sgt_woulds

'Use it, dont burn it' ? Absolutely agree. Costs have been inflated in order to favour the option that maximises shareholder returns in line with modern mantra. I have no problems with on-shore wind turbines - to my mind they have an elegance that compliments scenery, the same as a victorian viaduct. Pylons are an abomination and it is worth every additional penny to bury cables. In most cases for open fields you wouldn't even need to dig up the land. We already have machines capable of snaking conduits underground for hundreds of meters without breaking the surface - they use them in cities all the time. It would surely be much cheaper to doe this in open areas and once you have conduits buried you are future proofed against future upgrades. And protected from climate change apmplified storms. If we need to upscale the machines then that is a manufacturing opportunity for UK firms. We built dedicated machines to build the Channel Tunnel, and they were only used once before being stripped and abandoned! Whilst we have the perfect off-shore conditions and an entire industry capable of building them out of site, we do need to build more on land for energy security purposes. It much easier for a bad actor to take out an off shore connection than a distributed grid on land. Underground cables on land for the same reason

Exactly right. If the evidence proves otherwise scientific opinion changes. That is why science is a better touchstone for forming policy than personal opinion. The point is that a significant amount of the evidence and thus (as you say yourself), a significant portion of the scientific community believe in human amplified climate change. When seat belts first came in, Volvo et al had already published significant amounts of evidence to prove their efficacy. The greatest driver of the day, Stirling Moss had his own opinion on the matter and thought it was better to be thrown from a vehicle and had the seat belt achchors on his car (Marcos at the time IIRC) sawn through. When the inevitable happned he was thrown clear but suffered injuries that he would not have if he'd stayed in the vehicle. It was a miracle that he wasn't killed. In a situation where all the evidence tells you our Fossil Fuel addiction will lead to disaster, do you just hope to be thrown clear?

🙃 Slip of the keyboard, sorry!

Only use unnatural insulations if you are fitting them yourself and can absolutely confirm every detail of installation is impecible, interstitial damp and misery awaits unless you get very lucky with your builders. A poorly installed but breathable natural insulation will generally give less long term issues than a badly installed unatural and non-breathable one. It is important to note that companies that make natural insulations do not generally recommend achieving high U-values with IWI due to the condensation risk to the structure. There is, generally, a sweet spot between 40-100mm of woodfibre that balances the energy savings, cost, and condensation risk. Part L of the Building Regulations for England offers flexibility when retrofitting existing walls, roofs and floors; an improved U-value of 0.30 W/(m2·K) is the target but a ‘threshold’ level of up to 0.70 W/(m2·K) is sufficient, as long as the approach can achieve a payback not exceeding 15 years and is ‘technically and functionally feasible’. There is also a provision in the regs if IWI will reduce the floor area by more than 5% where lower insulation levels are allowed, but honestly, if your barn is that small then you will need to look at alternatives to conventional insulation anyway. Unfortunately these allowances only really apply to an existing residence and are harder to swing for a conversion, but it is worth discussing with your local authority / BCO. For an older building, most BCOs are now sympathetic to the argument that breathability is more important than the ultimate insulation value. IWI requires careful consideration; the breathability and condition of the walls and pointing should be assessed before specifying the insulation solution. The best advice is to have the external walls assessed via hygrothermal software - such as WUFI - which will take all of the site variables into account. Internal wall insulation is more complicated than external insulation due to the way it moves the dew point within the construction. In addition, standard U-value calculations will not correctly account for the sorption properties of natural insulation fibres, nor their ability to pass on liquid water through capillary action. WUFI purely considers moisture issues and how the various elements of the building fabric will deal with the volumes based on site-specific conditions. This is the evidence you need to convince BCO of your inentions. These may help: Rethinking IWI with Natural Fibre Insulation Insulation and retrofit - Finding the sweet spot - The Alliance for Sustainable Building Products (asbp.org.uk) The-use-of-natural-insulation-materials-in-retrofit.pdf (stbauk.org) I can also recomend Back to Earth as they not only have a lot of experience with insulating historic buildings but can provide the WUFI assessment too.

Also the toilet cistern becomes a heat source. But Legionnaires' might be an issue

Correct hence my earlier post:

That sentance gets bandied about a lot, but we need to remember that this forum is open to the unititiated who might take it as gospel. In simple terms you can perform a voltage drop calculation to determin which system will have less losses over the same distance with the same size conductors - generally, whether AC or DC, whichever has the highest voltage will have less voltage drop over the run. But efficiency is only part of the decision process, you also need to facter in cost and safety. On the cost front, back in the 2000's when I was installing PV, it was always cheaper to fit a long run of AC vs DC. Pure copper low loss double insulated solar cables were more expensive. I haven't looked in years, but I don't imagine the costs have changed much! We couldn't use 'standard' AC rated cable for DC as you always wanted to finish the cable with an MC plug, not a screw connection wherever possible. With high voltage DC linked to variable(pulsing) solar, screw connections work loose and are an arc risk. The DC plugs are only certified for installation with double insulated solar DC cable, so you couldn't just fit the same MC plugs to an type AC cable. Then you have the safety factor. High voltage AC is always safer than high voltage DC, espescially when the cables are hidden. I've been unfortunate enough to experience shocks from both, and I can tell you neither is fun, but I'm a lot more respectful of DC! High voltage AC can be protected with affordable and easily available RCD. If someone puts a shovel through a buried AC cable, the power cuts in the blink of an eye, and the inverter shuts down. If the same spade goes through a buried DC cable, it forms a direct circuit with the solar panels at full power until the sun sets! Again, I've been out of the game for a long time, and I know that DC RCM are now available for connection between the panels and field cables, but CMIIR, these don't work as quickly as an AC RCD, and are costly . With long buried DC field cables you will also need to use very expensive DC specific double insulated and armoured cables. Or 'ordinary' double insulated DC cables in armoured conduit. It would be usefull to hear from any practicing Solar installers / electricians for their thoughts

i Huh?

Sorry, I miss typed! I should have said changes to the planning laws: Labour's new planning bill "will lead to permanent biodiversity loss" - Protect the Wild What do the UK Government’s changes to the Planning Bill mean for nature? Don’t Let New Planning Laws Cost the Earth - Woodland Trust The concept of irreplaceable habitats already exists in the planning system, (in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) and it is supposed to protect habitats that are impossible to recreate within a reasonable timeframe – such as ancient woodland. In practice this rarely happens. What suffices as a 'reasonable timeframe' when these ancient processes have literally built up over many thousands of years? Espescially as we are only scratching the surface in terms of our knowledge of natural interconnections (as this latest study into bark highlights, let alone what processes go on in the deep soil beneath ancient sites that we cannot study directly). It’s important that this planning definition is better (scientifically), defined for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as the current wishy washy wording allows for financially incentivised 'interpretations' that steamrole development to the detriment of nature: Lower Thames Crossing risk to ancient woods - Woodland Trust For balance, this is GOV.UK's responce: Inaccurate reporting of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill – MHCLG in the Media Does anyone else wonder at the 'informed decisions' of our politicians?

It also calls into question the changes to UK building regulations to make it easier to destroy existing, old growth forests and other natural ammeneties and replace them elsewher with 'equivalent' planting. It takes milions of years to set up an intricate interconnected system of life, and a few minutes for Bloores and Barretts et al, to destry it to make way for better profit margins.

I'd still question the overhangs of the top l/h/ sides, especialy when using a washer rather than an engineered clamp. You are probably not concerned with warranties, and the trees behind do offer a wind break, but manufacturers specify clamp zones for a reason, and the joy of unistrut is that it is easy to customize as required. It's hard to tell from the pictures, but it looks like some of those washers may be partially covering cells which can lead to localised cell burn out and reduced output.

Good old unistrut! Its what we used 25 years ago before the MCS licencing nonsence came in. Did you check the clamping zones for the panels? They will be under a lot of stress in windy conditions in an exposed situation like that. Even if they dont fly away in the night, the stress may induce micro fractures in the cells and glass laminates. It looks likes half the panels face a slightly different direction to the others. Have you wired in two strings?

Judging by the flow meters, only the centre loop is working, but that may be because you have multiple zones and that is the only one calling for heat. However, seeing a flow meter maxed out like that is not usual and would indicate a zone about the same size at Trumps new ballroom...

Also, what is the floor area in m2?

Have you seen the shading design guide - downloadable here: BBSA and GHA launch new shading for housing design guide I'm a big fan of roller shutters having used them at my parents in law's house in Hungary. They add both shade and security. Roller shutters have different options for use, including a stage where they are almost shut but still let a little bit of light through slits. However, I've got to say that the louvres / slats shown in the pictures above are much better aesthetically. In Europe, most windows open inwards so cleaning is less of an issue even with close fitting louvres.