Green Building Forum - appearance doesn't matter

appearance doesn't matter

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:23:59 +0000

Posted By: jonYou'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."

The 70kTU/annum is current usage rate - this doesn't, of course, take into account any expansion in the building of reactors. There's lots of reserves, but it depends on the cost. There's also lots of reserves of oil (e.g. oil shale in the Yellowstone national part area in the US) but that doesn't mean it's economic to extract these (oil or uranium). The money that would be invested in building reactors would be much better spent in building large solar installations IMHO - there's no problem down the road with waste storage and there's no uncertainty of supply - note that, apart from Canada and Australia, a lot of the Uranium reserves are not in exactly friendly locations. The sad thing is that for 1/10th of what was wasted in the Iraq adventure, a solar installation could have been built in Arizona that would supply all of North America.

Nuclear fission really is a dead end IMHO - the only sustainable energy source is solar (and its many incarnations: wind, wave, hydro). The other use of solar, biofuels, is better used on feeding people rather than providing transport and heat IMHO.

Paul in Montreal.

p.s. I do believe appearance is important too - which is why when we rebuilt an 1888 house that was unsalvagable, the new house looks more like the old one than the old one did

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:17:47 +0000

I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said Paul

However, is the future well-being of our great.g....t great grandchildren sufficient to make people sacrifice one or more parts of what they own now (be that countryside, wealth or whatever measure you choose) if Nuclear can provide an easier way out until the end of their days? The solar installation you describe would not provide constant power without storage so this requires either a sacrifice of times during which power is available or a higher delivery cost.

I too think that appearance does matter. However a high dependence on appearances produces a situation where appearance is viewed as more important than well-being. By going Nuclear, the country can keep its existing appearance without modification or apparent relative sacrifice for those that live through the period. It can also keep its existing structure: No losses for those that already have and therefore lower likelihoods of social disorder.

Does appearance matter if this is likely to be the conclusion of the man on the Clapham Omnibus?

appearance doesn't matter

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:26:52 +0000

Posted By: jonThe solar installation you describe would not provide constant power without storage so this requires either a sacrifice of times during which power is available or a higher delivery cost.

Sure it would - it's not difficult with today's technology to include some storage - it could be in the form of rotating converters (a.k.a. giant flywheels - these are already used as UPS systems where batteries can't be used) or in the form of electrolytic fuel cell stores. Some of the proposed solar structures use conventional steam raising to power the generators - even with the limits due to thermodynamics, they can achieve solar->electricity conversion efficiencies in the mid 30s percent - which is higher than PV can currently provide in bulk. With 150billions dollars to play with, a heck of a lot can be achieved with relatively simple technology. Don't forget that 1.5Trillion dollars has been wasted in Iraq so far. The problem isn't a technological or a financial one, it's purely political. By the way, $150,000,000 is only around 1% of US GDP.

Paul in Montreal.

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:00:02 +0000

Paul, if I understand, there are no cost or technical problems, the storage you describe would not increase delivery costs as I stated and the whole problem could be solved by politicians if they so wished?

We should perhaps stop worrying about envionmental design and concentrate instead on the appearance of our buildings and countryside?

appearance doesn't matter

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:56:56 +0000

Posted By: jonPaul, if I understand, there are no cost or technical problems, the storage you describe would not increase delivery costs as I stated and the whole problem could be solved by politicians if they so wished

A solar solution would have to include storage to be viable so it wouldn't increase the delivery cost since it wouldn't be feasible without the storage component. Cost is certainly not an issue - the will to spend that kind of money on something constructive, though, is the problem. Politicians seem to have no problem committing trillions of dollars on destruction, but ask them to spend similar sums on something constructive and they all bleat that it's socialism and therefore evil. Strange world we live in.

I think environmental design and aesthetics can go hand in hand - it shouldn't be either / or but both. In fact, in my opinion, an inefficient design is aesthetically unpleasing and I would reject it if I was a planner. All building are inherenty "un-natural" from the perspective of the un-developed environment - but that's a pointless discussion as the environment is not undeveloped nor has it been for a long time. Problem is that's a matter of taste - and everyone's is different. I'm sure many in the UK would not like the house we built as it would look out of place in many locations; where we built it, though, it fits in very well with the local vernacular. It is certainly doesn't blend into the surrounding landscape though.

Paul in Montreal.

appearance doesn't matter

richy — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:01:15 +0000

Dunno. do we really needy to squander resources on seduction? If I was in a war, I would trade the nicest looking fallout shelter for the safest. It's greed and vanity that has brought mankind to the edge of destruction, maybe correcting those vices where architecture is concerned would make sense?

appearance doesn't matter

TheDoctor — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:35:21 +0000

Posted By: richyDunno. do we really needy to squander resources on seduction? If I was in a war, I would trade the nicest looking fallout shelter for the safest. It's greed and vanity that has brought mankind to the edge of destruction, maybe correcting those vices where architecture is concerned would make sense?

Richie, you're right. BUT - the 'masses' arent ready to accept there is a war. They simply will not buy your bunker yet. If the green technologies can be introduced into the market, and the market turned, in time, then your bunker may become prevalent, but not overnight.

The problem is, in your war scenario, YOU might die. In the current ecological climate, you are reasonably safe, and it is future generations that will suffer more, so the 'i'm alright jack' syndrome kicks in.

If you can get a green approach to building into mainstream construction, that does not RADICALLY overhaul the appearance of the god-awful rabbit hutches, then we are slowly winning the battle. slowly

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:53:33 +0000

>>A solar solution would have to include storage to be viable so it wouldn't increase the delivery cost since it wouldn't be feasible without the storage component.<<

Paul: I gather from this that It would be expensive. Why do you think cost is not an issue? Cost is always an issue relative to other things that can be done. It is particularly an issue if the route advocated requires subsidy from the taxpayer by comparision to other potential routes.

For many people, a logical conclusion of your argument, if you can indeed prove or persuade that it could be done economically, would be that Nuclear can be planned for now, and possibly installed later, as a long term but temporary measure whilst we develop 'global solar'. Another conclusion for many would be that other research, such a local solar collection and extensive work into insulating existing properties, can be given lip service with no further real consideration.

A conclusion for us, in the UK, would be that we can rely on the EU to eventually come up with global solar and that we can therefore go along the Nuclear and/or densification route, and do nothing about our planning laws, without having to worry about the long term future for our grandchildren.

And the comfortable conclusion can be drawn that, as energy supply is not really a problem, appearances are more important.

appearance doesn't matter

howdytom — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:08:37 +0000

"A conclusion for us, in the UK, would be that we can rely on the EU to eventually come up with global solar and that we can therefore go along the Nuclear and/or densification route, and do nothing about our planning laws, without having to worry about the long term future for our grandchildren."
jon
just what type of future are you proposing to leave .... thousand of tonnes of waste that has a half life longer than humans have ever existed, some how kept cool so it stays "stable" and they will have to pay for that storage infinitum !.all along, presuming that some evil types never ever do something....... well... evil !!!

tom

appearance doesn't matter

Paul in Montreal — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:14:31 +0000

Posted By: jonPaul: I gather from this that It would be expensive. Why do you think cost is not an issue? Cost is always an issue relative to other things that can be done. It is particularly an issue if the route advocated requires subsidy from the taxpayer by comparision to other potential routes.

How much do you think a nuclear reactor costs to build compared to a simple solar system with storage? Not only are nuclear reactors expensive, the decommissioning costs always seem to be forgotten. Don't forget that most of the UK's current nuclear plants are nearing their end-of-life and will costs billions to safely take out of service. There's also no supply safety in nuclear fuel - same problem as oil so it's really not a very attractive solution in any time frame. As for subsidies, the nuclear industry in the UK wouldn't exist without taxpayer subsidy. It must also be mentioned that, in large part, the nuclear industry was a front for the manufacture of nuclear weapons in the UK, at least initially.

The only difficulty with solar generation is that it needs lots of land area - this is why it's more a political problem than anything else. Imagine how many landowners would have to be approached to appropriate an area, say, 1/10th the size of the state of Arizona - though it's probably easier to do in North Africa. The technology itself is very simple compared to a reactor - and could probably be built faster too. Of course, it doesn't help grey and damp Britain achieve energy independence, so that's probably why the nuclear option is being considered. Hmmm, the UK doesn't have any uranium mines ... so it's hard to see how building reactors gives the UK any energy independence either.

I would think tidal barrages and offshore wind would be a better solution for the UK. Though environmentalists don't seem to like tidal power very much either. Better than filling the Irish sea with Caesium 139 though.

Paul in Montreal

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:37:38 +0000

Howdytom

I am not proposing anything. I am querying the basis of the question and taking the arguments given down their logical political route. Back to work on Monday!

:-)

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:51:22 +0000

Paul

>>How much do you think a nuclear reactor costs to build compared to a simple solar system with storage?<<

A nuclear reactor costs a lot. I have done a brief back of packet check on the flywheel solution you proposed and concluded that storage using the method is likely to be significantly less economic than Nuclear for the typical person: It's a very smple calc to estimate the sizing and associated storage energy of a rotating flywheel. I have only looked at the UK Government data for comparison on this to come to this conclusion (as I have all this information logged and to hand)

Do you have a better source for information on financial costs?

Please con't take this as criticism. If I, or anyone else, is to be persuaded that we should support an idea it is necessary to have information at hand that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the idea is:

1: Cost effective relative to the importance of the issue
2: Can be implemented in a graduated route
3: Is possible in the political environment

If the above conditions can not be met, then it is, in my opinion, worth spending time looking at other solutions. One of those solutions would be to allow more innovation in the UK to see if any SME builders and/or inventors out there can come up with an answer that none of us have thought about. And, in this case, innovation is more important than appearance.

If the above conditions can be met, then there is no need for innovation in the field. And appearance is more important than innovation.

appearance doesn't matter

steveleigh — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:36:20 +0000

Posted By: jonOne of those solutions would be to allow more innovation in the UK to see if any SME builders and/or inventors out there can come up with an answer that none of us have thought about. And, in this case, innovation is more important than appearance.
.

We have got the product and developed the method. We can deliver code 5 houses to any shape or size design so appearance is not a problem. We will do it this year and it is deliverable on a mass scale. We can upgrade existing domestic and industrial buildings to meet the highest environmental standards. Then nuclear power will not be required.

The leap to code 6 is probably about Â£10K on a PV array. Which is a similar cost as some heating systems.

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:55:45 +0000

Good on you Steve

So we should not look at either Nuclear or Paul's proposed solution(s) ?

Where abouts have you built a working version with real costs and real living conditions so that the man on the Clapham Omnibus can see for himself?

appearance doesn't matter

steveleigh — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:59:49 +0000

Jon,

No sorry I don't mean stop investing in future energy production.

We have been doing the costings of our system over the last few weeks and we are finding that we can do a code 5 envelope any shape or design for the cost of present day social housing costs and guarantee the performance.

We've concerntrated our efforts on costing for code 5. However, the figures are suggesting that zero carbon (code 6) can be met with a PV array on the roof. This means grid requirement is minimal because the building is so energy efficient.

At the moment we have got several offers of houses to upgrade. We will evaluate them over the next two weeks and then we will clad one. You will be welcome to have a look during and after construction.

I will video everything and we've got a list of top notch organisations who want to be involved in the monitoring.

Cheers

Steve

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:13:55 +0000

Hi Steve

Certainly looks interesting (roofcrete) as mentioned before. But, as the system is unproven, you fall into the 'innovation' group don't you: Where relaxations in planning permission for innovation to prove and develop would speed up the process and be useful to you as inventors/proposers?

Or do planning restrictions help you in that competitors systems or other technologies are delayed or sidelined giving you a competitive edge?

appearance doesn't matter

steveleigh — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:58:54 +0000

Jon,

As a waterproofing system it is well proven 7000+ installations are out there performing both vertically and horizontally without any change in performance. The new system is just encapsulating the whole envelope instead of part of it on external insulation. Therefore, making its watertight properties perform as an airtight and watertight seal..

The only innovation part is proposing a building which has neutral vapour pressure within the walls which is ventlilated by an MVHR. Which is a very simple concept as I've described in previous posts.

We have almost eliminated thermal bridging and I'm looking forward to seeing how much insulation is actually required with no air movement within the wall or roof fabric. Therefore, is it a 50%, 70% or even 90% reduction on the 400mm suggested for Passiv Haus walls?

The difference is now I'm putting my money where my mouth is and proving that if we can put a full stop to air infiltration then that will solve the energy leakage from buildings and reduce the energy requirement from the grid. We will also prove that if appearance does matter then we can build any style house to code 5.

appearance doesn't matter

jon — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:32:07 +0000

Good luck Steve

When you've built it and proven that the UK's problems can be solved by your system, I will switch my view.

In the meantime, I think that innovation in this field is probably more important than appearance.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:03:50 +0000

Posted By: steveleighJon,

We have almost eliminated thermal bridging and I'm looking forward to seeing how much insulation is actually required with no air movement within the wall or roof fabric. Therefore, is it a 50%, 70% or even 90% reduction on the 400mm suggested for Passiv Haus walls?

Steve, Re the elimination of thermal bridging, do you have any details showing how this is going to be achieved? for example at ground floor perimeters and eaves.

I'm also very interested in your [our] argument that air leakage has a far more significant effect on insulation than is commonly percieved. Placing figures on this however is rather difficut in my view. You've said that you don't think there is much to be gained by comparative testing, how then are you going to draw the conclusions you suggest?

appearance doesn't matter

steveleigh — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:14:01 +0000

Mike,

To avoid hijacking this post. I'll answer this on a more relevant post.

http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1044&page=1#Item_16

Cheers

Steve

appearance doesn't matter

joe.e — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:31:16 +0000

With regard to the original subject, is it not the case that lots of the aesthetics of architecture emerges from structural and material requirements? I'm thinking of the endless towering columns and arches in medieval cathedrals, oak hammer-beam roofs, the high gables on Swiss timber houses built to take huge snow-loads, vernacular British architecture - stone, slate, thatch and so on... Most of what I find appealing in a building is the result of neccessity and ingenuity, not stuck-on decorative detailing. Not that I'm against stuck-on detailing - I used to be a stained glass artist, but even stained glass arose from turning a solution to the practical difficulties of the materials - the inability of early glassmakers to make big, flat pieces- into an aesthetic opportunity.

appearance doesn't matter

caliwag — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:11:15 +0000

I guess this has drifted away from the original post...and brought back by Joe. I think the original question was probably apropos of domestic, but the problem prevails.
Surely, given the possiblities of computer forming, anything is now possible...viz Bilbao etc, but how desirable are these flagship lumps. They happen because they put indifferent cities on the map.
Anyway, domestically luckily people have not rushed to cover their des res with titanium zinc.
I believe, in the UK, most people want a cosy Arts and Crafts type house...despite the rubbish pushed on GD, as most post 20s houses are based on that form, at least till we had noddy boxes forced on us.
Give me a good inter-war semi anytime for character, style, flexibility and value...stick your Barrett box and everything after it.
BTW, wasn't Milton Keynes meant to be a show case for 70s British housing architecture...er!?
I think the architectural fraternity have been very quiet on that one.

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:43:49 +0000

Milton Keynes started as just that but changed course suddenly - anyone know why? It was very exciting and inspiring to start with, tho not every lay person agreed at the time - they tended to say why can't we have something 'normal'. Look what happened.

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:32:42 +0000

Interesting points, Joe.

Ruskin, who came to be so influential in the ensuing Arts and Crafts Movement, drew the distinction between Building and Architecture. See particularly the first chapter of The Seven Lamps. I agree that earlier British vernacular building is appealing and this arises from the the materials and methods employed. Architecture, Ruskin argues, is indeed just that 'stuck-on decorative detailing' or ornament that goes beyond mere building.

This is the Green Building Forum rather than the Green Architecture Forum, and perhaps that leads to emphasis on structure over form, U-values over appearance. Modern building materials give us components of a larger scale and machine made rather than hand wrought textures. If we use them the need for architecture rather than mere building is more pressing.

appearance doesn't matter

James Norton — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:00:13 +0000

I'd don't think Ruskin argued that architecture as we would understand the term is:

Posted By: biffvernonjust that 'stuck-on decorative detailing'

He was referring to the stylistic 'architecture' of his time, indeed Ruskin's work has played a key role in shaping what architecture is today, Although Norm and Rog' may well be out there displaying their grand erections, there's a quiet majority who understand and practice an architecture that is rooted in a response to materials, craft, and context as well as technology, performance and economy, buildability and user satisfaction, oh and just occasionally appearance (!).

J

For what its worth:

"A bicycle shed is a building. Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture"

Nikolaus Pevsner (1902-83)

appearance doesn't matter

James Norton — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:09:33 +0000

Posted By: James Nortonwho understand and practice an architecture that is....

(When we get a chance!!!)

and

"A bicycle shed is a building. Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture"

Cue Biff with dozens of pictures of the most finely wrought bike sheds in Chrisendom...!

J

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:25:52 +0000

In Bath there's a humble Georgian terrace called Frankley Buildings. I used to drive past and say ' it's not really architecture, just, frankley, buildings'.

What distinguishes architecture from building is a lot more than 'stuck-on decorative detailing'. For a start it's shape, ins and outs of the fabric, so for example the building seems to open up towards the view or the light, whilst seeming closed or 'turning its back' on the ugly neighbour or the traffic. A mere standard box-building, with or without good or crass decorative detailing, doesn't have the intelligence to do that. Although there are worthily 'architectural' buildings about that are boxes, with or without decorative detailing - but that will have been done for well-considered effect. And just because a building's been designed by an 'architect' doesn't mean it's 'architecture' - look around - almost everything new nowadays is architect-designed - what does that say?

appearance doesn't matter

joe.e — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:34:06 +0000

Surely building is the process and architecture is the planning of that process? We talk about vernacular architecture, which had no architects involved, but the builders certainly planned what they were doing. Good architecture can be badly built, and vice versa. I think Ruskin's point is a red herring, and it has a whiff of snobbery too - building is what you peasants do, whereas architecture is what we cultured people do. Personally, I find that structural and aesthetic concerns end up overlapping. For example, a catenary curve, with its constantly changing radius, has a lot in common with Hogarth's 'line of beauty'. That's why people find suspension bridges attractive.

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:42:56 +0000

Posted By: joe.ebuilding is the process and architecture is the planning of that process

I agree - we mean 'buildings of high architectural (or innocent/vernacular) quality' vs ' buildings where no one's cared about architectural quality' or ' buildings where someone's thought about architectural quality but failed dismally'.

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:50:16 +0000

Posted By: James Norton
Cue Biff with dozens of pictures of the most finely wrought bike sheds in Chrisendom...!

Sorry, no bike sheds, but my first chicken shed, c.1974, was designed and nailed together by an architect who was crashing out at ours whilst temporally er, between jobs. It sported a fine finial and decorative moldings retrieved from a skip. The architect then got a job working for Rogers (Zogolovitch and Gough).