Posted by: @editor

↑

That brings me back to the subject of this thread. I want clearer quotations, less duplicated work and a more competent installer base capable of delivering good systems efficiently, rather than a choice between expensive bespoke projects and cheaper installations with important work omitted. Equally so, I've seen some quotes recently with insane amounts charged for labour for standard-ish installs. 

Productize and simplify.  The Ofgem standard house consumes 11.5MWh/year so is <6kW.  This presumably represents the majority.   Fit a 6kW (or even 7kW) pump plus UVC if no existing cylinder, turn the flow temp up to whatever is necessary to make it work, monitor.  Then offer rad upgrades as an added value once you know whats actually needed and whether there is actually a business case (in many cases there wont be). 

Its basically what Heat Geek are doing with zero disrupt, but charging a premium, because they can, there arent enough in the market and they are shouldering some risk (as we have discussed elesehwere).   Or automate the survey.  I might even argue for putting mechanical TRVs on half the rads, there is evidence that these operate very well as automated flow rate controllers (ie in  an analogue not digital fashion).  Teach ordinary plumbers how to do this (its not that much more difficult than fitting a boiler) but don't let them near more complex jobs.  Scrap MCS and instead have some actual consumer protection.  Don't ever discuss buffers etc. again.  

This is doable but needs some out of the box thinking, imagination and production engineering (the above is an outline not a complete recipe).  However there are vested interests who will argue against, just like they have argued against plug in solar and plug in batteries.  They probably wouldn't actually lose out because there is enough complex stuff out there to keep them busy, but of course they might so oppose.  The current febrile political environment makes it even more difficult.  

Another question worth asking is should the default install be Vaillant (>4K) or Samsung Gen 6 plus a decent controller (<2.5K) or the like?  Vaillant is very nice but, from all accounts, Samsung Gen 6 does the job.

That said there is at least one government sponsored programme on rapid deployment, there may be others, so there may well be people working on this.  If not there should be.  Personally I think they should be required to include at least one industry outsider capable of intelligently asking awkward questions otherwise there is a risk that groupthink sets in.

Heresy?  Maybe, or maybe we should consider whether we actually now know enough, thanks to the early adopters, that we can change the model radically, at least for a sizeable proportion of the market, and think out of the box.  Heat Geek obviously think so.

Plus all the A2A stuff for smaller properties that are tolerably open plan.

Oh and what about some innovative financing/risk management insurance.  We are supposedly world leaders in financial services*, surely we could come up with some products that take the 'sting' out of replacing a failed gas boiler if instead you go for a heat pump.  Government covers some of the 'profit' element.

* although IMHO parts of that industry are as bad as parts of the contruction industry

@editor 

My bad making a quick but incorrect equivalence between gross annual house hold income and being a higher rate tax payer. Rather £52000 places a household at around the 70-75% percentile in terms of household income, i.e. more income than 70 to 75% of UK households. Hence the point that over 50% of BUS grant recipients are by some measure reasonably well off, and over 50% have larger houses. (Note, that is not saying anything about the overlap or otherwise between the income and housing categories).

Thanks for also spotting the superfluous "not", I'd flipped the percentage and negated the text. it should indeed have read "Modelling produced a lower percentage of 26% of the upgrades that would have taken place without the BUS grant."

The point that I was trying, but perhaps failing to make, is that there is somewhat of a gap in the middle. Those with low incomes (about 20% of households) are well served by other schemes, while the 25-30% of households with annual gross income of over £52000 are over-represented as BUS grant recipients, making up more than 50% of recipients, but at most 30% of households. Those in the middle, approximately 50% of all households, on annual gross incomes of £20800 to £52000 make up 37% of BUS grant recipients, hence they are under-represented.

There is an argument that the BUS grant needs to go to whoever is willing to take on a upgrade to allow the nascent market to evolve, and those most willing to be early adopters are likely those with the money to spend on any additions that happen to be required, or any fixes that might be needed later. Still, the targeting of the grant could perhaps be better for households on middle incomes.

You make a good point about the low level of additionality for self-builds at just 48%. In that case around half of the BUS grant recipients would have gone ahead anyway without the grant, making the cost in public money per additional heat pump installed around £15000 for self builds, which is questionable value.

Reference to the actual goal of carbon reduction would be an effective way to scale the grant. If heat loss calculations were accurate (we can all laugh at that one) then that would work well as a proxy for the amount of CO2 emissions that could be saved and hence the level of grant that would be appropriate. A high heat loss property would be assessed and a set of cost effective upgrades designed to save both CO2 emissions and energy. This would then translate into a grant covering a significant proportion of the costs of additional insulation, radiator upgrades, and a heat pump install. The public money for the grant would be spent in direct proportion to the CO2 savings that it would create, which is ideal from an economic / best use of subsidy perspective.

One thing I don't fully understand about the current grant is the rationale for it being a fixed amount. In some other European countries, Germany for example, the equivalent grant pays a percentage of the costs. Arguably, this works as a rough proxy for CO2 emissions saving (bigger systems are required when CO2 emissions are high and get a bigger grant). A proportionate grant results in better due-diligence by householders as it somewhat ameliorates the race to the bottom in the sense that £8000, £9000, and £10000 installs keep that ratio of costs to the householder, rather than the cheapest appearing to be a third or a fifth of the price of the others, and hence opening up a trap of easy selection based on apparent very low cost (£500) without necessarily proper consideration of the differences in quality.

A summary of the rules in Germany is as follows:

In addition, I'd like to see the Govt. take the very large costs of electricity grid upgrades that we face over the next 5-10 years out of energy prices and into general taxation. That would help close the spark gap, which would go along way to making heat pumps a viable technology for the majority. With a smaller spark gap, Govt. funding could be re-deployed as long term loans to cover the upfront capital costs. 

I'm not sure any of that would necessarily help with clearer quotations, less duplicated work and a more competent installer base capable of delivering good systems efficiently, however, markets do seem to work better when people are spending their own money rather than someone else's. Somehow there is less room for cowboys and quality and reputation begin to matter more.

Posted by: @rob-of-york

↑

...

The point that I was trying, but perhaps failing to make, is that there is somewhat of a gap in the middle. Those with low incomes (about 20% of households) are well served by other schemes, while the 25-30% of households with annual gross income of over £52000 are over-represented as BUS grant recipients, making up more than 50% of recipients, but at most 30% of households. Those in the middle, approximately 50% of all households, on annual gross incomes of £20800 to £52000 make up 37% of BUS grant recipients, hence they are under-represented.

...

To avoid any misunderstandings, can I just clarify that you mean "there are other schemes to cover those with low incomes, irrespective of how well the actually deliver" rather than any suggestion those schemes do or don't serve that demographic well?

The ECO4 scheme, for instance, is targeted directly at those with lower incomes but we've had a lot of people posting that the installations funded by that scheme often aren't fit for purpose. As far as I understand it, your point is about the lack of funding directed towards a certain demographic, not about the quality of what's delivered as a result of any government funding.