jack

Members
  • Content Count

    5,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

jack last won the day on April 12

jack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,603 Excellent

About jack

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    SE England

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well it was the real cost to him. It isn't a cost someone like me could ever achieve, no matter how careful I was with my spending.
  2. @Bud 1, I missed the subject of your post. Have you actually had a formal planning refusal?
  3. No, you have every right to be aware of the content of objections that are made, otherwise you have no ability to address them. If those are the only objections you've received, I'd just ignore them. If "I have looked on that open land for years" were a valid objection, nothing would ever get built unless it were completely out of sight of every other dwelling. "kitchen smells" is simply ridiculous. The last one adds nothing to what the planning department will already consider as part of the planning process, so can safely be ignored. I can't see how you'd gain anything by learning the numbers of the houses involved. Proposals for new buildings are nearly always objected to, even by apparently otherwise rational people. In many cases, there are no long term issues, especially if you're a good neighbour going forward. Of course, there are some people who might remain prickly, but frankly it's unlikely you'd want to be friends with people like that anyway, so no loss.
  4. Sure, but I'd rather that than nearly all developer estates. It'd be an interesting approach if you were to divide a self-build site into several zones on the basis of, eg, materials and/or general form. It might also be interesting if you were to engage a firm of architects per zone, and allow them to work with self-builders based on their individual briefs, while trying to generate a meaningful theme or tone for each zone. Really hard to do properly, I expect.
  5. Yep. Would vastly prefer a range of styles, some of which are out there and/or ugly. Much better than estates full of dull, cloned, pastiches of another era.
  6. It's a common theme on this forum. I had one bad experience when we started. Expensive, and just didn't seem capable of designing something that met all the requirements of our brief. We'd have a meeting, point out what was missing and what we didn't like. They'd come back three months later with a new design that fixed many but not all of our concerns, while throwing out a couple of things we liked and changing a bunch of other stuff for no apparent reason. We then found someone else to take over, and their first design just blew us away. It had everything we wanted, was set out on the block in a way I'd never considered (and yet was perfect for both planning and tree preservation reasons), and just needed a few tweaks before we signed it off. No way we'd have come up with something like this ourselves.
  7. Out of curiosity, why did you give him all the other info about your needs and wants if you were just asking him to do CAD drawings of your design? Also, usually it's very clear what is involved (and what you're paying for!) at each stage, so again it's surprising that you could have been at such cross-purposes with each other. It sounds like he's just completely misunderstood what you wanted from him!
  8. I doubt they're trying it on, but missing so many clearly listed essentials (I assume they were all listed as essentials, not wants or "nice to haves"?) is a red flag about attention to detail. Like every profession, there are good and bad architects, with most sitting somewhere in the middle. Certainly getting something so completely wrong from the start is not the usual way of things.
  9. Not as I read it: My point is just that you were focused solely on inertial storage, when there are many other ways of supporting the grid over various time periods. I believe a synchroinverter adds voltage at a phase that tends to stabilise the frequency, rather than merely remaining in phase with whatever the grid is doing. A grid-connected PV inverter would be an example of the latter. I think that's right to a point, but you still need sufficient available power for this to happen. If that power isn't available, all the inverters in the world won't help you. I did a bit of digging around yesterday and was surprised to find that grid-scale storage projects are already well along the development pipeline for the UK. See this link for an example of a very large-scale battery in the works, and a discussion of some of the existing battery storage projects.
  10. Do they say how it's supposed to save money?
  11. Nope. It makes a big difference in the specific narrow situation that was modelled. I never said otherwise: I also mentioned several other factors you haven't addressed.
  12. You're obviously way more knowledgeable than me, but my main point was just that there's more to frequency stability in modern and future grid systems than the rotating mass of turbine-based generators. I hadn't followed it after the initial launch, but the Tesla grid-tied battery in Adelaide I linked to above appears to have been a roaring success technical and financial success. Worth a read of the short Wikipedia article.
  13. We have a Brink Excellent 400, which can run at up to 400m3/h. The regs say it should be run at (I think) 280m3/h, which is insane. I'd have to check, but I think we currently run it at 100m3/h, although it's been as low as 50m3/h without any apparent condensation issues.
  14. Just learned that there's a name for power converters via which non-synchronous power sources supply power to the grid to support frequency stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronverter
  15. Our pantry total is 12W, from memory. An hour with those lights on is 0.012 kWh, or about £0.0018 at £0.15/kWh. Leaving them on 50% of the time would cost less than £8 a year. If it costs £60 to supply and self-install a motion sensor, the payback cost is something like 7.5 years. I don't know how often a motion sensor needs replacing, but if it's every 10 years, it marginal whether it would ever pay back its costs. You also need to factor in energy consumption of the sensor, and the embodied energy of manufacture and disposal. Worse, I doubt the light is on for more than an hour a day though, so even ignoring replacement costs it's more like a multi-decade payback. This is the sort of maths that ends up applying to all those small rooms that you nip in and out of during the day: toilets, pantries, bathrooms, utility rooms. In the end, it's just difficult to make a financial case for it, so it comes down to whether you want to reduce your carbon usage to the absolute minimum, or consider motion sensors to be something that improves your life enough to pay for them.