The Big Heat Pump Con

[Kimbers]

My next door neighbour is super green and has a Tesla, Solar panels linked to her car charger and loads of other stuff however, one thing she has looked into that definately didn't work for her was a Heat Pump. "Total Con" was her words.

I watched this recently as I am a dunce with all technology except cars and then not brilliant, but this guy not only nails it but says it in laymans terms.

Really worth a watch!

 

[andyj007]

100% agree with this  kind sums it up pretty good..  .. heat pumps ONLY work well and provide a benifit to energy use saving  and the home comfort envirmonent,,  when all the factors align.. 

its near impossible for factors to align to anything other than new be spoke housing, an definately  not the mass produced  new housing stock built by the uk housebuilder, to current regulation standards which are dismal. 

They  are not fit and forget systems , and will require significant knowledge to set up, monitor and ajust to maximise the efficiency and therfore cost to run.

if these systems  are forced by legisltion  into the existing  housing stock and even  new built mass volume bogo developer spec homes, then indeed you will be seeing much more of "have you been miss sold a heat pump"   

That being said fitting  into a new carefully  designed and considered home , incorporating other  factors, solar PV, solar thermal,  Heat revovery ventilation, underfloor heating, & batteries  they can be made to work very very well.. ..   but its is not straight forward,, and not something that normal pete teh plumber along with Eddie the elcetrician think they can suddenluy start installing with a bit of training..  

taking a standard house semi detached house, with average insulation. currently the heat pumps  will cost more to heat your house and water  than a system running off gas or oil.. ..  ans significantly so on average twice as much ..  

its shocking just how much of a problem this is going cause.. and  just cannot understand where the information the gov;t uses to make its  decision.. 

 

[Kimbers]

9 minutes ago, andyj007 said:

its shocking just how much of a problem this is going cause.. and  just cannot understand where the information the gov;t uses to make its  decision.. 

 

They are called Lobby groups mate. Also as clueless as those in power they just quote "Global Warming" as their reason to get rid of gas and oil boilers. 

Same as Electric cars.

[Spinney]

As already said, the vast majority of the existing housing  stock in this country is entirely unsuitable for retrofitting an air source heat pump. Unsurprisingly, the U.K. government is ignoring that fact and are not proposing how it might be overcome, other than trotting out the hackneyed ‘you need to insulate’ lines. Yes that is true but isn’t always practical and is oversimplifying what actually needs to be done and how it will be achieved. 
Why aren’t we legislating for a proper level of heat pump friendly insulation in all new builds, including the compulsory fitment of extensive solar + battery electricity storage? At least then you’d have a chance of making air source heat pumps work as they should. 
Personally, I’d rather go for a decent ground source heat pump if I had enough land + building a super insulated home. 

[pete]

Quote

Why aren’t we legislating for a proper level of heat pump friendly insulation in all new builds, including the compulsory fitment of extensive solar + battery electricity storage? At least then you’d have a chance of making air source heat pumps work as they should

Because our building practices are not good enough

[Spinney]

But they could be so again, why aren’t we legislating to force builders to comply?

[Elite 4.9]

Years ago, I built my own house (6,000 sq. ft. with very high ceilings in my living room (20 ft.) and three of the bedrooms from 19 to 16 ft.  So a lot of cubic space to heat.

My heating system was a super, solar enhanced heat pump with 66 lbs of freon 12. It had as collectors of heat, 14 aluminum panels 7 ft x 30 inches. Each panel was thin with 8 internal viens for the freon to flow through and they were painted black and formed a fence for part for my yard. 

It was a very efficient heating system which also heated my water for about .25 cents (US)/ day.

It was the cadillac of heating systems and was super cheap to run although fairly expensive to install. But the most cost of the life of a heating system isn't initial cost but the daily cost to run the system. 

As freon boils at 17 F below freezing, ( turns from a liquid to a gas ) there isn't much heat in the air or rain drops below 32 F so a backup was needed ( I used wood stoves ) during some cold spells at winter time but most of the time this system really couldn't be beat and I loved it. 

Cheers,

Richard

[pete]

12 hours ago, Spinney said:

But they could be so again, why aren’t we legislating to force builders to comply?

you can legislate all you like but if the skill isnt there and there is no one to oversee the work then it is a waste of time

[Spinney]

I would argue the skills are there, maybe just not in the quantity needed. So, again, why not legislate to ensure there is training and forcing the construction trade to adopt the necessary practices?

The solution is simple, it’s the will that’s missing. 

[pete]

Wish the solution was that simple I have been in the building trade over 50 years and the people running the jobs don't have the necessary skills and rely on sub contract labour to know what they are doing and most don't . We need to bring back the old style building inspector employed by the government or local council , not some insurance company who never go to site

[Kimbers]

2 hours ago, Spinney said:

I would argue the skills are there, maybe just not in the quantity needed. So, again, why not legislate to ensure there is training and forcing the construction trade to adopt the necessary practices?

The solution is simple, it’s the will that’s missing. 

Actually its the greed thats NOT missing. Anything that increases building companies costs is lobbied against, to the Govt. "Oh dear we are only making £100,000 on a £150,000 flat we can't afford to put in solar or triple glazing or anything that helps the buyer. "

They are currently building 1500 homes a mile away from me....on a Greenfield site which also had 50 protected oaks on it (no more) but thats another topic..... the houses are so shit that a local campaigner who bought one got it tested by many different organisations. When they tested it for fire protection it failed abysmally with smoke and "pretend" flames being sucked up all the open areas between walls. It failed on so many things he took them to court and LOST as it met building regs....plus they had big lawyers and he represented himself.

A friend I met on holiday a year back runs a huge building company and all they do is put right new builds before they are sold. Some of the things he told me is absolutely scary as shit! He knows the estate down the road and went to look at 4 houses  for the building company. They were so bad they would cost more to get right than knocking them down and starting again, so thats what they did. 

If the building companies were forced to build to a similar standard as many European countries like Sweden etc heat pumps would work. But until we start forcing builders to do things such basic things as fit solar panels and build new houses to a certain standard, there's absolutely no point of them. 

[Spinney]

Absolutely, we agree then that the building industry should be forced to meet these standards. I can’t accept that just because it isn’t done as a norm right now, then we can’t do it in this country. All things are possible with the will, right training and checks to ensure the standards are being met. To suggest otherwise is just being lazy.

I’m not saying our wonderful government, of whatever colour, will actually take the necessary steps but it IS possible. 

People generally can be very reluctant to change their ways of doing things, especially in manual trades. “It’s served me well for decades, so why should I change?”

I ran my own manufacturing company for nearly 30 years, until retiring, and we employed many time served metalworkers who’d known nothing else, for decades in some cases. I was very proactive in bringing in useful new technology, designed to improve, speed up and cut costs of many processes. Every single time we did this, I had a real battle royal with our factory staff who simply didn’t see the point in changing working practices that had served them well all their working lives. 

I involved them in the early assessment stages, the ordering and then, of course, on site training from the suppliers but throughout this most of them had to be dragged kicking and screaming, convinced they knew best. Nevertheless, we persisted as I wasn’t going to be thwarted by backward looking individuals who refused to move with the times. Interestingly, in every single case though, the previously reluctant individuals eventually and grudgingly admitted the new processes were vastly superior. Hence why I firmly believe change is possible, but you just need the right people at the top to make it happen and never take no for an answer. 

Therein lies the problem and the reason it won’t happen any time soon, I’m afraid. 
 

[eeyoreish]

I do find the whole 'private' Building Control thing quite odd.

We've just converted a barn into 2 holiday lets with all the Planning and Building Regs required and at every stage the council Building Control Inspector was required to come and sniff round what we'd done and check it was up to scratch. What I discovered is that we (not builders) were apparently doing a  better job than many professional builders' projects he visited.

What's most odd is that there are large developments going up all around Chichester that this guy never goes near! All (as far as I understand it) policed by private contractors who, it has to be assumed, won't want to upset their big builder customers by finding lots of problems for them to fix. No wonder so many new houses seem to be shoddily built.

[C8RKH]

2 hours ago, Kimbers said:

Actually its the greed thats NOT missing. Anything that increases building companies costs is lobbied against, to the Govt. "Oh dear we are only making £100,000 on a £150,000 flat we can't afford to put in solar or triple glazing or anything that helps the buyer. "

They are currently building 1500 homes a mile away from me....on a Greenfield site which also had 50 protected oaks on it (no more) but thats another topic..... the houses are so shit that a local campaigner who bought one got it tested by many different organisations. When they tested it for fire protection it failed abysmally with smoke and "pretend" flames being sucked up all the open areas between walls. It failed on so many things he took them to court and LOST as it met building regs....plus they had big lawyers and he represented himself.

A friend I met on holiday a year back runs a huge building company and all they do is put right new builds before they are sold. Some of the things he told me is absolutely scary as shit! He knows the estate down the road and went to look at 4 houses  for the building company. They were so bad they would cost more to get right than knocking them down and starting again, so thats what they did. 

If the building companies were forced to build to a similar standard as many European countries like Sweden etc heat pumps would work. But until we start forcing builders to do things such basic things as fit solar panels and build new houses to a certain standard, there's absolutely no point of them. 

Just go on Youtube and look up a user called "newhomequalitycontrol". Watch his videos. You'll either piss your pants laughing. Or, cry like a baby and vow NEVER to buy a new home from one of the major builders, or even some of the smaller supposedly better more local builders.

It's an absolute travesty what the home builders are aloud to get away with and NHBC, the builders federations and guilds, the builders, and the trades, should be ashamed, and hauled to account. But none of that will ever happen.

 

@Spinney I read your last post with amusement and interest. I've worked with Utilities for 30 years and you've described them to a "T". However, you have also put the hammer on the head of the nail in terms of identifying the fundamental issues with the NHS. Believe it or not, our esteemed GP's, Consultants, Registrars and Surgeons act exactly the same as your workers did, albeit your workers would not have had the arrogance and complacency of the NHS "professionals".

[Chillidoggy]

If properties are built to higher standards, no-one will be able to afford them. It’s hard enough to buy one now, without sticking the price of, say, a heat pump and associated insulation and other gubbins required.

[eeyoreish]

If you believe that the selling price is much connected to the building cost.

What we see round here are developers wanting to build on green field sites in an affluent area close to the coast because they can ask a much higher price for their houses than if they built them on, say, a brownfield in a different setting. I'm not a builder but I assume that it costs pretty much the same to build house X on the edge of Chichester Harbour as it would to build it in downtown Salford, where it would fetch maybe 1/4 of the price...

[Spinney]

And if all buildings had to be built to a similar high standard of thermal efficiency, the costs of materials would become more affordable. Like I said, it just needs the will and determination. 

[C8RKH]

And now we've got Greg Jackson from Octopus saying how many customers will get their heat pumps for "free". Yet more "headline washing" as they aren't free really are they, as Octopus will hoover up the government subsidy of £7500 per heat pump. Now that's money that every tax payer will have contributed to. So hardly "free" - it still has to be paid for from somewhere.

The Octopus 6 heat pump sounds great. A 6kw system that can be retrofitted into the average 3 bedroom house and that outputs water at a higher temperature so it does not need radiators or pipework upgraded. Hmmm. Wonder how it gets the water so hot. Bet there's a mini water heater in there somewhere and guess what, I bet it runs off electricity!  Not a lie, but I bet it's "economical" wording.

However, anything that moves us down the right direction is good. Isn't it?

We've got working class families living in damp, mouldy houses struggling to make ends meet. Instead of giving Octopus £7500 per heat pump, why don't we spend that £7500 on their homes. Installing cavity wall insulation where we can, or insulated wall boards were we can't. Fixing draughty windows and doors. And ensuring the loft is fully insulated. That would provide immediate energy savings (lower emissions and a chunk towards net zero) and lower costs this winter for these households. It would increase the value of their homes and probably do wonders for the health of tens of thousands of young children who are not sleeping or living in mouldy, damp environments.

Get the basics sorted to drive immediate benefits to those who need it the most. Greg Jackson and his shareholders, and those of the other energy "giants" don't have damp, mouldy, poorly insulated and heated houses and they can certainly afford to keep the heating on high all winter.

I'm probably looking at this through the wrong lens, but yet again, I see big business getting its pockets lined with taxpayers subsidies whilst those citizens who need our help the most just get left by.

 

 

[Bibs]

22 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

why don't we spend that £7500 on their homes. Installing cavity wall insulation where we can, or insulated wall boards were we can't. Fixing draughty windows and doors. And ensuring the loft is fully insulated.

Haven't they been running these sort of schemes for years now, I seem to remember British Gas being involved?

WIth all of this, I'm sure I read that the UK contributes 1% to CO2 emissions globally, how much of that 1% is heating and what difference will all this spending make to that small percentage of a small percentage? Same with cars really, I'd imagine every single car in the country running non-stop for a year would be the same as a few hours emissions from Chinese or Indian power generation. 

[C8RKH]

Yes @Bibs, we've had Green Deal and lots of other schemes. Some paid from from taxation, and some paid for through everyone's energy bills, reclaimed through the standing charges (one of the reasons they keep going up!).

I don't actually think the solution is that hard, but for some reasons the politicians (on all sides) seem to want to make it harder than it needs to be.

I do think, as someone raised above (maybe @Spinney) that we need a national housing inspection service. They need to do three things:

1. Have enough teeth to rip the testicles off house builders who fail to build new houses to the standards and guidelines required.  For instance, through ZEV, when the car mfrs do not meet the targets for EV production they will be fined for each car that is not in "quota" - that fine could be up to £15,000 (yes, that comma is in the right place) per car!  So in theory, we could justify fining house builders £100,000 or more for each house they build that does not meet the criteria or standards, for the fine to be proportionate. Now that is teeth ripping off testicles!

2. They need to inspect all rental homes and low income homes - then they need to detail the work that needs to be carried out and to the specification required, to bring them up to standard re insulation, energy efficiency, damp, mould etc.  They could then instruct companies to do the work and cover the costs.

3. They need to issue a certificate of conformity for every house inspected for retrofit, AND, for EVERY new house built.  That would ensure that building standards were raised (making the toothless and useless as far as I can tell, NHBC scheme, redundant and not fit for purpose , that's if it ever was judging by some of the stuff they have certificated....).  That would ensure that retrofit actions were undertaken and therefore the taxpayer was receiving the value required for the money spent, and new homes were compliant.

Building new homes that are fit for purpose, AND, retrofitting the old housing stock, is probably the best thing we can do right now to support working people, improve health outcomes for tens of thousands of children, and have a significant impact on the reduction of emissions from heating homes. The by product would also be more jobs for people, who in turn, would move from being negative tax payers (i.e. they receive more from the system than they pay in) to positive taxpayers (pay more in than they take out).

I'm obviously a very simple person, because according to our politicians and eco experts I'm smoking dope and way out of line.

 

[exeterjeep]

1 hour ago, Bibs said:

I'm sure I read that the UK contributes 1% to CO2

yes that's what our current PM said, he also described how different countries had reduced their CO2 emissions (UK)  - or not changed (USA) or gone up by 300pc - (China.) So our contribution is miniscule.

[ramjet]

Cavity wall insulation can cause issues as well. Big issues.

[eclat22]

🤣NHBC =No House Built Correctly 

[C8RKH]

8 hours ago, ramjet said:

Cavity wall insulation can cause issues as well. Big issues.

The majority of homes in the UK @ramjet are terraced or semi-attached and were built between 1930 and 1970. The cavity between the walls is likely to be 50mm at best, though I do believe current standards are higher, around 70mm iirc (however whether new home builders actually comply, well.....).

If it was my home, in these circumstances, I'd prefer internal wall board insulation as I believe the resultant insulation would be better. Bear in mind that the majority of terraced house only really need this on two wall areas, the front and back, of the house. The side walls you could argue, being internal and attached to the house next door, are less important, unless of course you are end of terrace where you will have one additional external wall.

It's all academic really as I doubt we'll ever get to a national roll-out stage.

[Chillidoggy]

14 hours ago, eeyoreish said:

If you believe that the selling price is much connected to the building cost.

What we see round here are developers wanting to build on green field sites in an affluent area close to the coast because they can ask a much higher price for their houses than if they built them on, say, a brownfield in a different setting. I'm not a builder but I assume that it costs pretty much the same to build house X on the edge of Chichester Harbour as it would to build it in downtown Salford, where it would fetch maybe 1/4 of the price...

If you factor in how much it costs for developers to buy that land in an affluent area, that’s a large slice of the pie. Building land is hugely expensive, because land owners know it’s in high demand.

But for those of us in rather more “normal” areas, houses are already simply unaffordable to a lot of people, hence the increase in those renting. Setting higher building standards right now will not, in my view, help this situation, it will only serve to exacerbate it in the short to mid-term, and recent hikes in interest rates haven’t helped, either. Just like any other commercial venture, builders and developers aren’t in business to do anyone a favour, they’re in it to make money for themselves and their shareholders.

What’s the answer to the problem? No idea. But any change ain’t gonna happen overnight, it will take ages.