Moderator: Peak Moderation
What do you think Ken?Designers at Cardiff University say they have constructed the sort of house George Osborne once described as impossible.
The chancellor scrapped a requirement for new homes to be zero carbon by 2016 because he said it would prove too expensive.
But Cardiff University say they have built a house that exports more power to the grid than it uses.
And crucially they say the cost fell within the normal budget for social housing.
Yes, as you point out a so called "zero carbon" home does still emit carbon in various indirect ways, also the import of say 1,000KWH of electricity requires the PRODUCTION of about 1,1000KWH on account of the losses in the grid.Little John wrote:It's really silly to call such things "zero carbon". It is merely "zero carbon" in terms of it's direct and current energy consumption levels. None of which takes into account the carbon and other resources consumed in its production, maintenance and recycling/replacement, not to mention the resources consumed in the construction and maintenance of the grid systems on which it relies to export its surplus energy in the summer months.
To be clear, I am not saying such houses should not be built. Far from it. I just dislike the abuse of language; in particular, technical language, in the pursuit of an agenda. Even one I happen to agree with.
I get annoyed about people who use the term "elite" to describe the Kleptocracy but there we go!!Little John wrote:It's really silly to call such things "zero carbon". It is merely "zero carbon" in terms of it's direct and current energy consumption levels. None of which takes into account the carbon and other resources consumed in its production, maintenance and recycling/replacement, not to mention the resources consumed in the construction and maintenance of the grid systems on which it relies to export its surplus energy in the summer months.
To be clear, I am not saying such houses should not be built. Far from it. I just dislike the abuse of language; in particular, technical language, in the pursuit of an agenda. Even one I happen to agree with.
Yes, it is the kind of project that doesn't just stimulate the economy but also provides a real return on the money created through rent. I don't know how much it would cost to build a modest three bedroom home using the economies of scale that would be available. Say it's £100,000. A very competitive rent of, say, £400 per month would give a gross return of about 5%. Residents' outgoings would be considerably reduced compared with living in a privately rented, less energy-efficient property, making them less economically vulnerable and less likely to need welfare benefits. Plus, we increase our renewable generating capacity and energy security. Winners all round?kenneal - lagger wrote:I have posted before that it is entirely possible to build an ultra low energy house that produced a large proportion of the energy required and to pay for the small amount of additional renewable energy to be produced elsewhere. To insist that all the energy is produced on site is being pedantic, especially if you are building small houses on small plots in a built up area.
The HBF should be lined up and shot. The only thing holding back house building in the UK is the price of houses and the HBF's members who want to keep the prices up as they can make more money that way.
The government should print the money to pay for tens of thousands of zero energy Housing Association houses to be built each year. That would knock the cost of private rental down, save a fortune on housing benefit, keep the cost of house purchase steady and give a massive boost to the general economy.
The solution is obvious! The budget for social housing is too high!And crucially they say the cost fell within the normal budget for social housing.
