SteamyTea

As a general rule, don't worry about the least significant number for the thermal performance. For floors that are screed/cast over, the compression strength is really the important bit. Two things happen when insulation is compressed, the thickness reduces and the conductivity increases. Ask yourself if you really want insulation of unknown or variable quantity where it can not be rectified. As a general note, all too often people ask similar question about floor insulation, nearly always a sensible amount has not been specified, especially when UFH is used.

I am bored of this, may come back when it gets to page 27.

https://www.agriwebb.com/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-explained/ 2

That is the way I understand it. You should be able to get a better yield and newer PV modules are more efficient at lower light levels and if the right inverter is chosen, then that can be taken advantage of. Generally, natural daylight follows an inverse square law. So you get a lot of sub 100 W.m-2 light, then half that between 100 and 200 W.m-2, half again between 200 and 300 W.m-1 and so forth. Very little at the greater than 700 W.m-2.

I was at a meeting, 20 years ago, about teenage pregnancies, I felt I was not contributing enough.

Slight modification in the quote. Wind turbine power is a function of the airspeed cubed, so m.s-3 This makes the speed gradient from the ground up important, as is surface roughness.

Where?

Have you got some examples. Generally, once inflation, higher standards, better outcomes etc are taken into account, there is not much difference. While I agree that a lot of government decisions are poor, from my viewpoint, they may be good from others.

Seems the problem is transmission, not the source.

Your small business background and your comments about immigration and government waste.

I think it generally is. Look at the really big government spends, health, education, defense and transport. We would be (expletive deleted)ed without them, yet many people think that they are wasteful. It is very easy to look at one or two incidences, take HS2 for example, and think that all government projects are managed as badly. We tend not to hear about the successes.

Hippy.

Where do you wire the earth to?

These will, definitely, just look who sells them. https://snakeriveraudio.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=17 Or

Why not just tax combustible fuels more. It really is about time that governments and the public grew up and accepted that taxation, which pays for public services and solves market failures, is part of grown up life. Claiming that it is just governments fleecing 'the ordinary working family' is just childish and naive.

Here are some figures for you. Seems your Tory mates were not brilliant either https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

Yes, maybe I should have been clearer. It is the total instal costs, not just the batteries. I would be very wary of a claimed 8000 cycles. After the halfway point, how much energy can you get out as a fraction of the energy in. Generally as batteries age, they get warmer on both the charge and discharge cycles. it is something I would like to see some decent data on.

For how long?

I used to have one on an old dryer. While it worked well, I did find that the extra drying time was a bit annoying, though I am told they are better now. When I moved down here full time, 20 years ago, I bought a washing line. Cost £2 with pegs (from Poundland). Best bargain ever.

In reality, they need to be able to deliver at around 10p/kWh, then they can compete with natural gas. Assuming a battery can do a 20% to 80% charge/discharge 3000 times, then: 1 kWh become 0.6 kWh If the price is £500/kWh that becomes £500/0.6 kWh or £830/kWh. 830 [£] / 3000 [cycles] = £0.28/kWh. So realistically you need to install at <£166/kWh. Now if natural gas is not available, then the price difference is not so bad, but then it does rely on not paying to import energy, so at best they need to be £250/kWh. I am not sure how close were are to that at the moment. According to this: https://heatable.co.uk/solar/advice/battery-storage-costs The price in 2024 is between £265 and £415/kWh.

Been trying to do that for my place. I agree that fitting the maximum amount of panels is the best option because of their cheapness is best. Storing thermal energy is also cheap, even a storage heater in a room will help. Water is best. The only problem with 'tariff switching' is that it is not a long term solution, so hard to make investment decisions around it. This is part of the reason that the FiT was introduced, it took the risk out of the equation. And who foresaw the price rises and volutilty we have had over the last few years. The cheapest energy is the kWh you don't need, working to reduce that is generally the biggest saving.

My shower pump works similar. Only works safely/reliably with gravity/vented systems though. Not read the rest of this topic I detail, but I assume you have an invented cylinder. If so, is your hot water flow adequate for your needs and is it possible there is a dynamic flow/pressure imbalance between the hot and cold e.g. PRV on the hot set lower than the cold.

So it is a case of choosing the right materials, treating them and fitting correctly. What a surprise.

Here are the monthly charts, based on my location, which is a bit better than most people.

It is 16 Amps per phase. Local voltage may vary so: P = A x V Taking the extreme allowed voltages of 230 V + 10% and 230 V - 6% you get Pmax = 253 x 16 = 4.048 kW Pmin = 201.2 x 16 = 3.4592 kW