Why do people do this?

Grumpy_chap

FreeBear said:

Grumpy_chap said:

RHemmings said:

I couldn't imagine having an EPC done on a house without immediately making sure every single light bulb is low energy. 

If someone is selling a house and thinks it will make a difference they can install new lightbulbs to gain the better rating, but then might swap those bulbs back out so the new purchasers are not getting the "C" property but the "D" property.

Swapping all the bulbs out for LED ones will only improve your score by a point or two, so is unlikely to get you from a D to a C unless you are at 68. The areas that will make the biggest difference to the EPC score are also big ticket items (wall/floor insulation, windows/doors, heating system, etc).

My comment was a direct follow-on from the opening line of the thread:

RHemmings said:

House with a moderate amount of insulation in the loft and cavity wall, it's a D but only slightly below a C, but ... no energy efficient lighting. 

In my reading, that linked the energy efficient lighting as all that was required to take that property from D to C

RedFraggle

Also replacing spotlights isn't necessarily a straight swap. If you have to change transformers and get an electrician in it soon costs quite a lot. One place I lived there was a transformer for every spot. 

RHemmings

Grumpy_chap said:

FreeBear said

Swapping all the bulbs out for LED ones will only improve your score by a point or two, so is unlikely to get you from a D to a C unless you are at 68. The areas that will make the biggest difference to the EPC score are also big ticket items (wall/floor insulation, windows/doors, heating system, etc).

My comment was a direct follow-on from the opening line of the thread:

RHemmings said:

House with a moderate amount of insulation in the loft and cavity wall, it's a D but only slightly below a C, but ... no energy efficient lighting. 

In my reading, that linked the energy efficient lighting as all that was required to take that property from D to C

When I wrote the first post, I didn't realise how little influence on the overall score the low energy lighting would have. I had seem comments where people thought that low energy lighting had too much of an influence. With the house currently being on a 66 and lighting only worth 1-2 points, it wouldn't go up to a C. But, I didn't know that at the beginning of the thread. 

Netexporter

The total demand on the grid has reduced markedly, in the past decade or so, the biggest factor has been the change to low energy lighting.

ArbitraryRandom

Scot_39 said:

For those rubbishing importance of lighting in old EPCs.

Is anyone actually doing that? 

Though I would suggest that even then the cost of a bulb at £5 vs the amount of electricity that £5 would buy you would not be insignificant if one were on low income and if one were doing it solely for the certificate (as implied by the OP), given the tiny difference it makes to the final score, then it's easy to see why the existing bulbs might be retained. 

Qyburn

EPCs are full of irrational scoring. A light fitting with no bulb at all is rated as "not low energy". One that we had done scored attic insulation on whether it did or didn't have at least 400mm  of insulation. Since the available space was less than 300mm even the maximum highest quality insulation scored the same as none at all. Our flat roof was scored as uninsulated because the insulation couldn't be inspected by the surveyor.

And my favourite recent one, our neighbour's house is in a valley surrounded by mature trees, but the EPC recommends a wind turbine.

Krakkkers

Any idea what installing 4kwp of solar panels does to an EPC? My 4 bed house was 65D before solar panels.

RHemmings

ArbitraryRandom said:

Scot_39 said:

For those rubbishing importance of lighting in old EPCs.

Is anyone actually doing that? 

Though I would suggest that even then the cost of a bulb at £5 vs the amount of electricity that £5 would buy you would not be insignificant if one were on low income and if one were doing it solely for the certificate (as implied by the OP), given the tiny difference it makes to the final score, then it's easy to see why the existing bulbs might be retained. 

£5? I bought some of these when they were similarly marked down in store. 

https://www.diy.com/departments/diall-bayonet-cap-b22-7-2w-806lm-a60-warm-white-led-light-bulb-pack-of-10/5059340455556_BQ.prd

That's £7 for 10, or 70p each. They seem to be working fine in places where I just need a regular bulb. Not a super-powerful one. I'm sure that compared to not-low energy lighting that 70p will be paid off quite quickly. 

victor2

RHemmings said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Scot_39 said:

For those rubbishing importance of lighting in old EPCs.

Is anyone actually doing that? 

Though I would suggest that even then the cost of a bulb at £5 vs the amount of electricity that £5 would buy you would not be insignificant if one were on low income and if one were doing it solely for the certificate (as implied by the OP), given the tiny difference it makes to the final score, then it's easy to see why the existing bulbs might be retained. 

£5? I bought some of these when they were similarly marked down in store. 

https://www.diy.com/departments/diall-bayonet-cap-b22-7-2w-806lm-a60-warm-white-led-light-bulb-pack-of-10/5059340455556_BQ.prd

That's £7 for 10, or 70p each. They seem to be working fine in places where I just need a regular bulb. Not a super-powerful one. I'm sure that compared to not-low energy lighting that 70p will be paid off quite quickly. 

At 70p each and replacing a 60 watt bulb with a 7.2W one, that will pay for itself in 50 hours of use at the current Octopus SVT of 26.76p/kWh (which is the rate incl. VAT round here). That's 12 days at 4 hours per day, so not a bad return.

RHemmings

victor2 said:

At 70p each and replacing a 60 watt bulb with a 7.2W one, that will pay for itself in 50 hours of use at the current Octopus SVT of 26.76p/kWh (which is the rate incl. VAT round here). That's 12 days at 4 hours per day, so not a bad return.

That's one heck of a lot quicker than those solar water heaters mentioned in EPCs that cost thousands and save about £26 a year, meaning it's about 600 years or something until payback.