Now it seems to me to be reasonable common sense that the refurb and renovation (i.e. Re:Use) of any building ought to be less costly to the planet than building new from scratch, but, until this from Inside Housing, reporting on research undertaken by the Empty Homes Agency,I'd never seen any actual figures.
The CO2 "produced to build a new home is 4.5 times that needed to refurbish a long-term empty home".
"the carbon impact of the government's new homes target could be cut by 10 million tonnes if part of it was met by reusing and upgrading England's 288,000 long-term empty homes."
Sounds like a pretty reasonable win-win situation to me, but, despite this evidence, I really don't see our Gov reviewing its 'build - build - build' (even on flood plains) policy, do you?
Showing posts with label BUILDING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BUILDING. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2008
Monday, October 08, 2007
An Englishman's home is his (draughty) castle
Little demand for zero carbon buildings?
As with all things green and consumer, there is a basic 3-legged stool upon which anything sits.
First there is 'us', the public who buy. Or don't.
Then there are those who sell to us. Or don't.
And then there is that funny old collection of folk who charge taxes aplenty to fund all manner of officers and heads of and departments and ministries and things to shape what gets bought and/or sold, how it gets bought and sold and often when it gets bought and sold.
So if there is any lack of seriousness in this little balancing act, whilst I can see the very real, selfish and/or greedy reasons for two of them being a little less than proactive (though why building, buying and/or living in a house that costs less to heat, etc in a reasonable lifetime would be a negative escapes me) I'm wondering if we are not remiss in looking more critically at the guys in charge and the track record of their boss, who currently seems to be trying to dig himself out of the current sticky affair by having his chaps big him up for avoiding the 'green trap' the other parties have been suckered into.
ADDENDUM
A day goes by and we get the same thing. This time... pumpkins!
It's bad enough that most of the blasted things are not eaten but carved, rot and then thrown out to rot, but now 'we' find that 'we' are responsible for hot air blowers going 24/7 to turn them from green to orange.
And everyone is pointing at each other. The retailers say the public demand it. The growers say the supermarkets demand it. The media just go tut-tut and the government stays out of it. No change there, then.
Farcical.
As with all things green and consumer, there is a basic 3-legged stool upon which anything sits.
First there is 'us', the public who buy. Or don't.
Then there are those who sell to us. Or don't.
And then there is that funny old collection of folk who charge taxes aplenty to fund all manner of officers and heads of and departments and ministries and things to shape what gets bought and/or sold, how it gets bought and sold and often when it gets bought and sold.
So if there is any lack of seriousness in this little balancing act, whilst I can see the very real, selfish and/or greedy reasons for two of them being a little less than proactive (though why building, buying and/or living in a house that costs less to heat, etc in a reasonable lifetime would be a negative escapes me) I'm wondering if we are not remiss in looking more critically at the guys in charge and the track record of their boss, who currently seems to be trying to dig himself out of the current sticky affair by having his chaps big him up for avoiding the 'green trap' the other parties have been suckered into.
ADDENDUM
A day goes by and we get the same thing. This time... pumpkins!
It's bad enough that most of the blasted things are not eaten but carved, rot and then thrown out to rot, but now 'we' find that 'we' are responsible for hot air blowers going 24/7 to turn them from green to orange.
And everyone is pointing at each other. The retailers say the public demand it. The growers say the supermarkets demand it. The media just go tut-tut and the government stays out of it. No change there, then.
Farcical.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A Greenie's home is their piggy bank
As an example of Junkk's mission statement of 'save (or make) money as well as the environment', this 'un is hard to fault: Self-built house voted greenest in Britain is sold for profit of £625,000
Good on 'em. Maybe all the consultants being hired in the gov, local gov and quango field should be at least pointed their way and asked (at tax payer's expense) to write on one side of A4 a justification how this family can do it and they couldn't join up two LEGO blocks without a 6-year consultation.
Good on 'em. Maybe all the consultants being hired in the gov, local gov and quango field should be at least pointed their way and asked (at tax payer's expense) to write on one side of A4 a justification how this family can do it and they couldn't join up two LEGO blocks without a 6-year consultation.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Build it, and...
I'm always a tad confused as to what is mandatory and what is advisory when it comes to officail enagegemnt, especially with matters enviro. So I found this interesting: Guidance to help industry respond to the zero carbon challenge
There's no link to the PR, so I'll pop most down here verbatim (sans 'Minster says Yay' puff, which was most of it).
Communities and Local Government published revised guidance to help the construction industry respond to the challenge of meeting the zero carbon homes target.
It responds to comments and feedback from industry, and provides greater clarity in a number of areas including the future eligibility of different energy sources and the method for calculating anticipated water consumption.
HM Treasury will shortly lay draft regulations before Parliament setting out definition of a zero carbon home for stamp duty land tax purposes. An exemption on stamp duty land tax for new zero carbon homes was announced by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown last December.
The Budget 2007 stated: "that from 1 October 2007 all new homes meeting the zero carbon standard costing up to £500,000 will pay no stamp duty, and zero-carbon homes costing in excess of £500,000 will receive a reduction in their stamp duty bill of £15,000. The exemption will be time limited for 5 years until 30 September 2012, but before the end of the time limit the Government will review the effectiveness of the relief and consider the case for an extension".
The key changes are:
* The way energy efficiencies for flats with and without renewables are calculated;
* The way water efficiencies are calculated; and
* The use of off-site renewable energy sources. In future, these will not be eligible unless directly connected to the development concerned. The Code continues to allow connection to gas and electricity grids as long as the home produces net zero carbon emissions over the year.
The Code Technical Guidance, including definition of zero carbon, will be kept under review as new evidence emerges about costs and practicalities, and as technologies develop
Key features of a zero carbon development could include technologies such as:
Combined heat and power
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a fuel-efficient energy technology that, unlike conventional forms of power generation, puts to use the by-product heat that is normally wasted to the environment. CHP can increase the overall efficiency of fuel use to more than 75 per cent, compared with around 50 per cent or less from conventional electricity generation.
District heating and cooling systems
District heating is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and/or commercial heating
requirements. District heating systems (DHS) distribute steam or hot water to multiple buildings. The heat can be provided from a variety of sources, including geothermal, CHP plants, waste heat from industry, and purpose-built heating plants.
Aquifer Thermal Energy
Aquifer thermal energy storage uses underground water reserves called aquifers. There are two wells (typically) on either side with hydraulic coupling. One well is for the warm water and the other one is for the cold.
In the winter, warm water is cooled and passed to the cold well. Energy is extracted by a heat exchanger for heating purposes. In summer, the process is reversed and cold water is used for cooling. Once heated, the water is stored in the cold well. The advantage about this system is that it is environmentally safe; the water which circulates from underground to the heat exchangers and back can not be contaminated as it always remains in the system.
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) transfer heat from the ground into a building to provide space heating and, in some cases, to pre-heat domestic hot water.
Passive Heating
Passive heating systems are used in buildings which are insulated to a very high standard and make use of solar thermal gain and heat exchanges on ventilation systems, so that no external energy source (other than perhaps background heat generated by people living there and appliances) is required to keep the building warm.
Solar and Wind Energy
Solar energy can be used in a number of ways to provide energy. Passive solar energy is the use of sunlight to keep buildings warm through the direct warming effect of the sun on a building, eg via walls and glazing. Thermal solar panels which provide space heating and hot water. Another method is to convert solar energy to electricity in photovoltaic cells.
There's no link to the PR, so I'll pop most down here verbatim (sans 'Minster says Yay' puff, which was most of it).
Communities and Local Government published revised guidance to help the construction industry respond to the challenge of meeting the zero carbon homes target.
It responds to comments and feedback from industry, and provides greater clarity in a number of areas including the future eligibility of different energy sources and the method for calculating anticipated water consumption.
HM Treasury will shortly lay draft regulations before Parliament setting out definition of a zero carbon home for stamp duty land tax purposes. An exemption on stamp duty land tax for new zero carbon homes was announced by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown last December.
The Budget 2007 stated: "that from 1 October 2007 all new homes meeting the zero carbon standard costing up to £500,000 will pay no stamp duty, and zero-carbon homes costing in excess of £500,000 will receive a reduction in their stamp duty bill of £15,000. The exemption will be time limited for 5 years until 30 September 2012, but before the end of the time limit the Government will review the effectiveness of the relief and consider the case for an extension".
The key changes are:
* The way energy efficiencies for flats with and without renewables are calculated;
* The way water efficiencies are calculated; and
* The use of off-site renewable energy sources. In future, these will not be eligible unless directly connected to the development concerned. The Code continues to allow connection to gas and electricity grids as long as the home produces net zero carbon emissions over the year.
The Code Technical Guidance, including definition of zero carbon, will be kept under review as new evidence emerges about costs and practicalities, and as technologies develop
Key features of a zero carbon development could include technologies such as:
Combined heat and power
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a fuel-efficient energy technology that, unlike conventional forms of power generation, puts to use the by-product heat that is normally wasted to the environment. CHP can increase the overall efficiency of fuel use to more than 75 per cent, compared with around 50 per cent or less from conventional electricity generation.
District heating and cooling systems
District heating is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and/or commercial heating
requirements. District heating systems (DHS) distribute steam or hot water to multiple buildings. The heat can be provided from a variety of sources, including geothermal, CHP plants, waste heat from industry, and purpose-built heating plants.
Aquifer Thermal Energy
Aquifer thermal energy storage uses underground water reserves called aquifers. There are two wells (typically) on either side with hydraulic coupling. One well is for the warm water and the other one is for the cold.
In the winter, warm water is cooled and passed to the cold well. Energy is extracted by a heat exchanger for heating purposes. In summer, the process is reversed and cold water is used for cooling. Once heated, the water is stored in the cold well. The advantage about this system is that it is environmentally safe; the water which circulates from underground to the heat exchangers and back can not be contaminated as it always remains in the system.
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) transfer heat from the ground into a building to provide space heating and, in some cases, to pre-heat domestic hot water.
Passive Heating
Passive heating systems are used in buildings which are insulated to a very high standard and make use of solar thermal gain and heat exchanges on ventilation systems, so that no external energy source (other than perhaps background heat generated by people living there and appliances) is required to keep the building warm.
Solar and Wind Energy
Solar energy can be used in a number of ways to provide energy. Passive solar energy is the use of sunlight to keep buildings warm through the direct warming effect of the sun on a building, eg via walls and glazing. Thermal solar panels which provide space heating and hot water. Another method is to convert solar energy to electricity in photovoltaic cells.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Renewables Strategy Just Like Swiss Cheese?
Is the government's strategy to encourage the installation of renewable energy components on new build developements failing?
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
Friday, July 13, 2007
Postives and negatives
Carbon neutral homes for mere mortals
You cover a lot of interesting, and valid points, and it is hard to disagree with most, if not all.
But the devil can be in the details, so in the spirit of debate may I raise a few points for consideration.
First up, and it's a doozy, is to try and get towards an acceptable definition of 'carbon neutrality'. To my eyes and ears it is ever so slightly loose and, depending on who decides to embrace it, the poor old public/consumer could be forgiven in thinking it is all manner of things that it may not actually be.
Personally, I have been trying to advocate the notion of enviROI, which is different to the financial version because the amount of money is nowhere near as relevant (though a factor - money poured into black holes may more usefully be redirected to green ones) as the impact on our planet, and hence kids' futures. So you may never get a return on an eco-investment, but it is still worth doing if reducing CO2 is your bag. The corollary of this is that you may make all sorts of noise on the green hue of it all, but actually the initiative may work out worse once every factor has been taken into account. This does have a bearing on construction issues as mentioned later.
In defence of aged rockers, so long as Metallica insulate their homes with their beards, and otherwise do as they say, I see nothing odd at all. What I do find less than compelling, however, is Squander Spice standing up with her newborn to plug her next concert whilst saying her presence was 'for her daughter's future', and then barely a week goes by before it turns out the group is getting a Lear jet each in case they have a hissy fit with each other. One reason why some felt the messengers rather undercut the message in this case. So which topic actually did get out there? I'd hazard it's more 'anyone else but me', which is hardly a motivational kickstart to the masses.
And while the last few days the media wires have been humming with such vastly critical topics as plastic bags and water bottles, I am glad to see that here we do have some thoughts on what is a more major issue, namely personal home energy consumption.
Back to the CN definition, even without heating I'd say that, without offsetting (a whole other, and equally mine-strewn topic), the CNzeroHome is still going to err on the negative simply because quite a lot would be involved in making it. See, new stuff does have a carbon consequence, the minute you dig its building blocks from the soil.
And while I am very happy to consider solar, heat-pumps, wind turbines, etc, beyond ROI I still have to be convinced with some on the enviROI.
Insulation is a bit of a no-brainer, so I can't quite figure out why vast amounts of effort is not being made to maximise this aspect's benefits RIGHT NOW. How many homes, for instance, could be insulated with the £5M blown on the latest carbon footprint ad campaign?
And as one who lives in a dwelling where carbon footprints are what you walk from the fireplace to the outside loo, I get nervous when the ODPM new-builds on flood plains look like getting a tip-top rating in the HIPS stakes, but without a cavity wall to fill in my very much already existing structure, I worry about being unfairly discriminated against by some rampant, half-cock, ill-considered box-ticking process over product.
But if we are to have new-builds, then yes, for heaven's sake let them be as you describe.
UK builders will of course take note, and will charge accordingly, no doubt.
You cover a lot of interesting, and valid points, and it is hard to disagree with most, if not all.
But the devil can be in the details, so in the spirit of debate may I raise a few points for consideration.
First up, and it's a doozy, is to try and get towards an acceptable definition of 'carbon neutrality'. To my eyes and ears it is ever so slightly loose and, depending on who decides to embrace it, the poor old public/consumer could be forgiven in thinking it is all manner of things that it may not actually be.
Personally, I have been trying to advocate the notion of enviROI, which is different to the financial version because the amount of money is nowhere near as relevant (though a factor - money poured into black holes may more usefully be redirected to green ones) as the impact on our planet, and hence kids' futures. So you may never get a return on an eco-investment, but it is still worth doing if reducing CO2 is your bag. The corollary of this is that you may make all sorts of noise on the green hue of it all, but actually the initiative may work out worse once every factor has been taken into account. This does have a bearing on construction issues as mentioned later.
In defence of aged rockers, so long as Metallica insulate their homes with their beards, and otherwise do as they say, I see nothing odd at all. What I do find less than compelling, however, is Squander Spice standing up with her newborn to plug her next concert whilst saying her presence was 'for her daughter's future', and then barely a week goes by before it turns out the group is getting a Lear jet each in case they have a hissy fit with each other. One reason why some felt the messengers rather undercut the message in this case. So which topic actually did get out there? I'd hazard it's more 'anyone else but me', which is hardly a motivational kickstart to the masses.
And while the last few days the media wires have been humming with such vastly critical topics as plastic bags and water bottles, I am glad to see that here we do have some thoughts on what is a more major issue, namely personal home energy consumption.
Back to the CN definition, even without heating I'd say that, without offsetting (a whole other, and equally mine-strewn topic), the CNzeroHome is still going to err on the negative simply because quite a lot would be involved in making it. See, new stuff does have a carbon consequence, the minute you dig its building blocks from the soil.
And while I am very happy to consider solar, heat-pumps, wind turbines, etc, beyond ROI I still have to be convinced with some on the enviROI.
Insulation is a bit of a no-brainer, so I can't quite figure out why vast amounts of effort is not being made to maximise this aspect's benefits RIGHT NOW. How many homes, for instance, could be insulated with the £5M blown on the latest carbon footprint ad campaign?
And as one who lives in a dwelling where carbon footprints are what you walk from the fireplace to the outside loo, I get nervous when the ODPM new-builds on flood plains look like getting a tip-top rating in the HIPS stakes, but without a cavity wall to fill in my very much already existing structure, I worry about being unfairly discriminated against by some rampant, half-cock, ill-considered box-ticking process over product.
But if we are to have new-builds, then yes, for heaven's sake let them be as you describe.
UK builders will of course take note, and will charge accordingly, no doubt.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Could?????!
Now I am usually not slow to cock an eyebrow at a rather premature green claim that can all too often backfire and make things worse, but this seems one for the 'Well, D'Uh...' files:
"Greener" buildings could slow global warming: UNEP
Of course any savings WILL get totally obliterated by all these brainstrains and their press gangs going around the planet having conferences on this guff. And our tab.
That's why they get the big bucks.
"Greener" buildings could slow global warming: UNEP
Of course any savings WILL get totally obliterated by all these brainstrains and their press gangs going around the planet having conferences on this guff. And our tab.
That's why they get the big bucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)