The Oxford study is really good. But I can’t say the same about this article.
A COP of ~2 is not great for a heat pump, calling this a triumph is really weird. But from a journalist saying that a COP above 1 means the heat pump “creates energy”, I am not sure I should have expected more.
But what’s great is that this COP of 2, while bad, is not catastrophic. That’s still in territory where gas boilers are more cost efficient that a heat pump, but unless you are living in a place that is consistently under -10C for several months, then a heat pump has overall lower running costs than a gas boiler. And you are starting to hit pretty northern territories with this.
What’s important is also to be able to store heat during the day so that the heat pump runs at its most efficient time. But that can unfortunately coincide with the higher consumption time, so the timing needs to be adjusted properly to avoid using it during consumption peaks.
If you have fiber, it’s unlikely you will benefit from something like Starling. Transfer data wirelessly through a constellation of satellites will have running costs much higher than just having a fibre. That is unless you have to dog a trench or run a fibre on mast for km for just one customer, which is where Starling starts making more sense.
Starling is for rural customers, mobile customers, and possibly an option to counter monopoly abuse by some Telco companies. But if you are in a city with fibre, then do use the fibre, that’s your better option.