SteamyTea

Assuming the areas are the same, you would use less energy with the 150mm under the floor. The reason is that the floor will be at a higher temperature than the air in the building. The truck is that it is all in the formula. W=U-Value X Area X Temperature Difference. Increase any one of them and you have a greater power loss.

It will know if Nigella is on your telly and you are watching Whack Off.

Welcome. First things first. Have you done an energy audit of your house? Do you currently have enough hot water for your needs? The CoP of an ASHP is affected by more than just flow temperature.

Sounds like it only has 4 functions on it. On Off Zero Export Maximum Export Now what other products you got in the house that have limited functionality.

I suspect you are really after temperature and humidity control. Standard MVHR is not going to help much there.

From the horse's mouth. https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/support/range#:~:text=It is expected for a,aftermarket equipment when not needed. Why does estimated range decrease overnight while my car is off? It is expected for a Tesla car to consume around 1% of charge per day while parked. In some cases, you may notice that consumption is higher. We recommend deactivating features such as preconditioning, Sentry Mode, Keep Climate On and any aftermarket equipment when not needed. It’s best to keep the vehicle plugged in when using those features when possible. Note: Aftermarket equipment connected to the 12V system and/or third party mobile applications which collect data about your vehicle can decrease range while parked and reduce the battery lifespan. Tesla does not recommend using aftermarket equipment, and any damage to your vehicle’s hardware or software resulting from unauthorized access to vehicle data through non-Tesla parts or accessories is not covered by warranty.

Set it to Richard.

That is just the charger right? Not how much the car uses when not being driven.

Been watching Pennyworth, the undertaker eats people's organs for supper. They look just like the sausage I sell, before they are cooked. At least Breaking Bad has helped kids pass Chemistry in exams.

Turn it up to 11.

If the UK government tried to organise that, it would be a disaster. How would you know how many miles a car that is taken off the road had done. And can you imagine trying to collect the payment when someone moves, or just does not have the cash. Much easier to just have a fixed fee, payable monthly, 6 monthly or annually, we are used to that, and we have the systems already in place. What it really comes down to is what the charge should be, trying to make 'fair' for everyone just means we all loose out. We really should treat personal transport as a privilege, not a right. I hate public transport, really hate it. Why I pay the price to have private transport. Running my car cost me more than running my house.

It is interesting that we tend to think that we should be allowed to charge our vehicles at home whenever and however we like. Good job that gasoline car owners are not allowed to do the same.

I generally use Leicester as my generic England PV spot. It is about halfway up, and halfway across the country, and reasonably flat. I have been to Banbury, made me cross.

We may be talking about different things. But here is a chart of horizontal plain solar power from Banbury on Saturday. Not a very impressive day, quite peaky.

I explained that.

You are cruel. Just think how much electricity could have been bought it, years worth.

Have you ever had a look at the parasitic losses on an EV? I think I read (may have been about Our Jeremy's Model 3) that they can easily chew through 3 kWh/day. So around 125W while doing nothing. So you may be better off, if your tariff allows, charging it later.

From what I understand about hempcrete, it is inherently non airtight, and absorbs moisture. The tapes used are not the same as cheap roll of gaffer tape from the pound shop. They are engineered products. You will be needing to use them anyway to pass your airtightness test. If 'nasty' chemicals were used, they would be banned. Not as if we are ignorant of this anymore, we don't see people dropping dead from industrial diseases these days. When I started working in the 1970s, raw asbestos fibres were still mixed in, by hand, with the polymers we were using, the world has moved on, thankfully (thankfully my Mother told me I was not going to work for Railko). It is very easy to fall down the environmental rabbit hole, trouble is the conclusions end up the same that people are the problem (not one I subscribe to). My view when it comes to housing is that with our current housing replacement rates, what we build today will have to last 500 years (saw an interesting talk about it a few years back). Trouble is, apart from building with natural stone and a lot of ongoing maintenance, that is not going to work out. So second best is to reduce energy demand of housing, which means either more land is used overall per square metre of living area, or more modern materials. The international space station is not insulated with hemp and lambs wool for a reason, my car does not have cart wheel made from ash. And then you may end up with a misguided neighbour with a wood burner who thinks 'it is carbon neutral' and 'the smoke is alright in the countryside'.

As I said, that would be putting all RFD onto private cars. Where are your calculations then?

Not sure, it is a while since I used it, and it may not be the latest version. They have a habit of moving things about. Have you considered blown cellulose? Basically you will be building a timber frame house, then filling the voids with some sort of insulation. Cellulose is just minced up newspapers, but has excellent sound absorption qualities and good thermal inertia properties.

Have you compared all the option in ICE.

Does that really happen, must have pasted me by.

Oh, a hipster, they seem to dated now. Porous walls that absorb moisture, fantastic. And non structural, so where is the advantage. Only had a very quick skim though, cannot see the floor areas of the buildings, lots about wall areas. But, from page 39. "Average daily consumption 65kw which is around 7kw higher" I shall let other comment on the validity of that statement. I just piss people off pointing out the mistake.

Fuel duty raises about £25bn/year, so about £900/year for each private car, if all of it is pushed onto private cars. So if we say £100/month to put a car on the road, we will be paying for all the fuel duty, so goods and services can be shuffled around the country cheaper. Now let us also say that it costs half the price to run an EV compared to an ICE, and the mean national mileage is 12,000 miles a year and a car does 50 MPG. That will be 90 litres a month, £135 on fuel at £1.50/litre. An EV at half the price would be £67.50 for energy, plus the RFL, so call it £170. My RFL is £185/year, so £15.40/month. £150/month. Very similar. EVs are actually more economic to run, except for the very fast charger on Motorways that charge £2/kWh, for most people it will be around a tenth of that. Now I think, to use nearly all of our national road network, when we want, for a flat fee of £150/month is very good value. Low mileage users may disagree, but then they do have a choice of alternatives. Just to put it into perspective, if you are on minimum wage, you have to work 2 days every month to get to work. That is really quite cheap when you think about it.

Cheaper than 3 phase, but equipment costs more. Are you looking to use it to add more grid tied generation. Easier to go 3 phase as the kits is readily available for that.