Solar PV installation to be removed from EPC calculation

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

At a weekly usage of ~2000litres, failing to meter the sewerage would save around £130/year (2x1.264x52), which is the figure which was used ....

There is no question that if you use rainwater for purposes where it eventually enters the sewer system, then you are escaping the payment of metered sewerage charges.


Are you not being a little optimistic in thinking a house might collect and then use 104 m3 a year?


Just how much rain water do you think falls on a largish 2 storey house(around 2000 square feet) which will have a roof area of around 30 m2 - a clue to average annual rainfall here:


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/


Incidentally don't get me wound up by suggesting I support the crazy world of water charges; they rival solar FIT in stupidity.

Cardew

I would add that once again this thread has been hijacked - with myself one of the culprits.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

I would add that once again this thread has been hijacked - with myself one of the culprits.

Don't worry about it. The first few entries were completely predictable and rather boring; at least it branched off into more interesting territory.

Sticking with the 'new' topic, our roof is approximately 100 square metres (but please be careful when trying to say 30 metres square which should not be written as 30 m2 !) and annual rainfall around here is approx. 800mm which gives a potential collection of 80 cubic metres - of which WC flushing uses something like 40 to 50 cu metres so a water bill reduction of around £70 per year. But I'm not cheating anyone by using it as all waste water goes to a soakaway system eventually (whether directly or via our mini-treatment plant). I can't immediately summon up a water bill but I think it's for around 70 cu. metres plus an extortionate standing charge.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

There is no question that if you use rainwater for purposes where it eventually enters the sewer system, then you are escaping the payment of metered sewerage charges.

Are you not being a little optimistic in thinking a house might collect and then use 104 m3 a year?

Just how much rain water do you think falls on a largish 2 storey house(around 2000 square feet) which will have a roof area of around 30 m2 - a clue to average annual rainfall here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/

Incidentally don't get me wound up by suggesting I support the crazy world of water charges; they rival solar FIT in stupidity.

Hi Cardew

I agree, from what has been posted previously, the OP seems to have the intent of, as you put it, "escaping the payment of metered sewerage charges.", which is more than a little hypocritical considering the history of posting against the FiT scheme and the similarities in how this effects other bill payers.

Afraid they're not my figures or my system .... MFW_ASAP is looking at a 5000litre system expecting a usage of around 2tonnes/week for 6 people as can be seen on the calculations in the previous thread. Of course, the roof size of the property in question is what's relevant, not the house you mention. However, would a 2000square feet two storey house not have a roof area closer to 1000 square feet, so more like 100m2 ?

Anyway, the roof on our property would collect approx. 1 tonne for every 5mm of rainfall, so 1" of rain would fill a 5tonne RWH system .... that's somewhere around 200tonnes/year where we are.

HTH
Z

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

I would add that once again this thread has been hijacked - with myself one of the culprits.

Hi

As per Eric's post, I wouldn't worry about it either as it's just a meaningless thread designed to spark argument as can be seen by the title ... "Solar PV installation to be removed from EPC calculation " ... supported by the wording of the first post, this obviously resulting either from a misunderstanding of what the FiT consultation actually describes, or deliberate misinformation, as described in a previous post.

My natural thought-train revolves around a pretty obscure change to the FiT scheme regarding the closure of an exploitable loophole regarding a marginal band 'E' property being classified as band 'D' by pre-inclusion of the pv system for which the EPC is required, especially so when being raised by a profile who openly states a goal is to achieve band 'D' through ongoing energy efficiency improvements and is/was on the cusp of a decision on pv before the consultation announcement and planned changes. As for the rainwater synergy, well that simply highlights the hypocrisy being employed regarding subsidy - if there's a question of ethics or morals over solar pv then there should be an equal position on rainwater harvesting .... same argument, same effect, same conclusion, so, contrary to how they may first appear, many of the posts on the thread are actually bang on topic, even though the title isn't.

HTH
Z

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

Sticking with the 'new' topic, our roof is approximately 100 square metres (but please be careful when trying to say 30 metres square which should not be written as 30 m2 !)


.

Doh! I am suitably embarrassed!

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

As per Eric's post, I wouldn't worry about it either as it's just a meaningless thread designed to spark argument as can be seen by the title ... "Solar PV installation to be removed from EPC calculation " ... supported by the wording of the first post, this obviously resulting either from a misunderstanding of what the FiT consultation actually describes, or deliberate misinformation, as described in a previous post.

My natural thought-train revolves around a pretty obscure change to the FiT scheme regarding the closure of an exploitable loophole regarding a marginal band 'E' property being classified as band 'D' by pre-inclusion of the pv system for which the EPC is required, especially so when being raised by a profile who openly states a goal is to achieve band 'D' through ongoing energy efficiency improvements and is/was on the cusp of a decision on pv before the consultation announcement and planned changes. As for the rainwater synergy, well that simply highlights the hypocrisy being employed regarding subsidy - if there's a question of ethics or morals over solar pv then there should be an equal position on rainwater harvesting .... same argument, same effect, same conclusion, so, contrary to how they may first appear, many of the posts on the thread are actually bang on topic, even though the title isn't.

HTH
Z

In my opinion, the EPC element makes no sense.

Whilst I would like everyone to try to improve (as far as is possible) the efficiency of their households, this doesn't actually have anything to do with clean energy generation.

Who cares if a PV system is mounted on an efficient house, an inefficient house, or in a field, when it's goal is to generate clean energy. The two issues are unrelated.

That said, I kind of liked the idea of forcing folk to improve their EPC rating, though linking it to generation is technically irrelevant.

My house is now A rated (if like you I include the underfloor insulation I added, but couldn't be confirmed), which I think is daft, since there is no way my 1930's property can be up to Passivhaus standard. So the PV throws out the rating, though I was once told that the EPC not only reflects energy consumption but also CO2 impact, so perhaps it's not quite as daft as I think.

Mart.

[Deleted User]

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That said, I kind of liked the idea of forcing folk to improve their EPC rating, though linking it to generation is technically irrelevant.

When we installed the ASHP we had to implement measures to better insulate the property in order to claim RHI but there was no target EPC rating to meet. You just had to implement what was practical.

Cheers

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

I would add that once again this thread has been hijacked - with myself one of the culprits.

All you are doing is responding to the trolls, I have done the same myself.

It's the usual bully boy forum tactic that pervades on this particular board. They don't like subject matter that goes against their VI and so they wreck the thread with personal attacks and irrelevant posts.

Hopefully those who are considering PV post-Jan 8th will at least have read my original post and be aware that they should get their house upto an EPC D rating before they install solar.

Thanks again for your balanced and considered input Cardew. It makes a change from the hysterical posts of zeupater, et al. (and the multi-quote borefests of Mart)

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

.... Thanks again for your balanced and considered input Cardew. It makes a change from the hysterical posts of zeupater, et al. (and the multi-quote borefests of Mart)

Hi

If you hadn't noticed, Cardew's post (specifically "you are escaping the payment of metered sewerage charges") was made to support the position I had made regarding the hypocrisy revolving around your diametrically opposing positions on PV and RWH.

The timeline is pretty simple - Cardew raised you "don't intend paying the sewerage charge", you yourself stated that you didn't have to pay and that Cardew's original post "I have highlighted the text to make it as clear as possible for you. It says 'Surface Water Drainage' " didn't also include reference to sewerage, an argument which, apart from being made in a very patronising manner for effect, is pure spin in order to hide the fact that you're obviously looking to reduce your own bill by increasing the financial burden on others, including 'the poor' and those in 'poverty'.

If you have such a strongly held ethical/moral objection to accessing the FiT payment scheme through claiming that the financial burden lies on the shoulders of other bill payers, surely the same objection should apply to not paying for waste-water disposal.

Of course, in not writing directly to United Utilities to inform (/argue with) them, in your usual tone, of your objection to their billing policy regarding RWH would logically result in you arguing with yourself for either being consistently moral and ethical, or just hypocritical, an interesting debate. Maybe you could do it on-line on a special thread, using concurrent multiple profiles so that we all don't get too confused ... I'm sure that everyone else would agree to not 'trip trap' across that one, you could have the rickety bridge all to yourself.

Z