Green Building Forum - appearance doesn't matter Mon, 25 May 2026 14:06:18 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11603#Comment_11603 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11603#Comment_11603 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:21:22 +0000 fostertom Posted By: passivhausfanIs that irony?Yes
Posted By: passivhausfanIf you want peace and quiet buy a huge estate and leave other people's property alone.
to be built over at will, you mean?]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11604#Comment_11604 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11604#Comment_11604 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:43:57 +0000 Chris Wardle
I think fossil energy was a one off and we have use it to dig an almightly hole for ourselves. Do we keep digging (i.e. burn through all the coal, heavy oil, methane hydrates etc) or do we start trying to climb out (i.e. implement alternative energies, cut population back, start making do with less)?]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11607#Comment_11607 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11607#Comment_11607 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:10:04 +0000 passivhausfan
Yes. That is the meaning of several property.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11608#Comment_11608 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11608#Comment_11608 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:17:12 +0000 jon
I also agree with a lot of his comment. Wolf is one of the better commentators on the FT. Other than keep digging or trying to climb out, the easy way out to allow growth is Nuclear and cross our fingers, for future generations, that fusion will come together: Once we are fully on the path to Nuclear, alternatives development will be exceptionally difficult as, by then, the planning system will revolve around Nuclear planning ('densification' of housing, restriction of travel and large scale farming methods.. if agricultural supply becomes difficult as a result of the reduction in carbon supply).

The vast majority of people would probably choose Nuclear if presented with the alternatives currently available. The difficulty perhaps is that there are no viable well thought out alternatives being offered that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would accept. It is also perhaps unfortunate that all the planning guidance currently available to write the new Sustainability Frameworks was drawn up before the Climate Bill and its associated documents.

In my opinion, we therefore only have the Nuclear option left: Nimbyism will almost certainly defeat any well intentioned motives of local councils minded to allow innovation away from the Nuclear model. (though we should still try perhaps)]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11631#Comment_11631 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11631#Comment_11631 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:53:51 +0000 fostertom Posted By: jonthere are no viable well thought out alternatives being offeredThat's an open invitation to rebuttal - let's summarise all the well-founded alternatives that are currently out there - here's my starter: taking almost the entire building stock, existing and newbuild, off-grid, for heat vent and cooling. How? See other threads on this forum.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11632#Comment_11632 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11632#Comment_11632 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:31:15 +0000 biffvernon Free download from http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11648#Comment_11648 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11648#Comment_11648 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:34:30 +0000 jon
"The difficulty perhaps is that there are no viable well thought out alternatives being offered that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would accept"

I don't mind criticism of my point of view. I think criticising or trying to demean an inferred point of view does not do the forum a service.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11649#Comment_11649 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11649#Comment_11649 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:31:20 +0000 fostertom appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11651#Comment_11651 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11651#Comment_11651 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:57:48 +0000 jon
Yes, I agree that there may be viable alternatives. However I have not seen any proven viable alternatives that I think the ordinary man would accept on this forum. The lack of ability to prove, or otherwise, viable alternatives in the UK is a significant obstruction in my opinion: This is a function of the planning system which is, in my opinion, being geared towards Nuclear by default.

edit: So I agree that if people understood, they may be persuaded to agree. However, the ordinary man will, in my opinion, only be persuaded by being shown a real living environment with real associated costs. He will not be persuaded by theory.

We are on a path to one or the other as, once the Nuclear path is set, there is unlikely to be an economic return path: It is exceptionally expensive to go along the nuclear route but, once it is there, the supply of electricity should allow expansion at some cost without sacrifice of material benefit.

Persuading people to give up things is very difficult. IMHO, This is a cross-over point: Once Nuclear is in-situ there will no longer remain any reason to make sacrifice (to avoid large scale nuclear planning) and there will be no turning back.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11652#Comment_11652 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11652#Comment_11652 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:11:42 +0000 Bowman
http://www.livingvillages.com/

If I had to live in a new town I'd like to live somewhere like this...]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11660#Comment_11660 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11660#Comment_11660 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:46:05 +0000 fostertom Posted By: jonsacrificeThat word is quasi-missionary and it's not surprising that people recoil from it, and it's not surprising that people who use it, despair. It's a way of approaching the eco-issue that defeats itself. We don't have to think it's an alternative between business-as-usual, or sacrifice (or even business as promised by Tony Blair to buy their nukes, as the price of being allowed to remain America's best friend). Many of the eco-alternatives e.g. "taking almost the entire building stock, existing and newbuild, off-grid, for heat vent and cooling" are attractive in their own right, offering a continued excellent lifestyle, for inherently an ever-widening slice of the population.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11665#Comment_11665 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11665#Comment_11665 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:15:17 +0000 jon
I have seen only two off-grid solutions. One worked well (Hockerton), the other was a complete waste of time and effort that would convince only the gullible. To do this I had to: 1: travel over a hundred miles each way in each case and 2: pay for the privilege. Not many people would do this.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11667#Comment_11667 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11667#Comment_11667 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:20:42 +0000 Chris Wardle
Fact is we don't have a energy source with a higher EROEI than conventional oil and production peaked in 2005. We can certainly try and soften the blow by becoming more efficient in our use of energy and try to harness any source with a positive EROEI that we can, but this will only delay the inevitable. To make matters worse, we are using more than our fair share and that is not sustainable long term.

I think our material standards of living in the West will have to fall a very long way before an equilibrium is reached. The only way out of this is the use of fast breeder reactors or nuclear fusion and it seems neither of these technologies work at the moment.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11673#Comment_11673 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11673#Comment_11673 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:30:38 +0000 fostertom Posted By: Chris WardleI'm not convinced that we can go through a successful energy transistion .... without sacrificing our currently material living standards The 'sacrifice' idea is one that appeals to many, and now that old religious forms have lost much credibility, here's a new quasi-religion that seems to demand sackcloth and ashes, for our hitherto sinful ways.
Posted By: Chris Wardleas the energy return on the energy invested (EROEI) in a society goes into decline, that society starts to unravel
Yes, up to now - and there's a push-pull going on, between old thinking that could indeed lead to same old outcomes (the American empire looks ripe for collapse); and unprecedented new thinking, an explosion of new consciousness, ever-widening technical understanding (epitomised by this forum). The world's presently in that ultra-sensitive window of a few years, when change happens at ever-increasing rate and the tiniest flap of a butterfly's wing can set off a new weather system (that's good chaos theory) and the outcome will be inherently unpredictable. All we can do is create a continuity - some at least of us to live 'as if' the best possible outcome is already here. And for god's sake can't we leave behind the guilty old expectations of doom, punishment and suffering, which it's so easy to make come true. "Be realistic - plan for a miracle!"]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11681#Comment_11681 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11681#Comment_11681 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:42:58 +0000 jon
I wouldn't call it musty: It has the feel of a castle as the air cools at the end of the day: Slightly more moisture in the air than would be normal in a modern house. Simon, Nick and the gang do have quite a different lifestyle which would be atypical to anyone else trying to do the same (as they are pioneering some of the concepts and thus getting funding) Do you know of a better off grid, or semi-off grid, example than Hockerton?]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11687#Comment_11687 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11687#Comment_11687 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:34:37 +0000 TheDoctor
i am from the school of thought that form follows function, and that nature answers many structural questions very elegantly.
further examples are aero and aqua dynamic forms - very elegant, and derived from nature.

a green building need not be a cuboid bunker, and does not need to be to function well.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11719#Comment_11719 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11719#Comment_11719 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:32:43 +0000 fostertom http://www.future-systems.com/architecture/architecture_10.html# - one for you too, jon. I've seen even better pics somewhere, incl from out at sea.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11727#Comment_11727 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11727#Comment_11727 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:23:14 +0000 jon
But with all that glass it's not off-grid or low energy consumption is it? It's also a lot of structural stainless steel (very bad environmentally even when annualised). So.. it looks like a rather expensive, not CO2 emission friendly, niche house to me.

Edit: So we don't actually have any better examples than Hockerton? Simon mentioned to me that his local planning officer told him that if Hockerton were put in for planning today, it would not be allowed.

I know from my own experience that it is exceptionally difficult to get anything new or different through planning. It's also usually exceptionally expensive and so 'off-grid' is only a game for the rich philanthropist.

Anything else even approaching off grid depends heavily on the local authority. For example, over here in Essex, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get any sort of permission for anything other than tall boxes or recreations of past ages. Over in Hertfordshire you have a better chance but still very difficult. Some authorities in Suffolk have a relaxed stance. But overall, if you wanted to go off-grid or even semi-off-grid, the system is stacked against you.

Just an opinion. This is why I think that the Nuclear train is almost inevitable.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11730#Comment_11730 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11730#Comment_11730 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:36:43 +0000 Paul in Montreal Posted By: jonThis is why I think that the Nuclear train is almost inevitable.

As has been pointed out many times already, the nuclear train is a dead end. There's just not enough uranium to last more than about 30-50 years at the current rate of use, let alone if more power plants are built. It could only work with breeder reactors, but they have not been successful at all so far.

Oh, yes, where are most uranium reserves located anyway? Not in the UK that's for sure. I know Canada has a lot ... but then so does Russia - not exactly a sustainable situation is it? I would imagine most of Canada's uranium will be used to power the steam raising plants that are being mooted right now to extract the oil from the tar sands in Alberta.

Paul in Montreal]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11731#Comment_11731 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11731#Comment_11731 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:42:14 +0000 fostertom Posted By: jonwith all that glass it's not off-grid or low energy consumption is it? It's also a lot of structural stainless steel (very bad environmentally even when annualised). So.. it looks like a rather expensive, not CO2 emission friendly, niche house to me.True - it was some time ago, and an imperfect but important pointer to the future. However, "all that glass", played the AGS way (see http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=963 ), far from ruling out off-grid or low energy consumption, is actually the key (or one of the alternative keys) to achieving just that.
Posted By: jonwe don't actually have any better examples than Hockerton?
I'm sure we do, well in the NW Rockies, anyway, as in the above link. Beyond that, I hope to be providing easy-living built examples - three projects I'm working on now, using AGS principles, development by Tas thermal simulation - one an uprate of a 1984 bungalow, one an uprate of a traditional 3-storey farmhouse, one a semi-buried newbuild.
Posted By: jonexceptionally difficult to get anything new or different through planning
I've found most things possible - just don't alert them (don't risk inviting a safe 'no' on the record), hit them hard with a convincing scheme, documentation, mobilisation of eco-friendly councillors and local bodies, determination - that works, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted By: jondifficult, if not impossible, to get any sort of permission for anything other than tall boxes or recreations of past ages
That's what you get if you don't make a very special case out of it.
Posted By: jonif you wanted to go off-grid or even semi-off-grid, the system is stacked against you
What else would you expect, as a pioneer? In your case jon, knowing something of your ambitious and groundbreaking plans, I agree you're in difficulty, trying to get big official support for an unbuilt concept.
Posted By: jonI think that the Nuclear train is almost inevitable
It's not over yet, by a long way!]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11736#Comment_11736 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11736#Comment_11736 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:55:35 +0000 Chris Wardle appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11750#Comment_11750 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11750#Comment_11750 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:27:33 +0000 jon
Are you sure that there's only 30-50 years supply? This certainly seems out of kilter with the information produced by the UK government as part of their Energy White Papers (I've read all the papers and associated backup literature). Are they wrong and if so, what is the source that proves them wrong?

Tom

The fact that you have to mobilise councillors at all surely proves the case? I've looked at the timings necessary to implement nuclear and the possible timings that could be made to convert the planning system. In my opinion it will be easier for Government to implement Nuclear than to change the planning system. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and then whoever is right buys the other a beer in a decade's time?]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11751#Comment_11751 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11751#Comment_11751 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:32:50 +0000 fostertom Posted By: Chris Wardleoffered to buy and eat a hat if we see 69p petrol againEasy - just abolish the 48p/litre tax on petrol. What will our poor govt do for money when we all stop buying petrol and cigs?]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11752#Comment_11752 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11752#Comment_11752 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:36:18 +0000 fostertom Posted By: jonThe fact that you have to mobilise councillors at all surely proves the case?It's called democracy - they're there to represent us. That's one thing that Americans would have no confusion about. The scandal is that recent rules of conduct have made it very difficult for Councillors to listen to legitimate lobbying, or to seek to inform themselves - on Planning matters anyway.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11754#Comment_11754 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11754#Comment_11754 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:41:15 +0000 steveleigh appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11755#Comment_11755 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11755#Comment_11755 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:45:20 +0000 Paul in Montreal Posted By: jonAre you sure that there's only 30-50 years supply? This certainly seems out of kilter with the information produced by the UK government as part of their Energy White Papers (I've read all the papers and associated backup literature). Are they wrong and if so, what is the source that proves them wrong?

From http://www.bnes.com/myths.html (hardly an anti-nuclear source)

The current rate of use is about 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, according to the World Nuclear Association. Allowing for some reprocessing, this means that currently known resources are enough to last for about 45 years, even when used in conventional reactors (i.e. with no breeding).

See also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070321092710.htm "Lack Of Fuel May Limit US Nuclear Power Expansion"

Also don't forget that vast amounts of fossil fuel is required to mine the uranium ore (and process it) in the first place.

Of course, if the price goes up, so will the reserves too - just like with oil.

Paul in Montreal.]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11757#Comment_11757 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11757#Comment_11757 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:05:10 +0000 jon
You've said 45 years whereas the site you refer to says 45 years based on 70,000 tonnes/annum with probable resources of 12,000,000 tonnes. The site ends with the quote "There is no shortage of nuclear fuel, nor is one foreseen."

Which doesn't exactly make your case: But I agree that inevitably nuclear will be a dead-end. Is that fact that it will be a dead end sufficient to make the man on the Clapham Omnibus reject it do you think?

I agree that the site is probably one of the most authoritative sources available. Edit but on second thoughts I would have preferred to have a source from a panel of the ICE rather than a society within the ICE.

I also note the assertion that fossil fuel is required to mine it: The site says that "A recent example was the assertion that nuclear energy does not help in the battle against global warming as it generates more carbon di-oxide during mining and fuel fabrication that it saves during power generation". I was there when this assertion was made (by a leading proponent of wind power) and so was, from my recollection, one of the Honorable Lords behind the EWP paper. At the time the comment was not rebutted but it does seem to be on this site.

jon]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11758#Comment_11758 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11758#Comment_11758 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:17:44 +0000 James Norton
RE:
"A recent example was the assertion that nuclear energy does not help in the battle against global warming as it generates more carbon di-oxide during mining and fuel fabrication that it saves during power generation"

I've often felt that the nuclear =CO2 neutral; is not the full story an further supporting data on this one...?

RE: 'appearance doesn't matter'
...'course it does.
( but... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, take wind turbines for eg...)]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11759#Comment_11759 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11759#Comment_11759 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:28:01 +0000 jon
Well at the event described, back in mid October, Mark Whitby, who is a past Chairman of the ICE, said that the real costs of extraction were (from recollection) magnitudes higher than those cited in the EWP]]> appearance doesn't matter https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11760#Comment_11760 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=129&Focus=11760#Comment_11760 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:28:41 +0000 Niggle
I am trying to obtain a reasonable perspective on them, but seem only to find cosy write ups by their fans, or crude demolitions by their opponents

BTW whatever happened to Salter's Ducks?]]>