coconutsaregood

To support your experience, I read (lost the link) the Energy Trust survey on the inferior performance of this material in real world examples (Scotland).

the government are smart at shouting out about giving those on benefits handouts but what portion of deprived "get-it" and do it?

the cheapest thermal insulation with a tolerance to rain penetration at the time of ordering. Currently it is treated glass wool in batt form or blown-in complete fill (fingers crossed the wider cavity stops the crossover of rain moisture).

the £1000 is the difference between the two levels of insulation. If I get my application in before cut-off date, then the project investment appraisal cost terms is a £1000 less over the 32-year period. This is the knock-on effect of more insulation up front. I must wait longer in my grave to recoup that £1000. The breakeven is many more decades away, assuming an average fuel price, which I know is complete conjecture. The penny is finally dropping, yes, the price of gas is still low for the level of insulation we the house extenders are now asked to put in.

I totally agree with your sentiments, but we are not Germany, and I knew 60-year life houses need 60-year cost in use doctrine applied just to save fuel never mind the planet. But democracy is clearly not working it behaves like shares in the stock exchange, suppose to reflect the future but really has not got a clue. So, this change to me is unfair to those trying to make use of recycled shells of a house that cost more to run and economically impossible to fix to comply, sympathetically. Throwing insulation at a house is not the simple answer, I am afraid to say here of all places. Improvements in U-value levels is the result of the relationship between the cost of energy and the lowering cost of producing thermal insulation of last 30 years or so. In recent years insulation prices has spiked, not helped with government price pumping with vote winning policies. The fact is if gas increased and stayed at around 10p/kWh then I'll breakeven in 30 years with these new regulations. So do I hope of high gas prices to make it worthwhile. Is the government going to keep the high gas price to save the planet? Because that is a real solution to the problem.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I agree, hope, we continue to be better off to continue to afford those goodies, but this change to put into perspective, is an under recovery of building cost of £1000 over a life of 32 years (my partner). So, I will not see full payback. So new house builders can undercut small time builders by thousands per house, so recycling old houses has just got more difficult with 6 months' notice. If we were in Switzerland, we have a referendum on this I like to think.

I want to see the Government be upfront about the cost of saving the planet. Until some wonder fuel or wonder insulant lands on our doorstep, this change is now increasing the cost of living and making insulants like PIR uneconomical to use.

I'll visit that website when the horse has bolted. Thanks all the same.

Thank you for the quick calc. interesting direction. Can I say though we must add the extra over cost of a wider cavity, foundations, more land/less room bigger roof more gutter, more cladding, more expensive insulant (not choosing sticky beads) etc. Plus, the ventilation is just got trickier. Pressure to go mechanical and service routine is on the cards.

yes, that is the motive, from a logical object of saving the planet, but I want the official word.

yep, interstitial condensation is a real problem for some cavity walls.

thanks for your offer for help, I am in the game (or was in the building game) so designing and costing building is my thing. I was hoping to get a pointer as to the official politics behind the change.

I am only here for the next 10 years, no children, and little pension. An unequal world and unequal response.

You miss my point on economics. The Building Regulations Codes of Practice (in old money) before was set at an economic level. Now a premium is being paid to build for the equitable cause of saving the planet. I have put the case here before that there is point when insulation material no longer makes economic sense. We have passed that point now but the spec builders have not, yet it seems.

agree to interference, but fair interference please. I don't want to get into the equitable green debate, there are no winners on that one... no one has crystal balls.

The new Building Regulation "energy saving" Part L now costs more to build an area of wall in a house extension than it would if building an area of wall in a new house. Are the existing house holders being used as test cases and with just 6 months' notice to boot? Where are the opposition MPs when it counts? I am surprised the Passive house enthusiast are not shouting foul here too. Limiting U-value for wall: house extensions: 0.18; new house: 0.26 No explanation given as far as I can find. Spec. house builders still enjoy the advantage of building economic houses. The rest of us must pay more for saving the planet. This revision now makes the current thermal insulation prices uneconomical unless we are going to see gas prices go even higher. Has anyone come across an official reasoning for this hidden "TAX" on householders developing their existing recycled home?

Ok, so is it the same charge as if it were a single phase supply or is enhanced by a factor of say 3? I just sense there is an extra-over overhead "Billing companies" need to recover for an enhanced service and no one has mentioned it yet.

sorry, yes I know that, what I am trying to say is: are the standing charge for 3 phases equate to the "billing company's" single phase supply x3, one standing charge per line wire?

so 3 phase implies 3x standing charges usually, does it?

Good summary. To enhance it is there anyone able to price it and do a Life Cycle benefit for say 30 years?

With hindsight, the carpenter should have created space between the plumb cuts of the rafters over the Universal Column (ridge beam), creating space just wide enough to form chimneys either side of the ridge tile batten, but still under the cover of the ridge tiles. The rafters should not have met at the top in the traditional manner as there is no need with the dirty big steel ridge holding everything together nicely. Interesting topic on helping poor bats, good on you.

The garage is good example where humidity control is more important than air temperature. Has anyone used a humidistat instead of thermostat for controlling the heating? I know to keep humidity to the idea of 55 to 65 % RH you have to maintain a differential of plus 7 degrees over outside temperature in the winter season.

The rainscreen is just that, not a waterproof cladding. Capillary attraction will always allow water to travel through your cladding and the air allows for draining away. This is by design and not a defect is my understanding of the technology. If it was causing damp to the interior then that is a different issue and requires examination of the batten details. If it is staining that is an issue then that is down to the choice of wood treatment in which there are numerous methods. I am sorry if I misunderstood your issue. I am not jealous you have a new house.

Nice simple example but I shall inform others here that the Bldg Reg standards does reflect the whole problem taking into account all aspects of building and running costs. So following their redlines is a good bet in terms of a financial solution to the problem of insulating a building. If keeping your carbon footprint to an absolute minimum then yes the simple formula is a good one, but let us not get confused with mixing the two goals.

I clearly need to go shopping for these things and not rely on the Table 16.47 of the Bldg Regs for U-values. Those large thermal breaks/multi-chambers on the most expensive windows are sure making a big difference to U-values. Thanks for your quick reply.