LnP

Frame Technologies are still in business, but with only two employees, Simon Orrells and his wife. Everything is sub-contracted out, including manufacture of the frames, albeit to a manufacturer who I believe is STA Gold. I think a previous incarnation got into trouble when a large order with a developer customer went bad. The consequence was that he had to sell the factory and let go all his employees. I'm sure it must have been a traumatic experience and he must have considered finding an easier way to spend his time, but he decided to get back into the business with this company structure - no fixed assets and no employees. He's a tremendous guy with huge experience which would be an asset to any project. I'm sure he has happy customers and could deliver a service as good as any other frame supplier and maybe better than some. But you need to do your financial due diligence and satisfy yourself you're happy doing business with a supplier with this rather unorthodox structure.

As I said I would, I made an enquiry on the Jackon Atlas website. I got a call from them and they referred me to ICF Bondmor for installation in the UK. I was also contacted by a very helpful builder via this forum who uses the Jackon system for ICF and insulated raft foundations. I'm also finding that you need to find a structural engineer who's familiar with insulated rafts. I'm making progress with that.

@JohnMo and @Beelbeebub, all fair points but I recommend you read the piece by Dieter Helm I linked to and I'll be interested in your thoughts about his arguments.

@IanR My criteria are cost, speed of installation and simplicity. Energy efficiency performance is interesting but won't be a deal breaker. I was speaking to AFT recently, before their decision to cease trading, and they were not interested in installing, a change from the past. They did however provide some very useful information about expected installation costs, and the name of a local ground works company they had had good experience with. I was definitely interested in going further with them, but sadly that won't now be possible. That's a useful list in the post you linked to, thanks.

Interesting. I've not come across these people before. Their website gives the impression they don't have a presence in the UK, although it's all nicely presented in English. I'll drop them a line. Thanks

Would you be happy with your electricity supplier cutting you off 4% of the time? I doubt it. Filling the last few % of the intermittency gap is expensive and the renewables generators are getting it for free. If they were required to deliver firm power, they would have to back up their wind farms with CCGT or batteries. Amortising that capital cost over 4% utilisation is expensive. At the moment they don't pick up the cost. Well, yes, all generators need to pay a share, but if money has to be spent on the grid to accommodate newly connected renewables, their share should reflect that. At the moment, renewable electricity which we've all committed to pay for with CfDs is being curtailed because the grid can't take it. The grid was completely fit for purpose before renewables came along. Dieter Helm explains it very well. Current peak demand: 45 GW Before renewables, capacity installed to meet the peak with a security margin: 60 GW Current installed capacity: 120 GW requiring a much larger grid for the same demand. And we have to add the cost of the batteries, storage, CCGT etc. to fill the intermittency gaps. I'm fully in favour of decarbonisation, but we need to be clear about the costs and how we mitigate them.

Since it keeps coming up, and I got no response when I made these points before, I'll briefly repeat them: 1. Renewables aren't cheap. They appear cheap because the generators sell their electricity without having to be accountable for the system costs they incur, which are intermittency and grid capacity. A kWh of electricity from a firm power generator (nuclear, CCGT) which is connected to the grid close to consumers is worth more than a kWh from an intermittent generator in the North Sea off Scotland. 2. The issue of North Sea oil and gas prices peaking with global prices at the whim of geopolitics could be easily solved. The government could issue licences to the oil companies which would work similar to CfDs for renewables, fixed price for a fixed period and conditional on being landed in the UK for UK consumption. It's been done before. That's how it was in the early days of North Sea oil and gas production.

Which others do you think came close? I'd like to know who I should add to my shopping list. Thanks

I'm shopping round for insulated raft suppliers and had been talking to AFT. I just got this email. I wonder where this leaves any customers who have orders placed with them. Dear Customer / supplier, It is with regret that we at AFT have decided to cease trading with immediate effect. AFT was formed to bring to the UK the considerable benefits of Swedish style insulated raft foundations. To a large extent we achieved this successfully, and for the completed foundation we are confident in saying we achieved a 100% customer satisfaction. Whilst the EcoRaft (and Groundshield) remain in our opinion the very best product for constructing structurally robust and energy efficient foundations, the uptake in the UK has been disappointing. Due to this, and the general economic climate in which we find ourselves, we have decided that we shall no longer trade in the UK and close our books, as it were, with immediate effect. We would like to thank all of our valued customers, particularly those who chose EcoRaft for repeated projects, and those who helped AFT promote EcoRaft to a wider market. We would also like to thank our suppliers and partners for the last 10 years, and wish you every success in the future. Olof Christiansen Managing Director AFT Ltd.

Climate change is due to the changing chemical composition of the atmosphere, which causes heat from the sun to be trapped and the planet to heat up. It's not due to the heat which is released from human activity.

There are a couple of exhibitors at the NSBRC who do external blinds, for example, this one.

Congratulations on your metal bashing skills. Is it a normal part of an install to have to fabricate distribution boxes? What is it about the off the shelf ones which makes them not suitable, like these Ubbink ones?

No doubt you're Welsh and the jury's out on the good looks 😉.... but I imagine you need to be an olympic wrestler to manipulate all that ducting into place. I recall your preference for radial systems but don't recall the reason. Might a branched system have been easier to accommodate in the building structure and to install? Or is it down to performance? Grateful for a reminder why you prefer radial systems. Thanks

If you go for the semi rigid radial ducting as recommended by @Nickfromwales, in a timber frame with metal web joists, what do you need to do regarding planning the duct runs. Assuming you're going to buy the kit and organise the installation yourself. Can you get duct layouts done? Who does that? Thanks

It's a nice idea but my computer doesn't seem to like it. I downloaded the file into Excel but can't type into the input cells. I get a message saying the spreadsheet is protected. An alternative for anybody having the same problems as me, is to use a psychrometric chart. I'm attaching one here and have marked it up with an example: Relative humidity 70%, Temperature 20o C Start at the top and follow the 70% line down to where it intersects 20o C on the x axis. Gives a dew point (wet bulb or saturation temperature) of 16.5o C. Unlike @SteamyTea's spreadsheet, it doesn't account for different atmospheric pressures though. I'm not sure how much difference that makes. psychrometric-chart-en-uk.pdf

Sounds like you had a gall stone in your bile duct which was painful until you eventually passed it. Same thing happened to my wife and she went back to a normal diet. Inevitably it came back a year later when another stone popped out of her gall bladder and blocked the duct again. At that point, they took her gall bladder out by key hole surgery. She had complications though so that moved it up the priority list. The consultant who did the surgery told her that with no gall bladder, she needed to change to an essentially fat free diet, but she’s now eating pretty much what she ate before and the side effects seem to be manageable. Crack on with your build. You’ll be fine!

Ducted forced air heating systems are the norm in North America, even before air conditioning became common. We lived in Canada in the 1980s and '90's and every house we lived in had forced air gas central heating. When we wanted to add air conditioning in one of the houses, it was a doddle as it just meant putting an extra heat exchanger in the ductwork downstream the furnace, as well as the outside unit of course. In fact I chose to install a heat pump and used it for heating instead of gas when it wasn't too cold outside. I'd be a little cautious about choosing it here though, because it's "non-standard". My parents' house, together with all the houses on the estate built in 1965, had forced air gas heating. But over the years, as the furnaces started to need to be maintained or replaced, other houses on the estate switched to boilers and radiators. Except ours though, because my Dad was good at fixing things 🙂. It still had the original furnace in it working perfectly when we sold the house after he died in 2008, although he'd replaced a lot of parts, especially fan belts and bearings.

@sgt_woulds fascinating. You could have added the hydrogen fuel cells to the list of implausibilities. Hydrogen is too valuable to burn as a fuel, and it would be better used in applications where there is no alternative, like manufacturing things we need like methanol and ammonia. If all the renewable electricity currently being generated across the world was put into electrolysers to make hydrogen, it would not be sufficient to supply even the current hydrogen demand.

Ms Savage didn't say that they've seen lower electricity contract prices, reduced spot price volatility, because of increased output from wind and battery generation during evening peaks. She said they've seen lower electricity contract prices, reduced spot price volatility, and increased output from wind and battery generation during evening peaks. I scanned the article you linked to and didn't see a claim that there's a causal link between the two issues. Australia's electricity is generated 100% from domestic sources - coal, natural gas, wind, solar. 64% from fossils. So it's no surprise that their domestic energy costs have not increased with the conflict in the Middle East. It's tricky comparing between countries but I imagine that even if their renewables are cheaper, it'll be because the generators there are getting the same free ride on intermittency and grid constraints as they are here. Btw, I strongly support decarbonisation. I just think we need to be a bit more clear eyed about how we get there.

This cognitive bias has been well studied and is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It describes the systematic tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of their ability. We saw it in the pandemic, "I'm not getting vaccinated. I've done my own research. They don't work and are dangerous". We see it with climate change, "It's probably not happening and if it is it's just natural. Nothing to do with human activity". It's tempting, and somewhat satisfying, to write off people who have these views as fruit cakes. But it's better to recognise it as a cognitive bias to which we are all susceptible. The way to deal with it is not to throw more evidence at them. You won't convince them. Better to ask questions to try and get them to think it through for themselves. You are right about the role of legislation. Before the wearing of seat belts was required by law, many people strongly objected. They said, "I will be less safe. I won't be able to escape if the car catches fire", "In case of an accident, I can brace myself against the dash". Clearly ridiculous. But now most of us feel unsafe and naked if we don't have our seat belts on. The legislation eliminated the cognitive bias. By forcing our behaviours to change, our values and attitudes have come into line with our behaviours.

@Beelbeebub, we agree on the required policy outcome, decarbonisation. I described a market driven policy framework for achieving that: Carbon tax to incentivise insulation and renewable electrification - heat pumps, BEVs, etc. The same technologies you advocate. Carbon border adjustment mechanism to control the export of our carbon emissions and to stem the loss of our industrialised businesses. CfDs for North Sea oil and gas landed in the UK so that oil companies take the risk on recoverable reserves. You described things you don't like or think are irrelevant, North Sea oil and gas, and you picked some climate "winners", things you like: Reduce demand (insulation and public transport) electrifiy heating (heat pumps) Electrify transport (EVs) Increase local electricity production (winds, solar, nuclear, storage etc) But what's your proposed policy framework for achieving these things? Subsidies? Picking winners often leads to wrong outcomes. Maybe you missed some important ones off your list. And subsidies don't always work. You don't have to read far into this forum to hear about problems with the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme subsidy. When the Climate Change Act was drafted in 2008, some people advocated picking biomass as a renewable generation winner, but look where we are now. The cost of wind and solar fell so far that they became unexpected winners. Happily, the act was written in a way which allowed those technologies to emerge and succeed. The framework I proposed (not my invention by the way!) would allow new technologies and solutions to emerge. So, what's your proposed policy framework?

@Beelbeebub your points are all well made and I agree that criticising an energy policy as "woke" is unhelpful. It seems to me though that politicians are making energy policies based on culture rather than market forces driven by science and economics. I guess that's just democracy. I think we all agree that we are going to continue to need fossils as we make the energy transition, the question is where should the fossils come from. The current UK administration has decided that they are going to prevent them coming from the UKCS by restricting new licences. That's a cultural decision responding to expectations of parts of the electorate who haven't been presented with an alternative way of dealing with the climate change aspects. An alternative approach would be to manage the transition by reducing fossil consumption using carbon taxes, including a carbon border adjustment mechanism, rather than constraining supply by not issuing licences. We should grant licences with fixed prices for fossils (like renewables CfDs) which are required to be landed in the UK. That would avoid our exposure to geopolitical upheavals, albeit on an admittedly possibly small contribution. Regarding how much is there to be extracted, let the oil companies take the risk on that. Regarding how much of it has suitable quality (mainly sulphur content I think) to be refined in the UK, again let the oil companies take the risk. If the price and volume is right and with the certainty of the CfDs, they will modify their refineries to handle it (install hydrotreaters). This would allow market forces to help us through the transition in a way which possibly reduces the cost and even reduces climate impact by avoiding shipping fossils around the world. Apologies that I'm to some extent repeating something I said before, but now with a different emphasis 🙂.

Nice post and I love the pictures but please can we kill the myth that renewables are not eco friendly because of the materials used in their construction. The data speak for themselves. See my earlier post. CO2e, per kWh of energy produced over the life of the asset for your onshore turbine is 12 g CO2e and to produce the same energy from e.g. natural gas it's 458 g. That includes the embedded carbon in the concrete.

I suppose anybody who wants wind turbines to be built and for the electricity they produce to be affordable. CfDs reduce risk for the generators. Without them, generators would be asking higher prices for their electricity to reflect the risks they would be required to take on. Yes, it does stack up, hugely. The parameter you need to look at is the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, measured in grammes of CO2e, per kWh of energy produced over the life of the asset. Results as follows (median values of the assets they studied): Coal: 1004 g Natural Gas: 458 g Solar PV: 53 g Offshore wind: 18 g Onshore wind: 12 g Nuclear: 6 g (Clearing the Air, Hannah Ritchie, data source UN Economic Commission for Europe, 2021) According to Drax Group who operate the Lanark and Galloway run-of-river hydro schemes, located in south-west Scotland, it generates 126 MW. Yes, that's nice but it's not going to get us far in the energy transition. The latest allocation round for offshore wind (AR7) procured 70 times that capacity, 8.4 GW. So what? The embedded CO2 in the blades is taken into account in the above life cycle numbers. It's just a waste disposal issue. Same or worse for end of life fossil assets, many of which contain far worse materials - asbestos, mercury and other heavy metals, spent catalysts, etc.

You're talking about Sizewell C, I was talking about Hinkley Point C. In both cases, though in different ways, the funding model is designed to recover the decommissioning costs from bill payers. I agree though that nuclear power is expensive (Hinkley strike price currently £135/MWh) and that decommissioning costs are a risk. At least the funding models are intended to recover all the costs from consumers. My post though was making the point that renewable aren't cheap either. That's because the system costs don't show up in the e.g. £91/MWh strike price agreed for off-shore wind in AR7. The point I was making was the facilities you mentioned - battery storage, hydro storage, hydrogen - are expensive pieces of kit and will only be required to run when the wind doesn't blow. So their capital costs will have to be recovered from the few MWh of electricity they produce, which makes that gap filling electricity very expensive. And if we want to compare intermittent wind with firm nuclear on the same basis, we have to add the cost of the gap filling to the £91/MWh ... in which case wind won't look so cheap. And that's even before we talk about the cost of the grid upgrades required for off-shore wind. BTW, I strongly support decarbonisation and that renewables will play an essential role. I just like decisions to be made on the right information.