Irregularities in DEAP

sydthebeat

I think we can start a thread on issues in DEAP where irregular, non sensical or counter productive results arise when sticking to the methodology.


Please post if youve come across anything strange when working up DEAP calculations


One obvious one, as outlined by creedp in this thread is where the renewable requirement is met by actually increasing energy demand. This is due to a number of factors:
1. the linking of the renewable requirement to a "per sq m" basis and not on a "percentile of energy demand" basis.
2. the rigid 0.1 factor inputted for secondary heating.

sydthebeat

another irregularity ive come across doing BERs on houses under the WHS is new build extensions which were not built in accordance with building regs.

ie a 1930s house with an extension built in 2005.
DEAP assumes a default u value of 0.37
Cavity pumping certificate shows a cavity of 120mm pumped.

By extraction new u value then equates to 0.17 !!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

which clearly its not!
so is it correct to use the methodology as directed, or should the assessor "assume" it was originally a cavity with nothing in it?

PaleRider

Be careful with Hot water tank volume. The DEAP calculation method works out volume - fair enough. But if the tank has a clearly stated volume eg label. SEAi don't except it unless it has a BS with it. It's a long story. I brought it up and they accept I have a case.