If we had a benign method to generate power, within sensible limit, would it be needed. Though think we have discussed this before.

What is the advantage of adding another 200mm of insulation onto the existing 200mm in most new builds.
Would it not be better to automate a house more to save energy? That could be a relatively cheap after market add on that could be fitted to most houses.

Home automation should be capable of closing the windows or doors, my car is. All it has to do is sense different things.
In the 1990's, the sale manager at a plastics company just around the corner from you had a BMW soft top. When you opened the doors the windows used to drop a few mill, when it was closed, it wound up again. This was to stop the rag top being stressed. Pretty clever, on what was then a 15 grand car.

Hi,
Problem is that it costs money now. Might be ok for some. What bugs me is that the volume developers sell and advertise property by adding extras. In car terms - “loaded with spec”.
You hear the entire time price includes 42” TV; price includes granite work tops (all the way from china – wow so must be better).

They don’t add energy saving / related devices because it’s not glamorous, we’ve had the insulations isn’t sexy debate here already. It costs more for no obvious return to them (not the buyer). OK I know some more conscientious developers do, but in the main houses are sold like 1970’s car – the grosser the better.

So if things can’t be included voluntarily then you have to build it into regulations such that the buying public aren’t even aware of it. Do I really need to know how much insulation my new house has? No. All I need to know is that I don’t have to pay much if at all in energy bills (assuming I care in the first place what the cost is). You could mandate that for example solar thermal was on every new build and only not fitted by dispensation on a case by case basis, homeowner might come to thank you, but would the developer. Safety and economy have eventually become significant inputs to the car buying public (perhaps not at the higher end) but it took a long time.

That said I do believe in constantly asking for these things and looking pained when the reply is no we don’t fit ST but we do include big TVs, because after all developers are in it for business, and those that don’t listen to what being asked for go out of business. So the more we ask for the stuff the more likely they will include it routinely (eventually).

The problem with introducing more regulations is that the British public seem to persist in wanting to beat the regulations. Cue the builder with his “don’t worry we can do “just” enough to get past the regs – wink wink”. This has been said to me not just by a builder, but also by a firm that do PP and warrant for lofts/extensions/conservatories. So they obviously see that as a selling point. Homeowner thinks they’ve got one up on the government – how short sighted is that.

Cheers

Mike up North

Strange isn't it that cheating the rules is better than saving cash in your pocket.
Every time the government bought in legislation about emissions or safety in cars, the industry cried that it was not possible and if it was would cost too much. So now we have cars that injure people in minor accidents, belch out smoke, do 20 MPG, break down every 30,000 miles or less, last about 4 years (think Fiats and anything French from the 70's), cost several times the annual wage and are only available to a select few.
Who are these 'industry experts' and why are they listened to.

They way I see it is to charge more for energy. But then, as the general public are so often ignorant about the difference between unit price and overall price, a sweet talking salesman could sucker them into an igloo. Let's face it, they are pretty good thermally.

That was the house featured in a New Scientist article at the time about CHP.

Tried to find the GBF thread that discussed the power source, mentioning the Fiat engine, but I think it was buried in a thread about something else of related interest so not immediately apparent on a straight search for "micro CHP". (And brain still flustered with the hassle of having my email account hacked.)

Found it, after the therapeutic application of a mug of tea and a custard tart...

Thread... http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=7696

Although the Wikipedia link I gave no longer links to anything!

Great idea Tony.

I'm looking to move and have been crossing off houses to buy, precisely because of these issues.

Posted By: tonyI am attempting to get my LA to adopt this idea into their planning policies.

Overhanging eaves/verges doesn't fix the problem. One wall of our house is 900 mm from the boundary but I still couldn't fit EWI. The 900 mm is a path down the side of the house.

I expect there are other gotchas. Nothing's ever simple is it?

Thought that was multifoil.

Hi,
The thermal efficiency of domestic appliances such as cookers and fridges has improved no doubt (could be better). But as improved insulation materials / techniques are found instead of reducing Elec consumption they are utilised to make the volume inside bigger, because this is perceived as what the customer wants. If aero gel was dead cheap the commercial developer would still use the min to meet the regs as that would enable them to use a smaller footprint (cheaper), or, offer a bigger internal volume to customer for same price. I doubt they’d fit 3x as much and use the reduced energy demand as a selling point. Ultra cheap aerogel would be utilised by someone with an intrest in it and importantly in control of the build spec.
So again the reduced energy has to be a given or something the user demands instead of a nice to have.
Cheers
Mike up North

Posted By: tony
Came up with this simple idea -- all roofs must have 250mm eaves

On new build why stop at 250mm? Why not 4 or 500
If common building practice was to build the inner leaf, of block or timber, put the roof on and then face the building afterwards, in whatever finish you like. Insulating this inner skin is done more accurately and it's all done under the shelter of large eaves ovehangs. The weatherproof house also provides "early " dry shelter and storage for material, and final fix is achieved earlier.

Energy is a business. Big energy buisness with huge long term investments which the goverment is obliged to protect.

It goes against the interest of big energy companies and their friends in power to cut energy consumption,
they will make token gestures to show a certain willingness, but nothing beyond that that will will impact on their profits.

They WANT households to continue buying energy, above all nuclear.

The asbestos industry was faced with millions of dollars worth of lawsuits. Same reason that CFCs were phased out.

no comparison

Surely, large energy companies do not care about the volume they sell, it is more about the profitability. So if they have some facilities that are running below optimum, they can close them, saving money and increase profits.
Part of this is being stopped by the government who insist that they do not over charge customers. This is not really governments job, what they should be doing is taxing those profits more highly, making it easier for others to enter the marketplace and making it easy to change supplier (no more fixed term contracts, imagine if we had that with petrol sales for a penny discount, actually there are deals like that).
One of the problems is the way that the public spend money, we tend to spend or account for it all. So if something drops in price, we either buy more of it, do with less of it and spend the money somewhere else.
Recently road fuel prices have dropped 5-10%, do any of us feel better off because of it?

Posted By: DarylPjust because petrol/diesel drops in price at the pumps, do we buy more of it?

Seems we do, we tend to drive slower when it is high and do less unnecessary journeys.

The main point is that we juggle out money and then frequently blow it on something unnecessary, like bottled water.