Posted by: @hannah

 Hi, I hope this can help you 🙂 

I have found two studies from Aston University and Wolverhampton University as part of the European Union Regional Development Fund.

The Wolverhampton study is developing the building simulation of a newly built two-bedroom house.

report found that ASHP have a lower output than the gas boiler and IR floor heating. Meaning they cannot deliver heat as quickly as the IR heating system.

Further to this, the efficiency of gas boilers reduces with age. As does an ASHP. They must be maintained. Air temperature affects the energy coefficient of the system. The lower temperatures cause a reduction in the efficiency. However, there is no drop in efficiency from an IR heater.

The release of the Heat and Buildings Strategy outlined how the government aims for a ‘heat pump first’ approach. As part of the transition to adopt low carbon efficient heating systems. However, the EnTRESS report, building further upon existing research on the efficiency of Infrared Heating Panels, has firmly shown infrared to be a viable and, in some cases, more efficient alternative to ASHP.

Aston-

JIGSAWINFRARED.COM "https://www.jigsawinfrared.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Solutions-by-Jigsaw_Report-Aston.pdf"

Wolverhampton-

JIGSAWINFRARED.COM "https://www.jigsawinfrared.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/entress-document_compressed-2.pdf"

 

Reading this report does not fill me with confidence about how the students are being taught at our universities. Basically the report proves that an infrared panel heater can heat a room quicker than a standard electric convection heater or an electric storage heater.

Such measurements over such short time periods are quite meaningless in the context of heating a home throughout the year.

Hi @derek-m 

Did you read both reports?

The Wolverhampton report goes into much more detail about comparing heat pumps as well. 

In terms of full disclosure @Hannah does work for an infrared heating company so this is a planted post. Any further promotional posts will be deleted. 

Posted by: @derek-m

Posted by: @hannah

 Hi, I hope this can help you 🙂 

I have found two studies from Aston University and Wolverhampton University as part of the European Union Regional Development Fund.

The Wolverhampton study is developing the building simulation of a newly built two-bedroom house.

report found that ASHP have a lower output than the gas boiler and IR floor heating. Meaning they cannot deliver heat as quickly as the IR heating system.

Further to this, the efficiency of gas boilers reduces with age. As does an ASHP. They must be maintained. Air temperature affects the energy coefficient of the system. The lower temperatures cause a reduction in the efficiency. However, there is no drop in efficiency from an IR heater.

The release of the Heat and Buildings Strategy outlined how the government aims for a ‘heat pump first’ approach. As part of the transition to adopt low carbon efficient heating systems. However, the EnTRESS report, building further upon existing research on the efficiency of Infrared Heating Panels, has firmly shown infrared to be a viable and, in some cases, more efficient alternative to ASHP.

Aston-

JIGSAWINFRARED.COM "https://www.jigsawinfrared.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Solutions-by-Jigsaw_Report-Aston.pdf"

Wolverhampton-

JIGSAWINFRARED.COM "https://www.jigsawinfrared.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/entress-document_compressed-2.pdf"

 

Reading this report does not fill me with confidence about how the students are being taught at our universities. Basically the report proves that an infrared panel heater can heat a room quicker than a standard electric convection heater or an electric storage heater.

Such measurements over such short time periods are quite meaningless in the context of heating a home throughout the year.

Some of the major house builders are currently trialing IR heating as an alternative to gas boilers and ASHPs in real life situations. 

These trials should give an idea of real world running costs and effectiveness 

@editor I would assume she works for Jigsaw infrared. Given both papers are hosted, by a firm selling infrared heating... a pinch of salt is required. They would hardly be promoting studies which show their technology isn't as good.

Redrow is one of the companies trialing an IR based solution including solar and batteries. 

We have a panel in our bathroom which works well but it is obviously only a small space. No experience about heating a whole home and the potential efficiency and effectiveness. Of course doesn't benefit from the efficiency of a heat pump. 

Will be interesting to see if there is any traction in solutions like this for new builds. Feels rather niche without knowing more.

REDROW.CO.UK "https://www.redrow.co.uk/newsroom/national/2021/11/redrow-introduces-innovative-low-carbon-home-pilot"

Redrow introduces innovative low-carbon home pilot | Redrow

We will pilot our first gas-free, low-carbon home as part of our drive towards becoming a net-zero business– and in line with our wider sustainab

@hannah, the report is interesting and I must say I only skimmed through, however a few points jump out at me. 

1. With IR you still need DHW, so the report assumes they just use immersion.

    

2. The report shows that the IR system has the highest running cost, even excluding RHI (page 14)

   

3. The assumptions made for Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) are fairly outlandish - for example they state that a new ASHP or Gas boiler will be replaced every 10 years! Every 10?! But the IR system is nearly double that. No valid explanation is given for that assumption. I can only assume its to raise the cost for the systems lifetime

There is some very dodgy maths going on with page 16 which outlines these costs. The document states that the IR panels have a running cost of £639 per annum and the ASHP a cost of £494 without RHI or £247 with RHI (assuming the same unit price per annum).

However when they come to calculate the cost of ownership they seem to double count and get the maths straight wrong.

The cost to run the ASHP according to them should be (£494.33 * 43 years) + (£274.33 * 7 years) = 43 years no RHI and 7 years with RHI = £23,176

Adding this to other ASHP costs (£11,500, £500 for service and £26,000 for (questionable) replacement) install stated we get £61,176 HOWEVER in the document this is £65,676 - £5k more. Not sure why? If I wanted to make the prices match I could just Goal Seek in excel, doing so gives me 2.3 replacements plus the original install, or 3.3 ASHPs or 1 ASHP every 15 years. However I would note the new install costs are equal to the original which doesn't seem correct. You would not need any of the ground work, just a new ASHP unit to be dropped in. Even with the gas boiler this calculation assumes all of the radiators are replaced?! every 10 years? Its fair to say replacing an ASHP unit is more or less a drop in replacement with some work on draining the system etc. The report assumes a cost of £4000 for a new unit, so that plus labour would be a better guess. By assuming that and being generous with £1000 labour we now get a TCO of £46k which is actually less than the IR TCO which is £49k. I show this as its easy to make these kind of calculations say whatever you want, by making assumptions which end up directing you. 

The graph below (page 16) is also misleading as the categories haven't been assigned correctly. The replacement cost for the IR panels seems to have been mislabelled, as this is in fact the running cost and should be orange and not yellow. The current orange is the replacement cost, not the running costs.

this is after only a quick scan of the document. I am sure if I actually looked in depth I might find other discrepancies.

Posted by: @hannah

Hi @derek-m 

Did you read both reports?

The Wolverhampton report goes into much more detail about comparing heat pumps as well. 

 

 

 

Yes, I have read both reports in detail.

Like Batalto I find many of the assumptions made in the report to be quite questionable.

In particular, the data shown in Figure 10, detailing energy consumption.

Based upon the stated gas boiler efficiency of 89.5% and a total gas consumption of 3386 kWh for heating, the heating demand for the property would be approximately 3030 kWh.

Using this figure it would mean that if the ASHP consumed 1800 kWh to produce 3030 kWh of heat energy, it would be operating at a SCOP of only 1.68, which is even less than the assumed value of 2 stated within the text. Modern ASHP's often achieve a SCOP of 3 or above, so a more realistic consumption figure for the ASHP scenario would be slightly over 1000 kWh.

The data for the IR panels states an energy consumption of 1840 kWh to produce the required 3030 kWh of heat energy, which would indicate an efficiency of approximately 164%. I would be interested to know how this is achieved, since it is not adequately explained within the text.

@derek-m to get the RHI you need an SCOP of 2.7 or above - so that should be the baseline minimum 

Hi @batalto and @derek-m

@hannah you can sign whatever you like - but I see no evidence source linking the age of the replacement in real life? Why 10 years? Also everything would be inflation linked, but I note this assumes no lowering of costs for ASHPs nor taking into account you cant actually replace the gas boiler in 10 years, as they won't be sold anymore. If anything I would say the report is questionable given the points we have pointed out - incorrect calculations and graphs do not fill me with confidence that the report has been proofed and vetted thoroughly. 

I would also note that the RHI requires an SCOP of 2.7 or greater - so using 2 in the report means that you cannot get the RHI.

Finally I would say, I have a battery and Solar PV - these would also lower the running cost of an ASHP as well as any IR system.

It is not on us, as a reader to provide evidence to support the reports you pointed us towards. But on you to show your evidence is valid.