Financially, Heat Pumps Cannot be Justified in UK 2026

Although environmentally speaking it is very easy to justify the installation of a heat pump in your home, they cannot be justified on a purely financial basis because heat pumps cost more to operate than gas boilers mainly because they run on electricity and electricity is four times more expensive than gas at present in the UK. I guess things can change but I am writing about the metrics at this moment.

And this information comes from a survey carried out by the Green Britain Foundation in which 1000 heat pump owners were questioned.

You may know that heat pumps work like a reverse refrigerator by moving warmth from the outside air to the inside. They produce about 3 to 4 times the energy they use making them much more efficient than a traditional gas boiler.

I mention the running costs briefly above. There is also the installation costs. Even with the £7500 upfront subsidy, the installation of a heat pump will be £3000 more expensive than the installation of a gas boiler at about £3000. You have to recoup that extra £3000 over the forthcoming years after installation which you are not going to do.

Another point is that the claims the manufacturers make can be misleading because some data suggest that about 90% of heat pumps' actual performance is below the manufacturers' claims.

The survey mentioned above found that two thirds of respondents said their homes are more expensive to heat with heat pumps than they were with gas boilers, their previous system.

Only 15% of respondents reported that their homes are less expensive to heat. The remaining 19% reported no difference or that they were unsure.

It seems that heat pumps are far more common with richer people than poorer people. This probably indicates or confirms that the main reason for installing them is to protect the environment and the money aspect which I am mentioning here is somewhat irrelevant or less relevant for these people.

I think, however, that the financial aspects are very important because it's hard to ask the average person to pay £3000 more to install a heat pump rather than a gas boiler and then find out it's more expensive to run than a gas boiler.

And the installation is quite substantial. There is much more in terms of equipment when installing a heat pump compared to a boiler. There's more disruption and the equipment occupies more space. You will need to have that space around your house. There are strict rules about how close the pump can be to one's neighbour. It is far more technical than a gas boiler it seems to me.

Dale Vince, the person who set up the Green Britain Foundation says that customers are being mis-sold heat pumps. He added that: "It's a myth, but is such a frustrating one, that heat pump save you money. The reality for people on the ground is a disappointment."

The government argues otherwise. They say that a survey conducted by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said that 89% of property owners were satisfied with their heat pumps after a winter of use. The report said that property owners had mixed experiences with their total energy bills after installing a heat pump but "most commonly they reported that their bills had decreased."

As mentioned that comes from the government and personally I don't trust this government particularly as they want to promote heat pumps.

I have been thinking about installing a heat pump but having read The Times' article which I used to write this article, I have decided against installing a heat pump. This is particularly so because my current boiler is functioning okay and I don't plan to live in my house that much longer and you have to live in your house in which a new heat pump has been installed for many years in order to recover the initial outlay namely the extra £3000 mentioned above. That must be factored in to the overall finances.

------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Woman still in debt after £8,000 vet bill for bulldog

You don't want to be in this position where you are torn between the love of your companion animal, in this case a bulldog, and the heavy price that you have to pay with almost no end to forking out money, to fix a very expensive pet medical problem. This is what happens: veterinarians know that cat and dog owners will be very likely to fork out thousands of pounds for medical issues because of their tight emotional connection with their pets. The alternative is to euthanise the companion animal which is unthinkable to many people.

Vet bills are increasing and some dog breeds are inherently prone to chronic illness due to irresponsible breeding practices. Image: MikeB

In this instance, Roy the bulldog fell ill in September. His owner, Tracey Higgins immediately took him to the vet and after several trips the final bill has come to almost £8,200. All from savings and credit cards.

She lives in East London with her husband Kevin. Roy is seven years old. He began to vomit and lost weight quickly.

Initial tests cost £180 but the bill snowballed.

The veterinarian recommended that Roy stay for three nights in an animal hospital where more tests, scans and medications were administered. He was discharged from that hospital with a £3,500 bill at which point Tracey began to panic about the escalating costs. There was no guarantee he would get better but she said that: "We couldn't not have him treated. We are responsible for him and love him."

A part of Roy's small intestine was severely inflamed and over the next three months there were further tests and medications administered costing £3500 and after that further veterinary visits and tests racked up another £995.

As I said pet owners have no choice but to go down this black hole of veterinary costs sometimes with no end in sight.

In the UK, the price of veterinary care and other pet services has jumped about 40% since 2020 according to the Office for National Statistics.

It's a huge dilemma and a great worry for many pet owners. Tracey Higgins had cancelled her pet insurance which cost £250 a month. That alone is a very heavy expense. It covered Roy and the couple's other dog Bonnie. She cancel the insurance policy six months before Roy fell ill.

The couple had regularly saved into an account for vet bills which had accrued £2,000 when Roy needed treatment. They raided other savings and used credit cards to pay the bill.

Higgins said that she was "shocked by the size of the bills and concerned by the ongoing treatment as the cost just kept building up. It was very expensive and we still have some of that debt hanging over us. But we are relieved he has come through it. In some respects it was money well spent because we still have Roy."

UK pet insurance. More excluded treatments. Rising cost of cover.

The Competition and Markets Authority are investigating the £2 billion vet industry because there are concerns about dramatically increased costs as mentioned and that pet owners are overpaying for medicines and being kept in the dark about the cost of treatments.

In addition, it's probably fair to say that the bulldog is an inherently unhealthy animal or perhaps I'm being unfair but the French bulldog for instance, is, in my estimation, the most unhealthy companion animal you can adopt. You can read about that by clicking on this link.

It's a double whammy effect with purebred dogs becoming less healthy because of inbreeding and veterinary bills becoming more expensive because they been bought up by big conglomerates who are trying to squeeze more profit out of what were independent veterinarians focusing on and prioritising medical health treatment rather than making a profit.

Source: The Times July 6th 2024 (main story).

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Why LIV golf will fail in the long term

Yes, another post that is not about cats. Sorry. I have kinda run out of things to say about cats. I've written many thousands of articles about them and it's time for me to spread my wings a bit. 😎😁

I have just read a story about Brooks Koepka who was taken aback by the fact that he had won an extra £3.2 million ($4 million) as a bonus after he had secured his LIV golf Jeddah title last October. He had no idea he was going to receive that enormous four million dollar bonus.

LIV golf is awash with cash. It is built on the back of money. LIV golf buys PGA golfers with huge monetary incentives. It buys their souls if you like. And some PGA golfers have taken these incentives and sold their soul to the money devil.

This will work and is working to a certain extent for a while. But at the end of the day it will fail because in the long term, once these golfers have made an extra $100 million-$200 million or more, money will no longer be an incentive.

For many of them, in any case, they had no need for more money. Most of these top PGA golfers are already multimillionaires with more than enough to support themselves and their families for the rest of their lives in great comfort.

The money God can only incentivise for a limited period of time. After that it comes down to being motivated to achieve. To leave a legacy. To attain major championship wins. How many major championships have I one? That will be the motivation for a top PGA golfer.

It really comes down to achievement at the end of the day. Monetary matters no longer become the priority. They become a secondary factor.

I'm convinced that in the long term LIV golf will fizzle out because that kind of excessive money - and the LIV golf money is certainly excessive as I'm sure everyone would agree - will no longer motivate golfers. 

It's silly money. It is oil money chucked at golfers to numb their brains into chasing the money God. It just doesn't work at the end of the day.

People who have lots of money already - and as mentioned top PGA golfers have lots of money already -  can no longer be motivated by more money.

I have repeated myself badly. Sorry but I had to extend the page a little for SEO reasons. 😒

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

One key factor in making more money as a social media influencer

There is, according to a study, one key aspect of making more money if you are in the business of being a social media influencer, which, I have to add is incredibly competitive. Very few make it big in this profession and the kind of money you can earn in the lower echelons will be tiny. However, there appears to be a universal rule to make more money and the formula is: the more skin someone shows, the more profitable the post.

JoJo Barbie has 10.3 million followers. She flashes the flesh a lot while showing off her bum and breasts. Image: Instagram. This is her latest post at 16th November 2023.

An assistant professor of Erasmus University Rotterdam did some research on this. She first started to get interested in the topic after buying a fitness programme from the site of Amanda Bisk, a yoga teacher and Instagram influencer.

She asked herself why did she buy into this fitness programme and how does Amanda influence her? And there was a clue in that Amanda shows a lot of flesh. She wondered whether this was the key reason why Bisk is successful.

She decided to study it more scientifically. She asked an influencer agency for the market rates for the top 100 accounts in each of the following five categories: fashion, fitness, music, photography and food.

For those who don't know, most Instagram influences make their money from posting sponsored content on their Instagram pages. The advertisers pay influencers to create posts promoting their products.

And for the top accounts ranging from 1.4 million to 65.8 million followers (an awful lot as you can see) the average estimated price paid for each sponsored picture is about £14,500 (as at the date of this article)!

Most of the influencers post twice per week and therefore they make almost £30,000 a week!

There are other factors such as how many engaged followers there are i.e. those they make comments and enter into a dialogue, and how many 'likes' there are. 

Male influences earn more than female influences which is unsurprising.

Armed with the information from the agency she studied the nudity factor (as I have called it), which is if the post featured nudity to the point where more than 50% of the person was naked or the image focused on the breast or bottom, they found that the advertising revenue was 4% higher!

So, flashing the flesh, breast and bum increases earnings by 4%. Think on that. And if you are new to the market and have a nice body and don't mind showing it off it probably pays to flash the flesh.

Newcomers should also realise that the top influencers have a team working for them who help decide what is more successful and what is likely to fail. Essentially it appears that the advisers are able to better target an audience and provide the audience with what they want. Perhaps they are able to look at things far more objectively which means they are more businesslike.

But the underlying principle or formula is to be 50% naked!

------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

How much did Grumpy Cat earn throughout her 7-year life?

There was a lot of talk all over the internet and on news media about Grumpy cat earning around $100 million in her life or part of her life (April 4, 2012 – May 14, 2019).

 

You'll see this number repeated all the time but since her premature death on May 14th, 2019 at the age of 7, there has a correction by Tabatha Bundesen, Grumpy Cat's owner. She denies that the $100 million figure is accurate. She does not tell us the true figure. 

Bundesen and Tardar Sauce, the cat she exploited to make millions. Image in the public domain (believed).

It is hard to envisage her earnings being higher than $100 million, therefore they were lower. 

In fact, the language that she used in her denial hints at the more likely true figure. She described the report as "completely false" to the Huffington Post.

'Completely false' indicates that $100m was very wide off the mark and in my view a greatly overestimated number. For example, if Bundesen had said that the $100m was 'slightly false' we'd know that it was fairly close and a little high.

'Completely' indicates that the $100m is probably about 3 times too high on a guess. If I am correct Bundesen made around $30m from all the endorsements and appearances over her life.

Bundesen successfully sued one business for $700,000 for example. That gives us a clue as to the type of numbers involved.

Wikipedia plays very safe and says that she earned between $1m and $100m! Not very precise!

Tardar Sauce (her real name) was very big at the time. He earnings must have been in the many millions. We just don't know how many millions.

Bundesen was a waiter before her cat became the world's biggest ever cat celebrity. I'd expect her to be set up for life financially. She won't have to work again.

The sad part is that Grump Cat owed her considerable fame to her deformed anatomy. Her short legs and diminutive body and importantly her downturned mouth giving the grumpy appearance were all due to dwarfism. This was a distorted anatomy and her health was poor as she died well before her time.

She was exploited really. Harsh to say that but it has to be true. If we did the same thing with a human the person involved would have been successful prosecuted for criminal behavior! It is a funny old world.

Olivia Benson, a cat worth millions with big earning potential

Everything that Taylor Swift touches turns to gold metaphorically speaking. For example, Taylor Swift, herself, is officially the most followed person on Instagram with a mind-blowing 239 million followers. We know she loves cats and we know that one of her cats as Olivia Benson, a Scottish Fold.

Olivia Benson. Image: Instagram (modified by MikeB)

And because of that connection and for no other reason in my opinion the news media are saying that Olivia Benson has the potential to earn millions and therefore is worth millions herself.

Taylor Swift has given Olivia her own Instagram account. From that account she has the potential to earn big. She is described as a moneymaking machine with an estimated value of US$97 million.

How does it happen? Why can't I have a cat worth millions of dollars!? Hundreds of millions of people would love that too. But you've got to be Taylor Swift. Olivia Benson living with John Doe in a suburb of New York would not make a penny even if they had their own Instagram account.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift)

The idea that Olivia Benson is worth pots of money comes from a website called All About Cats in which they state that Olivia "has found success outside the world of Instagram influencing. The Scottish Fold earned her fortune starring alongside her owner in several music videos, has crafted her own merchandise line, and has had cameos in many big-budget ads."

That's the story! I don't have much more. I have to touch on a couple of moral issues which I know are boring and there's no glitter or celebrity discussing moral issues but I have to do it.

Note: these embedded social media posts sometimes fail. It might not work. If so, sorry.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Olivia Benson💎 (@_olivia_benson_the_cat)

Benson's followers

Well, I have discovered that Olivia is not doing great on her own Instagram page with a measly 581 followers. Perhaps this story is all hype, smoke and mirrors?!

Moral Issues?

The first issue is that Olivia Benson is a Scottish Fold as mentioned. A lot of people think that this is a cat breed that should not exist. The reason why the ears fold flat is because the ear flaps, made of cartilage, are defective. The cartilage isn't stiff enough to keep the ear flaps erect and that is due to a genetic mutation which has been handed down to offspring through selective breeding over many years. 

The Scottish Fold is a breed of domestic cat with a natural dominant-gene mutation that affects cartilage throughout the body, causing the ears to "fold," bending forward and downward towards the front of the head, which gives the breed its distinctive appearance. Scottish Folds are known for their sweet and affectionate personalities, and they are a popular choice as pets. 

The genetic mutation that causes the folded ears is dominant, which means that if a Scottish Fold is bred with a cat that does not have the mutation, approximately half of the offspring will have folded ears. However, there are some potential health concerns associated with the Scottish Fold breed, including an increased risk of developing certain orthopedic problems due to the genetic mutation.

So, Olivia Benson is perpetuating something which is not that great to be honest. And secondly, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a domestic cat earning money for you. My mind immediately turns to that great organisation PETA which has that wonderful motto on their website about animals that are not ours to be used for our entertainment or any other purpose.

Certainly, when cats are used to make money, they break that PETA mantra big time. I'm not suggesting that Olivia Benson doesn't like performing for the camera and making some dosh for her owner but she would probably be happier at home snoozing above a warm radiator or soaking up the sun by a window.

Tabby cat sits on a ledger during evacuation of Bank of England from London during WW2

Picture in the public domain at this time (deemed).