In a significant development for the renewable heating sector, an industry insider has revealed to Renewable Heating Hub that a new heat pump standard is on the horizon. This forthcoming standard, being developed in collaboration with Flexi-Orb, is poised to compete directly with the existing Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS). According to the source, this initiative promises to address many of the shortcomings associated with the current standards, offering a more practical and user-friendly approach for customers, installers and manufacturers alike.
A Game Changer for the Industry
The insider, who has chosen to remain anonymous at this stage, shared insights from a recent meeting. They have been tasked with drafting the new standard, which is set to transform how heat pumps are installed and operated. Unlike the MCS, which has faced criticism for its complexity and lack of practical guidance, this new standard aims to provide clear, actionable instructions that ensure optimal performance.
“This new standard will be a game changer, giving the customer, installer and manufacturers exactly what MCS has failed dismally to do,” the source stated. “It will be practical and actually describe how to install heat pumps for best performance.”
To bolster the new standard’s credibility and effectiveness, the development team has enlisted the support of several major heat pump manufacturers and a university. This collaboration ensures that the standard will be grounded in the latest technological advancements and best practices, adding significant weight to its industry impact.
One of the standout features of the new standard is its flexibility. It will allow installers to deviate from the prescribed methods, provided they can demonstrate that their approach is equal to or better than the guidelines. This flexibility is reminiscent of building regulations, which allow for innovative solutions as long as they meet or exceed the established criteria.
The standard will include comprehensive guidance documents, designed to be almost “paint by numbers.” This approach ensures that installers who follow the guidelines precisely can guarantee a reasonable installation. The result will be systems with running costs comparable to the fuel they replace, delivering exceptional comfort levels to users.
To streamline the compliance process, the new standard will leverage modern technology. Apps and computer programmes will be developed to help installers ensure they meet the required standards without consuming excessive amounts of time. This tech-driven approach is specifically designed to simplify the installer’s job, making compliance straightforward and efficient.
“Apps and computer programmes will ensure compliance without taking up three-quarters of the installer’s time. Specifically designed to make the installer’s life a cinch,” the insider emphasised.
A Long-Awaited Initiative
Interestingly, this initiative is not entirely new. The insider revealed that an attempt was made to bring Ian Rippon from MCS on board to make similar changes several years ago, but he refused. This new effort, therefore, represents a long-awaited step towards innovation in heat pump standards, driven by a determination to overcome past obstacles and create a more effective system.
“It’s very exciting, and it is going to change the whole industry. There is finally a light on the horizon,” the insider concluded.
Renewable Heating Hub will continue to monitor this story closely, providing updates as more information becomes available. This new standard represents a significant step forward, promising to make heat pump installations more efficient, reliable and accessible for everyone involved.
Sorry to negative. Never convinced when people say Apps are the way to easy compliance, never normally the case.
So fully open system and low flow temperature and minimal controls or zones.
Sorry that is just a sad fact, that a single person is needed to change or develop new standard.
My simple view is delete all MCS reference from permitted development, include a noise spec you must meet. Stop the grants to get realistic pricing in the market place. Make it mandatory for all new builds to have an ASHP and any planning applications for existing properties to include an ASHP or all electric heating of an alternative technology.
For a new build an ASHP costs no more than a gas boiler in most cases.
That’ll almost certainly be the case.
As for the apps, if done properly on the back of solid foundations, they could significantly improve efficiency. As with all things in life, it’s about execution.
I also agree about MCS; their purpose in heat pumps seems non-existent.
However, I disagree with you on grants. Labour in the UK is expensive, and installers value their time and price it accordingly. I’ve posted this many times, but our labour costs for three days to install our heat pump were around £5,000 for three guys on site, out of a total system cost of £16,000. That’s very expensive, and perhaps grants have inflated those costs. Even if they halved their labour charges, it would still be a hefty bill. The high installation costs, even with grants, make it difficult for many homeowners to adopt this sustainable technology.
This is the bit I don’t understand, I opened a City Plumbing Account, just as a normal person.
210L slimline heat pump cylinder £805.
Most properties only need around 6-8kW heat pump so they are retail between £2 and 3k. Other than a bit of plumbing which is a plumbers bread and butter not a lot else the odd radiator seems to get upgraded. Unless the house needs a full replumb, but that would most likely be the case for a new boiler.
A lot of the poorly insulated housing stock would actually get the biggest CO2 reduction by installing a heat pump in hybrid mode anyway, then a 4kW ASHP would be fine, but no grants for that.
@Johnmo @Mars
My self install. 5kW Samsung, Mixergy cylinder and limited radiator upgrades probably cost me about £6000 (inc plumber for pressurised cylinder install). I spent maybe a week or so single handed doing it. To me the labour costs seem extortionate.
Pretty obvious who the source is ♨️🤓
@Wizard you’re joking aren’t you? There’s absolutely no way it’s them – if Flexi-Orb get this right, ♨️🤓 become redundant!
@Wizard who do you think it is?
Ah, I see the clue was in the emojis. Very clever – it was like playing totes emoji. Took me a while to work out – getting old!
In response: 🤐😉
There is high correlation with the amount of government subsidy and the labour charge made by installers. 🤔
OTOH there’s little correlation between the cost of labour and the efficiency achieved by correct design & installation.
Regardless of their political flavour, government seems to believe that you can set a target and achieve it solely by making policy decisions and offering financial incentives.
But science/engineering doesn’t work like that.
I agree with @Johnmo that the component parts of the installation aren’t particularly expensive.
The entire shopping list isn’t likely to be more than the present £7500 subsidy.
I suspect my views are different to many on the forum.
I would prefer if the boiler upgrade scheme was 100% means tested. I object to giving my money to people who could afford the change anyway now.
Zero upfront subsidy now for those who can afford it. We have had a non means tested subsidy for heat pumps for far too long now. It is not a financially sustainable way of increasing take up anymore and it distorts the market.
Use other levers for increasing takeup.
I am glad we no longer have up front EV subsidies for retail sales, although the company car rules distort the market.
@Jeff I’ll admit that I was grateful for the £5000 BUS grant – I have forked out a great deal more than that of course and was fortunate in having savings to use. I am happy to forego the winter fuel allowance in favour of those less fortunate whose need is greater than mine.
I am as yet, undecided about the multibillion black hole story and I dare say there will have to be other cuts before the shakedown is complete but I don’t wish to start ‘polyticking’ here.
My winter fuel bill with Octopus is likely to be as low as anyone’s I feel, I have invested in many measures and hope that some of these will be employed for those who can least afford it and help to level the playing field a little through government grants. Regards, Toodles.
@Jeff Im a great believer in nudges. If the price of electricity was lowered to more closely reflect its production costs, that would be all the incentive needed to get a lot of people to switch.
Means testing is expensive to do, unless some existing system is used to piggy back it, like the winter fuel allowance using pension credit.
@bontwoody I’ve heard various mutterings about ‘the price of electricity should be lowered to be on a par with gas’, what I am unaware of is any concrete moves to bring this desirable state into existence. I have heard that Gregg Jackson amongst others has suggested out loud that this situation should be brought about too. Does anyone know of any attempts or progress being made to bring this about – I mean, anyone would think we have been in election turmoil or summat! Regards, Toodles.
@Toodles – the majority of objections to the existing charges are based on the way in which the ‘social obligation’ is only levied on electricity, not gas.
The Social Obligations form a sizeable component of the Daily Standing Charge.
Within those Obligations are monies which the Energy Suppliers must direct towards:
These artificially increase the price of electricity.
Moving them to be levied on gas is a better fit for the ideal of meeting Net Zero CO2 emissions.
But it’s complicated by
If you’re really eager to get bogged down in a contentious issue, then this is a good one to tackle…
… preferably on a separate topic!
@Transparent Thank you Transparent, for now, I think I will leave the likes of Gregg Jackson to start tackling this topic! Regards, Toodles.
There’s standards and then there’s standards, in order of precedence:
Legislative, European/international/British, trade/industry codes of practice, OEM guidelines
It depends at what level new standards come in, and what clout they have (i.e.: legal) as to their efficacy. The MCS codes and standards are very much a means to an end for MCS, in other words, “you follow our standards and installation method or we won’t provide you with MCS certification or the tick-in-the-box needed for the BUS grant". MCS standards have some good content, and some bad, but whether the MCS system as a whole works, and is fit for purpose, is another matter. MCS020 for acoustics is overly simplistic and often leads to incorrect acoustic assessments of ASHPs. It has no standing so far as LA Planning and Noise Enforcement is concerned. A system compliant to MCS020 may still be deemed a statutory noise nuisance and be slapped with an abatement notice. What then is the point of MCS020 other than pure tick-box?
A new standard and method would be welcome, and is needed, not least to quantify and highlight the performance gap that exists between optimised SCOPs in MCS estimations based on OEM ‘test bed’ data, and actual SCOPs due to real world hydronic system constraints. The gap is largely unavoidable in retrofit applications, but nothing exists to quantify it and determine what is a realistic expectation of ‘theoretical’ vs ‘actual’ performance. Without such a standard and method, accurate estimates of energy consumption and running costs for heat pumps cannot be predicted. The MCS performance estimate will be optimistic, and in most cases, not achieved. There are a few companies and installers competent to give their own accurate performance estimates, and even performance guarantees, such as Heat Geek accredited installers. Many will simply rely on [hide behind] the MCS performance estimate, which often misleads the homeowner.
In the Solar PV sector, new standard PAS 63100:2024, issued by the BSI in March 2024 came out. It took some of the industry rather by surprise. It has some pretty far reaching requirements concerning BESS location and safety requirements. Even though it is published by the BSI, it is not legislative, and therefore not mandatory. Followed to the letter, the recommendations in PAS 63100 incur substantial additional cost for installers and may preclude the installation of BESS in some homes. As a result, some of the industry has kicked back, unsurprisingly. It will be interesting to see what codes & standards and even alternative certification methods appear for ASHP installations in particular and how the industry receives them.