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.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




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.




    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019 edited
     
    "Last week a Committee on Climate Change report was published showing that nationally, our progress towards reducing emissions associated with our homes is stalling. Now is the time to question how we are approaching these issues and whether more of the same approach is what we really need."

    Passive House is the design-validation standard we (AECB etc) want to see more of, after numerous successful demo projects in UK, and even made mandatory in parts of Eire.

    However PH doesn't address the practicalities of actually making it happen nationally, and the Netherlands-originated Energiesprong programme is aimed at that.

    To be clear, Energiesprong is not an alternative to PH (it currently, but not necessarily, adopts PH)
    nor is it the methodology of craning-in complete prefabbed facades as facings to existing houses (which has been the image associated with Energiesprong).

    Energiesprong is a package of ready-to-use (or adapt) performance specification, financial, contractual and post-construction methodologies, adapted to different nations, by which industry can be mobilised to develop and deliver any manner of PH upgrades to existing buildings.

    Some GBF members may well be interested to participate, in various roles.

    This blog starts to explain:
    https://www.regen.co.uk/over-and-over/?utm_campaign=ZEBCat&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=70336083&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8AdyGA_vbI-m1bOzWgRL7An5bl4DLSxa1kclLeIm15CtH52btpKLwRWyyJzgo21CZYeNqp5FvD4o1T4204y-_INybkXw637G05QmCgr5MNjzjNbfc&_hsmi=70336083

    In particular this GBF post is to advertise:

    "Study tours:
    We are planning study tours for those of you with a strategic interest in being involved in a future roll out of Energiesprong. A tour will likely involve two days in either Nottingham, Essex or the Netherlands, with a mixture of site and factory visits along with seminars from leading experts in this innovative field. If you would like to register early interest then please drop me a line as spaces will be limited."

    This comes from excellent ZEBCat (Zero Energy Buildings Catalyst) programme:

    "Interested in free support from us?
    If you have not yet signed up for free business support under ZEBCat and have any queries please contact me directly: mhoward@regen.co.uk To be eligible for business support you must be a small or medium scale enterprise, be based in Devon and sign up for the ZEBCat support programme. All support is totally free and is funded by the European Union.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019
     
    Posted By: fostertomThis blog starts to explain

    It's quite good at explaining part of the reason EPCs are such rubbish :bigsmile: :devil:

    It also explains the notion of energy performance fees and why they're potentially so important in the landlord/tenant sector.

    I continue to be dubious about Energiesprong as a whole, and especially its implementation in the UK. For example, there's a thirty-year guarantee as I understand it. How well is that going to work with solar panels etc. I foresee lots of implementation problems as whoever's providing the guarantee starts to deal with end-of-life panels and inverters.

    We discussed the UK version in http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=15916

    Energiesprong seems to conflate a lot of different things together, and then in the UK adds incompetence to the mix.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019
     
    Scrapping CSH and not replacing it with a robust low energy standard was a BIG mistake.

    But even with new homes sorted we still have a humongous problem with the existing stock
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019 edited
     
    The only thing dubious about Energiesprong, that I can see, is that 30yr guarantee.

    Of course Energiesprong don't provide the guarantee, but their model performance specification against which tenderers are free to develop and propose their own way of fulfilling the specification, includes that the tenderer must guarantee the performance of their solution for 30yrs.

    The danger is, as seen with similar PPI for schools and other public infrastructure, is that the 30yr liability is shuffled off, away from the original tenderer (who may have disappeared by then), to specialist companies with clever lawyers who think that over the term they can find loopholes to actually profit from the liability. Such rotweiller companies are unlikely to provide satisfaction to whoever's afflicted by failures down the line, whether private owners or housing associations etc.

    In that, I think Energiesprong is naive, if not positively mortgaging the future.

    Other than that, wat do you mean, Dave, by "and then in the UK adds incompetence to the mix", and what's wrong with packaging (call it 'conflate') things together?
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019
     
    I assume this is about Energiesprong's use in new build?

    The "dubious" bit about it in retrofit is how on Earth they will make the figures add up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019
     
    How do you mean "how they will make the figures add up" - isn't that the tenderers' job?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2019
     
    Posted By: fostertomwat do you mean, Dave, by "and then in the UK adds incompetence to the mix"

    Specifically, the numbers in the document we referred to in the previous thread. They're nonsense.
  1.  
    Interesting stuff. As a nation we're really not doing well on reducing carbon emissions. For reference (from a Friends of the Earch/Transport for Quality of Life report published this month)
    - Transport is the UK's largest source of emissions.
    - We need traffic reduction of 20-60% to meet 1.5C target
    - fashion for bigger, heavier SUVs means average car CO2 emissions have been rising instead of falling
    - Fuel duty freezes alone have caused a 4% growth in traffic (when travel is cheaper people do more of it)
    - Car Journeys <5miles represent 19% of car carbon emissions, 5-10miles a further 18%. almost anyone can cycle those sort of distances (even up steep hills with an e-bike)

    Buy a bike, drive less, campaign for safe cycling infrastructure!
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2019
     
    Posted By: fostertomHow do you mean "how they will make the figures add up" - isn't that the tenderers' job?
    A typical retrofit to a high standard will give a payback of 100+ years. Obviously it's situation dependent, but that's the order of magnitude you're talking about.

    They're going to have to find some way to cut retrofit costs by about 2/3 to even begin to make it viable.

    As far as I can see the only way to achieve this is for government to see it as an investment opportunity and pay for it, or pay for most of it.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2019
     
    At the point of renovation the economics are very different,there are Laws in place that require improvements in thermal insulation but these are never enforced even when flouted and a lot of time and effort goes into circumnavigating them too.
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2019
     
    That's probably because very few people can afford to obey the law.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2019
     
    Really?

    And in any case spend extra money over and over again in fuel bills during the life of the building?

    Rgds

    Damon
    • CommentAuthorArtiglio
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2019
     
    Over the life of a building, yes there are probably savings to be made, but over the average period of ownership the savings are not so great, but the costs of retrofit need to be borne by the first purchaser (post retrofit) beyond this purchasers have no real interest in running costs.

    So in the absence of some sort of legislation that taxes / penalises property sold that does’nt meet certain standards there is no incentive to retrofit. In addition the cost of retrofit VAT is not reclaimable and the additional costs of uncovering unknown issues means its a much safer bet , often, to let property deteriorate sufficiently then demolish and build new.
    • CommentAuthorbhommels
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2019
     
    Posted By: gravelldA typical retrofit to a high standard will give a payback of 100+ years. Obviously it's situation dependent, but that's the order of magnitude you're talking about.

    They're going to have to find some way to cut retrofit costs by about 2/3 to even begin to make it viable.

    As far as I can see the only way to achieve this is for government to see it as an investment opportunity and pay for it, or pay for most of it.

    It would be nice if those in charge had the courage to do this by taxing gas. Gas is ridiculously cheap compared to electricity, both from a £/kWh as well as a £/CO2 emissions point of view. Raise the gas price and suddenly a lot of retrofit projects become a lot more attractive. Short term pain, long term gain.
    • CommentAuthordereke
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2019
     
    Posted By: bhommels
    It would be nice if those in charge had the courage to do this by taxing gas. Gas is ridiculously cheap compared to electricity, both from a £/kWh as well as a £/CO2 emissions point of view. Raise the gas price and suddenly a lot of retrofit projects become a lot more attractive. Short term pain, long term gain.


    Well they would have to have introduce a range of measures to make it just. Like if you are renting you get the untaxed rate until your landlord retrofits your house - and for the landlord there would have to be a very good incentive to make them do it (jail* + cheap finance?) because otherwise it is not worth it (from a financial point of view).

    But yeah I agree with you just there is a lot of complexity in implementation otherwise the poorest suffer

    * I am a landlord so reserve the right to joke about sending myself to jail
    • CommentAuthorArtiglio
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2019
     
    The much publicised moves to improve energy standards in rented property have proved to be a farce, it has achieved next to nothing. The legislation was linked to the Greendeal, when green deal was scrapped there was no link and so no landlord had to improve their property.
    Not that such policy failure will be made as public as the original idea.
    Increasing the cost of gas as suggested will make paupers of millions of people and so will never happen.
    There will be no sudden change, as time passes building regs will be tightened in respect of efficiency , pv will become more widespread as a way to game epc’s.
    Only as existing housing stock is demolished and replaced will there be much change. It’s unaffordable otherwise.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2019
     
    AFAIK:

    1) Landlords *do* still have obligations to improve property. Not as fast as I'd like, but there we go.

    2) The Green Deal Company still exists (or did when I last looked), but *how* the landlords do their improvements is up to them and I don't know if the GDC even does that stuff at the moment.

    Rgds

    Damon
    • CommentAuthorArtiglio
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2019
     
    DamonHD

    Under the legislation as it stands the improvement of EpC standards is unenforceable as its is predicated on the availability of GreenDeal loans which are no more.
    New legislation is being enacted to reintroduce the need to improve rented property but as ever this has an implementation date which as yet has not arrived.
    I’ve property in an area designated under selective licensing, many properties in the area are incredibly expensive to heat, the council was hoping to use the EPC rules to bring landlords to account ,they now ( for the time being cannot).
    Instead they can only take action under HHSRS and look at problems of excessive cold, but landords can get round this simply by installing cheap but expensive to run convector heaters. So tenants technically have the ability to heat but no funds to do so.
    Yet another example of government being too clever, the linking of improvements to GreenDeal was meant to be a clever way of getting round not wanting to give tax relief on energy efficiency improvements to properties.
    When the legislation does come in , it’ll mean that over time as properties with poor epc’s become vacant soemlandlords will sell up rather than improve the properties with no prospect of tax relief. So you’ll have more people made homeless.
    Bit a moral dilemma for society, is a person in an energy inefficient home better or worse off than someone with no home? Not hard to answer and tax relief would help bridge the gap, but currently no one wants to build the bridge.
Add your comments

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

© Green Building Press