navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Govt response to early adopter's petition  (Read 6402 times)
fred bloggs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2010, 10:35:02 AM »

All

As soon as I've finished the building work on the house (UFH and lots of insulation) I am going to install some PV and Thermal on the south facing,45 degree roof of my garage (cash has been squirreled away) (Dont tell SWMBO, she will have it spent on a new kitchen  fight).

Long live DIY extrahappy

Fred
Logged
renewablejohn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2966



« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2010, 10:51:35 AM »

Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.

Thanks Ted I thought that was the case for Biomass but would it also work for a thermal solar CHP in excess of 2kW I presume you would only get single ROC's instead of the gasification double ROC's but it would still be eligible for RHI.
Logged
pottsiwebber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2010, 05:49:54 PM »

I'm glad to see there are several like minded people out there, I knew there would be on this forum Grin.

I'm just sick of jumping through hoops to prove what I build ,install, modify, maintain etc. etc. be it a building, heating system, vehicle etc. etc. is safe, well designed etc. etc. I know it is I did it so leave me alone!

Yes I may be able to make a bit of cash in the long run if I jump through hoops but I'd rather actually learn how to do something myself and not rely on other people. For me that's what life is all about learning and DOING! Too many people have forgotten how to use their brains and hands. So I say stop worrying about the few quid you wont get from FITs etc. and get out there and do it yourself!

More power to the rest of you out there doing the same!
Logged

"If it aint broke you can probably still fix it!"

15kW Kostrzewa Pellet / Wood / Grain boiler
4kW Stovax WBS (2kW to room, 2kW back boiler)
216ltr Navitron thermal store
Navitron solar this spring
jotec
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684


« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2010, 08:32:19 PM »

Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.
Interesting my CHP is 2kw and OFGEM would only register it for ROCs not FITs. I was told this was because it is biomass (WVO) Have I missed something?

Dick
Logged

Aiming to reduce dependency on 'mains energy'. Own bio for 120k miles, solar water heating (DIY),  CHP done, Solar PV, use wood cut from own trees.
In U.K. near Worcester
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128


« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2010, 11:26:14 AM »

I'm just sick of jumping through hoops to prove what I build ,install, modify, maintain etc. etc. be it a building, heating system, vehicle etc. etc. is safe, well designed etc. etc. I know it is I did it so leave me alone!

I sympathise with your hatred of red tape but when you put 'safe' and 'vehicle' next to each other, there's clearly a need for some red tape if you're going to operate it in public anywhere.

Buildings are a bit more difficult. I can see a case for different rules if you occupy it or if somebody else does or if you sell it. There's a weird rule for self-built boats. If you build a boat in the EU, you can't sell it until it is five years old, unless it is CE certified (and yes it is possible for an individual to have their self-built boat certified and it has been done). The rule is generally regarded as a piece of French self-interest trade protectionism, but there is a certain logic to it. Any safety issues in a boat would generally be discovered within five years.
Logged

Cheers, Dave
pottsiwebber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2010, 11:58:49 AM »

Quote
I sympathise with your hatred of red tape but when you put 'safe' and 'vehicle' next to each other, there's clearly a need for some red tape if you're going to operate it in public anywhere.

True but in my defence I had engaged "Rant Mode"  Grin

Quote
Any safety issues in a boat would generally be discovered within five years.

Discovered as in "discovered burning off the coast of ..." or "discovered a the bottom of..."
Logged

"If it aint broke you can probably still fix it!"

15kW Kostrzewa Pellet / Wood / Grain boiler
4kW Stovax WBS (2kW to room, 2kW back boiler)
216ltr Navitron thermal store
Navitron solar this spring
johnrae
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 764


« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2010, 12:00:59 PM »

I'd have said any safety issues in a boat are to be identified within the first hour.  After that it's down to the use of crappy materials.  Snapped masts etc are usually due to foul weather which I'm sure the EU doesn't (yet) have a certificate for - though they may well have a "standard".  
Logged
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2128


« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2010, 12:50:54 PM »

Discovered as in "discovered burning off the coast of ..." or "discovered a the bottom of..."

Exactly!  Grin

Quote from: johnrae
I'd have said any safety issues in a boat are to be identified within the first hour.  After that it's down to the use of crappy materials.  Snapped masts etc are usually due to foul weather which I'm sure the EU doesn't (yet) have a certificate for - though they may well have a "standard".

Well, I think safety issues are discovered at various times, such as the first storm or the first grounding, or the first time the gas system freezes etc. You'd be mad to take a newly built boat out into a storm for its first outing, so I think a few years is a more sensible time.

Snapped masts are never due to foul weather. Foul weather is part of the specification  Wink  A break may be due to poor materials but that is unusual. Most likely is operator error (not tensioning shrouds correctly, not reefing appropriately etc) and a specification error is probably next most likely, followed by installation or construction errors. After that we might get to materials. Germanischer Lloyd have mast requirements that go beyond CE; I imagine they'll give you a certificate if you pay them enough!
Logged

Cheers, Dave
johnrae
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 764


« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2010, 01:45:38 PM »

Actually, I had my tongue well and trully stuck in my cheek when I mentioned the first hour, but it's the launch that shows up the obvious "errors" in design and build.

A vessel that's spent its first days of life being seriously worked out at sea with identified problems is no less worthy than a "perfect, no faults found" vessel that's spent five years lounging in a marina with only the occassional "jolly" out sailing.

By way of example, a car showing 3000 miles on the clock with the engine thrashed to hell is unlikely to be better than one that's done 30000 of sensible driving.
Logged
Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3940



« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2010, 03:39:49 PM »

Only CHP up to 2kW is covered by FiTs at present, so anything else still comes under ROCs - which doesn't have (and never has had) any MCS requirement.
Interesting my CHP is 2kw and OFGEM would only register it for ROCs not FITs. I was told this was because it is biomass (WVO) Have I missed something?

Dick

No, you haven't missed anything. The FiT for CHP is restricted to a 10 year pilot project for a max 30,000 units that are mains gas boilers. The only unit that currently qualifies (MCS) is the Baxi Ecogen.

http://www.baxigroupspecification.co.uk/campaigns/baxi-ecogen.htm
Logged

Volunteer moderator
jotec
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684


« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2010, 05:09:15 PM »

Thanks Ted, I thought it might be something like that.
Dick
Logged

Aiming to reduce dependency on 'mains energy'. Own bio for 120k miles, solar water heating (DIY),  CHP done, Solar PV, use wood cut from own trees.
In U.K. near Worcester
titan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2010, 06:00:48 PM »

I think the problem is BRE who seem to be the main "advisorís" to the government. It is understandable that a standard is set for both the equipment and installation but I can't see why diy installs with approved equipment can't be inspected and approved for a reasonable one off fee. This is a win win situation as the owner is happy and the government can claim the carbon reduction which is the only reason for all the schemes anyway.
Logged
pottsiwebber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2010, 06:12:37 PM »

I think the problem is BRE who seem to be the main "advisorís" to the government. It is understandable that a standard is set for both the equipment and installation but I can't see why diy installs with approved equipment can't be inspected and approved for a reasonable one off fee. This is a win win situation as the owner is happy and the government can claim the carbon reduction which is the only reason for all the schemes anyway.

I cant see why either but the "approved equipment" is again a problem. A lot of manufacturers who produce efficient well designed equipment dont want to register, and no doubt pay a large amount of money, to have their equipment "certified" by the UK government.

Meeting recognised safety and efficiency standards which are already in place and to which most if not all decent manufacturers already meet should be sufficient IMHO.
Logged

"If it aint broke you can probably still fix it!"

15kW Kostrzewa Pellet / Wood / Grain boiler
4kW Stovax WBS (2kW to room, 2kW back boiler)
216ltr Navitron thermal store
Navitron solar this spring
Paulh_Boats
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2827



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2011, 11:57:56 AM »

There's a weird rule for self-built boats. If you build a boat in the EU, you can't sell it until it is five years old, unless it is CE certified (and yes it is possible for an individual to have their self-built boat certified and it has been done). The rule is generally regarded as a piece of French self-interest trade protectionism, but there is a certain logic to it. Any safety issues in a boat would generally be discovered within five years.

Nah - its just nonsense. The boat is as safe as the skipper and the weather conditions. Most of the legislation is common sense like don't use this canoe to cross the English Channel.

Some CE boats have self righting rules after a capsize, they have enough buoyancy to pop upright. However your ability to survive a capsize if thrown overboard at night in a rough sea is generally considered to be close to zero, especially if single handed in the cold weather.

The terrible 1979 Fastnet race claimed 15 lives due to extreme storms. Some boats were found floating empty the next day and their crews all drowned because they panicked and jumped into life-rafts that eventually sank. If they had stayed on board they would have survived. The point is that the crew where the weak link, not the boat.

What would be more sensible is to make people carry EPIRBs, a gadget you wear on you which reads GPS location and beams an SOS signal to a satellite. You can use it overboard in the water anywhere in the World and a local coast guard gets a message of your exact location within 3 minutes.

-Paul
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 12:06:58 PM by Paulh_Boats » Logged

30 tube thermal,
2.3kW PV see:
http://www.solarmanpv.com/portal/Terminal/TerminalMain.aspx?come=Public&pid=17067

LED lighting in every room
NO tumble dryer, +370 kWh per year
qeipl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2011, 03:49:34 PM »

MCS accreditation in relation to FiTs is nonsense.
FiTs are paid on kWh produced so equipment and installation 'compliance' are irrelevant.

There's no argument for MCS accreditation of equipment. It all has to be CE marked for safety. Thereafter let the market decide what works and what doesn't.

There's an argument for MCS accreditation for installations as a way of spreading best practice through the installation industry but to make it mandatory is counter-productive because it limits the number of participants (only those with enough capital to go down the MCS route will purchase).
MCS accreditation for installation should be voluntary, giving the ignorant, cautious, and litigious some comfort.
The rest should be allowed to trust their own judgement.
Logged

Our Money: how to shrink government, boost business, eliminate poverty, and make the economy work properly for everyone.

A book for people who are perplexed about the economy.
Available from Amazon in paperback and eBook.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!