose the inspector who is most compliant.

 

Any inspector who actually says "nope, redo this before i sign off" won't get the job again.

 

Hence the rise of snagging companies.

e

 

[Roger440]

4 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

There's an awful lot of clever people advising governments around the world that climate change can be slowed then stopped then reversed, to some degree. The full ramifications of climate change, or more accurately climate unpredictability, won't be known until they happen but it's a massive risk to leave it to happen and "best deal with it" after it's happened.

 

How would you forsee we deal with this- global population is forecast to peak at 10 billion, 2 billion more than current. African population is forecast to grow by 1 billion in a continent not known to be able to always feed itsself. Let's say future unpredictable weather events trigger half a billion Africans to go on the march looking for food. How do you see the global community dealing with that?

 

The farmer at the back of us told me last year he'd lost circa £60k of root veg and winter wheat in the last few years due to flooding. Looking at the areas that were flooded I'd guess at 20% of his land was under water for a prolonged period. There's around half of an 80 acre field of carrots still in the ground at the back of us that got left when the field partly flooded at the end of November. It's all looking pretty dead now but I don't know if they'll be salvageable if it dries out. This winter Our plot has been the wettest it's been in the 24 years we've been here so I don't see the farmers rate of flooding getting anything other than worse than it is now. How do you see the global farming community dealing with increasingly destructive weather events?

 

You're correct in assuming I believe that if everyone did their we can manage climate change. You, me and everyone in the first world caused the problem so we need to all do our bit to sort it out

 

Im not sure what the point of the debate is. You believe it can be stopped and reversed. I dont. With the emphasis on believe. 

 

There are ways to deal with flooding, both upstream and downstream. Most of them expensive, but not always. Instead of doing that, and trying to reduce the liklihood of farmland being under water, lets fit heat pumps. That will help.

 

We cant even manage to clear the drains at the side of the road, but you think we can change the climate!

 

Nobody in power being serious.

 

FWIW, i lived next to a river, and had a farmer as a neighbour. I know what happens, and i see the change,  including a house full of water.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

Th coree problcoree that inspectors are employed by the builders.

 

Builders will choose the inspector who is most compliant.

 

Any inspector who actually says "nope, redo this before i sign off" won't get the job again.

 

Hence the rise of snagging companies.

e

 

 

Mostly true, though it goes a bit deeper than that. I have a whole suite of BC certs, all from the council, not worth the paper they are written on. Including sign off for a sewage system that wasnt even there!.

 

Building control is an utterly useless activity that achieves little.

[Roger440]

Sorry people, for the lack of multiquote. Beyond my understanding sadly.

[Beelbeebub]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Political reality prevents anything useful being achieved.

 

I already outlined my thoughts. Move towards renewables at a pace that, a) achievable, b) affordable. And in a manner compatible with keeping the price of energy low.

 

A much slower pace, will by default be more affordable as we slowly build up our capacity to do so. Thats the work of decades.

 

As it stands now, wecantt build a short railway from london to birmingham. Our victorian ancestors would weep watching that carry on. Bugger all chance of a huge electricity transmission program.

We don't lack the expertise or even the manpower to build the railway.

 

We lack the political will. To much pissing about with "will they won't they" as every nimby within 50 miles of the route sticks their oar in and people with zero knowledge of railways armchair general the whole bloody thing.

 

Our grid was designed to move electeixiry from the big coal regions to the cities. We built it fast enough.

 

Now we need to build some more transmission lines as our generation has moved.

 

We know what we have to do. We know how to do it quickly and cheaply.  But suddenly everyone gets in a lather about some pylons. Then they demand it"s underground, which is more expensive. Then thry demand it goes another route because "it" s digging up my farmland". Which adds cost. Then they complain it"s too expensive and is taking too long.

 

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Mostly true, though it goes a bit deeper than that. I have a whole suite of BC certs, all from the council, not worth the paper they are written on. Including sign off for a sewage system that wasnt even there!.

 

Building control is an utterly useless activity that achieves little.

Disagree. It's an important function. But it has been degraded. By just being seen as (and just being) a rubber stamp.

 

Proper building control makes sure houses are designed to meet the regulations and (this is where we fall down now) that they are built to the designs. So if the design calls for wall ties every 5 meters and every 4th course, someone checks this is happening and then your school doesn't fall down.

 

If the specification calls for 300mm of loft insulation, it needs to be there not left in the rolls.

 

You cannot expect a madern building site with contractors, subcontractors and different trades all on piece work to do the job properly.

 

My mate had to fit kitchens when he started (OK 20 years ago)....£120 each kitchen. You bet corners were cut (or not cut as the case may be!). Access hatch in wrong spot - no time to sort that. No time to check waste fittings were tight. Silicone laid down in one go, no finishing. Plugs into plasterboard takes too long, just screw it. Got a 50/50 chance you've connected the hot and cold the right way on.

Edited Wednesday at 21:24 by Beelbeebub

[Roger440]

5 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

We don't lack the expertise or even the manpower to build the railway.

 

We lack the political will. To much pissing about with "will they won't they" as every nimby within 50 miles of the route sticks their oar in and people with zero knowledge of railways armchair general the whole bloody thing.

 

Our grid was designed to move electeixiry from the big coal regions to the cities. We built it fast enough.

 

Now we need to build some more transmission lines as our generation has moved.

 

We know what we have to do. We know how to do it quickly and cheaply.  But suddenly everyone gets in a lather about some pylons. Then they demand it"s underground, which is more expensive. Then thry demand it goes another route because "it" s digging up my farmland". Which adds cost. Then they complain it"s too expensive and is taking too long.

 

 

Sadly, being ex-railway, i tend to take an interest.

 

Whilst you could argue we have the expertise, its individual expertise. We dont, any longer, have any organisation capable of building a railway in a timely and cost effective manner. All that has been lost.

 

Sure, nimbys and all that other stuff make it worse, but thats a bit of a sideshow.

 

And thats pretty much true across the board. All the institutions that would deliver stuff, be it houses, railways, roads etc etc, are all hollowed out or gone completely.

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Disagree. It's an important function. But it has been degraded. By just being seen as (and just being) a rubber stamp.

 

What do think its function is? 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

 

What do think its function is? 

 

 

To ensure that houses are designed and built to the regulations and that the designers and builder dot cut corners to boost profits 

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, Beelbeebub said:

To ensure that houses are designed and built to the regulations and that the designers and builder dot cut corners to boost profits 

 

Well it doesnt do that. So its not fit fr purpose.

 

Take, for example, building an insulated cavity wall. If you are lucky, he will pop his head in there and see insulation.

 

He wont care if its got gaps, isnt taped, has air flowing behind it. Just that its there. Tick in the box.

 

Pointless. What did it add to the process? Aside from cost.

 

[Beelbeebub]

33 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Who will pay for this "upgrade" of housing stock?

 

What would the average cost be of doing it "properly"?

 

Lets take a wild guess. Wales are currently doing (only for non gas houses though) this along with a heat pump. £45k max grant.

 

So lets be optimistic, and assume that the grant harverters are not involved. Oh, and there enough people who understand old housing stock available.

 

So £35k per house.

 

Where would such staggeringly large sums come from? Its insanity to even think about it.

 

And as above, it wont be £35k once the usual suspects get involved And theres no people to do it. Never mind, as you observe the inappropiate work that will get done.

 

Nor does it come close to making any economic sense from a payback perspective (glossing over the zero chance of as built matching design). 

 

Ive come up with a plan for my house. Even doing all the work myself, payback is over 60 years. The most cost effective option is simply to do nothing.

 

Genuinely curious to see any credible solution. I cant make to stack up.

Two parts here

Doing it properly - means making sure any new houses are built to use the minimum energy to stay warm. It's not difficult. Double glazed windows, 400mm loft insulation, 6-8" glass wool (or equiv solid) wall insulation. 8-12" floor insulation. Control air tightness. Ideally use mvhr. Design heating and DHW system for HP.  None of those thing increace the cost in the context of house prices (a good chunk of the cost being the land not the build cost). Stop putting up shitty homes. 

 

As for retrofit. Harder. But not impossible. We just have to keep plugging away.  I can't remember the exact dates but we insulated more lofts and walls in one year (2013 or thereabouts) than the decade after. The government stopped the scheme and installs fell off a cliff.   Allow a2a Heatpumps to be subsidised (with limits on cooling) - they are loads cheaper to install and, as a bonus can be installed in parallel with the existing system so the occupant is risking nothing. And while you're at it, get on board with r290 for split a2a systems. Make the regs easier and simpler. Current ones are too onerous given you are worrying about 500g of propane mainly outside a building that is already connected to near unlimited amounts of methane and you sell propane in 20kg bottles for bbqs. 

 

Allow subsidies even if you dont convert the DHW system. Makes the job simpler. 

 

Make the planning and permitting system faster and simpler. 

 

[Beelbeebub]

11 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Well it doesnt do that. So its not fit fr purpose.

 

Take, for example, building an insulated cavity wall. If you are lucky, he will pop his head in there and see insulation.

 

He wont care if its got gaps, isnt taped, has air flowing behind it. Just that its there. Tick in the box.

 

Pointless. What did it add to the process? Aside from cost.

 

Which is my point. The *current* system, which is set up to reward inspectors who sign of any old crap and punish those that insist on the job being done properly, isn't fit for purpose. 

 

The incentive structure is wrong. 

 

It needs to be redone so the incentives are to follow the regulations.

[Roger440]

11 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Which is my point. The *current* system, which is set up to reward inspectors who sign of any old crap and punish those that insist on the job being done properly, isn't fit for purpose. 

 

The incentive structure is wrong. 

 

It needs to be redone so the incentives are to follow the regulations.

 

I think we agree on this. Mostly. 

[Roger440]

14 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Two parts here

Doing it properly - means making sure any new houses are built to use the minimum energy to stay warm. It's not difficult. Double glazed windows, 400mm loft insulation, 6-8" glass wool (or equiv solid) wall insulation. 8-12" floor insulation. Control air tightness. Ideally use mvhr. Design heating and DHW system for HP.  None of those thing increace the cost in the context of house prices (a good chunk of the cost being the land not the build cost). Stop putting up shitty homes. 

 

As for retrofit. Harder. But not impossible. We just have to keep plugging away.  I can't remember the exact dates but we insulated more lofts and walls in one year (2013 or thereabouts) than the decade after. The government stopped the scheme and installs fell off a cliff.   Allow a2a Heatpumps to be subsidised (with limits on cooling) - they are loads cheaper to install and, as a bonus can be installed in parallel with the existing system so the occupant is risking nothing. And while you're at it, get on board with r290 for split a2a systems. Make the regs easier and simpler. Current ones are too onerous given you are worrying about 500g of propane mainly outside a building that is already connected to near unlimited amounts of methane and you sell propane in 20kg bottles for bbqs. 

 

Allow subsidies even if you dont convert the DHW system. Makes the job simpler. 

 

Make the planning and permitting system faster and simpler. 

 

 

Wasnt talking about new build. Thats just another example of "not serious" government. As you say, shitty houses.

 

Retrofit. My point was, who will pay? How? Vast majority of houses have loft insulation. That was an easy win. Next steps on insulation are way more expensive as per my post.

 

[Beelbeebub]

9 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Wasnt talking about new build. Thats just another example of "not serious" government. As you say, shitty houses.

 

Retrofit. My point was, who will pay? How? Vast majority of houses have loft insulation. That was an easy win. Next steps on insulation are way more expensive as per my post.

 

Which takes us nearly vs k to the beginning. 

 

The goal is to make it cheaper to stay warm in a world where gas prices will rise and we want to reduce our co2 output 

 

Insulation is one line of attack. As you say, loft insulation is an.easy win. There are still. A.significant number of houses with less insulation than thry could have 

 

 As you say after that options get harder. 

 

The challenge is two sided.  Cost (and who pays), disruption/difficulty (inidong issues like planning, conservation areas etc) 

 

The op was about focusing on electrically heated homes. 

 

Switching to a HP, probably air to air will drop the bills by well over half. Probably over 2/3, and cost less than most other measures, and be minimally disruptive. 

 

We do need to explore options to pay. We. Could offset with a charge when the house is sold. "we fit this now and the 8k will be charged when the house is sold". We could just straight up pay. We could add a charge to the bills.

 

Point is, switching an electric home a HP has more benefits than a gas home, lower co2, lower electric demand, lower bills and typically less cost. 

 

[Roger440]

44 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Which takes us nearly vs k to the beginning. 

 

The goal is to make it cheaper to stay warm in a world where gas prices will rise and we want to reduce our co2 output 

 

Insulation is one line of attack. As you say, loft insulation is an.easy win. There are still. A.significant number of houses with less insulation than thry could have 

 

 As you say after that options get harder. 

 

The challenge is two sided.  Cost (and who pays), disruption/difficulty (inidong issues like planning, conservation areas etc) 

 

The op was about focusing on electrically heated homes. 

 

Switching to a HP, probably air to air will drop the bills by well over half. Probably over 2/3, and cost less than most other measures, and be minimally disruptive. 

 

We do need to explore options to pay. We. Could offset with a charge when the house is sold. "we fit this now and the 8k will be charged when the house is sold". We could just straight up pay. We could add a charge to the bills.

 

Point is, switching an electric home a HP has more benefits than a gas home, lower co2, lower electric demand, lower bills and typically less cost. 

 

 

Yes, we suffered thread drift.

 

Yes, Dave original post makes perfect sense.

 

No, nothing will happen.

 

I am, however, against a "charge" being placed by government on the home. Thats the first step towards government taking ownership of private properties.

[SteamyTea]

57 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Could offset with a charge when the house is sold.

Like the Green Deal?

(expletive deleted)ing nonsense that was.

 

The easy way to do it is via punitive legislation.

[JohnMo]

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

The easy way to do it is via punitive legislation.

Exactly, if you don't want people to use direct electric heaters or gas, slap 100% sales tax (plus vat) at point of sale on those commodities. Zero tax, at point of sale, on those items you want people to use.

 

Scrap the grants.

 

I would go further

Force manufacturers to limit temperature output in heating mode to 45, and hot water mode to 60 for all heating appliances, sold to UK market. Stops use of S and Y plan overnight. Heating mode would made via Opentherm and/or weather compensation only, both methods are to be provided as standard, this would include all heat pumps. If manufacturer has their own version they can provide that as well as the minimum required standard of Opentherm and WC.

 

Hot water cylinder below 180L minimum coil size 2.5m² and above that size a min 3m².

 

 

 

[JamesPa]

1 minute ago, JohnMo said:

Exactly, if you don't want people to use direct electric heaters or gas, slap 100% sales tax (plus vat) at point of sale on those commodities. Zero tax, at point of sale, on those items you want people to use.

 

Scrap the grants.

 

I would go further

Force manufacturers to limit temperature output in heating mode to 45, and hot water mode to 60 for all heating appliances, sold to UK market. Stops use of S and Y plan overnight. Heating mode would made via Opentherm and/or weather compensation only, both methods are to be provided as standard, this would include all heat pumps. If manufacturer has their own version they can provide that as well as the minimum required standard of Opentherm and WC.

 

Hot water cylinder below 180L minimum coil size 2.5m² and above that size a min 3m².

 

 

 

Whilst I fully sympathise with your views and would probably do this if I could, I fear that the headlines in certain parts of the press would make this politically impossible.  Just look at the confected fuss over LTNs!

 

That said you can do a lot of unpopular things near the beginning of a term of office!

[JamesPa]

On 12/01/2025 at 10:35, ProDave said:

The push at the moment seems to be trying to persuade people to swap gas boilers for an ASHP.  A perfectly set up ASHP should be a little, not a lot, cheaper to run than a gas boiler.  If not perfect it could well cost more to run than the boiler it replaced.  So trying to persuade people to "invest" in a new heating system when they are quite happy with their old one and at best will only get a marginal saving, it is no wonder they are not queuing up to take up the offer.  you have to WANT to do it for other reasons, the main one being reducing CO2 emmisions.   

We replace ~1.4M gas boilers every year, presumably mostly because they are beyond their useful life.

 

Thats 1.4M (missed) opportunities to fit an ASHP at a time when the homeowners are anyway chucking out their existing heating.  The challenge is presumably that many of these are distress purchases.  Somehow we need to find a way to fit ASHPs in these cases as well as the cases where there is more time.