Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:31:33 +0000 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=5084 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=5084 Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:09:39 +0000 jon
(apologies to fostertom for plagiarising the title)]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4842 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4842 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:58:27 +0000 RobinB http://zerochampion.building.co.uk/2009/11/01/environmentalism-as-miserbalism-the-backlash-begins/

Personally I see environmental change as a challenge to our creativity and inventiveness.

I guess one of the big challenges is to avoid "miserabalism" and a "sod the environmentalists I'm going to use as much as I can while I can (and we can always go nuclear)" backlash.

How?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4950 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4950 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:32:12 +0000 jon
It seems to me that things only happen when:

1: The local mood is strongly in favour of Climate Change innovation (such as a strong "Transition" movement)
2: The local parish is also strongly in favour (ie the Conservation lobby isn't that strong)
3: The Borough planners have a very strong intellectual grasp of what it all means

Are there any other factors? Is it reasonable to effectively exclude or rule out projects that have a social purpose from areas that also have a strong conservation lobby? I've suggested that the County might like to set up a register of 'golden triangle areas'. Would that help anyone?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4314 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4314 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:53:34 +0100 delboy
I genuinely know very little about this aspect of energy, so would be interested to hear the thoughts of The Brain.

Interesting to see on page 8 that an electric train emits 50g/passenger/km, while a diesel HST train is 60mg and a diesel Meridian train is around 95mg. (Not sure what HST & Meridian are). This is carbon (rather than CO2).

Does anyone have an opinion on these figures? What is the power load of an 8 carriage electric train? I noticed when I was skiing that a bubble lift with 100 odd cabins had a load of 1.2MW. Not sure how comparable the two are.

The other thing was that on page 7 it says that electricity is much cheaper than diesel. Is that really right?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4535 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4535 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:24:14 +0100 jon
But it's a bit pessimistic. There is a possibility that innovation rather than reversion may work.

Which Counties (if any) have a political leadership that takes this second "optimistic" point of view and incorporates that view in their Policy?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3782 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3782 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:36:01 +0000 RobinB http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4668 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4668 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:38:28 +0100 jon
The document allows for expansion but it will probably increase energy consumption (whilst being made to look as if it isn't; this probably not on purpose, but the LA's "sustainability" staff appear to be fairly inexperienced and easily swayed by developers and the appliance of pseudo-science

The intention of a small group of local residents is to launch a counter attack showing why the LA's proposals do not comply with Sustainability Policy.

In the forum's opinion, should the counter-attack be revealed prior to submission (allowing forums like this to comment and provide help/advice) or should it be hidden (gives little time for the LA to recover and, IMHO, probably good enough already to force an Inspector's rejection)]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4627 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=4627 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:42:06 +0100 SimonH
A new chance to bid to be one of 20 communities to really have a go a targeting CO2 reduction.

2 tranches -

tier 1, to be in a position to spend £500k by April 2010! i.e. existing groups with knowledge of their carbon footprint who want to tackle something a bit bigger than they normally get funding for.

tier 2, to do the same but spend £500k by Arpil 2011. So new groups with a bit less experience.

Not the hugest pot ever, but have you ever tried to get a £500,000 cap-ex project done in 6 months! Me thinks the gov are starting to put cash behind their strategy. I imagine more will come available after the pilot once they get a picture of where spending it makes most sense.

Full details at:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/consumers/lc_communities/lc_communities.aspx

Leader is...

On 28 September 2009 we launched the Low Carbon Communities Challenge, a two-year programme to provide financial and advisory support to 20 ‘test-bed’ communities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that are seeking to cut carbon emissions.

The findings from the Big Energy Shift[external Link] public dialogue suggest that households could benefit significantly from joined-up ‘packages’ of support, delivered locally in the community, to help them reduce home energy consumption and make deep cuts in their carbon emissions. Such packages could include, for example, smart meters, home energy audits, access to local demonstration homes, leadership from local schools, businesses and public buildings, and more hands-on support navigating advice and determining which energy efficiency measures and renewable technologies are right for them.

We believe that this type of integrated approach, involving technological solutions alongside community and household-level behaviour change, and delivered via new collaborations between local public, private and third sector organisations, will be critical to achieving the carbon emission cuts we need. However, as yet there is no blueprint for effective action or clear sense of how much can be achieved through this route – hence the Challenge, which is designed to test the success of different plans.

The Challenge will allow the experiences of people living and working in communities that take part to be shared publicly, along with the quantitative data on carbon and energy savings. The information will be used to offer continuous learning and improvement, and the lessons learned will be made available to other communities across the country. The learning will also inform government's wider delivery plans on energy and climate change.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3317 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3317 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:13:29 +0000 neelpeel Just wondering...why is that??
Is it just assumed by everyone that this is a known issue that we just have to work around or are people just not concerned?

I feel that its a real timebomb. Almost every country in the world at the moment is actively trying to increase their population and many at the same time are talking about cutting emmisions.
Current estimates are that world population will grow by around 2 billion (about 1/3 of current population) by 2050, most of this growth being in Asia.
Surely this will cancel out much of the good (and no doubt painfully expensive) work that will be done over the next few decades to tackle climate change.
Also, if we're having resource problems (including food shortages) at the moment then I can only imagine how tough it will be by 2050.

So what if anything should be done? An international effort to start to control population growth within areed limits? and if so, how can it be done??

Personally, I feel that the world is already overpopulated.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2093 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2093 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:14:45 +0100 ted This time to expand the planning guidelines for rural development.

http://new.wales.gov.uk/news/presreleasearchive/070708ruralhousingaa/?lang=en]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1239 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1239 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:06:43 +0000 chocolatepixie
For more information take a look at

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/4380.pdf
This is a Greenpeace report on Incineration and Human Health

www.noburner.org.uk
This is the website of York Residents Against Incineration. It's an excellent site with lots of well laid out information. Useful wherever you are.

www.ukwin.org.uk
A fairly new national site.

If you live in Yorkshire there is an urgent need to speak up as both North Yorkshire County Council and Leeds City Council are planning incinerators in the Vale of York.
The local website for the NYCC one is www.tockwith.net and the deadline for objections is Feb 15th.
Leeds are currently considering potential sites.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3933 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3933 Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:09:55 +0100 jon http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3882 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3882 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:04:28 +0100 Joiner http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3572 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3572 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:28:19 +0000 SimonH
Two new consultations were released today - which will underpin the gov's climate change and energy strategies for dealing with buildings. You can find them here....

CESP Community Energy Saving Programme : Think of an extension to the utility companies CERT grants scheme with whole house improvements available for the poorest areas.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/communityenergysaving

HES Heat and Energy Saving Strategy :

http://www.decc.gov.uk/consultations/hes.html

Haven't had chance to read them fully yet - but my guess anyone even remotely interested in the subject should read these and submit a response. Are they aiming too high, too low, have they factored in best practise, realistic achievable goal have been missed. Are they repeating previous missed targets. Have they got it right (for once).

Don't think it's a waste of time - some of the stuff in there is a result of lobbying CLG by yours truly and friends! Take a look at chapter 2 - using Energy assessors trained up to give advice. I'm not seeking any credit - I just want to make it crystal clear - this is everyone's chance to influence government policy - your views will be taken seriously, because no one has the answers to pull out of a hat - everyone's help and feedback will refine and improve these strategies.

Simon]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3098 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3098 Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:05:21 +0000 Matt
I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the row that is erupting over the Green Guide?

I think that today there will be some major articles in the press as well as the full report - some rumors last week on the web already.

http://zerochampion.building.co.uk/ and http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3129274&c=1&encCode=00000000018a35b9 , even the BRE are warning over using their own guide! : http://www.building.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?sectioncode=29&storycode=3129128&c=3

I have read the GHA ( http://www.goodhomes.org.uk/ ) report and it is very clear about the issues.

I agree with GHA, however I wonder what the BRE Green Guide will do? I cannot see them downgrading many major manufacturers products from 'A' to 'C' or worse, or indeed whole industries (such as uPVC).]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3373 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3373 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:04:23 +0000 ali.gill
Through the actions of the government the U.K economy is very much in debt and we have now, unknowingly, (thanks Darling) acted as guarantors to the major banks. The idea is that as more money is released into the economy we borrow more and this then prevents deflation. (I'm sure it can be better explained so please do..)

Anyway if the strategy is to increase borrowing then people need a bloody good reason so i'm thinking how about tying in a loan/grant scheme for renewables/energy efficiency measures so that householders borrow now to install the usual suspects.
1. reducing energy demand will save money on bills so the loan repayment can be offset against reducing the existing level of bill payments.
2. reducing energy demand through microgeneration reduces energy dependency especially gas (ukraine-russia > catalyst for ww3?) and electricity - (maybe avert current direction towards nuclear)
3. shot in the arm for economic development - demand for products drives growth of manufacturer, installer, surveyor, enterprises.
The loan scheme could be operated through a national organisation rather than the usual high street banks that we have unwittingly bailed out.

As an aside; due to economic downturn Samsung has restructured and directors taken a 20% pay cut.
So why cant british business and banking sector follow suit - why are the heads of the banks a. still in jobs and b. still getting paid preposterous amounts of money.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3372 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3372 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:11:05 +0000 SimonH
Why? Are there 2,000 people living on the streets of Lichfield? Nope.

So currently we hear talk of a new “Sustainable” housing development of 1,600 houses. To me, sustainable means you can keep doing it as many times as you like and not use up a valuable resource - like land.

The real problem to me seems the expectation that we should meet the demand for housing. Demand that we can all live in 4 bed houses from the time we’re 30, till the time we’re carried out in a box. People in their 60’s are living in 4 bed houses on their own, because after a life time of working they can afford it (and the spare rooms are useful at Christmas). People in their 20’s & 30’s are still living with their parent’s because they can’t afford a flat.

How do we reuse the existing housing stock in a way that meets people’s needs?

If I can answer that – I might be able to stop another 1,600 houses getting built. Possibly 4,000.

Then we can spend the money on improving the existing ones.

PS The thread title relates to the fact if you don’t build on green belt, because of NIMBYism, then you need to re-use existing land (which NIMBY’s don’t like either), so we need a plan C. Do we just shoot all the older NIMBY’s and give their houses to 20 somethings?

What can a local council influence that central gov will take too long to implement. No council tax discount for 2nd homes or single occupancy. Bring back rates on m2?

Buy up all the Victorian houses and knock them down / rebuild as BedZeds?

Clean up and allocate more derelict land for self builders, knowing they’ll build better more flexible houses than developers do? I.e. design for a life time – not fashion.

How can we create flexible ownership? Live in a 2 bed house and have cheap storage? With spare rooms in the travel lodge? Make a decent loft floor and stairs as pre-requiste (instead of another run of mirrored wardrobes in bed 4).

So what realistic options do we have for reducing demand for housing, and how can you argue that demand isn't there with the planning inspectorate?

Simon]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3212 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3212 Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:36:50 +0000 Chris Wardle
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

I think he has some interesting things to say on carbon taxation and the role of nuclear power and CCS in replacing/neutralising the harm of base load coal generation. I particular like his tax and dividend idea which seems like a viable way to avoid the regressiveness of a carbon tax without the complexity of cap and trade and TEQs, which, up until reading this, I have been in favour of.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3132 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3132 Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:50:19 +0000 SimonH
IEA seem to have responded to the amount of chatter about this subject over the last few years and actaully done some reasearch on 800 of the worlds larget oilfields (instead of making up the numbers!!). Instead of decline rates being 3.7% they are now 6.7%.

"Birol says we need a “global energy revolution” to avoid an oil crunch, including (disastrously for the environment) a massive global drive to exploit unconventional oils, such as the Canadian tar sands. But nothing on this scale has yet happened, and Hirsch suggests that even if it began today, the necessary investments and infrastructure changes could not be made in time. Fatih Birol told me “I think time is not on our side here.”"

When you realize the british government's position has been bsed laregly on the IEA position, you'll see that we should soon be expecting some policy announcements.

Newsletter here...
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/15/at-last-a-date/

Video interview here...
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/15/fatih-birol-challenged/

Simon.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3105 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3105 Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:45:37 +0000 Matt
So, Code for Sustainable.....pet shops....anyone?:tongue:]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2351 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2351 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:01:56 +0100 ali.gill The article highlights the perceptions of Carbon Offsetting in the U.S.
I think with London attempting to become a major trading centre its a subject worth its own thread.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/07/outfront-turning-carbon-into-gold.html]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2528 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2528 Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:10:36 +0100 Ben GreenHomes
BLOW TO GOVERNMENT COAL POLICY AS CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS ARE ACQUITTED
Verdict marks a 'tipping point' for climate change movement

Ministers suffered a blow to their energy plans today as six Greenpeace volunteers were acquitted of criminal damage by a Crown Court jury in a case that centred on the contribution made to climate change by burning coal.

The charges arose after the six attempted to shut down the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent last year by scaling the chimney and painting the Prime Minister's name down the side. The defendants pleaded 'not guilty' and relied in court on the defence of 'lawful excuse' – claiming they shut the power station in order to defend property of a greater value from the global impact of climate change.

Today's acquittal is a potent challenge to the Government's plans for new coal-fired power stations from jurors representing ordinary people in Britain who, after hearing the evidence, supported the right to take direct action in order to protect the climate.

Over five days of evidence Maidstone Crown Court heard testimony from the world's leading climate scientist, an Inuit leader from Greenland and David Cameron's environment adviser. The jury was told that Kingsnorth emits 20,000 tonnes of CO2 every day - the same amount as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that the Government has advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo Peninsula in Kent.

The 'not guilty' verdict means the jury believed that shutting down the coal plant was justified in the context of the damage to property caused around the world by CO2 emissions from Kingsnorth.

One of the Kingsnorth 6, Emily Hall, said after her acquittal:

"This is a huge blow for the Government's plans to build new coal-fired power stations. It's coal that should have been on trial, not us. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are business secretary John Hutton and the energy minister Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership, and embraced a clean energy future for Britain."

Another of the defendants, Ben Stewart, added:

"This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. If jurors from the heart of Middle England say it's legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy, it's time we turned to them instead of coal."
The defence called as a witness Professor James Hansen, a NASA director who advises Al Gore and is known as the world's leading climate scientist. Hansen told the court that more than a million species would be made extinct because of climate change and calculated that Kingsnorth would proportionally be responsible for 400 of these. "We are in grave peril," he told the jury. He said he agreed with Al Gore's statement that more people should be chaining themselves to coal-powered stations. "Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations."

Asked by Michael Wolkind QC, for the defence, if carbon dioxide damages property, Hansen replied, "Yes, it does." Asked if stopping emissions of any amount of it therefore protects property, he replied, "Yes it does, in proportion to the amount." He added that he thought there was an immediate need to protect property at risk from climate change.

Tory green adviser Zac Goldsmith also gave evidence for the defence. He told the court: "By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder in exerting pressure on countries like China and India. I think that's something that is felt in Government circles." He later told the jury: "Legalities aside, I suppose if a crime is intended to prevent much larger crimes, I think then a lot of people would consider that as justified and a good thing."

Some of the property the court was told was in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China's Yellow River region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

The acquittal is the first case where preventing property damage from climate change has been used as part of a 'lawful excuse' defence in court. The defence has previously been successfully deployed by defendants accused of damaging a military jet bound for Indonesia to be used in the war against East Timor before independence.

The defendants had intended to paint 'GORDON BIN IT' down the side of the chimney but were served a High Court injunction by police helicopter, meaning they only got as far as painting the Prime Minister's first name.

Last month a new report by Poyry - Europe's leading energy consultants - concluded that Britain could meet its energy demands without new coal. If the UK hit its existing efficiency and renewables targets it would negate the case for a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth and at least seven other proposed sites. An earlier Poyry report, published in June, found at least 16 gigawatts of untapped potential from 'Combined Heat and Power' plants – super-efficient power stations that are popular in Scandinavia but little used in the UK.

ENDS

Greenpeace press office – 0207 865 8255

Video and stills of Greenpeace team scaling and painting Kingsnorth smokestack available on request

Greenpeace 'case against coal' can be found at:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/the-case-against-coal-fired-power-generation]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2456 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2456 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:21:00 +0100 tony
They watch for and report on littering, dog fouling, people even neighbours not recycling properly.

Is this a move forwards and towards a better environment?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1900 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1900 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:20:44 +0100 tony
It would also be the least unsustainable and the greenest. It could be funded if the will was there by government.

We would all pay and all benefit. It could even work by charging those who use their own cars. then they pay for us!]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1956 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1956 Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:27:52 +0100 Chris Wardle
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=145279&speeches=1]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1892 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1892 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:40:09 +0100 SimonH
I know there's been a lot of interest in this on the forum so nows your chance to let the government know what you think - any thing you think they've missed or needs toughening up - well you have chance to reply. By the 30th of June.

If you've never responded to a consultation before - don't worry if your not some big wig in housing - submissions from individuals are treated equally as valid. What they are looking for is good ideas that could become national policy ;-) You can reply to as many or as few questions as you like. Given the importance of this policy I think anyone with an interest in green builing should put some words together.

Anyway here's the link to the CLG site...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/ecotownsgreenerfuture

The questions are inline in the document. A good starting point is to copy and paste them into a new document.

One thing I do know - the more people say the same thing the more likely it is to get picked up by those reading the documents - so if you have some really good ideas post them on here, and maybe a few of us will include them in our own submissions. Actually - mine will be going via a lobby group I'm already involved in, but as the saying goes - if you don't ask you don't get.

It's of particular interest to me as Curborough - one of the shortlisted sites is 2 miles from my house. I'm not against Eco towns in principle - but to call them an Eco town I'd like to see a lot more measures taken than that proposed for Curborough. Specifically I want to address transport as the current proposal is a bit light on how they'll stop the place becoming another commuter town for Birmingham and how the development will not impact the local environment.

Simon.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1812 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1812 Wed, 28 May 2008 18:08:38 +0100 GBP-Keith
There is a new nuclear power station opening near you! Will it be 24hour?

His next announcement will be to bring back 'National Service' and send all youngsters down the re-opened coal mines.

To be fair though, Lets' not hold our breath and expect the others that are waiting to come into power to do any better.

Anyone else want to have a shot at what he might announce next in the current energy fiasco!]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1795 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1795 Mon, 26 May 2008 20:13:48 +0100 ludite
example: how often do parents hear:" It wasn't me! I didn't do it! it was him/her!" and how often are those parents interested in finding out who (or what) started it? We just want it to stop.

Since joining this forum I am surprised to say I have become less interested in the causes of global warming/cooling, and even less interested in whether it will cool or warm. I think I'm even becoming fatigued with the discussion about how long the fossil fuels will last.

When I was very little we had the threat of a world war hanging over our heads. I used to see coach loads of old ladies - but no old men (because they were dead). Then we were horrified and scared by Nixon and watergate and vietnam, then it was the cold war, and terrorisim, and 911 - forgive the dodgy time lines again! And now, it's omygod!!!! global warming, an end to fuel and a breakdown in the social order that it would cause!

I don't care how it all happened, and who is controlling the strings and what spin has been put on it.

What I do want though - whether it makes a difference to anyone else or not - is a house that is safe and warm.

I've heard there are designs out there for houses I won't even have to heat! and that means forgetting about all sorts of UFH, ASHP, GSHP and any amount of the other initials. If I can light it by making the most of natural daylight, and store food and articles in my home without them coming to harm, then I would feel I am more than contributing to society.

I am trying to discover what I need and require from a dwelling, then separate that from what people tell me I should need.

eg. I don't think I need ensuite bathrooms, but I think I do need a toilet on both floors. Would I actually eat breakfast (special K) on a balcony while wearing my pjs with the white curtains billowing in the background? Hardly, in the uk!

So that is my answer to life, the universe and everything. What's yours?:wink:]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=110 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=110 Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:11:02 +0000 Johan
http://www.scambs.gov.uk/pressreleases/pressrelease.htm?mode=10&pk_press_release=947" >]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1749 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1749 Mon, 19 May 2008 13:42:15 +0100 CWatters
It would seem that David Cameron's Hybrid Lexus achieves worse mpg figures (only 26.7mpg) than something like the diesel version of the Ford Galaxy which is a seven seat people carrier that achieves 36-42mpg in real world driving.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3958376.ece

The Focus diesel/electric hybrid did a bit better at 46mpg but I wonder what a standard focus diesel achieves?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=89 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=89 Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:56:50 +0000 tony
And further the documentary nicely portrayed that the rise in CO2 is not responsible for temperature rises but is a consequence of it!

Any one see this as a political issue? and will we chew it over a bit?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1144 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1144 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:50:47 +0000 Chris Wardle
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080121/tuk-call-to-axe-fuel-duty-rise-6323e80_2.html

I wonder how high the pump price will have to go before resolve will crack and they will start to reduce duty to cushion the impact of a rising oil price?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1635 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1635 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:51:00 +0100 Peter A http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1657 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1657 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:01:35 +0100 Mike George
HOWEVER, there seemed to be loose stone outcrops everywhere. Why not allow small self build communities in areas like this where people have to utilise materials directly from the site? Also make it a condition of consent that they also have giant bird blender wind turbines to provide all their [exclusively] electrical needs.

Other possible areas include small coastal Islands

Crazy ? or viable?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1638 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1638 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:16:51 +0100 bobirving
see the ACE response at
BERR Heat Call for Evidence
WRITTEN BY SARAH MCLEAN
MONDAY, 31 MARCH 2008
In short, this written response by ACE to the BERR Heat Call for Evidence finds that this Call is very seriously flawed, as it focuses solely on the supply of heat to be used in buildings and does not consider managing heat demand through energy efficiency measures. Even more worrying, the only consideration of energy efficiency is a seriously misleading statement which presents measures in housing as more expensive and the carbon savings from them more difficult to achieve than from increased provision of electricity from nuclear power stations. This attempt by Government to deliberately restrict the consultation to cast nuclear in a more favourable light must be challenged by all who want carbon savings in buildings to be achieved in the quickest possible timetable. ACE believes that the Government should withdraw this document and revise it substantially to take account of a systematic programme of energy efficiency measures.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1501 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1501 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:15:52 +0100 Peter A Perhaps when the elections for mayor are over I will start again trying to get London to turn off office lights at night.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:28:40 +0000 GBP-Keith
Rumour has it that it has been set up to fail so the nuclear option is made to seem more necessary. What do you think?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=547 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=547 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:54:51 +0100 Gwyrdd DVDs of The Convenient Solution have been sent to every MP. You can help by urging your MP to watch the film and asking them to represent your views to John Hutton, who has responsibility for the present energy consultation and the decision on nuclear power. To view the film and find more information ...

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/the-convenient-solution-20070718" >http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/the-convenient-solution-20070718]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1324 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1324 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:49:56 +0000 sune I have of course written to my local MP's and as usual got the best response back from the Lib Dems - shame they are unlikely to get in...

Does anyone have any smart ideas on how else one could encourage this?

If possible can I respectfully ask that this doesn't turn into a debate on whether people think appropriate charging or capping and trading etc are the way ahead.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=730 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=730 Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:19:07 +0100 ted
Seems that they have quite quickly become fed up of being called "Chris".]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=684 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=684 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:05:09 +0100 Mike George
Where I live the council will not allow 'vans' to use their amenity tip unless by prior arrangement. Even if you were to do so there is still the legal requirement to be a licenced waste carrier.

Is it time for governmant to provide monitored facilities where builders could pay a nominal fee to take some of their waste? This could be limited to easilly recyclable/re-useable materials.

Re-usable items such as timber sections and bricks could even be sold back to other builders.

Is this a feasible idea?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=696 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=696 Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:07:58 +0100 ted
There is some public consultation in process and you can make your views known by responding to the questionaire available for download from here: http://www.assemblywales.org/sc-consultation_letter_web-e.pdf

Written responses are due by 19th October 2007.

This consultation is regarding households only. Later consultations will cover transport, industry and public sector, agriculture, energy production, and planning.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=638 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=638 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:02:51 +0100 AndrewM Thanks and Here is a copy of the email that I sent out:

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Microgenlondon - Renewable Energy Implementation into Business Buildings

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am emailing you to ask if you and any relevant colleagues could kindly fill in a questionnaire on the Greater London Authorities proposed strategy that is set out in the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) for on site renewable energy implementation in commercial buildings in London. The FALP states that ‘Renewable energy is required through a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, to be achieved by onsite renewable energy generation’ for all new developments in London.

The questionnaire is for an MSc dissertation project at the University of Southampton. The main aim of the study is to investigate perceptions of renewable energy technologies (R.E.T) as a whole, between job descriptions and how it can be implemented in the commercial sector to meet this 20% target. It should not take more than ten minutes to fill in and the study may provide information that will be of great interest to you and your company. I would be most grateful if could you forward this email on to any relevant colleagues in the fields of engineering, asset management, facility management, architects, planning officers and other relevant areas that are involved in developements.

The questionnaire and more background information on the project are available from the following website:

http://www.energy.soton.ac.uk/research/microgenlondon/

I would be very grateful if you could please return it as soon as possible, via email to: ajrm106@soton.ac.uk

Results will be made available on completion of the study in December at the same website address as above. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you very much for your time and effort.

Yours Faithfully,

Andrew J. Moore

School of Civil Engineering and the Environment

Southampton University

Email: ajrm106@soton.ac.uk]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=569 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=569 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:05:23 +0100 Nanuls Lifting the Planning Barriers to Domestic Energy Micro-generation: Proposed Changes to Permitted Development Rights

Thought you'd all might like to know that the Welsh Assembly Government are holding a consultation on the the future of domestic microgereneration with an aim to get the publics views on proposals to help residents take up individual sources of renewable energy in Wales by lifting any planning barriers to domestic energy micro-generation. Seems like a good thing to get involved in even if you don't live in Wales.

The document is 1.46mb and can be downloaded here:
http://new.wales.gov.uk/consultations/currentconsultation/plancurrcons/1616782/?lang=en]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=352 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=352 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:15:43 +0100 GBP-Keith
Our own (green building) sector is not free of this. In fact we will see it explode even more in the coming year or two. Perhaps Government R&D bodies should have stayed property of the public then chasers of such funding would not have become so prolific.

I'm sure that some good work will have come out of some of the funding but I've often seen better work steamrollered out of the way by other organisations that secured what I have come to call 'funny money'.

My biggest concern is that it will be the 'who you know teams' rather than 'what you know teams' that deliver the R&D for our future. Not the perfect solution in my mind.

Therefore would we be better off without government manipulation of business and society with this funding so that the best solutions can 'naturally' float to the top?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=345 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=345 Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:44:48 +0100 Keith Hall
Maybe the Carbon Credit card can be doubled up with an identity card. Now there's a thought!]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=232 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=232 Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:46:18 +0100 Nanuls
Do you think it will encourage the growth of sustainable housing?]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=222 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=222 Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:58:14 +0100 fostertom http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2064484,00.html
India not far behind.]]> http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=102 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=102 Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:22:24 +0000 Peter A http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=205 http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=205 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:05:48 +0100 dragonbc I have already done and paid for my training and registration with HETAS as a solid fuel installer why is it necessary to double up on the inspection and end up having to pay two sets of fees?

Why is the fee set so high? I am CORGI registered and they inspect annually and have the ACS assessments every five years ( Cost approx £ 900 for the ACS ) plus annual fee of approx £180
Is this a TAX on small businesses ? Or do the Government want to ensure that small businesses are unable to take part in the scheme?

It is ironic that £1800 is required to register for a grant system which runs out of money a few hours or minutes after the tranche for the month is released and then the amount available is very small compared to say Ireland where the grant for a Biomass boiler is 4200 Euros and there the Irish Government have set aside 65million Euros for their low carbon scheme !]]>