What's the case for not getting an ASHP?

[MrPotts]

What I don’t get is how can it be said that spending 10’s of thousands of pounds on solar and battery so that you can power a heat pump that also costs thousands of pounds is cheaper than keeping your gas/oil boiler. It would likely take a lifetime to recover the initial investment wouldn’t it?

[JamesPa]

14 minutes ago, MrPotts said:

What I don’t get is how can it be said that spending 10’s of thousands of pounds on solar and battery so that you can power a heat pump that also costs thousands of pounds is cheaper than keeping your gas/oil boiler. It would likely take a lifetime to recover the initial investment wouldn’t it?

I realise you are referring to another poster.  Just to say however that I didn't do any of that.  I had my solar panels already (they have easily paid for themselves) and I haven't got a battery because, for me, it makes no financial sense at present (it's close, though) and doesn't make environmental sense.

 

My heat pump is still cheaper to run than my gas boiler by 20%, it's much more comfortable, and of course warms the planet less (actually the saving is more than 20% because of the solar panels I didn't include them in the calculation because I wanted to be clear what the heat pump alone does).

 

I'm not saying that everyone will have similar circumstances, but those who  make a general statement that a heat pump has no benefits to the homeowner are simply wrong.   

Edited yesterday at 14:37 by JamesPa

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

We may be talking cross purposes? I meant your quoted pence per kWh. 

 

 

That will take some working out, but I invested for different reasons to most.

 

ASHP because I wanted/needed cooling, so that capital cost wasn't for actual savings, but as result of that purchase they occured anyway. Set heat pump to run on its own for heat and cool and then added the nearly boiler apart if the new build) as a hybrid, but gas was a drain in money terms because of the standing charges. Cost as much for standing charges as the gas did. Most the year ASHP did heating and cooling, only cold days gas ran.

 

PV to bring down monthly outgoings and help to a A EPC. Added battery to allow me make better use of cheap electric tariffs. Again to bring down monthly outgoings.

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, MrPotts said:

What I don’t get is how can it be said that spending 10’s of thousands of pounds on solar and battery so that you can power a heat pump that also costs thousands of pounds is cheaper than keeping your gas/oil boiler

I didn't spend 10's of thousands all together. ASHP, PV, and battery all in, was about £10k. DIY and careful shopping is the way to go.

 

First 3kW array was part of the new build, so there anyway. 

 

Boilers don't do cooling, ASHP are a two trick pony, they do heat and cooling. Boiler had to go it couldn't pay it way. PV and battery were always going to happen, they just feed into an ASHP very well. Battery can be justified by the number of power cuts we get and that our water is pumped from a borehole. Everything ties in nicely. We no longer get blackouts, bills have come down 50% in real terms.

[Dillsue]

1 hour ago, MrPotts said:

What I don’t get is how can it be said that spending 10’s of thousands of pounds on solar and battery so that you can power a heat pump that also costs thousands of pounds is cheaper than keeping your gas/oil boiler. It would likely take a lifetime to recover the initial investment wouldn’t it?

That depends on how you value the cost of keeping your gas/oil boiler. If you do nothing then the cost of continuing to burn fossil fuels needs to include your share of the following current and future expenditure-

Government spending on mitigating climate change

Electric and water companies spending on mitigating climate change

Uninsured property damage due to withdrawal of insurance for weather induced damage

Increased food costs due to drought/flooding

Limited payments to poorer countries to help deal with climate change

Potential unlimited payments to countries impacted by climate change following the ICJs legal opinion on industrialised countries being sued by those impacted by climate change.

 

 

[Gone West]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

Not without changing his radiators which was what @gonewest was arguing was a reason for him not to get an ashp.

My arguement was that purely on cost grounds it is more expensive to have an ASHP fitted instead of replacing my oil boiler. One of the, possibly several reasons, it would be more expensive for me to do that, would be that I would have to replace the radiators. I understand there are several evangelical supporters of ASHPs and I accept that they are the best form of heating for new homes, but they are not a one size fits all solution to heating in all houses.

[JohnMo]

8 minutes ago, Gone West said:

My arguement was that purely on cost grounds it is more expensive to have an ASHP fitted instead of replacing my oil boiler

That is generally a fact, and one of the reasons you get a bunch of tax payers money thrown at you. It's just a pity the installer thinks that money is mostly for them. So homeowners still get a huge bill. Most ASHP are for the rich with disposable income, or people that aren't scared to shop around and do it yourself.

 

A move from fossil fuels to ASHP, could be achieved in a step by step process. Run boiler at heat pump temperatures, figure out which room needs bigger rads, most will or may not need changing when running low and slow. Change out in slow process, much the same as @marshian. Cylinder fitting one with a big coil makes reheats well quick, from fossil fuels boiler so a no brainer really.

 

Let boiler get to end of useful life seamlessly change heat source. Who needs a grant?

[JamesPa]

42 minutes ago, Gone West said:

My arguement was that purely on cost grounds it is more expensive to have an ASHP fitted instead of replacing my oil boiler. One of the, possibly several reasons, it would be more expensive for me to do that, would be that I would have to replace the radiators.

I know.

 

The sequence of comments which followed this was: yours which said you accept that a boiler does nothing for climate change, mine which said ... and you also miss out on the benefits of low temp heating, Roger440 who said you could have that simply by turning your boiler down, and me who pointed out that, while Rogers statement was strictly true, it would require you to change your radiators, which was one of the reasons you quoted for an ashp costing more/you not wanting to make the change.

 

42 minutes ago, Gone West said:

but they are not a one size fits all solution to heating in all houses

Nobody sofaik is claiming that.  However they are more or less the only viable mass market solution  which materially reduces the carbon footprint of heating, which accounts for a significant proportion of our carbon emissions, and do work in a large variety of homes.  Given that we either need to embrace them where we can, or give up on eliminating the effect of our heating on the climate.  Furthermore the low temperature heating that is part of the cost of conversion to an ashp gives comfort benefits which some may appreciate. 

 

Because of what he had been told OP asked what the argument was against ashps and has a broken boiler. Presumably the question related to his own situation, not whether they are a 'one size fits all ' solution.  Some on here have basically said, without evidence or  reasoning so far as I can see,  that they are not suitable in almost any retrofit case. Their arguments appear to make assumptions which are not universally true and indeed may not be true in OPs case.  Prior to joining this forum OPs received 'advice' appears to be based largely on uninformed opinions which, with a high probability, originate from sources representing or influenced by vested interests.  We all deserve better than this.

 

What is undoubtedly true is that it may help to be an informed purchaser, but that is also true for many of the things we purchase.

Edited yesterday at 16:48 by JamesPa

[marshian]

1 hour ago, JohnMo said:

A move from fossil fuels to ASHP, could be achieved in a step by step process. Run boiler at heat pump temperatures, figure out which room needs bigger rads, most will or may not need changing when running low and slow. Change out in slow process, much the same as @marshian. Cylinder fitting one with a big coil makes reheats well quick, from fossil fuels boiler so a no brainer really.

 

Let boiler get to end of useful life seamlessly change heat source. Who needs a grant?

I was advised with my house set up I was ASHP ready but I really wasn’t confident enough to dive in the deep end without knowing I could run low and slow at ASHP flow temps - so I went for another gas boiler (one that could modulate down to a low level 3.2 kWh and down sized from 24kW to 16kW as another stepping stone towards ASHP) Very confident now that in 10 15 years or so I can switch over when the boiler reaches the end of it’s life)

[JamesPa]

17 minutes ago, marshian said:

I was advised with my house set up I was ASHP ready but I really wasn’t confident enough to dive in the deep end without knowing I could run low and slow at ASHP flow temps - so I went for another gas boiler (one that could modulate down to a low level 3.2 kWh and down sized from 24kW to 16kW as another stepping stone towards ASHP) Very confident now that in 10 15 years or so I can switch over when the boiler reaches the end of it’s life)

I did something not dissimilar with my 15+ year old boiler. I upsized some rads,  turned it down to min flow temp (50C) and  minimum output (8.5kW) and operated it 24*7, resulting in both a reduction in bills and increase in comfort.  I then converted to ashp resulting in a further reduction in bills, and a further increase in comfort.

 

Most wouldn't do this however (and even if they did would probably have to run the gauntlet - as I did - of ignorant plumbers resetting it whenever the boiler was serviced) so I'm not sure it's a route to the mass deployment required.  For those who can it's a good route all the same

[marshian]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

I did something not dissimilar with my 15+ year old boiler. I upsized some rads,  turned it down to min flow temp (50C) and  minimum output (8.5kW) and operated it 24*7, resulting in both a reduction in bills and increase in comfort.  I then converted to ashp resulting in a further reduction in bills, and a further increase in comfort.

 

Most wouldn't do this however (and even if they did would probably have to run the gauntlet - as I did - of ignorant plumbers resetting it whenever the boiler was serviced) so I'm not sure it's a route to the mass deployment required.  For those who can it's a good route all the same

Old boiler was 10kW min effectively 45 deg C was the min practical flow temp and christ that boiler cycled a lot in anything other than mid winter. I upsized only some of the rads initially - big mistake - do all or none unless you want rooms to cold (original rads) and rooms to hot (upsized)

[JamesPa]

22 hours ago, Roger440 said:

On 22/08/2025 at 09:20, JamesPa said:

No tinkering needed from when it was installed by a local installer, other than to adjust the weather compensation to the lowest possible consistent with heating the house (which on a Vaillant is dead simple, it's a single number which you turn up or down).  No fancy or home grown controls, just the ones that came with.

 

It's not that difficult to get right and what you need to do is now well known and more or less indisputable (unlike perhaps 2-4 years ago when we were collectively still finding our way).

 

No tinkering, except the tinkering you needed to do to get it to work as its best!!!!

 

Amusing, if nothing else, but your average customer just isnt going to do that. Nor is the average installer, as he will be long gone....

 

How much less efficent would it have been if you hadnt optimised it?

That's a very good question, and I am sorry it has taken me 24 hrs to work out the answer!

 

which is...  about the same (ie no less efficient) assuming that, had I not adjusted the weather compensation, I would instead have adjusted the set temperature (again a simple dial), until I was not overheating. I think it's fair to assume that the 'average customer' would do this.

 

This outcome is a direct result of the way Vaillant controls work.  Adjusting the set temperature (ie the adjustment that most 'average customers' will make) actually adjusts the weather compensation curve 'under the hood'.  The average customer probably won't know this, and doesn't need to know this, for things to work out right 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 20:16 by JamesPa

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, Dillsue said:

That depends on how you value the cost of keeping your gas/oil boiler. If you do nothing then the cost of continuing to burn fossil fuels needs to include your share of the following current and future expenditure-

Government spending on mitigating climate change

Electric and water companies spending on mitigating climate change

Uninsured property damage due to withdrawal of insurance for weather induced damage

Increased food costs due to drought/flooding

Limited payments to poorer countries to help deal with climate change

Potential unlimited payments to countries impacted by climate change following the ICJs legal opinion on industrialised countries being sued by those impacted by climate change.

 

 

 

You say such needs to be included.

 

They dont, and they arent.

 

The idea that you can somehow change the outcome of climate change is fantasy. Especially by fitting a ASHP.

 

Save your hyperbole for others. You are wasting your energy with me. 

 

If government were serious, it wouldnt be costing £20k to get the power to run an ASHP 50ft from a pole in my field to my barn. That it IS £20k is merely a measure of how little importance is attached to allowing people to have the necessary power.  I might start taking it seriously if government does.......

 

Chronic thread drift. 

[JamesPa]

50 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

If government were serious, it wouldnt be costing £20k to get the power to run an ASHP 50ft from a pole in my field to my barn. That it IS £20k is merely a measure of how little importance is attached to allowing people to have the necessary power.  I might start taking it seriously if government does.......

Er, thanks for this.  So basically your situation is an outlier, and you appear to be basing at least some of your conclusions on that.

 

Most houses don't have a barn and most houses don't need an infrastructure upgrade to run an ashp.  Government policy will, very sensibly, be based on the majority not the outliers.

 

I am of course sympathetic to your situation, but now you have told us more about it, we are in a better position to relate your comments to less outlying circumstances.

 

Edited yesterday at 21:19 by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

49 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Save your hyperbole for others. You are wasting your energy with me. 

I can't speak for @Dillsue, but my reason for commenting is to provide a more rich and balanced set of information for readers in general, not specifically (or indeed at all) to influence you.  I don't consider that a waste of energy. 

 

Now that you have told us that your circumstances are an outlier, that becomes even more important in the interests of getting to the truth in any other circumstances.

Edited yesterday at 21:18 by JamesPa

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

Er, thanks for this.  So basically your situation is an outlier, and you appear to be basing at least some of your conclusions on that.

 

Most houses don't have a barn and most houses don't need an infrastructure upgrade to run an ashp.  Government policy will, very sensibly, be based on the majority not the outliers.

 

I am of course sympathetic to your situation, but now you have told us more about it, we are in a better position to relate your comments to less outlying circumstances.

 

 

Id suggest ludicrous electricity connection quotes are not an "outlier" if this forum is anything to go by. Its a regular topic on here. That most on here can afford multiple tens of thousands for their supply, doesnt make it reasonable.

 

I only refer to the barn as its nearer to the house. The house is 200 ft away. Lets call it a connection to the house.  But it would still be £20k.

 

Had our government adopted such a short termist view back when it decided to make electricity available across the nation, no one outside big towns and cities would have got electricity. Fortunately, they were a bit more forward thinking.

 

Meanwhile, i will struggle on with my 60 amp supply. Not expecting sympathy, its my problem and my problem alone, but dont try to suggest government is serious or suggest i should be paying for the worlds problems (yes, i know that wasnt you)

 

Have they fixed the nonsense of linking renewables prices to gas? Thought not. A more relevant example that affects everyone of us. Which if fixed would transform the economics of ASHP's to being a no brainer.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 21:56 by Roger440

[JohnMo]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Lets call it a connection to the house.  But it would still be £20k

Why, I am pretty much 100m from house to garage have cable installed in there big enough to run most things. Small digger - trench - drop in armoured cable, back fill. 1 days work. Or even easier surface run armoured cable or clip to fence or wall.

 

£1k buys a lot of cable you only need 16mm² to do 100m at 10kW. I just put in 25mm² so can do most things with little or no volt drop.

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Why, I am pretty much 100m from house to garage have cable installed in there big enough to run most things. Small digger - trench - drop in armoured cable, back fill. 1 days work. Or even easier surface run armoured cable or clip to fence or wall.

 

£1k buys a lot of cable you only need 16mm² to do 100m at 10kW. I just put in 25mm² so can do most things with little or no volt drop.

 

Long story discussed elsewhere. Its mostly for the non contestable work. Needs a new transformer. And therefore a new double pole arrangement too. Therefore i must pay to upgrade THEIR infrastructure in full. Which you wont be surprised to know, im not going to do.

 

Its like filling up at the petrol station, then being told you need to pay for the petrol pump. 

 

Edited yesterday at 22:21 by Roger440

[LnP]

12 hours ago, JamesPa said:

This is an interesting point.  If gas were invented now, would it even be legal?  Pumping indefinite amounts of an explosive substance into our houses is a bit weird when you think about it!

The legal test in UK law is whether risks have been managed to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). It’s most familiar application is under the Health & Safety at Work Act. So I wonder I wonder whether in a work place setting, the HSE would expect to see heating by a heat pump rather than gas.

[Dillsue]

8 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Long story discussed elsewhere. Its mostly for the non contestable work. Needs a new transformer. And therefore a new double pole arrangement too. Therefore i must pay to upgrade THEIR infrastructure in full. Which you wont be surprised to know, im not going to do.

Is this additional supply for a commercial/hobby workshop?? When we wanted consent to export more PV our transformer was upgraded for free as the old transformer was deemed undersized for a modern house.

 

Your DNO may well see a difference in a domestic supply and what they class as a commercial supply. If you tell them you want to have a heatpump for the house and an EV charger you might find they'll upgrade the supply to the house FOC. You can then run a supply to the workshop from the bolstered house supply. You'll likely have enough spare capacity to run the house on a heat pump:)

[Dillsue]

9 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Its like filling up at the petrol station, then being told you need to pay for the petrol pump. 

 

You've already got a "petrol pump", you just want a bigger/second one

[JamesPa]

10 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Id suggest ludicrous electricity connection quotes are not an "outlier" if this forum is anything to go by. Its a regular topic on here. That most on here can afford multiple tens of thousands for their supply, doesnt make it reasonable.

 

I only refer to the barn as its nearer to the house. The house is 200 ft away. Lets call it a connection to the house.  But it would still be £20k.

 

Had our government adopted such a short termist view back when it decided to make electricity available across the nation, no one outside big towns and cities would have got electricity. Fortunately, they were a bit more forward thinking.

 

Meanwhile, i will struggle on with my 60 amp supply. Not expecting sympathy, its my problem and my problem alone, but dont try to suggest government is serious or suggest i should be paying for the worlds problems (yes, i know that wasnt you)

 

Have they fixed the nonsense of linking renewables prices to gas? Thought not. A more relevant example that affects everyone of us. Which if fixed would transform the economics of ASHP's to being a no brainer.

 

 

The point I was trying to make is that you asserted that the government was not serious about renewables and cited your electricity connection cost as evidence.  Its clearly not evidence at all, however irksome it may be to you.  Your situation is an outlier because you are unusual in needing a new connection and new local infrastructure in order to fit a heat pump, not because the amount you have been quoted for that new infrastructure which may indeed be quite normal).  I thought I had made that clear but apologise that, apparently, I had not.

 

I would expect Government policy in relation to renewables (and other things) to include VFM considerations in order to maximise the bang for the taxpayer buck, and excluding outliers such as yours is generally consistent with VFM (again however irksome that may be)    

 

I note you have now switched to another argument to support your assertion that Government is not serious.  This thread has now departed so far from the original question that I will not take this up, others may choose to do do of course.

Edited 15 hours ago by JamesPa

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Dillsue said:

Is this additional supply for a commercial/hobby workshop?? When we wanted consent to export more PV our transformer was upgraded for free as the old transformer was deemed undersized for a modern house.

 

Your DNO may well see a difference in a domestic supply and what they class as a commercial supply. If you tell them you want to have a heatpump for the house and an EV charger you might find they'll upgrade the supply to the house FOC. You can then run a supply to the workshop from the bolstered house supply. You'll likely have enough spare capacity to run the house on a heat pump:)

 

It IS a domestic connection. Ive tried everything. Point blank refusal on the basis there only 2 properties on the transformer. Pay up or dont have it.

 

Their policy document outlines their justification.

 

I have no further argument to make. They make the rules.

 

The heat pump and EV charger angle did not work. If i want those things i will need to generate my own power.

[Roger440]

17 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

The point I was trying to make is that you asserted that the government was not serious about renewables and cited your electricity connection cost as evidence.  Its clearly not evidence at all, however irksome it may be to you.  Your situation is an outlier because you are unusual in needing a new connection and new local infrastructure in order to fit a heat pump, not because the amount you have been quoted for that new infrastructure which may indeed be quite normal).  I thought I had made that clear but apologise that, apparently, I had not.

 

I would expect Government policy in relation to renewables (and other things) to include VFM considerations in order to maximise the bang for the taxpayer buck, and excluding outliers such as yours is generally consistent with VFM (again however irksome that may be)    

 

I note you have now switched to another argument to support your assertion that Government is not serious.  This thread has now departed so far from the original question that I will not take this up, others may choose to do do of course.

 

Agreed, we are are way off the original post.

[SteamyTea]

18 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

The climates going to change irrespective of my heating choices. Nothing i do, or the country does will make one iota of difference to the future of that

So you don't think that the recent rise in food prices has anything to do with climate change.

Or the imminent collapse of North Atlantic white fish.

 

How about reservoir water levels?

Or road depredation due to thermal cycling.

 

If you think that the UK has no global influence, you must have forgotten about our global insurance industry, that pays out £bn.

And our investment banks that finance energy projects  globally.

Then there is our Met Office, Exeter University, the Hadley Centre that disseminated climate information to governments, globally.

 

Is that enough about the UKs global influence?

Or are you still stuck in the 1850s with the Brunels building railways across the globe with British steel and determination (back by British fire power).

 

The British just about invented globalisation, so no point saying this island is irrelevant, the environmental harm caused will have to be paid for, and if that means, as one of the wealthiest nations the earth has ever known, we have to pay 7% of our median income rather than 5%, to keep houses over heater, so be it. It is better that the alternative

 

Facts, not perception, is reality.