Running the heating from battery power

[chris_n]

Probably take it down to a C because the primary heating is electric

I was thinking they probably won't like the storage heaters.

Back to the 1970's.

Or the GSHP or the ASHP or the solar diverter! The system is a little behind the times!

[Oldgreybeard]

Probably take it down to a C because the primary heating is electric

I was thinking they probably won't like the storage heaters.

Back to the 1970's.

Or the GSHP or the ASHP or the solar diverter! The system is a little behind the times!

I argued with the EPC assessor over the way the system treated both our heat pump and the PV driven water heating, but he was adamant that both had to be treated as direct electric heating under the way that the EPC was set up. Not at all sure why, but in our case it was really a moot point as the same daft EPC system gave our primary energy "consumption" as minus 35kWh/m²/year (i.e. a net energy export of 4,550kWh/year).

I don't think that the people that created the EPC methodology ever considered the principles of the PassivHaus movement, even though Dr Wolfgang Feist built the first PassivHaus a decade or two before the EPC system was created. This article describing the first PassivHaus in Darmstadt describes well the resistance to change in the building industry, something I encountered here 30 years later: https://blog.passivehouse-international ... ang-feist/ .

Perhaps we should start a "league table" thread listing the Energy Efficiency and Environmental Impact scores we've each managed to achieve. I'm reasonably sure that our place would be at the top, but a league table might act as a bit of encouragement for others to see how they could improve. I think I have a copy of the Stroma EPC assessment software somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it out, as it's not that hard to fill in the data and get a score.

[marshman]

Perhaps we should start a "league table" thread listing the Energy Efficiency and Environmental Impact scores we've each managed to achieve. I'm reasonably sure that our place would be at the top, but a league table might act as a bit of encouragement for others to see how they could improve. I think I have a copy of the Stroma EPC assessment software somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it out, as it's not that hard to fill in the data and get a score.

I think the simplest thing to do would just be to quote an actual kWh/m2 figure for heating. Any sort of "assessment procedure" such as the EPC will not give a picture of real world energy consumption. There are so many factors, climate, life style, room set temperature ( some on here seem happy at 16 deg C and others at 25 deg C - massive difference) Some keep the house warm 24/7 if they are at home all day, others who have to work don't. Some heat the whole house, others just some rooms as necessary, I could go on ....

[MrPablo]

Perhaps we should start a "league table" thread listing the Energy Efficiency and Environmental Impact scores we've each managed to achieve. I'm reasonably sure that our place would be at the top, but a league table might act as a bit of encouragement for others to see how they could improve. I think I have a copy of the Stroma EPC assessment software somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it out, as it's not that hard to fill in the data and get a score.

I would be very interested in this, I have spent a fair bit of time improving insulation since I bought this house back in 2014. Calculating the EPC impact of the improvements plus seeing what others have done would be very useful.
On a related note, I plan to complete a heat loss calculation to start laying the groundwork for ASHP installation in the future, I'd be intrigued to see if others have done this too.

[AE-NMidlands]

@Nowty, you just know what's coming below, don't you?

Full EPC, as built, from 2016:


EPC.jpg

The way the EPC system is structured means that, in theory, an EPC score of 100 is a zero energy home. Anything over 100 is technically a power station, in that the house exports more energy over a year than it uses.

This illustrates the stupidity of the "official" dumbed-down assessments, done to a tick-box list by "trained" assessors. An acquaintance is one and he says that even though pv and immersion heaters are clearly the best option for lots of houses, whatever their current performance it still says "Fit solar thermal!"

[Joeboy]

I thought this a relevant thread. Just signed up for my next Go contract from 01/01/23. Up from 5.5p to 12p per kWh.

Nonetheless, I feel .

It will make the game increasingly interesting in the run up to Kirkhill coming online.

I have zero worries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63798506

[nowty]

@Nowty, you just know what's coming below, don't you?

Full EPC, as built, from 2016:


EPC.jpg

The way the EPC system is structured means that, in theory, an EPC score of 100 is a zero energy home. Anything over 100 is technically a power station, in that the house exports more energy over a year than it uses.

This illustrates the stupidity of the "official" dumbed-down assessments, done to a tick-box list by "trained" assessors. An acquaintance is one and he says that even though pv and immersion heaters are clearly the best option for lots of houses, whatever their current performance it still says "Fit solar thermal!"

And a fecking wind turbine !

[Oldgreybeard]

The thing to note with those really stupid recommendations on the EPC is the arithmetic and the complete absence of common sense. The solar thermal (which is daft as we use the PV to heat the water) gives a capital cost of £4,000 to £6,000 and a saving of £195 over three years. Using the mid-range capital cost that is a repayment time of nearly 77 years. Much the same for the wind turbine (ignoring that we are at the bottom of a steep, heavily wooded, valley), the cost of that is given as between £1,500 and £4,000 and a saving of £258 over three years, so using the middle of that range gives a repayment time of nearly 32 years.