A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

T

Recyclist coughed up some electrons that declared:

A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

No.

"Recyclist" wrote in message
...
A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

T

At some time in the future people with less 'energy-efficient' houses will
have to pay more council tax.

BG

On 8 Sep, 12:21, "Billy Gamble" wrote:
"Recyclist" wrote in message

...

A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

T

At some time in the future people with less 'energy-efficient' houses will
have to pay more council tax.

BG

I have heard that rumour! It will be very interesting to see what
happens if they try to tax those in less "energy-efficient" houses,
when they are in fact in quite energy-efficient houses like mine.

They would have to get the software up to a standard that will stand
up to scrutiny in court - and that will never happen!

T

On 8 Sep, 10:28, Recyclist wrote:

The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Is it true (I know that there are people around here who would know)
that straw bale construction instantly warrants an F or G rating,
because although it's actually quite well insulated it's not an option
for the type of construction and so falls through to the worst
possible assumption. Certainly the little EPC software I've seen in
action not only assumed that the user was probably an innumerate
idiot, but refused to work in any way smarter than a multi-choice
idiotic way, even when they did have an understanding of U, R & K.

Our own place is 120 years old, so obviously scores (and deserves) a
Z. I just wonder why we had to pay so much money for someone to have a
laptop tell us this self-evident fact. Was it so that we could also
have the recomendation to install low-energy lights and a windmill,
with no advice at all as to the relative capital costs or likely
benefits of each.

On 8 Sep, 12:34, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 8 Sep, 10:28, Recyclist wrote:

The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Is it true (I know that there are people around here who would know)
that straw bale construction instantly warrants an F or G rating,
because although it's actually quite well insulated it's not an option
for the type of construction and so falls through to the worst
possible assumption. *Certainly the little EPC software I've seen in
action not only assumed that the user was probably an innumerate
idiot, but refused to work in any way smarter than a multi-choice
idiotic way, even when they did have an understanding of U, R & K.

Our own place is 120 years old, so obviously scores (and deserves) a
Z. I just wonder why we had to pay so much money for someone to have a
laptop tell us this self-evident fact. Was it so that we could also
have the recomendation to install low-energy lights and a windmill,
with no advice at all as to the relative capital costs or likely
benefits of each.

Apparently I need a wind turbine and some solar panels....

T

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 04:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Recyclist
wrote:

On 8 Sep, 12:21, "Billy Gamble" wrote:
"Recyclist" wrote in message

...

A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

T

At some time in the future people with less 'energy-efficient' houses will
have to pay more council tax.

BG

I have heard that rumour! It will be very interesting to see what
happens if they try to tax those in less "energy-efficient" houses,
when they are in fact in quite energy-efficient houses like mine.

They would have to get the software up to a standard that will stand
up to scrutiny in court - and that will never happen!


Our experience with energy ratings for cars is not encouraging.

Cars which we know have to be energy efficient (Like SWMBO's 970cc
Corsa) come out of the assessment comparable with cars with much
bigger engines and heavier fuel consumption. the reason has to be that
the tests have been re-jigged to produce the answer they desire. Once
the government sees the potential for bringing money in then policies
along the lines of VED / fuel consumption in cars (use 30% more fuel -
get charged Ca. four times the VED) are likely.

A council tax super tax on four bedroom houses ?

-Oh, Wait a minute, we already have that.

A tax on windows then and this doesn't mean W7, Bill Gates is Gordon's
mate.

Derek

Andy Dingley coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 8 Sep, 10:28, Recyclist wrote:

The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Is it true (I know that there are people around here who would know)
that straw bale construction instantly warrants an F or G rating,
because although it's actually quite well insulated it's not an option
for the type of construction and so falls through to the worst
possible assumption.

Surely it's not hard for the software to allow user defineable wall types -
with specified U-values?

Certainly the little EPC software I've seen in
action not only assumed that the user was probably an innumerate
idiot,

Oh - yes that explains it - can't expect much from a "new career" failed
hairdresser...

but refused to work in any way smarter than a multi-choice
idiotic way, even when they did have an understanding of U, R & K.

*sigh*

Our own place is 120 years old, so obviously scores (and deserves) a
Z. I just wonder why we had to pay so much money for someone to have a
laptop tell us this self-evident fact. Was it so that we could also
have the recomendation to install low-energy lights and a windmill,
with no advice at all as to the relative capital costs or likely
benefits of each.

Because, once the powers that be have attached their sticky fingers onto a
random mantra, they don't (or are incapable) of considering the "bigger
picture" or "thinking outside the box", which is odd as that's all some of
them ever seem to prattle on about. Most of our politicians actually love
their little box and would have a heart attack if you removed them from it
and threw them into reality.

Tim

Recyclist coughed up some electrons that declared:


Apparently I need a wind turbine

Which the software will not take into account the CO2 cost of production of.

and some solar panels....

That's better, just. Assuming it's for water heating. Would the software
treat photo voltaic cells as equivalent? Because I'm fairly sure their not
overall.

Given the crapness of the system, what would happen if you stuck up a box
with a propeller on it taht didn't actually do anything?

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
news
Cars which we know have to be energy efficient (Like SWMBO's 970cc
Corsa) come out of the assessment comparable with cars with much
bigger engines and heavier fuel consumption.

Example?

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:21:35 +0100, "Billy Gamble" wrote:


At some time in the future people with less 'energy-efficient' houses will
have to pay more council tax.

BG


Which equates to those on benefits being paid more, because anyone paying their
own bills, already has the incentive to look for economies.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:50:19 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
news
Cars which we know have to be energy efficient (Like SWMBO's 970cc
Corsa) come out of the assessment comparable with cars with much
bigger engines and heavier fuel consumption.

Example?


CBA !

BUT there can't be many cars with engines that are not bigger than
973cc.

And

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=25654

Shows it as delivering over 60 mpg and yet it is placed in band "E".


One wonders what the fuel consumption (MPG) of a vehicle placed in
band "B" would have to be.

Derek

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:57:29 -0700, Recyclist wrote:
Our own place is 120 years old, so obviously scores (and deserves) a
Z. I just wonder why we had to pay so much money for someone to have a
laptop tell us this self-evident fact. Was it so that we could also
have the recomendation to install low-energy lights and a windmill,
with no advice at all as to the relative capital costs or likely
benefits of each.

Apparently I need a wind turbine and some solar panels....

Hmm, is it possible to get such a bad rating that the software recommands
a nuclear power plant? ;-)

Derek Geldard gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...leDetails.asp?
id=25654

Shows it as delivering over 60 mpg and yet it is placed in band "E".

One wonders what the fuel consumption (MPG) of a vehicle placed in band
"B" would have to be.

135g/km was pretty bloody good for a petrol car back in 2001 - if you do
a search on there for petrol cars below that figure, there's only the
Smart and a handful of Japanese sub-superminis, basically slightly more
powerful Kei-cars. The Corsa is about the lowest "proper" petrol car for
the era.

Life's moved on a long way since then. An Audi A3 TFSI can match those
figures now. And that's before going near diesels.

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:50:19 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
news
Cars which we know have to be energy efficient (Like SWMBO's 970cc
Corsa) come out of the assessment comparable with cars with much
bigger engines and heavier fuel consumption.

Example?


CBA !

BUT there can't be many cars with engines that are not bigger than
973cc.

And

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=25654

Shows it as delivering over 60 mpg and yet it is placed in band "E".

Actually, it shows it delivering 50.4 mpg. It's the combined figure which is
pertinent. And 50mpg isn't that special for a little car these days.

So in answer to your complaint, your corsa isn't coming out as comparable to
cars with heavier fuel consumption, it's coming out as comparable to cars
with the same fuel consumption. They may have larger engines, but they're
more efficient.

One wonders what the fuel consumption (MPG) of a vehicle placed in
band "B" would have to be.

Combined 61.8 mpg petrol.

To get band C, which is the same VED, you need 56.7 mpg combined petrol.

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the sums are
easy).

"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the sums
are easy).

No, it isn't.

There's a correlation, sure, but it's not that straightforward.

"Recyclist" wrote in message
...
On 8 Sep, 12:34, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 8 Sep, 10:28, Recyclist wrote:

The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Is it true (I know that there are people around here who would know)
that straw bale construction instantly warrants an F or G rating,
because although it's actually quite well insulated it's not an option
for the type of construction and so falls through to the worst
possible assumption. Certainly the little EPC software I've seen in
action not only assumed that the user was probably an innumerate
idiot, but refused to work in any way smarter than a multi-choice
idiotic way, even when they did have an understanding of U, R & K.

Our own place is 120 years old, so obviously scores (and deserves) a
Z. I just wonder why we had to pay so much money for someone to have a
laptop tell us this self-evident fact. Was it so that we could also
have the recomendation to install low-energy lights and a windmill,
with no advice at all as to the relative capital costs or likely
benefits of each.

Apparently I need a wind turbine and some solar panels....

T


I wonder if wind turbines could be made with solar panels as the blades.

mark

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the sums
are easy).

No, it isn't.

There's a correlation, sure, but it's not that straightforward.

Ok, what's the difference?

On 8 Sep, 10:28, Recyclist wrote:
A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

So did this guy ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEvy60bZYI

Could do with a scan of an EPC to save actually paying someone to do
one...

Adam


This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

T

"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the
sums are easy).

No, it isn't.

There's a correlation, sure, but it's not that straightforward.

Ok, what's the difference?

Certainty.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the
sums are easy).

No, it isn't.

There's a correlation, sure, but it's not that straightforward.

Ok, what's the difference?

Certainty.

Not sure that's at all helpful. How is g/km CO2 not directly related to mpg
for a given fuel type? Should I add the "modern car" caveat, to ensure that
all the carbon in the fuel comes out as C02?

"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the
sums are easy).

No, it isn't.

There's a correlation, sure, but it's not that straightforward.

Ok, what's the difference?

Certainty.

Not sure that's at all helpful. How is g/km CO2 not directly related to
mpg for a given fuel type?

Because the tests are performed differently, which means that they may
well produce different results.

Should I add the "modern car" caveat, to ensure that all the carbon in
the fuel comes out as C02?

You can if you wish.

On 8 Sep, 13:38, Tim S wrote:

and some solar panels....

That's better, just. Assuming it's for water heating.

Solar isn't a good option for most water heating either, assuming
retrofit in the UK climate. Solar for space heating works well and
cheaply (especially if you can go underfloor), but trying to use it
for water heating is an uphill struggle. A practical UK system doubles
(at least!) the capital spend as you need a thermal store of some
form, and still doesn't have enough seasonal availability to pay for
itself within the system working lifetime. On top of that, your fuel
costs for hot water are dwarfed by space heating, so there just isn't
much budget to make a saving out of.

If you're opening a laundry in Spain, a climbing hut showerblock with
no fuel access, or if you just like to spend July soaking in a hot
bath, then of course the answers are different - but the simple view
is that solar space heating in the UK works, is affordable, saves
money and pays for itself, whilst heating the hot water supply fails
on all four.

On 8 Sep, 13:35, Tim S wrote:

Surely it's not hard for the software to allow user defineable wall types -
with specified U-values?

No, it isn't. But I've heard this from straw-bale builders, and the
person who did our EPC had "pick the option" software that was as
dumbed-down as a maths A level.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

(g/km CO2 is directly related to mpg for a given fuel type, so the
sums are easy).

No, it isn't.

There's a correlation, sure, but it's not that straightforward.

Ok, what's the difference?

Certainty.

Not sure that's at all helpful. How is g/km CO2 not directly related to
mpg for a given fuel type?

Because the tests are performed differently, which means that they may
well produce different results.

Right, why didn't you say that earlier. Seems moderately insane to me, but
never mind. Looks to be 5% or so error in there.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 04:57:29 -0700 (PDT), Recyclist wrote:

Apparently I need a wind turbine and some solar panels....

Now I'm monitoring the power used here and I have an AWS that
measures wind speed (also logged). I'm tempted to see if there is a
transfer curve between windspeed and power out somewhere for the
Proven wind turbines (either 2.5 or 6kW). And actually see how much I
could be expected to be able to sell to offset our use, dump into a
heat bank or sell to the grid.

Today with the mean speed being around mid twenties mph or just over
10m/s I suspect we could have sold quite a bit but we do get calm
days...

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Clive George" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Not sure that's at all helpful. How is g/km CO2 not directly related
to mpg for a given fuel type?

Because the tests are performed differently, which means that they may
well produce different results.

Right, why didn't you say that earlier. Seems moderately insane to me,
but never mind.

Why? You're determining one metric, under two different circumstances,
then artificially blending to create a third figure for that metric. Why
would you then perform some abstract extrapolation from that blended
result to come up with a different metric entirely?

Don't forget that it's entirely feasible that different engine
technologies may produce a different relationship between pollutants -
then there's all the fudge-factors involved in hybrids.

"Recyclist" wrote in message
...
A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

Fit air conditioning. It makes a two-grade difference between two otherwise
identical factory units I just had surveyed.

.....
Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

I had to get the survey done so that, acting as a Director of my company, I
could sell one of the factory units to myself, acting as a Trustee of my
pension fund. As I might one day want to sell the other and the
certificates last 10 years, I got both checked, as I got a substantial
discount for doing both at once.

Colin Bignell

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 04:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Recyclist
wrote:

On 8 Sep, 12:21, "Billy Gamble" wrote:
"Recyclist" wrote in message

...

A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.
I got an F...
This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.
Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?
T
At some time in the future people with less 'energy-efficient' houses will
have to pay more council tax.

BG
I have heard that rumour! It will be very interesting to see what
happens if they try to tax those in less "energy-efficient" houses,
when they are in fact in quite energy-efficient houses like mine.

They would have to get the software up to a standard that will stand
up to scrutiny in court - and that will never happen!


Our experience with energy ratings for cars is not encouraging.

Cars which we know have to be energy efficient (Like SWMBO's 970cc
Corsa) come out of the assessment comparable with cars with much
bigger engines and heavier fuel consumption. the reason has to be that
the tests have been re-jigged to produce the answer they desire. Once
the government sees the potential for bringing money in then policies
along the lines of VED / fuel consumption in cars (use 30% more fuel -
get charged Ca. four times the VED) are likely.

A council tax super tax on four bedroom houses ?

-Oh, Wait a minute, we already have that.

A tax on windows then and this doesn't mean W7, Bill Gates is Gordon's
mate.

Derek

Look,. with any luck, all this nonsense will vanish after the next
election, and be replaced with something nice and simple, like fuel duty..

...oh..we already have that..in which case why not increase it. Oh,
becaus its rather hard to hide it as a stealth tax..

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...


http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=25654

Shows it as delivering over 60 mpg and yet it is placed in band "E".

Its an E because nobody has done the approval tests to put it in another
band.
Its the same as my diesel, its in a higher band than it would be if the
tests were done.
Maybe you can pay for the tests?
Not that it would save you any cash in your lifetime.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:01:45 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

Today with the mean speed being around mid twenties mph or just over
10m/s I suspect we could have sold quite a bit but we do get calm
days...

Well I've devised a simple transfer "curve" that roughly fits that of
Proven wind turbines:

For the 6kW model:
Watts = (Wind 4 ? 0 : wind 12 ? ((wind * 0.625) - 2.5) * 1000 :
5000)

For the 2.5kW model:
Watts = (Wind 4 ? 0 : wind 12 ? ((wind * 0.25) - 1) * 1000 :
2000)

I found the makers transfer curves but also some plots from real
measurements for the 6kW model, that appears to max out at 5kW. Both
generate sod all below 4m/s wind and peak/flat top at about 12m/s,
between those speeds the power output is proportional to wind speed.

Today has been a windy day, even by our standards. Force 6 to Force 7
and brief excursion to Force 8. That's equates to sustained wind
speed not far short of 30mph or 13m/s and indeed the plots of both
(imaginary) turbines have been flat topped for quite a bit of the
day, ie
running at max output.

I reckon we could have exported somewhere between 50 and 60kWHr from
the 6k model and about 15kWHr from the 2.5kW model. Note that this is
exporting ie power in excess of our use.

But looking back over the last week even with todays 55kWHr export we
would still be a nett importer of power even with the 6kW model. But
only about 80kWhr not 160. A saving of £8 on the week. Payback on
installation cost (without a grant) about 60 years but of course
energy costs won't stay at todays prices and the case is not just
pure economics.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/3902159196/

For todays plot.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sep 9, 12:26*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:01:45 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:
Today with the mean speed being around mid twenties mph or just over
10m/s I suspect we could have sold quite a bit but we do get calm
days...

Well I've devised a simple transfer "curve" that roughly fits that of
Proven wind turbines:

For the 6kW model:
Watts = (Wind 4 ? 0 : wind 12 ? ((wind * 0.625) - 2.5) * 1000 :
5000)

For the 2.5kW model:
Watts = (Wind 4 ? 0 : wind 12 ? ((wind * 0.25) - 1) * 1000 :
2000)

I found the makers transfer curves but also some plots from real
measurements for the 6kW model, that appears to max out at 5kW. Both
generate sod all below 4m/s wind and peak/flat top at about 12m/s,
between those speeds the power output is proportional to wind speed.

usually its proportional to wind speed cubed, which is quite
significant, so things may be worse than they look


NT

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:27:07 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

usually its proportional to wind speed cubed, which is quite
significant, so things may be worse than they look

The energy available is but that need not be the same as the energy
produced by a wind driven generator.

Take a look at the graphs he

http://www.wind-power-program.com/smallturbinecomp.htm

The power out v wind speed from 5 to 10m/s is pretty linear...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 8 Sep, 13:38, Tim S wrote:

Given the crapness of the system, what would happen if you stuck up a box
with a propeller on it taht didn't actually do anything?

Interesting question. I have a large turbine available (8' Piggott-ish
homebrew) should I wish, but the site is lousy as a wind location,
being in the lee of a slight hill.

There's also a new primary school being built against our rear
boundary - actually a new building on the playing fields of the
existing school. This has already shifted from the green glory of the
original planning application (vertical axis wind turbine, solar
heating, SUDS and grey water systems) to the built actuality of
instead tapping into the existing overloaded surface water drainage
(with a vast hole dug in our plot), swapping the wind turbine for a
cheaper horizontal axis and solar panels comparable in size to what
I'm planning for our house alone.

In article ,
Recyclist writes:
A neighbour who wants to be an Energy Assessor has just EPC'd my house
as part of his training.

I got an F...

This is not just sour grapes because I failed, but the whole thing
appears to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is learned and no
useful advice is given. The software is rubbish - it can't cope with
my wall construction, floor construction, or central heating system.

Apart from the natural desire of politicians to heap cost and
legislation on us, does anyone believe their is any point to EPCs?

None whatsoever.

The whole thing was a waste right from the start, but it had to
be drammatically dummed down when they saw the very low skillset
of the applicants. For some reason, the government thought builders
and others familiar with building construction or energy use would
apply. What they actually got was a load of unemployed people with
no knowledge of building construction or energy usage, and with
the deadline for HIPs and almost no approved energy assessors, they
had to turn the assessment into a dum ticklist for the clueless.

Just look on it as an extra tax to keep a set of people off the
unemployment figures, and you won't go far wrong.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]