Lobbying for heat only air conditioning to receive public support
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:39 am
What do you think of the below all? I've had to do it in a hurry. I've no interest in not portraying the costs and benefits accurately, so very happy to hear input and criticism.
Problem (part 1)
Millions of gas boilers must be replaced in order for Scotland and the UK to achieve net zero.
It’s perhaps the most difficult, but essential, element of decarbonising homes.
Unfortunately, affordable (to install and run), effective, low installation disruption alternatives just do not exist.
The UK and Scottish governments are highly incentivising a switch to “air-to-water” heat pumps as a large part of the solution.
They are currently too expensive to install (circa £15k average AND often major cost of upgrading insulation, vs £3k gas boiler replacement). Households with average incomes of circa £40k cannot afford upgrades of this cost.
This means grants and subsidies have to be unsustainably large to incentivise uptake (£7.5k grant + up to £7.5k loan from Home Energy Scotland).
Unlike the experience with, for example, wind power and solar panels, there is limited scope for air to water heat pump installation costs to fall sufficiently.
This is largely due to the great amount of internal work needed, which often involves upgrading insulation and expensive under floor heating or replacement emitters.
Given the differential between electricity and gas costs, they are also rarely much cheaper to run that gas boilers.
Therefore they are currently a poor proposition. While this will improve as installation volumes rise, the cost gap is too large. More affordable and effective and less disruptive solutions are required.
The solution (part 1)
Luckily, a solution already exists which we estimate will tend to be (EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR BELOW STATEMENTS):
• 30-40% cheaper to buy and install
• Faster and less disruptive to install
• 30% cheaper to run
These are air conditioning systems (also known as “air to air” heat pumps).
“Multi-split” or “ducted” air conditioning systems are cheaper to buy than air to water because the air conditioning market is already far larger than that for air to water systems. Crucially, the supply chain, including installation skills, is already mature. That for air-to-water remains to be fully established.
They are cheaper and easier to install because under floor heating installation and replacement radiators or under-floor pipework is not required, and they are fundamentally simpler systems. They are also faster to react than air-to-water, and multi-splits can provide much better control (up to 6 individually controlled indoor units)
The problem (part 2)
Currently, air to air heat pumps attract NO public subsidy because:
1. They do not provide hot water
2. They can be used for cooling, which is not a sustainable use of electricity
The Home Energy Scotland and Energy Saving Trust websites mention warm air heating as an option, but otherwise they receive almost no encouragement. Homeowners just do not realise that they are an option. Moreover, not providing any financial support makes them unattractive, and implicitly suggests that they are discouraged.
Also, because air conditioning is treated unfavourably in energy modelling software, installing an air conditioning system currently WORSENS a home’s EPC, despite it almost certainly delivering a large reduction in carbon emissions vs a gas boiler.
The solution (part 2)
Air to air systems should be recognised as an effective solution. They should receive at least limited financial and ‘marketing’ support. If necessary, modelling should be undertaken to evidence this assertion. If deemed necessary, ‘heat only’ air conditioning systems could be developed, which would be trivial.
Next steps
1. Better modelling of the potential costs and benefits of air conditioning vs air to water should be undertaken. This should show that air conditioning systems would be cheaper to install and run.
2. Modelling should be undertaken which will almost certainly show that, even if used for cooling in Scotland, air conditioning systems provide a much lower carbon heating solution on average
3. Based on that, HES should consider whether such systems should receive financial and “marketing” support
4. The need to provide DHW should be considered, as hot water represents a much smaller proportion of home carbon emissions. It might be jettisoned, perhaps at the cost of lower financial support for air conditioning.
5. It could be retained if deemed appropriate. Air to air systems exist which can provide hot water.
6. If cooling remains problematic, manufacturers should be engaged to provide heat only air conditioners. This would be trivial. Simply adjusting controls (handheld and app based) to remove cooling functions would be easy.
7. Note that if used only for heating, air conditioning systems do not need condensate drains, rendering their installation even cheaper.
Problem (part 1)
Millions of gas boilers must be replaced in order for Scotland and the UK to achieve net zero.
It’s perhaps the most difficult, but essential, element of decarbonising homes.
Unfortunately, affordable (to install and run), effective, low installation disruption alternatives just do not exist.
The UK and Scottish governments are highly incentivising a switch to “air-to-water” heat pumps as a large part of the solution.
They are currently too expensive to install (circa £15k average AND often major cost of upgrading insulation, vs £3k gas boiler replacement). Households with average incomes of circa £40k cannot afford upgrades of this cost.
This means grants and subsidies have to be unsustainably large to incentivise uptake (£7.5k grant + up to £7.5k loan from Home Energy Scotland).
Unlike the experience with, for example, wind power and solar panels, there is limited scope for air to water heat pump installation costs to fall sufficiently.
This is largely due to the great amount of internal work needed, which often involves upgrading insulation and expensive under floor heating or replacement emitters.
Given the differential between electricity and gas costs, they are also rarely much cheaper to run that gas boilers.
Therefore they are currently a poor proposition. While this will improve as installation volumes rise, the cost gap is too large. More affordable and effective and less disruptive solutions are required.
The solution (part 1)
Luckily, a solution already exists which we estimate will tend to be (EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR BELOW STATEMENTS):
• 30-40% cheaper to buy and install
• Faster and less disruptive to install
• 30% cheaper to run
These are air conditioning systems (also known as “air to air” heat pumps).
“Multi-split” or “ducted” air conditioning systems are cheaper to buy than air to water because the air conditioning market is already far larger than that for air to water systems. Crucially, the supply chain, including installation skills, is already mature. That for air-to-water remains to be fully established.
They are cheaper and easier to install because under floor heating installation and replacement radiators or under-floor pipework is not required, and they are fundamentally simpler systems. They are also faster to react than air-to-water, and multi-splits can provide much better control (up to 6 individually controlled indoor units)
The problem (part 2)
Currently, air to air heat pumps attract NO public subsidy because:
1. They do not provide hot water
2. They can be used for cooling, which is not a sustainable use of electricity
The Home Energy Scotland and Energy Saving Trust websites mention warm air heating as an option, but otherwise they receive almost no encouragement. Homeowners just do not realise that they are an option. Moreover, not providing any financial support makes them unattractive, and implicitly suggests that they are discouraged.
Also, because air conditioning is treated unfavourably in energy modelling software, installing an air conditioning system currently WORSENS a home’s EPC, despite it almost certainly delivering a large reduction in carbon emissions vs a gas boiler.
The solution (part 2)
Air to air systems should be recognised as an effective solution. They should receive at least limited financial and ‘marketing’ support. If necessary, modelling should be undertaken to evidence this assertion. If deemed necessary, ‘heat only’ air conditioning systems could be developed, which would be trivial.
Next steps
1. Better modelling of the potential costs and benefits of air conditioning vs air to water should be undertaken. This should show that air conditioning systems would be cheaper to install and run.
2. Modelling should be undertaken which will almost certainly show that, even if used for cooling in Scotland, air conditioning systems provide a much lower carbon heating solution on average
3. Based on that, HES should consider whether such systems should receive financial and “marketing” support
4. The need to provide DHW should be considered, as hot water represents a much smaller proportion of home carbon emissions. It might be jettisoned, perhaps at the cost of lower financial support for air conditioning.
5. It could be retained if deemed appropriate. Air to air systems exist which can provide hot water.
6. If cooling remains problematic, manufacturers should be engaged to provide heat only air conditioners. This would be trivial. Simply adjusting controls (handheld and app based) to remove cooling functions would be easy.
7. Note that if used only for heating, air conditioning systems do not need condensate drains, rendering their installation even cheaper.
more often than not. plastic has gone from white to cream but still it does the job when a bedroom hits 30-35c at night.