Posted by: @andrewj

↑

@ashp-bobba blimey!  That's the sort of price that is going to make someone say "forget it, bang a new boiler in".  A distressed purchase decision is going to be the wrong time for pretty much everyone except the die-hard, was seriously considering it anyway, home owner.  Once installation day arrives, it seems that 4-5 days is typical.  The lead up to that is weeks and months though waiting for a heat loss engineer, system designers, Q&A, permissions, then waiting for a team.  Fast tracking, even for a minimum-necessary install, seems essential.  I return back to the grant pulldown approach.  I think the biggest problem with this approach is likely to be bureaucratic as the government can't agree on a comprehensive insulation scheme right now.  That goes back to the big-thinking required that James alluded to.

Perhaps an EPC-heavy approach.  The current EPC process is money for old rope and next to useless.  That could be extended to provide the heat loss calculation and advice on fabric changes necessary for renewables as well as early access to funding.

Dont forget under the grant the cylinder is part covered and there is no VAT for the whole project when being done as part of the ASHP works. Its only thats cost when you have it done after, I cannot see why if the right thing to do was keep the cylinder at the time you would change it later though, knowing cylinders can last 30 years, if yours was say just a few years old it would not need changing again for quite a while?

Of that £2100 + Vat I would like to think you had a £1500 discount in the 1st place for not changing it, so really the up cost is only £600 + Vat

Yes, there will be developments once the grant drops, perhaps EPC's can be better, once the grant drops market has to be more competitive, I think we will end up discounting the surveys to free of charge or money back once contract is signed, we can now complete these in 2hrs rather than 4hrs, eventually I would imagine we will be able to do them in 1hr as AI and softwares get better. 

Changing over to ASHP low temp heating is a commitment, once you have retro-fitted your home, replacing the ASHP later down the road will cost no more than a boiler change, we are unfortunately comparing one component of a gas driven heating system to retrofitting a whole home to get it ASHP compatible.  

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

You are correct it will cost more the change the cylinder at a later date as to keep the original cylinder you still complete all of the same works, all new connections and so on, you only save on the £1500 cylinder, so to fit the cylinder later it would likely cost £2100 + Vat where there was no Vat on the 1st install being renewables.

That’s a good point, the mcs-lite process may need to allow for the subsequent improvements to have vat free status.. to avoid penalising the owner

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

You are correct it will cost more the change the cylinder at a later date as to keep the original cylinder you still complete all of the same works, all new connections and so on, you only save on the £1500 cylinder, so to fit the cylinder later it would likely cost £2100 + Vat where there was no Vat on the 1st install being renewables.

That’s a good point, the mcs-lite process may need to allow for the subsequent improvements to have vat free status.. to avoid penalising the owner

 

MCS has nothing to do with the VAT element and will never have any control or say over that, the VAT 0 Rate has been around for a while and is a government incentive that ends in 2027, this 0 Rate is all renewable heat pumps so A2A as well, it not really anything to do with MCS.

Soon there is going to be a deadline push as when the Rate changes back to 5% Vat in April 2027 all of the jobs will go up.

@ashp-bobba 

I suspect this thread got much longer than anticipated. 

I am aware hmrc decides on vat exemption. 

@jamespa was originally proposing a  lighter mcs process for the distress sales, but still allowing BUS. My point is the vat rate should be considered as well. 

Posted by: @batpred

↑

@ashp-bobba 

I suspect this thread got much longer than anticipated. 

I am aware hmrc decides on vat exemption. 

@jamespa was originally proposing a  lighter mcs process for the distress sales, but still allowing BUS. My point is the vat rate should be considered as well. 

Agreed, but I still think the only thing they could consider is that it ends in 2027. Thats said the VAT issue irrelevant if all of this were to happen after the change, 1st part of the job was 5%VAT and 2nd part 5%Vat.

Also knowing it takes years not months to change anything with the MCS and Government stuff then its likely if ever after the 2027 change.

To bring this back to topic. 

If I understand it correctly, the proposal is to find a way that the customer could have a fast solution, almost as fast as a replacement boiler but with LTH ASHP but also have the option of doing the whole job in parts? 

In this case and not to add an over reaching complex set of stages, I would think the following would work:

1) remove the boiler

2) 2hrs full het loss design and agree where would be changed and what would be changed at what stage, this would work from a budget, for example. customer can afford £3,000 for the boiler so we need to install as much of the ASHp as we can for £3000

3) split the job into categories and call them stages,

Stage 1

rooms essential to heat correctly now 4 rads changed, new ASHP, whole jobs commissioned - cost £3000 (Grant already deducted)

Stage 2   

Rooms updated later 4 rads changed and cylinder replaced £2,900 + Vat

Total job cost £3000 + £3480 = £6480

Job done all at once 1st go = £5,900 No Vat 

Difference £580 

Now if you were to get it all done at once on a loan I would imagine you would pay something like the £580 in interest anyway? Something else to consider would also be that after stage 1 you would need to run the ASHP more like 45-55 Deg C, after stage 2 you could run more like 35-45 so there would be something like £100 per year increase in running cost, subject to how long you took to change the last components you should add the additional costs in. 

Systems are already sold and installed like this though, its called Zero approach. 

I also think if the spark gap closes a bit more than the 3.6 it is now going to be from July we only need to design to 300% to beat gas price and not cost the customer more to run the system. TBH I think I could probably tweak 300% out of these machines by just bolting it straight on the existing system with up to 30% under sized rads, I think these will do 300% running at 55-60. So MCS Lite should be more about raising the minimum acceptable standards for a relief period of time under contract, namely minimum 2.8 SCOP to 2.5 (spark gap reflective) Max Running flow rate design from 55-60.

The above would then give scope for a contract to say, you can run your system for up to 2 years on these lower numbers but you make a promise to improve over the 2 years or something like that. Then the company could charge the customer say £100 per month and every 6 months do £600 worth of work so 1st year all rads are changed, 2nd year cylinder or other parts updated to get the system to 350-400 SCOP 

Also remember the rule is better than 280 SCOP and flow rates 55 or below, thats all you are aiming for. 

TBH I would imagine most customers would want to upgrade anyways as they go, no better feeling than saving a bit on the energy bill.

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

If I understand it correctly, the proposal is to find a way that the customer could have a fast solution, almost as fast as a replacement boiler but with LTH ASHP but also have the option of doing the whole job in parts? 

So on that topic, would there be a time and cost saving from using a refrigerant-split type heat-pump compared to a monoblock for some installs? Putting the indoor unit in the place of the existing boiler, with smaller bore refrigerant pipework to the outdoor unit, compared to running 22mm, 28mm or 35mm primary pipework out to a monoblock ?

@temperature_gradient 

No, not really, these system are more expensive and the difference offsets some or all of the pipework, DX refrigeration paperwork can be expensive as it is higher grade copper and there are a lot more sequences in the refrigerant side, example, you need an F-Gas engineer £500, OFN £65, F-Gas certificates, controls and so on. Also the system cannot be R290 as the gas will be in the house, unless they got round that with less than 400gms systems, i am not sure they have yet though. So it will be an R32 system.

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

To bring this back to topic. 

If I understand it correctly, the proposal is to find a way that the customer could have a fast solution, almost as fast as a replacement boiler but with LTH ASHP but also have the option of doing the whole job in parts? 

In this case and not to add an over reaching complex set of stages, I would think the following would work:

1) remove the boiler

2) 2hrs full het loss design and agree where would be changed and what would be changed at what stage, this would work from a budget, for example. customer can afford £3,000 for the boiler so we need to install as much of the ASHp as we can for £3000

3) split the job into categories and call them stages,

Stage 1

rooms essential to heat correctly now 4 rads changed, new ASHP, whole jobs commissioned - cost £3000 (Grant already deducted)

Stage 2   

Rooms updated later 4 rads changed and cylinder replaced £2,900 + Vat

Total job cost £3000 + £3480 = £6480

Job done all at once 1st go = £5,900 No Vat 

Difference £580 

Now if you were to get it all done at once on a loan I would imagine you would pay something like the £580 in interest anyway? Something else to consider would also be that after stage 1 you would need to run the ASHP more like 45-55 Deg C, after stage 2 you could run more like 35-45 so there would be something like £100 per year increase in running cost, subject to how long you took to change the last components you should add the additional costs in. 

Systems are already sold and installed like this though, its called Zero approach. 

I also think if the spark gap closes a bit more than the 3.6 it is now going to be from July we only need to design to 300% to beat gas price and not cost the customer more to run the system. TBH I think I could probably tweak 300% out of these machines by just bolting it straight on the existing system with up to 30% under sized rads, I think these will do 300% running at 55-60. So MCS Lite should be more about raising the minimum acceptable standards for a relief period of time under contract, namely minimum 2.8 SCOP to 2.5 (spark gap reflective) Max Running flow rate design from 55-60.

The above would then give scope for a contract to say, you can run your system for up to 2 years on these lower numbers but you make a promise to improve over the 2 years or something like that. Then the company could charge the customer say £100 per month and every 6 months do £600 worth of work so 1st year all rads are changed, 2nd year cylinder or other parts updated to get the system to 350-400 SCOP 

Also remember the rule is better than 280 SCOP and flow rates 55 or below, thats all you are aiming for. 

TBH I would imagine most customers would want to upgrade anyways as they go, no better feeling than saving a bit on the energy bill.

 

Something very like this yes, although I was restricting the offer to obviously sub 6kW houses with no microbore and 22mm+ primaries 

The 'non negotiable' objective is to provide a solution for a reasonable subset of houses (eg but not limited to 5kW or less no microbore) that can be fitted within say 2 weeks (ideally by someone like a local plumber (with some MCS qualification, not necessarily the full one) who happens to have capacity, not only a maxed out top-tier dedicated heat pump installer - although that is fine also!) and for which installers can easily and quickly quote (so I can get my 3 quotes and get it installed in a reasonable time in mid winter). 

I'm putting myself 100% in the customers shoes here, assuming they don't care much about climate change (but aren't actively opposed to measures that address it) and want to be warm but haven't got shed loads of money, which is what's needed to work out where the customer side of the give and take is! 

The 'job in parts' bit is strictly optional, ideally not required, but pragmatically (with our current piss poor (apologies) ways of getting to room level or even building level heat loss), perhaps inevitable?

I think its fine to invoke a change in MCS rules as part of the solution (otherwise MCS become part of the problem) but less acceptable to contemplate a change in BUS rules.

@jamespa I like it, nothing wrong with exploring how things can work better in stages. In the end the goal is the same, low carbon solution but over a couple of stages.

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

Also the system cannot be R290 as the gas will be in the house, unless they got round that with less than 400gms systems, i am not sure they have yet though. So it will be an R32 system.

Could they not infuse the propane with the special perfume they mix gas with, or would that not be good enough because it stays low? 

@ashp-bobba (and everyone else)

Thank you for all your comments.  I think the overall conclusion is that something sensible for this subset of the 'boiler failed - distress purchase' market is almost certainly doable, either with today's technology or technology that is only just round the corner. 

The question then becomes, how to get it done.  Does it need MCS to create something, education providers to teach something, the Government to do something (hopefully not the latter - it takes too long because of all the hoops Government has to go through) or something else.

It feels to me like

• MCS, with the help of some installers who can think out of the box and some 'critical friend' customers, need to engineer and create a 'template' with the necessary derogations from MIS-3005D, and maybe an 'MCS-lite' accreditation (or whatever it is that allows you to have an MCS badge)
• Education providers need to teach to it
• Some plumbers (perhaps young, forward looking, but not quite ready for the full monty, or just wanting to find an easy way in) need to be encouraged to 'go for it' 
• Some existing medium size (ie > 1 man band but not necessarily Octopus) installers need to be encouraged to use it as an apprentice/training ground