Printable View
[QUOTE=Waterways;202500
How data it is interpreted is another matter. As Ann Robinson in Watchdog would dismissed the percentage figures given by manufacturers. They would say only 5% of this product has had problems. That 5% maybe 100,000 items.
[/QUOTE]
Good point.
Academic my back-side! You wouldn't know reasoned debate if it slapped you in the face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
There is no point in debating the accuracy of your percentage paved area; even less so whether it is too much or too little. More usefully, there are any number of academic studies demonstrating the harmful environmental effects of urban sprawl, the effect on carbon footprint and ongoing and real damage to our position on the planet.
The time for denial of climate change is over. It is happening (ask anyone in Cumbria about the number of '1 in 100 year' rainfalls since 2002). You can debate whether it is down to mankind if you like but it is beyond reasonable doubt to say that deliberately increasing the amount of commuter travel and surface water run off seems at best, foolhardy and actually downright irresponsible. It certainly makes matters worse. Even if we largely eradicated the car and moved all commuter transport to highly efficient trains, it is self-evident that the further you travel the more environmental damage you do.
It is therefore more useful to look at how to provide sustainable communities in the current precarious circumstances; communities that are "socially and economically diverse and that provided residents with 'a sense of place' and 'celebrated local history, climate, ecology, and [best] building practice'" ie. great places to live, and thence to work out whether that is best achieved in the 'empty' countryside or the 'empty' bits of existing cities.
It makes sense to work out how much land is needed and which land is best placed. It is misleading to say that the overall density of London is similar to the overall density of Liverpool. Liverpool is a doughnut city with largely empty inner wards (if you doubt it, have a walk around the North End or look at the population of Liverpool Northshore for example ie. the 800Ha of the Liverpool portion of the Atlantic Gateway Strategic Investment Area - the population is nil; yes, nil). Therefore a more valid comparison is to compare Liverpool (not Merseyside) with Inner London (not Greater London). On this basis, Inner Wards of London are twice as dense as Inner Wards of Liverpool.
On this basis, it?s plain as a pike staff that developing the 67,000Ha of inner city brownfield sites at this benchmark density can provide great places to live while being hugely preferential to building more stuff further out in the countryside and extending the lines of public transport and/or road network to suit - irrespective of your highly partial views/class hatred of the ?landed gentry?.
In short, I couldn?t give a stuff that you?ve got a chip on your shoulder about farmers and the CAP when we are either sleep-walking or worse, deliberately planning our way into global catastrophe and there is a significant alternative contribution to the solution directly on hand - ie. re-establishing sustainable communities in the inner cities.
If you want more information, you could start at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-urban-sprawl
Whether someone is an academic or not (I am) is really irrelevant to this and most discussions. I know academics who are the brightest and most insightful people I've ever met, and others as thick as the brown stuff coming out of the blunt end of a pig.
Judge them, as with all others, by their thoughts and actions, not by their job title.
That is amazing coming from you. Your idea of a reasoned debate is agreeing with your half-baked conclusion based on incomplete data.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Many here are sadly locked into a mentality. Let your minds run free.Quote:
In short, I couldn?t give a stuff that you?ve got a chip on your shoulder about farmers and the CAP when we are either sleep-walking or worse, deliberately planning our way into global catastrophe and there is a significant alternative contribution to the solution directly on hand - ie. re-establishing sustainable communities in the inner cities.
- Country & Urban. It must all be one - We can't build over all the countryside as the Daily Mail keeps telling you, as there is just too much of it. It is near impossible to do. If all towns and cities and villages are three times the size giving a population of 180 million, that gives only 22.5% of the land settled. Not a lot is it? I am not advocating that, just ramming home the point of land usage in the UK.
- Massive British exodus because of poor land and planning laws - The ex Empire countries attracted British migrants, when I talk to them, having been to many of these places, I ask many of them why they left the UK. The answer from 90% plus is, "we could have a nice large house, which we could not have in the UK". They could have had a nice big house in the UK that did not cost an arm and a leg, as the countryside is hardly built on - urban settlement is a paltry 7.5% of the land. We are not allowed to build on this great mass of land as they are in other countries.
- Why? why? why? Did millions of our own people leave the country - Because of the ridiculous planning and land laws. Did these planning and land laws help the people of the UK? Clearly No. Millions left the country because of them. OK millions of people have come to the UK, but these have been overwhelmingly people from dirt poor third-world countries.
- Social Engineering With Vested Land Interests Does Not Work - Social engineering and vested interest by large landowners has created poor urban environments in the UK.
- The UK has appalling ugly haphazardly built cities - The cities are filled with pokey super expensive poor quality houses. Clearly this approach to land and planning has not worked.
- High Density Cities Does Not Work - What approach can? Not attempting to create high density cities - again. That failed once costing billions. Great social problems resulted.
- Most People Aspire To A Semi-rural Lifestyle - What lifestyle and quality of life do people aspire to? Many aspire to detached homes and semi-rural living. Many surveys say this. So, this is what should be accommodated.
- So-called Sprawl Does Work When Done Properly - Each outer suburb can be a village in its own right with lots of green spaces. If anyone thinks villages in cities do not work, well look at Hampstead in London and Woolton in Liverpool. The city centre can be high density vibrant living, mixed with commercial. Connect up the villages by light-rail rapid-transit networks, not in a radial fashion, but a true network for ease of getting about. For e.g., Liverpool have the Outer Loop line and Canada Dock branch line to line up outer suburbs creating a "net" not a star. Do not construct wide dual-carriageway roads. Get people to use the metro links and having high frequencies they will use them. Do not allow massive supermarkets with large car parks. Tesco do well with the Expresses,which are large enough shops.
- Freedom To Live and Build Where You Want To - The forgotten word - Freedom. If someone wants to build a house out in the country, let him. Conform to the local vernacular - OK fine. It is called freedom, you know that thing millions of our ancestors fought and died for - quite a few of my uncles did.
- Build Low Impact Homes - Homes with super insulation, passive solar design and low energy appliances have a low carbon footprint. This home cots nothing more to build yet has not full heating system. Look at: Heatinghless House A heatingless house in Scotland by Deveci. Figures given by the university, so no arm-waving. Look at St. Georges Solar School in Wallasey. Solar School Having Low impact buildings mean we can build anywhere and reduce the carbon footprint substantially.
- It is Not Either OR - It is not urban or rural, it is all one. We can openly use the land to create large affordable comfortable homes - new UK homes are half the size of Denmark with German home being half as big again with the same population density of the UK.Even Japan builds larger homes.
You have been given a propaganda line, we all have. Simple facts, and proof given, are that the country has a surplus of land. We were told we are running out of land, so must all live in pokey over expensive rabbit hutches with paper thin walls like this:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Housing-1.JPG
We are not running out of land, we have so much we pay farmers not to grow on it.
You were confronted with facts which turned what you believed 180 degree. You refused to believe the figures as this went against your indoctrination. Then you grasp at straws going on an eco stance. The fact is we can spread out and still be sustainable. You appear to want us all to grow our own vegetable on allotments. You have it fixed in your head that an eco house on field will ruin the environment.
Do tell yourself lies and believe them. One thing is clear the UK is being ripped off big time by large land owners. By recognising this and wanting the situation to change you bizarrely think this is having a chip on the shoulder, such is the level of your sycophantic indoctrination. BTW, you are not the only one.
We are not planning (as in housing) our way into a global catastrophe at all. How naive.
This debate reminds me of the saying .There are three sides to every story.Your side,my side,and the truth.
My side is based on raw indisputable data - the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs dad
You three are a fine pair if ever I saw one.
Ha, you wouldn't be getting your figures jumbled up would you Ged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
It's like talking to a child; amusing for a while, but dulls so quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
What don't you understand specifically. I'll try to help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
You think we are going to choke to death if we do not live in rabbit hutches like battery hens. I'll help you:
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.
Change the planning system to allow buildings in the a masses of land we have (only 7.5% is settled) and land prices come down leaving more money to the build rather than spent on land, of which the country has a surplus.
Legislate high efficiency appliances only. Introduce more urban electric rail networks. Reduce road building.especially urban road schemes. Stop large supermarkets being built with large car parks. Urban design to get back to traditional high streets.
All that can be introduced ASAP and costs the taxpayer nothing at all.
Now, moving to electric cars is the next step after.
What planet are you on? The building industry is going to increase the cost of construction and swallow that cost? Yea, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
The consumer, in this case the house buyer, picks up the tab.
What planet are you on part ii.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
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.
Totally agree it's a good idea and should happen - just totally sceptical these days that any savings will be passed on to consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
That is why we have very expensive homes which are the smallest in western Europe and built with paper thin walls.
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.
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 healthQuote:
Originally Posted by petromax
Uh?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Ged, I never said any such thing. You were on about reflective foil which is a con.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
These are SIP panels. Solid insulation supporting the house:
http://www.buildingdesign.co.uk/faci...tec/panels.jpg
http://www.buildingdesign.co.uk/faci...ral-panels.jpg
The gas Heat PumpQuote:
Originally Posted by kevin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
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.
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 :rolleyes:
If you drink it or store it to put it on your garden later, you save lots of energy from having to purify more of it (or stick to beer) :PDT_Aliboronz_24:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
What d'yer mean - p1ss on the garden like?Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
That as well :PDT_Xtremez_42:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
My late Grandad used to p1ss in an old alumunium teapot and put it on the back lawn of his house in Mossley Hill. :PDT11 What those old gardeners didn't know about fertilizer. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
C :PDT_Aliboronz_24:
grass dont half grow when yer p!ss on it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge
Chris,
I think that was just a kinky hobby he dressed up as gardening know-how.
:rolleyes:
What's all this p155 and wind (Waterways) got to do with old buildings ?
If you read what I wrote I said superinsulation and air-tightness is the way and passive solar third. Passive solar does work in the UK and the sun shines on every house.Quote:
Originally Posted by petromax
To Ged, solar hot water is feasible in the UK as well. You can cut the water bills by half. Payback is another matter at the mo' but id it is stabdard the prices comes down.
They do not look at the Deveci link I gave. If they are standard for new homes and improvements then it makes an impact.Quote:
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
Ventilation can be controlled. Look at the Canadian 2000 standard and the German Passiv Haus. Canadians say "Build tight, ventilate right".Quote:
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;
Timber framed flats up to 5 floors high are being built in London. They are so well insulated no one ever uses the heating systems.Quote:
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.
Again, none of this put any cost on house. SIP panels? Lay the base and the house is weatherproof in a few days and the fitting out can be done at any time of the yearQuote:
And, at the end of the day the consumer always pays; no one picks up any tabs and stays in business.
That is incorrect.Denser cities are not necessarily more carbon efficient if new homes in suburbs (the villages) are made of SIPs and prime transport is electric metro using supercapacitor brake regen.Quote:
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).
Read above. Carbon footprint of cities is over stated and there is no need to cram us all in like battery hens while leaving the countryside empty so a chosen few remain billionaires at our expense. Massive reductions can be done in industry and pushing freight to electric trains, coastal ships, etc.Quote:
Clearly, you have nothing else that might dispute the argument that lower density cities create more carbon footprint.
You didn't read what I wrote. The MK conceptual model using a metro not high speed roads as transport mechanism. BTW, as there are few traffic jams, there is little pollution through kerbside emissions, and the over million trees planted around the grid roads negate car emissions. Travelling around the grid you see nothing except mainly trees and bushes, giving the impression nothing is there. The centre buzzes at the weekend and the suburbs (villages) have their small centres where no main roads run through and traffic calming measures exist. The people who live there love it. It is the largest shopping centre in the south east after London. The road system is the best in Europe, if not the world. The population is rising rapidly and the place is larger than Sunderland and Preston which are "cities". It is a massive success.Quote:
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.
The MK conceptual model using a metro to mesh the suburbs, having a high density city centre and road reduced from large to small to discourage cars, would be great model for Liverpool.
Im gonna live in a cave a light a fire.
Woo Hoo
:PDT_Piratz_26: :)
Well, I reckon that really is so much p1ss and wind...
Your superinsulation isn?t. SIP panels have a ?U-value? of 0.4 W/m2 K in laboratory conditions and without windows. UK Building Regulations require that wall construction gets DOWN to 0.35 W/m2 K ie., SIP panels may be a revelation to the energy-profligate US market but they don't even satisfy the current UK building regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
You claim houses made of these materials don?t need heating and so show that you don?t understand the principles of insulating material ie., they hold up heat loss just long enough for the external daytime heating cycle to take over from the night time chill. You have to put heat in in the first place!
Your air tightness doesn?t work with your ?superinsulation? which requires mechanical ventilation (you should read the stuff you swallow wholesale) and the sun don?t shine so much in the UK and even if it shone all day, the day ain?t so long in the winter, in case you hadn?t noticed.
Probably because you wouldn?t be bothered to introduce the material, draw your own original conclusions or get people interested in it. Perhaps you didn?t understand it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
In these very cold conditions it?s probably quite wise to close the door (and hermetically seal every crack and crevice) but it comes at an environmental cost (of mechanical ventilation/heat recovery/loss and poor air quality or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Yes and this adds substantially to the cost of an otherwise 'frameless' construction and again no heat in means... for god?s sake, do you imagine the insulation heats the house up? Jeez...Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Energy saving measures cost more. Go buy some! Do you seriously think the market is so competitive that builders will cut their margins to put it in when there is almost zero appreciation of the benefit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
A single storey house constructed in SIP panels can be put up very quickly. So? And why would you wait to fit it out? What for???
The point, made quite adequately, is that houses that are joined up share walls and therefore lose less heat. Heat loss occurs across a gradient or difference in temperature. Two houses at an equal temperature lose no heat to each other through a party wall. Similarly a first floor flat is ?insulated? by both a second floor flat above and a ground floor flat below. This is a denser configuration than a single storey house (and loses heat through every surface). Now, think about this carefully before you come back with more cr*p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
SIPs, yes we?ve talked about SIPs and I am sure brake regen is lovely but it can apply wherever
Says who? You? and nobody?s talking about battery hens. We?re talking about putting people into sustainable communities at established densities on vast tracts of EMPTY and derelict land in our inner cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Unfortunately, I most certainly did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
What happened to the solar miners lamp your were inventing Ged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge
I bet the tea tasted awful though!
Woooaaaaahhhhh. What a heavy duty thread this turned out to be.
(Swift exit...):ninja:
Yes, its getting as heated as the Masons thread last week. I am off too.............into the What Music are you listening to thread. EasierQuote:
Originally Posted by ItsaZappathing