Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Completely agree.  To my mind this is not worth the effort of engaging with such a solution, either

1. we will abandon net zero altogether, which seems not improbable.  This will have absolutely disastrous consequences IMHO, not just in terms of the climate but in terms of our increased dependence on despot, and increasingly desperate, states for our energy supplies whilst China and progressive countries enjoy abundant essentially free energy
2. the problem will be solved another more sane way, or
3. it wont be solved, there will be blackouts, the rich will protect themselves with batteries and the poor will shiver

Based on what @transparent is telling us my bet is on (1) or (3)

(3) also implies/includes (1), and (3) is already happening (using household income of BUS heat pump grants as a proxy):

Source:

Not perfect, bands too wide (how many in the middle band are near the top of the band?) but the best I could find. Seems like no one really wants to look into what is really a rather important question.

@cathoderay 

Whilst I suspect you are correct I suppose the possible fault with this interesting analysis is that less well off people will be eligible for ECO4 which, so far as I am aware, excludes BUS.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

the basic question remains, why has a solution based on home storage been discarded?

If a group representing the energy sector met with BEIS back in 2021/22 as the catalyst for the SSES Programme, then Storage wouldn't be on the agenda.

Firstly, companies holding operator licences from Ofgem are prohibited from owning or controlling generation or storage assets.

Secondly, foremost in HMG's mind at the time was the need to ramp up the number of heat-pump installations.
It was unlikely that anyone pointed out to BEIS where heat-pumps sat on the spread of home appliances which contributed most to high demand:

Two other things occur to me:

1: Tepeo's ZEB could readily be offered in a version which would make it eligible to take part in CLF.
However, it only consumes 25w when it's simply dispatching existing heat into the dwelling.
Consumers would already be re-charging it from the grid during low-cost periods via a ToU Tariff.

The demand-reduction would be extremely small, whilst participants would still receive compensation paid into their energy account.

How long do you think it would take for a "cheat kit" design to be offered online, whereby people could hot-wire the ZEB and supply it with the 25W from
a small battery and an inverter whilst the Load Controller still believed it to have been "switched off"?

2: Since SSES will increase bills for the consumers who do not take part in the CLF programme,
it's a very attractive target for a General Election candidate to tackle.
An incoming government could axe CLF at a stroke, and claim that they've decreased consumer energy bills!

Given that risk, how do you think this programme will be viewed by existing heat-pump manufacturers?

How likely is it that they'd be prepared to design an ASHP which can be certified as an Energy Smart Appliance (ESA) for installation in UK?

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Whilst I suspect you are correct I suppose the possible fault with this interesting analysis is that less well off people will be eligible for ECO4 which, so far as I am aware, excludes BUS.

I think you are probably right, it's either BUS or ECO4. Finding the ECO4 heat pump numbers is not straight forward, it may be around 20,000 in total, compared to around 50,000 BUS heat pump grants (again, in total). It really is remarkable how well the government manage to hide basics numbers, especially when they might be potentially embarrassing...  

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Since SSES will increase bills for the consumers who do not take part in the CLF programme,
it's a very attractive target for a General Election candidate to tackle.
An incoming government could axe CLF at a stroke, and claim that they've decreased consumer energy bills!

Indeed, all the more so as it is a clear example of robbing poor Peter to pay rich Paul. It is totally unacceptable in any shape or form.