MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

zeupater

Brian99 wrote: »

Zeupater... ABSOLUTELY ....

... Have you the link for the DIY assessment ?? Would be useful

Hi

I built a model specific to my house where you can vary the internal & external temperatures and predict the energy requirements, it's pretty accurate too, however it only works on my property as it's construction material specific ... it took absolutely ages to put together .....

I can't remember where I've seen the link to an EPC spreadsheet recently ... try looking on the Navitron or greenbuildingforum, I also think that knauf or one of the other large insulation manufacturers also has a free online tool .... There are also some downloadable packages which you can get hold of for evaluation ..... then again there's the long way ...... http://www.bre.co.uk/sap2009/page.jsp?id=1642 .... read the book and tick the boxes ... ... I may just do that one day :think::wall::whistle:

HTH
Z

zeupater

Hi all

Okay, didn't take long .... SCD on TV and SWMBO wanted to watch so I downloaded one of the 'free trial' software packages for RdSAP as I had a few minutes to spare opened a rather nice bottle of red and sat back to see what we would get ....

Well, if I'd paid more than a couple of pence on a training session I'd be really disappointed ... if the software which was downloaded is typical then the cost of an EPC report is a complete rip-off .... by the end of SCD I had a basic (unprintable) EPC report, and completely understood the package, even where there were/are limitations. The software package allows you to model the primary heating source as GCH with secondary being a log burner within the evaluation mode, however, setting the renewable source as the primary heat source prevents the modelling of a secondary heat source .... I can understand that approach as it's the people who take CO2 reduction seriously who would want to both use renewables as the primary heat source and use the software anyway, and afterall: they do want to sell the software ! ......

Right then, what do we score .... pretty simply it's ...

Energy Efficiency rating .... 82
Environmental Impact rating .... 81

... which places us in the B band on both accounts ...... it is quite pleasing to see that if we were to have only the log burner as the source of heating the EI rating would be 99, but with an assumption that the log burner is 60% efficient the EE rating would drop to around 76 ... I wonder how this would look if modelling both a stove and gas was possible in the evaluation copy of the software ... it's also important to note that the RdSAP software doesn't allow an entry of >300mm of loft insulation (we have 500mm+) and that there is no way to describe that ours is an architect designed house built with enhanced thermal properties (insulated slab etc ... even though it was built between 1983 & 1990) from the offset, so I wonder what the 'real' rating is ? .....

EPC ???? ..... :rotfl:

HTH
Z

## Edit .... see Appendix post #249 below ....

digitaltoast

zeupater wrote: »

hi all

okay, didn't take long .... Scd on tv and swmbo wanted to watch so i downloaded one of the 'free trial' software packages for rdsap as i had a few minutes to spare
[....]
epc ???? ..... :rotfl:

Hth
z

!!!!!!?!?!

zeupater

digitaltoast wrote: »

!!!!!!?!?!

Hi

Note posts #230 & #243 when relating to this ....

:rotfl: .... SCD = Strictly Come Dancing ... TV = TeleVision .... SWMBO = SheWhoMustBeObeyed ... RdSAP is the basis for the EPC (EnergyPerformanceCertificate) and importantly, the planned changes to the prerequisits for FiTs requiring an EPC/RdSAP of band C or better from April next year .....

HTH
Z

John_Pierpoint

The rdsap stands for Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_Certificate

Brian99_2

Thanks guys, the key word is RDSAP !!

Been perusing info on the web... now I see the EPC calculations are ENORMOUSLY detailed, trying to cover every type of house, every modification, every material... but clearly have to omit some things, to make a usable software package.

206 pages here for those interested.; both the full SAP and the reduced RDSAP


http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2009/SAP-2009_9-90.pdf

Gives a pretty good idea of how they would deal with fuzzy situations, eg patchy loft insulation, boards etc

zeupater

zeupater wrote: »

Hi all

Okay, didn't take long ....

.... EPC ???? ..... :rotfl:

HTH
Z

Hi

Appendix to above post .... it's actually just struck me how silly the RdSAP system is ...... ..... a simple example .....

Anyone who's spent more money on higher efficiency panels will be kicking themselves as the EPC calculation is based on %age of roof covered ..... :wall: ...... playing with the array surface area can easily create a band 'A' property from nowhere ..... 6% efficient thin film panels anyone ?? .... :rotfl:

Great new motto for the BRE ..... "Inefficiency, the new efficiency" ... you probably couldn't make up something more rediculous if you tried .....

HTH
Z

kes74

Barter wrote: »

Thanks to all for your contributions. To comment on some of the points:

I can't feel confident that, were the installation to be delayed till after 12th December, thus triggering the lower FIT in April, they wouldn't also ask for the energy cert., which we can't achieve as far as I can see.

It's possible, I know, to insulate solid walls, but at what cost, financially, but also aesthetically - destroying the period features/character etc.

A victorian mid-terrace may well be able to get a C rating or above; less so a semi or detached property.

We're in much the same situation after scrimping and saving every penny for a long time to buy our home-for-life. Yes we expected some challenges for living in something different, but this new limitation creates a depressingly black-and-white scenario;

To have any hope of contributing to renewable energy provision whilst living in our character property we must find a way to get solar by April. After then it will be prohibitively cost-ineffective.

Yes stop FIT being such a cash cow. However, when doing so they must ensure there is NO situation that arises where anybody finds renewable options will have a greater lifetime cost than fossil.

rogerblack

kes74 wrote: »

Yes stop FIT being such a cash cow. However, when doing so they must ensure there is NO situation that arises where anybody finds renewable options will have a greater lifetime cost than fossil.

No situation?
So it should be available at subsidised cost to those in the worst places for it?

Subsidy should go to the places where it is most efficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (or to reduce fuel imports).

If this is free insulation schemes for people with solid-wall homes, or large field-scale solar, or a campaign that succeeds in making it popular to wear thick jumpers, or retrofits on coal power stations to make them 15% more efficient - great!

You should not get to spend my money on your lifestyle choices, in order to feel better about yourself. And the FITs are my (and other consumers less well off than you) money.

Residential scale solar - even at the new lower FIT rate - is a very expensive per watt way of doing things.

I want a nice lighted Santa on my roof with 4 reindeer.
Where's my subsidy?

kes74

magyar wrote: »

... which I think clearly tells you you're being overcompensated. Don't get me wrong - great investment for you and quite right too! But tell me anywhere else you could put your money in a government underwritten investment and get £1,300 back from a £10k investment after 1 year!

I agree FIT is due a revision. However, for some the decision to get solar panels also means they are electing to accept degraded visible home aesthetics - plus resulting moving on hardships - for the entire duration. That warrants some compensation beyond less invasive investment options...