Hi Mars,

Whilst I certainly agree that the government should be doing more to help protect the less fortunate members of society, there is definitely a limit on what can be done, since the consumer, wherever they are located, will have to pay the price in the end. We are living in a perilous times, which will hopefully be over in the near future, but the effect of the actions of putin and his cronies will be felt for some time to come.

I was pleased to read that the government have finally realised that one of the most effective ways is to reduce demand, by improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock.

They should also be encouraging everyone who can, to lower their temperature setting. Whilst it is difficult to give an accurate calculation, I estimate that since reducing our indoor temperature setpoint from 21C to 20.5C, our energy consumption has been reduced by approximately 5%. This may not seem that much, but if everyone throughout Europe were to do the same, it would equate to a considerable amount of gas, oil and electricity that would not need to be consumed.

Hi Mars,

One thing that I feel the various governments should be doing, is to investigate who, and which companies, are making exorbitant profits on the trading of oil, gas and electricity.

@derek-m, totally agree. You can rest assured that there are investment funds and organizations across the world making millions on the current state of fuel. I think it was BP or Shell (I forget which) that used some loophole in the system to make an obscene amount of money (it may have been as much as £500m) in the build up the current energy crisis in UK market alone, knowing what was coming and nailing consumers in the process while making a tidy profit. I believe in capitalism, but oftentimes massive global multinationals really get away with too much.

Don't cap heating oil price. It's locally-polluting as well as fossil fuel and the writing has been on the wall for years now. If we want to help impoverished oil-heater users, increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme incentives for them, or add another compatible incentive scheme.

Posted by: @mjr

Don't cap heating oil price. It's locally-polluting as well as fossil fuel and the writing has been on the wall for years now. If we want to help impoverished oil-heater users, increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme incentives for them, or add another compatible incentive scheme.

Perhaps controversial..... 

I would go as far as scrapping the new boiler upgrade scheme. The government has already said in their own analysis that it will make no difference to the number of heat pumps installed and is almost solely taken up by those that could afford the cost anyway.

I would make 100% of the boiler upgrade scheme available to those in poverty for insulating and heat pumps. There are more clever people than me that could work out how to identify this group.

I think we are now beyond the point we need  to support the wealthy to install a heat pump to kick start the transition. 

There is only enough money in the boiler upgrade scheme to support 30,000 installs a year, but it would help. 

Bring forward the ban on gas boilers rather than have more grants if the aim is to speed up the transition. 

Posted by: @jeff

boiler upgrade scheme. The government has already said in their own analysis that it will make no difference to the number of heat pumps installed and is almost solely taken up by those that could afford the cost anyway.

Does that analysis find or suggest any reasons why? It sounds like people do not trust the government to pay up, so only those who could afford it anyway apply.

Posted by: @mjr

Posted by: @jeff

boiler upgrade scheme. The government has already said in their own analysis that it will make no difference to the number of heat pumps installed and is almost solely taken up by those that could afford the cost anyway.

Does that analysis find or suggest any reasons why? It sounds like people do not trust the government to pay up, so only those who could afford it anyway apply.

Hi,

I personally wonder by how much the grants and incentives cause the price of an heat pump installation to be inflated? Does the proposed £5000 grant create a system price that is £5000 greater than it would have been without the grant?

Last year I installed a small A2A ASHP, with the cost of the units and additional materials coming in at less than £1000. Although I installed the system myself, I believe having a similar system installed by a H&V company would have been less than £2000. Being an A2A system it does not qualify for any form of grant, which probably accounts for the much lower cost.

@derek-m, from what I've been able to ascertain from installers (and industry folk working in Europe on heat pumps) that we've spoken to, the heat pump gear itself is marked up 30-40% more (depending on the brand) in the UK and labour costs in Norway and other Scandi countries are up to 60% cheaper, and many have pointed to RHI and other grants being directly responsible for this. 

@editor I suspect some will be grant inflation, some will be the costs of heat pump training and certifications being spread over fewer customers and some will be other things, but it will be difficult to say how much is each cause.

Posted by: @derek-m

I was pleased to read that the government have finally realised that one of the most effective ways is to reduce demand, by improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock.

I think successive past governments of different stripes have recognized that and acted on it insofar as they felt able.  The home today has acquired loft insulation, cavity wall insulation (not always wisely), double glazing in recent decades.  Building standards have been steadily ratcheted up on thermal performance.  The current issue is that climate change demands much more and sooner and the low hanging fruit has been picked.  Anything we need to do is going to cost significantly, and in the case of retrofit, cost much more.  It would have been cheaper overall if the government had imposed higher building standards earlier - retrofit is always more expensive - indeed, they still are reluctant, proposing an interim standard for now before implementing a higher standard for 2025.

Perhaps controversially, I'd say energy pricing is still entirely irrational and does not encourage investment toward zero carbon homes.  In particular, fossil fuel is still too cheap.  I live in a brick veneer home built in the 80s.  The local council promotes the Ecofurb site as a source of costed plans to bring homes up to scratch.  That plan estimates £67K of improvements, of which the two largest components are an ASHP and internal wall insulation (brick veneer is not suitable for cavity wall insulation).  The annual energy cost savings from the plan is predicted at £237.  It is ridiculous to suggest I should undertake that plan for such poor returns!  The energy pricing must be consistent with the future that is desired.  With a more rational energy pricing, the decision makes itself for those with sufficient funds and graduated assistance to the others gets them done too.

I am inclined to think currently that if I sold my current home, bought land and put up a Passivhaus, I'd get a more efficient home more cheaply than if I attempted to upgrade my home via retrofit.