changes to legislation 2013

[dontknowitall]

As Manuel in Fawlty Towers would say ... Que?

 

[fuzzy]

thanks for the informative post. but does it say anywhere that boilers alone are not enough to reach standards?

 

[Mrs Tara Plumbi]

Fuzzy, the challenge to find the definitive answer to your question is just the sort of thing which interests me and I have been struggling to get my head around these changes so now seemed a good time to read up.
I am sure I must have the answer somewhere.
Conclusion I can not find the FULL answer, I do not know whether gas boilers will exist in a carbon neutral house but I think they might not. And the current target for carbon neutral new builds in England is 2016.
The general view seems to be Gas boilers will be around for decades in existing housing stock.

As I understand it the baseline for comparison is homes built to 2006 building regs standards.
By 2013 homes must produce 44% less co2 in Eng
In wales it must be 55% less and zero carbon for public sector by 2013
And new builds must produce zero carbon by 2016 in England.

But this does not necessarily mean no gas or oil, because it is calculated as net emissions.

I don't think there will be oil in new builds. WB say NEW oil boilers are likely to be around for many years to come but only as replacements for existing oil boilers.

WB seem to think heat pumps are the big thing for the future (and of course they are now promoting their ufh which goes well with heat pumps)
Where as Baxi Group seem to think it is Ecogen micro-CHP dual energy system and similar, which they are investing heavily in.

Manufacturers seem to think gas boilers will be around for a long time, I remember reading that recently in wb mag. And in 2050 75% of current housing stock will still be in use - and as you know most current homes have gch so it is likely to stay.

We have not been involved with any new biulds for a few years and things are changing fast.

 

[fuzzy]

thank you

i think heat pumps are a good source, so is solar.

gas has 60 years left, but will get so expensive well before then itll be game up sooner i feel

tbh the way forward has to be nuclear, make it safe and we cure all problems, but we will be out of work so keep it to yourself

 

[quality]

I have to agree on the nuclear future

 

[fuzzy]

I have to agree on the nuclear future

tis the only answer. lifetime supply of energy, if they make it safe and build them in the sticks whats the issue?

 

[blayedrunner]

Very interesting thread. I agree we will all have to delve into the renewable training before to long

 

[kay-jay]

:24:carbon neutral my bum!

talk about closing the door after the horse has bolted. too little to late.....the last time that this planet of ours could support our activities was 1989. for our current activities it is estimated we need about 3.5 earths to be sustainable.


as for nuclear, it never will be stable enough to offer a safe energy rich future it is just the nature of the beast.
harnessing the energy power of things like hydrogen would be greener cleaner options and is certainly possible.

 

[dontknowitall]

I've heard an argument that ground source heat pumps aren't environmentally friendly.

The emphasis is on environment.

The argument goes as follows:

The ground source heat pump takes heat from the ground.
The ground around this heat source losses its heat to the pump (and attached house/building)
The ground, therefore, cools down.
This area, in the summer, will not be warm enough to sustain summer vegetation (things like dandelion, red campion, some grasses, etc, etc).
Therefore the insects that feed on this vegetation will not survive (in this area) and so will move to a warmer area
Pollination via insects will not take place to the demise of the plantlife
The seeds that the birds feed off from this vegetation will not be available so the birds won't eat them and they will move to another area
The birds that feed on the insects will starve unless they too move to a warmer area
So, is having a ground source heat pump really environmentally friendly?

 

[fuzzy]

:24:carbon neutral my bum!

talk about closing the door after the horse has bolted. too little to late.....the last time that this planet of ours could support our activities was 1989. for our current activities it is estimated we need about 3.5 earths to be sustainable.


as for nuclear, it never will be stable enough to offer a safe energy rich future it is just the nature of the beast.
harnessing the energy power of things like hydrogen would be greener cleaner options and is certainly possible.

hydrogen may be clean energy but how much energy does it take to split it from oxygen? and how do you provide that energy?
nuclear has killed less people per kw than any fossil fuel, shame it gets bad press.