Roger440

Clearly you can fathom it, for you answered the question in the same paragraph!

As someone who had this exact issue, i looked at all the obvious options. The reality is, doing a decent job from the roof space is going to be near impossble. I concluded that the risks of air under the pir, and subsequent moisture issues that could develop, it was a non starter. So, my prefered method was as iceverge suggested, insulation over the plaster board inside and then reboard over and skim. In the end the situation resolved itself as i ended up re-roofing, so did it from the outside. Which is, probably the only way to do it right.

Wise words from ProDave.

Well, it was marginally more complicated. But yes. My point was EPC bears little relation or indication of of actual energy use.

Indeed. I could get pretty much everything i wanted. For £300k more. But i dont have the £300k. And as you say, location is everything. If i did, id have built a house instead anyway. Always wanted to, still do. Just not going to happen. Because i dont have the money. All i can do with regard energy use, is improve it as much as i can in a cost effective manner. Even if i did nothing, the money i spend on energy wouldnt come close to covering the difference between what i have and what id like.

Lots, definitely. Id say most, because even, in the unlikely event they take into account the upgrades done, many will be invisible. And then, theres all the actual poor work, especially on insulation, that renders the assumptions, even if done well, meaningless from a running cost perspective. The house im in now, has insulated plaster board on battens in most of the newer (1980) part. But thanks to gross stupidity it stops at the soil stack. The stack is exposed under the kitchen workstop. It also goes upstairs into the roof and the boxing up there is open. So when breezy, the air simply comes down and across the floor. Marginally better than a tent. As you can imagine, it was essentially impossible to heat. "as existing" bears no relationship to the EPC, other than, its poor. Which is no surprise to anyone just standing at the roadside, if you have a couple of braincells. The one at my last house was just fradulent. So, yes, id say most EPC's are meaningless from an energy use perspective, maybe be slightly more useful from a construction perspective. Buer beware and all that.

No need to worry about hostile actors blowing up power stations. We do that ourselves. On purpose. Much as most of what you say makes sesnse, but your statement that long term bills will be lower i would suggest is fantasy. Assuming long term means, say, 10-20 years. Ive no real interest in a 100 years for example. Prices are only going up. To come down, would require actions that bring down the cost. I see no such action.

Excellent. But only government can do anything about said criminals. It chooses not too. You and i cant put them in jail. Of course, no scheme will ever be totally scammer proof. But they are not even trying. Its almost as if, its deliberately set up to be scammed. And creating cartels like MCS another government enabled scam. They are just throwing cash around with virtually no checks and balances. All of that IS a government problem.

The EPC just isnt a consideration for most. Me included. Its hard enough to find a house that ticks a number of boxes at a price you can afford. There are always significant compromises unless you are minted. There are a whole load of other things that are much more important the EPC/efficiency of a house. If you get hung up about an EPC, you will, likely, never buy a house. Mine was an E. Id like to have done better, but there wasnt anything else "better" within my budget that ticked the main boxes. Given the shortage of housing stock, its age, and its relative unaffordability, thats not going to change. And of course, most EPC's are not worth the paper they are written on. Only a fool would base the running costs of a house on the EPC. Maybe less so for a new build, but for anything older, pointless.

Corrupt people are not going away sadly. Even more sadly the government are incapable, or unwilling to accept that and build their schemes accordingly and so have, for a long time simply hosed cash on ill thought out wheezes. I guess closing a scheme is their only way of solving that.

Just as well most of france doesnt have anything like the heating requirement we do.

If you use actual, real, recovered railway sleepers, you will likely get a good life from them. They are usually a decent hardwood, properly treated. The "sleepers" that everyone now sells new are not railway sleepers (unless we have started building a lot of minature railways). They are just a large piece of low grade timber, treated fot only the first couple of mm. Ive seen plenty of old railway sleepers in farms as material bays etc. 50 years on the farm, 100 years before that in the ground and still ok. Sadly though, they are not cheap, and often look quite rough. Wouldnt even entertain "new" sleeps as a solution to anything. For retaining walls, i just use the concrete block interlocking walls. Indeed, ill be starting on in April.

Its happening because it is what they want. I found that looking at what they do, rather than what they say works well. Saying and doing rarely match. Ive said it before, as you know, but electricity prices are only going one way. Simply because they cant come down based on actions or lack thereof.

It can only end one way. Bankruptcy. Its surely only a case of when, rather than if. Though they are very good at kicking the can down the road. And then of course, under IMF control, the government will be forced to make the necessary cuts. And, of course sell off government assests at knockdown prices. To them.

Indeed. Can only blame myself for that. I did, however, think it was a nailed on certainty that the scheme would continue in ever more generous form. But, occasionally, sensible things happen.

To return to the original topic, looks like Rachael has indeed binned the ECO4 scheme if indeed the news is reporting correctly. They just call it an ECO scheme so not 100% sure. Good news for the taxpayer. Bad news for me.

I'm talking about the sealer rather the grouted you would use on paving.

You can always use the resin based sealer after laying. That binds the sand and creates an impervious joint that weeds can't grow in. Very effective.

Can't say I know. It was a while ago. Don't think there's any real practical difference. Just kingspan is about 20% more expensive. Because it's a market leading name.

I've used it, albeit in Workshop rather than houses. But I'd use it on a house if appearance was OK in that environment. In terms of fitting, I can't think of any roofing that is easier. It is as simple as it gets. One component. No layers, no gaps, no membranes. The thicker it is, the less noise. But a thelin panel can be noisy in the rain. But no more noisy than my new fibre cement roof tiles are. I'm at a loss as to why it's not used more, accepting that visually it often doesn't suit.

I already have radiators. Which are fine. But I do like UFH. Was fantastic in our last place, which I installed, though that did have foamed glass insulation under the slab. The original slab had to come up anyway on that house though. I'll take my chances. Mainly because i dont believe 85% of the heat will go down. And, of course, currently im already losing heat down through the slab as its already in my room! It's certainly not an uncommon thing to do. I can easily rent the machine to cut the grooves.

I'm not convinced, though that's based on the fact, that, practically, this would be done on an existing slab, so the pipes wont be buried as has been used in the examples above. They will be lying in slots cut into the surface, and depending on the proposed floor covering, left like that or grouted in. I'll leave it others to ask ai, but the real world solution I suggest will, logically alter the ratio of what heat goes where. Interesting though, as this is exactly what I will be doing. Much as having insulation under the slab would be great. I'm not ripping up six inches of perfectly good concrete to do so. £5-7k (even doing it myself) buys a lot if energy in whatever form. Never mind the disruption, and ridks if undermining shallow foundations. There's also some benefits in a traditional house with no dpm of gently warming the base of the walls and driving the moisture out.

Johnmo makes some excellent points which are, essentially as I understand it. On a new build it wouldn't make any sense, but on an existing house, makes more financial sense than digging up a perfectly good floor. I know, I ran the numbers. I’d be long dead before break even.

Not sure finance is an answer for people with no money or an inability to manage money. That doesnt normally end well. I forget the number of people that dont even have £200 in savings, but its substantial. They live month to month. They dont have any capital, and borrowing money in that circumstance would be foolish. Wasnt really debating if all those people needed to be in that postion. Just observing that they are, be it through circumstance or the choices they make. Related, though not directly is the very long payback periods on some of this stuff. If you can see a return in 2 or 3 years, if you have the capital its a no brainer. But 10 years, not so much. Might make good sense on paper, but 10 years is a long time, lots could happen. Could even be dead. But a half resonable you chance that you may not benefit as you might die, move house or whatever.

I dont think they are short sighted. The vast majority of the population simply cant afford to drop a 5 figure sum on heating, an EV etc, no matter how good it looks finanicially over the long term If electricity was free for heat pump use, thay still cant fund the heat pump in the first place. Running costs are acedemic if you dont have the capital. You have demonstrated, once again, that BH members are not representative of society at large.