Green at what price?

[otherclive]

I don't recall stating that man made CO2 was not an issue and neither did I say it was a myth? Please read my post again maybe it will then make sense to you?

I am afraid that I don’t find your post at all clear. No one has said that going “Green” will be cost free, in fact until large amounts of energy are generated from renewable sources there’s going to be transition cost to get to that point. You cannot expect industries to invest in technologies for which the returns may not be realised for many years, or even at all. IE carbon capture being one. So governments have also to prime the activities until they become sustainable. Governments in the main have a single source of revenue however it is dressed up. They spend our taxes, and they legislate for change. So one way or another it is the citizens of a country who will pay to go ‘Green”.

But as well as technology there’s also the other very important thing that can be done. That is make changes to your lifestyle in order to reduce your individual carbon dioxide footprint. Little changes magnified millions of time become significant.

 

[Buckman]

I am afraid that I don’t find your post at all clear. No one has said that going “Green” will be cost free, in fact until large amounts of energy are generated from renewable sources there’s going to be transition cost to get to that point. You cannot expect industries to invest in technologies for which the returns may not be realised for many years, or even at all. IE carbon capture being one. So governments have also to prime the activities until they become sustainable. Governments in the main have a single source of revenue however it is dressed up. They spend our taxes, and they legislate for change. So one way or another it is the citizens of a country who will pay to go ‘Green”.

But as well as technology there’s also the other very important thing that can be done. That is make changes to your lifestyle in order to reduce your individual carbon dioxide footprint. Little changes magnified millions of time become significant.

I am sorry. I keep forgetting that my sarcastic humour is not understood in the UK.

 

[Tobes]

I don't recall stating that man made CO2 was not an issue and neither did I say it was a myth? Please read my post again maybe it will then make sense to you?

I read it, several times. You implied that saving CO2 was pointless because it's a naturally occurring phenomenon that the human race needs to exist. You also implied that the cost to do so was not worth the benefit. It's true that CO2 is naturally occurring. It's also true that life on earth needs CO2. Its the implication that man has not shifted the balance, and that reversing it is not worth the cost to do so that I am concerned with.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Because the thread is titled "Green at what price?" it inevitable the cost element would be a major discussion point, after all that how we tend to evaluate things, but read it another way and we could be discussing the the environmental price, and to that end what do we lose if we don't take steps to improver the supply of "green" energy?

If we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels the environment will continue to deteriorate more quickly, We have already seen the "100 year" weather events occurring more like every 10 years and appear to becoming even more frequent.

Not to mention we are using up fossil fuel resources far more quickly than they are being replaced, and as there is a finite quantity we we will find they are increasingly more difficult to find and extract which will restrict their availability and push up their cost.

Given that inevitability the break even point of renewables will shorten considerably.

Having more local generation of power from renewables helps in two other ways, There is less an improved reliability of supply, and there is less need to expand the national grids as much.

 

[Parksy]

I am sorry. I keep forgetting that my sarcastic humour is not understood in the UK.

Whether it's undersood or not, it comes across as disruption, point scoring, or arguing simply for the sake of argument.

 

[Buckman]

Whether it's undersood or not, it comes across as disruption, point scoring, or arguing simply for the sake of argument.

None of the above. I implied that we all work hard to reduce our carbon footprint and then along comes Mother Nature to ruin it. Nothing more and nothing less. It just seems that some interpreted it incorrectly due to me not being clear what I was implying.

 

[Tobes]

None of the above. I implied that we all work hard to reduce our carbon footprint and then along comes Mother Nature to ruin it. Nothing more and nothing less. It just seems that some interpreted it incorrectly due to me not being clear what I was implying.

See - that's the thing. Mother Nature is NOT ruining it. The balance of the CO2 in the atmosphere is being shifted not by nature, but by mankind. That the CO2 levels have been basically stable for millennia, until the industrial revolution, is exactly the point.

 

[otherclive]

None of the above. I implied that we all work hard to reduce our carbon footprint and then along comes Mother Nature to ruin it. Nothing more and nothing less. It just seems that some interpreted it incorrectly due to me not being clear what I was implying.

The attached link may give useful information regarding the various sources of man made and natural carbon dioxide. Some of the data is 10 years old but since man made emissions have increased despite whatever action has been taken the overall thrust of the article is probably still valid.

https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

 

[Dustydog]

Sometimes we can’t see the wood for the trees. I understand parts of Cornwall are Lithium rich. It is possible to mine , at a cost, but at least that’s one more thing we will be self sufficient. Looking at all the replies I am still worried that buying in our resources,whatever they are ,from outside the U.K. is leaving us very vulnerable to high charges , ransom. Just what we are seeing now with gas and petrol/ diesel. So where do we draw the line on cost and being green?

 

[Tobes]

Sometimes we can’t see the wood for the trees. I understand parts of Cornwall are Lithium rich. It is possible to mine , at a cost, but at least that’s one more thing we will be self sufficient. Looking at all the replies I am still worried that buying in our resources,whatever they are ,from outside the U.K. is leaving us very vulnerable to high charges , ransom. Just what we are seeing now with gas and petrol/ diesel. So where do we draw the line on cost and being green?

I think supply chain security is a very valid concern in the modern world, but is not a green issue. Indeed, one could argue that for energy supply, increasing our renewable content is hedging against poor supply and making us more secure, AND reduces the cost of energy in the process (maybe dirty at what price?). Cornish lithium could theoretically provide sufficient lithium for all our (UK) needs, but could also be offered as collateral for other items that we need to import securing other resources that we don't have locally?

 

[Parksy]

None of the above. I implied that we all work hard to reduce our carbon footprint and then along comes Mother Nature to ruin it. Nothing more and nothing less. It just seems that some interpreted it incorrectly due to me not being clear what I was implying.

I'm not sure that it's done intentionally Buckman, but that's how it looks.
Sarcasm as text lacks vocal inflection, so it could be interpreted as goading.
I'm not accusing you of anything, merely pointing out how a sarcastic response can appear to others when it's posted online.

 

[Buckman]

I'm not sure that it's done intentionally Buckman, but that's how it looks.
Sarcasm as text lacks vocal inflection, so it could be interpreted as goading.
I'm not accusing you of anything, merely pointing out how a sarcastic response can appear to others when it's posted online.

I appreciate that sometimes my type of humour is taken incorrectly or seriously and I tend to forget this so apologies to Tobes who misinterpreted it.

 

[Tobes]

I appreciate that sometimes my type of humour is taken incorrectly or seriously and I tend to forget this so apologies to Tobes who misinterpreted it.

Accepted And I apologise if I picked up the wrong end of the stick. I have a massive bugbear about manmade climate change being written off as a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming...

 

[Dustydog]

In our quest to go Green this quote from an European multi National is to be admired.

”We have installed over 107 GW of wind power globally, which powers more than 98 million European households annually and reduces CO2 emissions by more than 300 million tons per year, which is the equivalent to planting more than 4.8 million trees”.

If I remember my Botany days don’t trees convert CO2 into Oxygen? No trees , no oxygen no humans😉😉Just a cynical thought. To every reaction there must be an opposite reaction.
Is Green really Green or is there a sinister side that may see the Day of the Triffids succeed😜😜😜😜😜😜😜. Sorry just couldn’t resist. All these Therms. kWHours, turbines wind zero costs, renewables, made me think. The sooner I get in the caravan the better for my sanity😉😉

 

[ProfJohnL]

In our quest to go Green this quote from an European multi National is to be admired.

”We have installed over 107 GW of wind power globally, which powers more than 98 million European households annually and reduces CO2 emissions by more than 300 million tons per year, which is the equivalent to planting more than 4.8 million trees”.

If I remember my Botany days don’t trees convert CO2 into Oxygen? No trees , no oxygen no humans😉😉Just a cynical thought. To every reaction there must be an opposite reaction.
Is Green really Green or is there a sinister side that may see the Day of the Triffids succeed😜😜😜😜😜😜😜. Sorry just couldn’t resist. All these Therms. kWHours, turbines wind zero costs, renewables, made me think. The sooner I get in the caravan the better for my sanity😉😉

Welcome to rea lity!

 

[Ern]

It would be interesting to get some engineers from other industries (I mean not from the building development world), to design a complete estate of mixed properties of 1, 2, 3, 4, bedroomed houses, with radically improved efficient H&V. I can imagine all houses having roofs with integrated solar array, insulation designed by H&V engineers etc. Bricks are ridiculous things to construct walls from as these can easily be factory built and modular. Roof and base panels the same. The whole industry including regulators need a good kick up the rear end. The actual cost of building a house is a small portion of the selling prices, and the incestuous nature of the industry requires sorting out. Home buyers are paying through the nose for rubbish buildings.

 

[RogerL]

It would be interesting to get some engineers from other industries (I mean not from the building development world), to design a complete estate of mixed properties of 1, 2, 3, 4, bedroomed houses, with radically improved efficient H&V. I can imagine all houses having roofs with integrated solar array, insulation designed by H&V engineers etc. Bricks are ridiculous things to construct walls from as these can easily be factory built and modular. Roof and base panels the same. The whole industry including regulators need a good kick up the rear end. The actual cost of building a house is a small portion of the selling prices, and the incestuous nature of the industry requires sorting out. Home buyers are paying through the nose for rubbish buildings.

Remember the Bayko building toy, from the '30s-70s - we just need a full-size version of that.

 

[otherclive]

Remember the Bayko building toy, from the '30s-70s - we just need a full-size version of that.

Every so often there’s a piece in the papers that someone has started a factory to prebuild domestic properties ready to ship out to site but then it all goes quiet. Legal and General were one company reported. Yet it’s been used in Germany for years and you can have the prefabricated houses shipped here with the German team erecting it. IKEA do the same in Sweden and indicated they would start here but nothing happened. Could it be our building regulations or conservative mortgage lenders. Or perhaps the monolithic five big developers that control the market with thousands of acres of land in their land banks, see their market share eroding?
If something like an aircraft carrier and submarine can be built in geographically different areas with their blocks largely pre outfitted and tested before shipping and assembling in the integration yard, houses and flats can be……..could it be a problem with our housing market?


https://theweehousecompany.co.uk/connect-modular-ltd/

 

[Dustydog]

Roger ,We had a Bayko building set . I well remember the fiddly metal cocktail sticks that formed the frame. We loved it. Along the same lines came the Airey prefabs. They are still going although most failed as the metal frames rusted away.
Maybe the solutions have already been invented and we have forgotten😉😉

 

[Ern]

It would be a relatively simple task to manufacture high performance building modules in a factory. Floors, external walls, roofs, room modules, all fully ready for use. Designing the "Lego" is a simple matter. Designing a range of decent looking buildings, with the possibility to personalise the finishes, would also be simple. Although many of the traditions of the trade would be disregarded, compliance with building safety regs should not be difficult. All the panels and room modules could leave the factory fit for the purpose and ready to use, so walls etc would be fully finished internally and externally with windows and all. The questions need to be asked - has there been any attempt to do this, and why have attempts been unsuccessful? Is the housing development world institutionalised, strangled by vested interests? I suspect we all know the answers.

 

[otherclive]

It would be a relatively simple task to manufacture high performance building modules in a factory. Floors, external walls, roofs, room modules, all fully ready for use. Designing the "Lego" is a simple matter. Designing a range of decent looking buildings, with the possibility to personalise the finishes, would also be simple. Although many of the traditions of the trade would be disregarded, compliance with building safety regs should not be difficult. All the panels and room modules could leave the factory fit for the purpose and ready to use, so walls etc would be fully finished internally and externally with windows and all. The questions need to be asked - has there been any attempt to do this, and why have attempts been unsuccessful? Is the housing development world institutionalised, strangled by vested interests? I suspect we all know the answers.

I think your penultimate sentence puts the finger on the pulse. The techniques have been around for many years, but apart from a few individual builds, and small scale developments that’s as far as it has progressed in Britain. Over the last 20-30 years the percentage of homes built by SME developers has reduced until now the majority are built by a few big companies. Hence the clone like estates that look identical anywhere in the country. It’s like vets and undertakers where major corporations have swallowed up the independents.

 

[Buckman]

In Malvern and some other areas there are prefab houses which I think were built in the 50's I am not sure of the construction methods used, but they are really starting to look run down where you can see corners joins. People are still living in them.

 

[Sam Vimes]

I had Bayco - great fun - and our current house is built almost on similar principles.

Back in the 70/80s developers tried building wooden framed houses. There seemed a general reluctance for the public to take to these, not helped by the fact that generally the quality wasn't very good.

In Europe, Scandanavia, Canada and North America wooden framed houses are typical. Even here in Scotland newer houses are timber framed in many areas.

When we designed our house we went shopping for a kit house made to our design. We found 3 companies that sounded promising with a fourth that would have been ideal but was just way out of our price range - it was German.

First was a company in England that would make a kit of parts, ship them to site and assemble them

Second was a Scottish Company that would make the house in panels in their factory already stuffed with insulation (not SIPS)

Third was a Scandanavian company that would make complete wall and roof sections already fitted with windows and services, shipped to Scotland and assembled by their team of workers.

The first on the list proved to be too expensive. The Scandanavian outfit was the cheapest - I think may be as a loss leader to get into the UK market. However, they wanted to make some design changes to accomodate their manufacturing process and we didn't like the changes. Plus it would have meant getting it absolutely right first time in where the services were going to go - and dealing with a company that far away.

We opted for the Scottish Company and it worked out well. The panels arrived on a lorry - two drops - as shown below. The shell was weather tight within 10 days.

Wall panels were placed on a keyed section of the slab and then joined to gether with metal clamps that pulled them into position tightly. Similarly for the roof panels

 

[otherclive]

I had Bayco - great fun - and our current house is built almost on similar principles.

Back in the 70/80s developers tried building wooden framed houses. There seemed a general reluctance for the public to take to these, not helped by the fact that generally the quality wasn't very good.

In Europe, Scandanavia, Canada and North America wooden framed houses are typical. Even here in Scotland newer houses are timber framed in many areas.

When we designed our house we went shopping for a kit house made to our design. We found 3 companies that sounded promising with a fourth that would have been ideal but was just way out of our price range - it was German.

First was a company in England that would make a kit of parts, ship them to site and assemble them

Second was a Scottish Company that would make the house in panels in their factory already stuffed with insulation (not SIPS)

Third was a Scandanavian company that would make complete wall and roof sections already fitted with windows and services, shipped to Scotland and assembled by their team of workers.

The first on the list proved to be too expensive. The Scandanavian outfit was the cheapest - I think may be as a loss leader to get into the UK market. However, they wanted to make some design changes to accomodate their manufacturing process and we didn't like the changes. Plus it would have meant getting it absolutely right first time in where the services were going to go - and dealing with a company that far away.

We opted for the Scottish Company and it worked out well. The panels arrived on a lorry - two drops - as shown below. The shell was weather tight within 10 days.

Wall panels were placed on a keyed section of the slab and then joined to gether with metal clamps that pulled them into position tightly. Similarly for the roof panelsView attachment 2742View attachment 2743

A bit like Alutech without the condensation. In some respects we have gone backwards from prefabrication homes. The 1950s techniques allied with better quality would be great today.

Prefabs_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Jcloughie]

I think your penultimate sentence puts the finger on the pulse. The techniques have been around for many years, but apart from a few individual builds, and small scale developments that’s as far as it has progressed in Britain. Over the last 20-30 years the percentage of homes built by SME developers has reduced until now the majority are built by a few big companies. Hence the clone like estates that look identical anywhere in the country. It’s like vets and undertakers where major corporations have swallowed up the independents.

This is certainly largely the case. Also, speaking as someone who trained with a conventional apprenticeship in construction. And, has always been associated with the industry even when I went into teaching in the 80’s. I will confirm what others have said. The industry lives in the past. But having said that is has changed dramatically. One of my grandsons is now in his final year of a construction management degree apprenticeship. When he started I thought I might be helpful to him. In the reality, things have changed to such an extent that everything he is involved with is foreign to me. But we have interesting discussions.

A couple of things are true though. Conventional house building persists by surprisingly being the most cost effective. The most acceptable by a public which wants traditional buildings and has the greatest ability to provide variations on a theme.

Producing high performance buildings is very feasible, but at a high price.

Mass produced pre fabricated buildings have been around for a long time. The asbestos war time pre-fabs served a purpose. A Scottish company called Weir said the pioneered a timber framed building in 1956. (Though many did not agree with them being pioneers). But they had an external brick skin and were just a series of boxes.

Undeniably Huf Haus are fantastic. For those with big pockets.

Cost is still the driving force for and the accountants and QS‘s determine the end product to a large extent along with the cost of building land.

There is still much room for improvement in many areas.

John