Front Doors

[Penners]

There's a new house that's just been built in our village. A symphony of uPVC doors and windows.

The strange thing is that, if you catch the light on the (presumably) sealed unit double glazing, the glass is distorted to hell! Not one pane gives anything remotely like a true reflection.

This has prompted me to look more carefully at other plastic horrors, and - to a great or lesser degree - most of them seem to be the same.

The stress on the glass must be considerable, presumably making it easier to break in the event of accidental impact.

So why can't this cutting-edge, super-duper, 21st century technology even give you flat glass in your windows. :?: :roll:

 

[Nemesis]

So many round here have really thick frames and bars - the light must be reduced considerably.

 

[Penners]

But I bet the glazing bars are stuck on to the glass! Ugh!

 

[biffvernon]

I didn't say that government really believes that having us all install uPVC windows and doors is helping. What the government has done is set an upper limit for the U-value of new doors and windows. It has not told anyone what materials or designs should be used. The only influence government has had on design is to disallow change that would affect the character of listed buildings and buildings in some conservation areas. It's up to us, makers and householders, to design and specify doors and windows that are fit for purpose.

 

[NT]

Improve the safety and/or appearance of your house and youre a criminal! It does all make a mockery of it.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5297062.stm?ls

It's unstoppable really... tinkering with legislation regarding doors isn't going to make a great deal of difference!

 

[thiambal]

What we need is a government with some balls and who, rather than tinkering with u-values, because it is something that will not upset most people do things like.....

1. Ban the sale of all vehicles with a bigger than 1.6 engine unless for genuine commercial use.

2. Sort out the aviation industry - ban low-cost airline - OK you have to let people fly but it does not have to be at 99p return.

3. Ban the production of non-energy saving light bulbs.

4. Introduce proper re-cycling scheme like they have in Europe (e.g. Berlin where it is a criminal offence not to use the facilties) (also Holland - or was it Denmark - where they recycle over 90% of disposable nappies).

5. Sort out plastic bags - ban them - what wrong with paper bags or - re-usable fabric ones.

I could go on, but won't! (collective sigh of relief)

 

[Geoffrey]

All of which everybody would be mad not to agree with in theory. But probably wouldn't win many votes. It is a huge dilemma - especially for those of us who like old cars, old houses, flying (on holiday or for work) etc.

 

[thiambal]

The major problem with democracy - the need to win votes.

Ah well, come the revolution.....................

However, should not be any problem with those of us with old houses - as the ban would include UPCV and unessesary use of concrete.

 

[NT]

What we need is a government with some balls and who, rather than tinkering with u-values, because it is something that will not upset most people do things like.....

1. Ban the sale of all vehicles with a bigger than 1.6 engine unless for genuine commercial use.

imho any new regulation needs to be on the basis of mpg not engine size. (Engine size is not the problem and is easily getroundable.) Banning existing vehicles or the sale thereof would simply result in a lot more manufacturing energy use, which really wouldnt help any, and it would really pss off those of us who do or have owned classic vehicles. It would also result in a whole lot of people supposedly giving away or renting out their cars.

Also there are people with genuine need for large vehicles. Some families need a transit van just to squeeze everyone in.

What we need is purchase time tax based on mpg, because purchase time is where buyers react most, and because mpg is what counts.

We need tax not ban because almost all products have a genuine use at times, tax whittles their sales down to just those that need them, without eliminating the useful items.

How is a 1.6 limit getroundable?
1. Use clean 2 stroke engines, a 1.6 is equivalent to 3.2 4 stroke litres
2. use higher speed 1.6 engines: a 12000rpm 1.6 engine is equiv to 3.2 6000rpm litres.
3. Use engines designed to be easy for end users to modify to greater capacity
4. sell employment schemes where you nominally work 1 hr per year with your car, entitling you to commercial use engines.
5. turbos, injectors, intercoolers, hybrids, etc etc etc

2. Sort out the aviation industry - ban low-cost airline - OK you have to let people fly but it does not have to be at 99p return.

Its fuel use that counts, so tax fuel. What price people pay for tickets isnt the point. Its the airlines that pay for the fuel, whether that cost is passed onto customers is not the issue.

3. Ban the production of non-energy saving light bulbs.

LEDs would be banned in that case, since theyre not energy efficient, despite them having genuine energy efficient uses where very low output is needed. Those period properties with magnificant chandeliers would look a bit stupid with CFLs in.

Also there would then be no market for emerging lighting technologies that hadnt reached the efficiency of existing techs yet. Result: in 30 years time we'd be no further forward. Other result: in 30 years we'd be importing all our light bulbs from countries that permitted all light bulbs, hence had an ongoing market and hence research $ with which to develop those techs.

5. Sort out plastic bags - ban them - what wrong with paper bags or - re-usable fabric ones.

paper uses much more energy, material and cost. Thats why we use plastic.


This all illustrates one of the problems with nannying, nanny doesnt think it through properly. Part p illustrates this all too well. Do you really want the foolish people that came up with part p to control these things?

On the one hand you all complain about the existing building related nannying being inappropriate, then you want more nannying!


And the cost to us all of the taxes and bans proposed above doesnt bear thinking about. You can forget schemes like LBC, there wont be the money to run such non-essentials. Britain will sink ever further down the wealth scale, less research money will be spent, less energy efficiency improvements will occur over the coming years, and so on.

One of the biggest political problems in a democracy is that the people vote on things they dont understand. The internet is great though, we all get to learn more and understand a bit better.


NT

 

[Lime]

I agree, NT, including part P.

 

[worms]

NT, I agree with almost all you said but you missed a big one.

Since the greatest portion of our energy use is domestic (and not really the lighting portion!) I would argue that you would do much more for energy efficiency by simply removing VAT from building maintenance/refurbishment input costs. It would make the pay-back on so many schemes much more realistic!

 

[biffvernon]

It's cheap and easy to winge about the things that people do to try to save the species, but we have to approach all this from the realization that WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Thiambal's sentiments are right. We'll all look a bit silly when the sea level reaches the chandeliers, whatever the light bulbs.

Anyone coming to Drax today?

 

[thiambal]

NT - I knew that would get someone going - and the points you make are all cogent and no doubt more realistic, sensible and better informed than my ideas.

But I guess the point I am trying to make from my position of general ignorance of all things scientific is........

The time has come for the governments to take clear, decisive and radical action rather than nannying about with things that won't lose too many votes. I believe that if you explain something potentially unpopular to people in the right way they will accept it.

As for the cost to the tax payer - well tough quite frankly. As long as it is progressive - does not his the truly poor too much - then people will have to lump it. Most of us have more money than we actually need (hense prevenlance of sat TV, huge petrol guzzling cars (including my own), long haul holidays etc.

When we are all having to use a snorkle to get across the lounge to change the channel I wonder whether we will have wished we had paid a couple of pence extra on income tax rather than spending it on trips to disneyworld and watching endless re-runs of the simpsons.

As for the effect of the British economy - fair point - but this needs to be a global initiative so it should not effect us badly relative to everyone else. Time for the world's communities to stop being partisan, to grow up and start looking at solving the problems.

Chance of this happening - zero I expect - so I am off to buy a snorkle.

btw - I would be interested to see an environment impact assessment of a paper versus plastic bag right from growing the tree / extracting the oil - through to and including decomposition.

 

[Lime]

It's cheap and easy to winge about the things that people do to try to save the species, but we have to approach all this from the realization that WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Yes we do have a problem.
It's called consumption.
While we thrash about looking for short-cuts and economies so that our life-styles can go on and consume ever more materials and energy, we will stop nothing eventually happening including our own demise.
For instance, the road system is getting more and more clogged by the minute as more people buy "green" cars to travel 200 miles to work in.
Fuel and energy consumption continues to rise.
We are prepared to spend millions of pounds on things new and ephemeral while begrudging anything spent on the old and trusted.
Energy efficient light bulbs.....how much of an environmental footprint do they really make with their production using complicated electronics (an industry that makes a huge amount of pollution and waste throughout the world) as well as the discarded unit being extremely difficult to recycle in any way? Do they really encourage people to save energy (like switching electrical items off) or are they just another area to make money in? From what I see they just encourage people to leave lights on and use more and more.
I could go on and on.
We are doomed.

 

[biffvernon]

Energy efficient light bulbs...

You might be interested in this article:
Lights Out For Incandescents

 

[thiambal]

Man after my own heart.

 

[citizensmith]

There is no ecuse not to have energy saving bulbs when they are less than 50p each at present for Philips "100"W and "60"W in Morrisons - We have done the whole house!

 

[biffvernon]

Just make sure that the money you save on low energy lights is not spent of air travel.

 

[citizensmith]

Oh, and i was so looking forward to my round the world trip with my offset carbon emmisions from my light bulbs.