For designers; it makes me really sad the terrible choices people make

[JohnMo]

29 minutes ago, CharlieKLP said:

If you planted a tree, then chopped it down later and planted another it’s pretty much 1:1, that’s how carbon capture works. 
 

 

 

But who does that - no-one.  Small trees are no use for anything, same as the branches they chop off which are just left in the forest.  These parts are not harvested unless you do it yourself and air dry for a couple of years before you burn it.

 

3 minutes ago, Adsibob said:

Ultimately, humanity is bad. Humanity is not sustainable. 

True, or not without trying hard.

 

3 minutes ago, joe90 said:

However most of us here are trying to make a difference.

Again true

 

A tree used to construct something - not burnt, will capture carbon will keep it captured until it rots away.

[Ferdinand]

This thread is quite an interesting conversation.

 

I'd like to explore what we think "Eco house" means, in the context of the riverside house posted up by @CharlieKLP. There's a separate issue about woodburning being sustainable, which I'll do on a separate post if I pursue it.

 

Basics first.

 

The house posted up is called Backwater, and is fronting a 'lagoon' at Wroxham. Address: Backwater, Beech Road, NORWICH, NR12 8TP. Linky. I'm happy putting that there as it is off their own holiday rental website.

 

The Planning App is here, but the buggers at the local council have taken the docs off the web, and it would take an FOI to get them. (Update: double bugger, the session expires.)

 

This is the site before the development, from the records on Rightmove. It is the one with the boat. They bungalow-gobbled the site for £342k in 2012, which seems a fandabidozi  buy. It is 142.1 sqm floor area.

 

 

The EPC is here, and it is recorded as GFCH so I just don't believe the new one is off grid for gas or electric without direct evidence, based on likelihood (open to correction). It's architect calls it "in a largely off grid area". I hope to God it is the EPC for the old one, as it is an F - and I can find no published info for the new one (was an EPC required to be lodged in ~2015?).

And this is afterwards. I'd punt on it now being about ~250 sqm due to partial 2 storey and the rather fatter footprint (which looks like a normal 'you can increase it by X%' rule).

 

Eco-House?

 

1 - I think Eco House is the most wiffly-waffly term of all of them, which is why it gets used in windy virtue signalling. ISTM that it must mean something different from what it meant a decade ago, and now I think an Eco House should at least be carbon positive and able to demonstrate that in N years it will have recaptured all the emissions used in building it, and be significantly energy efficient to run in ongoing terms (if you like call that an EPC of >100).

 

2 - This house is 7-8 years old, so I would not expect it to meet that. In addition it has a honking great woodstove and apparently no self-owned local wood supply. I have no data on the heating / cooling systems, and the EPC value.

 

3 - The absence of solar PV suggests to me that it is not *that* sustainable in my terms above. 

 

4 - Yes, it is beautiful, but imo that has nothing to do with whether it should be called an Eco House. And I think I would love to stay there, but at a couple of K a week I would take the full 8 people.

 

5 - I think two aspects of Eco House we have not addressed are:

 

a) What about space usage - can a house that uses say double the average UK floor space per person be called Eco or Efficient?

 

b) I question whether a second house for a family can *ever* be Eco or Sustainable on the basis that no one ever *really* needs more than one? Surely Eco is also a lifestyle rule of modesty and simplicity?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Ferdinand

[joe90]

14 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

I'd like to explore what we think "Eco house" means,

Well my interpretation is “economical” in the power usage and materials form, most here like myself built or are building a house with masses of insulation, attention to detail giving airtightness and heating systems that are cutting edge and least harmful to the planet. Yes I have a raft of concrete over petroleum derived insulation but concrete can last many decades and no other insulation can support it. However my cavity is filled with rockwall, which is not petroleum derived. I admit to having a woodstove but it’s used rarely and I harvest local fallen wood to fuel it and it is my “feel good factor”. I am all electric but buy from an “eco” supplier and PV is on the cards for the future. (The house is cheap to run and I am on a pension 🤷‍♂️).

[Roger440]

20 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

I just see a waste of spce between the non PV friendly roofs.

And flies from the pond, until it is balanced (ask me how I know about this problem).

 

Im asking?

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, CharlieKLP said:

That’s not true, if you grow young trees then replace the tree it’s sustainable. It’s not even necessary to kill a tree, it’s just a part of forest maintenance.

but anyway, it’s classed as sustainable and compared to the rest of us using gas or electricity from the grid, it is.

 

 

It is true.

 

I know, you know, and everyone else knows, its just greenwashing. There nothing "sustainable" about the whole carry on.

 

Not least because there no guarantee that the replacement tree wont just be removed early in its life.

 

 

[ProDave]

The house next to us when first sold was advertised as an "eco house"  It had an EPC D.  The only thing I could see that could justify the "eco" claim was not very good 3G windows, and a wood burning stove.

[Trw144]

43 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

It is true.

 

I know, you know, and everyone else knows, its just greenwashing. There nothing "sustainable" about the whole carry on.

 

Not least because there no guarantee that the replacement tree wont just be removed early in its life.

 

 

What source of heating is eco though - as far as I can see, they all emit CO2? 

[Roger440]

2 minutes ago, Trw144 said:

What source of heating is eco though - as far as I can see, they all emit CO2? 

 

Solar? If you ignore the manufacturing element.

[joe90]

3 minutes ago, Trw144 said:

What source of heating is eco though - as far as I can see, they all emit CO2? 

Well electricity can be produced by wind or sun and the percentage is going up.

[Trw144]

2 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Solar? If you ignore the manufacturing element.

Difficult to heat a house with solar - it just doesn't produce enough in the winter. You could argue a very low energy house puts back on the grid in the summer, what it uses in winter, but I'd think this is quite rare.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, Trw144 said:

Difficult to heat a house with solar - it just doesn't produce enough in the winter. You could argue a very low energy house puts back on the grid in the summer, what it uses in winter, but I'd think this is quite rare.

 

Agreed.

 

Though it can no doubt contribute.

 

Im never suggested that there was a solution. Just getting fed up with stuff being decribed as "sustainable" when it patently isnt. Just accept the fact our existence uses resources and causes pollution.

[Trw144]

6 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Agreed.

 

Though it can no doubt contribute.

 

Im never suggested that there was a solution. Just getting fed up with stuff being decribed as "sustainable" when it patently isnt. Just accept the fact our existence uses resources and causes pollution.

I agree, likewise I get annoyed seeing burning wood is bad, but heat pumps are the holy grail, probably from the same people who drive a stinking old diesel car. None of them are perfect, but done correctly they are no doubt an improvement on burning oil.

[joe90]

11 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Just accept the fact our existence uses resources and causes pollution.

But less by some that make an effort and hopefully set an example.

[Roger440]

23 minutes ago, Trw144 said:

Difficult to heat a house with solar - it just doesn't produce enough in the winter. You could argue a very low energy house puts back on the grid in the summer, what it uses in winter, but I'd think this is quite rare.

 

Id say burning wood IS bad too.

 

I fail to see much good in doing so.

[Trw144]

17 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Id say burning wood IS bad too.

 

I fail to see much good in doing so.

Unfortunately, this is where we go round in circles - I'd say electric heating even with a heat pump, on a grid that isn't co2 neutral, is also bad. Yes it's better than many other options, but technically it's bad. 
 

An example I had today on wood burning  - potential customer has a large old house, currently heated with a 20 old oil boiler, and sufficient woodland for 10t of fuel a year if he were to manage it. Surely wood burning is a good option in terms of sustainability here?

Edited August 16, 2022 by Trw144

[joe90]

10 minutes ago, Trw144 said:

Unfortunately, this is where we go round in circles - I'd say electric heating even with a heat pump, on a grid that isn't co2 neutral, is also bad. Yes it's better than many other options, but technically it's bad. 

So what options are good? (That are currently available)

[Roger440]

12 minutes ago, Trw144 said:

Unfortunately, this is where we go round in circles - I'd say electric heating even with a heat pump, on a grid that isn't co2 neutral, is also bad. Yes it's better than many other options, but technically it's bad. 
 

An example I had today on wood burning  - potential customer has a large old house, currently heated with a 20 old oil boiler, and sufficient woodland for 10t of fuel a year if he were to manage it. Surely wood burning is a good option in terms of sustainability here?

 

IF they manage it. Yes. And ignoring the pollution aspect of course, which is hardly insignificant. Which  is one reason there wont be any wood burning stove in my house.

 

But very much an edge case though. Not too many people have enough woodland to do that. Nor the will and energy to actually manage it. Thats a lot of work, not a task to be undertaken lightly. Might seem a good plan in your forties, not so much in your sixties. So wont get done. And therefore wont be sustainable.

 

There are no CO2 free solutions. All you can do is minimize.

 

I think this thread may have drifted off topic

[Trw144]

16 minutes ago, Trw144 said:

UnfortunateLy, this is where we go round in circles - I'd say electric heating even with a heat pump, on a grid that isn't co2 neutral, is also bad. Yes it's better than many other options, but technically it's bad. 
 

An example I had today on wood burning  - potential customer has a large old house, currently heated with a 20 old oil boiler, and sufficient woodland for 10t of fuel a year if he were to manage it. Surely wood burning is a good option in terms of sustainability here?

 

5 minutes ago, joe90 said:

So what options are good? (That are currently available)

Probably should have phrased it differently - bad in so much as emit CO2. Unfortunately the answer is probably nothing.x what we have available is better(than fossil fuels). but not completely "good".

[Kelvin]

We aren’t having a wood burning stove either. Other half not happy about it at first. However, there’s a long list of reasons not to have one including pollution

[Trw144]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

 

IF they manage it. Yes. And ignoring the pollution aspect of course, which is hardly insignificant. Which  is one reason there wont be any wood burning stove in my house.

 

But very much an edge case though. Not too many people have enough woodland to do that.

A modern biomass boiler, fitted with an electrostatic filter, is widely different to a wood burning stove in terms of emissions. It's effectively clean (and again, don't get me started on people who drive old diesel cars who harp on about biomass being dirty).

 

Yes an edge case, but I'd say people with a heat pump who produce enough electric to be self sufficient annually are also an edge case.

 

But agreed, we have diverged from the curtain talk so will leave it here!

[Adsibob]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

True, or not without trying hard.

Yes, but that’s my point. Humanity does not try hard. Humans go for the cheapest and easiest option. Obviously, we are not human; we are buildhubbers. But we are the minority. Probably less than 1% build their own houses.

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, Roger440 said:

23 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

And flies from the pond, until it is balanced (ask me how I know about this problem).

 

Im asking?

I used to live next to the Watermead developement (Aylesbury) when the widened the River Thame into a lake.  Years of flies in the spring ans summer until th rest of the wildlife moved in.

 

@CharlieKLP

If you want really want to know how long it takes CO₂ from wood burning to be reabsorbed, count the rings in the logs you burn, then add some.

So a 1 kg log, with 10 growth rings, would yeild about 3 kWh of useful thermal energy, an hour or so in most peoples houses in winter.  10 years of growing, to last an hour.

The other aspect, that is often forgotten, is that trees take up a lot of land, much more than PV for the same annual energy output.  Most trees in the higher latatudes will have a solar energy to thermal energy converstion rate of around 0.25%, PV around 10%.

If we were to run the world, at its current power usage of approximately 2 kW, then all the biomass on Earth, that includes ocean and people, would last about 400 days.

Though I suspect that Scorched Earth policy would choke us all before the first month was out.

Edited August 16, 2022 by SteamyTea

[Roger440]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I used to live next to the Watermead developement (Aylesbury) when the widened the River Thame into a lake.  Years of flies in the spring ans summer until th rest of the wildlife moved in.

 

 

Thanks. Understand.

 

There was a pub in watermead, the name of which i forget. For a while it was the place to go. And i did  Mostly because the warranty lads were dossed in the horse & jockey over the road. Happy days.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

There was a pub in watermead, the name of which i forget.

The Watermead.

7 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

dossed in the horse & jockey

Was a barmaid there call Sorrel there who had her big toe stictched onto her hand as a thumb.

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

The Watermead.

Was a barmaid there call Sorrel there who had her big toe stictched onto her hand as a thumb.

 

Ahh yes, why did i not think of that. Obvious name is obvious!

 

I dont remember the bar maid.