PowerSwitch

said Gordon Brown (within ten years).

I wonder if he has any clue what he is talking about.

Even the Carbon Trust avoid the terms 'zero carbon' or 'carbon neutrality', because it's impossible to achieve in any practical sense.

We seem to have a Chancellor who believes in a free lunch, certainly an energy free lunch. Milliband said something similar when he became SofS at Defra earlier in the year. My theory is that they are just reflecting the fact that the markets don't yet grasp the concepts of EROEI and 'emergy'.

Here's Chapter 7 of the Pre Budget Report:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/571 ... apter7.pdf
There's a lot of detail behind the headline.

Adam1 wrote:We seem to have a Chancellor who believes in a free lunch, certainly an energy free lunch. Milliband said something similar when he became SofS at Defra earlier in the year. My theory is that they are just reflecting the fact that the markets don't yet grasp the concepts of EROEI and 'emergy'.

Sorry biff, I haven't read the chapter you referred to yet but I think that this slide from the Dimitry Orlov talk reported on Energy Bulletin yesterday will give us a good general idea of how any government initiatives are likely to turn out:



...and this one suggests how we should best respond...



...perhaps it's better to concentrate on...

Adam1 wrote:We seem to have a Chancellor who believes in a free lunch, certainly an energy free lunch.

Don't worry, they're going to use continued economic growth to pay for all their plans.

mikepepler wrote:

Adam1 wrote:We seem to have a Chancellor who believes in a free lunch, certainly an energy free lunch.

Don't worry, they're going to use continued economic growth to pay for all their plans.

Yeah, right!

It's easy for us to be cynical and Brown's proposals are obviously (well, obvious to us) too little and too late. But hang on - this is the greenest set of proposals ever announced by any chancellor in our parliament.

We can argue about whether a house can be zero carbon or we can argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead but it's clear that the government have an aspiration that new houses should require very little energy, so little that they can manage with what can be produced without adding to CO2 and should collect/generate some of their own energy. This aspiration has the potential for causing the biggest and most rapid change that the construction industry has ever experienced. The changes in the Building Regulations are going to have to be profound.

Mind you, I think that

Gordon wrote:The Government is committed to delivering strong, stable and sustainable economic
growth.

is a problem. 'Stable' and 'sustainable' are words that go together just fine, it's the 'growth' that seems to jar.

I just watched the ITV news.

They asked a family of four to live a "green" lifestyle for 10 weeks.

In that 10 weeks they managed to get to a point where there carbon emissions dropped 66%.

Not bad!

Simple - in 2017 the UK won't be building any new houses. It's not what economies do in the depth of depression.

Well,

If you believe in 'Carbon offsetting', (and that's a big if) you can sort of nearly achieve 'Zero Carbon homes.

However designing a house to require ?Zero Carbon running costs? is probably a more important goal. (I haven?t read the report yet BTW). But if the occupier installs a 42 inch plasma telly in every room the whole process is somewhat pointless.

In the meantime my own house is now approaching zero carbon, (the central heating was condemned on Friday, and disconnected by the gas-man, I hope we don?t have a cold winter!)

The more I think about this the more I'm sure all new houses built in 2017 will be zero carbon, in that no oil, gas or coal will be burnt on site. Given what we know about North Sea oil and gas reserves there won't be enough carbon based fuels to fuel our existing housing stock by 2017, let alone new build. If that's the case then clearly any new houses won't be built to run on oil, gas or coal. Brown may achieve his zero carbon new homes in 10 years time, not by proactive, designed intent but simply through lack of carbon based fuels.

This doesn't consider the electricity supply supply though.

Those who don't have "ZED" homes will probably end up sharing homes with chimneys just to try to keep warm. Those who do own ZED home will probably end up doing the same because they have a social conscience and won't want to see their families freeze.

Brown may have been fooled by the hype over CC&S into beiving that the power stn emissions can be magicked away under the North Sea.

Or could he simply be trying to out-green Cameron, with no real interest in the practicality of the promises ?

Either way, firewood should be at a premium.

Given that firewood holds about 5/9ths of the energy of coal,
can anyone who knows the delived price of a tonne of house-coal
say what the rational price of a tonne of firewood should be ?

Regards,

Bill

Billhook wrote:say what the rational price of a tonne of firewood should be ?

A lot depends on how wet the firewood is. I buy oak offcuts from a sawmill at about ?25 per tonne deliverd in a bulk tipper lorry with a moisture content of 20 to 30%. If buying thin wood it's traditional to buy by volume rather than weight, the cord being the traditional measure. That's a heap 8 feet long, 4 feet wide and 4 feet high.