Are we targeting ASHP's at the wrong market?

[ProDave]

I find it absurd that they exclude heat pumps that "can be used for cooling" for being eligible for any grant.

 

The objective is to get people to reduce fossil fuel usage.  Someone with a gas boiler has the incentive "it might be very slightly cheaper to run if the install is perfect" but even with the grant it will cost you a big wad of £££.  That is it.  No wonder they are not queuing up.  If they were offered a system that not only would cut your fossil fuel use, might be a bit cheaper to run, AND could cool your house in a heatwave, they might be a little more interested? 

[Mattg4321]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I find it absurd that they exclude heat pumps that "can be used for cooling" for being eligible for any grant.

 

The objective is to get people to reduce fossil fuel usage.  Someone with a gas boiler has the incentive "it might be very slightly cheaper to run if the install is perfect" but even with the grant it will cost you a big wad of £££.  That is it.  No wonder they are not queuing up.  If they were offered a system that not only would cut your fossil fuel use, might be a bit cheaper to run, AND could cool your house in a heatwave, they might be a little more interested? 

Depends if quasi religious flagellation is part of the reason for it. 

[Roger440]

3 hours ago, JamesPa said:

Personally Id rather discuss, in a constructive way, solutions to problems we collectively face.  Unfortunately there appears to be a tendency in this thread to dismiss any positive suggestions made by those commenting, or by those in power, but without (in most cases) providing practical alternatives which we could debate.   Ultimately this gets us all absolutely nowhere, but I guess serves as a vent for frustration.

 

As you say this is thread drift.  We could start another thread entitled 'No hope' or 'Vent your frustrations' which those who wish could follow.   We could also start one entitled 'Petition to repeal the second law of thermodynamics' whilst we are at it.

 

The title of this thread is Are we targeting ASHP's at the wrong market.

 

Theres lots of good ideas in this tread, and a handful of crazy ones.

 

Everyone is welcome to discuss these forever, which is all very nice. But their relationship to the real world is tenous at best. Im not actally sure i see much benefit in discussing what are in many cases, fantasy, however well intentioned, from a practical perspective. The real world exists as it is. I find it more useful to consider the real world, rather the the world as you might wish it to be.. 

 

As your post is a direct pop at me, maybe ill step out, despite actually suggesting real world practical solutions. Never mind.

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

I find it absurd that they exclude heat pumps that "can be used for cooling" for being eligible for any grant.

 

The objective is to get people to reduce fossil fuel usage.  Someone with a gas boiler has the incentive "it might be very slightly cheaper to run if the install is perfect" but even with the grant it will cost you a big wad of £££.  That is it.  No wonder they are not queuing up.  If they were offered a system that not only would cut your fossil fuel use, might be a bit cheaper to run, AND could cool your house in a heatwave, they might be a little more interested? 

Good point, though we'd have to be careful we didn't increace energy usage over the year. No point in reducing the co2.emissions over the winter is they are.mtoe than made up for byleoole running the aircon all summer. 

 

That said, limiting the lower end of the cooling to (say) 28C would blunt the worst of the heat waves without resulting in it being overused. 

 

The other option, which is related to my alternative to subsidy proposal would be to measure the heat or cooling produced and offset the electricity costs so the electicity used for heating would never cost more than the equivilent gas.  If you took that approach but didn't subsidise cooling electricity that might work. 

[ADLIan]

That’s the very reason the building regs and successive Govts (and funding schemes) have not promoted AC - it increases energy use!!

[Mattg4321]

What’s the problem with increased energy use if it is renewable powered?

 

Sunny day in summer is when we seem to have an oversupply of energy as everyone’s PV is generating flat out. Might even solve a problem. 

[Beelbeebub]

29 minutes ago, ADLIan said:

That’s the very reason the building regs and successive Govts (and funding schemes) have not promoted AC - it increases energy use!!

Very true, and historically cooling has been both unecessary and a luxury in the UK. 

 

That may change in the future and the ability to do bit of cooling for the few days a year we may have dangerous heat (think 35C+) might be useful at a societal level (fewer heat stress admissions etc) 

 

The other problem is that AC machines are also very good heaters. So by refusing to subsidise air to air units because they may be used for cooling, you prevent yourself from using a useful technology. 

 

A friend replaced the fan heaters on his workshop with an A2A unit and he does use it for summer cooling. Without that his workshop (essentially a portacabin) is unusable in the hotter summer spells. But it has been really good for hearing over the winter. Much better temperature distribution vs the "too hot at one end, cold at the other" of the fan heater. Drastically lower fire risk (he's a wood workers so lots of sawdust around) and much cheaper to run. He's now thinking of fitting one to his house to supplement (and possibly eventually replace) his oil boiler heating.

 

If there was a grant he'd probably do it without hesitation. 

[Beelbeebub]

28 minutes ago, Mattg4321 said:

What’s the problem with increased energy use if it is renewable powered?

 

Sunny day in summer is when we seem to have an oversupply of energy as everyone’s PV is generating flat out. Might even solve a problem. 

A reasonable point. On the one hand wasting energy is not ideal but if it's energy that is a bit surplus is it a problem? Especially if it'd locally generated ie you have solar panels. 

 

In which case the "also cools" aspect would have very little national level downside but we would reduce co2 and cost in the winter. 

[JamesPa]

5 hours ago, ProDave said:

I find it absurd that they exclude heat pumps that "can be used for cooling" for being eligible for any grant.

Is this actually the case.  I can't find it in the bus rules https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/565/contents/made but maybe I missed something.

 

Permitted development excludes the use of an ashp for cooling, but doesn't exclude ones which are capable of cooling

[ProDave]

20 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Is this actually the case.  I can't find it in the bus rules https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/565/contents/made but maybe I missed something.

 

Permitted development excludes the use of an ashp for cooling, but doesn't exclude ones which are capable of cooling

My point was I believe (correct me if I am wrong) you can only get the BUS grant is cooling is not enabled?

 

When you dig into the exemptions and conditions, you could be forgiven for thinking the government want to make it appear they are promoting heat pumps, but then put in conditions that restrict the number of installs, and then at some future point they will say something like we had the policies but people did not take it up, so not our fault there are not enough.

[JamesPa]

49 minutes ago, ProDave said:

My point was I believe (correct me if I am wrong) you can only get the BUS grant is cooling is not enabled?

I can't find anywhere in the bus rules where it actually says this.  I think (but may be wrong) that this is a common myth based on a misunderstanding of the permitted development rules (which do not apply to ashps used for cooling, but don't actually prohibit ashps capable of cooling)

 

If someone can point out in the bus legislation (link above) where it prohibits cooling I am happy to be proved wrong.

Edited 8 hours ago by JamesPa

[JohnMo]

49 minutes ago, ProDave said:

you can only get the BUS grant is cooling is not enabled

BUS grant makes no mention of cooling, was a restriction on previous schemes, but not under BUS.

 

However you cannot install under permitted development rules if you are going to use cooling.

[JamesPa]

28 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

BUS grant makes no mention of cooling, was a restriction on previous schemes, but not under BUS.

 

However you cannot install under permitted development rules if you are going to use cooling.

That's exactly my understanding too.

 

Of course that doesn't prevent you claiming bus, installing under pd, and then making a planning application to use the already installed unit for cooling.  Obviously you wouldn't do this if your principal reason for install is cooling, but if that's the secondary reason you just might.

Edited 8 hours ago by JamesPa

[joth]

46 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

BUS grant makes no mention of cooling, was a restriction on previous schemes, but not under BUS.

 

However you cannot install under permitted development rules if you are going to use cooling.

Correct, cooling is not prohibited in a bus install.

The two challenges with cooling are (I) it's not allowed under permitted development, and (ii) MCS training doesn't cover cooling (MCS install being mandatory for BUS) so it's extra hard to find an installer competent to do it. 

In practical terms so long as you keep the cooling temperature above dew point there's not a lot of additional effort needed to support cooling. 

[Beelbeebub]

My understanding is you cannot get a bus grant for *any* A2A system. 

 

And that tge rationale for excluding A2A in the first place was that they could be used for cooling (which is what most of the A2A systems sold world wide are used for and designed for. Some systems don't even include a reversing valve and can only cool) 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

I do think that revisiting the position on A2A and (related) the requirement the HP is the sole heating and DHW source is worthwhile.

 

Fitting an A2A system is typically cheaper and can be fitted leaving the existing system intact. This gives the user the safety net that they will never be worse off in cost or performance than their existing system (because they can just use the existing system).

[JohnMo]

25 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

My understanding is you cannot get a bus grant for *any* A2A system

BUS grant insists DHW production is also by heat pump, so one thing against A2A, but A2A is just seen as Aircon, which is cooling only, to the ill informed.

 

23 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

and can be fitted leaving the existing system intact

Again the other heat source needs to be dumped so all basically done by heat pump. Otherwise that would be a hybrid, and no grant money for that, full stop.

[SteamyTea]

I think that part of the reason the A2AHPs are not eligible for grants is that they are relatively cheap to fit.

When the grant systems were initially set up, it as based on a RoR of 8% I think (that may have been for PV, can't remember now).

 

[JamesPa]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

My understanding is you cannot get a bus grant for *any* A2A system. 

That's an interesting question.  The regs say that heat must be delivered 'by a liquid'.  For some reason it doesn't say 'delivered by water'.  So an A2A system that heats the house and dhw via a liquid refrigerant may qualify.  My understanding is that the refrigerant is liquid at the point it hits the heat exchanger in an A2A system.  It also needs to heat the dhw which is entirely possible but not normal, but perhaps it could be.

Edited 6 hours ago by JamesPa

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

by a liquid

There is a difference between liquid and fluid in science.

A liquid is just the one of the 5 physical states a collection of atoms can be in.

[JamesPa]

5 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

There is a difference between liquid and fluid in science.

A liquid is just the one of the 5 physical states a collection of atoms can be in.

The word used in the regulations is 'liquid'.  I can't see how refrigerant once compressed doesn't meet this definition and my understanding is liquid when it hits the heat exchanger.

Edited 6 hours ago by JamesPa

[Beelbeebub]

52 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

BUS grant insists DHW production is also by heat pump, so one thing against A2A, but A2A is just seen as Aircon, which is cooling only, to the ill informed.

 

Again the other heat source needs to be dumped so all basically done by heat pump. Otherwise that would be a hybrid, and no grant money for that, full stop.

Yes, I am. Suggesting that a. Change in the rules to allow A2A heating without any DHW provision (ie leave DHW as is) to get some sort of grant would increace uptake of Heatpumps and subsequently reduce co2 emissions. 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

The word used in the regulations is 'liquid'.  I can't see how refrigerant once compressed doesn't meet this definition and my understanding is liquid when it hits the heat exchanger.

If that is the case, then, with the scientific definition, it would qualify.

 

From Google

 

A liquid is a type of matter with specific properties that make it less rigid than a solid but more rigid than a gas. A liquid can flow and does not have a specific shape like a solid. Instead, a liquid conforms to the shape of the container in which it is held

[Beelbeebub]

Technically speaking the heat in an A2A heatpump is delivered as a hot gas (vapour) that is condensed into a liquid at the point of heat delivery (the room unit heat exchanger coil). 

 

So it is a tricky question if the delivery is via gas or liquid. 

 

I'm not sure the legal system is capable of dealing with the finer points of thermodynamics 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[Beelbeebub]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

If that is the case, then, with the scientific definition, it would qualify.

 

From Google

 

A liquid is a type of matter with specific properties that make it less rigid than a solid but more rigid than a gas. A liquid can flow and does not have a specific shape like a solid. Instead, a liquid conforms to the shape of the container in which it is held

Generally liquids are nearly incompressible whilst gasses can be compressed.