EUR
en
Reality feels more complicated.
Across Europe, governments are pushing heat pumps as a green fix for draughty homes and ageing boilers. Yet on the ground, stories of soaring quotes, underperforming systems and baffled homeowners are piling up. So where does the hype stop and the hard truth start?
For most households, the first obstacle is brutally simple: the upfront cost. Whether air‑source or ground‑source, a modern heat pump system rarely comes cheap.
In France, typical installation costs run somewhere between €10,000 and €20,000, even after public subsidies. The UK picture is similar: air‑source systems often land in the £7,000–£13,000 range before grants, with ground‑source options climbing far higher once digging and ground loops are included.
For many families, the heat pump sales pitch starts with energy savings but quickly bumps into a five‑figure invoice.
Cost is only part of the story. Performance varies wildly depending on how and where the technology is installed. A highly insulated new-build in a mild region can see impressive running costs. An older, draughty stone house on an exposed hillside may see far less value for money.
Heat pumps do not behave like traditional gas boilers. Their efficiency depends on the building and the system design:
Two households on the same street with similar systems can therefore end up with very different bills and very different levels of satisfaction.
The heat pump industry likes to highlight the “coefficient of performance”, or COP. A COP of 3, for example, suggests the system produces three units of heat for every unit of electricity consumed. That sounds outstanding next to a gas boiler.
The advertised COP is usually a lab figure; real‑life performance swings with outdoor temperature, system design and user behaviour.
In a chilly British or northern French winter, air‑source systems must pull heat from air just above freezing. At that point, the efficiency drops, and the pump can lean on electric back‑up heaters. That’s when electricity bills suddenly spike.
When a household ditches a gas boiler for a heat pump, one thing always rises: reliance on electricity.
This shift can be positive if the grid is decarbonising and electricity prices are stable. Yet recent energy crises have exposed a major risk: if power prices jump, the running-cost advantage of a heat pump can evaporate for a few winters.
Most brochures give the impression that heat pumps will quietly hum in the background for 20 years with little fuss. Reality is more nuanced.
These are complex machines: compressors, fans, electronic controls and refrigerant circuits all require periodic attention. Filters clog, sensors fail, and external units can suffer in coastal or polluted areas.
Routine servicing is not optional; it is a key part of keeping performance high and preventing costly breakdowns.
Annual checks by qualified engineers add another regular cost. For some households, especially those already stretched by the initial investment, this comes as an unwelcome surprise.
Manufacturers often talk about a 15–20‑year lifespan. In practice, early wear can appear much sooner if:
Users who face compressor replacements after a decade may feel misled, especially if they were expecting decades of near‑maintenance‑free operation.
The credibility problem around heat pumps is not only technical. It is also about how they have been sold to the public.
Government campaigns in France, the UK and across Europe have focused on grants, reduced emissions and potential bill savings. Much less space has been given to conditions for success: solid insulation, correctly sized units, realistic expectations for winter performance, and the need for specialised installers.
When the pitch is “save money and the planet”, but the lived experience is “big bill and mixed results”, confidence collapses quickly.
Homeowners who feel they were rushed into signing, or who never received a proper heat-loss calculation for their property, are among the most vocal critics. Many report that no one explained how their usage patterns or building fabric could undermine the promised savings.
For many French, British or European families, the solution is less about choosing or rejecting heat pumps, and more about sequencing and combining measures.
Energy specialists keep coming back to the same basic rule: fix the building before throwing technology at it.
Only once heat loss has been cut does the full potential of a heat pump start to shine. In some cases, a smaller and cheaper unit will then be enough, and running costs fall as expected.
Hybrid setups, which pair a heat pump with a gas or oil boiler, are gaining ground. In these systems, the heat pump handles moderate conditions, and the boiler kicks in during the coldest days.
This approach can:
The downside is extra complexity, and the household still depends on fossil fuels. For some, that trade-off is acceptable; for others it undermines the climate case.
Part of the mistrust around heat pumps comes from confusing technical language. A few terms are worth clarifying.
COP (coefficient of performance): Instantaneous efficiency measured under specific test conditions. A COP of 4 does not mean you will always get four times as much heat as electricity. It is a snapshot, not a year‑round guarantee.
Seasonal COP or SCOP: A more realistic indicator averaged over a whole heating season. When comparing products, SCOP is far more useful than a single COP figure on a brochure.
Low‑temperature vs high‑temperature heat pumps: Low‑temperature systems work best with underfloor heating or large radiators and stay efficient, but require good design. High‑temperature models can feed traditional radiators but can use more electricity.
Consider two typical cases.
Scenario A: A semi‑detached 1990s home near Bristol, already double‑glazed, with decent loft insulation and underfloor heating on the ground floor. After a careful heat‑loss survey, the owner replaces a gas boiler with a modestly sized air‑source pump and keeps the thermostat stable. Over a year, the power bill rises but the gas bill disappears, and total costs fall by a few hundred pounds while emissions drop sharply.
Scenario B: A stone farmhouse in rural Normandy with patchy insulation and old radiators. Encouraged by generous subsidies, the owner installs a large air‑source heat pump without upgrading the building envelope. During cold spells, the system struggles to keep rooms warm, the backup heaters kick in, and the electricity bill shocks the household. Comfort problems lead to thermostat tweaks and manual overrides that further blunt efficiency.
Both homeowners “have a heat pump”, yet their experiences sit at opposite ends of the spectrum. The technology has not failed in itself; the context and preparation made the difference.
Before signing a contract, households can ask for a detailed heat‑loss calculation, not just a rough estimate. They can request projected annual running costs under several electricity price scenarios, including cold winters.
Checking installer credentials and asking for references from nearby jobs also helps. Local case studies often reveal how the same climate, housing type and tariff structure play out in practice.
Heat pumps can contribute meaningfully to cutting emissions and reducing dependency on gas and oil. Yet without solid insulation, transparent information and competent installation, the technology risks staying trapped between political ambition and domestic disappointment.
Bookmark
Daniel Féau processes personal data in order to optimise communication with our sales leads, our future clients and our established clients.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.