SteamyTea

Except Building Control are the ones that sign things off, not the suppliers. It is not that hard to calculate the individual room flow rates, add them all up, then look for a suitable unit.

I have them. A customer who never gets served.

Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. Zaphod Beeblebrox in 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' used sunglasses that turned completely dark at the first sign of danger, thus preventing him from seeing anything that might alarm him. The only drawback: he couldn't see anything, including where he was going!

Bit of a left field idea, can you dazzle camouflage it?

WOW. It gets to a voltage if 73 mV. Must generate thousands of amps to get 50 W/m².

Mine is. And when it gets really cold, I turn it on.

Welcome. Insulation should not be look at in isolation. As you fancy being net zero, you have to look at your self generation capacity. PV probably. This, to a certain extent, sets your roof type and size. Quite simply, the less energy you need, the less you have to generate. So just thinking that there is not much difference between say a U-Value of 0.12 and 0.1 rather misses the point. It is the temperature distribution that becomes important, this may be skewed to more cold days than warm days. It is because of that you start paying the price. What are you doing for water and waste?

Who do you trust then?

A negative result is a result, but you do have to collect suitable data.

Many years ago, some of us, over at the other place, logged our weekly energy usage, along with some basic details of our houses. All it really showed was that some houses use less energy than others.

Three sheets per sit down visit. And they are to just wipe my fingers with. Did you learn nothing in the Forces. May start using The Packet. Or if I fancy a nostalgia trip, the Domino's Pizza flyer.

Yesterdays technology, here is what is coming tomorrow. https://techxplore.com/news/2022-03-solution-thermal-energy-storage.html On a more serious note, do you know how much energy your house actually uses, once you take home generation into account. So imports + PV. Think I may turn of heating this weekend.

Can't afford to turn the blower on @30p/kWh

You said But with reference to When it comes to new capacity, RE is now the cheapest on levelized costs. In the UK subsidies have just about stopped for new developments, though the fossil fuel industry is still claiming them. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies Don't get a 'strike price' mixed up with a subsidy. A strike price is just a form of price hedging, and we have seen the consequences of not doing that recently. The is an interesting area, it is what I was studying when I did my Masters. The models where not BS at all, most where very accurate. They were local models, glorified weather models and the limitations were very well known and understood. In the last 15 years, we have collected and analysed much better satellite based data and now, as I understand it, they are proving useful, two recent reports about forest fires and sand particles have confirmed what was already know, and over a greater geographical area. If you think that all models are BS, then I cannot help you understand how they work and the limitation they have. The fact is though, that even the old model projections are holding up extremely well. They are not weather models, which you seem to think they are, they are climate models, different things, with different names.

There is no quick way to replace Russian gas production either. So given the choice, the RE route is favourable.

I missed them all. Did see some Simpsons when I was in Australia, was the only thing I could stand to watch.

Really just a case of designing for a properly sized heat pump, then connect it up via a buffer tank. The buffer may need changing, but they are cheap items.

Was Brintey, a Southpark reference.

We do understand the chemistry of combusting carbon based fuels, and the physics of of how the CO2 molecule traps and releases energy at different frequencies. By eliminating carbon based combustion, we reduce the physical side, but we will not reduce it so much that we will be plunged into a 'snowball earth'. So now that the majority of the population are going to be more aware of how reliant on energy we are, if offered two options, find a new source of oil/gas or use proven low carbon technologies, we would be a bit silly to choose the oil/gas route as we have several decades of knowing how volatile the price is.

Or get rid of the firepit and have happier neighbours.

A decade ago I know, but we did not have any qualified solar installers fitting our kit. We just used 'lads that had done some roofing'. Though we did employ an electrician to finish the wiring. Luckily the company was run by a crook and did not last very long.

What are you frying up, whole sides of pig?

It is all do do with Coulombs, as said by Nick, generally charge and discharge rates are sized to the storage capacity, though that is not the be all and end all of it. Lithium Ion batteries can have a very high discharge rate, why they are used in BEVs, but to increase longevity, they are charged slowly (there used to be a limit on how often they could be changed at maximum rate). We are long was off that point yet, and it is easy and cheap to turn off a few turbines than pay to turn off a few large freezers. There is a balancing mechanism that sorts all this out, supermarkets get paid to turn of loads. The system is set up to minimize price and emissions, but it limited i.e. you can't turn off a large nuclear or hydroelectric plant.

It is multifactorial, so climate change is part of it. The main problem with climate change is the rapidness of the change. We has spent the last 8000 years setting up our agricultural systems to come with the usual variation in weather, but as the climate changes, that usual variation is happening more often, and in unexpected places (look at Siberian and Antarctic upper temperatures). Just last year, we had an extreme heat warning in the SW. It was hot for a few days, not impossible to cope with (though I had to put tin foil on my upstairs windows to limit the heat coming in, and it worked very well). The mean temperature over those few days was around 22°C, peaking at 26°C. Pretty low, even for the UK. But the difference is that the SW is not used to those temperatures, the peaks are usually damped by the Atlantic Ocean (why we don't get the cold winters as well). So why was a warning issued when people 200 miles east are used to these extremes. It was because it was unusual, and lasted for more than a couple of days. Now extrapolate that to a proper farming area, say the Mid West USA, sudden heat waves, though good for drying crops, puts a strain on the infrastructure i.e. not enough machinery to harvest. This is where the problems are. Now rich countries can easily afford to pay a higher price, but poor countries can't, but the shortages are not price led, they are climate led. And sadly, it is the poorest places that suffer the most, not because they cannot adapt, they can often adapt faster (remember Ethiopia), but they are hampered by international politics and local ideologies. A quick look on the FOA wed site will show you that the wealthy nations are not always the best at coping. So taking Saudi Aribia and Spain, and looking at undernourishment, Saudi is at 3.9%, Spain is less than 2.5%. The UK is the same as Spain. Now I know you will claim that I am cherry picking data, so here is Morocco's numbers, it is geographically close to Spain. <2.5%, same as the fully developed examples.

Just make up a company, or copy the details of one that is MCS registered onto the paperwork. Only checked when it goes wrong, and by then, most companies have vanished. I am sure if the DNO is happy, the problem is solved. The structural element is really for your house insurance.