Posted by: @derek-m

↑

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'.

I have read them thanks, and similar comments elsewhere, my comment was sarchastic, apologies for not making that clear. 

I also have experience of complaining to MCS in relation to solar PV.  Basically provided the installer had followed their process (notwithstanding that the result was poor) they were off the hook. 

That, at least in part, explains my attitude towards them, together with what I actually read in their regulations in relation to ASHP and experience from the accredited installers.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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.

Because it's being funded by taxpayers.  If I'm going to contribute, through my taxes, to delivering a low(er) carbon economy, I want the best bang for my buck.  A poorly designed ASHP with a SCOP of 2 that the user can't afford to run isn't that. It's not difficult; a minimum design SCOP, maximum LWT, some sensible rules on sizing and an edict to follow the manufacturer's design and installation guidelines will cover most of it.

And while I think about it, gas and oil systems should be regulated because we (as a country) have a collective responsibility to reduce energy use/carbon emissions.  There is also the small matter of the billions we've all paid to subsidise gas heating systems, some of them very inefficient ones. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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: @kev-m

↑

Because it's being funded by taxpayers.  If I'm going to contribute, through my taxes, to delivering a low(er) carbon economy, I want the best bang for my buck.

Of the four suggestions for regulatory change that came out of this forum only one (number 3) related to government subsidy, so your comment applies  only to number 3 presumably not the other three changes that emerged.

Posted by: @kev-m

↑

and an edict to follow the manufacturer's design and installation guidelines will cover most of it.

Thats dangerous unless very carefully worded.  Frequently manufacturers give 'examples' or 'recommendations'.  Slavishly following these will inhibit design flexibility. which wont drive up standards or adoption if installers, as a result, cover their rear ends by slavishly following them (which they will).

Posted by: @kev-m

↑

A poorly designed ASHP with a SCOP of 2 that the user can't afford to run isn't that. It's not difficult; a minimum design SCOP, maximum LWT

As it happens I agree with the principle of this (in relation to systems where there is a government grant only), however I'm also a pragmatist.  There appears to be considerable evidence that the current regime isnt achieving what you, and I, want and lets face it, the current government is not really interested in regulation of (any) market so the probability that we get a fit-for-purpose regulatory regime is low.  So the question becomes, do we want a poor regime or no regime.  On balance the latter in my view.  Id love a good one but I cant see it happening under the current government, so on balance I feel we are better off if installers have to live off of and defend their reputations, rather than hide behind some poorly conceived regulation which amounts to a closed shop defence mechanism..  

@ginny i was the founder of freedom. But i dont work there any more, i haven't for 2 1/2 years, i sold it. I got fed up of people constantly asking for free advice. 

im done with the whole heat pump industry, its plagued by people who want free advice who wont stop pressing buttons, why not go back to the installer you paid to fit the unit and ask them to help, after all they have your cash. 

asking a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what they are on about in a forum is not the best idea. Free advice is just that free and usually crap. 

@jamespa

Please don't suggest adding A2A heat pumps to the BUS scheme, it will merely push up their price.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post that @grahamh

So at risk of me asking a free question...

What would you like to see the new Dept Energy doing to get the UK on track to deliver Net Zero?
Revise the terms of reference for the MCS strategy?
Or take a different approach?

@derek-m It wasn't actually my suggestion, others put this forward.  I must say I'm inclined to agree with you, they are cheap enough that they don't need a subsidy and the risk is that the tax payer ends up subsidising cooling. 

The argument made by those in favour is that one or two A2A units is frequently enough for a reasonably modest open plan house and/or a good start in a larger house replacing perhaps 60% of the gas heating demand.  Both are probably true and there is a lack of acceptance of A2A in this country (because they are unfamiliar in a domestic situation) hence a small subsidy is arguably a good thing.

I compiled the list with the aim of getting consensus, keeping this in against some personal doubts.  There was a good measure of consensus both on this forum and buildhub.  However this one has been the most often queried so I have the feeling it should indeed be dropped.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Thanks for taking the trouble to post that @grahamh

So at risk of me asking a free question...

What would you like to see the new Dept Energy doing to get the UK on track to deliver Net Zero?
Revise the terms of reference for the MCS strategy?
Or take a different approach?

I would like to help out and try to answer your question, but I'm afraid I don't know what I am talking about, unless you wish to pay me, which would of course then make me an 'expert'.

@derek-m to be honest i couldnt care less what they do. whatever happens there will be more paperwork and not a lot will happen.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

@derek-m It wasn't actually my suggestion, others put this forward.  I must say I'm inclined to agree with you, they are cheap enough that they don't need a subsidy and the risk is that the tax payer ends up subsidising cooling. 

The argument made by those in favour is that one or two A2A units is frequently enough for a reasonably modest open plan house and/or a good start in a larger house replacing perhaps 60% of the gas heating demand.  Both are probably true and there is a lack of acceptance of A2A in this country (because they are unfamiliar in a domestic situation) hence a small subsidy is arguably a good thing.

I compiled the list with the aim of getting consensus (and there was a good measure of same both on this forum and buildhub), but this one has been the most often queried so I have the feeling it should indeed be dropped.

I'm afraid I was being facetious as usual, I must have put my Mr Angry hat on today. What I find particularly annoying is that whenever our government comes up with some scheme, it not only ends up cost us taxpayer's more, but often also the customer.

I was reading a financial article today about the increasing cost of sand, in which the CEO of the French company Saint Gobain, was quoted as saying "whenever the opportunity presents itself, he will push up prices". I don't think that he is alone, with that business model. 😡 

@filipe - I am sure you are very erudite but I have to say your very long answer to my very simple question (post or re-post or link to the plot showing amps energy or whatever it is you are monitoring) leaves me even more baffled. It is almost as if you are answering another set of question/making comments on things I don't recognise. I shall have to come back to it later.

Posted by: @derek-m

↑

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.

A very good point @derek-m, one that I suspect is not as widely appreciated as it should be. I am also not sure why we don't use more tidal energy, though I have to say as a sailor the choice between having my head lopped off by a wind turbine vs going down the maelstrom of a tidal turbine why being electrocuted for my pains doesn't appeal. But unlike the wind, tide is a reliable source of energy, and widely though not universally available round our coasts.

@alan-m - interesting to see that your long term plot is similar to mine, eg we can see the cold snap in early Dec 2022 and the milder weather over Christmas and the New Year, and the LWT changing in response. Can you do a similar plot over a shorter period, say a day, to see if your heat pump is cycling? Also interesting to see the LWT is censored to a 30 degree minimum, even though it can be set to go lower. More 'interesting times', no doubt...  

@cathoderay I'm afraid the data I am collecting is only at the granularity of days. An OpenEnergyMonitor installation might be my next step.