Getting an "A" EPC Rating

70sbudgie

Screwdriva said:

70sbudgie said:

It may be that it does still apply, but vertical axis turbines tend not to require so much height - a quick internet search showed one at 9m.

Sadly I lack a 10m wide piece of land (central London). Sounds like the only way to try is planning permission.

The website I found also had an image of vertical turbines on a roof. I think the turbine height was about 2m. Though whether that would be included in permitted development, I don't know. I also have no concept of the cost, but am tempted to do more research for myself. It feels windy where I am too.

Screwdriva

70sbudgie said:

The website I found also had an image of vertical turbines on a roof. I think the turbine height was about 2m. Though whether that would be included in permitted development, I don't know. I also have no concept of the cost, but am tempted to do more research for myself. It feels windy where I am too.

It would be permitted development on a detached house with neighboring detached houses. I'm in a semi-detached so would need planning permission. Not the end of the world, but I want to take a breather before the next project. It's been a real roller coaster getting here! 

Solarchaser

Did you actually specifically apply to get an epc done?
I got one done as part if the solar install, and would potentially consider it if I was selling up, but really its just a set of tick boxes to give a general idea, and not necessarily that relevant. 
I recall particularly that electric under floor heating wasn't seen as a positive in comparison to wet floors because gas was cheaper.... what's that got to do with energy efficiency?

Anyway on vawt, love the idea of them, but know of none that are still running 3 years after install, even what appears commercial ones.
I dont think they are really practical 

Martyn1981

Solarchaser said:

Did you actually specifically apply to get an epc done?
I got one done as part if the solar install, and would potentially consider it if I was selling up, but really its just a set of tick boxes to give a general idea, and not necessarily that relevant. 
I recall particularly that electric under floor heating wasn't seen as a positive in comparison to wet floors because gas was cheaper.... what's that got to do with energy efficiency?

Anyway on vawt, love the idea of them, but know of none that are still running 3 years after install, even what appears commercial ones.
I dont think they are really practical 

We got one done for our second install in 2012, scored a very high B, with a low A potential if we had CWI and underfloor insulation. We actually already had both, but couldn't prove it. I've often commented that it's somewhat ridiculous that our typical 1930's 3-bed semi, can score that high. It's a bit of an insult to the incredibly efficient builds that some have achieved, whereas ours 'sneaks' in using the PV bonus, which doesn't improve efficiency, but does (as I understand it) reduce our net CO2 impact, which is great, but I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison.

Regarding wind turbines for domestic use, not viable. There's simply too much turbulence, unless you get a 10m mast and can place it with a 100m+ of open ground in the direction the wind normally comes from. Even then, with maintenance, it's not particularly viable. The idea of VAWTS is great, but again, they don't seem to be successful yet, and the small ones, will generate a 'small' amount. Generation is dependent on the swept area, so a small WT will generate a small amount, and 50% of a VAWTS swept area is actually operating against the wind as it revolves back against the wind flow.

Now that schemes like Ripple exist, there is even less point in domestic wind generation (for on-grid), since wind has massive economies of scale*, whereas there are almost none for PV panels. [Not to be confused with economies of bulk buying and getting a discounted price.]

*Plus the additional gains from physical height, as wind speeds are higher, and generation increases with the cube of velocity.

Ain't I a Debbie Downer today. 

Spies

Solar panels do add a decent amount of EPC to most homes to be fair. 

Screwdriva

Solarchaser said:

Did you actually specifically apply to get an epc done?
I got one done as part if the solar install, and would potentially consider it if I was selling up, but really its just a set of tick boxes to give a general idea, and not necessarily that relevant. 
I recall particularly that electric under floor heating wasn't seen as a positive in comparison to wet floors because gas was cheaper.... what's that got to do with energy efficiency?

I did - we wanted to get it done before the methodology was changed (I assume in favour of heat pumps). I am also working with the Greater London Authority to incentivize more efficient homes, and am using my own home to highlight what can be achieved (with some assistance for those who need it). More on that at a later date I hope.  

It's far from perfect but wet UFH is more efficient than a radiator, and I respect that it gives a house a higher score for it. At the time, gas wasn't just cheaper but also cleaner than coal fired electricity. Things have changed since, ofcourse. 

Martyn1981 said:

We got one done for our second install in 2012, scored a very high B, with a low A potential if we had CWI and underfloor insulation. We actually already had both, but couldn't prove it. I've often commented that it's somewhat ridiculous that our typical 1930's 3-bed semi, can score that high. It's a bit of an insult to the incredibly efficient builds that some have achieved, whereas ours 'sneaks' in using the PV bonus, which doesn't improve efficiency, but does (as I understand it) reduce our net CO2 impact, which is great, but I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison.

Slapping Solar PV on your roof won't get you an A rating. This is why none exist (yet) that the surveying company knows about, as the EPC scoring system makes it next to impossible to "sneak" an A in. For instance, not having triple glazed windows everywhere would have lost us the score. 270mm of loft insulation is great but you need insulation in between the roof rafters as well. Same with 50mm of floor insulation. Relatively easy to skip any of these types of improvements and most people do.

We have a couple of newspaper journalists coming to write about the relatively inexpensive nature of the retrofit compared to the efficient (read: costly) builds you mention. I hope they can find other examples that are more deserving of the attention.

Spies

You can't easily add underfloor insulation in a stud built house as the boards run under walls etc, it's quite a faff to be cutting out boards and making good after.

I was going to get it for free via a grant but the company that I was introduced to had really poor reviews and when they eventually got back in touch I told them I was no longer interested 

Solarchaser

Screwdriva said:

Solarchaser said:

Did you actually specifically apply to get an epc done?
I got one done as part if the solar install, and would potentially consider it if I was selling up, but really its just a set of tick boxes to give a general idea, and not necessarily that relevant. 
I recall particularly that electric under floor heating wasn't seen as a positive in comparison to wet floors because gas was cheaper.... what's that got to do with energy efficiency?

I did - we wanted to get it done before the methodology was changed (I assume in favour of heat pumps). I am also working with the Greater London Authority to incentivize more efficient homes, and am using my own home to highlight what can be achieved (with some assistance for those who need it). More on that at a later date I hope.  

It's far from perfect but wet UFH is more efficient than a radiator, and I respect that it gives a house a higher score for it. At the time, gas wasn't just cheaper but also cleaner than coal fired electricity. Things have changed since, ofcourse. 

Martyn1981 said:

We got one done for our second install in 2012, scored a very high B, with a low A potential if we had CWI and underfloor insulation. We actually already had both, but couldn't prove it. I've often commented that it's somewhat ridiculous that our typical 1930's 3-bed semi, can score that high. It's a bit of an insult to the incredibly efficient builds that some have achieved, whereas ours 'sneaks' in using the PV bonus, which doesn't improve efficiency, but does (as I understand it) reduce our net CO2 impact, which is great, but I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison.

Slapping Solar PV on your roof won't get you an A rating. This is why none exist (yet) that the surveying company knows about, as the EPC scoring system makes it next to impossible to "sneak" an A in. For instance, not having triple glazed windows everywhere would have lost us the score. 270mm of loft insulation is great but you need insulation in between the roof rafters as well. Same with 50mm of floor insulation. Relatively easy to skip any of these types of improvements and most people do.

We have a couple of newspaper journalists coming to write about the relatively inexpensive nature of the retrofit compared to the efficient (read: costly) builds you mention. I hope they can find other examples that are more deserving of the attention.

I think you misread, I said electric ufh was listed as less *efficient* than wet, ie gas.
And while in some parts of England,  some coal is still used, that's not been the case for a long time north of the border,  our electricity here is a whole lot greener than burning gas.  But again my point was efficiency not green. 

I'm intrigued by your comment about having insulation in the rafters, I initially corrected that in my head, thinking you meant putting insulation perpendicular over the ceiling joists rather than just between them, but no, you said roof rafters.
Since the majority of rooves in the UK are cold rooves, there is basically nothing to be gained by insulating a cold space that I can see, but happy to be educated.

Triple glazing is a funny thing, it's been around for over 20 years, but not done much.
Anecdotal I realise but I know a couple of glaziers and also 8 years ago when replacing all the windows in the house I invited a few firms in to give me a price, and to a man, all said triple glazing was a gimmick, and the very negative side was the extra weight meant they were too heavy for the frames, and so it was common to pull fixings out of the wall and to bend the frames.
I wonder if the technology has improved,  or if it was just popular FUD back then? 🤔 

Solarchaser

Spies said:

You can't easily add underfloor insulation in a stud built house as the boards run under walls etc, it's quite a faff to be cutting out boards and making good after.

I was going to get it for free via a grant but the company that I was introduced to had really poor reviews and when they eventually got back in touch I told them I was no longer interested 

Couple of years ago I bought about £150 worth of 200mm insulation,  another £50 bought a Stapler and some mesh netting, and about 3 days lying on my back in old ovies and a mask and goggles.... swearing the whole time... insulated under my house, vs the £1.5k I was quoted.
I feel it was worthwhile 

Screwdriva

Solarchaser said:

I think you misread, I said electric ufh was listed as less *efficient* than wet, ie gas.
And while in some parts of England,  some coal is still used, that's not been the case for a long time north of the border,  our electricity here is a whole lot greener than burning gas.  But again my point was efficiency not green. 

I'm intrigued by your comment about having insulation in the rafters, I initially corrected that in my head, thinking you meant putting insulation perpendicular over the ceiling joists rather than just between them, but no, you said roof rafters.
Since the majority of rooves in the UK are cold rooves, there is basically nothing to be gained by insulating a cold space that I can see, but happy to be educated.

Triple glazing is a funny thing, it's been around for over 20 years, but not done much.
Anecdotal I realise but I know a couple of glaziers and also 8 years ago when replacing all the windows in the house I invited a few firms in to give me a price, and to a man, all said triple glazing was a gimmick, and the very negative side was the extra weight meant they were too heavy for the frames, and so it was common to pull fixings out of the wall and to bend the frames.
I wonder if the technology has improved,  or if it was just popular FUD back then? 🤔 

I don't disagree that the inefficiency of electric UFH may be incorrectly attributed. We have none so I didn't ask about it. The majority of the UK burned considerable amounts of coal till a 3-4 years ago, so I suspect the EPC methodology is overdue for an update, which I believe is a point you are also making. 

I'm not in a position to educate anyone about attic insulation other than to state that the combination of multiple types of insulation, which we fortunately had thanks to the previous owner's intention to convert, seemed to add a couple points. I will say that our loft is quite bearable, even in the winter. 

I believe the U value of our 3X glazing is 0.6. Modern double glazing usually hovers around the 1.0 range but these vary. I'm aware the difference between the two in terms of points is minor but again, that made the difference.