UPDATED: Air Source Heat Pumps/Air Con - Full Info & Guide, is it cheaper to run than mains gas?

Cardew

TiredGeek wrote: »

Third, Scotland will never become independent.There's simply too much English money, and English people up there for it ever to go through, even if the natives do vote for it. Politicians know where the money comes from and they'll be very happy to stay on the gravy train. They'll make noises about it of course, but in the end they'll only be thinking of their own pockets....there's no one more self serving than a jock politician.

Don't start bringing logic into this subject!

TiredGeek

:rotfl: Cardew

TiredGeek

jeepjunkie wrote: »

On my ASHP MCS cert it says...

Estimated Annual Generation (kWh):
41180.00

What does this mean in relation to proposed RHI payments ?

Cheers

Ooooo, never thought to look on there, TBH they were just filed without paying too much attention to them.
Mine say E.A.G (kWh): 33069 EACH HEAT PUMP

I wonder if that's what they're going to base the calculation on...
33069 x 2 = 66138 kWh
multiply by 8p / kWh = £5291.04
multiply by 20 years = £105820.80
Divided by 7 years = £15117.26

That can't be right surely :eek:
With that sort of money I'd even be able to afford external cladding insulation doing.

[Deleted User]

Lets hope it is right

grahamc2003

I've just read quickly through the document, and the way I see it (but may have got the wrong end of the stick), is that nothing has been decided yet - the ideas are out for consultation (meaning still time for pressure groups to maximise their benefit).

So the 7 year idea is up for comments. Having said that, I read it like others - you take some annual heat requirement (possibly from the EPC), multiply by the tariff, then by 20, then divide by 7 to get the 7 year annual payment (with nothing after that). But, the 'heat requiremnt' bit is adjusted from the actual to the value should all energy saving bits and bobs are in place - a 'green tick' or something. Further than that, I think(but may be wrong) you have to actually do all the green tick measures before you get the rhi and I think (bmbw) you have to have another epc survey with all the green ticks ticked. Examples they give, from memory, are cwi, loft inuslation, double glazing, draft proofing, thermal outside doors etc.

Another interesting proposal was to have uplifts in tariffs if you have solar thermal added to an approved system, (i.e. 1+1=3 sort of thing).

I think I read the proposed scheme is capped at £400m, with automatic 10/20% tariff reductions once they realise they're going to blow it quicker than expected.

I think if the returns are something like some posters have calculated, then comments in response to the consultation document will be made that they are too generous (having said that, not sure who is likely to say that - the higher the subsidy, the more systems will cost and the higher profit the whole industry makes).

All just my impressions from a first read, so may well be an inaccurate interpretation of what the documant means.

[Deleted User]

We can dream [drible] at the thought of it though... :drool:

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

... I think if the returns are something like some posters have calculated, then comments in response to the consultation document will be made that they are too generous (having said that, not sure who is likely to say that - the higher the subsidy, the more systems will cost and the higher profit the whole industry makes) ...

Hi

Looks like there's a mixture of returns in there .... solar thermal in particular seems to suffer .... our ST controller meters the heat pretty accurately (cylinder heat input from cold) and we produce close to twice the output of the MCS calculation/year without anyform of heatdump - the system only rarely reaching stagnation, therefore it's well sized to demand ... the MCS certificate estimated thermal output is based on a percentage of estimated annual demand and would just about cover an aggressively priced system, but would nowhere-near return the outlay for the average system price ...

HTH
Z

Edale

You are calculating it wrong, they are planning to pay 6.9p-11.5p x annual deemed heat requirement per year for 7 years. The 20 years is the life they expect the technology to last but rather than pay a subsidy over 20 years they front load it to encourage the up front investment.

For proposal on second homes go to page 23 in the download here

beansy

Just found out about this, a lot of reading to catch up on, LOL.

zeupater

Edale wrote: »

You are calculating it wrong, they are planning to pay 6.9p-11.5p x annual deemed heat requirement per year for 7 years. The 20 years is the life they expect the technology to last but rather than pay a subsidy over 20 years they front load it to encourage the up front investment.

For proposal on second homes go to page 23 in the download here

Hi

I don't really understand how you reconcile the above ... if the calculation is simply (tariff x deemed annual heat demand x 7) then there's no front loading, so there's no need to mention front loading ....

The consultation document includes (Page 49) .... Period for tariff payments ...
"139 . The approach on which our indicative tariffs are based is paying tariffs over 7 years for heat generated over 20 years. However, there are other options that could also be considered for the shape and length of the subsidy payment. These could include paying the subsidy over 20 years, as in the non-domestic scheme and proposed in the 2010 consultation, tariffs paid over a shorter period (for example 3, 5, 7 or 10 years), capital grants and a mixture of grants and ongoing payments. "

.... furthermore paragraph 143 goes on to explain the rational for the selection of a 7 year payment as being a compromise between not front-loading scheme expenditure whilst bringing the full tariff payment schedule in-line with commonly available loan timescales in order to assist with financing the installations ...

I read the proposal as having a preference for (tariff x deemed annual heat demand x 20/7), however, I do believe that the deemed demand calculation for space heating will likely need to reflect what should be possible within a building which is adequately insulated to modern standards, not what the heatsource is capable of providing .....I would have thought that applying a rough rule of thumb a ~60000kWh/annum heating demand mentioned earlier would represent somewhere well over 600sqm of living space, and potentially up to double that if applied to a really well built and insulated property ....

HTH
Z