Flexi-Orb update. from the Renewable Heating Hub

[TheMitchells]

The renewable heating industry is on the cusp of a significant transformation, and the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Scheme is at the heart of this change. As we’ve reported previously, this initiative aims to address the shortcomings of the existing Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) by offering a more practical, installer-friendly approach while maintaining rigorous standards. Today, we bring you the latest updates on the scheme’s progress, including its submission to UKAS, the development of a comprehensive Heat Pump Code of Practice, and plans for a pilot validation process ahead of its anticipated launch later this year. But beyond the technical details, this update also explores why this new scheme matters – not just for installers and manufacturers, but for homeowners too. Flexi-Orb Scheme Submitted to UKAS for Assessment As of last week, the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Scheme has been formally submitted to the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) for assessment. This assessment will be conducted against the ISO IEC 17067:2013 standard, which ensures that certification schemes meet rigorous international benchmarks for conformity assessment. This is a significant step forward, as UKAS accreditation will provide the scheme with the credibility and recognition needed to operate alongside existing standards like MCS. David Lindsay, Director at Certi-fi Schemes Limited (Flexi-Orb and EPVS), commented on this milestone: “I’m pleased that we’ve submitted the scheme to UKAS, but it’s just one step forward. There’s still a lot of work for us to do, none of which we’re taking for granted. Thankfully, we’ve had some great input from a wide range of stakeholders, and this has to continue if we’re going to meet industry needs. We’re an open door. If anyone wants to work with us to improve the outcomes for consumers, which is where we start, then we’re interested.” For homeowners, this means greater choice and confidence. A second accredited scheme introduces healthy competition into the market, driving up standards and encouraging innovation. It also provides an alternative pathway for installers, which could lead to more competitive pricing and better service as companies vie for business under both schemes. Heat Pump Code of Practice: Refinements and External Input The development of the Heat Pump Code of Practice, a cornerstone of the Flexi-Orb scheme, is continuing to progress through its working group. Recently, the working group received additional input from external verification companies, particularly around two critical areas: noise calculations and heat loss calculations. These refinements will ensure that the Code of Practice addresses key technical challenges faced by installers, providing clear and actionable guidance to achieve optimal system performance. For homeowners, this translates to better-performing systems. By focusing on practical, real-world issues like noise and heat loss, the Flexi-Orb scheme ensures that heat pump installations are not only compliant but also optimised for comfort and efficiency. This means lower running costs, quieter systems, and homes that stay warm without excessive energy use – key benefits that directly impact the homeowner experience. Once finalised, the Code of Practice will be accompanied by a Heat Pump Design and Installation Guide, which will be made available to all scheme applicants. This guide will serve as a comprehensive resource for installers, offering step-by-step instructions to streamline the installation process. Additionally, an assessment checklist will be provided, outlining exactly what assessors will evaluate during inspections. This transparency has already proven popular in Flexi-Orb’s existing certification schemes, as it eliminates guesswork and ensures both installers and assessors are aligned on expectations. Pilot Validation Process Set for April 2025 Flexi-Orb has announced plans to begin a pilot validation process next month (April 2025). This pilot phase will test the scheme’s practical application, allowing Flexi-Orb to gather feedback and make any necessary adjustments before the full launch. The pilot will also mark the final steps towards adding the heat pump scheme to the scope of Flexi-Orb’s Certification Bodies, which operate under the ISO IEC 17065:2012 standard. For homeowners, the pilot phase is a reassurance that the scheme has been rigorously tested before being rolled out. It means that when the scheme launches, it will have been tried and tested in real-world scenarios, reducing the risk of teething problems and ensuring a smoother experience for those investing in heat pump technology. Launch Plans: Targeting June/July 2025 Flexi-Orb is targeting a full launch of the heat pump scheme in June or July 2025, though this timeline is dependent on external factors, particularly the completion of the UKAS assessment process. Regardless of the exact launch date, Flexi-Orb has confirmed that it will provide detailed information about the scheme and announce a firm launch date at the Installer Show in June 2025. This announcement will be a major moment for the renewable heating industry, as it will mark the culmination of years of effort to create a more practical and effective alternative to MCS. With its focus on installer-friendly tools, clear compliance, and robust quality assurance, the Flexi-Orb scheme is poised to raise standards and deliver better outcomes for everyone involved. Why a Second Scheme Matters for Homeowners The introduction of a second accredited scheme like Flexi-Orb is not just a win for installers and manufacturers – it’s a win for homeowners too. Here’s why: 1.     Increased Competition Drives Better Outcomes Competition is a powerful motivator. With Flexi-Orb providing an alternative to MCS, both schemes will need to continually improve their offerings to attract installers and manufacturers. This could lead to better training, more innovative products and higher standards across the board; all of which benefit homeowners. 2.     Higher Standards for Performance and Comfort Flexi-Orb’s focus on practical guidance (such as noise and heat loss calculations) means that installations under this scheme are likely to perform better in real-world conditions. For homeowners, this means systems that are quieter, more efficient and better suited to their specific needs. 3.     Greater Accountability and Consumer Protection Flexi-Orb’s proactive approach to quality assurance, including instant feedback mechanisms, ensures that any issues with installations can be addressed quickly. This reduces the risk of subpar installations and gives homeowners peace of mind that their investment is protected. A Scheme That’s Installer-Friendly but Challenging While Flexi-Orb is designed to be installer-friendly, it’s important to note that the scheme is already more challenging to achieve than MCS in some respects. A key difference is Flexi-Orb’s emphasis on office assessments, which ensure that the administrative and logistical aspects of an installation (such as DNO approval and aftercare infrastructure) are handled correctly. This approach not only raises the bar for installers but also provides homeowners with greater confidence that their installation is backed by a robust and efficient support system. As Flexi-Orb has pointed out, this contrasts with the revised MCS approach, which has moved away from office assessments. Flexi-Orb believes that ensuring the supply chain and administrative processes are in place is critical to delivering high-quality installations and reliable aftercare, something that ultimately benefits the homeowner. What’s Next? The Flexi-Orb scheme represents an evolution in heat pump certification, offering a fresh approach within the framework of ISO standards. By focusing on clear compliance, practical guidance, and robust quality assurance, Flexi-Orb aims to raise standards and deliver better outcomes for installers and homeowners alike. We will continue to monitor the progress of the scheme closely and provide updates as more information becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the Flexi-Orb Heat Pump Scheme, feel free to leave them in the comments below. We’ll do our best to address them in future updates. Stay tuned for more news as we approach the highly anticipated launch of this important initiative!

[torre]

The Flexi orb name is terrible but the initiative sounds promising and is long overdue.

 

MCS seems to have turned into the worst sort of closed shop scheme - it's not working as a guarantee of quality (esp with umbrella schemes) and seems to be little more than a grant harvesting scheme - the government's giving 7.5k grants but the householder benefits only by a fraction of that with MCS installers taking the rest in markup that bears no relation to their costs.

[JohnMo]

Just sounds like an alternative to MCS with same cost adders....

 

MCS doesn't tell anyone to stuff a buffer in the system or zone to death, but installers still do it.

 

Do you need either scheme - no

Do you need grants - no

If you want to install a heat pump just do it...

[sharpener]

13 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Do you need either scheme - no

Do you need grants - no

 

Problem is

 

1. how to encourage takeup. Government incentive schemes are difficult to design so they reach the intended parts of the economy, this is no exception.
2. how to ensure good quality (which is necessary to fulfil aims of 1. and ensure vfm). Answer is perhaps better (re-)training of workforce. That is a legitimate and effective area for government intervention in this and many other areas. (Including Building Control, self-certification is not going to work in a new technology, where you get the blind leading the blind.)
3. Interaction with planning regime. MCS is a technical standard that should never have been used as the basis for deemed (or any) planning permission. This toothpaste prob. not going to go back into the tube however.

 

Wottamess. 

 

I have though got a 12kW installation done to a good standard or £7.5k of my own money. Doubt I would have done it without BUS as that sum would not have covered the hardware.

 

 

Edited March 19 by sharpener

[JohnMo]

18 minutes ago, sharpener said:

how to ensure good quality

 

19 minutes ago, sharpener said:

Answer is perhaps better (re-)training of workforce. That is a legitimate and effective area for government intervention

Our trouble (UK in general) doesn't enforce training that is meaningful. Our apprenticeship schemes are lacking. In many cases, can be blind leading the blind.

 

To be a plumber there should be mandatory minimum training needs, this has to include low temperature heating systems and a deep understanding of it's design - we have needed them for efficient gas systems for decades, but no-one cares, that can make decisions. Instead we just get S or Y plan nonsense.

 

This new scheme is just another scheme, it doesn't address the main issues of a poor quality work force, not due to their own doing, but because of poor training.

[JohnMo]

28 minutes ago, sharpener said:

have though got a 12kW installation done to a good standard or £7.5k of my own money. Doubt I would have done it without BUS as that sum would not have covered the hardware

But don't you still have issues with the UFH and radiator when it's cold? Or did you manage to fix yourself? While the installer walks away with £15k

[sharpener]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

But don't you still have issues with the UFH and radiator when it's cold?

 

Yes but not exactly their fault. Contract was to connect to existing UFH 'as is', no-one would guarantee performance as neither I nor anyone has records of 1995 floor construction, insulation (assumed 100mm IIRC) or pipe spacing (though IR camera would prob. have told us that).

 

A different firm included for replacing manifold actuators valve and pump with all new, their quote before BUS was £22k. Also all new 28/22mm under landing floor, didn't think disruption was necessary and proved right on this.

 

Problem largely went away after a long stay got slab charged up (is a second home). Was debating even before you wrote whether to live with it or try and replace the mixing valve with a new thermostatic one but it will be very awkward to do, is in a confined space in a jumble of pipework* and the end connections are different orientation from modern valves so will need several elbows. 

 

Now weather is warmer I will not need the UFH to get/keep the living room up to temp so plan at least to get valve off to see exactly how it works and if it is in fact (a) thermostatic at all and (b) whether it actually does anything. Knob is missing but I now have a workaround with a circular offcut of plywood.

 

* it appears from the old holes in the wall that the manifold was moved by about 4 ins at some point and pipework adapted to suit. No obvious reason, perhaps bc wiring centre and relay box were relocated as well. Also I put an extra rad on other side of wall teed off from UFH feed, fortunately just enough room for them to put the new UFH zone valve in the return after the tee, and actuate it from existing switched live to pump. All a big shoehorning exercise. At least I made sure there are isolation valves in the right places, so I can work on it at leisure. Will take before and after pix for you!

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Our trouble (UK in general) doesn't enforce training that is meaningful. Our apprenticeship schemes are lacking. In many cases, can be blind leading the blind.

So true, in many areas.

 

When I was a lad, we had fitters/machinists, they learnt on the job and basically needed retraining when a new part needed fitting or machining.

Then we had the Technicians/Toolmakers, they had gone to college to do a G&G or BTEC and could understand drawings and written instructions, so set up the machines.

Then we had the Production Engineers.  Minimum qualification (where I worked) was an HND in the appropriate engineering discipline.  They understood the jobs and the machinery that it was made on, and importantly, what the part did in the final product.  They seemed to spend a lot of time in meeting, but everything fitted together and worked reliably.

The main person, on the production side, was the Chief Engineer, they were responsible to all the costs, timings, quality control etc, they had an Engineering Degree or MSc, a couple had PhDs.

By the time the 1990s came along, that structure seemed to have vanished and at best, in smaller companies, you got a Technician i.e. had a C&G or BTEC/NVQ.  I generally found they disliked anyone with higher qualifications.

A friend of mine, a very experienced and qualified Chartered Mechanical Engineer, worked for a company that was run by an Accountant (a qualified one), was asked to cut costs by getting rid of the Engineers and employing unqualified replacements and training them up.

That company made fuel metering systems, so safety critical in some applications.  Thankfully the company folded before any damage was done.

[BotusBuild]

But today we have YouTube to get trained.

 

(Dons tin hat and exist stage left)

[sharpener]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

By the time the 1990s came along, that structure seemed to have vanished and at best, in smaller companies, you got a Technician i.e. had a C&G or BTEC/NVQ.  I generally found they disliked anyone with higher qualifications.

 

When I worked in technical consultancy and contract R&D my worst recollection was a client company who made torque wrench calibration machines. The 3 or 4 ppl who came to the first meeting had as their only technical  qualification one Chemistry O level between them. I think the original owner/inventor had retired and so they had no real idea how their product actually worked, and consequently could not comprehend the ideas we had for improving it. Difficult to help.

 

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

A friend of mine, a very experienced and qualified Chartered Mechanical Engineer, worked for a company that was run by an Accountant

 

I had one for an MD. His idea of keeping tabs on my R&D department was to see if the expenditure was tracking the budget. It seldom deviated bc nearly all the costs were the salaries of an agreed number of ppl.

 

My idea was seeing if we were achieving the technical milestones like new product features, reduced service callouts, bug fixes. He was not interested in the slightest.

 

 

Edited March 19 by sharpener

[sharpener]

duplicate deleted

Edited March 19 by sharpener