Excellent thread and I’ve been intending to contribute for a while but keep getting distracted.

The consumer side of this equation is the piece I think is being underweighted. This thread has focused on the technical and regulatory levers. But @majordennisbloodnok’s point about the homeowner trust problem is the one that always resonates with me. The staged install model only works if the homeowner understands and accepts what they’re committing to upfront. The moment a distressed homeowner hears “we’ll fix the rest later”, however well-intentioned, a significant proportion will hear “it won’t be quite right to start with.”

The piece @andrewj floated about grant pull-down in advance actually solves this more elegantly than the distress purchase pathway does. It converts an emergency decision made under duress into a prepared decision made rationally. The problem though, is it requires homeowners to think about their boiler failing before it fails, which is not how most people work, and I don’t see how we can overcome this on a mass, national scale.

So the question becomes, can you create a structural incentive to pull that conversation forward? A modest, accessible “home readiness check” grant that doesn’t require a full MCS process and is tied to the property rather than the homeowner (funded as a pre-draw against BUS) could potentially unlock that. It’s not a new idea but nobody has packaged it in a way that reaches the mass market.

The other thing this thread has identified, almost by accident, is the cylinder question. The fact that @ashp-bobba and others are demonstrating that existing cylinders can work with R290 units at elevated flow temperatures is more significant for the distress purchase pathway than it might first appear. If you remove the cylinder replacement requirement from the critical path in a combi-to-ASHP conversion (keeping DHW on immersion temporarily while the heat pump handles space heating) the install time and cost drops.

The MCS-lite accreditation idea is also probably the right call. The existing qualification is calibrated for complexity it doesn’t need for a sub-6kW, 22mm primary, no microbore house.

The question for @jamespa is whether MCS will be a willing partner in designing this or whether it needs to be lobbied into it.

Posted by: @andrewj

↑

I still think that a distressed purchase install is unlikely but an approach to preparing for the eventuality by pulling down on the grant early could help: it might actually improve the comfort of the existing boiler system and cost the homeowner practically nothing at this stage.

Honestly I cant see how that approach works.  People who think this far in advance will be in the minority, and do we really want the Government to be giving people money to do preparatory work which may never actually translate into carbon savings.  I go back to my starting comment namely that the local plumber will fit a replacement boiler next week (or at worst the week after) and its not the local plumber that needs to change!

Given the discussion here I am not seeing any particularly difficult barrier to the heat pump industry doing the same at least for the <6kW house.  It needs some engineering for sure, and a bit of work on contracts, but nothing beyond the with of a few decent people to work out, and maybe some cost reduction of already-existing technology.

Another poster said that 'they cant imagine it happening'.  To this I would observe that, in the 1980s, I was shown an early GPS receiver.  It required a 6' high 19" rack and the aerial, to be good enough, was on the roof of the building.  Now we all carry one, complete with built in aerial (one of several), in our pockets.  If we can do that then we can certainly make a heat pump system work without lots of per-property bespoke design and engineering, which it seems to me is the major challenge of fitting a heat pump vs fitting a boiler, given that we already have a workforce of people who can bend and join pipes and screw things to the wall.

Posted by: @editor

↑

The consumer side of this equation is the piece I think is being underweighted.

In fairness I did start the thread with the comment that the local plumber will fit a replacement boiler next week (or at worst the week after) and its not the local plumber that needs to change!  This was 100% focused on the consumer!

Posted by: @editor

↑

The question for @jamespa is whether MCS will be a willing partner in designing this or whether it needs to be lobbied into it.

We may find out in the next few months if I can get any traction through the Retrofit Steering team

@jamespa, the barrier to the distress purchase isn’t the technology. It’s the system they’re required to operate within.

What actually stops a capable plumber fitting a heat pump tomorrow when a boiler dies? A mandatory heat loss survey. DNO notification that adds weeks/months of lead time. A default assumption that the cylinder needs replacing. And a commercial model that requires a surveyor, a designer, a qualified installer and an electrician where a boiler swap needs one person and one van.

The boiler industry solved this forty years ago. The entire model is built around speed, simplicity and a single point of accountability. Heat pump installation has been built around a completely different model… one designed for complexity and bespoke design, and then applied universally, including to cases that don’t require it. But that’s what’s needed to get BUS money.

And there’s also the gaping issue of a semi-competent (I’m being kind) installer workforce. I recorded a podcast with a Simon Wardle last week (out Wednesday) and he told me how many heat pump installers there in the UK. Fancy a guess? 

@jamespa 

I also think that a tiny number of households prepare for a heatpump install well before the boiler fails, the incentives do not seem to be there. 

The importance of planning, design decisions and installation location aspects cannot be overlooked, it is much more than the hardware. The GPS example above is for a type of product without impact to anyone else except a single individual user, no nuisance, etc... 

A cost effective low disruption installation of a heatpump, next to where the boiler is, has its unique challenges. The unit needs to go outside, which triggers permitted development rights, etc. 

What if we offered the Heatloss and DNO certs for free or outright cost, imagine the government said there is a grant to get your home surveyed say £150, you could do 4 a day right next to each other or 3 a day with a small amount of travel with the new softwares, its easy to get an automated estimate now, so the customer would have committed as far as survey, DNO permission and estimate. What I am proposing is not an online or corner cut survey, the same survey you get now but booked ahead so 3 or 4 can be bolted together.

Which ever company wins the work they can take that heatloss, asses it and also do their own but free of charge as they are checking it, when we check someone else's heatloss we do not charge as we have won the work and the customer already paid.

The DNO would need a new application for Intend to install rather than its happening, once done you would re-submit to installed. A lot of talk at the moment is potential customers are wondering what a heat pump journey would look like for them, that all starts with estimate, heatloss and permissions

Just wanted to add that, as I wrote before, it would be great if the gov would accept one of the suggestions made above: to allow a BUS type of incentive to be used in advance of the removal of a fossil fuel boiler, with the home owner choosing how to use it.

I cannot see them agreeing to it, even if such a proposal could be operationalised in a way that avoids abuse by grant harvesters. Responsible civil servants would not agree to a scheme that is unlikely to have enough funds.
It seems the underlying demand for people to do insulation and other types of home improvements like rad upgrades, etc has never been met by past schemes.
I had first hand experience with a very similar situation to what was proposed yesterday: the green homes grant and its use for insulation.
But in that case, the timeframe to use the grant was even reduced, despite a clear lack of installers to meet the growing demand (but there were plenty of pop-up sales offices looking to harvest the grant). I could be wrong but it seemed the gov needed to reduce the total subsidy, as (insufficient) funds had been allocated. They even managed to underspend it. 

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

What if we offered the Heatloss and DNO certs for free or outright cost, imagine the government said there is a grant to get your home surveyed say £150, you could do 4 a day right next to each other or 3 a day with a small amount of travel with the new softwares, its easy to get an automated estimate now, so the customer would have committed as far as survey, DNO permission and estimate. What I am proposing is not an online or corner cut survey, the same survey you get now but booked ahead so 3 or 4 can be bolted together.

Which ever company wins the work they can take that heatloss, asses it and also do their own but free of charge as they are checking it, when we check someone else's heatloss we do not charge as we have won the work and the customer already paid.

The DNO would need a new application for Intend to install rather than its happening, once done you would re-submit to installed. A lot of talk at the moment is potential customers are wondering what a heat pump journey would look like for them, that all starts with estimate, heatloss and permissions

 

Great idea but it still requires preparedness by the homeowner and I dont imagine that more than a tiny fraction of homeowners think about a boiler replacement until their existing one fails.   So for the 'heat pump ready' niche I think this works, but for the bulk of householders Im pretty certain that the only solution is a solution deliverable in a fortnight from the point of first contact. 

It seems to me that, for the sub 6kW no microbore house based on a MCS lite process, installers would know the major elements of the price just as they know how much it costs to fit as boiler.  So I (as a customer) could phone you (as a supplier) up (and two others) and you could quote over the phone, subject to some very simple conditions/questions and maybe with some fixed price may or may not be needed add ons (so its strictly bounded).  Then, only if Im, interested would you need to visit to do an assessment but by then the customer is well down the way to being committed, particularly if you (as the supplier) could also offer a boiler install because you are in fact the local plumber.  It needs to be this simple or more so, ie the same process as a boiler .

My understanding as regards the DNO is that its not permission its notification (just like G98).  Am I incorrect?  A 6kW heat pump is only 16A so its no different to plugging in an electric fire!

I took another look at the Adia site last night, their solution does seem to involve a lot of components, I wonder how much of this could in time be designed out.  Does £1500 cover the FRVs and 'pucks' also (how many?) or is that just for the core parts.

They are interestingly promoting the concept of escop - basically scop modified by the average electricity price paid, and claiming values of about 6 even with an actual scop of 3.3 (so running at high temp is not necessarily a problem).  Its a valid concept IMHO albeit as it stands overestimates the effect of their technolgoy because it doesnt appear to account for the peak use of electricity other than for the heat pump.  However the idea clearly has legs if well executed and could further reduce the need to get the absolute best out of the hardware. 

@jamespa Yes, sort of, DNO is notification but they can refuse in rare cases so it is also like getting permission. We know which one will get refused though so its not a surprise if it happens, shared services, looped services, incorrectly Earthed service and 60amp or below main fuses get refused until an upgrade is done by the network operator and they can end up charging you for this.

Great topic. I've just been through the whole thing (skimming some bits). As a punter who got a replacement combi boiler as a distress purchase here's what stands out for me.

The signs were there for a few weeks that my boiler was on its way out but I still didn't do anything about it. Of course it stopped working altogether, in Jan 23, when temperatures were sub zero all day. The point is I suspect most people are like me and don't prepare. 

Being a combi boiler system I didn't already have a hot water cylinder. I don't know how many UK homes don't have a hot water cylinder but I'd imagine it's around 50%. So even the kind of stop gap ASHP suggested would for me come at a much higher up front cost. I think that's a significant obstacle.

More importantly there's a severe limit to how long I could live without hot water on tap. And I think that defines the time scale to aim for. I know, that's tough.

Also where to put at tank isn't straight forward in my house. The solution is something installers disagree about. The question of how to know what installer to trust is significant.

The idea of heat loss based actual peak energy demand from smart meter data appeals to me. However it probably depends too much on people's behaviour. My case is at one extreme, 2.4kW peak. Sounds low but as well as great insulation I practise extreme thrift, heating only where and when needed. Last winter out of curiosity I heated my whole house to 18C constantly using the lowest flow temperature I could to see what an A2W heat pump system would be like. Very pleasant to live in. However it used roughly 50% more power on average. That's down to heating unused rooms and keeping the heat on over night. My attitude is why heat the whole house for the coldest 8 hours when I'm under a blanket? Anyway, adjusting for 21C indoors that's a heat loss of 4.1kW. I've had three heat loss surveys ranging from 4.8-5.4kW.

My conclusion, a single heat loss any installer can use up front would be a great replacement for the EPC. I suspect it may also be the best way into getting around the problem of people like me not being ready.

Finally the graph in the very first post showing that SCOP doesn't depend on flow temperature is a bit of a stunner. Another big topic for its own thread but I have to wonder what it is that really makes for a good SCOP.

Posted by: @springswood

↑

I have to wonder what it is that really makes for a good SCOP.

Thanks for your comments.  I think the answer to the question above is

• not grossly oversized
• run on weather compensation at the lowest possible flow temperature.  No use of external thermostat 
• no buffer/low loss header/plate heat exchanger between heat pump and emitters 

Heat pumps are in many ways simple things, unfortunately our industry make them complex and people run them like boilers (which is actually the wrong way to run boilers also, but the effect is less).

You are right about DHW of course, which is why I started off the thread with the comment 'your local plumber will fit a replacement boiler next week and its not the local plumber that needs to change'.  You are also right about trust.

Posted by: @ashp-bobba

↑

What if we offered the Heatloss and DNO certs for free or outright cost, imagine the government said there is a grant to get your home surveyed say £150, you could do 4 a day right next to each other or 3 a day with a small amount of travel with the new softwares, its easy to get an automated estimate now, so the customer would have committed as far as survey, DNO permission and estimate. What I am proposing is not an online or corner cut survey, the same survey you get now but booked ahead so 3 or 4 can be bolted together.

Which ever company wins the work they can take that heatloss, asses it and also do their own but free of charge as they are checking it, when we check someone else's heatloss we do not charge as we have won the work and the customer already paid.

The DNO would need a new application for Intend to install rather than its happening, once done you would re-submit to installed. A lot of talk at the moment is potential customers are wondering what a heat pump journey would look like for them, that all starts with estimate, heatloss and permissions

I was limiting myself to ideas that @jamespa's working group might be able to put in place locally and then promote wider. However, since you're raising the possibility of suggestions to change more fundamental parts, I'd perhaps even take your suggestion a step further.

We currently have a very big overlap between the EPC necessary to sell a property and the heat loss survey carried out for the heat pump install. It seems to me:

• The EPC is not fit for purpose, often being carried out by clueless people who've just come off an EPC course and are blindly box-ticking. A legal necessity to sell a house but largely meaningless in any practical sense.
• The heat loss survey is carried out by each prospective installer wishing to give a proper quote on the basis they don't want to trust someone else's work (and rightly so at the moment, in my opinion).
• A lot of what the heat loss survey identifies matches what the EPC is there for. Almost everything the EPC is supposed to identify (not conclusions drawn, mind) is a part of the heat loss survey process.

I see no reason why the two couldn't be combined into one survey valid for as long as there are no changes to the property or its heating mechanism or its electrical supply/storage, and that survey then used both for creating an EPC "statement" and by multiple heat pump installers for generating their quotes. Obviously, the quality of the survey would have to be forcibly improved and safeguards introduced to ensure that quality was maintained but that's more a question of "how" rather than "whether".

If that single survey concept were introduced, many more properties would quickly become possible to quote on immediately, particularly any property put up for sale after the combining of surveys were put in place. It might even make it possible for potential buyers for a property to get quotes in advance for a heating system change and factor that into their home-buying decision.