Tailor energy efficiency advice to individual homes

John,
Clearly these experts won’t be able to tell you very much at all.
That is other than you are going to be having some rather large energy bills in the future.
The choices are yours.
Adapt to a future where the cost of staying warm and in the light remain affordable or hang on to an attitude of “I don’t like the look of my insulated home” “I won’t change my light fittings or look for low energy bulbs to fit the ones I have” “I won’t have better windows, even though sympathetic period designs are now available” and “I won’t get a new boiler even though 50% of the expensive energy I buy goes up the flue”
A couple more years of energy price increases like we’ve been seeing recently might make you think again.
But like I said the choice is yours, no one is forcing anything on you (except perhaps the low energy lighting with the outlawing of the old bulbs)

John & Chris – The boiler matter concerns me: the latest Which? magazine arrived today and after a cursory glance at it it would appear that Which? are now also issuing the advice that BBC’s “You and Yours” and “Moneybox” issued over three years ago and keep repeating: If you have a working old boiler you will never ever recoup the cost of replacing it in the expected lifetime of a new model. John’s attitude seems to suggest he’s heard the same; Chris’ response is diametrically opposed/ Could either of you add any more to explain your views please?
My own plumber tells me that replacing my 31 year old boiler (which according to http://www.homeheatingguide.co.uk/efficiency-tables.php?make=Glow-worm has a 79% efficiency rating) would cost me about triple what I could expect to save by having a new one, unles sthe new one lasted at least 20 years. I heard on “You an yours” about 15 months ago that new boilers have a manufacturers’ expected life span of 8 years. The latesr Which? magazine states 12 years for this. EIther way the chances of me getting 20 years out of one seem quite low. Chris – can you offer any further info on this at all – I’d be very interested as it sounds as thoughI am in a similar boiler situation to John.
As for CFL’s and cavity (or solid) wall insulation, I am using a lot of CFL’s but hey don’t last very long compared to either the 1980’s “jam jar” energy savers or traditional incandescent light bulbs – at present I am far from convinced that the saving in electricity outweighs the cost of frequent replacements. I am hoping for much greater availability of LED bulbs very soon as I believe that these should offer a better solution.
My cavity walls are not insulated and three CWI’s who have been to quote have told me that they are unsuitable and that I will have terrible damp problems if I have CWI. I accept that this means I may pay more for my heating than with CWI, but my buildings maintenance costs are lower than with damp everywhere.
Incidentally, my neighbours have a new combi boiler that is SEDBUK “B” and in the last winter months they paid almost £700 for gas from the same supplier (and as far as I know the same tariff) as me whilst I paid a little under £400. I know very well that we cannot compare the two homes without knowing a great deal more about far too many variables to make it practicable, but it doesn’t inspire me to rush out and buy a new boiler I must say.
This is why I think Kelly’s intro is so important: every single home is different and every single occupier is different: advice that suits one (or even one-thousand) properties still doesn’t suit 100%: we do need access to impartial and professional advice.

Steamdrive nandy,
Think you’re missing the point a bit.
Yes to someone reasonably intelligent who does some research home energy efficiency is not rocket science (mind you there are plenty out there who don’t give it a second thought).
However, the idea of an energy performance certificate is to have an independant assessment resulting in a rating to enable would be buyers or renters to make informed choices, on a like for like basis, before they commit to buy or rent.
Energy assessors do not intimidate the gullible or anyone else to buy new boilers or any other improvement measure for that matter, selling anything is against the rules.
However an energy performance rating does highlight areas of efficiency weakness to help a potential buyer or renter, who might be looking at several properties.
And for your information 100% low energy lighting or none at all makes only a slight difference to the rating, but it will save someone up to £100 a year on their bill, no ones choce but yours.

But you clearly know better so you take no notice and carry on paying through the nose for your gas and electricity, and as time marches on you’ll pay more and more.
The smart money is on the people who actually take notice of the certificate before they buy, and who use it as a negotiating tool to get a better deal.

Chris – with your professional assessor’s hat on, can you tell me a bit about these energy performance certificates?

As far as I can see (and I have to say I’m going on what my partner saw on house sale brochures when buying a house last January – I’ve never had one of these things done for my house and never tried to use one on my own property) they seem to be very wishy-washy about what savings can be made and about what measures could be taken to achieve these savings. I don’t ever recall seeing any recommendations other than: new boiler, CFL’s, double-glazing, CWI and Loft Insulation. I’ve never, for example, seen one recommend fitting Solar PV or Solar hot water, nor any mention of heat pumps, wind turbines, or different sources of primary heating (e.g swapping gas for solid fuel or vice-versa). Do the assessors (like you) have the authority to make any of these other recommendations? If not why not? If you do why don’t they seem to happen very often?

I’m really curious about all of this as it frustrates me very much that it seems so hard to get decent advice, even when an assessor has visited the home.

Dave D,
The assessment for an Energy certificate involves looking at the construction type, insulation levels, energy source (especially for heating, if gas, electric, oil etc), heating controls, glazing type and several other things.
The information is taken away and run through standard software to produce the certificate. The result is based on standard occupancy so a comparison with other properties can be made. This is why the figures for energy use and cost are seldom the same as the actual current bills, people heat and light their homes differently and have different collections of appliances.

Recommendations for improvement fall into three catagories.
Low cost.
This where you see “improve insulation”, “improve heating controls” and “fit low energy lighting”. This is good advice and will give maximum benefit for the lowest cost.

Next comes Higher cost improvements where you see “get a new high efficiency boiler”, “fit double glazing” if you don’t have it and “insulate solid walls”

Finally comes further measures to imrove your rating like consider “solar water heating”, “Solar PV” and in open rural areas “wind turbines”

Now although an objective, impartial and independant assessment is good for a potential buyer, and will help them make informed choices, there is a fundamental often missed.
Most if not all the public are looking at things from an economical viewpoint. “How can I reduce my costs?” whereas the Governments primary target is to reduce Co2 emmissions. These two often go hand in hand but not always.

If you have a ten year old boiler which is working fine keep it going until it becomes uneconomical to do so. Buy a new higher efficiency boiler and you’ve wasted some of the working life of your old one. The efficiency of the new one won’t be that much greater so over the combined life of both old and new you probably won’t save any money.
But you will reduce CO2 emmissions.

If you have mains gas and a resonably efficient gas heating system you won’t save much if anything by going for an electric heat pump system. Although a heat pump can give 3Kwh output for every 1Kwh of input electricity costs usually around 3 times as much as gas per Kwh, and you spent several thousands on the installation.
But you will reduce CO2 emmissions.

If you install solar hot water you might get free hot water for perhaps 6, 7 even 8 months a year, but mains gas water heating is not a comparatively high cost item (perhaps an average of £10 to £15 per month?) How long is that £3000 to £4000 solar hot water system going to take to pay for itself? Got to be at least 25 years, could be much longer.
But you will reduce CO2 emmissions.

If you go for solar PV you’ll spend perhaps £10,000 or £12,000 on the installation. With the feed in tariff you might make £1000 per year. So after say 10 years you recoup your investment and go on to make £1000 per year until the system reaches it’s expected working life of 25 years. So you probably will make money but you are locked in and profit only arrives after about 10 years, Might suit you or the 25 year “lock in” might not.
But you will reduce CO2 emmissions

Starting to get the picture?
Saving money and lowering CO2 are not always the same. Reducing CO2 could cost us all plenty if we’re not careful. My advice is go for the boring wishy-washy basics first and save money (and some CO2). Then shop around for the more big ticket measures very very carefully.

Now I’m not allowed to put any of this in the recommendations section of an Energy certificate but I’m happy to give my own opinions on some of these more exotic efficiency improvement measures, and I always suggest that plenty of research is done and further independant advice is sought before proceeding.

Having said all that there will be examples where a new boiler is a good idea, perhaps if you have a sub 50% efficient 30 year old model. Payback will be much better and it will need replacing soon anyway.
If you run your heating off very expensive Oil or LPG a heat pump system might be a cost effective way to go.
If you’re up for a 25 year deal why not have solar PV. Mind you gas will have to get very very expensive before I start to think seriously about solar hot water.

I’m happy to give advice to people with the objective of saving money but real detail tailored to an individual property takes much longer than the one to one and a half hour inspection and perhaps another hour to produce an energy certificate. Few people are going to want to pay for a couple of days research work on each house.
I think the current certification system is not perfect but is beneficial in helping provide informed choice for buyers and renters, and over time will be refined and improved.

Well Dave D, you asked, hope this helps?

@Chris: many thanks for your detailed response: it is very helpful indeed – thankyou.

The crucial fact that I had not twigged to is the one about everything being driven towards reduced CO2 rather than economy for the user / resident.

No wonder so many things that are being pushed at us seem to save little, nothing or even cost us more.

Dave D

You’re welcome,
Now you understand.
This fundamental is not being grasped by most of the public, and Government seems to me not to understand that to get the public to reduce CO2 there has to be something in it for the public.
And this lack of real incentive is why the “green deal” won’t achieve what the Government hopes it will. Not with all your energy cost saving going to pay back with interest for whatever energy efficiency measure you get installed by an “approved installer” charging inflated prices(unless the green deal in it’s final form addresses this issue).

To date Government initiatives don’t seem to me to have a good record.
There is never a big enough grant or subsidy to make the offer universally attractive and schemes seem poorly focused and directed.
£400 off replacements for very old boilers that were going to fail soon anyway coupled to inflated installation costs from “approved installers”.
Who gained the most out of that one?.
£5000 off the price of electric cars, how many of those got sold?

However had they given everyone who wanted it free loft and cavity wall insulation, and probably spend less tax payers money doing it, there would have been a result, lower CO2 and lower energy bills.

@linniR,
Actually Chris’ points were not in any way “slanted just a little bit against the benefits of acting on the EPC’s recommendations”.
My points were intended to make the change to low Co2 systems and lower energy bills in a timely cost effective and balanced way.
Changing a perfectly serviceable 6 or 7 year old 80% efficient boiler for a new 90% condensing boiler costing maybe £2000 plus does not do that. However changing that boiler at perhaps 10 to 15 years or when it becomes uneconomical to service and maintain (or even impossible through availability of spares) is cost effective.
Likewise with things like heat pumps, solar hot water and solar PV systems, all of which when appropriately installed will save Co2 and achieve lower running costs, need to be looked at from a perspective of installation cost, against savings, against working life.
No sensible, numerate person is going to spend thousands on an energy saving measure only to find that at the end of it’s working life they’re actually worse off.
This is why and where Government must structure grants and subsidies (including the new “green deal”) to provide real incentives for the public to opt for these measures.
I’m all for modern Co2 saving initiatives but I’m also realistic and I’m sure that without real incentive in the form of resulting lower overall energy costs for the public it won’t happen, at least not in the way intended.

My fear is that we’ll just be forced into lower Co2 output just through ever increasing fuel bills, and that will actually kill people.

My issue with the EPC, if there really was one, and remember I actually produce them, is that recommendations do not include what I believe is a common sense approach to the timing and overall cost effectiveness of any recommendation. And because of that the usefulness and credibility of the EPC in the eyes of the public is jeopardised.