I too am surprised by the mixed messaging. Frankly I would prefer ZeroDisappointment to ZeroDisrupt.

I'm all for the application of AI, and technology such as LiDAR for improving heat loss calculations etc., but this should be as a sanity check to diligent, careful, and detailed design and excellent workmanship.

To be fair they do emphasise that any estimate on their website would need to be followed up by a site visit/appraisal to carry out a proper design and firm up costs.

Personally, I would be more reassured by the promise of meticulous and detailed design, work being carried out by experienced and highly trained heat pump installers who take pride in every aspect of their work.

I've invested a good deal of time researching and informing myself about renewable heating technology and I want my installer to explain why there NEEDS to be some disruption - that they need to rip out that unnecessary water pump and mixing valve; simplify and de-zone the UFH, resize some of the radiators, and why a little re-plastering absolutely outweighs the disadvantages of locating the heat pump far away from the hot water cylinder.

By all means disrupt the market through tech; but leave a little disruption for the customer - better that now than disappointment down the line!

Enjoying the book BTW Mars, good job!

It a ridiculous approach, impossible to have zero disrupt, that means as you say nothing is upgraded, just chuck in another poorly working heat pump.  It'll never be anything like zero disrupt unless we all fit R290 units set on highest setting. Another disaster waiting to happen.

The A2W industry is what it is with massive disruption to the homeowner. Went to a 'sort it out service' last week the lady is 82 and said there were 8 guys in for two days making so much noise and mess she wish she'd never been talked into it, now of course its costing more than her oil boiler did. (a little less now we've set up the controller)

@shaun, I couldn’t agree more. And thank you for the kind words about the book, really appreciate that, and thanks for your support.

I also absolutely love the phrase ZeroDisappointment. You’ve nailed it.

I’m all for innovation, AI and smarter design tools (they absolutely have their place) but only when they complement good engineering, not replace it. What worries me is the mixed messaging. The idea that we can “disrupt” by speeding things up and avoiding disruption in the home might sound attractive, but as you’ve rightly said, a bit of disruption during installation is often what ensures the system performs properly for the next 20 years. This is precisely what @pirate-rich and I discussed today for our next podcast. 

I’d much rather an installer explain why they need to resize radiators, remove redundant valves and simplify the system than one who tells me it’ll all be fine if we just leave it as-is. Less disruption up front too often leads to more disappointment later, both thermally and financially.

Disrupt the market by all means, but let’s not start cutting corners in the name of convenience.

Posted by: @dgclimatecontrol

↑

It a ridiculous approach, impossible to have zero disrupt, that means as you say nothing is upgraded, just chuck in another poorly working heat pump.  It'll never be anything like zero disrupt unless we all fit R290 units set on highest setting. Another disaster waiting to happen.

The A2W industry is what it is with massive disruption to the homeowner. Went to a 'sort it out service' last week the lady is 82 and said there were 8 guys in for two days making so much noise and mess she wish she'd never been talked into it, now of course its costing more than her oil boiler did. (a little less now we've set up the controller)

@dgclimatecontrol, hard to disagree with that. “Zero disrupt” is an impossibility unless you’re happy to accept a system that’s only half-fit for purpose in a lot of UK properties. 

The industry keeps chasing this dream of speed and minimal disruption, but low temperature heating systems don’t work that way. The reality is, the less disruption you have up front, the more disappointment you’ll have down the line.

After publishing this piece, I wanted to put the ZeroDisrupt model to the test with an open mind. I started with our own property, but the system flagged our home as “We are not ready for you yet. We currently don't work with systems of this heat demand because it's a much larger job.”

So I decided to use another real-world example to see what the proposition actually looked like in practice. Before we moved to our current home, we lived in a small bungalow in the South East, around 80m², with a mains gas boiler and compact radiators. A simple property. In other words, the kind of “ideal” candidate the ZeroDisrupt model is designed for.

When I entered the details, I was genuinely surprised by the results. I had previously described this approach as a race to the bottom, but I was wrong about that. It’s not cheap. Not at all.

With a single radiator upgrade and targeting their guaranteed 340% efficiency, the quoted price came in at £10,000 (£2,500 from the homeowner plus the £7,500 BUS grant) for a 5kW Vaillant aroTHERM. For one small radiator upgrade and an 80m² bungalow, that is not an affordable heat pump. Not in my opinion anyway.

Out of curiosity, I experimented with the model further:

• Four radiator upgrades raised the efficiency to 370%, for £10,900 (£3,400 + £7,500 BUS).
• All seven radiators upgraded lifted it to 400% efficiency, for £11,950 (£4,450 + £7,500 BUS).
• Adding a new cylinder (150L or 210L) increased costs by £1,150 and £1,700 respectively.

No wall insulation upgrades. No pipework replacements. No major system changes. Just a basic bungalow, Zero Disrupt... and still a five-figure sum.

So, no, this isn’t the cheap or disruptive revolution that the marketing implies. The pricing, in my opinion, is squarely within the same range as traditional, carefully designed installations. That’s not necessarily a bad thing... it’s just the truth. And it undermines the narrative that this new approach is somehow making heat pumps dramatically more affordable or accessible for ordinary homeowners.But what troubles me most isn’t the price... it’s what the numbers don’t show.

The platform projects headline “efficiencies” of 340%, 370% and 400%, but I don't think efficiency is the same as comfort. Those figures can be achieved, certainly, but usually at higher flow temperatures, smaller ΔTs and tighter margins. The heat pump may hit its lab-tested seasonal coefficient on paper, but if it’s doing so while running flat out to maintain room temperature in a cold snap, the homeowner loses where it matters most: comfort, stability and long-term cost.

That nuance does not appear to be captured anywhere in the public-facing calculations. And yet, it’s everything in real-world performance.

This is why I stand by the argument made earlier. What’s being marketed as “less disruption” is, in many cases, simply “less optimisation.” You can achieve an impressive efficiency figure, but often at the cost of comfort, reliability and running costs that will quietly climb over time.

And this brings us back to the fundamental point: efficiency alone does not equal a good installation.

If a small 80m² bungalow still costs around £10,000-£12,000 for a basic install, what hope does a larger, older or less efficient home have? For many households, this isn’t disruption-free... it’s simply exclusionary.

So while I retract my earlier assumption that this approach is cheap, my concern now cuts deeper. Because if this is the expensive version, yet still avoids the upgrades needed for true low-temperature performance, then we’re not just racing to the bottom, we’re paying a premium to get there.

Posted by: @editor

↑

So while I retract my earlier assumption that this approach is cheap, my concern now cuts deeper. Because if this is the expensive version, yet still avoids the upgrades needed for true low-temperature performance, then we’re not just racing to the bottom, we’re paying a premium to get there.

Im know that we relatively rarely disagree, but on this occasion but I do disagree, quite strongly in fact. 

The 'zero disruption' bit is a piece of marketing, pure and simple.  I grant that one could object to that, but if one does there is plenty of marketing in all fields which is equally objectional.

Underlying the marketing is the real concept of offering the householder choice.  Choice between a highly optimised system with high disruption and high up front price, and a less optimised system that could be easily upgraded at a later stage with very little 'nugatory' effort, (because its about replacing radiators), for low disruption and a lower price albeit with lower performance.  What's fundamentally wrong with this?  Absolutely nothing in my book, in fact its a very good idea provided the trade offs are adequately explained so that people can make informed decisions.  Now it may be that they aren't adequately explained, in which case I would happily join you in the criticism, but we don't know that and, until we do, we are judging prematurely.   One size does not fit all.

Price is a separate issue.  If Heat Geek are overpriced, which they may be, then by all means call them over priced.  However again there are many people who charge high prices in all fields, that's their prerogative just as it is the customers prerogative to look elsewhere.  I don't think its reasonable to judge anyone's price from the website figure, the outturn figure is frequently(at least in my experience) very different.

@jamespa, I don't mind that you disagree 😀 I receive scores of DMs and messages this weekend from installers on the subject and it's a divisive subject.

But I think this goes a bit deeper than just marketing spin. Zero disruption isn’t simply a catchy tagline... it shapes perception and expectation. Most homeowners don’t interpret that as "you’ll have a choice between efficiency and disruption"... they read it as "this is the better, smarter, cheaper option," full stop. And that’s where the problem starts, because we both know the nuance between efficiency, comfort and running costs often gets lost in translation once it’s filtered through sales teams and marketing material.

In principle, offering choice is fine (essential, even) but only when it’s framed honestly and the trade-offs are crystal clear. If you tell a homeowner they can save thousands by keeping existing rads but don’t explain that they’ll pay hundreds more every year in electricity, that’s not a fair trade. And unfortunately, that’s the pattern we’ve seen repeated across this industry for years.

I don’t object to Heat Geek charging a premium: quality work should command a fair price. My concern is the narrative, because it risks fuelling a race to the bottom by encouraging copycats who’ll adopt the zero disruption promise without the competence or integrity to back it up.

I’m not judging prematurely though... I’m highlighting what the messaging implies to the average homeowner. 

@editor I feel that choice is a good thing - AS LONG AS … the options are clearly set out for the homeowner to understand. I realise that price will often speak louder than any efficiency gains costing more would provide.

I suspect that minimal disruption will win through in most instances but surely, this is still better than carrying on with fossil fuel burning? Life often means the occasional compromise and pragmatism will be involved. I think I have been fortunate in being able to afford new radiators and fewer compromises to achieve greater efficiency in the long run. Many less fortunate (poorer) people still need to keep warm without polluting the globe by continuing to burn fossil fuels - this is their choice and I can’t condemn them for not being able to afford a more efficient installation. Warm Regards, Toodles.

Posted by: @editor

↑

@jamespa, I don't mind that you disagree 😀 I receive scores of DMs and messages this weekend from installers on the subject and it's a divisive subject.

But I think this goes a bit deeper than just marketing spin. Zero disruption isn’t simply a catchy tagline... it shapes perception and expectation. Most homeowners don’t interpret that as "you’ll have a choice between efficiency and disruption"... they read it as "this is the better, smarter, cheaper option," full stop. And that’s where the problem starts, because we both know the nuance between efficiency, comfort and running costs often gets lost in translation once it’s filtered through sales teams and marketing material.

In principle, offering choice is fine (essential, even) but only when it’s framed honestly and the trade-offs are crystal clear. If you tell a homeowner they can save thousands by keeping existing rads but don’t explain that they’ll pay hundreds more every year in electricity, that’s not a fair trade. And unfortunately, that’s the pattern we’ve seen repeated across this industry for years.

I don’t object to Heat Geek charging a premium: quality work should command a fair price. My concern is the narrative, because it risks fuelling a race to the bottom by encouraging copycats who’ll adopt the zero disruption promise without the competence or integrity to back it up.

OK so if I read this correctly your main objection is marketing, and particularly the potential perception-shaping effect together, just like me, with an objection if they are not honest downstream about the trade off (we don't know).  Fair enough, Im not going to disagree. 

In that case perhaps we can agree on congratulating them for offering choice, provided its properly explained, and castigating them on marketing in a way which is potentially deceptive and may lead to wider bad practice (which they would probably argue they cant be held responsible for).

I guess I like to find |(and maybe amplify) positives, where they exist, as well as negatives, otherwise almost any change or new idea becomes wholly negative and stasis is inevitable.

@jamespa, that seems to me a pretty good summary. I’ve seen plenty of instances of things I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole that are nevertheless just what someone else wants. If choice is exercised in full possession of the facts, I can’t say those others are “wrong”; merely that I disagree.

Seems to bring your and @editor’s positions in line rather well from all I can see.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

If choice is exercised in full possession of the facts, I can’t say those others are “wrong”; merely that I disagree.

It's worth adding that you don't need to disagree to exercise different choices, you may just have different circumstances. 

If you have loads of capital otherwise doing nothing it makes zero sense to get a loan to buy a house.  If you don't, then it does make sense. 

No difference of opinion necessary, just a difference of circumstance.