Bloody ridiculous

[Beelbeebub]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/apr/22/bbc-tells-pm-evan-davis-to-stop-hosting-heat-pump-podcast

 

I watched a few episodes. It wasn't my favorite podcast (wasn't nerdy enough for me!😁) but it wasn't bad and, given he's a biggish name, it might have reached a few more peeps outside the usual audience for HP content.

 

But the very subject of heat pumps being political?!

 

If anything, banning a bbc employee from covering them (after giving him the OK) is the more politically controversial move.

 

 

[Iceverge]

Should probably ban anyone who exhales CO2 as well, or buys or uses any petroleum products, or any renewable energies too for that matter. Or anyone who deliberately avoids using oil based products, or people who refuse to breath as they're hardly independent. 

 

 

[nod]

13 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/apr/22/bbc-tells-pm-evan-davis-to-stop-hosting-heat-pump-podcast

 

I watched a few episodes. It wasn't my favorite podcast (wasn't nerdy enough for me!😁) but it wasn't bad and, given he's a biggish name, it might have reached a few more peeps outside the usual audience for HP content.

 

But the very subject of heat pumps being political?!

 

If anything, banning a bbc employee from covering them (after giving him the OK) is the more politically controversial move.

 

 

The BBC should be banned full stop 

There miles away from the BBC of thirty years ago 

Far from impartial 

 

[SteamyTea]

21 minutes ago, nod said:

The BBC should be banned full stop 

How about banning lobbying from/by/to.

Or even more radical, policy makers must have a course on the topic they are making policy on.  It need not be 'degree level', just a basic understanding.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, nod said:

The BBC should be banned full stop 

The BBC does excellent work in many, many areas.

 

But it should be allowed to operate to "educate, entertain and inform" free from political interference.

 

There is nothing controversial or political about Heatpumps.

 

The only political dimension is the decision about what the UKs targets CO2 emissions should be going forward.

 

Any decision beyond "we aren't going to cut co2 emissions at all and we don't care about the UK being exposed to international gas price volatility" requires HPs

 

The move to HPs requires the population to be educated to a level beyond daily mail headlines.

 

 

[Andehh]

2 hours ago, nod said:

The BBC should be banned full stop 

There miles away from the BBC of thirty years ago 

Far from impartial 

 

 

I don't think that's fair, and I totally disagree... Ironically enough, was something I was actually looking at last night....

 

I think the below rating for BBC is spot on.

 

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fact-check-bias-chart

 

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bbc-news-media-bias

Edited Tuesday at 19:31 by Andehh

[joth]

53 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

There is nothing controversial or political about Heatpumps.

 

The only political dimension is the decision about what the UKs targets CO2 emissions should be going forward.

Subsidies, grants, and taxes on fuels have a fairly political basis

But doesn't mean a podcast about the technology is political, any more than top gear or the Money Programme are

 

[JamesPa]

It does feel like an over-reaction IMHO, but at the same time its probably a controversy that the BBC doesn't need, given that there are elements of the political class who appear to be very much out to get it (the BBC), and who have also either recently, or less recently, come out against doing anything meaningful in response to climate change.  The underlying issue is, I suspect, this because, like it or not, heat pumps are associated with net zero which makes them political by inference. 

 

The money programme is broadcast by the BBC and is thus subject to the requirements of neutrality to which the BBC is subject and to the BBCs editorial control, the podcast in question was being done independently of the BBC by a prominent employee in 'his own time', so is not really comparable.   

 

The BBC, like any other organisation, probably wants to choose its battles! 

Edited Tuesday at 20:42 by JamesPa

[Iceverge]

There's a sniff of some other axe being ground here. 

 

My gut feeling is that some egos were bruised about the moderate success of ED outside the BBC and tightened the leash to reassert authority. 

[Beelbeebub]

16 hours ago, joth said:

Subsidies, grants, and taxes on fuels have a fairly political basis

But doesn't mean a podcast about the technology is political, any more than top gear or the Money Programme are

 

Exactly, if a podcast on Heatpumps is to controversial politcally, then a motoring podcast would be equally controversial.

[Beelbeebub]

14 hours ago, Iceverge said:

There's a sniff of some other axe being ground here. 

 

My gut feeling is that some egos were bruised about the moderate success of ED outside the BBC and tightened the leash to reassert authority. 

I suspect the axe being ground is trying to pull evermore things into the culture war.

 

Net Zero and climate change is a natural thing for certain factions to latch onto now Brexit has occured.

 

Consider.

 

It is a fairly technical subject that most people don't have the time or inclination to understand.

 

It requires trusting what experts tell us.

It is highly complex. Experts (by definition) cannot offer certainty. Whereas commentators can offer certainty and simplicity.

 

It requires changes to our behaviour - we primarily use metric measures (Brexit), we shouldn't drive such big cars (climate change)

 

All of these features make climate change ripen to be the next Brexit which is why it's no surprise Reform/Farage are pitching their tent firmly in the "no to net zero" camp.

 

 

[JohnMo]

19 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

But the very subject of heat pumps being political?!

What have I missed? In what way are heat pumps political. By any stretch of the imagination?

 

Aren't they just another heat source, misunderstood by the Joe public, just like a condensing boiler is?  But unlike a boiler misuse, bad operation, etc. a heat pump costs you in the wallet.

 

The only controversy is the average plumber is trained pretty poorly. The requirements for low temperature heating systems, came in with condensing boiler, decades ago. Operating at, and training for, low temperature heating, should have been mandatory at the same time as condensing boilers became mandatory, and S and Y plan banned at the same time.

[marshian]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Aren't they just another heat source, misunderstood by the Joe public, just like a condensing boiler is?  But unlike a boiler misuse, bad operation, etc. a heat pump costs you in the wallet.

 

A Gas boiler - output and modulation rate chosen poorly and run at non condensing temps will also hit you in the wallet

 

 

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

The only controversy is the average plumber is trained pretty poorly. The requirements for low temperature heating systems, came in with condensing boiler, decades ago. Operating at, and training for, low temperature heating, should have been mandatory at the same time as condensing boilers became mandatory, and S and Y plan banned at the same time.

 

100% agree - Condensing boilers were mandated with little or no explanation of just how the efficiency could be improved with lower temp heating and DHWP - I'd take a punt and say that most condensing boiler temps are set at 55-60 deg C as that's really the temp which gets the HW tank up to a sensible level and aren't set up for WC

 

S and Y plan aren't really the problem as such - boilers not being told if they are heating HW or doing Space Heating is the issue

 

The mandated move to condensing boilers is just another example of governments trying to do the right thing but making it a utter horlicks of it all

 

Same with BUS grants - all it's doing is inflating the cost of the conversion from gas boiler to ASHP - increasing the profits of manufacturers and installers and being funded by the taxpayer.

[JohnMo]

43 minutes ago, marshian said:

no explanation of just how the efficiency

Not quite true about 10 000 installers were trained on condensing theory etc - but it was one off training never repeated. I think in one ear out the other.

 

46 minutes ago, marshian said:

S and Y plan aren't really the problem

They are a problem, because they don't know or care what they are heating W and X plan know when heating house or cylinder. Effectively the same plumbing as S and Y but wiring for two flow temp

[JamesPa]

It strikes me that (peculiarly):

 

Designed properly (which boils down to keeping the system simple and sizing the heat pump reasonably correctly) installing a heat pump, even as a retrofit, will both reduce running costs and increase comfort, in return for some capital investment.  The capital investment is, say, £3-7K for the average house after the grant, or much less if you are anyway doing some refurb or anyway replacing your boiler.   The running cost and comfort improvements are in addition to environmental benefits.

 

Many (too many?) people will quite happily spend £10K-20K on a new kitchen or new bathroom, which neither saves money nor increases utility.  Yet the very same people will ask what financial gain they get from installing a heat pump.

 

Politically one can, I accept, dispute a public subsidy, but we accept almost without question public subsidies (or tax breaks, which are the same) for airport infrastructure and fossil fuel exploration!

 

Go figure?  

Edited 18 hours ago by JamesPa

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

Designed properly (which boils down to keeping the system simple and sizing the heat pump reasonably correctly) installing a heat pump, even as a retrofit, will both reduce running costs and increase comfort, in return for some capital investment

Whilst I have a heat pump and think they are good, in the right circumstances, I find it hard to believe for most people, that swapping a gas boiler for a heat pump will reduce bills by much, if anything.

 

I have always believed a heat pump with a SCOP of 3 will deliver similar running costs to a mains gas boiler.  You would have to achieve a much better SCOP to achieve a saving and I just don't believe the average retrofit ASHP can achieve that.

[JamesPa]

10 hours ago, ProDave said:

 

I have always believed a heat pump with a SCOP of 3 will deliver similar running costs to a mains gas boiler.  You would have to achieve a much better SCOP to achieve a saving and I just don't believe the average retrofit ASHP can achieve that.

Why not as a matter of interest.  Quoted scops at a FT of 45 or below are well above this figure and 45 is surely generally achievable with radiators which is the typical retrofit scenario.  Is it just the fact that too many installs are rubbish (oversized heat pumps, buffer tanks and external controls) or something more fundamental.  Most boilers that are being replaced will not be running at optimum anyway, because of previous poor commissioning, so there is some leeway there from the get go.

 

Seriously, it seems to me that the industry has talked itself into predicting and accepting poor performance because of its past mistakes made in the early days (when few people understood the practical application of the technology).  Instead it should, it seems to me, recognise past mistakes and move forward.  Shame on the industry if that is the case.

 

My 7kW retrofit Vaillant achieves a SCOP of 4 and a cost saving relative to my gas boiler of 20%.  It runs at 42C @ -2 on radiators.  I have done almost no tweaking other than to get the WC curve optimised, neither did the installer, and there is absolutely nothing clever about the system design.  Why cant all systems be like this?  With the new Mitsubishi 2 compressor (2+6kW) heat pump you dont even have to get the system sizing particularly accurate!

 

Edited 6 hours ago by JamesPa

[ProDave]

And what about heating DHW?  to get my HW to 48 degrees the heat pump flow temperature reaches 55.    And since my heat pump delivers almost as much hot water in a year as it does heating, that is going to push the SCOP down.  There is no way to measure it on my ASHP so I don't actually know what I achieve.

 

I am not trying to downplay heat pumps.  I just don't like the idea of them being "sold" to the customer as a cheaper way of heating, when in a LOT of cases, they are not.  It is that sort of over optimistic sales talk that gets heat pumps a bad name when the owner finds it does not save money.

[JamesP]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I am not trying to downplay heat pumps.  I just don't like the idea of them being "sold" to the customer as a cheaper way of heating, when in a LOT of cases, they are not.  It is that sort of over optimistic sales talk that gets heat pumps a bad name when the owner finds it does not save money.

Correct, as an ASHP owner in an airtight house, MVHR blah blah it would be financially cheaper to run on mains gas. 

Our use is at Passive levels but that's due to the fabric and detailing  of the build.

[JamesPa]

37 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I am not trying to downplay heat pumps.  I just don't like the idea of them being "sold" to the customer as a cheaper way of heating, when in a LOT of cases, they are not.  It is that sort of over optimistic sales talk that gets heat pumps a bad name when the owner finds it does not save money.

I completely agree with that sentiment.  Selling them as cost saving is mis selling because its dependent on electricity tarifs etc.  They should be sold IMHO as approximately cost neutral with better comfort and environmental credentials, and should achieve cost neutral or better - ie its a genuine heating upgrade.  Its still a better deal than a new kitchen!  Currently the impression many seem to have is that a heat pump will cost more to run and give lower levels of comfort, which should never be true (but, sadly it appears, sometimes is true).

 

I do take the point that DHW may be significant, but even this can achieve a good COP if the heat pump progressively ramps up its flow temperature (which mine certainly does) rather than whacking it straight up to 55+.  Very low loss houses, where the DHW might actually dominate the heating, are obviously a special case, but a negligible proportion of our housing stock.

Edited 4 hours ago by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

39 minutes ago, JamesP said:

Correct, as an ASHP owner in an airtight house, MVHR blah blah it would be financially cheaper to run on mains gas. 

Our use is at Passive levels but that's due to the fabric and detailing  of the build.

Im not sure what you are saying.  My house is 1930 originally solid brick.  About 80% of the walls do now have typically 50mm of insulation.  The floors are uninsulated, the loft has 300mm.  Double glazing is from the 80s with the glass only replaced with low e argon filled.  Certainly not a passiv haus, definitely not airtight, and no MVHR. 

 

My ASHP is 20% cheaper to run than gas because, I think, it has no buffer tank, is right sized, I operate it open loop on weather compensation without external controls.  In other words its kept simple as the designers of the unit intended.  All I am saying is that I don't see any good reason why almost all retrofits cant be like this as it involves nothing clever at all.

Edited 4 hours ago by JamesPa

[Iceverge]

Most of us are wise enough to accept there is nuance in the specific install case for each heat pump. 

 

10 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Im not sure what you are saying.  My house is 1930 originally solid brick.  About 80% of the walls do now have typically 50mm of insulation.  The floors are uninsulated, the loft has 300mm.  Double glazing is from the 80s with the glass only replaced with low e argon filled.  Certainly not a passiv haus and no MVHR. 

 

MY ASHP 20% cheaper to run than gas because, I think, it has no buffer tank, is right sized, I operate it open loop on weather compensation without external controls.  In other words its kept simple as the designers of the unit intended.  All I am saying is that I don't see any good reason why almost all retrofits cant be like this as it involves nothing clever at all.

 

Some nuance that is missed is different usage and heating patterns of different houses. 

 

If you require your house (no matter it's energy loss)  to be at a fairly constant warmth then ASHP are a good option, comparable to fossil fuel. Retired folk or WFH for example.

 

However for the house that is only heated briefly in the AM and PM  for 9-5 workers domestic heat pumps don't have enough power to cope with this in old houses where as boilers do. 

 

For similar performance with an intermittent heating strategy you'd need replace this:

 

 

 

With something like this:

 

 

 

[JamesP]

15 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

My ASHP is 20% cheaper to run than gas because, 

Can you be a bit clearer if anything added / improved to the fabric of your home, glass, wall and loft insulation.

Even with subsidies what is the financial cost?

 

[Beelbeebub]

The irony is that very efficient houses, where the heating requirement is especially low, will often be cheaper to heat by gas as their energy requirement is dominated by DHW where Heatpumps struggle to reach cost parity. This is entirely a function of our electricity market pricing strategy.

 

However, given our greening grid, in all cases a HP now outperforms a gas boiler when it comes to CO2 - which wasn't the case as little as 16 years ago.

 

Whichever way you look at it discussing Heatpumps, even subsidies, isn't politically controversial. It's no different from a consumer program discussing and informing viewers about how to find out which benefits they can apply for.

 

Is "moneybox" going to be canceled because they advise on disability allowance or unemployment benefit claims - about as politically charged subject as you can get at the moment?

[Beelbeebub]

4 hours ago, JamesPa said:

With the new Mitsubishi 2 compressor (2+6kW) heat pump

Can you expand on this? I know they have some massive commercial systems that have 2 compressors but I was unaware of any small domestic units.

 

A HP with a wide modulation range and a fairly big top end say a 16kw unit that could modulate down below 2kw (at 15C external) would be a real game changer, especially if they could get the price reasonable.

 

It would allow a "one size fits all" solution. Installed wouldn't need to think as much - just wack the unit in and make sure the flow temp is low enough. No more worrying if the client will be cold or the unit will cycle too much.

 

Hopefully the increased volume of sales (only having to make one model) would allow for better economies of scale.

 

The other option would be to make 1 unit, say max 7kw. But make it really easy to just stick 2 units side by side (or stacked one on top) for the bigger properties or ones where the 7kw proved too small.