All New Build Housing To Be Zero Carbon By 2016

[Kurt Barlow]

They all have significantly colder winters. That justifies the triple glazing .

Just found the embodied energy costs - it's estimated to be 151.9 kWh/m2 for DG, and 232.5 kWh/m2 for TG, so 161 kWh difference between DG and TG for a 2m^2 window. That's about 20 January's worth of energy, or probably decades if you pull the curtains at night.

I can't cut and paste the conclusion of that study (made in the Netherlands, where climate is similar, perhaps a little colder in the winter). So here it is longhand (my emphasis):

I can see now that TG is justifiable in contnenital winter scenarios but not justified in our maritime climate.

[Kurt Barlow]

I live in Finland where pretty well all windows are double glazed. I've never seen or heard of triple glazing. Compared to UK double glazing the gap betwen the two panes is much bigger, several inches.

Windows are often designed so that you can open on hinges the inner panel and then the outer panel. Dead flies and stuff accumulate over the years between the panes so they can be easily opened for cleaning. The panels have sort of keyholes and you insert a metal key and turn to open.

That sort of gap is the optimum for accoustic insulation. I think about 18mm is optimum for thermal insulation

[cells]

I knew I could rely upon you to turn a debate about Building Regs into a name calling competition.

not a name calling competition.

just wondering why you or anyone thinks they should dictate how things are done.

if you think energy use is bad for what ever reason then put a tax on energy itself and let people decide how they save consumption.

regulators shouldn't be in the business of regulating design or choosing winners as they are currently doing.

slap a 1p or 2p/kWh tax on all energy and consumption will decrease and we can freely decide how we go about using less or becoming more efficient.

[Kurt Barlow]

not a name calling competition.

just wondering why you or anyone thinks they should dictate how things are done.

if you think energy use is bad for what ever reason then put a tax on energy itself and let people decide how they save consumption.

regulators shouldn't be in the business of regulating design or choosing winners as they are currently doing.

slap a 1p or 2p/kWh tax on all energy and consumption will decrease and we can freely decide how we go about using less or becoming more efficient.

No - its particiaption in a democracy. Ultimately elected representative decide whether or not laws are made or repealed. Its call a parliamentary democratic process.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Kurt Barlow

[cells]

No - its particiaption in a democracy. Ultimately elected representative decide whether or not laws are made or repealed. Its call a parliamentary democratic process.

general laws, not micromanagement

if they think energy consumption is high they should put a general law or regulation out to decrease energy consumption. so that may be a 1p tax.

if they go deciding on how much to subsidise solar, how much to subsidise wind, how much to subsidise mCHP, what the thickness of walls should be etc then they will undoubtedly ****** up and produce something a lot less than what a general law or regulation would do.

[Kurt Barlow]

general laws, not micromanagement

if they think energy consumption is high they should put a general law or regulation out to decrease energy consumption. so that may be a 1p tax.

if they go deciding on how much to subsidise solar, how much to subsidise wind, how much to subsidise mCHP, what the thickness of walls should be etc then they will undoubtedly ****** up and produce something a lot less than what a general law or regulation would do.

Building Regs generally set a minimum standard for the U value of walls, floors, ceilings etc. The means to achieve this is largely left to the developer.

BTW - where developers are left to their own devices the outcome in most cases is usually shoddy and short lived.

[cells]

Building Regs generally set a minimum standard for the U value of walls, floors, ceilings etc. The means to achieve this is largely left to the developer.

BTW - where developers are left to their own devices the outcome in most cases is usually shoddy and short lived.

regulation should be in place to get over ignorance.

each seller of a product should be forced to displace clearly the energy cost of the product over its lifetime both in kWh and in £££.

that way the consumer can make an informed decision. it would then be in a developers/manufacturers interest to make the place/product energy efficient.

but the info must be understandable by those who have no idea about energy. hence why they should replace stupid energy ratings of A/B/C/Etc with £££ per year.

[corevalue]

I'm almost agreeing with Cells here - which will be a first. I think that a much better way for the government to approach their targets, whether climate change or energy security, would have been to tax energy directly, and that would include space heating. However, that would have been political suicide. Where I disagree with Cells, is that I think fuel prices ( and our traded imbalance) will increase dramatically in the next few years.

Regulation is important, however, overly strict rules for new builds barely scratch the surface, how many are going to be sold? The significant problem is not addressed - what do we do with the existing housing stock? We have triple-glazing virtually mandated for new builds in the "carbon-zero" houses, whilst people in older properties have to make do with leaky sash windows because of conservation requirements.

The regulations now require alterations to exisitng properties mean that they will have to be brought into line with new regulation - for example, if you change a radiator (perhaps it started to leak), you will be required to have seperate heating zones or TRV's fitted. That bumps up the cost. I suspect a lot of cowboy work will be done in the near future once this realisation catches on.

The problem has been left to fester. There are rows and rows of Victorian houses in the UK, all energy hogs. By making the price of building land so expensive, the renovation of our housing stock has been miniscule. I don't see a way out of our present situation, other than a lot hypothermia in the years to come.

[corevalue]

regulation should be in place to get over ignorance.

each seller of a product should be forced to displace clearly the energy cost of the product over its lifetime both in kWh and in £££.

that way the consumer can make an informed decision. it would then be in a developers/manufacturers interest to make the place/product energy efficient.

but the info must be understandable by those who have no idea about energy. hence why they should replace stupid energy ratings of A/B/C/Etc with £££ per year.

Yes. It annoys me that you can buy a modest larder fridge with an 'A' rating, that uses a fraction of the energy that an American style freezer/fridge/icemaker with the same rating. All the consumer sees is the A to G label. Worse, if he does get the energy figure and does the sums, he will realise that the premium paid for having an efficient appliance will probably not pay for itself, even worse if he buys it on credit!

[Kurt Barlow]

I'm almost agreeing with Cells here - which will be a first. I think that a much better way for the government to approach their targets, whether climate change or energy security, would have been to tax energy directly, and that would include space heating. However, that would have been political suicide. Where I disagree with Cells, is that I think fuel prices ( and our traded imbalance) will increase dramatically in the next few years.

Regulation is important, however, overly strict rules for new builds barely scratch the surface, how many are going to be sold? The significant problem is not addressed - what do we do with the existing housing stock? We have triple-glazing virtually mandated for new builds in the "carbon-zero" houses, whilst people in older properties have to make do with leaky sash windows because of conservation requirements.

The regulations now require alterations to exisitng properties mean that they will have to be brought into line with new regulation - for example, if you change a radiator (perhaps it started to leak), you will be required to have seperate heating zones or TRV's fitted. That bumps up the cost. I suspect a lot of cowboy work will be done in the near future once this realisation catches on.

The problem has been left to fester. There are rows and rows of Victorian houses in the UK, all energy hogs. By making the price of building land so expensive, the renovation of our housing stock has been miniscule. I don't see a way out of our present situation, other than a lot hypothermia in the years to come.

I wouldn't have a problem with energy taxes that are neutral and met with corresponding reductions in say employers NI contributions or VAT in general. Or better still insulation programmes for those leaky Victorian houses - with resident Grannies dying of hypothermia.

[corevalue]

We have a consensus? An energy tax balanced by a reduction in payroll taxes (and possibly an increase in housing-related benefits for the unemployed.....).

I think this would be quite fair. Those with large houses, would automatically pay more, but it would correspond to their personal consumption. No need for individual carbon allowances at all.

Now, how about making airlines pay tax on their fuel? This should have been on the agenda at Copenhagen IMV. Was it, does anyone know?

[cells]

Yes. It annoys me that you can buy a modest larder fridge with an 'A' rating, that uses a fraction of the energy that an American style freezer/fridge/icemaker with the same rating. All the consumer sees is the A to G label. Worse, if he does get the energy figure and does the sums, he will realise that the premium paid for having an efficient appliance will probably not pay for itself, even worse if he buys it on credit!

yep i know someone with 2 freezers, 2 fridges and recently got a 3rd fridge.

if she understood energy, kWh, etc she may unplug the five and get one bigger one. or more likely throw half of them away instead of keeping all of them half full

everything should have kWh used per year and over its lifetime but also the cost in £££, that way those who dont have a clue at least get a better understanding

[MrPin]

I'm not sure a "zero-carbon" house could exist unless it was constructed out of precisely no building materials!

I wonder why current existing properties are not suitable, unless it was the previous relaxation of the building standards, around 1981.

[porca misèria]

We have a consensus? An energy tax balanced by a reduction in payroll taxes (and possibly an increase in housing-related benefits for the unemployed.....).

I think this would be quite fair. Those with large houses, would automatically pay more, but it would correspond to their personal consumption. No need for individual carbon allowances at all.

Now, how about making airlines pay tax on their fuel? This should have been on the agenda at Copenhagen IMV. Was it, does anyone know?

Problem with that is, it makes too much sense. Transparency is the enemy of corruption.