'Current Energy' fuel energy cost and carbon discrepancies

[gervasemangwana]

Matching those in "current Energy" with those in "Fuel requirements"

Otherwise Figure 10 is not representative

[gervasemangwana]

Should we have a specific question on the questionnaire spreadsheet which asks for tariff rates. Then these are entered in "Current energy" and pulled through to "Fuel requirements"

[ghost]

Right so. There are two sides to this, one arguing for including people's actual tariff rates, one against, where we use the default SAP figures instaed. I think the inclusion of actual tariff rates is currently winning the argument, but setting out both sides here so we can agree it clearly.

FOR:

• If we're trying to produce a reasonable accurate picture of what's possible for that house, it makes sense to use their actual figures. That seems simple and straightforward. It also gives people a bit more confidence, as their graphs are more likely to reflect their perceptions of the situation.

AGAINST:

• This assumes that people are not going to move tariffs (probably quite likely to be fair) and that costs won't change over time (though in fairness, the same is true of the fixed defaults. It also removes the opportunity to compare between houses fairly based on cost - as you won't know whether the cost figure for any given house is due to the performance of the house, or due to the fact the occupants got a good deal. This may not be important (more important when looking at houses for purchase probably) - but worth bearing in mind.

So, given the above, I'd be tempted to go for putting in people's actual rates, and using the defaults where these aren't available.

Either way though, there's an argument for not including it in the 'questionnaire section' - or at least maybe just adding a prompt here for the assessor to fill it out in the 'Current Energy Use' page instead. This is that on most occasions, people can't quote these figures off the top of their head. Usually we either take photos of bills while we're in the home, and have to work all of this out later (energy use and costs), sometimes using an average over a couple of years of bills - or people send on the information before/ after. So I don't think it needs to sit in the questionnaire section - saving Carlos a bit of work! (If we find that workflow changes, we can always make adjust this later, but it's not important for the tech release, it's just a change of protocol for assessors).

Hope that all makes sense?

[gervasemangwana]

To add to this

Looking at the SAP defaults they seemed quite low. So maybe we need defaults that represent current averages.

Gervase Mangwana

Waxwing Energy 07956378981 info@waxwingenergy.co.uk

On 14 Jan 2017, at 14:04, marianneURBED notifications@github.com wrote:

Right so. There are two sides to this, one arguing for including people's actual tariff rates, one against, where we use the default SAP figures instaed. I think the inclusion of actual tariff rates is currently winning the argument, but setting out both sides here so we can agree it clearly.

FOR:

If we're trying to produce a reasonable accurate picture of what's possible for that house, it makes sense to use their actual figures. That seems simple and straightforward. It also gives people a bit more confidence, as their graphs are more likely to reflect their perceptions of the situation. AGAINST:

This assumes that people are not going to move tariffs (probably quite likely to be fair) and that costs won't change over time (though in fairness, the same is true of the fixed defaults. It also removes the opportunity to compare between houses fairly based on cost - as you won't know whether the cost figure for any given house is due to the performance of the house, or due to the fact the occupants got a good deal. This may not be important (more important when looking at houses for purchase probably) - but worth bearing in mind. So, given the above, I'd be tempted to go for putting in people's actual rates, and using the defaults where these aren't available.

Either way though, there's an argument for not including it in the 'questionnaire section' - or at least maybe just adding a prompt here for the assessor to fill it out in the 'Current Energy Use' page instead. This is that on most occasions, people can't quote these figures off the top of their head. Usually we either take photos of bills while we're in the home, and have to work all of this out later (energy use and costs), sometimes using an average over a couple of years of bills - or people send on the information before/ after. So I don't think it needs to sit in the questionnaire section - saving Carlos a bit of work! (If we find that workflow changes, we can always make adjust this later, but it's not important for the tech release, it's just a change of protocol for assessors).

Hope that all makes sense?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/issues/220#issuecomment-272626088, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APihMf0E-kSqQ-AsAIODgNFZuZR0IrIcks5rSNX9gaJpZM4Li0-S.

[ghost]

Agree - we should be using the 2015 cost figures produced by BRE - but have put this at #226 as Carlos can then update alongside carbon and primary energy factors, as these are all kept in the same place in the code (I think).

[gervasemangwana]

Ah. Right well that’s starting to make a bit more sense.

Those are the figures in the “fuel Requirements” section of Calla’s assessment. Whereas those in the current energy are, I think, the SAP defaults and much cheaper.

Carlos: Can we get those to be coming from the same source?

Gervase Mangwana

Waxwing Energy 07956378981 info@waxwingenergy.co.uk

On 14 Jan 2017, at 15:07, marianneURBED notifications@github.com wrote:

Agree - we should be using the 2015 cost figures produced by BRE.

Attached here: BRE SAP-fuel-prices-July-2015-summary.xls.pdf https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/files/706012/BRE.SAP-fuel-prices-July-2015-summary.xls.pdf — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/issues/220#issuecomment-272629781, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APihMVKwwytH3YbisRtal5K3U2uj9nH2ks5rSOSegaJpZM4Li0-S.

[ghost]

There is an issue here - there are discrepancies for the numbers reported, so the calculation must be doing different things at different points, which isn't very helpful.

Using one assessment as an example:

• On the Current Energy Use Page, in the totals summary, Total Energy Cost is reported as £1529.00
• On the same page the total for Electricity is given as £465.20 and for gas as £663.80 - adding up to £1129.2
  • On the Fuel Requirements page, the total energy cost is obviously different, as it is based on modelled figures - but the unit costs and standing charge are different, giving a false comparison.

So three things:

• Can we work out what's going on with the energy costs on the current energy use page - why different totals are being given?
• Can we make it so there is only one place we enter the unit costs and standing charge? Suggest we do this on the 'current energy' page and this just carries through to the other scenarios (would make sense for this to also be the place where you can amend the carbon and primary energy - but this is probably less crucial). This way, we make sure these figures are carried across all the scenarios, and we're not getting false comparisons because of differences in fuel costs.
• Can we make sure that the default costs are as per the attached, as previously discussed. On the current energy page they currently seem to default to older figures. We can obviously still put in householder's actual tariff where we have them.

BRE SAP-fuel-prices-July-2015-summary.xls.pdf

Thanks,

Marianne

[ghost]

To add to this, I'm suspicious that the carbon and primary energy multipliers being used on 'current energy' are the same as the ones being used for the model. Otherwise makes figures 7, 8, and 9 incorrect. Can we check this please, as a matter of urgency!

[cagabi]

After conversation with Marianne: high priority here Can we work out what's going on with the energy costs

[cagabi]

I have worked out the problem with the calculation in Current Energy and it was that the standing charges for every fuel wer added to the total cost even if the quantity of fuel used was zero. Now it is fixed.

I'm looking now at the issue of using the same source of values in Current Energy and Fuel Requirements but I can say already it is going to be more complicated as, to start with we haven't got the same fuels in both places... but there may be common values to apply to the ones in the same group...

[cagabi]

I have had a good look at how Current Energy and Fuel Requirements work. The solution is not complicated: just to replace the dropdown list in Current Energy to display the fuels we use everywhere else. The implications of it is that I have to remake most of the Current Energy view and the calculations for the totals and write a backwards compatibility script (this time this is not that much for us but for openenergymonitor users once Trystan upgrades to this new changes).

I am not very sure when this will be ready

[cagabi]

Do we want to keep the tick box for 100% green electricity?

[ghost]

I'd really like to get rid of it.

I don't think the idea of 'green electricity' holds up under examination on the averaging basis that the assessment is set up on. It's based on double-counting.

If you claim all of the 'greenness' of the electricity you buy from the grid for yourself, it would mean raising the average CO2 intensity for everyone else - as it's all still in reality coming from the grid. (Especially for those 'green' providers who aren't even investing in new renewable capacity).

There is something around time of use and possibly even virtual local grids etc - but that's for 'real time' performance, and not something that can be modelled in the monthly averaging of this tool.

Definitely something to be discussed around future integration of the monitoring and real time carbon performance and primary energy performance of the electricity used in the house, and whether we can improve further on grid averages by changing behaviour/ demand response - but the 'green electricity' tick box just doesn't cut it.

Feel free to disagree.....

On 3 March 2017 at 11:55, carlos Alonso Gabizón notifications@github.com wrote:

Do we want to keep the tick box for 100% green electricity?

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/issues/220#issuecomment-283935685, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APjOK--ByVjUemvw-sunyRQZFbp6d0dMks5rh_-VgaJpZM4Li0-S .

-- Marianne Heaslip Associate Principal

URBED (Urbanism Environment and Design) Ltda. 5th Floor, 10 Little Lever Street, Manchester, M1 1HR t. +44 (0)161 200 5500 <%2B44%20%280%29161%20200%205509> e. marianne@urbed.coop vicky@urbed.coop w. www.urbed.coop

Please note I work Wednesday to Friday. On other days, please contact my colleague Lorenza Casini.

Urban Design Group Awards 2015 - Winner in the Best Practice Category for Trent Basin Wolfson Economics Prize 2014 - Winner: Uxcester Garden City Proposal Community Land Trust Network Awards 2012 - Awarded for excellence in community engagement 2Up 2Down / Homebaked URBED (Urbanism Environment & Design ) Ltd is a limited company with co-operative rules registered in England and Wales NO. 5741006. Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.urbed.coop/emaildisclaimer http://www.urbed.coop/emaildisclaimer.

Please save paper and only print this email if you have to.

[ghost]

On the Current Energy Issues you said:

_I have had a good look at how Current Energy and Fuel Requirements work. The solution is not complicated: just to replace the dropdown list in Current Energy to display the fuels we use everywhere else. The implications of it is that I have to remake most of the Current Energy view and the calculations for the totals and write a backwards compatibility script (this time this is not that much for us but for openenergymonitor users once Trystan upgrades to this new changes).

I am not very sure when this will be ready_

The key issue for doing the assessments is that the multipliers carbon, primary energy and cost for each fuel need to match for this 'actual' energy use data, and the data in the model. Otherwise, it's not possible to make a fair comparison from where they are now to where the model says they should and could be. So fixing this is really urgent, and I wouldn't want to issue an assessment without it (as the data would just be wrong).

[cagabi]

Ok, everything is done and seems to be working ok. Next time you open an assessment, Current Energy will llok a bit different. Now it is more like Fuel Requirements.

Comments:

• As requested Current Energy and Fuel Requirements use the same values for unit cost, standing charge and coefficient factors and those values can only be changed in Current Energy
• In the old version of Current Energy it was possible to add cubic meters of wood and pellets, litrs of oil and kg of gas bottles. Not possible anymore. Instead I have added some help (when hovering over the question mark next to Annual use) that shows the conversion factors used in the old Current Energy. Marianne I think you should check them
• In the old Current Energy it was possible to specify some use of eletricity for Space Heating (while solid fuels where always heating). Again there wasn't a simple way to keep it, so it's gone. Do you want it there? I can probably find a work around despite I don't think it is very realistic to be able to know from a bill how much is going for heating and how much for the rest
• Also I checked and the price for the fuels are the ones in the pdf
• Green Energy tariff: no intention to discuss, I leave it for you and Trystan. I got rid of it.

I think that is all.

[ghost]

Hi Carlos,

That all looks good.

Two things:

• The CO2 values for wood logs still need to be updated - should be 0.39, as other types of wood.
• CO2 and primary energy values for mains gas and electricity not quite right - should be as per attached PDF (as agreed previously, we'll use the long-term average for leccy).

Emission-and-primary-factors-2013-2027.pdf

0.222 and 1.28 for Gas 0.381 and 3.28 for Electricity (all types, import and export)

Thanks!

[ghost]

Sorry, I will also check the conversion factors - but not til later....

[cagabi]

Hi Marianne,

Those CO2 and primary energy factors are already in there. The reason why you may still see old ones is because once an assessment is created all the default values for the factors are copied into the user's data. Then if the user changes any of those values (or price of fuel) those changes are kept as part of the user's data.

I guess we implemented it like this in order to keep user's fuel prices but maybe we don't want this behaviour for the CO2 and primary energy factors (and the user couldn't change them). I can easily change it if you want, let me know

[gervasemangwana]

Yes it sounds like it should not be assessment locked. As the CO2 factors may change. Good to have fun prices locked though.

Gervase Mangwana

Waxwing Energy 07956378981 info@waxwingenergy.co.uk

On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:45, carlos Alonso Gabizón notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Marianne,

Those CO2 and primary energy factors are already in there. The reason why you may still see old ones is because once an assessment is created all the default values for the factors are copied into the user's data. Then if the user changes any of those values (or price of fuel) those changes are kept as part of the user's data.

I guess we implemented it like this in order to keep user's fuel prices but maybe we don't want this behaviour for the CO2 and primary energy factors (and the user couldn't change them). I can easily change it if you want, let me know

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/issues/220#issuecomment-284724861, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APihMcRQD3ZeRAfv2RGprn387ANEjXIsks5rjV9sgaJpZM4Li0-S.

[cagabi]

I'll go with Gervase in this one and I assume Marianne you will happy with it

[ghost]

Hi Carlos,

Hang on!

Tried checking earlier to make sure I understood exactly what you meant here by starting a new assessment - but at the moment when I do that, I can't see any fields to add data in! Just see attached screenshot:

This is happening in both Chrome and Fire fox - a bit worrying!

Marianne

[cagabi]

Upss, give me a second

[cagabi]

Fixed

[cagabi]

I'll wait to hear from you Marianne, no rush

[ghost]

Hi,

Responding on this finally!

I think auto-populating the CO2, Primary Energy and cost factors as we do now, but then still allowing edibility, makes most sense for now. It gives some guidance/commonality across assessments, but also allows flexibility.

I realise this means that on old assessments, if we update the costs and multiplication factors, already entered assessments won't change - but I think by using the long-term one for electricity supply CO2 especially, which is what is likely to change the most in the next 5-10 years, we're hedging against having to change them lots and lots anyway. And costs are the thing that are much more liable to change, but also are dependent on individual tariffs etc - so allowing flexibility here seems very sensible. So nothing to do there then!

On the conversion factors, please amend pop-up to:

"Wood logs: 1m3 =1380kWh (assumes stacked measure, with gaps) Wood Pellets: 1m3 = 4230kWh Mains Gas: 1m3 = 11.18 kWh Mains Gas: 1ft3 = 31.7kWh Oil: 1L = 10.35kWh Bottled Gas (LPG): 1L = 7.11kWh Bottled gas (LPG): 1kg = 13.89 kWh Coal: 1 kg = 8.34kWh Smokeless fuel: 1kg = 8.9kWh Anthracite: 1kg = 9.66 kWh *Note, calorific value of mains gas does vary over time and by region - you can check against current figures, or use this as an approximation"

Thanks!

[ghost]

Hi Carlos, The Fuels manager is great! - solves a few problems in one go - making sure fuel costs etc are consistent across current energy and all scenarios are consistent, whilst still being editable (and in a way that means we can apply it to existing assessments too). Good job!

Think the only thing left in this is to update the conversion factors on the ? note on annual use in the current energy page - which is not as important, so have set this just as 'high priority'.

One minor thing - have checked and it's clearly adding up right, but the CO2 factor isn't showing up as a number in the current energy table - see image.

Thanks.

[gervasemangwana]

Wow

That is rather special. Neat solution to multiple challenges. And retrospectivable too (that’s a new word I just made up by the way, you're welcome). Nice work you two!

I notice annual standing charges for 7 and 10 hour tariffs are very low at £12 and £13 respectively. I’m not familiar with that sort of tariff but that sounds more like it could be a pence per day number. Still cheap at that too.

cheers

Gervase Mangwana

Waxwing Energy 07956378981 info@waxwingenergy.co.uk

On 29 Mar 2017, at 16:09, marianneURBED notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Carlos, The Fuels manager is great! - solves a few problems in one go - making sure fuel costs etc are consistent across current energy and all scenarios are consistent, whilst still being editable (and in a way that means we can apply it to existing assessments too). Good job!

Think the only thing left in this is to update the conversion factors on the ? note on annual use in the current energy page.

One minor thing - have checked and it's clearly adding up right, but the CO2 factor isn't showing up as a number in the current energy table - see image. https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/16305707/24461756/0cc2e90a-149a-11e7-9ebd-822a6ec757fa.png — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/issues/220#issuecomment-290120607, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APihMQ3TlGmh6RdK-o06QBbZ3g-wqseoks5rqnQfgaJpZM4Li0-S.

[cagabi]

Marianne, I have done the conversions and fixed the bug.

Gervase, very good point. Those values come from the attached table that Marianne posted in here https://github.com/emoncms/MyHomeEnergyPlanner/issues/220#issuecomment-281989241

What is missing in that table is something they say in SAP2012 table 12 note a (p.226): The standing charge given for electric off-peak tariffs is extra amount, over and above the amount for the standard domestic tariff. This note applies to 7 hour and 10 hour, I understand it means that the standing charge for 7 hour will be Standard tariff + 7 hour = 66 + 13 = 79

BRE.SAP-fuel-prices-July-2015-summary.xls (3).pdf

I have updated the default values and run a script to change it in every assessment

So now I think we are done with it. I'll close the issue but feel free to open it again if needed