@iancalderbank Thanks Ian, the same was pointed out to me recently in a phone call I had from Joule. Not quite the experience I was expecting but I will describe that in my blog when I know the outcome 🙂

I also have been thinking of doing some training and supporting an environmental area 😆 Again probably from an altruistic perspective. (And here we are proving Richard Dawkins wrong 😉 Or then again perhaps we arent, maybe the human race is close enough in the gene pool!)

@iancalderbank @bontwoody Thanks for the comments , tips and links which I will certainly follow.  As you say it's no coincidence we end up in similar places.

Its also passed my mind to do some training in this area, but I can't convince myself it would make sufficient impact.  There are some other factors which need fixing including:

Removing/rewriting the planning restriction which means that permitted development rights apply only to mcs installations (which imply mcs designs).

Productizing a solution to remove the requirement to replace perfectly good DHW cylinder/installation.

Developing a replace only if necessary mentality to retrofits (current mentality appears to be replace by default to cover backside)

These are just three issues, there are others. It needs a thorough look at from the consumer PoV, not that of the industry

Currently, to have my gas boiler replaced ,  I need to get someone to replace my gas boiler, that's it.  But to have it replaced it with a heat pump I need either planning consent or to submit myself to a set of rigid rules (ie mcs), I need to replace my DHW cylinder and quite possibly all the associated piping, I need to replace many of my radiators and quite likely lots more of the plumbing.  I also maybe forced to buy a well oversized unit necessitating the unnecessary installation of a buffer tank taking up space for which I have better uses.  How is that saleable?

Of these only the rad replacement is rooted in the physics, the others are mostly (at least in many practical cases) simple system engineering (with existing products) or regulation.  

@jamespa Well I didnt know that about MCS and planning, but then people do 'loft conversions' all the time so I wouldnt worry too much unless you are likely to get neighbours creating an issue. (disclaimer here ...) 🙂

@bontwoody fair comment.  It all a bit sneaky by mcs to be honest.  The pd rules permit a hp provided it meets 'the mcs planning conditions' (or equivalent standards) and several other conditions.

MCS define 'the mcs planning conditions' as a noise constraint and the requirement that the installation is installed by an mcs installer.  An mcs installer is required, by the mcs rules, either to design to mcs standards or to subcontract the design to someone who designs to mcs standards.  Thus mcs has succeeded in incorporating engineering and contractural design standards into planning law, whereas such standards should, if they are needed at all (which they aren't, apparently, in relation to gas boilers), be part of building regulations. Fundamentally its a stitch up by mcs permitted by government.

It's pretty clear that the most probable intent(by government) of the pd rules was to import only the noise constraints, but that isn't what happened.  Worse still mcs, a private monopoly (because there are no competing standards), has been given licence to change/constraints planning law in relation to the technology.  

Of course 'ignore and install' is a valid approach (and indeed one suggested, off the record of course, by my local planning authority),  but the risk averse will allude to possible downstream issues when the house is sold.  With a gas boiler or a very noisy oil boiler none of this is a consideration.

@jamespa Thats actually quite shocking James. With respect to selling on, Im sure there will be indemnity policies available like there are for every other conceivable possibility. But maybe run it past a solicitor first 🙂

I'm glad to see that @jamespa is also au fait with the Building Regulations, planning rules, MCS approval etc.

I am in active dialogue with my Local Planning Authority, their Executive Directors and my MP on such issues.
There is widespread acknowledgement that there need to be changes to the rules.
All of those government levels are open to suggestions based on sound technical argument.

The reason is obvious... the UK can't hit its targets for Zero Carbon by 2050 if we stick to the present way of working.

One of the issues which concerns me is that District/Borough Councillors and MPs are too often besieged by constituents who are airing grievances and needing problems solved.

They're not hearing enough from those of us who can propose solutions.

My MP is definitely not technically-minded.
But at the last General Election he took the trouble to spend 45mins with me asking about Smart Meters - (not campaigning, and not wearing a rosette).

Six months ago, he saw my development test-rig for smart off-grid storage.
That 1-hour visit turned into 2-hours, during which he was asking about other energy issues affecting this DNO region.

It is rare that he isn't handling one of my 'briefings'.
An MP's letter to a Minister, civil servant or Ofgem will elicit a high priority response.

Now we have a Dept of Energy Security and Net Zero, which is separate from BEIS, there will shortly be new Parliamentary Select Committees.
They can provide a better level of scrutiny than the more general BEIS Select Committee was able to;
however, even that committee has been much in headlines during the energy crisis.
The Chair was Darren Jones MP (Bristol West & North) whose relentless questioning of CEOs has made informative YouTube viewing.

Those of us who do understand the technical issues really must be briefing our elected members.

They can't make the relevant policy decisions unless we tell them what's required.

@transparent Sadly I don't think there is much point in briefing my MP who is so useless that she has been deselected by her local party executive.  I did have a good exchange with the chair of the lords committee that recently reported on the BUS.  She seemed genuinely interested and committed.  I think I could legitimately contact her again if we had some consolidated coherent views.

This really needs a cross functional working group comprising manufacturers, installers, plumbers, politicians and, vitally, potential consumers (ie people like us) That's probably too revolutionary an idea for  national politics however.  

I'm happy to help the cause in any way I can.

A number of the announcements from Dept Energy mention engagement with 'community groups' or 'consumers'.
(I'm ignoring the recently published reports, which are derived from consultations instigated by BEIS in 2022).

I see no reason why members of this forum couldn't present themselves as a Community Group.
If we wish to, we could form a sub-section of this Forum, visible only to those with relevant technical knowledge and expertise.
A quick scan of the previous 10 posts easily demonstrates that the RHH Forum has the appropriate membership available.

I'm going to have a look through Dept Energy Security and Net Zero website to see what working parties are being created.

@transparent visible to only those with relevant technical knowledge and experience. How arrogant and insulting to all of the rest of us who don’t have the technical knowledge - but perhaps we have experience in other matters relating to being involved in working in community groups or at higher levels. As a mere prole perhaps I should just learn my place

@transparent By the time the outcome of 'engagement with community groups' has been summarised and diluted by well meaning civil servants many of which, sadly, will not have a science or engineering background (and thus have no way of separating opinions from fact), it will almost certainly be meaningless and certainly the industry lobby groups will find ways to argue against it

Posted by: @sapper117

↑

@transparent visible to only those with relevant technical knowledge and experience. How arrogant and insulting to all of the rest of us who don’t have the technical knowledge - but perhaps we have experience in other matters relating to being involved in working in community groups or at higher levels. As a mere prole perhaps I should just learn my place

I think that is a good point. 

If the forum splits off into two groups with hidden content I think it will be a shame personally. 

One of the great things about the forum is that it is very inclusive and a relativity safe space for anyone to come and learn and post and contribute generally. 

The danger of a decreet experienced group is sometimes group think sinks in I personally think. Sometimes ideas from people with a less technical background can really help as concepts are evolving. It is not just a technical issue we currently have, it is wider than that. Technology enabled not simply technology driven is a term widely used anywhere technology is deployed. 

Obviously up to those who are thinking of doing this. Perhaps at least consider how and when you can engage the community, in this case the forum. 

@jeff

I agree, the forum should be as inclusive as possible.

When answering queries one  should be aware of the technical knowledge of not only the recipient but also other forum members who may read the post. Keeping explanations as simple as possible, with the use of suitable analogies where necessary, will help achieve a wider audience, though for very specific problems this approach may be too time consuming.

For those members who may not fully understand some of the finer points on first reading, I would encourage them to ask for clarification.