Q for stephen?

[Mark]

It seems that RICS have published something about energy conservation/insulation etc

see -

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1122049123

But where did those numbers come from ? Those prices are astronomical!

Why is RICS telling people (in effect) that insulation, solar panels etc are a waste of money?

 

[alice]

Well, there is a real problem with being energy efficient and being cost efficient. Not the same thing at all.

Personally, I have real problems with the way some green options are presented to the public. After calculating the cost of replacement, hauling the materials on site and disposing of what is being replaced, I don't think some options are really green at all. I'd put solar panels in that catagory, especially in a climate like England.

There's a guy in New Orleans that has installed a private windmill ($15,000) for his house. It will pay itself back in a couple hundred years. In the meantime, it's ticked off the neighbors of his historic district who consider it an ugly, noisy bit of eco-bling. He defends the windmill by saying that, no, it's not efficent, but it makes a statement about environmental responsiblity (!).

But I suspect the real reason RIC's is publishing these figures can be found in this statement--

"Jill Craig, head of policy and public affairs for the Institution, said: "Rics has been calling on government to reduce the level of VAT applied to all energy-saving measures and to provide an attractive grant program to aid real change.""

They need to make a case for reduction of the VAT on green remodels.

 

[Gervase]

The RICS figures are seriously adrift. It's clear they were looking for 'worst case' figures, and thus have come up with a nominal saving of £24 a year.

Which is absolute nonsense.

The modern glycol-based systems are remarkably efficient, generating summer temperatures of up to 120 degrees (enough to melt soldered joints if you're unwise enough to use them!), and 20 degrees or so in winter. Routed through a coil in a pressurised tank, that will mean that your domestic fuel use for heating and hot water will be zero in summer and around 50 per cent of your current amount over the rest of the year.

Ask yourself - if they don't work as claimed, then why do most plumbers fit them to their own homes? My plumbing mate logs his fuel use, and says his system - which certainly wasn't cheap - will pay for itself in five years. If you pay someone else to fit it, double that to 10 years, which still isn't bad.

One wonders why the RICS felt the need to do a hatchet job, and to do it so badly.

 

[Stephen]

I know nothing of this piece of RICS research, etc.

I know that BCIS (a sub-part of RICS) has been doing a lot of research and data gathering on life cycle costs, etc in relation to energy issues.

It is not in the interest of RICS to play with figures to do a hatchet job because if they were then 'found out' it would undermine their credibility in future. I have not looked into this in detail, but would suggest that the figures relate to specific research and data against which there could be a number of caveats, assumptions etc that have not been reported. It may be that the figures are correct but relate to a specific situation or set of circumstances. If this is the case it is not surprising that others have a different view or different experience of costs, etc.

The RICS is very keen to pomote energy reduction and sustainablity and also realises the urgency of dealing with many of these issues.

The RICS does generally support the idea of different VAT levels for products and services relating to energy reduction, etc. Surely this is something the public would think sensible anyway?

I suspect that the release of such figures is intended to indicate that moving over to energy reduction, etc could be costly in terms of up front and short term costs and therefore that government should consider how to soften the blow to the public and/or deal with such matters.

The above are my initial thoughts on the matter and do not represent formal RICS policy. I will try to find out more and post again if or when I get more information.

 

[Mark]

Thank you Stephen.

I (and I suspect many others) would be interested to hear any more about this.