Search the forum,

Discuss renewable in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been watching renewables for a while. Something I would like to get into more but haven't got much demand only the odd bit of maintenance. At the minute I struggle to get people to spend £100 extra on a twin coil cylinder let alone a whole system.
 
Alternatives (call then renewables if you like :) ) are here to stay and will slowly become mainstream as the cost of traditional fuels rise higher and higher.

I think this is probably right, and how it ought to happen. If (and to be honest, I think this is still a big IF) the price of carbon fuels rise as much as is currently suggested, then normal market forces will move people to renewables/alternative technologies.

If that price move doesn't occur, then it won't happen. Its basic economics. And as any student of economics will tell you, government attempts to predict or control the price of any good or service almost always ends in disaster, and a whole raft of unintended consequences.
 
I've been watching renewables for a while. Something I would like to get into more but haven't got much demand only the odd bit of maintenance. At the minute I struggle to get people to spend £100 extra on a twin coil cylinder let alone a whole system.

That's half the problem sheer cost alone won't help it
 
I think this is probably right, and how it ought to happen. If (and to be honest, I think this is still a big IF) the price of carbon fuels rise as much as is currently suggested, then normal market forces will move people to renewables/alternative technologies.

If that price move doesn't occur, then it won't happen. Its basic economics. And as any student of economics will tell you, government attempts to predict or control the price of any good or service almost always ends in disaster, and a whole raft of unintended consequences.
Market forces are all well & good where there is a developed market & prices don't rise sharply, so that the available technologies are there, along with the skills to install them, not to mention the manufactures & of course stockist's.
If not then the people at the low end of our society are really going to suffer when that sharp rise in fuel costs comes !!!

Lets face it, it is a remarkable stable system with little risk or changes year to year especially as we are self-sufficient in so many for the fuel sources !!!!

Me, I would like my government (society) to be planning long term for our needs in terms of these resources that no one can live without.

However difficult & complex the issues this planning & the costs associated with our decisions can no longer be ignored. I kid you not the lights will be going off somewhere near you in the next few years if we do nothing & continue to demand more from our supply systems.
 
Last edited:
Market forces are all well & good where there is a developed market & prices don't rise sharply, so that the available technologies are there, along with the skills to install them, not to mention the manufactures & of course stockist's.
If not then the people at the low end of our society are really going to suffer when that sharp rise in fuel costs comes !!!

Lets face it, it is a remarkable stable system with little risk or changes year to year especially as we are self-sufficient in so many for the fuel sources !!!!

Me, I would like my government (society) to be planning long term for our needs in terms of these resources that no one can live without.

However difficult & complex the issues this planning & the costs associated with our decisions can no longer be ignored. I kid you not the lights will be going off somewhere near you in the next few years if we do nothing & continue to demand more from our supply systems.

The trouble is, the government (not just ours, this applies to all governments everywhere) is notoriously bad at economic planning. So, incidentally is everyone else. Economic forecasting, even by so-called "experts" is only very marginally better than having a monkey throw darts. So whilst you might be right about the forthcoming soaring costs of energy, equally you might be wrong. I have been hearing about "peak oil" since I was in my teens, and I am now in my 50s and the date that the oil will run out keeps getting moved forward. And the adjusted-for-inflation price of oil is currently significantly below where it was when I left school.

As I say - you might be right predicting massive increases in energy costs, and I am happy for you to bet your money on it and fit renewables in your property. I am even happy for the government to insist it is fitted in all government owned property. But I do have a problem with anyone who insists that I must fit it in my property - either the one I live in now, or the one I might build tomorrow.

I don't want to use the law to impose my predictions on others, and I wish that they wouldnt use the law to impose their predictions on me.


Government programmes, however well meaning, rarely achieve what they set out to achieve.

One thing we do know is that technology can consistently surprise us. Another thing that we know is that technologies that look so convincing at one point in history can look like foolish diversions just a few years later.

The reason that we currently lack the planned generating capacity that we need is because for 2 decades governments of both colours have hummed and hawed and changed their minds about the the regulatory environment that the generators operate in. Nuclear is out, nuclear is in, nuclear is out again. Renewables must be x% by this date, or is it y% by another date?

I have no faith in any government from any party "solving" the energy issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For me the renewables at least heat pumps and such are missing the point. If there was the will to build houses to the correct levels of efficiency in insulation and airtightness we would barely need heat sources beyond that generated by inhabiting a space. Infact the likely hood is we would be managing building cooling more regularly. There is no better way to save energy than to insulate and apply controlled ventilation coupled with heat recovery. Solar gain and thermal mass can all play there part too. Some of the technology I am interested in is the materials technology that will improve insulation levels. Aerogels are not new but will soon be an affordable building solution superior to pu foam a fraction of the thickness and the potential to be translucent. Vacuum facade panels and window pains will have as close to zero heat transference from one side to the other as we are going to get, when they are commercially viable they will be more than enough to heat a house. We need not only to build the houses our country needs to fulfill demand but refit everything else to bring it up to standard. It has taken over 20 years for a fraction of the recommendations put forward by housing energy studies carried out when I was a child to be adopted in to planning legislation. Only for the legislation not to be policed. I read recently that there is a big gap between what developer new build houses are achieving in energy efficiency and what they are supposed to have been capable of on paper by design. I think the renewable tech on offer will not come to play a significant role in domestic properties in the uk or be realisticly affordable without subsidies before it is superceded with simpler more effective solutions.
 
The trouble is, the government (not just ours, this applies to all governments everywhere) is notoriously bad at economic planning. So, incidentally is everyone else. Economic forecasting, even by so-called "experts" is only very marginally better than having a monkey throw darts. So whilst you might be right about the forthcoming soaring costs of energy, equally you might be wrong. I have been hearing about "peak oil" since I was in my teens, and I am now in my 50s and the date that the oil will run out keeps getting moved forward. And the adjusted-for-inflation price of oil is currently significantly below where it was when I left school.

As I say - you might be right predicting massive increases in energy costs, and I am happy for you to bet your money on it and fit renewables in your property. I am even happy for the government to insist it is fitted in all government owned property. But I do have a problem with anyone who insists that I must fit it in my property - either the one I live in now, or the one I might build tomorrow.

I don't want to use the law to impose my predictions on others, and I wish that they wouldnt use the law to impose their predictions on me.


Government programmes, however well meaning, rarely achieve what they set out to achieve.

One thing we do know is that technology can consistently surprise us. Another thing that we know is that technologies that look so convincing at one point in history can look like foolish diversions just a few years later.

The reason that we currently lack the planned generating capacity that we need is because for 2 decades governments of both colours have hummed and hawed and changed their minds about the the regulatory environment that the generators operate in. Nuclear is out, nuclear is in, nuclear is out again. Renewables must be x% by this date, or is it y% by another date?

I have no faith in any government from any party "solving" the energy issue.
So what is to be done then throw our hands in the air & wait for disaster to strike or maybe lady luck to save the day?

I think we all need to remember a few facts here, things like, that government you have no faith in, is there because we the people elect them, maybe if we all took a bit may notice/interest in what they are doing in our name they might get more right, they at least would not be able to pay themselves loads more of our money!!

The power generation industry is not a free market & it is very unlikely to ever be. Nuclear generation is a good case in point with the amount of money that governments have to commit to, not only get them built but to under-right the costs of decommissioning etc. They would never be built by a for profit company & taking the amount of time that it takes to get them online how could one be built in response to a demand?

Like it or not strategic decision have to be made about how we are going to proceed into the future & this has to involve having adult debates now! like this one. After all we are just as well place to provide input with our knowledge of how effective some of these suggest solutions are.

The Law you so dislike (lets say for example building to a certain insulation standard) is only in place because as a society we have got together & decided that we need to save energy otherwise it will effect our generating, supply or reserve capacity. If there are no rules we all know what happens the insulation does not get fitted cos it cost a little bit more.

I want to live in our society & I want everyone to play by an agreed set of rule otherwise I would move to Iraq or Syria.
 
Last edited:
Question for you all :)

Is The Code for Suatainable Homes Level 6 still scheduled to come into force in 2016 for new builds?

If so then how many nee build do you guys reckon will be heated by gas?
How many heated by some form of alternative (renewable) method?
or as solutions mentions above, will they almost be 'passiv haus' and need no form of heating?
 
So what is to be done then throw our hands in the air & wait for disaster to strike or maybe lady luck to save the day?

Hi Chris. Forgive me, but I think that you are falling into the classic trap of feeling that "something must be done = anything must be done".

The fact that a problem may or may not exist does not justify ANY policy. It has to be established that the policy has at least a reasonable chance of solving the problem, which in the case of most government schemes aimed at renewable/alternative energy technologies is very far from being the case. One must also consider what is lost or given up once a decision is made - all policies have opportunity costs.


I think we all need to remember a few facts here, things like, that government you have no faith in, is there because we the people elect them, maybe if we all took a bit may notice/interest in what they are doing in our name they might get more right, they at least would not be able to pay themselves loads more of our money!!

Two observations. Firstly, no-one voted for a coalition government, and only about 30% of eligible voters voted Tory. The actual election is decided by a few tens of thousands of voters in each of a hundred or so marginal seats. Most of these electors could not define the differences in policy between the parties on obvious things like tax and spending plans, let alone their respective energy policies. As I think you were suggesting, this is a sad comment on the state of democracy in the UK, but at least we agree that there is no democratic mandate for current government policy in this area.

The power generation industry is not a free market & it is very unlikely to ever be. Nuclear generation is a good case in point with the amount of money that governments have to commit to, not only get them built but to under-right the costs of decommissioning etc. They would never be built by a for profit company & taking the amount of time that it takes to get them online how could one be built in response to a demand?

Why not? They are in France and in many other countries in the world. The reason they wont in Britain is because they dont trust the government not to change the rules. We have already had the unedifying spectacle of the opposition effectively torpedoeing potential policy by saying "if we get in at any point, we will change the rules". Since its almost a certainty that they will get in at some point in the 30-50 years of a power stations life, it is too risky to invest. This is not a weakness of private enterprise, its just childish schoolyard politics.

I am not arguing for an unregulated free market. All free markets actually require some regulation to make them work. For example, the enforcement of weights and measures, trades descriptions and contract law are all genuine ways that a free market is aided by the government and would be poorer without it. I don't know if a single serious economist who has argued for unregulated markets since the mid 19th century - they are a complete strawman invented by those in favour of central planning.

As I said in an earlier post, the problem with the lack of investment in generating capacity is because our political parties have refused to put party politics to one side and come to a consensus on the regulatory environment in which they can make long term investments.

The Law you so dislike (lets say for example building to a certain insulation standard) is only in place because as a society we have got together & decided that we need to save energy otherwise it will effect our generating, supply or reserve capacity. If there are no rules we all know what happens the insulation does not get fitted cos it cost a little bit more.

I don't dislike the law at all. I dislike people who seek to use the law to enforce their prejudices and opinions on other people. The proper place for the law in this case is a) to enforce minimum safety standards and b) to ensure honest reporting and description.

For example, the food industry is an example of "good" regulation. If I ask for a kilo of cheese, I will get a kilo, because the weights and measures law will be enforced, and it will be cheese, because the trades descriptions law will be enforced. The whole horsemeat scandal was the exception that proved just how much we take this for granted.

The cheese will also be labelled to show me how much fat and salt there is in it. Some public money has been spent to educate me on the risks of fat and salt. After that, its left up to me, even to the point of killing myself with cholesterol, to choose how much cheese to eat.

If the people who run building control standards also regulated the food industry, we would not be allowed any fat or salt, (or beer) and it would be compulsory to eat our roughage and our five per day.

No doubt we would all be a little healthier. And also a little less free and a little less human.

Vive le fromage! To the barricades mes braves... :)
 
Surely the two are not the same though Ray.

We have many problems, carbon emission (if research is correct), the sustainability of a finite fuel source and global security.

If I choose to take the death by cheese route, the knock on effect to others is fairly limited.

Reducing energy wastage, controlling energy usage and trying to make a reduction in carbon emissions effects every one of us. These are the issues that should be enforced rather than the cheese's fat content in my opinion.

If what we are being told is true, we could be approaching times of energy shortage. We rely heavily on countries to supply us energy, of which most have security issues.

These policies we are working towards are international and the theory is being researched and questioned globally. If I'm correct, there are international laws now enforcing the reduction in carbon emission by 2020 with hefty fines in place for non compliance.

I 'm as skeptical as the next person, particularly when the government are involved, but I can't see this issue disappearing any time soon.

Ultimately, with something so potentially devastating as changing the planets balance beyond reversal or the risk of being denied fuel through shortage or conflict, are we really in a position to 'see how it goes' or should we be looking at a long term, time consuming solution to a problem that could well exist?

There is no easy answer, my view is if we start off small now we could save years of catch up (if at all possible) if we continue to plod on as we are.

Now, if you had compared death by cheese to being told you have to keep your windows closed, that would have been a fair comparison!
 
Last edited:
They are closer than you might think Sam. All human actions have some consequence for others.

The raising of cattle for either meat or dairy instead of dedicating the same resources to gowing grains is frequently cited as a problem both in terms of driving up the cost of food in the third world, and in increasing methane emissions - a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Both claims are undoubtedly true -the question is the level of significance that you attach to them.

I too am sceptical - in the true sense of the word. Having spent quite a lot of time reading about the subject, I still don't think that there is enough evidence yet to direct policy. That may be frustrating, but wishing that something is not true doesn't make it untrue.

There is, as yet, no such thing as "international law" except in the sense that a range (not all) governments sign up to a variety of protocols concerning things like genocide and war crimes. There are international agreements on carbon emissions, but so long as the likes of America, China and India carry on the way they are, they are irrelevant, since there is no competent or capable enforcement agency.

As I said in my response to Chris, there is a serious danger of falling into the trap of "we must do something - this is something - therefore we must do this." Its a logical fallacy.

Don't just do something. Stand there!
 
Unfortunately we cannot just stand there, the economy would grind to a halt. The 2 options we actually have are carry on moving in the direction we are currently travelling, or change direction. Thinking on our feet as it were.
 
Unfortunately we cannot just stand there, the economy would grind to a halt. The 2 options we actually have are carry on moving in the direction we are currently travelling, or change direction. Thinking on our feet as it were.

I agree that we do have to decide something about the regulatory environment for electricity generation, and quickly.

However, we don't have to do anything else to encourage the uptake of renewables. Those who insist that we do almost always turn out to have a vested interest of some type.

Remember that "doing something" comes at a cost. Either we have the direct cost of taxation to take money away from people who earned it in order to subsidise some incentive system, or the indirect costs of regulation, which force people to pay for something that they may not have paid for if they made their own choice.

If the doom-mongers are right, and the cost of energy rises sharply, good old market forces will do the job - just like the oil price hikes of the 70s encourage the drive to much more efficient car engines.

And if energy prices don't soar - and I am far from sure that they will - then it would have been a mistake to force people into costly installations that they didn't want.

And I have a real deep viceral distrust for people or governments who are so sure that they are right that they think that choice should be removed from people who disagree with them.
 
Who's being forced into installations they don't want?

The incentives available are just that, there is still an upfront cost the customer needs to cough up. The idea being an up skill in the heating industry which will make the products more mainstream and reduce the costs.

Currently renewables are a niche that seem to attract a high price tag ( not in our case I will say)

Also, look at solar P.V. Prices have dropped 50%+ in 3 years. At the time everyone was saying the jobs couldn't get done for the price but low and behold the install carried on going in and companies (the good ones) carried on making a profit. The bad ones folded as the margins meant only the savvy business's could make it work.

We are stimulating interest in a market to promote growth through investment.

The sharks appear in any line of business, it's the consumers duty to ensure they aren't being fed a pack of lies.

As for price hikes were already paying 50% more for our energy than we were 5 years ago! For many this is exactly why considering another technology is so appealing.
 
Last edited:
Who's being forced into installations they don't want?

Anyone doing a new-build under existing proposals for zero carbon. (although it has recently been watered down Im pleased to say).
 
Would the same be said for any other building regulation, electrical safety, fire, structure, sound?

I think the vast majority of people would welcome an insulated energy efficient home. It's the builders who's profit margin are effected who oppose the change.

If we let everyone do what they wanted unregulated I think would be in trouble.

It seems we are more worried about the cost involved instead of doing the right thing. We are at the mercy of energy suppliers unfortunately, the sooner they loose their grasp the better everyone's life's will be (unlikely to ever happen, especially if people continue to voluntarily depend on them so much through their energy usage)

it wont be long before we are being charged for the air we breathe.
 
Last edited:
All the new builds I am currently involved are gas related

Same here , all my ones are gas , only ive been approached by an architect who works soley on newbuilds with renewables and he has assured me once i have my air , ground source and solar thermal hel keep me constantly busy with them, and this i believe as he to is out the door with these projects and at the moment hes having to take in guys from afar as no one local does them,,,
 
Also, look at solar P.V. Prices have dropped 50%+ in 3 years. At the time everyone was saying the jobs couldn't get done for the price but low and behold the install carried on going in and companies (the good ones) carried on making a profit. The bad ones folded as the margins meant only the savvy business's could make it work.

That only came about with the drop in price of materials, it still costs us the same (and we still charge the same) for the installation element...

And in all our sectors we charge reasonable prices that need to cover all our costs - including margin else we too would go bump - the estimating, and design costs are quite phenomenal on some jobs.
 
That only came about with the drop in price of materials, it still costs us the same (and we still charge the same) for the installation element...

And in all our sectors we charge reasonable prices that need to cover all our costs - including margin else we too would go bump - the estimating, and design costs are quite phenomenal on some jobs.

Worcester, that is bull**** and you know it!

I was involved in P.V at the time the government dropped the FIT rate, the profit margins were extraordinary for both the suppliers and the installers. I was also a member of the sun lounge ;)

Suddenly the suppliers were able to offer the same materials for 60% and no longer was every man and their dog interested in becoming solar installers as the margins weren't nearly as good in order for the investment figures to stack up.

You can see it now with the RHI already, claims of x% return on investment, which is exactly what the RHI is not about. Funnily enough it is the same crowd trying to push renewable heat in this way who were on the solar band wagon.
 
Last edited:
Don't tar us all with the same brush.
Yes some were and still are rip off merchants..
You will get those in any business area.

Some if us do it properly and consult with clients as to their needs and wants , - we don't employ a commission based sakes force. And with an average enquiry to install time of 6 months, it is a considered decision for our clients.
 
I'm not tarring Worcester :)

but anyone who says they were not making extrodinarily good profit from P.V in the golden day (42.2p tariff) is not being truthful. The fact is the bar was set on a 10% return for the customer despite the fact the jobs were going in for a lot less than this. The industry set the installation cost and the profit margins were high, hence why everyone got involved.

Unless you were installing for 3-4k under the going rate, your margins were considerably higher than most other lines of business ( with the exception of being an independant plumbers merchant based across the south!! ) ;)

Business is business, and the market dictates what the costs are, the customers still got a fantastic return at the end of the day, but there wasn't a solar installer in the country at that time who didn't have a healthy bank balance, and many are now 'renewable energy experts' having jumped ship when P.V started sinking.

Don't take that personally, you are obviously very well educated in the renewable heating trade, probably more so than the majority of heating installers! When I need help with anything renewable related, your comments would be the one of the ones I aim to receive. Unfortunately though, many aren't I think we would agree?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Reply to renewable in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Creating content since 2001. Untold Media.

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock