Octopus Cosy 6 laun...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Octopus Cosy 6 launched

17 Posts
12 Users
4 Reactions
6,502 Views
(@jamespa)
Noble Member Contributor
4994 kWhs
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 790
 

Yes but...Octopus are an energy company so are in a position to manipulate price if it makes other technology choices easier.

And anyway the SCOP of 2.72 quoted is at FT65, at that FT what do you expect?  SCOP at 45 is 3.36, and 3.06 at 55, which is particularly interesting as 55C is the new max design temperature for CH system under building regs and also a FT where many retrofits would require few or no emitter upgrades.  All very reasonable IMHO.

 

This post was modified 1 month ago by JamesPa
This post was modified 1 month ago by Mars

   
Derek M reacted
ReplyQuote
Toodles
(@toodles)
Famed Member Contributor
6389 kWhs
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1003
 

@jamespa Those figures are indeed somewhat better! I wonder if the same design heat pump would be efficient at even lower temperature such as 30 - 35 or might we be in the realms of short cycling to accomplish this I wonder? I think their aim is compatibility with existing rads and no additional work being required though. As you imply, they may well have a new special tariff in mind for any OE heat pump installations. Regards, Toodles.

Toodles, 76 years young and hoping to see 100 and make some ROI on my renewable energy investment!


   
ReplyQuote
(@jamespa)
Noble Member Contributor
4994 kWhs
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 790
 

SCOP at 35 is quoted as 3.98, but from posts here and elsewhere I have the impression that Octopus are targeting conventional retrofits, so 35 may be a rarity. 

I also have the impression from the literature that the Cosy comes with some (presumably remote) monitoring capability, so they are in a position to play quite sophisticated games with tariffs if they choose, particularly as they (presumably) know the house temperature.  The opportunities for data harvesting and clever tariffs (including total cost 'guarantees') are considerable here, and it does seem to be an Octopus 'thing' to explore this territory.

 

This post was modified 1 month ago by Mars

   
ReplyQuote
(@judith)
Estimable Member Member
780 kWhs
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 62
 

@jamespa I’m sure that makes total sense with new builds under modern building regs.

i am concerned about anyone in cold, drafty, poorly insulated rental properties. The landlord changes to a heat pump at minimal capital cost to them but then the poor tenant is let with a much higher heating bill. Outcome =more fuel poverty and campaigns (even more?) against heat pumps. 

6kW PV south-facing roof 9.5kWh Givenergy battery. MVHR. Investigating ASHP


   
ReplyQuote
(@jamespa)
Noble Member Contributor
4994 kWhs
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 790
 

Posted by: @judith

@jamespa I’m sure that makes total sense with new builds under modern building regs.

i am concerned about anyone in cold, drafty, poorly insulated rental properties. The landlord changes to a heat pump at minimal capital cost to them but then the poor tenant is let with a much higher heating bill. Outcome =more fuel poverty and campaigns (even more?) against heat pumps. 

I understand the risk, but unless you compel all heat pumps to be 16kW plus, the possibility of undersizing to save capital cost is always present.  That rule would make no sense technically, so we have to rely on the installer to assess the demand and suitability. 

The evidence suggests that installers tend to oversize not undersize and avoid many properties that are totally suitable, so I am not sure that the risk you are concerned about is material (and even if it were, how it could be mitigated without clobbering the whole market).

 

 


   
ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share:

Join Us!

Latest Posts

x  Powerful Protection for WordPress, from Shield Security
This Site Is Protected By
Shield Security