Attack on period properties

[plasticpigeon]

I was listening to Radio 4 the other day, and I think a minister (I wasn't listening very carefully) started talking about how a lot of London housing stock is Georgian or Victorian they are a nightmare for the environment because of their solid walls and sash windows and he intended to address that issue. Does anyone know if this is an official scheme???

Has any proper analysis of this been carried out? For example, A plastic window takes energy and chemicals to make, the double glazing might last 20 years and the frame is hard to recycle. Wood needs to painted so that is an environmental hazard. The heat transfer coefficient is known for single vs double glazing so on balance which is better, i.e. energy saved due to reduced heat loss vs more frequent replacement and energy used in making plastic frames.

Same with solid walls. If battens are put up and insulation put on the inside of a building which is then boarded and plastered, that is a lot of material and initial embedded energy outlay. Also if additions make the fabric of a building deteriorate then that has to be taken into account. I bet there has not been any proper analysis done, just this vague idea that old windows and walls let more heat escape than new ones without looking at the big picture. It is like the electric car. What a load of rubbish. It only becomes a viable option if the electricity is made in a renewable way. People forget that power stations are inefficient and burn mainly gas, oil or coal. There is inefficiency in transmission, then inefficiency in charging a battery, inefficiency in an electric motor, not to mention the environmental effect of making and disposing at the end of life of huge battery packs. It seems that the fact that there are no tailpipe emissions convinces people that they are fantastic. Obviously it just transfers the air pollution out of cities to elsewhere. I have just looked up the percentage of renewable electricity produced in this country, and if I have interpreted correctly it is around 7% of total generation.

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/electricity-growth/

Are ministers really so ill informed or are they just trying to get people to spend money???

 

[Flyfisher]

I didn't hear the programme but you've rightly highlighted a lot of the shallow thinking that seems endemic with many environmental issues, especially when politics enters into the debate.

Attempting to micro-manage our 'environmental' behaviour will, at best, only impress sections of the population and, at worse, will turn everyone off the subject. Unfortunately, what may be environmentally sound is usually not politically acceptable.

If the real environmental villain is fossil fuel then surely the logical thing to do would be to make it very expensive, rather than mess around with millions of laws and initiatives to help people use less. People are not stupid - make the stuff really expensive and they'll soon work out for themselves how to use less.

But, of course, such action would not be politically acceptable and - shock, horror - it would hamper the growth of the country's GDP so the only political way ahead is to encourage double-glazing and home insulation, to make us all feel like we're saving the planet, while growing the economy, so we can all get richer and therefore consume more energy!

Deck chairs on the Titanic?

 

[plasticpigeon]

There's an idea that if people spend loads of money, the economy will grow. However I can't see how money simply changing hands will cause growth. In fact if people go and buy poor quality items that are of no benefit to them or the wider community no one has gained apart from the company that made the poor quality item. If I go and steal someones handbag, money has changed hands, and likewise, there has been no net gain to society. I can't see how we can have an economy based on selling rubbish to people within these shores (exporting rubbish is different) any more than an economy based on theft. Am I missing something? Surely only productive and valuable work benefit society to make quality of life better.

 

[biffvernon]

I bet there has not been any proper analysis done,

Sorry but there really has been a great deal of very proper analysis done. There may be excellent reasons for not altering the historic fabric of a building but arguing that the embodied energy in double glazing or wall insulation means it does not improve the overall energy efficiency will get you nowhere. You will find on another thread that I have pointed to various short-comings of the Green Deal but do take care not to use arguments that can easily be falsified.

And double glazing does not have to mean plastic!

 

[biffvernon]

There's an idea that if people spend loads of money, the economy will grow.

Sadly, it's true; the economy's growth, measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does just that. Our financial system is dependent on growth in GDP but that is a poor measure of welfare. And it's worse than you think. You stealing a handbag does contribute a lot to economic growth since you will be providing employment for policemen, solicitors, barristers, a judge, prison guards, probation officers... all things which really are not contributing to our gross domestic happiness, a much better measure of the nation's welfare.

 

[biffvernon]

If the real environmental villain is fossil fuel then surely the logical thing to do would be to make it very expensive, rather than mess around with millions of laws and initiatives to help people use less. People are not stupid - make the stuff really expensive and they'll soon work out for themselves how to use less.

Indeed, that would be a much better approach, and is what Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) do, with the added benefit of fairness. Giving individuals the opportunity, responsibility and freedom to creatively work out for themselves the best way they can use what scarce energy we have was at the heart of the late Dr David Fleming's idea. See http://www.teqs.net/

 

[sheikyerbouti]

If the real environmental villain is fossil fuel then surely the logical thing to do would be to make it very expensive, rather than mess around with millions of laws and initiatives to help people use less. People are not stupid - make the stuff really expensive and they'll soon work out for themselves how to use less.

mmm. Interesting quote! Working in the industry I thought I would just add a few bits!

I totally agree on making polluting fuels expensive. However if someone would like to come up with a alternative "always on" fuel souce which is clean and reliable then i'm all ears! The government on this subject as usual are totally incompetent. Take the Queens speech - the government have effectively dealt a death blow to Coal in this country by the back door.

It is not just our government that cocks this kind of thing up - look at the biofuel debacle. Crops are diverted to make "clean" fuel. Net result - food production goes down, the price of food goes up and poorer parts of the world start to go hungry!!!

As the power stations across Europe convert to Biomass, what do you think is going to happen to the price of wood and organic bi-products? This will include building products (chipboard, etc) all the way through to likely deforestation in developing countries, as per the palm oil scandals currently happening.

Every kind of fuel has a consequence, and has a place.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Once nuclear fusion can be controlled and maintained then everything will be ok!!!! It is a shame so many of the country's finest minds are working in financial services.

 

[JoceAndChris]

What an interesting thread.

What puzzles me is why it's thought necessary to make older houses as stiflingly hot and uncomfortable as the typical cheap estate home. Now when I visit friends in these types of houses, I boil and feel extremely ill at ease. I can't wait to get back to my airy, cool house where I can breathe.

You never ever read that people acclimatise to a cooler building and there are other solutions, like cashmere.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Biff, I missed one of your replies. If a lot of good analysis has been done, can you point me in the direction of the data or reports please. I would be very interested to see real well to wheel type data, including inefficiencies all the way through the manufacturing process including transport energy etc. I am still a skeptic. As for double glazing not being plastic, that is only the case for a small minority of people who care enough to go to a lot of effort and expense to get a product that is higher quality than the accepted standard. I believe it is double glazing that is being pushed, not wooden framed double glazing!!!

 

[Flyfisher]

Once nuclear fusion can be controlled and maintained then everything will be ok!!!!

Perhaps, but it's a bit ike saying that we won't need cars any more once Star Trek 'transporters' and been perfected - though, to be fair, there seems to be more research into fusion power in progress at present. Trouble is, it always seems to be a tantalising 20-30 years away.

 

[Flyfisher]

I totally agree on making polluting fuels expensive. However if someone would like to come up with a alternative "always on" fuel souce which is clean and reliable then i'm all ears! The government on this subject as usual are totally incompetent. Take the Queens speech - the government have effectively dealt a death blow to Coal in this country by the back door.

Many environmentalists would argue that coal is best left in the ground. Personally, I can't imagine a valuable energy resource being ignored forever unless it remains uneconomically viable due to other energy sources.

As the power stations across Europe convert to Biomass, what do you think is going to happen to the price of wood and organic bi-products? This will include building products (chipboard, etc) all the way through to likely deforestation in developing countries, as per the palm oil scandals currently happening.

Biomass power plants are not all dependent on wood products - there is one not too far from us that runs only on chicken litter.

But I take your general point. Indeed, it's interesting to think about the wider 'sustainability' of many current 'green' technologies. Wood burning stoves are a very good example; undeniably carbon-neutral and very economic if you happen to have a free or cheap supply of fire wood but not really a good solution if scaled-up to every household in the country. The last time I checked, firewood was about the same price as house coal, on an energy-equivalent basis, but if every house in the country used wood for heating then demand and price would surely rocket? In many respects, coal is a more convenient fuel as well - otherwise, why would anyone want to still use it?

 

[Flyfisher]

What puzzles me is why it's thought necessary to make older houses as stiflingly hot and uncomfortable as the typical cheap estate home. Now when I visit friends in these types of houses, I boil and feel extremely ill at ease. I can't wait to get back to my airy, cool house where I can breathe.

You never ever read that people acclimatise to a cooler building and there are other solutions, like cashmere.

That is so true, though there are limits. Personally, I now find that appropriate clothing keeps me perfectly comfortable in room temperatures down to about 10C, even while just sitting around. Below that I find I need to don outdoor clothes indoors!

I was going to say that our forbears must have been similarly acclimatised, but cooler homes with no central heating are actually within living memory - well, mine anyway!

 

[worms]

there is one not too far from us that runs only on chicken litter.

Great! So we can now use fertiliser to make electricity and put this into the Haber process to make...fertiliser!

 

[agbagb]

I've often thought its the speed of the circulation of the same amount of money that changes the health of an ecconomy. At the moment its not going around fast enough. If it more ecconomic activity can be encouraged in whatever area it'll be good for the ecconomy. But this is where policy can help the environment as well. Encouragement should not be given to open ended consumption but to investment that will reduce the consuption of resources in the long term.

So the long term sums do need adding up to choose what need taxing more and what should have incentives. I'll vote for no VAT on insulation and wooly jumpers to start with. Then a close look at local micro generation of elecy / forced raising of feed in tarfifs.