Discuss RHI Update in the Renewable Energy area at PlumbersForums.net

Plumbase Perks - Special offers for forum members
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone heard anything at all about what might be happening going forward, I heard that the small biomass commercial and domestic tariff is likely to degress a further 10% next quarter but no impact on any other categories/technologies but still no inkling of whether the RHI will continue past April.
 

missplumb

Plumber
at the moment it is still up in the air, we wil find out in the next few weeks whether it will continue from March next year, general concensus seems to be that the government will say they have met their targets and will stop the rhi for new applications.
 

Nostrum

Plumber
Gas Engineer
Do you have a link to where target vs deployment can be found?

Specifically for domestic technology?

I was under the impression that biomass had over achieved whereas all other technologies were well short of the mark.
 

Dan-HybridHeat

Gas Engineer
People took the :nono: with the biomass commercial RHI which had a massive impact on the tariff. I personally can't see any of it lasting now the Lib Dems are completely out of power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

voivod

Plumber
Gas Engineer
at the moment it is still up in the air, we wil find out in the next few weeks whether it will continue from March next year, general concensus seems to be that the government will say they have met their targets and will stop the rhi for new applications.
meaning the rich have theirs fitted so screw you lot ;)
 

Worcester

Plumber
Possibly, however if this is so important to you, I'm sure you listened to Amber Rudd when she was up before the select committee.

Overall they are well behind on their targets for 'Renewable Heat' yes Biomass on all tariffs is well overspent, so much so that Drax has been scaled back...

However, (let's ignore that lack of electricity generation capability to deliver it as that's another can of worms...) the Gov't has an official target to deliver renewable heat; heatpumps are one of the few predictable and measurable sources of renewable energy, hence predictions of 6.8 MILLION heatpumps by 2030, that's 450,000 PER ANNUM. (Just google the phrase "6.8 MILLION heatpumps by 2030" )

Oh, the generation issue:- we'd need an EXTRA 1.8GW of of electricity EACH YEAR for the next 15 years and that IS a major problem - hence the push of Nuclear and Fracking - sometimes you have to look at the big, very big, picture to see what's going on.

Here's my crytsal ball (come back in 4 months and let me know how I did :) )

So; the Govt is between a rock and a hard place. It's not going to announce any significant changes before Paris (30th Nov-13th Dec), and unlikely (politically) during Paris. It's also got its work cut out handling 35,000 responses to the change in Solar FiT.

The RHI isn't going away, however it will have a top to bottom review of which technologies it wants to incentivise and how, - I would expect Solar Thermal for instance to get a bit of a boost, a boost for Air Source heat pumps, see some tariff banding in the domestic market,

DECC considers itself spot on wrt biomass, it has now cut it such that only those people that MUST do something are doing something - we're as busy now as we were in April and May and I don't see it slowing down (March, June, Sept had 'false' peaks)
 

voivod

Plumber
Gas Engineer
electricity would be better served by wind /hydro and pv than going down the nuclear route :(
They say oh pv etc is costing us a fortune in subsidies....do you see how much thhe nuclear subsidy is??? ££££££££££££££££££££
 
I cant help thinking that if the news was negative it would have been leaked by now as has happened so often previously.

A shake up of the process would be merited though especially the MCS to allow us more latitude to design flexible and sensible systems that aren't so oversized.
 

Worcester

Plumber
A shake up of the process would be merited though especially the MCS to allow us more latitude to design flexible and sensible systems that aren't so oversized.
Why does BS EN 12831:2003 mean that you design systems that are oversized?

To date I would say that ours have all come out right-sized.
 
BSEN12831 doesn't give any latitude to solar gain, latent heat from cooking, occupancy latency etc. which generally means that it is around 30% higher than reality.

The 100% sizing rule then compounds things further meaning that a heat pump is sized for a theoretical peak instead of a more average load. On a fixed speed, this results in a bigger compressor and more current draw, larger ancillaries, bigger pumps and generally more cost which makes the project harder to sell and could result in higher standing losses (depending on where the cylinder/buffer is located), higher manufacture, transportation costs and more carbon pre-install, which is counter to the point of the installation in the first place.

Many European countries tend to focus more on energy requirement than power and heat pumps are sized to provide 80% with small dips into a hybrid support system when required. Instead we have to cascade 2 units where 1 would do and create additional cost, carbon etc. instead of a marginal increase in fossil consumption to achieve the same result.

Loop/bore sizing at 0 degrees incoming also causes issues such as undersized coils in cylinders which cannot absorb the power over the summer, resulting in cycling and again increased infrastructure and installation cost and carbon.

We have all seen the truly undersized installs internal and external, but the 100% rule is a hammer to crack a nut and gives the installer no credibility for coming up with a proper engineering solution tailored to the technology employed.

We are already involved in rectifying issues with oversized biomass plant created by the 1314 hours on the non-domestic RHI, this is less of a risk with heat pumps but it still grates being told how to design a system by the Government, who simply don't seem to understand the application.
 

Worcester

Plumber
The oversized biomass issue is one of greed, not design. So I wont go there..

The 100% rule is important, what is causing the problems though is not design, as there is NOTHING stopping you designing a bivalent or 70% system under MCS. You can do it, you don't have to design the renewable system to deliver 100%. The heating system has to, so there is nothing stopping you designing bi-valent systems. We do it all the time.

A right sized system for the client could well be one that the renewable system delivers 70% of the load, simples, then you just meter it for payment. European systems also usually provide much larger buffer tanks - the have a heat pump tariff for instance where the heat pump loads up the buffer / accumulator vessel so that ca then be used to heat the property.

The problem isn't MCS or BS EN 12831, it's the RHI scheme that is driving particular designs and your sales staff.

Note that more GSHP's were installed per annum in the years before the RHI than since its introduction.

I agree the MCS standard could be better formulated, unfortunately it has been designed to enable idiots to design and install a system, and ensure that they don;t get any undersized systems like the ones that caused all the problems and hit the national press.
 
Granted but if the design heat loss via BSEN12831 is already 30% high the and 100% sizing rule is applied to the heat pump only to avoid complications with heat meters etc. this results in a heat pump that is bigger than it needs to be, because the starting point is too high and this is still the case if a bivalent is designed, because it has to be derived from the BSEN12831 too.

The integration of control to the heat pump also limits options, in the old days the customer knew to light their WBS/gas fire/etc. (space heat only) to assist when it got really cold, we still have plenty like this and the customers are quite happy with the arrangement.
 

Worcester

Plumber
Solar PV may be screwed, some hope for RHI:

Leaked letter: Rudd admits 25% green energy undershoot, misled Parliament - The Ecologist
Facing legal action, strong support for solar and wind, Rudd refuses to reverse cuts - The Ecologist

And yesterday The Ecologist published a leaked letter from Rudd in which she admitted that the UK was set to miss its EU renewable energy target of sourcing 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 by 25%, a gap of 50 TWh (terawatt hours) per year.

Questioned by the the Energy and Climate Change Committee today Rudd at first faced a stinging rebuke from its chairman: "We have looked at the leaked material and your previous statements to the House and our assessment is that whether or not it was your intention to mislead, there was indeed some misleading use of language . so can we begin by bringing some clarity?"

She then admitted the UK does not have the right policies in place to meet its EU target. The letter published by The Ecologist, stating that the UK was on track to get just 11.5% of energy from renewables by 2020, was accurate, she conceded.

But she astonished MPs by denying that the cuts to solar and wind power had contributed to the UK's trajectory to miss its EU renewable energy target, and insisting that the shortfall must be filled by renewable heat, and by more biofuels in petrol and diesel:

"It's my aim we should meet the 2020 target. I recognise we don't have the right policies, particularly in transport and heat, but we have four to five years and I remain committed to making the target."

And she refused to consider any reversal of the cuts to renewable electricity from solar and onshore wind that she has already pushed through: "I think it would be a mistake to abandon heat and transport, they need to make their contribution on the renewable targets."
That is if she manages to survive the calls for her resignation.

She is of course an Osborne austerity hawk, and almost certainly placed into DECC by him to do his bidding
 

Nostrum

Plumber
Gas Engineer
I read this early with the same optimism. Let's hope it's addressed correctly come April.
 
Last edited:

voivod

Plumber
Gas Engineer
read a report saying the government were going to spend on overseas renewables too offset our carbon tax here...

Not gona say it but they are 4$$$s....you guess
 

Worcester

Plumber
N

Norcs

The sooner grant funding for renewables is over the better.
Terminated, finished etc.
That's basically what a guy with a 50kw solar array was saying to me today.
He seen the same system he had installed on e bay for half the price and challenged the guys who installed his system to match e bay.

Well you can guess they just fobbed him off. None of them seemed willing to accept a cash bung to sign it off.
The money comes out off poor peoples pockets. The very people who cannot afford the extortionate cost of renewables.

Then those in the renewables industry can price on a level playing field with competitive opposition.
We need getting rid of the middle men in the renewables industry who play no part with the end user. These parasites only got involved in order to feather their own nests.

What we need is more shipping from china that can by-pass the burocracy and sell straight to the consumer and then see if it can stand on its own two feet.
I reckon it can if the middle men sharks are removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Reply to RHI Update in the Renewable Energy area at PlumbersForums.net. Plumbing questions, answers, tips and tricks.

Test4Less PlumbersForums.net Sponsor
Plumbing Advice - Find Plumbers Jobs
uHeat Forum Sponsor - PlumbersForums.net
Corgi Direct - Plumbers Forums Sponsor
Wetroom Store - PlumbersForums.net Sponsor
Power Shower Booster - Official PlumbersForums.net Sponsor
Plumbase - PlumbersForums.net Sponsor
Bulk Workwear - Workwear Sponsor for Plumbers Forums

New Posts Threads Members

uHeat Forum Sponsor - PlumbersForums.net - Electric and Water Underfloor Heating Systems
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Top