Page 1 of 1

Green home myths

Posted: 06 Jun 2009, 13:04
by Adam1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... reen-homes

Some good points from Mr Moustache here.
Dick Strawbridge in the Guardian on 27 May wrote:1) Environmentally friendly installation is expensive

All insulation is environmentally friendly. Some installation has better environmental credentials, but what matters is the energy it saves. There is something nice about insulating the loft with reused sheep fleece, or recycled bottles, but if the cost of the insulation is putting you off doing it don't think twice: buy the cheapest. Some stores have sold insulation as cheap as £1 a roll in the past. All insulation takes energy to make it, but that is not a reason not to invest in it. The savings, for both the planet and the bank account, can be impressive. Incidentally, you need about 270mm of insulation in your loft which is about a foot deep — anything less and you're wasting valuable heat.

2) The UK is not sunny enough for solar power

For a nation that spends a lot of time talking about the weather, we don't seem to realise just how much sunshine we actually get. Maybe that's because we tend to concentrate on the negative aspects. Every square metre in the United Kingdom has on average about 1,000W of solar energy incident on it every day. That's an awful lot of free power. Without getting too technical, a 1,000-watt photovoltaic system can be expected to produce 1,200kWh a year, an average of nearly four hours working at maximum power a day. Obviously, it's much more productive in the summer, and there are lots of days when it is not frightfully impressive, however, let's not forget we do get some lovely sunny spring, autumn and winter days. Even in the winter, my home's solar thermal system (that uses the power of the sun to heat water) is capable of harnessing the weak winter sun to preheat the water in our hot water tank.

3) Wind turbines only function on hilltops

I fully understand the physics and know that "laminar" airflow, or streamline, is what every wind turbine loves. In theory a wind turbine on a mast in the middle of a vast plain will give the best performance, but there are not too many locations that fit that bill. So we have to compromise. Most importantly, to get good performance from a wind turbine, it is necessary to have no obstacles near it that will disrupt the airflow. A built-up area with houses, hedges, and trees is a long way from the ideal location. However, if that is where you live and you want a wind turbine you don't have a lot of choice — and a turbine will still generate electricity in such a setting.

4) Most eco-renovation take decades to pay back the cost

Every time we decide to make an investment in an eco-project, the subject of payback comes up. It is possible to do the sums, and before we spend any hard earned cash I like to make sure that it's a good investment. For example, loft insulation can pay for itself in two winters, and with the 2010 feed-in tariff I would expect solar PV to pay for itself in about seven or eight years, and a DIY solar thermal system to heat your hot water should have paid for itself in four or five years. But surely this is missing the point: when it comes to environmentally friendly projects we seem unable to accept the fact that it can be an investment and will add to the value of the house. What is the payback time for a new bathroom or kitchen? If you install solar photovoltaic panels you can reasonably expect them to easily last 25 to 30 years. Everyone knows a new kitchen makes a house more saleable, but in the current economic climate, how much more saleable is a house that will cost the new owners very little to run or may even generate an income?

5) DIY loft insulation is horrid and itchy

It's a fair cop, installing fibreglass or rockwool insulation is not the most pleasant job in the world, but if you are installing your own loft insulation why choose fibreglass or rockwool? There are lots of alternative insulations that are very benign and easy to handle. You can now buy loft insulation that is made from high-tech composite material, recycled plastic bottles, hemp… the choice is almost limitless. Indeed, in our loft we have Thermafleece at one end (made from the fleeces of upland sheep that in the past has gone to landfill), and insulation made from recycled denim at the other. Lots of these materials are easy to lay and relatively pleasant to handle. However, we do have to face up to the fact that working in the loft is not the most pleasant of environments so, no matter what you sort of insulation you choose, you will end up being a bit sweaty and dusty!

6) It takes more energy to build a solar panel then it will ever create

This particular misconception has been doing the rounds for several years. It is fair to say that it takes a lot of energy to make photovoltaic panels because it is a complex crystalline structure. Depending on the type of panel it can take between two and four years of use to recover the energy needed to make it. That said, the efficiency of the modern solar panel and modern manufacturing techniques are improving every day. There are no moving parts, so it is reasonable to expect the PV panels, which are usually guaranteed for 25 years, to last an awful lot longer (some of the older ones have been going for nearly 40 years).

7) Eco-gadgets are cons

It would appear that the green revolution is a marketing man's dream. Everywhere we go there are eco-gadgets that claim to be saving the planet. Most eco-gadgets tend to be quite complicated. Wind-up and solar-powered radios, battery chargers and numerous small electronic devices, are usually marketed as being cool. It is fair to say that they are extremely useful if you do not have access to another power supply (which does not happen very often in today's world). So, if you find yourself in a situation where only an eco-gadget can save you they are definitely not a con. However, from an environmental standpoint, to justify the embodied energy it takes to produce them they have to be used a lot rather than being kept in a drawer full of other cool things.

8 ) You have to be an engineer to undertake your own eco home projects

In the 21st century there is no excuse for not being able to get stuck into any eco-project. Information is readily available and all the materials you need can usually be sourced within 10 miles. Of course, I have to acknowledge that there is some sensible legislation that means you are not allowed to fiddle with mains electricity, or get involved with structural engineering, unless you're suitably qualified. That does not mean you can't do most of the work yourself, which is by far the cheapest way. There seems to be a certain reticence when it comes to starting a project and a lot of excuses rather than reasons out there. If you have running water and a desire to have a water wheel, all you need is to know that the angle of the bucket is 114°. With a little bit of common sense, anything is achievable.

Posted: 06 Jun 2009, 16:20
by Mitch
Adam1 I tend to agree - some pretty good remarks there. I must admit, after all my griping about my solar P.V., now that a summer of sorts seems to be returning, the panels arn't all that bad! I have had enough 'leccy to do a hot wash AND dry a good few times now, and the fridge and freezer have been on constantly for a couple of month's. However, as I write this, the rain starts up again and I expect flat batteries by morning. Never mind, I have accepted that some is better than none. O.K., O.K., I probably WOULD buy the Solar P.V. anyway, if I could do it all over again. :oops:

Posted: 08 Jun 2009, 12:55
by emordnilap
The point about payback is one I make often - no-one (well, I might) weighs up the pay-back time of a car or a computer - but some things are worth doing for their own sake as well as the sheer smug pleasure of having them. I fully expect our solar hot water to be there for the rest of my life, possibly replacing the 12 volt pump once or twice and to be honest the payback time doesn't bother me. It works when the sun shines. Our immersion heater has been on a handful of times in the last twelve months.

Even hi-tech like pv gives more pleasure in simply educating oneself and being the local expert. Yes Mitch?

Besides, trying to work out a payback time is impossible as long as you compare apples with oranges. A heat pump system could easily use shedloads of highly inefficiently-generated electricity, the price of which does not cover the environmental damage caused.

Some good points there.

Posted: 08 Jun 2009, 21:22
by woodburner
It gets abit dumb though if the energy taken to make the equipment is greater than the amount it saves, unless you use the car comparison though, I suppose. :?

Posted: 08 Jun 2009, 21:41
by hardworkinghippy
Mitch,
I have had enough 'leccy to do a hot wash
Are you using photovoltaic panels to heat water ? :shock:

Posted: 09 Jun 2009, 15:47
by emordnilap
woodburner wrote:It gets abit dumb though if the energy taken to make the equipment is greater than the amount it saves, unless you use the car comparison though, I suppose. :?
It can, I agree. Look at the shíte that gets created extracting non-conventional oil; or the energy costs of a foil wrapped around a sandwich, taken a few metres to the car and then dumped.

Posted: 09 Jun 2009, 22:10
by maryb
Journalists always talk about the payback period but I prefer to think of it by comparing it to annuity rates since I am rapidly approaching that age. If I take a lump sum and buy a single life level payment annuity the return after tax is not very good (to put it mildly) at present let alone buying an index linked annuity. If I take the same lump sum and invest it in something that will cut my energy bills, it is automatically index linked and will probably give me a better return.
This assumes, of course, that I stay put in the same property - I don't know that it would be refeleted in an increased capital value if I needed to realise my asset

Posted: 19 Jun 2009, 13:41
by Nicko
One of the main issues with regards peak oil is that of increasing resilience . The less dependant on fossil fuels we are the less we are affected by their availability and price. Can't really put a price on having independance so pay back becomes a side issue.
I think it is mainly coincidence that the changes Dick suggests increase resilience,because his main focus is reducing carbon emissions.Or is he secretly using the CO2 issue to help people increase their resilience?

Posted: 19 Jun 2009, 17:48
by fifthcolumn
Excellent post adam, especially the bit about payback times.
In any case, if you look at it from a peak oil perspective instead of the irritatingly woolly "save the environment" angle, you can say: "what's the payback on having electricity when the lights go out" or "what's the paybakc on having free electricity when the price of fossil powered electricity is so high you have to choose between eating or keeping the lights on"

For me, that argument was compelling enough to buy a bunch of solar panels just in case.

Posted: 01 Jul 2009, 20:11
by DominicJ
Re: Point 5
My rockwool came in a plastic sock, you just rolled it along, its open at one end to let air in or out.

Posted: 05 Jul 2009, 20:04
by mobbsey
Take the national figure for the energy consumed in houses (the new figure will be out in a couple of weeks -- I'll recalculate then and post the results), divide by the number of houses and then divide by the average household occupancy and you get the average domestic energy consumption per capita.

Now take an average of the male/female daily calorific intake, multiply by ten (embodied energy value of food suggested by Pimentel and others), then by 365, and convert to the units for your household energy figures and guess what... the average person puts slightly more energy into their mouth than into their home per person per year!

Food is also far more significant in terms of carbon emissions.

The thing is that people talk a lot about their houses, but if you sort out your diet not only does it not need planning permission or building regs. consent, in most cases it saves money too (allowing you to gather some dosh to perhaps spend on the house/a house/land/gardening).
...then again, Dick is a rampant coffee-drinking carnivore, and proud of it!

Posted: 05 Jul 2009, 21:42
by RenewableCandy
That's interesting. I'll give it a go for Chateau Renewable, which burns about 20,000 kWh (gas and elec together) per year, or 5,000 per person. That's about 13 kWh per day.

I eat about 2,000 food calories a day, there are 860 of them in a kWh, that's about 2 1/2 kWh, multiply by the 10 factor that's 25 kWh. Hmm yeah see what you mean! Ties in with my finding one day on our merry Carbon-Footprinnt-o-meter (hand built by a fellow Green Party person, pours out coloured water to tell tonnes of CO_2, very entertaining, deployed at fetes and the like) that going veggie wipes more off our footprint than all the home-energy-saving measures we'd done so far. Well we're not veggie but we eat next-to-no red meat, all the rest is organic, and we do one veggie day per week.

The problem with the reductions thus made is that we have absolutely no way of counting them and getting feedback on our progress, which probably explains why people concentrate their efforts on home energy.