Nope, you only have to be "competent".
Not having to argue with insurance companies in the event of claim that may involve the gas work is about the only valid resson for useing a registered fitter. Assuming you are "competent" and can demonstrate that all the regulations and fitting instructions were followed.
minutes.
No subsidy deal, they distort the "free market". Generators have to stand or fall based on undistorted enconomics, driven by the requiremnets for a stable grid and energy security.
Quite. An insurance company can't get out of its responsibilities simply for the lack of a piece of paper. They might well try, of course.
My house came with an Ideal WRS440 which was hardly new at that time, in the 24 years since it has required one thermocouple and some fire clay, I have zero intention of replacing it while spares are available.
I agree. Just highlighting how these things get to exist in a free market.
We've got a 34 year old Gloworm boiler in a rented house. Our Gas tester reckons it was a superb design in its simplicity and it's in fine fettle having only required a new thermostat in all that time!.
Because we used to receive some rather delicate FM signals there once, I changed the switch that controls the Gas valve to two back to back Thyristors in around 1980 and they work fine still with no RF interference either..
If you rely on the "free market" alone you end up in the shit. As we are right now with power stations.
Nobody knows the cost of nuclear power because nobody knows the cost of dealing with the waste. Ongoing and increasing.
A drivel article. The answer to the problem is to drain the condensate to an internal drain, ie not exposed to frost.
If you get enough insulation, you don't need any boiler.
Well they know the cost better than with solar and wind where you can't predict the weather a week in advance let alone 20 years. So you don't know how much either will cost or how much you need to build.
What we do know is that you *need* the same amount of generating capacity in the form of fossil or nukes as you need in wind and solar or some super efficient storage system that doesn't exist.
You have two choices Harry:
1) The article you linked to has got its facts wrong about nuclear power, in which case nothing in the article can be trusted to be accurate, or;2) The article has got all of its facts right and nuclear is no more expensive than wind or solar.
To help you decide, here is the latest government report on the costs of different generation technologies:
They don't know the cost of nuclear waste disposal either. They have never done it. No-one has. Some are/have tried.
Ergo any prices given are conjecture.
When it's cold you just take a blowtorch to the celotex?
All the figures in the original article are conjecture, in particular "the costs of ?external? factors like air quality, human toxicity and climate change". Those are no more possible to estimate with accuracy than the costs of nuclear waste disposal (actually, I suspect the latter are a lot more easily estimated, at least to a better approximation).
Ergo, the whole article is 'bollix' (your favourite term, Harry)!
I was rather under the impression that the government had more than half a century of experience in the field.
So, your choice is that the article you posted a link to is completely unreliable and should be ignored.
In article , harryagain scribeth thus
Harry, just Get REAL will you, you may have room to add as much insulation as you like..
Now every other house flat etc in the UK has such an opportunity!...
In message , harryagain writes
Nonsense. The free market is hamstrung by dithering politicians and EU bureaucracy
Most of the problems with the electricity market are due to distortions introduced by greenies (Large Combustion Plant Directive) or subsidies for unreliable and intermiitent "green" technologies.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.