Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Off peak elec should be cheaper to use for heating (anything) than gas assuming your on go

Go 7.5p/8.25p vs gas 10.3p

Thats before you factor in efficiency of boiler and indirect inefficiency of the water loop and pump etc
Click to expand...
that is true for me (at the moment) but 1) go is only for electric car owners now, and i belive octopus are now strict on that so it isnt for everyone and 2) didnt i see that current go prices are now 12.5p off peak?

so for many people i guess Go is out of the question

edit i was ninja'd... ireally should have read all replies before jumping in :)
 
Last edited:
ci_newman said:
You'd need to be able to store that energy though and then you're into efficiency problems again.

Very few people need to heat their homes at 2am

(That's ignoring that Go isn't available to 90% of the population either).
Click to expand...

Well yes because the conversation was about storing not direct heating.
From what I see many of the techs expected to come will be precisely that, storing heat as a way to release stored energy later either directly or indirectly.

Right now we work very much on a direct use, even with hot water for many due to the rise of the combi
When the future will really need to be based on more storage and time of use tariffs
That way we will (or should) be adapting to use and store more energy when generation is high and lower direct usage when its not

Go was until recently available to anyone, and there are some reports of it being checked now but I know a couple of people (plus myself) who recently moved to it and they didn't check at all.

Really the tariff we all want to take off is agile, but right now its borked due to the fix to gas pricing (its effectively capped at 80p (£1 - gov rebate)) although frequently drops well below the 34p standard unit price.
Plus of course the rest of the suppliers to stop being bloody useless and come up with some tariff innovation of their own. Which they are particularly crap at.
The equivalent to eco 7 (go is actually listed as an eco 7 product) varies wildly by supplier in pricing. It would be very very close to the gas cost with some, it would definitely be within the efficiency of your system as to if it was cheaper to direct heat with elec as opposed to gas on some but certainly not all.
BG for example are laughable (or were until I switched) with their eco 7 pricing.
 
pressurized hot water was a better energy store than stone for a energy battery, from earlier thread discussion


Curlyriff said:
Yeah there is no way right now that you can get parity on installation costs on a DIY system. But the argument given here isn't helpful. 5yrs od development and greater adoption will reduce the unit costs. These costs are the bigger part for house builders side not the installation when they are already on site doing ground works and such. Although this is mostly about ASHP too which as stated are completely different in that terms.
Click to expand...
why do they need specialist/expensive installation - because of the refrigerant ? can they not be precharged/sealed

Curlyriff said:
£6 billion from Bulbs collapse is what 1.4million homes could have been built with a 50% subsidisation for that.
Click to expand...
I think they need to break out how much of that cost was just lack of hedging whilst govt remains custodian,
but, OFGEN still has some responsibility here, and no sign of resignations there, they just play both sides off against one another
 
redfist said:
I think what your thinking of is sunamp (https://sunamp.com/en-gb/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/Thermino-iPV-data-sheet-V2.2.pdf)

I’ve put this on the list to look into further after the winter to see if it will work for us in our use case.
Click to expand...

They look good tbh
Weigh something though, although I guess probably pretty much on a par with equivalent hot water tank they would be replacing.

I fear more for people with modern houses designed for combi only, some don't seem to have an airing cupboard space and as such anything like that is going to be harder to place for many
Some still seem to have the space its just unutilised (junk cupboard) so for them this sort of thing would be fairly easy to retro fit

The efficiency is good also looking at that, on a par with a modern well insulated tank, but a smaller footprint so overall smaller loss.

They deffo look the sort of thing we will need to invest in.
I am on pressurised hot water tank myself (megaflow) but these could be worth considering in the future.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Some still seem to have the space its just unutilised (junk cupboard) so for them this sort of thing would be fairly easy to retro fit
Click to expand...

this cupboard is my solar + shower boxing + gas heating pipe control thing so not sure I can really use the cupboard for a 4th thing in the form of a tank.

ideally something like the sunamp that can combine a water tank + boiler function of a sort in the same sort of space as my current combi (fairly large cupboard in the corner of the kitchen).
 
HungryHippos said:
this cupboard is my solar + shower boxing + gas heating pipe control thing so not sure I can really use the cupboard for a 4th thing in the form of a tank.

ideally something like the sunamp that can combine a water tank + boiler function of a sort in the same sort of space as my current combi (fairly large cupboard in the corner of the kitchen).
Click to expand...

yeah I guess its an obvious place for many for that kind of stuff really.

From what I have seen the electric replacement of a gas boiler (its just like a 30kwh heater in effect) will be similar size to a modern gas boiler (type insignificant), maybe a little smaller
The hot storage I don't think is ever going to fit in the same space as well.
I guess you could put the hot storage in a cupboard but again many people have small kitchens and would unable to give up a ground based cupboard.
I guess they could be loft mounted if you have a suitable wall, but would be fun getting them up there and secured as they would likely cause issues whilst doing so (if installed professionally) since until mounted you would need to spread the weight quite widely in a modern loft
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
yeah I guess its an obvious place for many for that kind of stuff really.

From what I have seen the electric replacement of a gas boiler (its just like a 30kwh heater in effect) will be similar size to a modern gas boiler (type insignificant), maybe a little smaller
The hot storage I don't think is ever going to fit in the same space as well.
I guess you could put the hot storage in a cupboard but again many people have small kitchens and would unable to give up a ground based cupboard.
I guess they could be loft mounted if you have a suitable wall, but would be fun getting them up there and secured as they would likely cause issues whilst doing so (if installed professionally) since until mounted you would need to spread the weight quite widely in a modern loft
Click to expand...

I have a corner kitchen cupboard below, slightly awkward access but depending on size it's not impossible to put some tank storage in there I guess.

For now though still doesn't make sense, best to wait and see what shows up! :)
 
HungryHippos said:
I have a corner kitchen cupboard below, slightly awkward access but depending on size it's not impossible to put some tank storage in there I guess.

For now though still doesn't make sense, best to wait and see what shows up! :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree, IMO for those that can wait the next 5-10 years will see a step change in availability even if not so much in pricing

A direct large heater element will probably be cheaper than a gas boiler (combi replacement). And a lot simpler in reality so other than hard water issues (will be VERY much a thing for hard water areas) likely more reliable and not really need any servicing.
However you will be on whatever the cost of the elec is at that time. Batteries may help, but if your drawing 30kwh (kind of potential type levels) they aren't going to meet the supply draw, nor be able to supply for long
Hence back to, so other storage mechanism for direct water heating, indirect other heating really is going to be needed
 
Curlyriff said:
So the £4000 additional cost by the house builder is added to the purchase price of the house. This on average is around 1.4% of the value of the property. With regards to that is a 12yr return to the initial cost. Now with regard to that then the longer you are at the property of course the better the return but it is also just good for future generations also.

Now the benefits that are missing that are gained are increased garden space where currently an average is only 25m2 for a 2 bed and 45m2 for a 3 bed at least south England (Oxfordshire, Gloustershire and such forth) so the gain by removing the ASHP also means the value of the property is higher by maximising the outdoor space without a huge unit there. It's not just the cost of the system or what it does but people's quality of living space should be considered and its something we consider on all our sites we put designs into.

Air source heat pumps are also not efficient generally below 7c, well here in the last 10 days it's been colder than that meaning the heat returned is minimal when you need it most. Ground source doesn't have such issue in that the temperature is more stable as you are pulling heat from 100m-200m out of the ground.

The other general benefit is of course general lower CO2 emissions which gov pays grants for to building sites and such reducing the cost further in terms of credits for doing such. Honestly all the benefits outstrip the negatives but the house builders in the UK and the regs that support them are woefully inadequate and it is sub par housing for short term profit gains that is the issue.

For every 100 houses going to GSHP over gas boiler is 70tonnes of carbon saved in a year and about 15tonnes over a ASHP system. You multiply that by the number of houses built every year and its a colossal saving still.
Click to expand...

Its not relevant to mention short time periods like the last 10 days which have been below avg anyway. You would never implement a system based on weather conditions of that time frame. In the same line its disingenuous to state "not efficient generally below 7c" they are less efficient but still plenty efficient at that temperature (and generally at average winter temperatures seen by the majority of the UK). Most ASHP even with a flow temp of 35c and outside temp of 2c will return a COP of 250%-300%.

I'll need to see sources for the claim that two identical houses, with identical gardens will see a price difference due to the garden space gained back of 1sqm by removing an ASHP exchanger. The units are by no means huge at all and arguing that it affects peoples quality of living space is quite far stretched given people are plenty happy to use the same space for air con units in the UK (and all around the world in countries where even a 25sqm garden is a luxury). The units are also quiet and benefit from an inverse relationship of use of space.

I'll spell out the question since its inference was missed. You said ASHP is a half measure and suggested GSHP as the next step. Given we understand that a home builder exists to make money (not actually to build homes) so will do the minimum required for regs, why is a GSHP the next logical step in your eyes for home builders regarding cutting energy? Why is it better to spend say 10k more on a GSHP system that will gain slightly better efficiency than spend that total sum on an ASHP paired with better than regs building insulation/better windows and solar/PV system for the similar cost? It makes more sense for the home builder to invest into the core aspects of the home first (ie aspects to reach passive house status) as you can retro fit a GHSP easier than you can just altar your buildings fabric to accommodate more insulation in the external walls or reduce thermal bridging due to construction techniques etc. GSHP is very high hanging fruit when you compare cost vs reward and the money is much better spent on a ASHP and aspects of the home to lower its use or produce energy to run it. It's bizarre to be expecting home builders to opt for GSHP as you suggested, when there are other areas better investing in first that will be providing benefits for the buildings entire lifespan of probably hundreds of years.
 
Gammawolf said:
I'll need to see sources for the claim that two identical houses, with identical gardens will see a price difference due to the garden space gained back of 1sqm by removing an ASHP exchanger. The units are by no means huge at all and arguing that it affects peoples quality of living space is quite far stretched given people are plenty happy to use the same space for air con units in the UK (and all around the world in countries where even a 25sqm garden is a luxury). The units are also quiet and benefit from an inverse relationship of use of space.
Click to expand...
It is isn't purely the space of the item, it is the usable space that the garden has. A few housing developers have seen issues already about position and size of the units where customers have not purchased based on it. There has been a reason I have not given names or similar though because I have also been critical of them and wouldn't want that tacking back to whom I work with etc and issues.

Also I am not really aware of anyone whom has been happy with air-con units either and almost all housing in the UK has zero air-con so I ma not sure why you brought that up as its not supportive at all.

Gammawolf said:
I'll spell out the question since its inference was missed. You said ASHP is a half measure and suggested GSHP as the next step. Given we understand that a home builder exists to make money (not actually to build homes) so will do the minimum required for regs, why is a GSHP the next logical step in your eyes for home builders regarding cutting energy? Why is it better to spend say 10k more on a GSHP system that will gain slightly better efficiency than spend that total sum on an ASHP paired with better than regs building insulation/better windows and solar/PV system for the similar cost? It makes more sense for the home builder to invest into the core aspects of the home first (ie aspects to reach passive house status) as you can retro fit a GHSP easier than you can just altar your buildings fabric to accommodate more insulation in the external walls or reduce thermal bridging due to construction techniques etc. GSHP is very high hanging fruit when you compare cost vs reward and the money is much better spent on a ASHP and aspects of the home to lower its use or produce energy to run it. It's bizarre to be expecting home builders to opt for GSHP as you suggested, when there are other areas better investing in first that will be providing benefits for the buildings entire lifespan of probably hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
I didn't ignore this, I have already said some builders are already doing such and there has even been links to such in this thread but this needs to be expanded and already stated the regs should have pushed harder to go further and sooner.

I have already stated that more needs to be done including insulation and such. But we was in specific discussion of the ASHP and alternatives. No benefit will have a lifespan of hundreds of years as no housing stock now is built with that lifespan in mind.

Why spend less with the ASHP system and add the others and not add the additional for the GSHP which is more than sligtly better also as noted previous. A 12yr return isn't a lot for the difference over the ASHP. Also increasing insulation is more costly than you think. It isn't the materal cost change. It is the phsical dimensions. You double the cavity thickness, increase the the stud wall thickness (to allow for controlled heating per room) and party walls etc and suddenly a site that is say 500 properties drops to 480 properties. So less return on the same land purchase means they would need to increase those house prices to compensate. I am not suggesting that all this shouldn't be done, however financially the GSHP with its return isn't as bad as expected once you consider such things.

There is a reason we are are renovating or knocking down older housing stock already from stuff in the 50's, 60's or 70's even. Housing life-span is only desiged for principles of 40yrs. Yes it doesn't mean that they are going to suddenly fall over but it means that to give them a better level of living/quality of life and such that in that 40yr period gutting and refitting is what is expected.

I am going to stop replying now because you seem to have a very central view on lets do the minimum or let others do the minimum rather than trying to push beyond which isn't really adding anything constructive.
 
Just installing ashp at the moment. The up front cost is still huge and the grant just increases what suppliers charge for the job rather than saving consumer money.

We were on lpg and the house we moved into had old boiler and hideous tank so we made the jump. But i was definelty on the fence for a while which is a shame. Should be significantly more attractive for consumers

Running cost of ashp is generally on par with oil/ lpg but still way above mains gas based on current prices.

Apparently gshp install is rare these days due to the high installation costs 30k+
 
Last edited:
kevman said:
Just installing ashp at the moment. The up front cost is still huge and the grant just increases what suppliers charge for the job rather than saving consumer money.

We were on lpg and the house we moved into had old boiler and hideous tank so we made the jump. But i was definelty on the fence for a while which is a shame. Should be significantly more attractive for consumers

Running cost of ashp is generally on par with oil/ lpg but still way above mains gas based on current prices.

Apparently gshp install is rare these days due to the high installation costs 30k+
Click to expand...
Indeed that all true and exactly why I was suggegsting and commenting on in being reg and requriement at new build.
 
I struggle to see how ASHP/GSHP would better my costs in my modern house. I'm on Octopus GO which has an "average" price of 36.5p/kWh, and gas at SVR is 10.34p/kWh. Let's say I need 7000kWh of energy over a year for heating and hot water. Let's further assume my boiler operates at 90% efficiency, and assuming 300% from an HP system:

7000 * (100/90) = 7778kWh of gas needed at 10.34p/kWh means £804
6000/3 = 2000kWh of electricity needed at 36.5p/kWh means £851.

I appreciate those costs are just what they are right now, and we don't know the cost differential will change in future. I guess we could run the HP harder in the cheap GO window for hot water, whatever. There's probably quite a bit more at play, but it seems like there'd be a HUGE payback period if we were to switch to a HP system, which would require a replumb of the house to add a hot water tank, new rads, probably new piping too. That's a huge job, probably looking at over £10k. How does that get paid back?
 
Last edited:
squerble said:
I struggle to see how ASHP/GSHP would better my costs in my modern house. I'm on Octopus GO which has an "average" price of 36.5p/kWh, and gas at SVR is 10.34p/kWh. Let's say I need 7000kWh of energy over a year for heating and hot water. Let's further assume my boiler operates at 90% efficiency, and assuming 300% from an HP system:

7000 * (100/90) = 7778kWh of gas needed at 10.34p/kWh means £804
6000/3 = 2000kWh of electricity needed at 36.5p/kWh means £851.

I appreciate those costs are just what they are right now, and we don't know the cost differential will change in future. I guess we could run the HP harder in the cheap GO window for hot water, whatever. There's probably quite a bit more at play, but it seems like there'd be a HUGE payback period if we were to switch to a HP system, which would require a replumb of the house to add a hot water tank, new rads, probably new piping too. That's a huge job, probably looking at over £10k. How does that get paid back?
Click to expand...
To note that a ground source heatpump is about 400% or SCOP of 4 and air source heat pump is 300% or SCOP of 3.

6000/4 = 1500kWh of electricity needed at 36.5p/kWh means £547.50. That is without considering linking up to a Solar/Battery and so could theoretically could be £0 with the right setup of course.

To note the other reason I am suggesting newer properties and such is that they are designed to heat at lower temp for longer times. Of course being part of a net-zero carbon system is good to assuming you are getting carbon netrural electric source as well. It is also the same reason underfloor heatingworks best with systems than radiators.
 
Curlyriff said:
To note that a ground source heatpump is about 400% or SCOP of 4 and air source heat pump is 300% or SCOP of 3.

6000/4 = 1500kWh of electricity needed at 36.5p/kWh means £547.50. That is without considering linking up to a Solar/Battery and so could theoretically could be £0 with the right setup of course.

To note the other reason I am suggesting newer properties and such is that they are designed to heat at lower temp for longer times. Of course being part of a net-zero carbon system is good to assuming you are getting carbon netrural electric source as well. It is also the same reason underfloor heatingworks best with systems than radiators.
Click to expand...
Sure, but your answer fell straight into what I was expecting - it works better when teamed with PV+battery, which is another huge outlay. I think to fit our house with ASHP, PV, and battery would be to the tune of £20k. It's also a bit of a paradox; the ASHP will need to work harder exactly when we won't be getting much PV input.

This isn't to say I'm not interested - I'd honestly love our house to have the "full works" - but I don't see that we'd ever get there. The retrofitting is likely to be a huge hassle, and to be honest I just don't want it. Like you mentioned though, if a house being built now had everything set up at build, then I'd actually be more inclined to move again to have everything set up the way "it should be".
 
R.O.S.S.I said:
I've just moved house and with OVO apparently I can't just do a house move with them and have to close my account and re-sign up with either them or a new provider.

With the current caps in place I guess everyone's tarriffs are the same at the moment? We don't have any EV's or solar so am I right in thinking to just sign up with a provider we like the look of? Think the past tenants used British Gas as they have a BG readout screen plugged in in the office.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can't take tariffs with you. Means I can't move house until 2024!
 
I'd certainly consider a heat pump if I had oil heating. I expect next house will be of that type (super rural). But I just can't see the gain at the moment unless it's a forever house. Most houses (ours for sure) would need radiators and probably pipe work redone.

5he cost would be staggering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom