Green Home Diary

Feed-in-Tariff Consultation Response

admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:02:58 +0000

Introduction

This document is the response from Rob Veck, GreenHomeDiary.com, professional Project Manager, and a Superhome owner that has achieved an 80% reduction on household emissions to meet the Kyoto target. This could not have been achieved without the installation of PV and Solar Hot water.

A copy of this document has been sent to Winchester Action on Climate Change for their consideration, amendment and inclusion of their comments.

Executive Summary

We should be aiming:-

To encourage capital & manufacturing cost reductions to make PV more affordable for a greater proportion of householders / businesses.
To generate Green Jobs.
At an equitable distribution of FIT.
Ultimately achieve parity with power generated for the grid.
To contribute towards government carbon target.
Make best use of the FiT funds.

This could be achieved by:-

A capped and tiered FIT that is linked to capital price performance to ensure a good ROI of 5% to 8% and 10 to 12 year payback period.
Lowering the cap on a regular (quarterly?) basis to “encourage” reductions in capital and manufacturing costs.

A capped and tiered FiT would also help sustain the funds for a longer period, and contribute towards the 10% saving required by 2015.

We assert that the tariff for multi-installation should be increased for non-profit community based schemes that enable community members (who are unable to install PV) to invest in their community scheme to the benefit of other community members and fuel poverty.

We are concerned about the impact of the sudden change to the feed-in-tariff and previous changes & delays (e.g Renewable Heat Incentive) on the future credibility of the Green Deal putting at risk the adoption by consumers, and participation by businesses. This change appears to be large without taking into consideration the impact on the market, and specifically jobs – there is no business assessment of either of these critical points in the draft impact document. The date for the lower tariff before the closure date for this consultation lowers the credibility of the overall process.

Responses


1	Do you agree or disagree with the proposed new tariffs for solar PV? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree – in parts. Evidence #1: Discussions with PV installers and local groups indicate customers would not proceed with the amended tariff rates. Installers predict a collapse of the market which would have an impact on jobs and the industry in general. However, the situation is not as clear as it could be. Panel prices have dropped, and the FIT mechanism is encouraging profiteering at the expense of the consumer and detriment of bleeding dry the monies set aside for the FIT. Evidence #2: The impact to jobs is happing at a national level – see Carillion takes £20m hit on FITs lay-offs. However, this may be more to the economic climate as compared to the effect of the FIT. Evidence #3: Page 3 of document 3364 quotes “5% for well located installations” for the intended ROI for PV – however, the launch of FITs quoted 5 -8% and has been well establish as such since April 2010. Additionally the Minister has also quoted 5 to 8% criteria. The document is not as transparent as it should be on this point. PROPOSAL An alternative mechanism for providing an equitable return on investment that meets the Minister’s criteria & market expectations can be achieved by capping the FiT to a specific capital cost / performance price point, reducing the FiT as the Capital cost / performance reduces, and reducing the cap on a regular (quarterly?) basis. This achieves the vision outlined above :- 1. More inefficient / costly panels will have a lower ROI and longer payback period. This encourages customers to look for better cost performance panels, which in combination of a regularly reduced price performance cap, will apply market pressure to encourage manufacturers to reduce costs and invest in improvements to increase panel efficiency. The issue about the lack of research was raised by George Monbiot – he suggested that the monies provided for the FiT could have been better spent through research to improve the efficiency of panels. Such improvements are slow in coming (PVT for example has a much higher efficiency rate as a result of the water cooling technology incorporated into the panels.) In the author’s opinion, a gradual reduction of the FiT linked to cost performance softens the impact on the market and, with sufficient communication from the government, should send a message to manufactures that cost reductions are required. 2. Tiered FiT based on capital price performance provides a more equitable distribution of FiT monies which is more socially acceptable and “better value for money” i.e. cheaper panels generating the same amount of power should still only result in a 5 to 8% ROI and 10 to 12 year payback. This avoids accusations of a system that encourages profiteering and takes into account dynamic market changes. Such an approach reduces the risk of exhausting FiT funding earlier than expected. 3. Additionally, tiered FiT as previous described encourages consumers to shop for lower priced systems (taking into account reliability and long term performance), and aids competition encouraging manufacturers to achieve better price performance. (note, panels from China benefit from their fixed exchange rate – no easy answer to that one, unfortunately) 4. Capping the FiT to a specific capital price performance point would require installers to be more transparent about their pricing. Prices above the Capped FiT would not achieve the ROI and Payback period. We have already seen evidence of customers being ripped off with panels priced significantly higher than the real price. Better transparency should help reduce excessive profiteering from cowboy installers. 5. The consultation document raises the issue of “value for money” which is assumed to be the additional levy applied to householder bills to support the FiT. In order to test “value for money” we have contacted a local electricity supplier, Utilita (and one query outstanding from British Gas). Their calculation resulted in £0.72p ex Vat per customer per year which is excellent value for money. A detailed description of the calculation used for a tiered approach to FiT is in appendix A.
2	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal of applying the new tariffs to all new solar PV installations with an eligibility date that is on or after a reference date that comes before the legal implementation of those tariffs? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree. This impacts customers who have paid a deposit, and installers where the deposit has been used as a down payment to secure the capital equipment. This is a high risk that this deposit is non-refundable in these circumstances even through the original assessment was based on current FiT payments. It may also impact the installer who may have ordered and paid for equipment up front.
3	Do you agree or disagree with the proposed reference date of 12 December 2011? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree Proposals and agreements that have been based a reference date of April 2012 – the original date for changing the FiT, may force contract issues. A date earlier than the close date for the consultation brings into question the credibility of the consultation process.
4	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce new multi-installation tariff rates for all new solar PV installations that meet the definition set out above and have an eligibility date of on or after 1 April 2012? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Disagree (and agree – see below) If the policy is to only attract householders, then the tiered scheme as described in #1 would need to be lowered for multi-installations. HOWEVER this then excludes the possibility of a Non Profit Community Interest Company providing an investment vehicle for community members that are unable to install PV on their property. i.e. A CIC that raises funds from community members could install PV on households that are appropriately orientated and also suffering from fuel poverty. The benefits of a community based scheme of this type are:- Fuel poverty households save on their electricity bills. Other community members unable to install PV receive a return on their investment which also help other community members. The CIC receives a small income for managing the scheme and profits can be recycled into other schemes. We think community based schemes encouraging householders, and non-profit organisations should be excluded from the multi-installation tariff rates. In fact, to encourage schemes of this type (where economies of scale can be achieved through bulk buying), the graduated tariff as described in appendix A should be increased to obtain a higher than 7.6% return on investment. An additional requirement of a community based scheme would require investors to sign up to a EPC C rating.. Agree For schemes that are not community based we agree with this proposal.
5	Do you agree or disagree with the proposed multi-installation tariff rates? Give reasons to support your answer.
	See #4
6	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that for solar PV attached to a building, eligibility for the standard tariffs proposed in chapter 2 should be contingent on a minimum energy efficiency requirement being met? Do you have views on whether such a requirement should apply in relation to all buildings or just to dwellings or non-domestic buildings? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Conditionally Agree A full assessment should be done (as required by the Green Deal, which should include all measures needed to meet the 80% 2050 target) and a subset of measures identified from the assessment such that a minimum energy efficiency level is met and does not include the energy saved from PV. Addition of PV then exceeds the minimum applied to building. This should be applied to dwellings and non-domestic buildings – we need to meet the UK statutory carbon targets. However, there are exceptions such as farm buildings where measures may not be applicable, in which case, another building should be identified upon which measures can be applied and subsequently implemented.
7	Which of our two lead options for the energy efficiency requirement – requiring a building to achieve a specified EPC rating, or requiring the installation of all measures that are identified on an EPC as potentially financeable under the Green Deal – do you prefer for (1) dwellings, and (2) non-domestic buildings? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Preference A full assessment should be done (as required by the Green Deal, which should include all measures needed to meet the 80% 2050 target), and those measures identified & potentially financeable under the Green Deal to be implemented within 1 year from the installation of the PV, UNLESS it makes sense to install some of the measures before the PV is installed. In this case, the customer may need to take out a loan. If these measures are installed before the Green Deal, then the customer should have the option of subsequently financing them from the Green Deal and pay off the loan used to implement the early changes. Applicable to both dwellings and non-domestic buildings with exceptions (see 6).
8	Under the first option for the energy efficiency requirement, do you agree or disagree with the proposal that the EPC rating required to be achieved should be level C or above? Give reasons to support your answer.
	DO NOT KNOW Will a level C achieve our carbon targets? Someone more knowledgeable needs to determine the correct level required in order to meet UK’s legal binding targets and long term 2050 target. I doubt a level C will meet those targets (assuming good behaviour change).
9	Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that, for a transitional period only, all solar PV installations attached to a building should initially qualify for the standard tariff, and their continued eligibility for that tariff should be conditional on the building to which the PV installation is attached achieving the energy efficiency requirement within a specified period? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Agree PV installations should be conditional on energy efficiency changes within a given period.
10	Do you agree or disagree that this transitional arrangement should apply to installations with an eligibility date on or before 31 March 2013, and that the specified period should be 12 months from the installation’s eligibility date? Give reasons to support your answer.
	Agree
11	Can you identify any other issues, besides those discussed in this chapter, in relation to the implementation of an energy efficiency requirement for (1) dwellings, and (2) non-domestic buildings?
	TRACK RECORD Trust is a difficult thing to build and easily lost. Events such as Hips, the revised tariff on >50KW PV systems, and now this potentially puts the credibility of RHI and the Green Deal at risk.

APPENDIX A

Solar PV Payback Calculation

The diagram above shows the possible return on a £11,750 installation with estimated output of 3434 kWh per year. The calculation takes into account the diminishing efficiency of the array (see Solar PV Payback Calculations). This starting point is based on a recently installed system.

The table below shows estimates as to what the FiT should be in order to 7.6% return. The payback period ranges between 13.85 to 10 years.

Base Case – the (unlikely) situation where there is no inflation, no energy costs inflation, and 50% of energy produced is exported.
Expected Case – over 25 years, the situation where inflation is assumed to be 3% and energy costs will continue to rise at 4%.
Extreme Case – over 25 years, the situation where inflation is assumed to be 4% and energy costs will continue to rise by 8.5%.
Net Present Value – assumes that an equivalent investment (say, in a savings account) is 3% which equates to 2.4% after 20% tax.

		BASE CASE				EXPECT CASE		EXTREME CASE
Capital Cost	Fit	1^st Year Return	20% Tax payer	NPV	Payback Period (years)	NPV	Payback Period (years)	NPV	Payback Period (years)
£11750	21.00	7.60%	9.50%	£3,344	13.85	£10,187	11.89	£16,760	10.50
£11500	20.45			£3,271	13.85	£ 9,990	11.44	£16,507	10.48
£11250	19.90			£3,198	13.85	£ 9,793	11.43	£16,255	10.47
£11000	19.35			£3,126	13.85	£ 9,596	11.43	£16,003	10.46
£10750	18.79			£3,047	13.86	£ 9,391	11.43	£15,742	10.45
£10500	18.24			£2,975	13.86	£ 9,194	11.42	£15,490	10.43
£10250	17.69			£2,902	13.86	£ 8,998	11.41	£15,238	10.42
£10000	17.13			£2,824	13.86	£ 8,792	11.41	£14,976	10.40
£9750	16.58			£2,751	13.86	£ 8,595	11.40	£14,724	10.39
£9500	16.03			£2,679	13.86	£ 8,399	11.40	£14,472	10.37
£9250	15.47			£2,600	13.87	£ 8,193	11.39	£14,211	10.36
£9000	14.92			£2,528	13.87	£ 7,996	11.39	£13.959	10.34
£8750	14.36			£2,449	13.88	£ 7,791	11.38	£13,698	10.32
£8500	13.81			£2,377	13.88	£ 7,594	11.37	£13,446	10.30
£8250	13.26			£2,304	13.88	£ 7,398	11.37	£13,193	10.28
£8000	12.71			£2,232	13.88	£ 7,201	11.36	£12,941	10.26
£7750	12.15			£2,153	13.89	£ 6,995	11.35	£12,680	10.24
£7500	11.60			£2,081	13.89	£ 6,799	11.34	£12,428	10.21
£7250	11.04			£2,002	13.90	£ 6,593	11.34	£12,167	10.19
£7000	10.49			£1,930	13.90	£ 6,397	11.32	£11,915	10.16
£6750	9.94			£1,857	13.91	£ 6,200	11.31	£11,662	10.13
£6500	9.39			£1,785	13.91	£ 6,003	11.30	£11,410	10.10
£6250	8.83			£1,706	13.92	£ 5,798	11.29	£11,149	10.07
£6000	8.28			£1,634	13.92	£ 5,601	11.27	£10,897	10.04

House of Parliament Mention about our House and GreenWin

admin — Sat, 14 May 2011 06:28:11 +0000

GreenWin is a project that I am working with WinACC with to start a community based hub to support the Green Deal. The goal is to bring together householders, suppliers, skilled trades, and communities to take advantage of the Green Deal on a non-profit basis. This got a mention on Tuesday 10th May by our local MP, Steve Brine, and hopefully we will get the opportunity to outline the business plan to Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the minister.

The script of Steve’s speech is here. The overal debate was positive with some level of consensus across all the parties. What we’re all struggling with is how we’re going to know if the Green Deal is actually meeting the 2020 targets as the deal is taken up by householders and businesses.

You can see the live debate below (if you have silverlight installed) – the GreenWin mention starts at time stamp 19:22:25

Resources

admin — Wed, 04 May 2011 07:02:50 +0000

No	Description	Link
1	Short description of the ECO Build at 8 Piping Close.	greenhomediary-v3
2	Presentation for DECC 17 Aug 2011	GreenWin Ltd Powerpoint PPTX Presentation V2
		GreenWin Ltd Stand Alone Presentation V2

3	Minutes of DECC meeting 17 Aug 2011	GreenWin – DEC Meeting 17 Aug 2011

Superhome Open Day – Sun 27th March

admin — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:47:14 +0000

8 Piping Close, Colden Common

From Old Home to SuperHome

OPEN Day for advice and tour of

8 Piping Close

Colden Common, SO21 1UP

10:00 to Noon & 1pm to 4pm

Rob Veck exchanged his demanding career as an IBM project manager for a life devoted to helping the fight against climate change. He was inspired by a book by Richard Heinberg entitled “The Party’s Over” which details a bleak future for mankind due to population growth and energy demand. So, with early retirement, Rob set about a new project to renovate his home with the aim of creating as near to a carbon-zero house as possible.

With all the energy efficient improvements to his house, Rob has managed to cut his carbon emissions by a magnificent 79%.

The house has been heavily insulated throughout. The walls are externally insulated, with 110mm of Celotex based on rain-screen cladding which gives a U-value of 0.14. The loft contains 290mm of Celotex underneath the sloping roof with an extra 150mm of Celotex on the flat part of the dormer roof, and 200mm on the dormer walls. 165mm of Celotex has been fitted underneath the floor (with the exception of the kitchen and downstairs toilet), whilst polystyrene panels with a U-value of 0.10 have been used in the extension. Insulating the home can save a huge amount of money each year; according to the Energy Saving Trust, floor insulation saves around £50/year, wall insulation up to £400/year and loft insulation £145/year. In addition, Rob has installed thermal mass panels in part of the dormer roof which work to create a steady temperature throughout the day. They absorb excess heat when the room temperature exceeds a certain value, and then releases it when the temperature drops below that value again.

A view of the house exterior

U Value = overall heat transfer coefficient. It quanitifies how well a building material conducts heat. The lower, the better insulation!

All the old windows had already been replaced with double glazed windows around 10 years ago, so these have been left in place. But the extension and dormer have been fitted with triple glazed windows, which can reduce heat loss by up to a third more than double glazing. In addition, new front and back doors are in place with U-values of 0.8.

Further to the highly efficient insulation, Rob has incorporated renewable energy systems into the house for both electricity and hot water. They make their own electricity using a PV system consisting of 22 BP panels with a peak output of 3.85kwp, and use a condensing gas boiler for hot water.

Interior and exterior view of the triple-glazed extension windows

To compliment the boiler, Rob has installed the Villavent heat recovery system. Not only does this prevent the unhealthy build up of carbon dioxide that often occurs in well-insulated homes, it also retains heat which reduces usage of the boiler. The system continually replaces stale air that can’t otherwise escape, and replaces it with fresh, clean air. It uses a heat exchanger to recover much of the heat from outgoing air, and transfer it to the incoming air.

A third component of the heating system is the wood burning stove which is a great source of heat using renewable energy- as long as new plants are cultivated to replace the wood, and the wood is sourced locally, no excess carbon is released (except for transportation). Not only are wood stoves sustainable, the Energy Saving Trust estimate they can save up to £390 a year.

For hot water production, Rob has installed Navitron solar thermal panels. These work by absorbing solar radiation, transferring it to a circulating liquid, which in turn is used to heat water inside a hot water cylinder.

A view of Robs loft insulation during the renovations

Finally, Rob has introduced simple measures that can be done in the everyday home. 80% of lights have been replaced with low energy bulbs (LED 1 watt GU10 bulbs). In addition, a mixer tap has been installed to supply hot water at 30 degrees to the washing machine, thus reducing the electricity required to heat up the water. And thirdly, a dual flush toilet is in use which considerably reduces water use in the bathroom. Water retention devices such as this can play a key role in reducing overall energy consumption and the energy bill!

In total, Rob has managed to reduce his carbon emissions by a massive 79%. The house acts as a great example for others to follow, which Rob actively encourages by blogging and publicising – he has even been featured on BBC South!

	Before	After	% Saving
Primary Heating	5.1	1.3	75%
Secondary Heating	0.3	0	100%
Hot Water	2.0	0.4	80%
Cooking	0.3	0.3	0%
Lights/ Appliance	1.2	1.2	0%
PV (calc)		-1.32
Total	8.9	1.876	79%

Table of carbon savings. Units are CO₂ tonnes per year

The Sustainable Energy Academy is a charity which promotes education and action to reduce the carbon footprint of buildings and communities. Working in partnership with the National Energy Foundation, another charity, whose aim is to empower individuals and organisations to take action to reduce their carbon emissions?

Old Home SuperHome is a campaign to transform the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock. The project aims to provide a network of exemplar dwellings which are locally accessible. By showing how to replicate the techniques the project seeks to inspire others to undertake similar renovations

Climate change and global warming are now accepted to be real and immediate. We have to reduce our energy consumption and carbon emissions dramatically if we are to have a long-term future. This has stark implications for the existing buildings in the UK. There is a simple choice: either we improve our older houses, or we demolish them. There are 4.3 million houses that were built before 1919, which form 17% of the building stock across the country. Demolishing these homes would lead to immense loss of cultural amenity and identity, and at vast cost and disruption too.

Superhome & PV Panels TV Interview

admin — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:52:13 +0000

It’s been a challange to “complete” the renovations to our home, and we recently got assessed by the Sustainable Energy Academy resulting in being given “Superhome” status – a greater than 60% reduction in the house’s CO2 footprint. Infact we obtain 79% reduction.

This got covered by BBC South Today inconjunction with Winchester City Council’s policy to install 2000 of their council houses with Solar PV Panels.

Obviously not a “Step too far” then.

Protected: Issues with Solar Panels

admin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:11:56 +0000

Project Charter – Example

admin — Mon, 17 May 2010 11:49:23 +0000

This example relates to the project at my home. See here for the step by step guide which gives you the complete end to end approach to ECO renovation.

PROJECT: Green Home Diary

SUMMARY:

To reduce the energy consumption and CO2 footprint by up to 80%. Why ? Because resources such as oil and gas are dwindling; CO2 is slowing killing life on the planet; we want the next generation to have a chance of surviving; and this will help save us money.

WHAT’S GOING TO BE DELIVERED:

An very well insulated extension to increase the living space.
Conversion of the garage to a utility / bike rooms.
Insulation across the rest of the house.
Some form of heating.
Some form of savings on electricity.

Phase 1 – the ground floor and extension.

Phase 2 – Insulate rest of the house.

Phase 3 – Solar hot water panel.

Phase 4 – Photovoltaic panels

Phase 5 – Rain water harvesting.

ASSUMPTIONS / CONSTRAINTS / RISKS

Kitchen must not be disrupted.
First floor rooms must not be disrupted.
Rob will be available to do a majority of the work himself.
Risk: Rob may not know how to do some of the work.
Risk: Overspend.
Must ensure that certain infrastructure is in place to minimised disruption at the later stages.

BUDGET / RESOURCES

£60K for phase 1;
Use own labour to reduce costs.
Use Buildstore to get discounts on materials

APPROACH

Cover experience risk by employing one man builder with expertise and flexibility.
Produce a feasibility study.
Get an architect / consultant who has ECO experience.

ACCEPTANCE

Rob & Sue will personally inspect the work and manage the level of quality.

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

For suppliers, to be done verbally and confirmed via e-mail.

Spec for External Wall Insulation & Rain Screen Cladding

admin — Mon, 03 May 2010 11:01:34 +0000

Starting point is brick cavity wall.

Render Cladding

The rendering is done first before installing the rainscreen cladding above it. Note, there is a gap between the galvanised lath and the insulation.

A: Celotex Insulation 110mm

B: Counter Batten 50x38mm is fixed in place by Helifix Fixings 230x8mm fixings at 250mm intervals (for tiles) and 300mm intervals (for render). Counter battens fixed at 400mm centres.

(Not shown) Main Wall fixing for Celotex insulation 5 per board.

C: Breathable membrane (Klober permo forte)

E: Weber Galvanised lath 2.44m x 1.22m

F: Render

H: Weber Full System base bead (size to accomodate 110mm+38mm+lath+render)

J: Existing DPC extended (L)

K: Stop Batten to support batten (B) (not shown)

M: Coated Extruded Polystyrene

(Not Shown) (M) will also have batten, lath and render.

Tile based Rainscreen Cladding

A: Celotex Insulation 110mm

B: Batten 50x38mm fixed in place by Helifix Turbo Fast 8 220x8mm fixings at 250mm intervals (for tiles) and 300mm intervals (for render).

(Not shown) Main Wall fixing for Celotex insulation 5 per board.

C: Breathable membrane (Klober permo forte)

D: Batten applied over membrane (C) and screwed to batten (B)

The tile cladding is then applied to the batten (D). Cedar cladding will only be applied to the top of the ground floor window. Render will be applied underneath.

G: A stop batten is attached to support the battens (B) (How is this attached to the wall ? What size ?

(Not shown) The last cedar board is pushed out by an arris cut horzontal batten.

I’m Still Here !

admin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:38:40 +0000

Apologies to all. Things got really busy towards the end of the year and my focus is on our Greening Campaign “Love Your Own Food” Event at Colden Common School. I will be updating the blog with the other stages that we went through.

The good news is that we got planning permission for phase 2 which clads the outside of the house & roof with (yet more) insulation. The compromise was to:-

Lower the Solar Hot Water panel (will still work efficiently)
Flatten the PV on the flat roof (boo!)
Use tiles instead of cedar down to the top of the ground floor window.

So its official – the “alien Feature” has gone (according to the planning officer) and we can now proceed.

Now we need to save up our cash to implement it.

Building Regulation Plans

admin — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:20:12 +0000

These plans have gone through several iterations – the original used a traditional trench foundation which would have been problematical due to the clay. Digging a trench to 2+metres is no fun.

Click on the picture to get a larger view.