In Seek and Ye Shall Find I discussed the Guardian’s opening article (about fire risk) in a series discussing “the myths and realities surrounding EVs” (with comments below the article over time, as the Guardian published further pieces discussing other supposed myths relating to EVs). Now it seems they are going to do it all over again, this time with respect to heat pumps. Today the first article appeared in a new series “exploring the myths and realities surrounding heat pumps”. It kicks off with an analysis of the question “Are heat pumps more expensive to run than gas boilers?”. You know where it’s coming from straight away, with the caption to the picture illustrating the article saying “Some households are confused about the potential benefits of heat pumps”. Then they call in aid Dr Jan Rosenow to discuss the costs. To some extent this is fair enough, as he has lots of expertise relating to this subject. On the other hand, he is an unabashed heat pump enthusiast, so he is perhaps not the best person to go to for an “independent” fact-check in this regard. My reservations are heightened by the fact that the Guardian enthusiastically tells its readers that “[i]n a recent paper for Carbon Brief, he explained that heat pumps have similar running costs to a gas boiler, even though electricity is more expensive than gas, because they produce heat at a more efficient rate.” It’s the reference to Carbon Brief that bothers me, given their claim that offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas (it isn’t, and in any meaningful sense, wasn’t when they made the claim). Thus I fear that anything that appears at Carbon Brief has to serve the agenda, and I wonder as to its objectivity.

Still, that’s a preliminary quibble, and possibly an unfair one so far as Dr Rosenow is concerned. Let’s see what the Guardian has to say. In setting the scene, it tells us that “[t]here are those who believe heat pumps could play a vital role in climate action, and sceptics who claim their benefits are a lot of hot air.” Also, that in terms of replacing gas boilers, “[f]or most European homes, the answer is likely to be an electric air source heat pump, as governments try to clean up carbon emissions. But not all households are convinced.” So far, so reasonable, though I regret that the next sentence invokes the culture wars that often seem to exist only in the minds of Guardian journalists – “the plans to replace millions of gas boilers across the country with the little-known devices has fed into culture wars.”

Having said that, I find myself pleasantly surprised by the realistic and reasonably objective nature of the article. Having set the scene, it gets down to business with a very fair opening paragraph dealing with the central claim:

It is true that heat pumps are expensive. In the UK, the majority of homes are expected to opt for an air source heat pump, which costs on average just more than £12,500 to buy and install, according to industry accreditors at MCS. This is four to five times the cost of a gas boiler, which usually falls between £1,600 and £3,000 depending on the size needed.

There then follows a discussion of subsidies – in Poland households are paid up to €14,420 (£12,403) to fit green energy solutions, including heat pumps. In Italy a short-lived scheme effectively allowed households to make money out of installing a heat pump, by paying them 110% of the cost. And as we know, in the UK the government has upped the offer of subsidies to households installing a heat pump: it now stands at £7,500. Of course, the sharp-eyed will see that still leaves the average household well out of pocket with regard to installation costs of a (subsidised) heat pump compared to the (unsubsidised) cost of installing a gas boiler. Then we are told:

However, the gulf in upfront costs is narrowing all the time, with some heat pump installations getting close to cost parity with gas boilers once grants are included.

The problem I have with such a claim is that the bottom line is that heat pumps are still more expensive to install, even after the subsidy is taken into account. Secondly, the £7,500 subsidy is a lot of money, and at the end of the day it’s a real cost, since we all pay taxes, so we are effectively simply subsidising ourselves. If all households were to install an air source heat pump (they won’t, because they aren’t suitable for all houses and apartments), then we would be looking at a cost of (around 27 million households multiplied by an average cost of £12,500 =) £337.5 billion. I think that’s a pretty big elephant in the room, and an extraordinary cost to ask the country to bear.

It’s going to be worth seeing how the series develops. I will deal with later articles in the series by offering comments below this article in due course. They will, we are told, cover issues such as possible expensive upgrades to accommodate heat pumps, which may involve “eye-watering costs to upgrade their radiators or improve their home insulation to ensure their heat pump is effective.”

However, the Guardian’s opening article looks at the ongoing running costs of a heat pump, once installed, versus a gas boiler. Acknowledging that in the UK electricity currently costs around four times as much as gas, the claim is that running costs work out roughly the same for both, because heat pumps use about three to five times less energy compared with a gas boiler”. The technical term for this is “seasonal co-efficient of performance” (ScoP).

I find myself pleasantly surprised by the analysis (and should, in fairness, withdraw my reservations about Dr Rosenow). We are told:

A recent study of 750 households by the Energy Systems Catapult, an independent government-backed researcher, found that heat pumps typically have a SCoP of 2.9. This implies a small extra cost to running a heat pump compared with a gas boiler.

That seems a fair conclusion, given that we are also told:

Rosenow’s analysis has shown that a heat pump with a SCoP of more than 3 will match the running costs of an 85% efficient gas boiler, while a SCoP of 3.2 will match the costs of a 90% efficient A-rated gas boiler.

Then we are told that new tariffs from Octopus Energy, specifically aimed at heat pump users, could render them even cheaper to run than gas boilers. That may be true, but it bothers me that it means that non-heat pump users must be subsidising heat pump users. What happens if and when we have all been forced to install heat pumps? Presumably the tariff will be withdrawn, since there won’t be anyone left to subsidise that tariff by paying the higher tariff.

Next we are advised as to the caveats, and again the presentation is pretty fair:

Each country will be different. The economics of a heat pump compared with a gas boiler rely on the government grants used to lower the upfront cost of installation, and the fluctuating costs of electricity and gas.

Within each country the benefits of a heat pump hinge on its installation. A poorly installed heat pump would fall short of the average SCoP of 2.9 identified in field studies as a key point at which heat pumps reach parity with gas boilers, and this could quickly erode any expected savings – even when using a good value energy tariff.

Then we are told that the other side of that coin is that some installers have reported ScoPs of 4, implying that the heat pumps in question would be cheaper to run than gas boilers.

The article concludes with the verdict, which I found to be exceptionally interesting. That is because it acknowledges that savings can be achieved compared to gas boilers only if they run at good efficiency and because of the grants available. Sadly, at this point, the net zero agenda takes over. Dr Rosenow says:

“In the future, governments need to rebalance the taxes and levies on electricity to make heat pumps the lowest-cost heating option.”

And the Guardian reports:

The UK government is already considering options to lower electricity costs by moving the green levies usually paid through power bills into general taxation or on to gas bills. This would make the savings from choosing a heat pump even greater.

That’s as may be, but since we all pay general taxation, we all end up paying for it. And once all the gas boiler uses tire of being a mulct cow, and install their own heat pumps, that source of subsidy will cease. The only truly objective assessment would compare like with like, without relying on specific tariffs subsidised by other energy users, without relying on subsidies paid for out of general taxation, and without expecting gas boiler users to pay “green levies” to make the cost of heat pumps comparable.

The coda to all this is disappointing. The Guardian falls back on a survey, by the innovation charity Nesta, which heard the views of more than 2,500 domestic heat pump owners and more than 1,000 domestic gas boiler owners in England, Scotland and Wales over the last winter, from which it claims that two-thirds (67%) of households with a heat pump said they were satisfied with their running costs compared with 59% of gas boiler owners – even without extensive energy efficiency upgrades. Unfortunately for the Guardian I de-bunked those claims here. It’s always important to fact-check the fact-checkers.