WTF are the RICS up to?

Latest Articles

WTF are the RICS up to?

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 11:15 am Post subject: WTF are the RICS up to?

The Royal Institute for Chartered Surveyors have "released a report" (seemingly to the press, but not to their website as of now) which has garnered a lot of sensational and simplistic press coverage.
Google News search

The headline is to the effect that "Solar heating will payback - in 208 years".
The only detail quoted in the press articles seems to be that they are estimating ï¿½5,000 cost and annual savings of just ï¿½24.
Frankly, the capital cost looks more than a bit high, and the returns pathetically low.

Even "loft insulation" is said to have a payback time of 13 years (spend ï¿½755 to save ï¿½60 a year) and double glazing 124 years (ï¿½9,327 to save ï¿½75 a year) - but cavity wall insulation looks great at 5 years (spend ï¿½728 and save ï¿½145 a year).
And spending ï¿½761 insulating your hot water tank would save ï¿½20/year... so that's a 38 year payback, then...

These figure seem a bit bonkers (generally way high cost) and a bit strange in their inconsistency - cavity wall insulation more cost-effective than roof insulation... ???

One of the websites carrying the press release
https://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3097491&c=0
does actually link to an Excel spreadsheet (but not a report as such).
Link to download the Excel file

However, the notes on the spreadsheet show -
- its for a *terraced* house (so cavity wall work is only on 2 walls

)
- and the ï¿½24/year return on solar hot water is for a *flat plate* collector system (rubbish efficiency, no one in their right mind, etc see my previous comments on this site). That's a low estimate even for the output of a flat plate. And ï¿½5k for a flat plate system is truly bonkers. Even for a much, much higher output evacuated tube collector system ï¿½5k is an awful lot. AND would surely (at that price) include a new treble insulated tank. (Yet the saving for doing the tank alone is more than the solar? And the tank is costed seperately?)
- the roof insulation ï¿½755 is for a top up with glass wool rom 100 to 250mm... dunno about the ï¿½60/year saving but ï¿½755 seems awful expensive for glass wool for a terraced house...

and that's just at a first glance.
It really looks as though they have tried to find "worst case" figures.

So *WHY* would the Surveyors choose to try and do a deliberate hatchet-job on domestic energy efficiency measures?

EDIT: link targets hidden

Last edited by dougal on Sat Oct 13, 07 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

Vanessa

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 8324

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 5:20 pm Post subject:
How bizarre! Mind you, here in France, we've just been quoted over ï¿½8000 just to supply a solar hot water panel We told them to forget it ... we'll add a DIY one at a later stage.

AnneandMike

Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 890
Location: Over the hill and soon to be far away

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 5:57 pm Post subject:
Half a page on this in the Times today. Total rubbish. Further on some cretin writes about Al Gore lying in his film then says that "a significant minority of climate scientists don't believe in global warming." This idiot must use the Beano as his research source. And "quality" broadsheets print this c**p. Is it any wonder Joe Public is confused and complacent!

Gervase

Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 8655

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 6:05 pm Post subject:

It's complete boswellox - but that doesn't surprise me, coming from the RICS. Most building society surveyors proudly claim membership, and a more ignorant, purblind and dull-witted bunch you'd be hard-pushed to find.

The modern glycol-based systems are remarkably efficient, generating summer temperatures of up to 120 degrees (enough to melt soldered joints if you're unwise enough to use them!), and 20 degrees or so in winter. Routed through a coil in a pressurised tank, that will mean that your domestic fuel use for heating and hot water will be zero in summer and around 50 per cent of your current amount over the rest of the year.

Ask yourself - if they don't work as claimed, then why do most plumbers fit them to their own homes? My plumbing mate logs his fuel use, and says his system - which is the mutt's nuts - will pay for itself in five years. If you pay someone else to fit it, double that to 10 years, which still isn't bad.

The ï¿½5000 cost is about right for a modern flush-mounted system with a sealed, high pressure system with a new, unvented pressurised tan, as the parts costs run to around ï¿½2,000.

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 6:13 pm Post subject:
Dougal, can you shorten your links please - lots of page scrolling on my laptop. Thanks.

Mary-Jane

Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 18397
Location: The Fishing Strumpet is from Ceredigion in West Wales

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 6:24 pm Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

Dougal, can you shorten your links please - lots of page scrolling on my laptop.

Thanks.

Or ask the Linky Fairy to do it for you like I do!

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 6:47 pm Post subject:

Gervase wrote:

...
The ï¿½5000 cost is about right for a modern flush-mounted system with a sealed, high pressure system with a new, unvented pressurised tan, as the parts costs run to around ï¿½2,000.

Or you could get the bits for around ï¿½1,000 from Navitron...
20tube panel; pitched roof mounting kit; twin coil hot water cylinder (up to172litre double insulated, Grade3 with Grade2 base); TDC3 Solar controller; Circulation Pump + isolation valves; anti-syphoning valve; pressurised system kit; 10m armaflex HT high temperature; antifreeze.
October special offer upgrade to 30 tube collector free
ï¿½1122 *inc* VAT {basically just add pipes and labour}
https://www.navitron.org.uk/pricelist.htm

I don't dispute that you *could* spend ï¿½5k - I do dispute that that is a representative spend today for an inefficient flat panel system.
Or that (by implication) that is what anyone should be advised to fit.
Evacuated tubes make financial, even short-term, sense - in the UK. You'd have to be very poorly informed to choose a flat panel system.
Thing is that evacuated tubes work very much better outside of high summer - and that's what's needed in the UK.

MarkS

Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2626

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 7:17 pm Post subject:

Quote:

And spending ï¿½761 insulating your hot water tank would save ï¿½20/year... so that's a 38 year payback, then...

Is that using ï¿½20 notes as insulation then?

btw: thanks for the heads up on the navitron offer - I'd better sort out an order - I've been meaning to for ages.

Those costs are just silly - does double glazing really cost ï¿½10K? I'm planing to make some new windows.

Yeah I know part L, blahdy, blahdy, blah

repairs see.

sean
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42219
Location: North Devon

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 07 8:06 pm Post subject:

Gervase wrote:

Our last house was surveyed by one who:
1. Had to come back because she couldn't remember whether she'd surveyed the property or not.
2. Had to be shown the gas boiler because she 'couldn't see what was running the central heating'.

Armchair

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 205
Location: Winchester

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 07 8:38 pm Post subject:

Gervase wrote:

Most building society surveyors proudly claim membership, and a more ignorant, purblind and dull-witted bunch you'd be hard-pushed to find.

As a building society surveyor myself...

I don't fall into those categories and neither do my colleagues.
We also treat RICS with a considerable amount of disdain.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

View Latest Posts