EPC Rating, LED Bulbs & any other things we should do?

jumeriah64

matelodave wrote: »

It sounds as though you are moving into the realms of diminishing returns. ie spending loads more than you are saving especially if you've already halved your energy bill. To halve it again will probably cost twice as much

My last EPC, after insulating the loft, fitting an air source heat pump, underfloor heating plus various other improvements (we already had cavity wall insulation and double glazing), did improve from G to D but some of the recommendations in it were just plain stupid costwise and we'd only get it up to C.

We've got mostly LED lighting but only where it counts, in the kitchen, lounge, bathroom and study where the lights are in use for a significant amount of time. Spending £8 on a lamp in the spare room that gets turned on for a few minutes at a time when we go in there once a week or so in the winter, isn't cost effective.

No that's not actually our aim....as mentioned earlier we had a blank renovation canvas ....there was zero in place so we had the chance to get it right or wrong anyway. As such we went full LED. That concerned me as having played with LED bulbs maybe four years back they were frankly rubbish.

And have to say the LED light costs have been surprisingly good and equally surprisingly effective. So it's not a false target, it's more to understand if LED's are factored into the EPC equation. If they are not then it won't change anything.

Is true to say that more elaborate design ceiling and wall LED's can cost an arm....we looked at the Philips and John Lewis options but whilst nice they were way too costly for a project of this scope. .... should have said, we did in fact get John Lewis ones but off ebay as returns and graded items. All without exception were perfect and at a third of cost.

However a good example (which surprised us)....we accidentally fitted non LED security lights outside. Guess there were maybe £35 a piece. Then we realized and sourced two LED security lamps off ebay at...wait for it....£14 a piece! Yes like you I expected them to be a waste of time but far from it, they were very very good. What their longevity might be remains to be seen but so far so good.

Also managed source outhouse LED bulkheads of quite a pleasing design with in built PIR's again for little cost and decent name brands. Things seem to have come on a great deal in the LED arena. My experience here so far is that there's little reason to do anything other than LED currently....and that was a surprise. If it impacts the EPC then it's a fun game for us. Then again of course anything sensible to do we will of course do given the blank page we have had.

bxboards

I would not chase EPC savings unnecessarily - lighting will be a very small contributor to your bills vs cooking or heating.

My EPC suggests installing a wind turbine at a cost of 15-18k - with a £12 projected saving a year!

jumeriah64

bxboards wrote: »

I would not chase EPC savings unnecessarily - lighting will be a very small contributor to your bills vs cooking or heating.

My EPC suggests installing a wind turbine at a cost of 15-18k - with a £12 projected saving a year!

Nice to know the EPC folks have their feet firmly on the ground

Thanks for the reply and interesting stuff. Cheers

matelodave

My EPC reckons that I could save around £600 a year for an outlay of around £18-20K.
That would take around 30 years to pay back if was acheivable which I doubt as most of the costs are related to solar energy, both thermal and photovoltaic and I use about 70% of my energy in the winter when the days are short and the sun doesn't shine very much. Last year my total energy bill was under £700.

IMO EPC's are a total waste of time & money. I've had five done in various properties over the past 10 years and none of them have made much sense - probably because the assessors were useless and the software is even worse.

bxboards

jumeriah64 wrote: »

Nice to know the EPC folks have their feet firmly on the ground

Thanks for the reply and interesting stuff. Cheers

Yes, EPCs need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I often see properties with EPCs of F or G. These usually have storage heaters and are poorly insulated. The EPC suggests insulating the walls with exterior 50mm insulation at a cost of around 10 to 14k.

Replacing the storage heaters with mains gas water and heating (combi boiler etc), will put a F up to a mid-range D, and can be done for under 3k. For some reason the EPCs I see never seem to suggest doing this and seem to go for silly options like exterior insulation, solar or wind turbines at many many k, when the cheaper and better options don't even get a mention.

Sosumi

footyguy wrote: »

In most houses, I guess only a couple of light bulbs are on for extended peiods (e.g. lounge & kitchen/diner?) So that would save say 160W per hour for probably about 5 hours per day on average - so about 0.8kWh per day (on average - about 10p)

With respect, footyguy, that’s an extremely sweeping and, in my opinion and experience, highly incorrect assumption to make.

It may be that you, yourself, use only one lightbulb in your lounge and another one in your kitchen/diner, with no others switched on, for protracted period of time but I reckon that is far from normal.

I’d be virtually certain that most people, whatever the size of their rooms, use more than one single lightbulb to illuminate their lounges. And the same goes for most people’s kitchens, with or without a dining area – not least, to avoid having to work in their own shadows.

A single lightbulb is an unpleasantly harsh way to illuminate a room and for many uses is also impractical. (To give but one example of that, you’d need either to sit directly underneath it in order to read a book at a comfortable angle without the pages being in shadow, or you’d need to put the light directly behind you, which would put much of the rest of the room into shadow.)

It’s far more pleasant (and practical) to sit in a room that has several sources of light, sensitively matched in hue and intensity.

In our lounge, for example, the ambient light comes from six (low wattage) bulbs – including one in the Inglenook fireplace unless the fire’s lit – located strategically around the room and these are supplemented by LED-bulbed reading lights mounted behind the seating for use when needed.

The quality. level and ambiance of lighting is far more important to me than what it costs. And I’d be surprised if that were not the view of many, if not most, other people, too.

jumeriah64

matelodave wrote: »

My EPC reckons that I could save around £600 a year for an outlay of around £18-20K.
That would take around 30 years to pay back if was acheivable which I doubt as most of the costs are related to solar energy, both thermal and photovoltaic and I use about 70% of my energy in the winter when the days are short and the sun doesn't shine very much. Last year my total energy bill was under £700.

IMO EPC's are a total waste of time & money. I've had five done in various properties over the past 10 years and none of them have made much sense - probably because the assessors were useless and the software is even worse.

No I don't disagree that Dave but my point was more what impact on the rating does the LED install make? In our case it's done and cost no more than new ordinary lights as we had none anyway.

So it's not a crusade to get three bells in a line on EPC (although I could see why folks might get to jump on that train) but merely so understand if what we have done makes any odds. From what we see it is doing an ok job...but if that affects the EPC I didn't really know.

Mind I do like the idea of a wind turbine in the garden and a heat pump....is addictive isn't it

jumeriah64

bxboards wrote: »

Yes, EPCs need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I often see properties with EPCs of F or G. These usually have storage heaters and are poorly insulated. The EPC suggests insulating the walls with exterior 50mm insulation at a cost of around 10 to 14k.

Replacing the storage heaters with mains gas water and heating (combi boiler etc), will put a F up to a mid-range D, and can be done for under 3k. For some reason the EPCs I see never seem to suggest doing this and seem to go for silly options like exterior insulation, solar or wind turbines at many many k, when the cheaper and better options don't even get a mention.

That is a bit nuts isn't it.

No all our stuff is way more vanilla....FOC cavity wall insulation, optional 350mm insulation in the roof, loft legs and over-boarded, a new combi, new seals and updates on Upvc windows and door, some between floor insulation (becuase we had surplus and to keep noise down) and all LED lighting .... and where has been the option, new appliances at A+ rating

Mind you, my Mother in Law had the solar set up put in on her 2 bedroom bungalow (we were VERY dubious to say the least) ...it was done on very little analysis that we could fathom.

And yet she pays little for most of the year and gets a fairly healthy rebate during the Summer. Yes it raised and eyebrow with us as well. Granted she does have a near perfect sun line and it's far from huge but all the same....the numbers did support the hype.

jumeriah64

Sosumi wrote: »

With respect, footyguy, that’s an extremely sweeping and, in my opinion and experience, highly incorrect assumption to make.

It may be that you, yourself, use only one lightbulb in your lounge and another one in your kitchen/diner, with no others switched on, for protracted period of time but I reckon that is far from normal.

I’d be virtually certain that most people, whatever the size of their rooms, use more than one single lightbulb to illuminate their lounges. And the same goes for most people’s kitchens, with or without a dining area – not least, to avoid having to work in their own shadows.

A single lightbulb is an unpleasantly harsh way to illuminate a room and for many uses is also impractical. (To give but one example of that, you’d need either to sit directly underneath it in order to read a book at a comfortable angle without the pages being in shadow, or you’d need to put the light directly behind you, which would put much of the rest of the room into shadow.)

It’s far more pleasant (and practical) to sit in a room that has several sources of light, sensitively matched in hue and intensity.

In our lounge, for example, the ambient light comes from six (low wattage) bulbs – including one in the Inglenook fireplace unless the fire’s lit – located strategically around the room and these are supplemented by LED-bulbed reading lights mounted behind the seating for use when needed.

The quality. level and ambiance of lighting is far more important to me than what it costs. And I’d be surprised if that were not the view of many, if not most, other people, too.

Is a point that reflects our (or rather my daughters) reality. I think some of the folks replying are making the point that 'switch off and good management' can save cost without going to the cost of replacment.

It's true but is that the reality of most less diligent folks day to day? Most likely not. I can vouch for that. Having had said daughter and her offspring here with us a time while the renovation takes place, for sure they do not live their life in the way and whilst they should...are highly unlikely to make that change anytime soon .

As a result the reality is lights left on, lazy disciplines and yes, as you correctly mention, a much nicer ambient atmosphere.....and as it goes at seemingly little cost given the new spec LED stuff we have put in.

We took the view that they won't have the discipline themselves so lets use process and tech (as we had the option) to plug that gap. It's not a pure answer but a pragmatic one. Seems be working ok and to our suprise the new LED generation (especially the ones built into the lights) do work rather well.

bxboards

jumeriah64 wrote: »

And yet she pays little for most of the year and gets a fairly healthy rebate during the Summer. Yes it raised and eyebrow with us as well. Granted she does have a near perfect sun line and it's far from huge but all the same....the numbers did support the hype.

Solar pretty much relies on rebates ('feed in tariffs') which pay over the odds. Its not economical without this. This is why you see companies offering to install 'free' solar panels - they grab the feed in tariffs to pay back over 20 or so years.

The problem with solar is that it is in effect an energy subsidy for people wealthy enough to afford this large solar installation outlay, yet is levied on the bills of everyone else, often people who only have a choice to eat or heat.

If the government is going to give subsidies, it should be for people least able to afford their bills, not to people already wealthy enough to afford to install solar.

But that's a bit OT - but it only seems to make sense with the subsidies. Take those of the equation, and they do not pay back.