The government has published its plans for Powering Up Britain, which set out the actions to improve the UK's energy security and stay on track for Net Zero: https://lnkd.in/dr665rTK.
As part of these plans, they’ve announced further government support to boost the development of the UK heat pump market:
📅 The Boiler Upgrade Scheme will be extended to at least 2028 to give industry long term certainty about the availability of public funding to support heat pump deployment.
📑 They’ve published a further consultation on the Clean Heat Market Mechanism, which lays out detailed proposals for how the policy will work when introduced in 2024. The link to the consultation can be found here: https://lnkd.in/dFH5668R and will be live until 8 June 2023.
📈 They’ve published its consultation response on smart heating and will be taking forward actions to mandate that all heat pumps sold in the UK from 2026/27 have smart functionality. The response can be found here: https://lnkd.in/de7fwVwT.
⚡ They’ve committed to outlining a clear approach to rebalancing gas and electricity prices before the end of 2023/24. This will lower the price of electricity relative to gas, making heat pumps cheaper to run.
🏘 They are undertaking a review of heat pump planning rules and noise emissions, to inform possible changes to permitted development rights and planning guidance for heat pumps later this year.
🏗 They’ve announced further details of the £30 million Heat Pump Investment Accelerator Competition, including launching an Expression of Interest process. Further details can be found here: https://lnkd.in/d_NzDb9X. The Competition will open in the Summer, and will help scale up investment in heat pump and component manufacturing here in the UK.
💷 They are also providing UK Export Finance with an extra £10 billion capacity to boost exports, including from the UK’s world leading clean growth sectors.
The BEIS Report assumes that Demand Side Response (DSR) is what defines an ESA, in that it draws energy at times when it most plentiful, and therefore cheaper. The report authors have failed to realise that Heat Pumps can't just avoid using electricity during periods of high demand. 🤔
4: The Dept of Energy did not automatically acquire relevant staff from within BEIS. The new Director General, Net Zero Buildings and Industry, Ben Rimmington, has been actively recruiting staff across platforms such as LinkedIn and Twitter over the past couple of months.
Let's hope he has managed to find some who have a better understanding of the technology and the laws of physics!
The BEIS Report assumes that Demand Side Response (DSR) is what defines an ESA, in that it draws energy at times when it most plentiful, and therefore cheaper. The report authors have failed to realise that Heat Pumps can't just avoid using electricity during periods of high demand. 🤔
4: The Dept of Energy did not automatically acquire relevant staff from within BEIS. The new Director General, Net Zero Buildings and Industry, Ben Rimmington, has been actively recruiting staff across platforms such as LinkedIn and Twitter over the past couple of months.
Let's hope he has managed to find some who have a better understanding of the technology and the laws of physics!
I don't think it's as simple as that. An ASHP running in a reasonably well insulated house can be switched off for short periods (2-3 hours) with only a small overall effect on energy consumption. Yes, the house will lose heat and it will take time plus a bit of energy to recover. But it's not as bad as is widely believed. What is also not always taken into account is that when the ASHP is off, it's using no energy at all! Efficiency (COP) will suffer a bit, but it's energy (and ££) that is important.
A small increase in energy used may be worth it financially for individuals if the tariffs are right. And it's definitely worth it in a wider sense if peak usage is curtailed.
Of course BEIS may well not know what they are talking about!
I make it something like ~7 million homes that either could have cavity wall insulation or correct amount of loft insulation. They really need to raise their game in maximising these easy gains ASAP. This will also make a swathe of housing more suited to an ASHP solution.
An ASHP running in a reasonably well insulated house can be switched off for short periods (2-3 hours) with only a small overall effect on energy consumption. [...] Efficiency (COP) will suffer a bit, but it's energy (and ££) that is important.
I may have have over-simplified the report in what I've commented @kev-m
It comes down to what Dept of Energy and the domestic Energy Suppliers intend by way of a device being 'Smart'. IOW, how do each of them believe that a law requiring only ESAs to be installed, will be complied with?
There are two broad approaches:
A: The ESA is autonomously Smart.
B: The 'Smartness' is implemented using control commands sent by the Energy Supplier.
Let me illustrate the first approach by describing two possible scenarios, neither of which (yet) exists:
1: The ASHP monitoring system being coded by @cathoderayhere, could be further developed to become a product that controls the heat-pump in a 'smart' fashion.
2: The Nestor storage-battery controller development, which I'm working on, gets released as a product to operate a heat-pump off-grid.
In either scenario the 'controller' in the home receives data on the electricity ToU tariff and the weather conditions over the next 36-hours. Those data-inputs allow the heat pump to take more of its electricity from the grid when it is either
greener
cheaper
or both!
The in-house controller performs its task without the Energy Supplier being aware of when/how it operates. Their only input has been to define the price-points in the ToU tariff for the hours ahead.
The second approach builds on the present requirement that any EV Charger must use one of an approved 'smart' design.
Since this law has been enacted, we have seen Energy Suppliers release a plethora of EV Tariffs, each of which is better than its predecessor, and cheaper than the competition. The 'smart' feature is implemented by the Supplier sending ON/OFF commands to its customers' chargers. They use encrypted commands across the internet, and monitor the charger on a per-minute basis.
The Smart EV Charger (as currently defined) is not autonomous. Unless it receives the commands from the remote data-centre, it cannot take advantage of the cheaper tariff.
...
Whichever approach to being 'smart' is chosen, the Report is clear that the commands must be subject to randomised delays. This is largely addressed on p.32
The above synopsis suggests that the report authors did not appreciate the significance of the comments which I had made in response to Q.18
As a 'stakeholder' contributor, I could neither be categorised as 'for' or 'against'!
As I will now reveal here, my concern is that the Energy Suppliers have been permitted (by Ofgem) to implement a randomised delay for EV chargers, which allows them to accrue additional income. The individual amounts each day are so small that it's unlikely anyone has noticed. But when added together, the randomisation demonstrates a clear bias in favour of the Suppliers.
Is this a coincidence, caused by the Regulator being more concerned to ensure stability of the grid and avoid demand-surges?
Or had the Energy Suppliers done the maths, and were aware of the finiancial benefits to themselves when putting forward their preferred options for 'smartness'?
I won't go into great detail here, but I'm about to post a series of three histograms. The 1st one shows the random probability of a Smart Charger being subjected to a delay of up to 10-minutes, in compliance with Sect 11(2)a of the Electric Vehicles Regulations, 2021
The second histogram combines that EV Charger delay (<10mins) with the Randomised Time Offset Delay which is applied to the tariff periods in a domestic Smart Meter.
The third histogram translates the shark-fin curve of histogram-2 into the probability of a consumer being over-charged (a billing error).
You don't need to understand the actual figures in £s.
But I am sufficiently concerned that I will, of course, be raising the issues with the Dept Energy.
I oppose the Government enacting into law a definition of Energy Smart Appliances which builds further on that already used to comply with the Electric Vehicles Regulations.
That simply allows Energy Suppliers to gain financially from unwitting consumers.
... and if you've followed the above, please reward yourself with a Gold Star and an extra bickie.
This post was modified 1 year ago 2 times by Transparent
An ASHP running in a reasonably well insulated house can be switched off for short periods (2-3 hours) with only a small overall effect on energy consumption. Yes, the house will lose heat and it will take time plus a bit of energy to recover. But it's not as bad as is widely believed. What is also not always taken into account is that when the ASHP is off, it's using no energy at all! Efficiency (COP) will suffer a bit, but it's energy (and ££) that is important.
We do that on Octopus Cosy, ASHP heating off 1-2pm for HW charge, off between 5:30pm and 6:30pm during peak tariff period when we're powered by battery. Makes knack all difference to house temperatures and the evening switch off saves a few pennies a day. Thermal mass of the house can absorb short interruptions in heating supply.
We also switch off between 9.30pm and 4:30am every night, and the first hour of pre-heating from cold sees the ASHP drawing quite a large amount of energy, but a lot less than it would have drawn had it chugged away overnight for the preceding 7hrs. Modulates down over the next hour or two as the supply temperature reaches target and the return temperature starts to rise.
The house temperature drops between 0.25 and 0.5degC per hour overnight, depending on outside ambient and rate of transmission. It recovers within 2-3hours each morning to around 18-19degC. Again, saves significantly on our running cost.
This hybrid 'heating on more than a conventional fired boiler but not on 24/7' seems a good half-way house for us. We get good comfort during the day, reasonable performance and cost efficiency.
