Solar PV installation to be removed from EPC calculation

MFW_ASAP

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

And to the thread .....

I was under the impression that the application for the FiT needed a copy of the EPC anyway, certainly been the case with a number of people which I know who've had systems sine the EPC requirement came in. If unscrupulous individuals have been 'fiddling' the system in order to meet qualification criteria then the change to a more ethical stance is to be welcomed and I'm pretty sure that I'd not be the only one to take that stance ....

Nice to see you posting on topic finally. I was also under the same impression as yourself, that the EPC was submitted and then the decision made on the tariff. I was surprised when the new regulations stated that solar PV was to be removed from the calculations as I never knew they were in there in the first place!

Glad to hear that you also welcome the change to a more ethical stance and that the loophole has been closed.

As to your rainwater comment. I'm afraid you're misinformed. Your water provider will not adjust sewerage prices regardless of whether you have rainwater harvesting or not. If you informed them they would not care. They do not have an effective way of metering sewage, and so just meter the supply and calculate the sewage charge based on that. It's swings and roundabouts I guess because you could water your garden and car with the mains (metered) water and not have it go back into the sewer system, yet still get charged for it. No loophole there then, and so no 'little old lady' involvement. Your water board might be glad that you've fitted a rainwater harvesting system though because they are proven to help reduce the occurrence of flash floods. You're doing them a favour by installing it.

No shady attempts to get FIT payments for a 'leaky old buidling' either. The main reasosn being that (1) I don't have a leaky old building - our home is sealed with lime 'parge' coated walls, internal insulation, A rated windows (without trickle vents) and air supplied via a MHRV system, our PV system will be DIY as it's much cheaper and the loophole was discovered when I read about it on another green site (and was shocked to hear it).

Looks like your smear campaign has failed dismally.

EDIT: To be fair, when you guys 'play the man' instead of the ball (i.e. attack me personally rather than discuss the topic), it makes it easier to defeat you all. Mr. Zeupater here, for instance, just came across as a jealous young child with all of the 'fancy listed building' and 'oh your SIPP is so big, mister. Me love you long time'. It quite made me giggle to read it. :rotfl:

tunnel

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

As we have a listed building, our renovations cost proportionally more than normal, as we have to use traditional building materials like lime (instead of cheap plasterboard and plaster or cement) and breathable materials like woodfibre and sheepswool (instead of kingspan or polystyrene). I don't mind as these are more environmentally kinder than their modern counterparts, though it's also difficult finding tradesmen with these skills, or who have the time to do them (lime plastering involved three coats, all of which need time to harden and 'fettling time'). I therefore have to learn new skills and do the jobs myself, which adds to the timescales.

I just knew i'd seen it all before
as posted by the original The_Green_Man, who just happened to use underscores in their name, too similar to dismiss i'm afraid

In my home, I have installed a combination of sheep wool, wood fibre boards, wood wool board, hemp lime and hemp batts to help provide breathable insulation.

After installing a loft full of rockwool several years ago in a previous property, I have to say that I absolutely loved installing rolls of sheep wool in our new lofts. Even the cat seemed to love them, evidenced by the number of times I found him lying on top of the rolls.

The one I didn't enjoy installing was the wood fibre boards as internal wall insulation. There was a huge amount of prep work in levelling the stone rubble walls with lime plaster and then mechanically fixing each board to the plastered wall. In another part of the house, I battened out and filled between and behind the battens with sheep wool and covered it all with wood wool boards. Much more straightforward and extremely quick!

Lime plastering with hemp lime was also a struggle - I had a mate who is a plasterer helping me and, with a disgusted look on his face as he examined the hemp lime on his float, announced "It's like smearing horse sh*t on a wall".

think i'll just ignore your posts from now on....busted

MFW_ASAP

tunnel wrote: »

I just knew i'd seen it all before
as posted by the original The_Green_Man, who just happened to use underscores in their name, too similar to dismiss i'm afraid
think i'll just ignore your posts from now on....busted

I've never denied being The_Green_Man. Hardly busted when I've actually said (and do here again) "I'm the Green Man"

"No, I'm the Green Man" (Spartacus reference there for all you film buffs).

I can't say I'm concerned if you ignore my posts, you didn't add anything to the discussion anyway - you just made personal attacks. All it means is that I'll have one less bully to contend with on here

Something tells me though that you'll not be able to stop yourself...

kevin6666

Does anyone know if the -H -M -L Tariff bandings are going to stay from Jan 15th? As with the new EPC rules will surely mean most new domestic PVs would fall into a M/L band meaning even lower tariffs and bringing an even quicker death to new domestic FIT applicants.

Cardew

tunnel wrote: »

I just knew i'd seen it all before
as posted by the original The_Green_Man, who just happened to use underscores in their name, too similar to dismiss i'm afraid
think i'll just ignore your posts from now on....busted

Why ignore his posts - surely it is his arguments that should be discussed.


He may well have posted before as 'The_Green_Man (I suspect he did) It may well be that he was banned from MSE - so what?


I have an objection to someone posting simultaneously in the same sections using two user names, but as far as I am aware The_Green_Man is not currently posting in support of MFW_ASHP; so how does that invalidate the latter's arguments? Or do you find it easier to move the discussion to personalities rather than posting content?


Edit.
Posts crossed with Post #14 - I had to go and light all my patio heaters!

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

I had to go and light all my patio heaters!

That cracked me up.

(And no, I have never used simultaneous logons to back up my arguments. The bully boys in here didn't like my anti-fit stance and complained in numbers and got that username PPRd. I set up a new username and continued to post anti-fit sentiments. The mods are wise to the gang mentality on here now (mostly cos I highlighted it) and don't 'ban on demand' anymore.)

tunnel

Cardew wrote: »

Why ignore his posts - surely it is his arguments that should be discussed.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I'm not going to sit around listening while he continually sl$gs off anyone who "has their snout in the trough" of a scheme which anybody with PV has legitimately subscribed to. It's just rinse and repeat.
Maybe he should speak to MSE about it, ask them why they felt the need to continually remind people to get in before the rate cut, month after month, why they weren't saying how bad the FiT is for low income bill payers, but he doesn't does he, he continues his drivel on here hoping to provoke an argument.
Maybe he is George Monbiot after all....who knows.


Tunnel

Cardew

tunnel wrote: »

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I'm not going to sit around listening while he continually sl$gs off anyone who "has their snout in the trough" of a scheme which anybody with PV has legitimately subscribed to. It's just rinse and repeat.
Maybe he should speak to MSE about it, ask them why they felt the need to continually remind people to get in before the rate cut, month after month, why they weren't saying how bad the FiT is for low income bill payers, but he doesn't does he, he continues his drivel on here hoping to provoke an argument.
Maybe he is George Monbiot after all....who knows.


Tunnel

Well why not post the points you make above as a counter-argument.

Don't forget that MSE is read by thousands of new people. Given that this section is dominated by 'The Guru' and his disciples with unstinting and often irrational support of all things solar, it does no harm for counter views to be stated. George Monboit's classic article is a good example.

Do you not feel this statement of his is valid:

The bully boys in here didn't like my anti-fit stance and complained in numbers and got that username PPRd.

On the subject of 'continually sl@gging' perhaps you might examine your own posts. You might recall yourself being the instigator of a similar tactic a few weeks ago. Making a personal attack and just couldn't handle the retaliation - a few PMs? and bingo.

tunnel

Cardew,
I don't believe his statement is true, the reason he got banned was because of a very personal attack on me, one of which he quickly edited but was there long enough to be reported. For the record too, I've never reported anyone, including that very post that got him banned.


As for sl$gging off, I think you'll remember that I stated you had got the dates wrong and that for someone as anti FiT(not pv) should have got right, ok...maybe petty but factual

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Nice to see you posting on topic finally. I was also under the same impression as yourself, that the EPC was submitted and then the decision made on the tariff. I was surprised when the new regulations stated that solar PV was to be removed from the calculations as I never knew they were in there in the first place!

Glad to hear that you also welcome the change to a more ethical stance and that the loophole has been closed.

As to your rainwater comment. I'm afraid you're misinformed. Your water provider will not adjust sewerage prices regardless of whether you have rainwater harvesting or not. If you informed them they would not care. They do not have an effective way of metering sewage, and so just meter the supply and calculate the sewage charge based on that. It's swings and roundabouts I guess because you could water your garden and car with the mains (metered) water and not have it go back into the sewer system, yet still get charged for it. No loophole there then, and so no 'little old lady' involvement. Your water board might be glad that you've fitted a rainwater harvesting system though because they are proven to help reduce the occurrence of flash floods. You're doing them a favour by installing it.

No shady attempts to get FIT payments for a 'leaky old buidling' either. The main reasosn being that (1) I don't have a leaky old building - our home is sealed with lime 'parge' coated walls, internal insulation, A rated windows (without trickle vents) and air supplied via a MHRV system, our PV system will be DIY as it's much cheaper and the loophole was discovered when I read about it on another green site (and was shocked to hear it).

Looks like your smear campaign has failed dismally.

EDIT: To be fair, when you guys 'play the man' instead of the ball (i.e. attack me personally rather than discuss the topic), it makes it easier to defeat you all. Mr. Zeupater here, for instance, just came across as a jealous young child with all of the 'fancy listed building' and 'oh your SIPP is so big, mister. Me love you long time'. It quite made me giggle to read it. :rotfl:

On topic? what topic? ... this really just demonstrates how misinformed you are. I don't really care what you do as long as you stop posting misleading information which others could take as being correct.

Regarding the thread title and specifically " I was surprised when the new regulations stated that solar PV was to be removed from the calculations as I never knew they were in there in the first place!" ..... are you sure that it's the EPC which is changing as opposed to the EPC date having to be prior to pv installation, therefore ensuring that pv is not be accounted for within the performance banding calculation upon which the FiT tariff is to be based .... if so that's different to what the government and DECC think!

Regarding "As to your rainwater comment. I'm afraid you're misinformed. Your water provider will not adjust sewerage prices regardless of whether you have rainwater harvesting or not. If you informed them they would not care ...." etc ..... I just suggest you check this with your water supplier - for example, Severn Trent have a position within their scheme of charges 2015/16 document available here ( https://www.stwater.co.uk/my-account/about-your-account-and-bill/our-charges/ ) ....

"Rainwater harvesting systems
(x) Where a rainwater harvesting system is installed from which water discharges to a public sewer after use we will calculate charges on the following basis:

.......

Household Premises
(b)Where the supply to the household premises is metered and the occupier is not liable for the surface water drainage charge as specified in section B3.1(vi)(c) above, we will make an assessment of the volume of water that could be harvested and subsequently discharged to the public sewer after use based on the type of property (detached, semi detached, or other).

If the occupier is not satisfied with the volume of used water assessed by us they may install their own meter(s) as set out in section B3.1(viii) above.

(c) Where the supply to the household premises is metered and the occupier is liable for the surface water drainage charge as specified in section B3.1(vi)(c) above, used water charges will be calculated as per section B3.1(vi)(a) above. (d) Where the supply to the household premises is not metered the charges as set out in sections B2.1, B2.2 above or B4.1 below will apply. "

But, of course, you have already been made aware of this when you were asking for input into your project ....

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Water usage for 6 would be pretty high, I'd guess that you'd be looking at something in the region of 5-10 tonnes of storage, so that's excavating/moving somewhere near a possible 15cubic metres (45tonnes ?) of soil from under your lawn and finding somewhere to dump up to 30 tonnes of it ... that's probably a couple of lorry loads and some heavy equipment hire or ~10skips to hire if you can't find somewhere in your own garden ... I'd guess that a basic high end 6.5tonne system would cost around £3.5k delivered, not installed, so you really do need to look at specialist installation services, equipment hire, ancillary materials such as tubes/pipes and plumbing materials ...

When you've got all that done, there's the run-off to consider. In order to reduce your bills you'll need to disconnect all surface water drainage & convince the water company that there'll be no run-off which could enter their system ... that might mean intercepting any possible run-off and diverting it to a soak-away on your own property. Once this is done you'll naturally inform the water company in order to get the reduction, and of course, they'll immediately invoke their right to separate metered water delivery from disposal and re-assess your sewerage disposal payment ...

Of course, you could significantly reduce the cost of the installation be specifying above-ground storage tanks (heat/algae/ice?) or using IBCs (same issues), but for 6 people it's going to take up a considerable area and possibly look a little out-of-place.

HTH
Z

... so, when attempting to hold the moral and ethical 'high ground' it's a reasonable approach to try to only profess on subjects on which there's at least a basic level of understanding. There are plenty of individuals on this forum who have attempted to provide guidance in areas where they have relevant experience and are willing to share this, yet there are others who just take pleasure in argument, utilising a little knowledge and the approach of a poorly equipped wordsmansmith.

As for the #edit on the post ... fine, that probably says a lot. It seems that most have been 'playing the game' against one who has continually 'played the man' for years under many different profiles ... as for jealousy .... you're only a MFW, why would anyone reading this who's actually been MF for ages want to be jealous ? - I'm certainly not and guess that others aren't either.

Z