Looks like the party is over....

[Crofter]

I've never been a huge fan of subsidies. In fact other than getting cavity wall insulation in my previous house, I've never claimed a grant or subsidy for anything, ever. Which is pretty unusual when you own a croft!

 

Make electricity cheaper, put those costs on to fossil fuels. That's all they have to do.

Oh, and get rid of standing charges. Spread those costs so that those using the most electricity pay a bigger share.

[Beelbeebub]

100% it's the scammers and subsidy harvesters. 

 

The core idea of encouraging insulation etc by making it cheaper is sound. 

 

It is hard to think how to do this without attracting the cowboys - see the recently unearthed external insulation debacle. 

 

My problem, as a LL, is how to upgrade old properties (mostly victorian) whilst navigating planning, conservation areas and finance. 

 

For example switching to double glazed windows makes a big difference to tenants.  But it's expensive about £1k a window (they are big) and one building alone has 125 windows. 

 

Now this isn't an issue, we could just start plugging away at it, but if we swap out all the windows in a property for £5-10k (we've down a few) we get 2-3 points on the EPC, barely moves the needle. 

 

We've insulated all the roofs to at leat 200mm, most are 300+. But the majority of EPC inspectors won't actually look through the loft hatch - they just put it down as "as built" ie totally unisulated. 

Obviously wall insulation. 

 

That leaves walls and floors.

 

Which are all solid so expensive and with downsides. 

 

My latest plan is to try and fit solar as that seems to have alot of points attached to it. I can get 10+ points for £10k of slap and batteries vs 3 points for £10k of windows. 

[Beelbeebub]

I wonder, now we have rent tribunals, if the rent tribunals were to fix a fair rent ignoring the energy performance, then subtract the difference between the EPC running cost and the potential epc running cost if the property made C. 

[sgt_woulds]

13 hours ago, ProDave said:

We have no concept of energy security.  If we did, we would not have crucified our oil and gas industry and we would be drilling all we have got to use our own to see us through until renewables make it largely redundant.

 

We hear sentiments like this a lot and unfortunately they are based on a misunderstanding of the respources we have.  This line is promoted by certain sections of the media (who unfortunately no longer have the journalistic integrity to check their sources), and politicians on the make, and is 'encouraged' by the oil companies who source oil outside the UK but know that promoting 'British Oil' will actually lead to more sales of non-British oil in the UK!

 

I'm by no means an expert, but I used to work for a solar company (way back, the first solar installer in the country) that was founded by a man who came from the oil industry and had first hand knowledge to impart.

 

Without going into the weeds (which I'm in no way knowledgeable enough to do - I'm dragging this from the back of my mind from conversation 25 years ago...) you need to understand some basics of the oil industry as it has existed for the last 100 years.  And a little Geology.

 

Where to start?

 

Oli is not what you think it is.  Most oil in the world (and unfortunately the oil available off our coast) is not the black stuff you see shooting out of the ground in the Beverly Hillbillies.  It is a multi coloured sludge made up of a vast array of chemicals that need careful and expensive processing to become useful - and that usefullness may not be as an energy source.

 

Most crude oil - like that available in the UK - is only suitable for chemical productions (fertilisers, medecines, etc), not high grade energy use.

 

Setting up oil refineries is increadibly expensive and to maximise economies of scale, a single type of process tends to be dominant in any region. Essentily, individual countries have specialised in different processes, using particular types of oil that is shipped around the world.  I believe we ship 'our' sludge to South America for processing into a usable product, and vice versa).

 

TLDR, The Geology of the North Sea does not produce the type of oil that UK refineries are specialised in, and the cost (and time frame) of converting our refineries to handle UK-sourced oil and the percieved benefits (and profits) are vastly outweighed by and dwindling resources of existing drill sites.  In a heating world, WE MUST NOT drill any new fields and even if we did, the product would not power our country.

 

Promoting th use of British Oil is a wheeze by foriegn oil producers (in bed with corrupt politicians and journalists happy to trouser a commission) which keeps the UK dependant upon their products. 

 

'Gas lighting' in the literal sense...

 

 

Another important lesson regarding 'Energy Security' has been learned from the war in Ukrain.  A distributed power production that is not dependant upon a single source of energy is better able to withstand interferance from bad actors.  It is very hard to cpmpletely destroy a wind or solar farm in a bombing raid, and even if you succeed, it will only be part small part of overall production.  A distributed power generation will keep the lights on.

 

But if you blow up a gas powered station - or the North Sea drilling rigs that supply your gas - it is much harder to get back up and running.

 

To achieve a renewables based distributed grid is going to require huge investment of our aging infrastructure. But the long-term result will be lower bills, which should boost the economy as it will make manufacturing costs cheaper.  Espescially if, as weve discussed before, industry is encouraged to move up North to be near the wind generation sources.

 

We were perhaps disadvantaged compared to our European friends in the last 80 years, in that the last 'bad actor' was so very inefficiant at destroying our victorian infrastructure that we didn't have to rebuild earlier.  Ironically, we probably gave Germany a boost by levelling the country and forcing a better grid to be built...  

[ProDave]

18 minutes ago, sgt_woulds said:

 

We hear sentiments like this a lot and unfortunately they are based on a misunderstanding of the respources we have.  This line is promoted by certain sections of the media (who unfortunately no longer have the journalistic integrity to check their sources), and politicians on the make, and is 'encouraged' by the oil companies who source oil outside the UK but know that promoting 'British Oil' will actually lead to more sales of non-British oil in the UK!

 

I'm by no means an expert, but I used to work for a solar company (way back, the first solar installer in the country) that was founded by a man who came from the oil industry and had first hand knowledge to impart.

 

Without going into the weeds (which I'm in no way knowledgeable enough to do - I'm dragging this from the back of my mind from conversation 25 years ago...) you need to understand some basics of the oil industry as it has existed for the last 100 years.  And a little Geology.

 

Where to start?

 

Oli is not what you think it is.  Most oil in the world (and unfortunately the oil available off our coast) is not the black stuff you see shooting out of the ground in the Beverly Hillbillies.  It is a multi coloured sludge made up of a vast array of chemicals that need careful and expensive processing to become useful - and that usefullness may not be as an energy source.

 

Most crude oil - like that available in the UK - is only suitable for chemical productions (fertilisers, medecines, etc), not high grade energy use.

 

Setting up oil refineries is increadibly expensive and to maximise economies of scale, a single type of process tends to be dominant in any region. Essentily, individual countries have specialised in different processes, using particular types of oil that is shipped around the world.  I believe we ship 'our' sludge to South America for processing into a usable product, and vice versa).

 

TLDR, The Geology of the North Sea does not produce the type of oil that UK refineries are specialised in, and the cost (and time frame) of converting our refineries to handle UK-sourced oil and the percieved benefits (and profits) are vastly outweighed by and dwindling resources of existing drill sites.  In a heating world, WE MUST NOT drill any new fields and even if we did, the product would not power our country.

 

Promoting th use of British Oil is a wheeze by foriegn oil producers (in bed with corrupt politicians and journalists happy to trouser a commission) which keeps the UK dependant upon their products. 

 

'Gas lighting' in the literal sense...

 

 

Another important lesson regarding 'Energy Security' has been learned from the war in Ukrain.  A distributed power production that is not dependant upon a single source of energy is better able to withstand interferance from bad actors.  It is very hard to cpmpletely destroy a wind or solar farm in a bombing raid, and even if you succeed, it will only be part small part of overall production.  A distributed power generation will keep the lights on.

 

But if you blow up a gas powered station - or the North Sea drilling rigs that supply your gas - it is much harder to get back up and running.

 

To achieve a renewables based distributed grid is going to require huge investment of our aging infrastructure. But the long-term result will be lower bills, which should boost the economy as it will make manufacturing costs cheaper.  Espescially if, as weve discussed before, industry is encouraged to move up North to be near the wind generation sources.

 

We were perhaps disadvantaged compared to our European friends in the last 80 years, in that the last 'bad actor' was so very inefficiant at destroying our victorian infrastructure that we didn't have to rebuild earlier.  Ironically, we probably gave Germany a boost by levelling the country and forcing a better grid to be built...  

Top post.  Why can't talking heads on television explain it clearly like that?

 

Regarding old UK houses, rentals and EPC's.  I am certainly glad to no longer be a landlord myself.

 

It astounds me that buyers still seem to mostly ignore an EPC.  You would have thought old houses with a poor EPC, clearly in needs of upgrading and lots of money spent, would be valued less than a modern well built house.  but pretty "period features" seems to override common sense in most buyers eyes.  (the exception being I bet no landlord now will consider a house worse than EPC C unless it is very cheap)

 

There have been discussions here before about EPC's and assumptions, with one particular person having vastly improved his house.  When he sold it, he explained all the extra insulation and air tightness and showed photographs of the work to the assessor, who promptly ignored it all and made the standard assumptions.  Talk about banging your head against a (insulated) brick wall.

[Roger440]

40 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Top post.  Why can't talking heads on television explain it clearly like that?

 

Regarding old UK houses, rentals and EPC's.  I am certainly glad to no longer be a landlord myself.

 

It astounds me that buyers still seem to mostly ignore an EPC.  You would have thought old houses with a poor EPC, clearly in needs of upgrading and lots of money spent, would be valued less than a modern well built house.  but pretty "period features" seems to override common sense in most buyers eyes.  (the exception being I bet no landlord now will consider a house worse than EPC C unless it is very cheap)

 

There have been discussions here before about EPC's and assumptions, with one particular person having vastly improved his house.  When he sold it, he explained all the extra insulation and air tightness and showed photographs of the work to the assessor, who promptly ignored it all and made the standard assumptions.  Talk about banging your head against a (insulated) brick wall.

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.

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, JamesPa said:

I am sure governments do accept that however it's almost impossible to design a scheme that is incapable of being scammed without having a parallel set of skilled people to supervise every single installation, which would be horrendously expensive, impossible to staff and still not bomb proof.  Scammers are very adept!

 

It might actually help if we, the public, stopped blaming government for crimes committed by others and instead started laying blame at the criminals.  Until we do the criminals can continue to get away with the perception that the crime is victimless and that it's ok to rip off "the government" (which of course actually means us).

 

The exception I would make to 'stop blaming government' is when there is cronyism involved.  That is simply inexcusable.

 

 

 

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. 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, sgt_woulds said:

 

We hear sentiments like this a lot and unfortunately they are based on a misunderstanding of the respources we have.  This line is promoted by certain sections of the media (who unfortunately no longer have the journalistic integrity to check their sources), and politicians on the make, and is 'encouraged' by the oil companies who source oil outside the UK but know that promoting 'British Oil' will actually lead to more sales of non-British oil in the UK!

 

I'm by no means an expert, but I used to work for a solar company (way back, the first solar installer in the country) that was founded by a man who came from the oil industry and had first hand knowledge to impart.

 

Without going into the weeds (which I'm in no way knowledgeable enough to do - I'm dragging this from the back of my mind from conversation 25 years ago...) you need to understand some basics of the oil industry as it has existed for the last 100 years.  And a little Geology.

 

Where to start?

 

Oli is not what you think it is.  Most oil in the world (and unfortunately the oil available off our coast) is not the black stuff you see shooting out of the ground in the Beverly Hillbillies.  It is a multi coloured sludge made up of a vast array of chemicals that need careful and expensive processing to become useful - and that usefullness may not be as an energy source.

 

Most crude oil - like that available in the UK - is only suitable for chemical productions (fertilisers, medecines, etc), not high grade energy use.

 

Setting up oil refineries is increadibly expensive and to maximise economies of scale, a single type of process tends to be dominant in any region. Essentily, individual countries have specialised in different processes, using particular types of oil that is shipped around the world.  I believe we ship 'our' sludge to South America for processing into a usable product, and vice versa).

 

TLDR, The Geology of the North Sea does not produce the type of oil that UK refineries are specialised in, and the cost (and time frame) of converting our refineries to handle UK-sourced oil and the percieved benefits (and profits) are vastly outweighed by and dwindling resources of existing drill sites.  In a heating world, WE MUST NOT drill any new fields and even if we did, the product would not power our country.

 

Promoting th use of British Oil is a wheeze by foriegn oil producers (in bed with corrupt politicians and journalists happy to trouser a commission) which keeps the UK dependant upon their products. 

 

'Gas lighting' in the literal sense...

 

 

Another important lesson regarding 'Energy Security' has been learned from the war in Ukrain.  A distributed power production that is not dependant upon a single source of energy is better able to withstand interferance from bad actors.  It is very hard to cpmpletely destroy a wind or solar farm in a bombing raid, and even if you succeed, it will only be part small part of overall production.  A distributed power generation will keep the lights on.

 

But if you blow up a gas powered station - or the North Sea drilling rigs that supply your gas - it is much harder to get back up and running.

 

To achieve a renewables based distributed grid is going to require huge investment of our aging infrastructure. But the long-term result will be lower bills, which should boost the economy as it will make manufacturing costs cheaper.  Espescially if, as weve discussed before, industry is encouraged to move up North to be near the wind generation sources.

 

We were perhaps disadvantaged compared to our European friends in the last 80 years, in that the last 'bad actor' was so very inefficiant at destroying our victorian infrastructure that we didn't have to rebuild earlier.  Ironically, we probably gave Germany a boost by levelling the country and forcing a better grid to be built...  

 

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.

[saveasteading]

18 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

most EPC's are not worth the paper they are written on. 

Most? Certainly a lot: a relative had their semi assessed by some unskilled operative, I think sent by the electric company for no good reason. All he noted was the original construction and ignored the huge improvements.

And I know the developers used to tart one unit for testing, which is fraud basically. Do they still?

 

But even a poor assessment is a start and the heating cost should be noted in the value.

 

[Roger440]

5 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Most? Certainly a lot: a relative had their semi assessed by some unskilled operative, I think sent by the electric company for no good reason. All he noted was the original construction and ignored the huge improvements.

And I know the developers used to tart one unit for testing, which is fraud basically. Do they still?

 

But even a poor assessment is a start and the heating cost should be noted in the value.

 

 

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.

[Crofter]

37 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

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.

Sadly you are correct.

A house has to be in budget, in the right location. For a lot of us anything more than that is a bonus.

 

It's not like buying a car where you can shop around all over the country.

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, Crofter said:

Sadly you are correct.

A house has to be in budget, in the right location. For a lot of us anything more than that is a bonus.

 

It's not like buying a car where you can shop around all over the country.

 

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.