Hi,

I was just wondering could the existing housing stock ever be carbon neutral using micro renewables such as Wind turbines and Pvs. The reason I ask is the SD Commission has a stat that 60% of our energy in homes are consumed in space and water heating which uses natural gas in most places so how could just a wind turbine or Pv ever replace the heating unless you change the whole heating system.


I know Solar water heating could help reduce this burdern and the above could try and reduce the electrical needs but I always had the idea that you only needed one microgeneration form. As I've conducted my research for my dissertation it seems clear you need a combination that suits your particular home.

Please correct me if I'm missing the obvious!

By the way could I also PLEASE ask people with experience or educated on renewable energy/microgeneartion etc to please spare a couple of mins to fill a questionnaire http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=1679tjjpu
I only need at least 3 more responses to complete my research as it requires input from those in the know.

Thanks....I look forward to your replies.

Mohammad.

I personally don't think that even new houses (certainly those with people living in them) can be carbon neutral. We are all just falling for the Kings new clothes story.

Inter-seasonal storage of summer-harvested solar energy - that's the (future) way, in my opinion. Microgeneration them becomes an optional extra - so does super-insulation, airtightness, energy recovery etc, or rather these can be traded against the cost/resources/feasibility of installing extra inter-seasonal storage capacity. Only small problem is - how to do it?

Interseasonal storage (solar) has to be part of the solution!
There are three variable elements to be balanced in this simple equation,
1. collection 2. demand 3. storage

the size of one element relates to the size of the others, i.e a low energy demand passiv house (2) means little storage (3) and collection (1) is required. so hot water solar panels and a large domestic cylinder is all that may be required.

Hockerton does it with a lot of concrete (3, storage), 300mm polystrene (2, demand) and sunspaces (1, collection) There are lots of different mediums and materials to do the same thing, it is just site specific though!

Posted By: (GBP) KeithI personally don't think that even new houses (certainly those with people living in them) can be carbon neutral.

That's a tempting position, Keith, and it is very hard to see how our housing stock and energy supply industry can be changed. But look at it from the energy supply end rather household use end. In 2050, will there actually be much affordable fossil fuel around? We will be some 40 years beyond Peak Oil and gas and coal will also be well down their depletion curves. Transport will have first call on any avilable liquid fuels. Take a look at http:////europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396 for an introduction to the future.

If, in 2050, we cannot afford to heat our houses with fossil fuel the choice will be between sustainable energy sources or woolly jumpers. Either way we get a de facto zero-carbon house.

I think the "carbon neutral" label is becoming an obsession in Government and the industry. It really doesn't matter if individual houses are carbon neutral on a stand alone basis. What matters is that total world wide greenhouse gas emissions are set on a firm downward trajectory.

We need to start doing things now that will make a real impact on emissions, not get tied up in intellectual arguments about what constitutes a true zero carbon building. If we haven't made a serious impact on emissions within the next 10 years we will be past he point where we can prevent climate warming at the upper end of the IPCC forecasts. It seems to me that a real sense of urgency is still lacking.

A good start in buildings would be to insist on the highest standards of energy efficient construction in all new builds right now and then roll out a massive programme of energy efficiency measures in the existing stock i.e. simple things like insulation, draft proofing, condensing boilers, heating controls, double glazing, low energy bulbs and appliances.

Elsewhere, we could introduce a TEQs system, ban new airport extensions and motorway expansion, rapidly ratchet up mpg standands for new vehicles, ban new fossil fuel power stations that down capture and sequester their emissions, start fitting water meters and smart electric meters that bill at different rates at different times of the days to try and smooth out grid demand, start teaching permaculture at colleges, begin a massive reforestation program, research wave power and build an integrated public transport network.

I am struggling to think of a more costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than bolting micro-renewables to buildings and incorporating fuel cells and interseasonal heat stores into existing buildings but at the moment the focus seems to be firmly on these kinds of things. This will inevitably be at the expense of other more effective measures as there are finite resources of time and money available.

I wonder why this is? Could it be that politicians like the idea of standing outside a brand spanking new "zero carbon" house, complete with windmill and solar panels shining in the sun, cutting an nice red ribbon with the press snapping away and full colour photos in the red tops the next day with stories on how they are saving the planet? I can certainly see how that would be more photogenic that a picture of a minister popping his head through a loft hatch are he surveys the last roof in Britain to receive 300mm of mineral wool in 5 years time, but which will have more impact on emissions?

If all UK homes became zero carbon tomorrow it would not solve the problem. It is not just about energy it is about reducing consumption of global resources.

Yes there are certainly plenty of political gimmicks being batted about.

As I see it we have two big problems. Energy supply and global warming. No matter what efforts we take to save energy I can't see humanity beating the fossil fuels depletion curve. We are going to use it just as fast as we can suck or dig it out of the ground. And that's not going to be fast enough to prevent the biggest economic recession ever. Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuel but there isn't enough left to produce the business as usual scenario that the IPCC described. On the other hand the IPCC are very conservative and have not taken into account the recent reseach on glacial dynamics of feedback mechanisms so there is no room for optimism.

The important point about improving energy efficiency of buildings is not that it's going to make a jot of difference to climate change, but that the sooner we get weened off fossil fuels the easier the transition to a post fossil future economy will be. On global warming we just have to keep our fingers crossed that we haven't passed the tipping points already.

Posted By: steveleighWe haven't got any control over the tipping point of global warming.

Which is why I suggested crossing fingers. You got a better idea?

Posted By: steveleighTell the Chinese the sooner they can be weened off fossil fuels the better we will be.

It would be more polite if we reduced our per capita carbon emissions to the Chinese per capita levels before we tell them what to do.

Hi,
Just wondering if one can explain to me what is RDSAP please,i would like to have a contact with an energy assessor?

Dare I say that I think Nucular holds the key as an interim, not long term solution, unless we crack nuclear fusion for energy generation.

Existing Homes can be well insulated, have effiecient heating systems and work from renewables - Biomass, Solar (Carbon Neutral) and Heat Pumps (Low Carbon), so the answer to your original question is yes they can in theory.

Posted By: moogalooDare I say that I think Nucular holds the key as an interim, not long term solution, unless we crack nuclear fusion for energy generation.

Isn't it amazing how persistant some memes are.
Long term there's just not enough uranium. In the interim we'll never build nukes fast enough to beat the oil depletion curve - at best it would be a very thin wedge and in the short term the construction and fuel provision releases a lot of CO2.

Hello all

Superb latest point Biff Nuclear is just another sticking plaster however without it the West will not 'get through' the transition I fear.

Carbon neutral is irrelevant when applied to buildings sensu stricto. With the exception of only the igloo/un-modified cave all man made structures facilitate more rapid return of CO2 to global cycles than if they were not created in the first place (even if made of man made waste such as tyres/straw bales). Carbon neutral is even more irrelevant when what we actually need to facilitate is massive carbon sequestration if we are to mitigate for the existing changes we have made to the atmospheric chemistry - just consider how long it took for all the coal, gas and oil to be formed in the first place.

Biff said:

"The important point about improving energy efficiency of buildings is not that it's going to make a jot of difference to climate change, but that the sooner we get weened off fossil fuels the easier the transition to a post fossil future economy will be. "

In other words the more reliant you are on self/local sources of energy/food the better (or at least your descendants will be better off). As the current basis of world econonomics is fossil fuel I think the future economic pattern will interesting if not a little terrifying for a few generations.

Biff also said:

"On global warming we just have to keep our fingers crossed that we haven't passed the tipping points already."

I fear the barn door is off it's hinges and long rotted away on this one Biff.

The elephant in the room is human population size, nothing else really matters.

I continue to buy low energy lightbulbs, use my pushbike and all the rest of it in any case.

S.

Going back to Steve's comments on 16th April about UK vs Chinese carbon emissions: It is a fallacy that the UK only produces 3% (or whatever it is) of worldwide carbon emissions. It is true directly, but how much of China's (and India's and Thailand's and Brazil's etc) emissions are caused because of the products we buy in this country? How much of the UK building sector's materials are imported? Just looking around my desk, my keyboard was made in Thailand, my phone in Malaysia, my mobile in Canada, it's battery in Japan. Therefore I'm contributing to the emissions of those countries. Who claims the carbon emitted by transporting those items between countries? (Does anyone know of a source where I can find the import/export carbon emissions like they produce for money? Does the information exist?)