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!

They'd get a lot more people onto heat pumps if they didn't block grants on any unit that can cool as well as heat.

Even then, I think I'd still want gas to heat my hot water. The electrical system can't cope with doing that on demand. I used to have a hot water tank, and I'm not going back to that. Combi boilers are so much more convenient.

Heating systems can afford to be slow though.

I'm pretty sure I saved more than this 30% (which given it's in a headline, is going to be an absolute best case scenario) by going to Agile Octopus.