BBC Lies About Heat Pumps Exposed
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
The BBC have been caught lying again:
This was the original article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20211017095622/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58885545
A day later, it was craftily altered:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58885545
Nowhere in the article is there any acknowledgement of the correction, and as always everybody who read the original version have been badly misled.
But the real issue is why these sort of lies keep proliferating whenever the subject is climate and renewable energy.
Clearly the reporter did not check the facts before he wrote the piece. Did he believe it himself, did he hear it from unreliable source such as Carbon Brief.
Or did he just write it anyway, not caring whether it was true or not?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
BBC check the science ? You must be joking.
When you’re ‘on message’ what have facts got to do with it? So many gullible people take this stuff at face value.
The £6,000 and ‘upwards’ initial installation cost of heat pumps leaves a lot to be desired.
Real life experience shows that costs are well into 5 figures rather than just £6,000.
Yep. You may have to increase the size of all your radiators or put in under floor heating, install double glazing, insulate your loft etc. Hot Scot who often posts here obtained costs for his Victorian (?) property and they were over £80,000 I believe
The BBC is pro-actively anti- natural gas.
It has been forced to amend the diagrams it created to ‘explain’ the gas-fracking process on two separate occasions.
When gas prices peaked last year, it slipped a mention of high natural gas prices into a story that related only to electricity (both grid-supplied & renewables), and LPG. Natural gas wasn’t even available at the site that was the subject of its story.
We’ve recently had the prolonged saga of getting it to admit that our Nat Gas storage capacity was 3x greater than its Reality Check team tried to claim.
The BBC should be forced to publish this article by way of a correction
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10109299/ROGER-BISBY-Heat-pumps-one-biggest-cons-Ive-seen-building-trade.html
I have yet to find anyone who has found a heatpump ‘cheaper’ to run
Speak to my plumber, has work experience in Scandinavia; they require levels of insulation that is currently very difficult to envisage given the extent of Victorian/Edwardian housing stock and even then they do not “work” – and he turns away from lucrative business from gullible people who already own lithium battery cars…..
And yet we are told how popular they are in Scandinavia!
I spend some time each year high in the French Alps. No heat pumps in sight! large oil boilers seen to dominate or just electric in smaller places.
My clumsy point is that Scandinavian standards if installed insulation are much higher than the UK; my plumber says heat pumps “work” in Scandinavian climates with their housing stock/insulation regs – he says that cannot happen in the UK whilst the age of the housing stock remains “as is” and other inconvenient factors ( ventilation etc ). But lets not piss on the parade of a AWG/CC driven “good thing” idea, even if it don’t work, its value is that it seems a good idea so lets run with it – being mindful of the environment is the most important thing ( the “process” ) and the actuality of the operation of the policy is secondary ( the very inconvenient “truth” ) and cannot be allowed to create mental health difficulties/stress in those convinced they are “right”…aka the brainwashed.
BEIS, who wrote “Mission Zero”, the “independent” report on the Net Zero Strategy think the COP of heat pumps is 4!
I quote from P241 paragraph 957 of “Mission Zero”
“For example, the energy output of a heat pump is four times greater than the electrical energy used to run it. This makes current heat pump models 3‐5 times more energy efficient than gas boilers. Currently, heat pumps are cheaper to run than gas boilers”
John,
that is in a nutshell the mistaken ideas the BEIS have and that the government follow. The statement that heat pumps are 3-5 times that of a gas boiler is completely wrong, because they look at electrcity as energy which it is not. That electrcity has to be generated and transmitted to the consumer. Conservatively probably a 60% loss on the way. No electromechanical device gives more out than the enrgy supplied to it to make it operate.
Nor are heat pumps as effective a heating source as gas (or oil).
Nor are they low CO2 (likewise evs) as the government like to claim; there is so much ignorance in government departments and the government..
Can y’all translate some English English to American English for me?
What does ‘tackle climate change’ mean?
Fleece the public would be the literal translation.
If I can be of assistance, it translates as “the worst kind of pork barrel politics, demanding every larger sums of taxpayers’ dollars to fund the search for rocking horse shit” Hope that helps!
Thx, dbb. That makes more sense.
👍🏻
“the real issue is why these sort of lies keep proliferating”
I think that the answer to this is simple. The BBC is an environmentalist organization, similar in style to the Guardian newspaper. Everything the BBC does has a strong environmentalist angle applied to it and other viewpoints and political positions are excluded and suppressed.
In no way can the BBC be described as unbiased. The BBC promulgates environmentalist propaganda, not the truth. Nothing appearing in a BBC program or on its website can be taken at face value.
Which is precisely why it should not be funded by a compulsory impost with legal sanctions for non-payment
“The ECU considered whether the article met the BBC’s standards of due accuracy?”
Therein lies the problem. The BBC has none, across the board; only a series of false narratives. Those are the standards to which they hold themselves.
It’s like saying the court was asked to consider whether Charles Bronson’s actions met HIS standards of morality.
An excellent analogy
All the solutions to high energy costs involve additional upfront costs instead, even if the running costs are lower, you still aren’t saving money, and will likely never break even in a reasonable timescale.
(Some low hanging fruit like loft insulation may be an exception.)
The BBC is, sadly, institutionally corrupt. It has just rejected my complaint about the article on 28 February headed: “guilt-free flying not in easy reach – scientists” because the BBC is committed to following the scientific consensus.
This is mischievous, biased nonsense. I feel no guilt when I fly and nor do any of my family. World trade depends to a large extent now on flying. Are all the million or so people currently in the air feeling guilty? I think not.
Dear Paul
Heat pumps
With all the concern about methane having a GWP of 28 over a 100 year period it occurred to me that there is no mention of the GWP of the heat exchange fluids (confusingly called refrigerants) in heat pumps. The main fluids are HFCs and are titled R407c, R410a and R417a and their high GWP values are 1774, 2088 and 2346 respectively yet there seems to be no concern about these. I am less concerned about the validity of the GWP concept than I am about the hypocrisy of this brushing to one side. Maybe a little expose might be worthwhile. Although they may argue that the systems are sealed and the refrigerants do not escape, I think this is not true since servicing does seem to be required along with topping up and in addition they will be disposed of and replaced at some point in the future. One wonders about the panic in Scottish medical circles about desflurane which is only used in comparatively small amounts.
It may be argued that HFCs will be replaced with HFOs which have a GWP close to 1, but while these are OK for air conditioning they are not suitable for heat pumps since their compression- evaporation cycle releases far too little heat. In addition the low GWP value could be questioned. It comes as a result of HFOs having an extremely short lifetime in the atmosphere due to the molecules being easily broken down but the GWP takes no account of the breakdown products which are likely to have a much higher GWP due to the presence of carbon – fluorine bonds which are both extremely stable and highly infrared active,
Yours etc
Dr Wilson Flood
Hi Paul – Did the eco thing – installed an air-source heat pump in 2009 – read the electricity meter every week – finally replaced it with a oil boiler in 2015. Fortunately someone bought the 2nd hand pump. As Wilson Flood says – lets not talk about the heat exchange fluids/refrigerants – same as those ones in your car ar conditioning which need topping up because they have escaped into the atmosphere. BW Kris P.S. BBC & “fact checking” an example of an oxymoron phrase.
Slightly OT (sorry), but news starting to come through that part of Attenborough’s latest environmental polemic is not to be aired on the main BBC channel. Fallout from the Lineker impartiality affair.
The Grauniad says the last episode was never intended to be aired on the main channel, and puts this down to pressure from “the political right”. However, this series (“Saving Our Wild Isles”) is reportedly commissioned by the RSPB, WWF and part of a major campaign involving the National Trust. If true, I would say it’s shocking that the BBC should get itself involved in political campaigning. Surely pressure from opposing political views would be par for the course.
So who’s next to be put through the BBC impartiality ringer? How about Rowlatt? Or Packham? We can only hope.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-will-not-broadcast-new-david-attenborough-documentary-in-latest-impartiality-row/ar-AA18ti2x?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=17067b221b5d4798a8ce1aa65cf866f0&ei=14
The BBC may be bullshitting the British public but I do wonder if “British” media is having any effect in the US. Here is a Guardian US bullshit propaganda article selling heat pumps (an “Explainer” ho, ho, ho)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/11/heat-pump-revolution-what-you-need-to-know
Inevitably it is total twaddle.
Leaving aside it is a George Soros placement article, I do wonder at the “author’s” qualifications. Apparently Brian Kahn holds a “BA, Anthropology and Photography” – so he’s a failed third rate photographer’s apprentice – and a “MA, Climate and Society” – so he’s a tenth rate sociologist who once dabbled in presenting weather forecasts on local radio.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/blkahn/
The English expression is “shit for brains” also known as Guardian reader.
Faith based journalism.