Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


widget @ surfing-waves.com




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2016 edited
     
    The main thing should be to invest any money raised into an improved system of energy generation and delivery.
    So if we accept that price does not make a huge difference and the market could stand a 20% increase, why not take advantage of this period of globally low energy prices, raise a few quid via taxation, and get that money invested in cleaning up gas turbine emissions. Environmentally this has to be better than adding a few MWh of battery storage to the grid.
    Or, for that matter, spending millions fighting our planning system to put in solar and wind farms, or an ASHP in a conservation area.

    On the issue of cleaning up gas emissions, I don't understand chemistry (and care even less for the subject), but how hard is it to clean up the flue gasses from a domestic boiler? Can we add CO2 scrubbers to them, even if they only collect 10 0r 15% of the gas. Is there the equivalent of a catalytic converter that helps with other pollutants, and a method of grabbing particulates.
    I know that natural gas is the best combustion fuel we currently have, but there is a lot of places burning it. And it is cheap, so can easily stand a price increase.

    Wood/coal/other solid fuel burners are easy to deal with, just make them illegal, that is very simple, it will not affect enough people nationally or locally, to affect anything political really.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2016
     
    I agree with your analysis, Steamy, that price IS the blunt tool that could make a difference, either directly in the minds of the masses or indirectly in raising funds to invest.
    cjard,s comments earlier, and his analogy of the, presumably normal, lovely bride to be, just shows however how irrational we humans can be. One day/night of fun and possibly a lifetime of regret, our "animal" species does it all the time,-- screw tomorrow.:sad:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: SteamyTea This is mainly caused by lack of understanding and education (as in no knowledge, not lack of intelligence)
    True, and really important to be clear about that. Even 'stupidity' doesn't prove lack of intelligence.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2016
     
    This is purely anecdotal, but Cornwall has had a pretty busy summer. Also, many of my colleagues in the catering/hospitality industry have reported that they have had a very good summer with takings up on last year. Many places have also decided to close up a month earlier than usual as 'they have made their money'.
    One reason for this is may be the relative cost of going to the Euro zone for a holiday has increased by between 10 to 15%.
    Another is the Poldark affect.
    Some have said the weather was better this summer (it wasn't).

    But regardless of the real reason, I think, and this is an opinion, not a fact, is that there is a perception that staying in the UK for a holiday was better value than going abroad this year (I suspect that next summer will be quieter). But I fail to see how anything that a family does on a rainy day that costs £100 is good value, think Eden Project, Flambards, Newquay Aquarium, parking in just about any town...

    So to me, the nominal, or absolute, price of anything is not affected by a rational process (the rational actor in the market place), it is more a case of the perceived value. So 'desirables' like a holiday can stand a much higher price than a necessity, like energy in the public mindset.
    I never hear that the government is ripping us off when we go away on holiday, but then I don't go away on holiday (I live in a holiday destination after all), but if a necessity goes up in price, then someone somewhere is profiteering.

    I think (and again this is not evidence based) that the public believe that they have no real choice when purchasing mundane necessities, and from the little research I have done, they are probably right. Yes you can get an impressive one off saving by swapping supplier, as long as you were on an expensive tariff and you swap to a lower tariff. You can't do that forever though.
    The banks are even worse.

    What the public could do though is to just use less. This will not work if every one cuts their consumption by say 30% overnight, the industry could not survive that sort of shock. But if there was a 10% decrease in usage over the next 3 years, the industry would probably react by closing a few, less efficient plants, not having to invest in infrastructure, and could probably hold prices relatively stable.
    • CommentAuthorIan1961
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    "If all houses had a rating such as heat lost per hour per cubic metre of volume that would help buyers/owners compare houses."

    Current Building Regs requirement via SAP for new build housing for heating demand is a max of 52 kWh/m2/year.

    I read somewhere - it might have been the Self Builders Bible - that historically the heating requirements were approx: (anyone got an idea if these historic figures are correct)

    Pre 1945: 250 kWh/m2/year
    1965-76: 200 kWh/m2/year
    2000: 150 kWh/m2/year
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    Ian, Part L Building Regs compliance is DER < TER.
    There is no max heating demand as far as I know? where is it in the SAP document?
    • CommentAuthorIan1961
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: DarylP</cite>Ian, Part L Building Regs compliance is DER < TER.
    There is no max heating demand as far as I know? where is it in the SAP document?</blockquote>

    My understanding is that the TER target in the 2013 SAP software effectively requires a max heating demand of 52 kWh/m2/year for new build detached, semis and terraced houses - I believe this came out of the Zero Carbon Hub FEES consultation.

    Eg see page 10 of this document:
    http://www.saint-gobain.co.uk/media/17757/part_l_guide_2014.pdf
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    In England DFEE < TFEE for compliance too. :bigsmile:
    But there is no set target, it depends on the shape/size of the building.
    • CommentAuthorIan1961
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    I'm just completing a new build to min Part L compliance at the moment and from the official SAP calcs that I was given if I divide my anticipated heating demand by the floor area I get a figure of 52 kWh/m2/year.
    • CommentAuthorIan1961
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: DarylP</cite>In England DFEE < TFEE for compliance too.<img src="/newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt=":bigsmile:" title=":bigsmile:"></img>
    But there is no set target, it depends on the shape/size of the building.</blockquote>

    Daryl - I assume that the SAP software takes the shape/size/volume of the building into account and compensates accordingly to arrive at the minimum efficiency target embeded in the software...so a 2 storey cube shaped building will need less insulation thicknesses than a long thin bungalow in order to hit the heating demand target.
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    no... to a point..... walls are walls, regardless of shape, ie long/thin, short/wide.... in the notional building used for the TER and TFEE.
    However ground floors are sensitive to shape/size, the perimeter/area ratio.
    There is a recipe for Part L compliance:
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
     
    ....the caveat to the above is thermal bridging Psi-values.
    Part L compliance is sensitive to heat loss from thermal bridges, and different designs can/will have vastly different Heatlosses from Thermal Bridges. (HTB)

    Cheers:smile:
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press