What Nesta’s latest research reveals about why homeowners still hesitate, and what the heating industry has misunderstood.
Imagine your boiler failed tomorrow. Within hours, what begins as a straightforward replacement quickly becomes something else entirely.
You might find yourself reading about heat pumps. At first, it feels straightforward enough. A cleaner way to heat your home. Lower carbon emissions. Greater efficiency. A technology increasingly presented as the future of domestic heating.
Then the questions begin.
You discover that not every heat pump is the same. Some installers recommend one manufacturer, others another. Some tell you your existing radiators are perfectly adequate; others insist they all need replacing. One says you’ll need a buffer tank. Another says you won’t. Cylinder sizes vary. Flow temperatures vary. Electricity tariffs suddenly matter. Someone mentions weather compensation. Another talks about heat loss calculations. Before long, you’re comparing seasonal performance factors, refrigerants and government grants, subjects you never expected to learn about simply to keep your home warm.
None of this is because you want to become an expert in heating. It’s because you’re trying to avoid making an expensive mistake.
It reflects a deeper problem in the way we’ve designed one of the most important purchasing decisions homeowners ever make.
And it’s precisely the problem explored in one of the most significant pieces of research on heat pump adoption published in recent years.
Nesta’s Cost, Comfort and Confidence report explores how homeowners across Britain think about low-carbon heating. It uncovers something that many in the industry have long suspected but rarely articulated: people are not simply evaluating a technology. They are navigating uncertainty. They are weighing financial risk, practical disruption, family comfort and the possibility of future regret, often with little confidence that they possess enough knowledge to make the “right” decision.
Most commentary on the report has understandably focused on its headline findings. Cost matters. Comfort matters. Confidence matters. Different households have different motivations and different concerns.
But the report points towards a larger, more fundamental insight.
The greatest barrier to adopting low-carbon heating may not be the technology, or even its cost. It may be the way we’ve unintentionally designed the decision-making process around it.
Somewhere along the way, replacing a heating system stopped being something homeowners asked experts to help them with. Instead, it became something they felt compelled to research, verify and understand for themselves before they could trust their own judgement.
No other home improvement asks quite so much of the customer.
In almost every other field, expertise exists to reduce complexity. In heating, we’ve often allowed complexity to become part of the purchase.
This article isn’t intended as another summary of Nesta’s research. The report speaks clearly for itself. Instead, we’ll use its findings as a starting point to explore a broader question:
Why has replacing a heating system become one of the most cognitively demanding decisions a homeowner can make, and what would it look like if our industry designed for confidence instead of simply providing information?
Beyond Cost: What Nesta’s Research Is Really Telling Us
Every piece of research is shaped by the questions we ask of it.
Read Nesta’s Cost, Comfort and Confidence report as a policymaker and you’ll see evidence about public attitudes. Read it as a manufacturer and you’ll see product adoption. Read it as an installer and you’ll recognise familiar customer questions.
Read it through the lens of human behaviour, and a different picture emerges.
Beneath the discussions about grants, running costs, radiator upgrades and system performance lies a more fundamental challenge.
People are not simply trying to understand heat pumps.
They are trying to understand whether they can trust themselves to make the right decision.
One of Nesta’s most significant observations is that there is no single “heat pump customer”. Homeowners arrive at the decision from very different starting points.
- Some are replacing a failed boiler.
- Others are renovating.
- Others are motivated by sustainability.
- Others simply want reliable heating.
This matters because it challenges one of the heating industry’s longest-held assumptions: that the barrier to adoption can be solved with a single message.
It cannot.
Whether people talked about cost, comfort, installation or trust, they were often describing the same experience.
Uncertainty.
Consider the kinds of questions homeowners repeatedly returned to.
- Will my home stay warm in winter?
- Will my energy bills actually fall?
- How disruptive will installation be?
- Can I trust the advice I’m being given?
- How do I know which installer is right?
On the surface, these appear to be technical or financial questions. In reality, many are expressions of something deeper.
Technical questions are frequently emotional questions in disguise.
Replacing a heating system is no different.
Long before a homeowner compares the efficiency of two heat pumps, they are imagining what life might look like after the installation.
- They imagine a warm home on a freezing morning.
- They imagine stable energy bills.
- They imagine the reassurance of having made a future-focused investment.
But they also imagine the opposite.
- A cold house.
- Unexpected costs.
- Months of disruption.
- The embarrassment of spending thousands of pounds only to discover they made the wrong decision.
The purchase is not simply a comparison of technologies. It is a comparison of imagined futures.
Viewed through this lens, the three themes identified by Nesta begin to connect.
- Cost is not merely a question of affordability. It is uncertainty about future financial security.
- Comfort is not merely a question of temperature. It is uncertainty about everyday life inside the home.
- Trust is not merely believing what an installer says. It is uncertainty about whose expertise deserves confidence.
The report may describe these as separate themes, but they are different expressions of the same uncertainty.
And that observation raises a more fundamental question.
If uncertainty lies beneath so many of these barriers, where does it come from?
The Heating Confidence Gap
The problem isn’t that homeowners know too little. It’s that we’ve asked them to know too much.
That is the Heating Confidence Gap.
Where does that uncertainty come from?
The obvious answer is a lack of information.
For years, the industry’s response reflected that assumption. We published guides, created comparison tools and explained the technology more clearly.
Those efforts mattered.
But awareness has grown faster than confidence.
We live in an age of abundant information but scarce expertise
For most of modern history, expertise worked in a remarkably simple way.
When something fell outside your knowledge, you sought out someone whose expertise you trusted.
The purpose of expertise was not simply to provide information. It was to reduce complexity.
The internet has changed that relationship forever.
Today, a homeowner considering a heat pump can access thousands of articles, videos, forums, reviews and technical guides within a few minutes. They can compare manufacturers, read government guidance, watch installers on YouTube and browse discussions on Reddit long before they ever speak to a professional.
This is an extraordinary improvement in access to knowledge. But it has also created a new challenge: Knowing whose expertise deserves our confidence.
Information has become abundant. Expertise has not.
Defining the gap
The Heating Confidence Gap is the gap between knowing more and feeling ready.
Every homeowner experiences that gap differently.
For one family, it may appear as uncertainty about whether a heat pump will keep an older property warm enough through winter.
For another, it may be uncertainty about whether they are receiving good advice or simply the recommendation that best suits the installer.
For someone else, it is uncertainty about whether now is the right time to invest at all.
The questions vary. The underlying experience does not.
The impossible expectation
Perhaps the most striking feature of today’s buying journey is that many homeowners no longer feel they can simply appoint an expert.
Instead, they feel they must first become one. Not completely, but enough to judge whether the advice they’re receiving is credible.
It’s also an impossible expectation.
- How much research is enough?
- Ten articles?
- Twenty?
- A weekend of YouTube videos?
- Three installer visits?
- Five?
- At what point does someone become qualified to judge a heat loss calculation?
Nobody knows. That’s the problem.
The challenge is no longer finding information. The challenge is knowing when enough is enough.
Expertise should reduce complexity, not transfer it
The internet changed access to expertise without changing the ability to evaluate it. This is where the homeowner experience has quietly shifted.
In many industries, the role of expertise is to absorb complexity on behalf of the customer. Expertise exists because some problems are too complex for individuals to solve alone.
Heating should be no different.
Recognising the Heating Confidence Gap changes how we think about the industry’s role. If homeowners are struggling because they lack information, our task is to educate them. But if they are struggling because they are carrying too much responsibility for evaluating expertise they cannot reasonably assess, then our task is very different.
It becomes our responsibility to reduce that burden.
Not by simplifying the engineering, but by simplifying the journey.
Because the Heating Confidence Gap is not closed by asking homeowners to become better engineers.
The Heating Confidence Gap closes when we return that responsibility to where it belongs.
People don’t need certainty. They need enough certainty to move.
If the homeowner journey we’ve described feels familiar, that’s because it isn’t unique to heating. It’s how people respond whenever they’re asked to make an important decision without feeling able to judge the expertise of the people advising them.
Behavioural scientists have spent decades studying exactly these kinds of decisions. Their research has consistently shown that people are not irrational. Human beings are remarkably adaptive. When uncertainty increases, we don’t stop thinking carefully, we simply start thinking differently.
Replacing a heating system contains almost every characteristic of a decision that behavioural science predicts people will find difficult.
The investment is significant.
The technology is unfamiliar.
Experts often disagree.
The outcome won’t be fully known until after installation.
And the consequences affect something deeply personal: the comfort of home.
Under these conditions, homeowners don’t behave irrationally. They behave exactly as we would expect.
We don’t seek certainty. We seek enough certainty.
One of the most common misconceptions about major purchases is that people wait until they’re certain before making a decision.
Certainty is almost never available.
People don’t wait for uncertainty to disappear.
They move forward when uncertainty becomes acceptable.
The difference isn’t necessarily knowledge.
It’s confidence.
Why the fear of getting it wrong is so powerful
In the 1970s, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that the pain of making a costly mistake is often psychologically greater than the satisfaction of making a good decision.
This principle, known as loss aversion, helps explain much of what Nesta observed.
Homeowners are rarely asking only, “Can I afford this?”
More often, they’re asking, “Can I afford to be wrong?”
Why more information doesn’t always create more confidence
The heating industry has responded to uncertainty with admirable intent, but behavioural science also reminds us that more information is not always better information.
Psychologist Barry Schwartz famously argued that beyond a certain point, increasing the number of options can make decision-making harder rather than easier.
Imagine receiving four quotations for the same home.
- One installer recommends replacing every radiator.
- Another says the existing system is perfectly adequate.
- One specifies a buffer tank.
- Another says it is unnecessary.
- Each proposes a different manufacturer.
- Each presents convincing technical reasoning.
- Each appears entirely credible.
Who is right?
More importantly…
How could the homeowner possibly know?
The challenge is no longer finding information. It is evaluating expertise. And that is something information alone cannot solve.
When we can’t evaluate expertise, we evaluate trust
When people cannot confidently judge technical competence, they naturally begin looking for other signals.
They ask themselves:
- Who listened most carefully?
- Who explained the trade-offs honestly?
- Who acknowledged uncertainty instead of pretending certainty?
- Whose recommendations felt tailored to my home rather than copied from a brochure?
These are rational responses to uncertainty.
Behavioural economists such as Richard Thaler have long argued that the environments in which people make decisions shape the decisions themselves. When information is complex and expertise is difficult to evaluate, trust becomes one of the most important decision-making tools available.
Seen through this lens, one of Nesta’s recurring themes becomes much easier to understand.
Homeowners weren’t simply looking for technical answers. They were looking for someone willing to carry uncertainty with them.
What this means for our industry
Behavioural science doesn’t explain why homeowners resist heat pumps. It explains why they behave exactly as we would expect any of us to behave.
The challenge is no longer persuading people to adopt heat pumps. Nor is it expecting them to become sufficiently knowledgeable to evaluate every technical recommendation they receive. The challenge is reducing the uncertainty that makes those decisions feel so difficult in the first place.
Engineering Confidence
If uncertainty is the defining challenge of the homeowner journey, then reducing uncertainty should become the defining purpose of the industry.
Engineering is often thought of as the discipline of designing systems that work reliably under predictable conditions.
Beneath every engineering discipline lies a simpler purpose.
Engineering exists to reduce uncertainty.
Civil engineers reduce uncertainty about whether a bridge will remain standing.
Structural engineers reduce uncertainty about whether a building will withstand decades of use.
Aerospace engineers reduce uncertainty about flight.
Heating engineers reduce uncertainty about whether a home will remain warm, comfortable and efficient.
Confidence is simply the human experience of that uncertainty being reduced.
Engineering begins with the first question.
Too often, engineering is seen as the moment technical work begins.
- A survey is completed.
- A heat loss calculation is produced.
- A system is specified.
- Equipment is installed.
In reality, good engineering starts much earlier. It begins the moment a homeowner starts asking questions.
Long before a system is designed, people are trying to understand what problem they are solving.
- Can this technology work in my home?
- Will it suit the way my family lives?
- Can I trust the recommendations I’m receiving?
- What happens if something goes wrong?
Every unanswered question increases uncertainty.
Every thoughtful answer reduces it.
Good engineering should do the same.
It is to reduce uncertainty at every stage of the journey until the technical solution becomes the obvious conclusion rather than the source of anxiety.
Confidence cannot be persuaded into existence
Persuasion asks homeowners to trust us.
Confidence means they no longer need to.
Confidence is not created by stronger claims.
Engineering the journey
Imagine two homeowners.
Each receives the same heat pump.
Years later, both systems deliver identical comfort and efficiency.
Technically, the projects are indistinguishable, yet their experiences could be entirely different.
One homeowner spends months wondering whether they have chosen the right installer, the right system and the right investment. Every new piece of information creates another doubt.
The other finishes each stage with greater clarity than they had before. Their questions are anticipated. Trade-offs are explained openly. Expectations are set realistically. Complexity is translated rather than hidden.
The systems are identical.
The journeys are not.
Only one has truly been engineered.
Engineering confidence means designing every interaction so that uncertainty consistently decreases rather than accumulates.
Every stage should leave the homeowner better able to answer four simple questions:
- Am I making the right decision?
- Is this system right for my home?
- Are these the right experts to trust?
- What happens next?
If each interaction reduces uncertainty, confidence becomes the consequence. If uncertainty increases, confidence diminishes, regardless of how technically excellent the final installation may be.
A different measure of engineering excellence
Many companies optimise for conversion. Fewer optimise for confidence. The two are not always the same.
A homeowner may sign a contract while still carrying significant uncertainty. They may only discover whether their confidence was justified months after the installation is complete.
The companies that earn enduring trust will be those that reduce uncertainty long before that point. Because in the years ahead, competitive advantage will come from engineering better decisions.
The companies that lead the next decade won’t simply build the most efficient heating systems.
They’ll become the easiest experts to trust.
Conclusion
Engineering has never simply been about making things work. It has been about making uncertainty manageable.
We trust bridges because engineers have reduced uncertainty about their safety.
We trust aircraft because engineers have reduced uncertainty about their reliability.
We trust medical devices because engineers have reduced uncertainty about their performance.
The future of home heating demands exactly the same mindset. The homeowner should never have to become the weakest engineer in the system. Their role is not to master heating engineering. Their role is simply to decide whether they trust the people who have.
The industry’s responsibility is to make that decision easier.
The companies that define the next decade won’t simply install more heat pumps.
They’ll reduce more uncertainty.
Those that recognise confidence is not won through persuasion but earned through thoughtful engineering at every stage of the homeowner journey.
Every major technological transition asks society to place its trust in something new.
Every energy transition is ultimately a transition of confidence.
The technologies that succeed are rarely those that are merely possible.
- They are the ones that become understandable.
- The ones that become dependable.
- The ones that ordinary people feel confident enough to choose.
Low-carbon heating will be no different.
Britain doesn’t have a heat pump problem.
It has a confidence problem.
The future of home heating will not be engineered one heat pump at a time.
It will be engineered one confident decision at a time.
