Tue, 19 Dec 2023 04:40:41 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16265&Focus=275922#Comment_275922 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16265&Focus=275922#Comment_275922 Thu, 03 Oct 2019 14:25:40 +0100 vord
The issue I'm having is you can't just insulate a solid wall with plastic paint or cement render outside and high external ground levels. The regs assume it is quick and easy to bung a bit of insulation on, but for me there is digging trenches outside, knocking off render and replacing with lime, replacing all the doors and windows lost in the process. The assumed payback on energy saving is 30 years, and I'm running into thousands of years payback. Apart from the time and money I doubt that will be environmentally friendly. I would much rather throw £100k into a pot to help other people insulate their lofts ratherthan do inefficient work here, but there isn't the option.

Has anyone been through this? I'm getting a bit fed up. I tried being depressed for a while but that didn't work for me so I'm looking at making a plan. It seems obviously silly so am I missing something here? My plan at the moment is to find cheap insulation and throw it away again when the damp issues get a bit much.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16265&Focus=275945#Comment_275945 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16265&Focus=275945#Comment_275945 Fri, 04 Oct 2019 12:24:09 +0100 Mike1
Reasonable provision would be to upgrade those thermal elements whose U-value is worse than the threshold value in column (a) of Table 3 to achieve the U-values given in column (b) of Table 3 provided this is technically, functionally and economically feasible. A reasonable test of economic feasibility is to achieve a simple payback of 15 years or less. Where the standard given in column (b) is not technically, functionally or economically feasible, then the thermal element should be upgraded to the best standard that is technically and functionally feasible and delivers a simple payback period of 15 years or less. Generally, this lesser standard should not be worse than 0.7 W/(m2.K)

...so clearly you're not expected to invest if the payback period is 30 years, let alone thousands of years.

However, since this is a green building forum, I'm sure that everyone would encourage you to upgrade the thermal envelope as must as possible. If you pose specific problems there will no doubt be plenty of advice on potential solutions.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16265&Focus=275947#Comment_275947 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16265&Focus=275947#Comment_275947 Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:55:42 +0100 vord
The disagreement was only over 2 short pieces of wall. While they aren't causing issues at the moment they have been troubled by modern finishes and optimistic external ground levels so are damp with no means of drying out. In an ideal world I would be straight on to fixing them, but old houses are rarely ideal and there are some more urgent things to pour money into.]]>