Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

Yes, you have continuous energy monitoring of all your circuits, but what does it show??? 

Obviously synchronised with the temperature data.

Posted by: @filipe

↑

Obviously synchronised with the temperature data.

Yes, but what does it show??? Post the chart, or failing that, give a written description of what it shows. If you have periods with zero amps, then your heat pump is not on continuously.

Thanks @jamespa I'll add the link to that other topic here.

It was very tempting to dive into that discussion when I first saw the subject Rethinking the mindset for mass retrofit
... but then I'd never get any 'work' done!

I will add the link to that topic in the 'Memo' I write to my MP.
If it gets forwarded to DESZC, then they'll be able to see what's been said before providing their official reply.

@transparent If you do provide the link note that the topic begins on another tack (mostly to trigger discussion, partially because there might be something in it).  It may confuse DESZC so it might be better just to point at the conclusion.  More or less the same point was reached on a parallel discussion on buildhub, with of course one or two who couldn't bring themselves to agree albeit they didn't expressly disagree (and became offended when asked to clarify their position).

In an ideal world we would, at least arguably, would have a proper training scheme focussing on how to design systems cost effectively (but well) for retrofit, and more than one certification scheme. We would also have a total change of culture in the UK to one which values and rewards engineering and practical skills much more than at present.

However politics is the art of the possible, and I can't see that any of that is politically achievable with the current government, which is of course ideologically opposed to market regulation and to public spending.  This being the case I think there is a sound argument for reducing the (currently failing) regulation to the absolute minimum required for safety (which is pretty much none in the case of heat pumps) so that the market can diversify, proper competition develop and the bad ones get weeded out by market forces.

I have been told that MCS was reluctantly created 'to satisfy the EU we had a certification scheme'.  If that's the case then deregulation would be a 'Brexit freedom' which should prove popular with a certain wing of the party.

The four points above are not particularly difficult to justify and should appeal to free-marketeers, which makes them, at least potentially, politically achievable

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

@transparent In another thread the following set of measures emerged (with a fair level of agreement) to open up the market and release MCS from its stranglehold.  MCS is clearly failing to drive up market standards, and has created a monster of a scheme which is orientated towards process not outcomes, which of course perfectly protects the installer but does not help the customer.  Time to lower the barriers to entry (created by the Government which appears to assume MCS is fine but makes others jump through hoops to the extent that nobody has) to give others a chance!  Of course there will still be bad installers, but at least good people, who may well be much better trained through one of the schemes that focus on design education and the necessary engineering skills, can then compete on a level playing field.

 

1.        Permitted Development rules in relation to air source heat pumps amended to remove all reference to MCS.  The noise condition only in MCS-020 to be incorporated into the PD rules (without reference to the spreadsheet being completed by an MCS engineer)

This will address the problem that, as things stand today, only systems designed and installed by an MCS contractor are Permitted Development and, as such, import into planning rules engineering considerations which are well outside the scope of planning.

 

2.              Permitted Development rules in relation to air source heat pumps amended to allow 2(?) ASHPs provided that the combined noise meets the noise condition (and the other PD rules are met in relation to both)

This will allow a combination of A2A and A2W heat pumps, or other two pump installation, without material negative effect on the built environment

 

3.              Grant support under the BUS or similar to be available wherever a HP is installed to replace a gas boiler (used for domestic heating and the primary source of same) by a contractor accredited under NICIEC, NAP IT, GasSafe (list of organisations to be expanded), without regard to MCS or other complex design rules.  Boiler removal part to be by a GasSafe engineer who signs off that its was previously in service and that he has audited against premises gas bills (to prevent fraud on the BUS).  Support reduced to £1K if A2A installed as a part-replacement (conditions, and whether a later full replacement attracts a grant, to be defined)

This will open up the market further and allow, for example, a separately contracted consultant to design the system to the person who physically installs it, currently forbidden under the MCS rules (much like the architect-builder relationship)

 

4.              No Vat on HP at purchase - regardless who/where/how

This will remove the discrimination against plumbers who fall below the VAT threshold (who currently cannot reclaim the VAT on the purchase) and  against self-installers

 

The rest is fair enough but not the bit in bold thanks.  I don't want my tax money paying for someone's air conditioning unit that's never used for heating.  Because that's what will happen.   

I'd also be concerned about removing the MCS standards without replacing it with something else.  Registration with a scheme is fine but there have to be design and installation standards. There are some standards for ASHPs in the NHBC. 

It's poorly written, lacking in detail and full of mistakes but apart from that it's fine!  Although it's aimed at new builds it does have some useful pointers and I'm sure someone could turn it into something useful.  But it would have to be someone sensible and practical and not one of the purists/theorists.              

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

More generally, and this is comment, not negative criticism, I am not sure a forum can have a definitive view. A forum is primarily a place for debate, which implies more than one view, and for the asking of questions and provision, whenever possible, of answers. Furthermore, it is made up of individuals who contribute voluntarily which raises the possibility of bias (a vocal minority drowning out the views of a silent majority), though it is of course possible that some general consensuses might exist within a forum, for example, it is probably reasonable to assume that the consensus on this forum is that renewable energy is a good thing. But we should not forget that we are a self-selected bunch, and that there may well be other sizeable groups who hold very different views. Why, only yesterday, our very own @derek-m was tilting at windmills! Perhaps we have a heretic in our midst! (@derek-m, for the avoidance of doubt, I am sure you are not a heretic, just a pragmatist pointing out we can't control the wind).    

I try not to be a heretic, though there may be some who may think that I am.

I am not against wind turbines and have explored the possibility of having one myself, and did not try to block a quite large one being built nearby, even though the noise from it can be quite annoying in the Summer.

I do try to look at the big picture, and I am quite concerned about a large proportion of our future energy supply system being installed in the middle of the North Sea, where it could be deemed quite vulnerable.

To me the primary objective should be overall energy reduction, which should mean less need for wind and solar farms, or nuclear power stations. This also makes good financial sense and would also lead to lower energy costs.

I also feel that there needs to be more effort put into energy storage in whatever form can be of use. Throughout the year there is plenty of energy available, it is just that at the moment we are not very good at capturing and storing this energy for later use. We would much rather continue using the energy that was stored millions of years ago, because it may be cheaper to do so.

I am quite happy to receive criticism and more than willing to discuss the pros and cons in a civilised manner, though I do tend to get a little annoyed if someone comes on the forum complaining about how much it is costing them to heat their mansion, swimming pool and hot tub, when there are others who cannot afford to heat their small apartment. Obviously I would be happier if people were trying to reduce their energy consumption, rather than increase it, but if some wish to enjoy some of life's luxuries then that is their choice, just don't complain about the cost and request special treatment.

I will continue to try to reduce our energy consumption wherever possible, and will try to help other's through the forum to do the same, but human nature does not fill me with confidence for the future. 

@filipe

What are the settings for curve 9?

@cathoderay

But nobody expected the Inquisition, ask Monty Python. 😎 Oh, sorry, I mentioned Python. 😋 

@cathoderay You have seen my power data before. It shows all the stages that John Cantor describes for the startup.

Why should anyone be interested in Midea’s integer compressor current data? If i want the instantaneous COP i just read the output power from the controller and power from the Energy monitor. It does require I trust Midea, but I find there is consistency with their Engineering data. 

My running cost is lower than gas despite a colder winter. Given similar heat loss assessment mine has used 2992kWh in 12 months for DHW and CH and yours 8000. Comfort levels are of course very personal. 

I’m glad you are now considering not running 24/7. Personally I don’t like a warm bedroom when sleeping. It’s only a matter of being comfortable the rest of the day rather than warm. John Cantor explains how reducing the flow temperature can help to reduce cycling. It’s not me that runs with a target flow temperature of 55-58c and wonders why the COP is low and the pump cycles a lot. I don’t run mine 24/7 except when a modest setback in really cold weather brings it on. It makes sense to heat the house when the the outside temperature is warmest rather than coldest. Mostly our house only drops a few degrees overnight, but -9c is a challenge. WC doesn’t really help with getting comfortable temperatures and in winter is more likely to increase the flow temperature. I do use off peak electric when needed though, and my 20kWh Battery does last the rest of the day once charged (82kWh used outside off peak since 1 Feb out of 1778kWh including the EV). 

I’m not sure where you are trying to take this thread. It becomes very hard to find the useful contributions. HA and OpenEnergyMonitor are much better focused.

It’s useful to know that Midea may not modulate as well as other brands. It is actually useful to hear John Cantor’s explanation that cycling can be better as most HPs become less efficient at low modulation. I’m sure discussing not using glycol is interesting and how to avoid freezing reliably. It is worth noting that Glycol has only a slightly lower specific heat than water. It is also interesting to discuss how the government’s good intentions are subverted by the regulations.

I don’t find it helpful to criticise installers for not knowing all the ins and outs of plate heat exchangers especially when following the installation manual. MCS could prevent this through a list of approved equipment and mandating minimum monitoring standards. Likewise criticism of HA. I am not alone in thinking this, and don’t need reminders.

Phil

Posted by: @kev-m

↑

The rest is fair enough but not the bit in bold thanks.  I don't want my tax money paying for someone's air conditioning unit that's never used for heating.  Because that's what will happen. 

As it happens I agree with you on this, it was suggested by another on this forum and there is an argument for.  However, like you, I fear that there are more arguments against than for.

Posted by: @kev-m

↑

I'd also be concerned about removing the MCS standards without replacing it with something else.  Registration with a scheme is fine but there have to be design and installation standards. There are some standards for ASHPs in the NHBC.

Sorry to be a heretic but why for ASHP any more than for gas or oil?  Product standards, yes, noise standards (which there arent for gas or oil) yes, and of course any necessary safety standards, but fundamentally why regulate an essentially safe technology more than a technology which involves piping into your house an explosive gas, particularly if the regulation is likely to be bad because its designed by a government that is ideologically opposed to the concept.  Better minimal regulation that bad regulation.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @derek-m

↑

I fully agree that more companies are required within the renewable heating sector, but I also feel that it is equally, if not more important, to avoid the 'never mind the quality, feel the width' approach. Whilst there are poor designers and installers within the heating industry, with no one weeding them out, and their primary concern being to chase the grant money rather than do a good job at a reasonable price, I do not see the situation improving. I am more than happy for someone to prove me wrong.

I thought MCS was supposed to ensure that the industry has high standards, or at least that's what people keep telling me.  Am I wrong or is it failing?

MCS may set required standards, and the installers pay MCS for accreditation, but then no one checks that the installers are actually following the standards and giving good service. I suggest that you read some of the threads on the forum, where the customer has complained to MCS, who basically said "you will have to take your installer to court", an installer who may still be accredited by MCS.

MCS accreditation appears to mean very little, but is required to receive the 'bribe'.

@derek-m Indeed, the ‘Bribe’ is I take it to be the BUS £5K grant to install an ASHP; I used this BUS grant for my installation and I think, according to MCS requirements, actually stretched the rules a little. The MCS guideline for a 4 bedroom house (actually, it is 3 bedroom plus a very small box room but hey ho), is that the DHW tank should have a minimum capacity of 210 litres (I think); such a tank size could not be accommodated anywhere in our house (Unless we gave up the box room for it!) neither standard tanks nor ‘slimline’ designs would have fitted so we opted for the other route of using a Sunamp Thermino ‘e’ PV series 210 unit. This unit is heated by our solar PV system but - strictly speaking, this does not comply with MCS guidelines as they think the DHW should be heated using the ASHP which was not practical for us. What we are using is not only much more compact but has far less pipework and (to us at least) a number of other advantages too. For all this, MCS does not believe that a BUS granted installation should use this method - which I think is POPPYCOCK! Regards, Toodles.