What's so great about Old Buildings?

[kevin]

It is quite simple. Something like 42% of emissions are via domestic homes. Introduce:

• superinsulation,
• air-tightness
• passive solar design on all buildings.

That cost nothing to do and the building industry picks up the tab.

What planet are you on? The building industry is going to increase the cost of construction and swallow that cost? Yea, right.

The consumer, in this case the house buyer, picks up the tab.

[kevin]

Legislate high efficiency appliances only.

What planet are you on part ii.

This proposal will reduce choice, driving up prices.

The consumer, again, picks up the tab.

I'm not saying that there isn't value in some of your ideas, I'm just critical of your belief that there'll be no cost.

[petromax]

..

It is quite simple. Something like 42% of emissions are via domestic homes. Introduce:

• superinsulation,
• air-tightness
• passive solar design on all buildings.

....

These building standards can be applied just as well in low density ?countryside? as in high density cities.

Actually these would on the one hand (superinsulation) slightly favour smaller houses with a lower perimeter to volume ratio (contrary to the ?space-to-live? argument) ie. small, fat houses on cold climates but on the other hand (passive solar gain) favour a higher perimeter to volume ratio as well as single orientation ie., long skinny houses in hot climates. The ?third hand? (airtightness) is particularly appropriate to extremes of cold climate and produces poor quality air environments unless counter-productive and recycled and hence re-conditioned air is used at the expense of increasing carbon footprint.

In short, you can?t throw all the ?positives? in the pot and expect a beneficial result and you can?t use the same systems, anywhere and at anytime. There is value in imroving building efficiencies. You should and could attack the 40% carbon-in-use if you can choose a system appropriate to the geography but the nett result is largely the same no matter where ever you are. Thus the choice of building construction is a ?non-variable? in comparing ways of planning cities and planning city density.

Other significant drivers of carbon footprint are extremes of climate and ?degree of development? ie the hot and cold and highly developed countries produce really high amounts of carbon. The top four countries are in the Middle East. The USA, Canada and Australia are 9th, 10th and 11th respectively and the UK is 41st.

The Middle East is unique in terms of its climate, development and access to oil. However the three ?former colonies? have roughly the same degree of development and extremes of climate - either extreme hot or extreme cold, but Canada has both which would distort any comparison. The other two also have ?denser? cities and ?suburban? cities of which the UK has none to compare. It is thus possible to compare high and low density cities in the USA and Australia whilst eliminating the ?non-variables?.

For example, in the US ?The population of the 100 metro areas grew by [only] 6.3 percent. As a result, the average per capita [carbon] footprint of the 100 metro areas grew by only 1.1 percent during the five-year period, while the [total] U.S. partial carbon footprint increased twice as rapidly (by 2.2 percent) during this same timeframe.? In other words, the population outside the metro areas doubled the average.

Whereas London has a population of about 10 million within the M25 which has a diameter of approximately 40miles, whilst Sydney with its open and relaxed suburbs and ?plenty? of space for all, is of a similar physical size but has a population of a mere 4 million and produces twice as much carbon per capita (and both have very effective public transport).

Australia is of course a huge and ?empty? country. It doesn?t matter how much land you have available, it?s how much land you use that counts.

[Waterways]

What planet are you on part ii.

This proposal will reduce choice, driving up prices.

The consumer, again, picks up the tab.

I'm not saying that there isn't value in some of your ideas, I'm just critical of your belief that there'll be no cost.

Yes, the choice will be high efficiency appliances by any maker - a big choice. BTW, tumble dryers are available that use about half the electricity of the current electric resistance heater models, using a heat pump - fridge compressors. If all made them the price would drop.

In homes the cost should be less, as land prices will drop as an artificial land shortage that ramps up land prices, which is around 2/3 the cost of the average home, disappears.

The cost will not be to the taxpayers.

[Waterways]

What planet are you on? The building industry is going to increase the cost of construction and swallow that cost? Yea, right.

The consumer, in this case the house buyer, picks up the tab.

I am on the real planet. British homes are not made efficiently. Pre-fabrication is rarely done. Expensive cavity walls are built when the Germans look at us an think we are mad. Homes can be erected using SIP panels - high insulated panels - that need no heating system.

Land prices dropping with any increase in construction, which there should not be, will be more than be balanced by lower land prices. If you had looked at the link I gave to the heatingless house in post 204 you would have seen that the house cost no more to build. Figures by the uni.

[kevin]

I am on the real planet. British homes are not made efficiently. Pre-fabrication is rarely done. Expensive cavity walls are built when the Germans look at us an think we are mad. Homes can be erected using SIP panels - high insulated panels - that need no heating system.

The if land prices drop any increase in construction, which there should not be, will be more than balanced by lower land prices. If you had looked at the link I gave to the heatingless house in post 204 you would have seen that the house cost no more to build. Figures by the uni.

Totally agree it's a good idea and should happen - just totally sceptical these days that any savings will be passed on to consumers.

[Waterways]

Totally agree it's a good idea and should happen - just totally sceptical these days that any savings will be passed on to consumers.

We do not have a free market in homes as land allocation is rigged and the large construction companies have land banks, bought from usually large aristocratic land owners.

That is why we have very expensive homes which are the smallest in western Europe and built with paper thin walls.

[Ged]

Are these the high insulated panels that I said 2 years ago could be used on all the old stock such as tenements and Georgian terraces but you ridiculed them as inefficient yank stuff.

[Waterways]

Actually these would on the one hand (superinsulation) slightly favour smaller houses with a lower perimeter to volume ratio (contrary to the ?space-to-live? argument) ie. small, fat houses on cold climates but on the other hand (passive solar gain) favour a higher perimeter to volume ratio as well as single orientation ie., long skinny houses in hot climates. The ?third hand? (airtightness) is particularly appropriate to extremes of cold climate and produces poor quality air environments unless counter-productive and recycled and hence re-conditioned air is used at the expense of increasing carbon footprint.

In the UK climate superinsulation and air-tightness are the prime points. Passive solar assists quite well. See, The Whole House Book at The Centre of Alternative Technology. Also read the link in post 204 re: heatingless house. Also, it keeps families out of fuel poverty. It also improves health

In short, you can?t throw all the ?positives? in the pot and expect a beneficial result and you can?t use the same systems, anywhere and at anytime.

Uh?

Other significant drivers of carbon footprint are extremes of climate and ?degree of development? ie the hot and cold and highly developed countries produce really high amounts of carbon.

Reducing the carbon footprint simply mean a reduction in fossil fuel use - which does not mean high density cities. Air conditioning and excessive car use causes high carbon from cities in hot and cold climates. Well built homes to the point I outlined will reduce the fossil fuel use. In a UK climate it will use very little at all.

This ridiculous Merseytram idea, was designed with outdated radial lines from the city centre. A meshed network is the way to go so people can move easily from suburb to suburb instead of having to move into the centre and back out again on another line.

Look at Milton Keynes, the city planning idea was by an American named Webber. He was far sighted. The city was built on a high speed grid road system with cars moving at 60-70mph, in which the roads formed the boundaries of suburbs, not running through the suburbs. At each point of the grid there was a roundabout to improve traffic flow. Each suburb was a village in its own right with a pub, shops schools, etc. The thinking was when car was thought to be the predominate mode of transport. This can be applied to a metro system, instead of roads.

About the concept of Milton Keynes:

They set in place the characteristic grid roads that run between districts and the intensive planting, lakes and parkland that are so evident today. Central Milton Keynes was not intended to be a traditional town centre but a business and shopping district that supplemented the Local Centres in most of the Grid Squares.

This non-hierarchical devolved city plan was a departure from the English New Towns tradition and envisaged a wide range of industry and diversity of housing styles and tenures across the city. The largest and almost the last of the British New Towns, Milton Keynes has stood the test of time far better than most, and has proved flexible and adaptable.

The radical grid plan was inspired by the work of Californian urban theorist Melvin M. Webber (1921-2006), described by the founding architect of Milton Keynes, Derek Walker, as the "father of the city". Webber thought that telecommunications meant that the old idea of a city as a concentric cluster was out of date and that cities which enabled people to travel around them readily would be the thing of the future achieving "community without propinquity" for residents. With both car ownership and ever more emphasis on e-commerce, his ideas, launched in the 1960s, have proved far-sighted.

Webber's ideal works. If the grid was a metro rail grid running to the centre of each "village/suburb" and the roads narrowed and set to 30mph to discourage car ownership, then this model would work very well indeed. The city has adapted to cater for single people by building high rises in the centre, near the bars and theatres, etc. This highly successful urban model can be adapted and retro-fitted to existing cities.

The model works exceptionally well with Milton Keynes now with over a population of 200,000 is set to overtake Nottingham within 10-15 years.

Liverpool has a Merseyrail metro system with radial lines running outwards in the old hat commuter rail fashion. To make it work it needs a meshed metro network. Liverpool has redundant cross city loop lines, the Outer Loop, Canada Dock Branch line, North Mersey Line, two long tunnels, etc which cut through outer suburbs and radial lines - perfect. This makes it easy to move across the city, not just in and out, a great advantage.

This is the way Liverpool should be thinking. Use the Merseyrail metro as way of getting around the city not a means of getting people to the centre to work.

The metro and the disused lines can make a wonderful hybrid city of:

• High density city centre, including the waterfront docks.
• a series of "villages" with large detached, eco, low density homes in the outer suburbs.

All interlinked with a "meshed" metro network - and trams if need be in places where the metro cannot get to. And no large roads to discourage car usage and force people onto the metro.

Liverpool has it all waiting to be used.. The last thing the city needs is radial lines with trams on them.

[Waterways]

Are these the high insulated panels that I said 2 years ago could be used on all the old stock such as tenements and Georgian terraces but you ridiculed them as inefficient yank stuff.

Ged, I never said any such thing. You were on about reflective foil which is a con.

These are SIP panels. Solid insulation supporting the house:

[Waterways]

This proposal will reduce choice, driving up prices.

The consumer, again, picks up the tab.

The gas Heat Pump

Uni of Warwick have developed a small absorption refrigeration system - like gas fridge. A heat pump run on gas not electricity - a heat pump is a fridge compressor. They are making the absorption version smaller, as these were too large for many real applications. It appears the COP has improved as well. An electric heat pump at COP 4 is the equiv to run in costs as gas, as gas is about 1/4 of the price of electricity per kW. A heat pumps can give out 4 kW when consuming 1kW (COP 4). A seasonal average what is needed really.

Now if this absorption unit is smaller and has say COP 2 running on gas then it looks good. They can heat a house or hot water. At COP 2 using gas means the equiv of COP 8 using an electric heat pump in running costs.

This means the inefficient air-to-air heat pumps run by cheap to buy gas are quite cheap to run indeed. If COP 2 is maintained gas heating bills for the average house will be more than halved. Install these into highly insulated homes and the heating bills will be very low indeed.

That is air-to-air. Have a water or ground sourced system and the heating bills are lower again maybe to a 1/4 or less of current gas bills. It is all to do with the cost of gas vs. electricity per kW. These promise to be superb for retrofit applications.

These units are so small they can use the waste heat from car exhausts to cool a car, improving efficiency when cooling.

If gas equals electricity in kW to buy then the electric heat pumps will probably be more efficient for buildings, and these units relegated to cars only.

Looks good indeed, reduced fossil fuel use.

[kevin]

The gas Heat Pump

Uni of Warwick have developed a small absorption refrigeration system - like gas fridge. A heat pump run on gas not electricity - a heat pump is a fridge compressor. They are making the absorption version smaller, as these were too large for many real applications. It appears the COP has improved as well. An electric heat pump at COP 4 is the equiv to run in costs as gas, as gas is about 1/4 of the price of electricity per kW. A heat pumps can give out 4 kW when consuming 1kW (COP 4). A seasonal average what is needed really.

Now if this absorption unit is smaller and has say COP 2 running on gas then it looks good. They can heat a house or hot water. At COP 2 using gas means the equiv of COP 8 using an electric heat pump in running costs.

This means the inefficient air-to-air heat pumps run by cheap to buy gas are quite cheap to run indeed. If COP 2 is maintained gas heating bills for the average house will be more than halved. Install these into highly insulated homes and the heating bills will be very low indeed.

That is air-to-air. Have a water or ground sourced system and the heating bills are lower again maybe to a 1/4 or less of current gas bills. It is all to do with the cost of gas vs. electricity per kW. These promise to be superb for retrofit applications.

These units are so small they can use the waste heat from car exhausts to cool a car, improving efficiency when cooling.

If gas equals electricity in kW to buy then the electric heat pumps will probably be more efficient for buildings, and these units relegated to cars only.

Looks good indeed, reduced fossil fuel use.

I understand the concept (I used to be an engineer) and have seen earlier examples used on Grand Designs, but my scepticism stands proud again. There is little benefit in companies moving from more efficient ways to do pretty much anything when the older less-efficient ways is what their profitability is based upon. Of course, legislation will eventually come into play, and the new technology will become cheaper as it is adopted by a greater percentage of the population.
But losing the companies who profited from the old ways has a detrimental effect on the economy as all of the people employed will now be unemployed or in reduced circumstances - leaving less money in circulation, hurting everyone, and putting a greater tax burden on those still employed.
As with the environment, the economy is a system. Doing something to one part of a system has an effect on other parts of the system. The solutions you propose are certainly useful, but their overall impacts need to be considered.
Of course, doing nothing is not an option. We need integrated policies at all levels of our lives, keeping a balance negating negative impacts brought about by positive impacts elsewhere in the system.
But which political party are capable of doing that?

Starting to ramble now so calling it a day!

[Waterways]

I understand the concept (I used to be an engineer) and have seen earlier examples used on Grand Designs, but my scepticism stands proud again. There is little benefit in companies moving from more efficient ways to do pretty much anything when the older less-efficient ways is what their profitability is based upon. Of course, legislation will eventually come into play, and the new technology will become cheaper as it is adopted by a greater percentage of the population.

Yep, legislation is the only thing pushing car makers, otherwise the only changes would be what colour stripe would you like on the side and they hopelessly inefficient internal combustion engine would still be polluting. Well it is now, but the moves are positive to electric drive.

But losing the companies who profited from the old ways has a detrimental effect on the economy as all of the people employed will now be unemployed or in reduced circumstances

They know the industry they are in. They must keep up. They would have has warning. If they do not they disappear like companies have done for centuries. We should not be in the business of propping up lame duck industries.

[petromax]

...Uh?...

To summarise; Life is not as simple. Would that it were - you can?t apply every bit of passive technology in any single place. Passive solar gain for one, has found no home in the UK market because it doesn?t work as well as other measures, if at all and there is much literature that will tell you so.

It will also tell you that this and other carbon reduction measures in the UK housing market are limited by consumer recognition of ?pay-back? ie. these measures cost more than traditional methods and most buyers cannot see when they will get their money back in reduced energy bills; perhaps a matter of education (and staying in houses longer), but there it is. Nobody even wanted to pay for HIPs ('just another tax').

Legislation (via the Building Regulations) has improved carbon efficiency at least in the short term but there are longer term deficits which the legislation does not address eg., carbon footrint of manufacture of high-tech, carbon-based, high-value insulants and composite construction boards - such as SIPS (incidentally SIPS requires ventilation which reduces the efficiency of an 'air-tight' construction; needs to be (steel-)framed in anything other than extremely simple construction and claiming it needs no heating system is just a tiny-weeny bit exaggerated...). All of which points to lower-tech, lower-cost or re-cycled solutions.

And, at the end of the day the consumer always pays; no one picks up any tabs and stays in business.

Having said that, these measures to reduce the carbon footprint of individual buildings have nothing to do with planning environmentally sustainable cities other than to say in passing that denser cities are inherently more carbon efficient in that dwellings share heating and cooling surfaces (walls, foundations and roofs).

Clearly, you have nothing else that might dispute the argument that lower density cities create more carbon footprint.




BTW, I have looked at Milton Keynes. It?s a horrible, soulless place with no sense of place or focus and God help you if you want to walk anywhere.

[Ged]

Milkon Keynes is great though for roundabout practice for your driving test, second only to Skem. Solar power - tell me about it, aint enough daylight hours here to light a garden lamp, now rain power - that'd come in useful.

Carbon footprints. Why worry when the world leaders all fly to a place to discuss global warming and some MPs drive 2 jags