-rick-

Call OSO and ask? I'd guess you are probably be ok as it makes more sense to me to put the VIP on the inside and PUR outer. But it's just a guess. Edit: But if the manual says no penetrations then making the plumber replace makes most sense. If you want to show flexibility then check with OSO and see what they say. If they are willing to warrant based on the screw being no longer than x then ok. No good to move forward with a void warranty.

Where does the lower pipe (below the floor of the cabinet) go? Any joins in it? Just wondering if the smell is travelling a bit and leading you off track? Smell could migrate into the cupboard and accumulate through those cut outs while the mhvr clears the rest of the room.

Way way bigger than a container. But then so are the engines these ships use now.

Bottom line is it comes down to money depending on the situation. But worth considering (again dependent on specific circumstances) if overpanelling may lead to longer run time/more energy generated in winter. ie. in low light, the panels acting together produce enough to overcome the inefficiencies/minimum input of a single mppt where as two separate strings on separate mppts never get above the threshold. I think this is much more likely in older installs with newer tech it not being a concern but worth bearing in mind.

But if you're neighbour is f-gas certified then you could potentially do the leg work of mounting units, drilling holes, etc, and just leave the pipework ready to be connected by your neighbour. There are other types of AC unit that don't need f-gas certification at all that might be worth looking at. One is just requires two largish holes in the wall and another type use r290 gas though there are some safety concerns there so would lean against in most situations except things like garden building (Other threads on here, have a search)

No expert, just relaying what I've seen online but I think there have been two schools of thought with this. Some of the new SMR designs are really low power using fairly conventional fuels. Maybe still a bit big for big ships but not far off, a revised design is feasible. Big ships are a hell of a lot bigger than nuclear subs. The other strand I've seen is talk about allowing more highly enriched designs on container traffic. ie, 20%, not 5% IIRC. Still way below what is used on nuclear subs and not close to weapons grade. Both cases the thought is that is such that it is a crane on module to the ship and any maintenance is done offship by first craning the module off to a maintenance facility (likely swapping the module with another so the ship can continue service without delay). The engineers on ship are just focused on monitoring it and shutting it down if a problem develops, not actively working on it. But either way I think given the issues you mention I doubt the west produces this technology. It'll get too tied up in red tape. But I can see China pushing ahead with it (or maybe Korea). Both big shipbuilders, both make a lot of money from green technologies and agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, both with significant civilian nuclear experience. Russia has been running nuclear icebreakers for decades (though I think they are more military form reactors).

Took me a while earlier:

Ah. Not sure what a plumber has to do with that. In my mums cold bathroom with relatively weak shower she specifically asked for the fan to be moved further away from the shower head because she thought it promoted cold. Couldn't tell you if it made any difference (used it before and after) but I could see an argument for wanting more steam to hand around (for a short while) in a room like that. (Of course consequences are condensation everywhere but that's another matter).

Someone mentioned the need for fuel in case of war earlier. It's been said already, but it's an awful lot easier to bomb refineries and oil pipelines than it is to bomb solar panels and windfarms. And as an importer of fuel it's also a lot easier to blockade/disrupt shipping than it is to stop the sun/wind. See Russia

Solar is 1000W/m2. Work out how many m2 of the planet there is and calculate the total amount of energy (obv not all planet is exposed to sun at same times). I'm sure an AI will help do this. Then calulate the amount of energy we put out. It's a very very tiny fraction of total energy. Haha here comes the jetsons! No, not gonna be in cars any time soon (or trucks). Batteries are perfectly fine for those. Ships, and only very big ships, there are are really two options to power them that don't burn vast quantities of fuel. 1. Sail 2. Nuclear Some ships are trying out sail and modern systems are aimed at reducing fuel burn not eliminating it. A useful contribution but not game changing. Ships have a schedule to keep so can't be waiting around for the right wind conditions. Nuclear on those ships is not crazy. They already have largeish crews with dedicated specialist engineers on board. The type of nuclear talked about for those ships is the 60-100MW range, so tiny comparitively. Likely to be an inherently safe design that is packaged as a module and craned on/off for maintenance, etc.

Firstly, I think we are talking about renewable in the sense of 'planet earth has limited supplies'. Once we go off planet the resources available are vast (but the technology required to access them are also a long way off). If we are just worried about planet earth then the available resources for nuclear is more than enough to keep us going for a very long time without worrying about depletion. If nuclear was cheap and we had well developed end-of-life plans I don't see much issue with it given current safety standards. But it's not cheap and we don't have well developed end of life plans so I'm not a huge fan based on that. Having said that, if the safety aspect can be dealt with putting small nuclear on very big ships would eliminate a lot of emissions and potentially lower costs for everyone. Using nuclear generation produces heat and some have questioned whether that heat output is a negative given global warming. My understanding is that the amount of energy used/heat produced by human activity is absolutely tiny compared to the amount of heat/energy output into planet earth from the sun and it's therefore not remotely a concern. Maybe a concern in local areas (heating seawater locally, producing fog in local valleys, etc). But these are the same as any other steam using power source (gas, coal, wood, etc).

If both pipes are close to each other and there's been ground movement it would make sense for both to be damaged. Hopefully this narrows down the search area to only those where the two pipes are close to each other?

Not important but I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here. 🙃

Check this asap. Expensive problem if left. If meter is spinning, turn off at meter and see if leak stops. (If you are not on meter isolate at external stop-cock anyway to check flow) If meter not spinning, then likely coming from another house. Report as leak to water provider and let them trace it?

How about invest your money (and mental effort) in buying a wireless charger/battery like this*: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anker-Magnetic-Wireless-Portable-Skin-Friendly/dp/B0DCNKDS5B?sr=8-4&th=1 Plan to charge overnight, if you forget you can get this out of a drawer and stick your phone on top. No wires. Then when it's done plug the powerbank into recharge somewhere out of the way ready for next time. Job done move on to next one. * Anker is a fairly good brand but I have no personal recommendation, this was just the first search engine result