All Activity

Sounds like i should re-run the numbers. No contraints (at least none i will concern myself with) around the panels. Though id really like to avoid concrete as it would be a bit of a nightmare to get it down there in any useful quantity. Will consider any solution. but 80mph winds are the real problem.

You saying you'd never fill that battery suggested that what you did may not have accounted for using the overnight cheap rate to charge. Should always be possible to fully charge overnight. Always worth checking the AI. Ok sorry, I thought it was a bigger array than that. In that case, prob not worth worrying about going over the G.98 limit. Just set those panels up to generate the maximum you can during winter/shoulder seasons. As far as mounting the panels go, do you have planning/visual considerations? You can get really cheap if you don't have to worry about that. (Scaffold poles set in concrete holes, unistrut, etc)

Hmmm, i did do the calcs 🤔. Though i did use AI to assist me. Which could be a problem! The array is 4.5kw. The inverter not sure. Its quite old, though still brand new. Ive worked on the basis of a new one. If i use the old one, its a bonus.

Unlikely maybe but it's easy to do so no harm in trying. (though sensible not to base decisions on access to more) In winter you fill the battery overnight with cheap rate electricity and run your workshop off it during the day. In summer, you export the max you are allowed and charge the battery with the rest. Then, when the sun goes down, you keep exporting until the battery has enough room to take the next days solar input. These two steps combined minimise your bill in winter and maximise you export (earnings) in summer. See above. Do the calcs based on what you are doing right now. Given you have the panels and inverter for free you should be able to make it work fairly comfortably. What size solar array and inverter do you have? Is the inverter approved for export G.98 and G.99/G.100? (It would be a big hitch if not, likely requiring a new inverter)

Still no clue how to do multi quote, so bear with me. Not really got into detail on possible inverter set up yet. My priority was a cabling decision quickly to make use of the dry weather for trenching. Im limited to 3.86 because that all you can do without an application. (are we talking cross purposes here?) Given they are already having over voltage issues in summer, and im on a spur feeding 6 properties, some very lightly used (MOD) i cant see approval being forthcoming. Im sure you have posted your financials before, but ive no idea why its so different from memory. Current bill is £280 a month, 9000kWh a year. Heavy in winter, light in the summer due to workshop. A bigger battery, ie 10Kw increases payback as ill never fill it during the winter with a 4.5kw array It will only be useful in summer. Doubling the size of solar and batteries does reduce the payback, but to roughly the same as the current array with 5Kw battery. (the only saving will be the cabling as its already there. If im missing something obvious im all ears, but i cant see it at the moment. Ive not taken into account a heat pump as thats not a certainty, or in the immediate future.

Re uPVC windows in particular, I posted here about why I avoid them:

The good news is, i know where the land drains are! I plotted my route accordingly.

The reference to payback was the solar/batteries.

A key benefit of triple glazing is that the inside air temperature next to the glass will be a few degrees higher than it would be next to a similar double glazed unit. If you have underfloor heating, then the closer that temperature is to the target room temperature, the slower the convection currents are in the room. Which creates a more uniform temperature gradient from floor to ceiling, so you don't need the thermostat as high (which is where there's a cost saving). It also removes condensation risk even when temperatures drop well below zero. However, if you don't have UFCH then the first of these benefits goes 'out of the window' as you'll have significant convection currents anyway. And if you do have UFCH + well-specified double glazing (argon filled, low-e, good weather seals, well-insulated frame), then the temperature gradient can still be very good. In short, it's preferable to choose double glazing in a well-insulated frame, rather than a triple glazing in a standard / poorly insulated frame. Uw is the best guide for that.

Of course, you are correct but I was talking specifically about glazing on the assumption of a good frame but never qualified that point.

Well I certainly hope I'm right!

In Surrey? Are you sure? That seems extraordinary

Just do AC coupled they use a normal inverter Why I am currently getting 12p looking at Octopus Prime which will pay 16p in peak periods. So would question that figure. If you don't have a smart meter and that's the reason, get one Size battery to suit that consumption, not 5kW Our house started with 3kW of PV, and had a gas boiler, we paid around £180 a month all in, we now pay £52, with vertical PV (winter good summer poor) and 13.5kWh battery. So around £1500 saving a year and I already had PV. Wet soil retains heat better than a dry one, our soil is 100mm thick then sand, we would need almost double the pipes compared to wet soil

@scottishjohn when a petrol station is charging 6 to 8p/litre more than one not far away is this always location and convenience? Because as you say , 3p/l is not much return, but suddenly to become 10p is a huge difference. In Spain there is even greater variance. It is nearly always linked to attended service or self serve (8 to 10c/l) . The 3rd option is total automation with no shop which is hopeless when there is any problem of course. These can be cheaper (no labour) or dearer (remote or 24/7).

I just want to do the minimum of box ticking, if it is required. I'm certainly not going to sit on hold to them for ages, I don't need it, but do they?

generally this is the case, but it depends on the ground. If sitting on hot rock, the borehole will be expensive but decent heat may be harvested. payback is a few years At the other extreme is heavy clay and with other houses seeking the same heat source. Payback is never, and air source is the way. in between are other boreholes with sand or silt that has a flow of water through it, warming the pipes. Pipes in surface trenches are not really harvesting ground heat, but the energy from the sun in summer, stored in the ground, but diminishing, through the winter. These can be simply installed behind a plough that makes it very easy, or in a trench being dug for another reason. Payback again depends on aspect and ground. 10 years perhaps. The slinky companies of 20 years ago have gone, and rightly so. Pipes in lakes or very large ponds can be an option if the volume and depth are sufficient, and especially if water is flowing.

How are working out the costs, I keep adding as its so cheap and payback is quick. But I suppose the maths depends on your usage

Filled in the Web form on Monday 11am, got a call from a human around 2pm from Scottish Water said he had booked the job. I would get two texts and normal time to fix was 5 days. Wednesday morning got a call from Callum to say he was on way and to tell him he had the job card and it was a stiff Toby...steady boys. Callum called back a couple of hours later to say, as he expected his giant key did the trick, all was well and Get this He only lives around the corner and to save his work mobile and any issues and he'll pop around right away. BTW the second text, I did not click it, was 'track your operative' so I guess a real time job like they do with deliveries. Fantastic service from the publicity owned Scottish Water Sorry for the dig poor old Thames Water customers!!

But that is a pretty meaningless value because it doesn't include the effects of a good or poor frame. Uw gives a way better comparison, then you know what you are getting. Sorry a throw away statement above, it really depends on window size. We have 6m wall of glass, this results in this room loosing more heat that the rest of the house put together. Our window Uw is 0.8, compared to good double glazed being nearer 1.2-1.4, so around 40% heat loss for that wall.

Interesting read, thanks. Wonder if you can answer me this… Not far from me there are 2 fuel stations about 100m apart, both owned by MFG. One was BP and the other Shell for many years. They both closed for a refurb about a year or so ago at the same time. When they reopened, the BP had become Shell and the Shell had become ESSO! I’m sure there must be a reason, would love to know what. Why not just swap the BP to ESSO and leave the Shell as is!

Well the law changed last week and our new application has been submitted. Ready for the long wait now...

Interesting. I'm sure when I looked into it the cost difference of triple glazed windows was never going to pay back the energy savings over double in the life of the windows. Unlike single glazed to double where they do save you money. The improvement wasn't as drastic with 3g vs 2g. That rules them out for me although @JohnMo said it was more a comfort thing.

Just a test so 1024 trees. All real meshes. Nearer ones move per branch with wind and have higher fidelity shadows. Take lighting from sun/cloud/terrain/atmosphere (froxel,fog etc etc). Lots to compute!. Been rethinking lots and applying every trick I can to get frame rate sane but still heavy. I'm now onto placement - so got to go and plant 10'000's of trees!

That's not really correct. Triple glazing isn't primarily about reducing outside noise, its main advantage is improved thermal performance. A typical modern double-glazed unit might have a Ug-value around 1.0–1.2 W/m²K, whereas a good triple-glazed unit can be around 0.5–0.7 W/m²K, so the heat loss through the glazing itself can be roughly 40–50% lower. That doesn't mean your heating bill drops by 40–50%, because windows are only one part of the building's overall heat loss. Interestingly, triple glazing isn't automatically better acoustically either. For noise reduction, the thickness and combination of the panes, cavity widths and especially acoustic laminated glass can be much more important. A properly specified acoustic double-glazed unit can outperform a standard triple-glazed unit. So there are perfectly valid arguments about whether the additional cost of triple glazing is worthwhile for a particular property, but saying the thermal difference is minimal and triple glazing is mainly for noise isn't really accurate.

Just check spoil from trench for bits of land drain, clay or plastic. Up to you if you repair any old drains you cut, but at least you know they are there if a wet spot develops in future. We have GSHP , one of the down sides is a dry field is now wet !