Okay so we’ll need a new boiler in a couple of years and to be honest the idea of pumping gas through a pipe into my house seems kinda archaic. Like oil lamp kind of technology.
I really want a eco friendly alternative and modern, cost efficient technology instead.
However heat pumps just don’t seem to make any sense, and the more marketing materials I read critically, the less convinced I am of their practicality, nor the integrity of the vendors - if they work similarly to air conditioning units or refrigerators why do they cost 20x as much as those devices?
Anecdotally, an electrician I know has been involved with decommissioning more than one heat pump in new builds so that the owners could replace them with gas combi boilers because the heat pumps were so slow - taking a day or so to heat the house up after eg children leaving windows open, or forgetting to close doors when bringing in shopping etc. Never mind running out of hot water.
There are some very insightful comments in this thread from people who are clearly more clued up than me, so I wondering if anyone could change my perception - which I will be the first to concede is likely ignorant.
So…. Thinking about the UK implementation where one is supposed to swap out a gas boiler and replace it with a heat pump…
My understanding - as an admittedly ignorant layman - is that:
They are cheaper to run in an ideal environment - a super insulated building, that is often a very high bar even for a relatively modern (less than 30 year old building say) with all the insulation one can achieve. For the sake of argument let’s say this is doable for the individual and they have achieved a C level EPC rating, the most you can get before your house begins to generate its own energy eg with solar panels.
They cost 4x the price of a gas boiler (approx 3k vs 12k). A few hundred quid a year off the gas bill doesn’t justify that difference.
They take incredibly long (by comparison) to heat a home from perceivably “cold” to “warm”. Eg 24 hours to go from 14 degrees C to 21 degrees C, vs an hour with a gas boiler.
Hot water on demand is impossible, so you’re back to the olden days of having to plan life around a hot water tank, and praying no one takes a slightly longer shower than usual, or guests don’t want a bath
So then, what is the upside for a rational (ie selfishly motivated) consumer? A pay off after 26 years assuming a failure rate of 0? How long are they expected/guaranteed to work for? If the anticipated lifespan is less than that then it doesn’t make sense from a financial point of view no? And if they are expected to last longer, how much longer? Is that a good investment vs savings? And during/beyond that time are people expected to not value the loss of a superior experience in terms of heating time when temps drop unintentionally?
Reading my post back I appreciate it sounds very critical and full of FUD but I’m genuinely not trolling - just looking for sense where I don’t see it, but really want to!
There’s an awful lot of information on the internet about heat pumps that’s coming out of the States, and is either completely incorrect, irrelevant for the European model, or blatantly anti-progressive propaganda.
Remember their houses are made of cardboard, their plumbing would make an ancient Roman laugh, and they have girly electricity.
Ignore everything you hear from that side of the pond, and you’ll find the argument far more one-sided
The problem is in the UK our houses are often made out of rock with even less insulative properties than the plywood and cardboad the americans use. Usually all you get is double glazing, seals around the doors and maybe some attic insulation.
And so long as the heat pump and radiators are appropriately sized to dump heat into the house, that shouldn’t matter.
The main issue is people with badly designed heating systems running at 70 degrees flow temperature.
When you swap over to a heat pump, the flow temperature is only supposed to be 40.
So you either need to get more water in the loop (bigger radiators) or less heat leaving the building (better insulation). And an understanding that the heat pump is supposed to heat gradually.
As for the installation cowboys…yea, it’s an absolute farce. £2k unit somehow costing £20k to install.
However heat pumps just don’t seem to make any sense, and the more marketing materials I read critically, the less convinced I am of their practicality, nor the integrity of the vendors - if they work similarly to air conditioning units or refrigerators why do they cost 20x as much as those devices?
A refrigerator cools a fairly small volume with excellent insulation, which allows it to use a fairly small compressor running at a single speed. This is cheap.
The big differences between typical air conditioning units and heat pumps are:
they’re set up to move heat both ways (eg: both heating and cooling) which requires a tiny bit of additional hardware
They often have a more substantial compressor to handle the larger temperature difference associated with colder temperatures
They’re a lot more likely to be a system intended to support the whole home instead of a single room
People care about efficiency, which has variable-speed systems getting installed
There’s a lot of demand for them right now, and limited supply
Okay so we’ll need a new boiler in a couple of years and to be honest the idea of pumping gas through a pipe into my house seems kinda archaic. Like oil lamp kind of technology.
I really want a eco friendly alternative and modern, cost efficient technology instead.
However heat pumps just don’t seem to make any sense, and the more marketing materials I read critically, the less convinced I am of their practicality, nor the integrity of the vendors - if they work similarly to air conditioning units or refrigerators why do they cost 20x as much as those devices?
Anecdotally, an electrician I know has been involved with decommissioning more than one heat pump in new builds so that the owners could replace them with gas combi boilers because the heat pumps were so slow - taking a day or so to heat the house up after eg children leaving windows open, or forgetting to close doors when bringing in shopping etc. Never mind running out of hot water.
There are some very insightful comments in this thread from people who are clearly more clued up than me, so I wondering if anyone could change my perception - which I will be the first to concede is likely ignorant.
So…. Thinking about the UK implementation where one is supposed to swap out a gas boiler and replace it with a heat pump…
My understanding - as an admittedly ignorant layman - is that:
They are cheaper to run in an ideal environment - a super insulated building, that is often a very high bar even for a relatively modern (less than 30 year old building say) with all the insulation one can achieve. For the sake of argument let’s say this is doable for the individual and they have achieved a C level EPC rating, the most you can get before your house begins to generate its own energy eg with solar panels.
They cost 4x the price of a gas boiler (approx 3k vs 12k). A few hundred quid a year off the gas bill doesn’t justify that difference.
They take incredibly long (by comparison) to heat a home from perceivably “cold” to “warm”. Eg 24 hours to go from 14 degrees C to 21 degrees C, vs an hour with a gas boiler.
Hot water on demand is impossible, so you’re back to the olden days of having to plan life around a hot water tank, and praying no one takes a slightly longer shower than usual, or guests don’t want a bath
So then, what is the upside for a rational (ie selfishly motivated) consumer? A pay off after 26 years assuming a failure rate of 0? How long are they expected/guaranteed to work for? If the anticipated lifespan is less than that then it doesn’t make sense from a financial point of view no? And if they are expected to last longer, how much longer? Is that a good investment vs savings? And during/beyond that time are people expected to not value the loss of a superior experience in terms of heating time when temps drop unintentionally?
Reading my post back I appreciate it sounds very critical and full of FUD but I’m genuinely not trolling - just looking for sense where I don’t see it, but really want to!
There’s an awful lot of information on the internet about heat pumps that’s coming out of the States, and is either completely incorrect, irrelevant for the European model, or blatantly anti-progressive propaganda.
Remember their houses are made of cardboard, their plumbing would make an ancient Roman laugh, and they have girly electricity.
Ignore everything you hear from that side of the pond, and you’ll find the argument far more one-sided
The problem is in the UK our houses are often made out of rock with even less insulative properties than the plywood and cardboad the americans use. Usually all you get is double glazing, seals around the doors and maybe some attic insulation.
And so long as the heat pump and radiators are appropriately sized to dump heat into the house, that shouldn’t matter.
The main issue is people with badly designed heating systems running at 70 degrees flow temperature.
When you swap over to a heat pump, the flow temperature is only supposed to be 40.
So you either need to get more water in the loop (bigger radiators) or less heat leaving the building (better insulation). And an understanding that the heat pump is supposed to heat gradually.
As for the installation cowboys…yea, it’s an absolute farce. £2k unit somehow costing £20k to install.
A refrigerator cools a fairly small volume with excellent insulation, which allows it to use a fairly small compressor running at a single speed. This is cheap.
The big differences between typical air conditioning units and heat pumps are: