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.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



Housing - New Build: Renewable Heat Incentive - discouraging well insulated new build?

Bottom of Page

1 to 30 of 38

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
  1.  
    Seems like the RHI is discouraging well insulated new build houses:

    Passive house
    15kwh/m2.yr :
    100m2 house
    1,500kwh/yr
    £135/yr (9p/kwh Biomass) deemed payment
    £83/yr fuel bills - wood pellets (5p/kwh 90% efficient)
    Net income £52/yr


    Building Regs house
    50kwh/m2/yr:
    100m2 house
    5,000kwh/yr
    £450/yr (9p/kwh Biomass)
    £275/yr fuel bill pellets (5p/kwh 90% efficient)
    Net income £175/yr

    3 times the reward for not going beyond building regs for new build. For landlords, even better rewards for not insulating the house as tenants pay bills and they get RHI.

    Any thoughts?

    AM
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010
     
    Is it definitely the owner (landlord) that gets the rebate. How does this work as if I rent my house out the tenet pays the bills.
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010
     
    I don't think that RHI is particularly aimed at new build - it is to encourage retrospective changes to existing properties. Also B Regs will change to get to 'zero carbon' for them in any case. As DECC say in the consultation document:

    "A similar set of issues arises in relation to new build homes and buildings. We want to
    avoid the situation where builders pursue lower standards of energy efficiency than
    would have been the case in the absence of the RHI – particularly in advance of the
    more demanding energy efficiency standards that will come into effect in 2013 and
    2016. Further work will be undertaken during the consultation period to devise a
    suitably robust approach."

    I think you could expect that new homes will cease to be eligible for RHI from 2013, or maybe even earlier.

    ST - landlords are expected to come to some separate contractual agreement with their tenants, but there is no enforcement of this in the DECC proposals - same as with FITs.
  4.  
    Thanks ted,

    Hopefully they'll just make new build not eligable from the beginning. CSH does an ok job of encouraging low CO2 use anyway.
    Other main worry is that they'll encourage ASHPs with radiators. which would currently create more CO2 emmissions than gas boilers and about 5% improvement on oil boilers. This is the lowest capital investment and RHI benefits are about equal to all other technologies and it is a fit and forget technology with no storage space required.

    Not wanting to advertise it!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010
     
    Ted

    Does that mean I can fit some PV and an ASHP, rent my house out and still claim all the rebates. From my preliminary figures I could live somewhere cheap for a few years, I like this idea.
  6.  
    yes Steamytea thats basically it as far as I can tell.

    It's not come in yet though.

    If you did want to do something green as well as making money, biomass gets the same funding.Your tenants won't be any worse off than ASHP and radiators, they'll only be paying slightly higher bills than if they had a gas boiler! :( (ASHP and rads costs a fair bit more again)
  7.  
    Hello,

    Still trying to comment on the RHI and not knowing where to start as they probably only want tweaks and tweaking something compleatly topsy turvy just seems pointless. I might try a new idea: renewable technology saves x% CO2 emissions (compared to modern gas boiler) and costs £Y. Grant for X% x £Y available.

    Any thoughts?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2010
     
    "I don't think that RHI is particularly aimed at new build - it is to encourage retrospective changes to existing properties"

    As a taxpayer, I don't want the benefit I get from taxes to depend on whether I happen to prefer living in old or new houses. I'd prefer taxes to be fair.

    "tweaking something compleatly topsy turvy just seems pointless"

    Indeed so!
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2010
     
    The advantage, from a Government's point of view, of doing this via an RHI or similar is of control: The RHI can be withdrawn at a moment's notice if it proves infeasible

    If it were done via a tax shift, it would be a lot more difficult to revert (and more politically difficult as few believe that a Green Tax would not also be an additional tax)

    So the whole RHI strategy is one of those temporary fix things that translates Tax into an incentive: This makes it unfair unfortunately. It also makes the market follow the regulation rather than vice versa so tends to produce unintended consequences; also unfortunate but it's where we are given the lack of trust issues in today's politics.
  10.  
    Just reading through and djh you suggest it's an unfair use of taxes. Surely the reduction of national dependence on burning fossil fuels is in all our interests. Add to that, for example, reduced medical problems arising from cold damp houses as the old housing stock is coaxed to modernity and we all go on winning. Some time down the line the government might even be able to reduce winter fuel supplements because noone'll need them! OK, I exaggerate, but I hope you get my drift. And, as a footnote, I think both Brown and Cameron would support the philosophy. (And Clegg, of course!)
  11.  
    brightgreen, does that mean you think there's some hope of the government putting money into insulating existing houses, in a major way?

    I'm just wanting to respond to the RHI consultation as I think most of that money they are wanting to give away will end up funding ASHPs with radiators as the lowest capital cost option that is “fit and forget”. (ASHPs with radiators creates more CO2 emissions than a gas boiler and similar to oil boilers.)

    There just doesn’t seem to be any link between the payments and even the predicted CO2 savings, especially as some of the savings will be negative(see above). The actual CO2 savings are completely irrelevant and far outweighed in terms of fuel bills savings or otherwise by the RHI payments.

    Also, it kills all other technologies: insulation and draught-proofing, Heat recovery ventilation, behaviour changes (- I’ll whisper that one),CHP and district CHP.

    Hopefully they'll just cut new build out of the RHI so they don't create more years of just over the building regs standards housing.

    Is it impossible to suggest starting at the other end and putting some sort of positive spin on a carbon tax?

    Not wanting to just criticize in the RHI response as they are looking for suggestions but I’m pretty sure they don’t want a major rethink and I’m struggling to think what to say.
  12.  
    brightgreen, does that mean you think there's some hope of the government putting money into insulating existing houses, in a major way?

    Yes, I think it will, via the PAYS scheme.
  13.  
    Hi Nick,

    Hopefully that'll happen, but a loan isn't a grant, if the playing field has to be uneven at least it should tip the right way!

    AM
  14.  
    Yes, I suppose I am looking at it in the existing context. Since 200-something, there has been an RE grant regime, and *nothing* for insulation of solid walls and 'difficult' rooms-in-the-roof(s). After that, FiTs and loans seems pretty good. I still hanker after 'thermal enveloping'.
    • CommentAuthorBrightgreen
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010 edited
     
    Hi AnnaMarie, Nick et al, I'm sure we're as one on this in intent. My first goal is to reduce energy use, for sure and I take the point re ASHPs and the like.

    My feeling is that, as in my renovation project, funding is much harder to obtain if you can't show that the house is well insulated and the sustainable heating will be the last stage in obtaining the very low SAP for the dwelling. And if you've got solar electricity so much the better, it is deemed. However, making sure the house don't leak heat should be the first priority and be built into any grant schemes. But whether extra funds could be available who knows and this takes us to realms of speculation.

    If a house has no change other than to use solar heating and a log boiler then it is a positive reduction in demand on centrally and generally fossil derived electricity supply (once embodied energy.....). You could say the house is "Low SAP ready", when funding is brought in to complete the process. Me I'd make it a planning stipulation for new nuclear - that they first seek to reduce demand by supporting large scale insulation programmes. What's the point in spending 15 billion pounds to generate electricity that will just be used for heating that will go through people's walls and out into the atmosphere?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: BrightgreenJust reading through and djh you suggest it's an unfair use of taxes. Surely the reduction of national dependence on burning fossil fuels is in all our interests.

    You suggest I said something that I didn't and then you go on with a non-sequitur implying that I'm against reducing fossil fuel usage. I hope that was just carelessness.

    What I said was that the distribution of tax revenue was unfair. The proposal I was commenting on is that people who live in old houses should be paid to fit renewable energy equipment, while those who live in new houses would be forced by building regs to spend their own money to do the same, while also paying the same taxes as the people in old houses that fund only the people in old houses.

    Either all houses should be required to fit renewables by regulation or all houses should benefit from the incentive, IMHO. There are also many other fairness problems connected with the size of house etc.

    But the whole thing is a crock as annamarie says. Capital should be spent on the most effective measures, which RHI does not encourage. The RHI and FITs are working at the wrong end of the problem; we should instead be making carbon emissions a lot more costly. People will then figure out the effective solutions for themselves.
  17.  
    Hi djh and no I don't think and didn't say that you're not in favour of reducing fossil fuel usage. Of course you are. I'm sure we all are here, so no carelessness. What I mean is that if we have to pay folk with old houses to improve them so's they use less carbon then so be it. If you are constructing a new build then it's far easier to incorporate insulated blocks etc whereas to add these factors to an old dwelling is harder, messier and more costly.

    The RHI site says:

    "While the RHI has no specific requirement for standards of insulation, the heat measurement calculations for the property will assume a minimum standard. Therefore if the property falls beneath that level, the required heat generation will actually be greater than the payments allow for. As such, the Government believes that the property owner will be motivated to provide better insulation."

    I agree. with all who say that's not gonna work!
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010
     
    Posted By: BrightgreenWhat I mean is that if we have to pay folk with old houses to improve them so's they use less carbon then so be it. If you are constructing a new build then it's far easier to incorporate insulated blocks etc whereas to add these factors to an old dwelling is harder, messier and more costly.

    This is where we differ. I don't believe we *should* pay people to improve them. We instead should increase the price of causing carbon emissions until the emissions are reduced to the level we need. Let everybody choose for themselves how much carbon emissions to buy and how much and what type of carbon emission reducing products to buy. But the prices of insulation or solar panels or new cars should be set by the market not by government intervention. It's the price of oil and gas and grid electricity and biomass where the government should be intervening.

    Obviously, I'm not talking about a single step change, I'm suggesting a steady change to give everybody time to adjust. But just like I am free to decide now whether to live in a studio flat or a palace I should remain free to make that same choice. And I should be free to decide whether the flat/palace I live in is old or new. But I see no reason why I should expect a subsidy if I make a particular lifestyle choice. And especially I see no reason why some choices should be rewarded by subsidies while others are not. That's just government trying to make my decisions for me.

    As for the other aspects you raised, social policy issues such as poverty or poor health should be dealt with by explicit social policies to deal with those issues, not by myriad special cases in unrelated policies such as carbon emissions or building regulations or whatever.
  19.  
    OK, that is where we differ. I wonder what other folk think?

    :smile:
  20.  
    Hello djh , brightgreen, nick...

    Good to read whats been said, I guess most "greenies" would prefer something as common sense as a carbon tax type measure that makes the market work towards a low carbon future. But I suppose as politicians seem to be keener on giving out carrots and quietly gathering in money to fund them, the best we can hope for is a workable carrot solution.!

    My friend suggested a Renewable Heat Incentive that paid directly based on SAPs Dwelling Emission Rate (kg CO2/m2). It seemed to be almost as good as a carbon tax as any house improvement measures would qualify people (except for the very cheapest options such as turning down the thermostat, renting out the spare room or having less water in the bath).

    Then people would automatically do the measures that save most CO2/£ invested first.

    Also, insulating first and then installing the renewable heating system means a much smaller cheaper system is required, (although CO2 saved/£ invested is probably less as there is less left to save)

    I wondered if because the election's coming up and it might all get re-hashed anyway, such suggestions have a chance of being taken up?
  21.  
    You can now also view full AECB response to RHI consultation at http://www.aecb.net/new_releases/
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2010
     
    I think the AECB statement issued as a press release is actually more important: http://www.aecb.net/new_releases/detail/?nId=3

    It makes it much clearer that they (I am a member) object to the current proposals:

    "AECB, the sustainable building association, is today warning the Government that the proposed "Renewable Heat Incentive" is so badly designed that in some circumstances it actually pays people to install systems that burn more fossil fuel, and thereby, emit more CO2. ..."
    • CommentAuthorwookey
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2010 edited
     
    last day to get responses in is today. I've nearly finished mine. Are there other dissenting comments online, apart from the AECBs. I can imagine most respondents without a vested interest will have been pretty damning.
  24.  
    So, all the UK ha to do is go 100 percent nuclear and everything is ok.. sod the consequences.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2010
     
    The nature of nuclear generation does not allow that, same problem with coal and renewables, gas has a chance though, so 100% gas and sod the consequences!

    I think that it was the cheap plentiful energy that goes us where we are, so now it is catch up time, but with improved technology and understanding.
    • CommentAuthorjamesingram
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2010 edited
     
    Yes, smarter, well thought through solutions , which RHI seems to be lacking a bit .

    this seem a good start http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Factor5.aspx

    Factor 5 . Transforming the global economy through 80% improvements in resource productivity

    Passivhaus design is a great example of this in practice, in the built environment.
    Relatively simple solutions without the spin or greenwash.
    • CommentAuthorwookey
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2010 edited
     
    Bot de paille - I'm all for the RHI's objectives of increasing the proportion of renewable energy used, I just don't believe it's properly designed as it stands.

    It encourages the more expensive technologies (heat pumps, batch/pellet boilers) but provides reduced or no support for the cost-effective ones (woodburners, solar thermal). That's immediately a huge bias in favour of the well off with big houses, who probably don't really need that much state aid/wealth transfer from other energy users. And the complete lack of a link to energy efficiency measures means that there will be no overall energy reduction, and for some technologies even an increase in CO2 production. Given the importance of this I really don't think it is good enough as it stands.

    The complete stamping-out of the DIY solar thermal market alone is reason enough to insist on changes.

    So on the one hand the RHI is marvellous and I'm really pleased to see some action in this area, but on the other hand I am deeply disappointed in way it produces peverse incentives and actively works against more cost-effective actions such as refurbishment.

    All of this fanying about is due to a refusal to get to the root of the problem (carbon taxes), but I can see that that probably makes politcal sense at the moment. Nevertheless I think it could be much better designed, even accepting the fundamental limitations of setting rules at this level in the system.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: wookeylast day to get responses in is today.

    I hope not!

    I planned to do mine over this weekend but an email cockup means I can't do it until tomorrow (Monday). I'm realying on the statement on the AECB forum that "DECC confirmed that they will accept submissions up till the end of the day on the 26th!"

    So I hope they're right and you're wrong! :bigsmile:

    Posted By: bot de pailleSo, all the UK ha to do is go 100 percent nuclear and everything is ok.. sod the consequences.

    What, like the French you mean? :confused:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2010
     
    Posted By: djhWhat, like the French you mean?:confused:" alt=":confused:" src="https:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/confused.gif" >


    Does anyone have a link to the the electrical interconnects for France, be interesting to see when they are importing and exporting. I know we get a bit, but Andorra, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belguim and Germany must surely take excess.
  30.  
    All of those countries are supplied by France.

1 to 30 of 38

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press