What's the case for not getting an ASHP?

[Roger440]

49 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

A large part of the populace don't want honesty.

Do many of those that supported brexit, now support reform... what does the Venn diagram say about this overlap I wonder.

All they want to hear is that it is the fault of foreigners, and life will be easy and prosperous  if they are got rid of.  "which we  will make happen".

 

Should the honesty include?..   Britain terrorised the world and some people became very rich.  it is our fault. Things will get worse from now on.

we must return to the old days of rich masters and poor workers who die in their 60s.  Off down the mines with you or whatever job we require.

Climate change is a huge problem.  You will have to pay more for power and water, and using roads.

Education is falling behind. Certain standards must be restored or your children won't get unemployment support.

All of this requires that you will pay more tax.

Now vote for our honest party.

 

Or just say, it's these foreigners' fault, vote for us and it will be sorted  and you will be prosperous... details to follow. It worked for Trump.

 

 

 

You answered your own question. 

 

Nobody is going to vote for what is coming, so say nothing and continue promising the earth. 

 

[JamesPa]

8 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

bourne

?

[JamesPa]

19 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Nobody is going to vote for what is coming

Well that's not true for starters.  There are plenty of people who may not like what's coming but will nevertheless vote for a sane response.

 

19 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

so say nothing and continue promising the earth. 

If you have no morals then yes.  Is this what you advocate?  If not what do you advocate (that is actually realistic?).

 

It's easy to attack, much more difficult to come up with a plan that is true, workable and saleable to suffient people to get elected.  What's yours?

Edited 8 hours ago by JamesPa

[JohnMo]

15 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

bourne ?

I was born there

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

Well that's not true for starters.  There are plenty of people who may not like what's coming but will nevertheless vote for a sane response.

 

If you have no morals then yes.  Is this what you advocate?  If not what do you advocate (that is actually realistic?).

 

It's easy to attack, much more difficult to come up with a plan that is true, workable and saleable to suffient people to get elected.  What's yours?

I said up previously it would be better to be honest. Better for us. But it wouldn't be better for the governing classes. 

 

I've already said what I would advocate. Prepare for the inevitable challenges ahead rather than seek to prevent the unpreventable.

 

The reality is though that, be it trying to change the climate, or change to live with it, honesty about either isn't going to get you elected. I see no way that can change other than a dictatorship. 

 

Though it would help if government wasn't now firmly under the control of outside influences 

[Roger440]

23 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

?

It's a turn of phrase. 

 

Tried to post a link, but it won't let me, prob as I'm on my phoneyou will have to Google it 

[JamesPa]

37 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

I've already said what I would advocate. Prepare for the inevitable challenges ahead rather than seek to prevent the unpreventable.

Ok so if you do only the latter the effects of climate change get ever more severe.  How do you 'prepare' for that, what do you do about the millions of people who are displaced as a direct result of our excesses, and how do you persuade people to vote for your plan?

 

And where do you and other individuals fit into this, do we have any individual responsibility or is it all for 'Government' to fix (which, if it is, is weird given that it's individuals that cause climate change not governments).  Your approach (based on what you have said here, the only information I have) is that you will do things only if they are directly beneficial to you.  Is that any more moral or responsible than the politicians you so strongly criticise?

Edited 7 hours ago by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

25 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Though it would help if government wasn't now firmly under the control of outside influences

Is it?  I grant that it's subject to outside influences (as Liz Truss discovered) but that's not the same as controlled.  What evidence do you have for your assertion?

Edited 7 hours ago by JamesPa

[sharpener]

46 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

?

 

born or possibly borne but not bourne

[JamesPa]

6 hours ago, ProDave said:

 

What is not to like about an ASHP.  Well nothing when they are working.  BUT I doubt they will all keep working forever with no repairs.

 

Your gas boiler goes wrong, and there are plenty of people that can come and fix it, they understand them, parts are available and easy to swap.  All very good.

 

Your ASHP goes wrong.  Who is going to fix it?  Not so many people around that can do that.  I consider myself educated and understand electrical things so a lot I could do myself, but not everything.

 

So your ASHP fails, it's a critical part, part not available or nobody willing to fit it?  Oh you will need a new one sir.  Now most people will probably have received a grant (and still paid a lot of £££ on top) to have the first one installed.  I bet if it has failed out of warranty they will be offered a replacement, but oh sorry no grant, this replacement is going to cost you even more ££££.

 

If you change for a different make, it won't be like swapping to a different make of boiler (where controls are fairly standard) you will likely need a lot of electrical alterations as the electrical control scheme from one ASHP to another can be very different.

 

I don't know how we resolve that, but where we want to be is some form of common electrical control interface (like boilers) where it is easy to swap from one make to another.  

 

 

 

I did think about all of this when I got mine.  But I can't see it's a material risk any more than with any other piece of modern equipment or indeed a modern boiler.

 

Ashps come with a controller which is part and parcel of the ashp.  It may be physically separate but it's effectively the same as the electronics that come with (usually in) your boiler.  So expect to replace these just as you expect to replace the boiler embedded electronics.

 

Control connections to and from are typically a 2 wire bus, and the wires can be used for a different bus.  Even if they can't it's a passive cable, hardly a disaster if you need to run another passive cable.

 

Reputable heat pump manufacturers are busy training installers, so the numbers will grow.  Vaillant were able to name 3 within a few miles of me and as demand grows the numbers will grow 

 

Heat pumps, apart from their electronics largely use fairly standard components, just like boilers.

 

Much of the conversion cost from boiler to heat pump is the rest of the system, which is almost all independent of precise model.

 

In summary all the conditions are there for both maintenance and replacement at reasonable cost.  Of course the industry may try to 'price gouge' but that's a risk with any purchase.

 

I do agree that heat pump MPs shouldn't be sold on savings on running costs relative to gas (although it's perfectly possible to do so), that's unless a guarantee is offered (I believe some suppliers do offer such a guarantee).

 

Personally I would be happy to recommend to an informed friend, but not to someone who for whatever reason was predisposed to declare it a fail as some people clearly are.

Edited 7 hours ago by JamesPa

[ProDave]

56 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

It's easy to attack, much more difficult to come up with a plan that is true, workable and saleable to suffient people to get elected.  What's yours?

How about praise for the massive reductions in CO2 we have already made?  We are still treated like naughty school children misbehaving.

 

How about stating we should move to greener fuels for our cars and home as soon as practical, stop pushing the idea that if you don't buy an EV then you are an evil monster who does not care.

 

How about sort out the MCS and grant mess so that if the government gives a grant, it is truly that sum repaid from an already sensible install price.  Pay the grant to the home owner not th installer on receipt of the paperwork saying it has been installed.  People would be more likely not to feel cheated.

 

How about in the mean time we still NEED gas and oil, so it might as well be our own recovered to known good standards rather than import it from god knows where with all the transport pollution to go with it.

 

Stop destroying our heavy industry and closing everything because it is too polluting.  All that does is kill jobs and the economy and MOVES the pollution to some other country that will fill the gap in the market and make it instead probably to poorer environmental standards, and with the added transport pollution to move it.

 

Stop pretending that cutting down forrests and shipping them round the world to burn in DRAX is good for the environment.  

[JamesPa]

19 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Stop destroying our heavy industry and closing everything...  All that does is kill jobs and the economy and MOVES the pollution to some other couney

I think that ship sailed (or it's course was set)  in the 80s and we have subsequently become addicted to indefinite amounts of cheap 'stuff', another source of climate change.  Currently the government is trying to save eg the steel industry in case it escaped you.  

 

As to the balance of your comments, I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with many of them individually, although there are financial implications of some of them which might meet resistance, and I'm not sure who you think is treating us 'like naughty schoolchildren' or calling people evil monsters (unless of course you think that merely advocating change is equivalent to calling people naughty schoolchildren or evil monsters, in which case we can never make any change).

 

However they don't collectively amount to an alternative 'big plan' for dealing with climate change, which is what Roger appears to be suggesting we need, they are more like tweaks to the current plan.  

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by JamesPa

[SteamyTea]

16 minutes ago, ProDave said:

How about praise for the massive reductions in CO2 we have already made

Because of this.

 

And this

 

 

And we have historical responsibilities, that few of us want to take responsibility for.

 

 

This last chart is often used to pat ourselves on the back with, and to blame the rest of the world, which we have become very good at doing.

[Roger440]

21 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

I think that ship sailed (or it's course was set)  in the 80s and we have subsequently become addicted to indefinite amounts of cheap 'stuff', another source of climate change.  Currently the government is trying to save eg the steel industry in case it escaped you.  

 

As to the balance of your comments, I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with many of them individually, although there are financial implications of some of them which might meet resistance, and I'm not sure who you think is treating us 'like naughty schoolchildren' or calling people evil monsters (unless of course you think that merely advocating change is equivalent to calling people naughty schoolchildren or evil monsters, in which case we can never make any change).

 

However they don't collectively amount to an alternative 'big plan' for dealing with climate change, which is what Roger appears to be suggesting we need, they are more like tweaks to the current plan.  

 

 

Not sure I can put it better than Dave did.

 

It's also clear evidence, as if more were needed, the government is not remotely interested in climate change unless it's to enrich themselves. In which case it's top priority 

 

I'll repeat again. The government is not interested in climate change or you. They literally couldn't care less.

 

Please tell me that you don't think kier and chums, or his predecessors care about you or the people?

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, sharpener said:

 

born or possibly borne but not bourne

It's a fair cop! Should be borne.

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

Is it?  I grant that it's subject to outside influences (as Liz Truss discovered) but that's not the same as controlled.  What evidence do you have for your assertion?

How much more evidence do you need? Open your eyes and look around. All the money is being siphoned off via all sorts of wheezes. If you want a small one, close to home, mcs. It's is, literally, a transfer of taxpayer cash to business. Yes a few smaller businesses along the way get rich too, but it's set up for grant harvesting. Got nothing to do with climate change. That's just a handy excuse for another wheeze.

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

Ok so if you do only the latter the effects of climate change get ever more severe.  How do you 'prepare' for that, what do you do about the millions of people who are displaced as a direct result of our excesses, and how do you persuade people to vote for your plan?

 

And where do you and other individuals fit into this, do we have any individual responsibility or is it all for 'Government' to fix (which, if it is, is weird given that it's individuals that cause climate change not governments).  Your approach (based on what you have said here, the only information I have) is that you will do things only if they are directly beneficial to you.  Is that any more moral or responsible than the politicians you so strongly criticise?

The government have to lead it. Government needs to demonstrate, not by words, but by actions, that's it's serious. When it does, I and doubtless many others will sit up and take note. 

 

It's not remotely serious about anything and hasn't been for a long time. Other than enriching themselves. They are exceptional at that.

 

I know I bang on about the electricity price thing, but it's such a glaringly obvious thing to do, there's simply no excuse. All the debate about costs of running ashp, ev's etc. Gone. Instantly. People will be queuing up to have them. Instead, the government is willingly impoverishing it's citizens to protect the profits a handful of corporates. 

 

When/if the day arrives that we have serious government, I'll be sure to join in, until then, no. I'll do other things to help my fellow man and the environment that are beneficial. Indeed I have and do.

 

As for preparing, good question, how are we going to prepare. What I can say is, after we have bankrupted ourselves on unsuccessful attempts at changing the climate, we will have no money left to deal with the fallout. So it will be even worse. 

[MikeSharp01]

57 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

Stop destroying our heavy industry and closing everything because it is too polluting.

That does not need to happen there are very few industries, some aspects of the steel industry

, that cannot use electricity - the issue is the price of electricity.

[JamesPa]

23 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

How much more evidence do you need? Open your eyes and look around. All the money is being siphoned off via all sorts of wheezes. If you want a small one, close to home, mcs. It's is, literally, a transfer of taxpayer cash to business. Yes a few smaller businesses along the way get rich too, but it's set up for grant harvesting. Got nothing to do with climate change. That's just a handy excuse for another wheeze.

That's an outside influence that it's subject to.  But not controlled by (so far as I can see) as you claim. 

 

How on earth are a raft of largely small businesses that make up the customers for mcs 'controlling' government?  And are any 'getting rich', relative at least to people like Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg?  No of course not (I'm not defending them btw).

 

Maybe the influence of outsiders on government is too great.  Unfortunately we have spent years trashing our civil service so they probably don't have as much skill as we need them to have to argue with the vested interests.  However that is a direct result of penny pinching politics and siren calls for lower taxes.  Are you prepared to pay more so we get the very best people in our civil service (which is imho what we need)?

 

What goes around comes around!

[SteamyTea]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

From Hamlet, by the well known Midlander, William Shakespeare.

[JamesP]

22 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

The government have to lead it. Government needs to demonstrate, not by words, but by actions, that's it's serious. When it does, I and doubtless many others will sit up and take note. 

 

It's not remotely serious about anything and hasn't been for a long time. Other than enriching themselves. They are exceptional at that.

 

I know I bang on about the electricity price thing, but it's such a glaringly obvious thing to do, there's simply no excuse. All the debate about costs of running ashp, ev's etc. Gone. Instantly. People will be queuing up to have them. Instead, the government is willingly impoverishing it's citizens to protect the profits a handful of corporates. 

 

When/if the day arrives that we have serious government, I'll be sure to join in, until then, no. I'll do other things to help my fellow man and the environment that are beneficial. Indeed I have and do.

 

As for preparing, good question, how are we going to prepare. What I can say is, after we have bankrupted ourselves on unsuccessful attempts at changing the climate, we will have no money left to deal with the fallout. So it will be even worse. 

I agree @Roger440. Its a grift, the ultimate pathological altruism.

[JamesPa]

56 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Please tell me that you don't think kier and chums, or his predecessors care about you or the people?

Actually I think there are quite a few politicians of several political persuasions that do care, and my voting choices are based at least in part on who appears to care more from the available choices.

 

However they are imperfect humans with limited control.  I don't expect to agree with or like everything that any of them do, that's not realistic, which means I will always be able to point at things which are 'wrong'.  That's the nature of living in a democracy and in a pluralistic society.  But if I reject people just because I don't agree with everything they do I am left in a hopeless position. 

 

Better a moderately competent politician with some degree of logical thought and at least an element of caring, than someone totally devoid of morals who exploits and says anything they can to get into power.

Edited 5 hours ago by JamesPa

[Roger440]

5 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Actually I think there are quite a few politicians of several political persuasions that do care, and my voting choices are based at least in part on who appears to care more. 

 

However they are imperfect humans with limited control.  I don't expect to agree with everything that any of them do, that's not realistic, which means I will always be able to point at things which are 'wrong'.  That's the nature of living in a democracy and in a pluralistic society.  But if I reject people just because I don't agree with everything they do I am left in a hopeless position.  Better a moderately competent politician with some degree of logical thought and at least an element of caring than someone totally devoid of morals who exploits anything they can to get into power.

I agree that id vote for someone genuine, even if their views and actions were counter to mine at this stage.

 

However, they are extremely thin on the ground, and if the are incorruptible, then they will never get to a position to make a meaningful impact.

 

Sadly most won't have anyone to vote for on that basis. I didn't last time. They were all time served two faced parasites. 

 

Well their were genuine people to vote for, but they were never in contention.

 

At least we can partially agree on something 👋

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, MrPotts said:

If electricity prices were the same as gas prices then would the case for an expensive heat pump diminish in favour of a direct replacement of a gas boiler with a much cheaper electric boiler?

Then there would be no need to change radiators, pipework or the HW cylinder and no need to give away £7.5k of tax payers money per install. In fact the money could be used to provide the electric boiler for free!

The issue with that approach is the generation capacity to replace gas on a. 1:1 basis would be vastly larger than to replace each kwh of gas heating with 0.3kwh of electricity generation. 

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

The government have to lead it. Government needs to demonstrate, not by words, but by actions, that's it's serious. When it does, I and doubtless many others will sit up and take note. 

 

It's not remotely serious about anything and hasn't been for a long time. Other than enriching themselves. They are exceptional at that.

 

I know I bang on about the electricity price thing, but it's such a glaringly obvious thing to do, there's simply no excuse. All the debate about costs of running ashp, ev's etc. Gone. Instantly. People will be queuing up to have them. Instead, the government is willingly impoverishing it's citizens to protect the profits a handful of corporates. 

 

When/if the day arrives that we have serious government, I'll be sure to join in, until then, no. I'll do other things to help my fellow man and the environment that are beneficial. Indeed I have and do.

 

As for preparing, good question, how are we going to prepare. What I can say is, after we have bankrupted ourselves on unsuccessful attempts at changing the climate, we will have no money left to deal with the fallout. So it will be even worse. 

Elec prices are tricky. On the one hand renewable electricity is pretty much thr cheapest there is. Solar is cheoeast, with onshore wind and then offshore roughly on a par with CCGT depending on gasmlroces at any given time. 

 

On the other, the high price of elec (effectively tied to gas) means there are big profits in putting in renewable capacity, and hence a big surge in that capacity. 

 

So our high prices are helping drive renewable. But also hampering the shift to HPs. 

 

On thing we could do is shift some of the so called "green taxes" from elec to gas use. My napkin calcs imply this would slightly raise gas and slightly lower elec, enough to bring the price ration from 4:1 down to 3:1 or even a bit better.  At that point HPs start being cheaper than gas in almost all homes. 

 

Of course there would be pushback from people who already struggle.to afford gas heating. We would need to ensure there were mechanisms in place to prevent hardship