MikeSharp01 Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 They actually mention "Thermal Mass" without stating any units. Also the 0.09 for roofs is going to be challenging as is the 0.0 for party walls I wonder what the assumption is there then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSharp01 Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 hour ago, Nick Thomas said: Excellent news. Now do England Great idea and the large housebuilders will need jump even further than they would if they had allowed the earlier attempt at it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Heat loss from (cavity) party walls has been in the Regs for many years - all linked to air movement within, into and out of the cavity. Fully filling with mineral wool and sealing the wall edges are deemed to give zero U-value. Description here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Thermal Mass is actually 'thermal mass parameter' used within SAP. Based on the heat capacity of internal linings (kJ/m2K), area of each element and total floor area. In older versions of SAP it was broadly classified as low, medium or high depending upon construction method but now has to be calculated more precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 hour ago, MikeSharp01 said: They actually mention "Thermal Mass" without stating any units Really. There are many on here who can write to them and tell them what the units are. Will look something like this: Kw/h/kj(lb.oC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 On 10/04/2024 at 11:43, saveasteading said: Wood-burning stoves and other heating systems that cause emissions can also still be installed in new homes to provide emergency heating, where a need can be justified – responding to feedback from rural communities.” Repeated for anyone who has started at the end of the discussion. This makes every sense. Any new housing must have ashp or similar. Wbs can be added but must be justified. e.g if your house is 2 miles up a track it will be one of the last to get power restored after a storm. Explain to the bco and it should be ok. Likewise if your electric supply is unreliable. I used to look at the 'woodburners forum' on facebook and it demonstrates the worst of wbs. People who used it as their only space heating, coming home with whatever they could find. pallets, chipboard, tanalised waste, just anything.. If it's free, burn it. That's why it needs a rule. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 The ONS has some numbers on heating types. Here is a quick analysis for England. Type of central heating in household (13 categories) Number No central heating 367119 Mains gas only 18298730 Tank or bottled gas only 260108 Electric only 2113123 Oil only 865944 Wood only 35720 Solid fuel only 49469 Renewable energy only 98729 District or communal heat networks only 220893 Other central heating only 225399 Two or more types of central heating (not including renewable energy) 2113324 Two or more types of central heating (including renewable energy) 134659 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crofter Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 50 minutes ago, saveasteading said: Any new housing must have ashp or similar. Wbs can be added but must be justified. e.g if your house is 2 miles up a track it will be one of the last to get power restored after a storm. Explain to the bco and it should be ok. Likewise if your electric supply is unreliable. I do hope it's implemented this way. Our local (SNP) MSP has been pretty critical about this. I wonder how much leeway individual councils will have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 @SteamyTea - that's below the belt, bothering us with the data dammit... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest28 Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 The environmental and health hazards associated with wood burners, particularly the PM2.5 emissions, cannot be ignored. As the attached image clearly demonstrates, traditional wood burners emit a significant amount of these fine particles compared to other heating methods. PM2.5 particles pose a serious health risk as they can penetrate deep into the lungs and are linked to a range of ailments, from respiratory issues to heart disease. Furthermore, the idea that gas boilers could be banned for their emissions while wood burners remained permissible was a point of contention for me. Gas, in comparison to solid fuels, burns much cleaner. The real concern is in urban settings where houses are in close proximity. Here, wood burners can essentially "gas" neighbors with pollutants, especially when users are burning wet wood or treated materials like pallets, which release even more harmful substances. I would advocate for a rule that only allows open fires or wood burners in properties that are a significant distance from others, perhaps 100 meters or more, to prevent this kind of neighborhood pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceverge Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Apart from this bit. Like @Kelvin says. Our PHPP predicts 2625kWh/m2/Annum at the moment. If I put the limiting values in for Air permeability and ditch the MVHR it goes to 7525kWh. It really is the lowest hanging fruit. Far more so than super insulation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 We were talking about this earlier. Over the last perhaps 10 years, around us all public buildings like schools, leisure centres have moved over to wood pellet boilers for their heating. So now the Scottish Government have banned such things, will we see these now replaced with heat pumps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 No. This is only new builds. There’s a separate consultation underway for existing homes and buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crofter Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Wood pellets never made sense. See also, cash for ash in NI 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Potter Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Look folks. What is happening in Scotland has nothing to do with science and all to do with political ideology. Trying to rationalise this is not achievable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crofter Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 58 minutes ago, Gus Potter said: Look folks. What is happening in Scotland has nothing to do with science and all to do with political ideology. Trying to rationalise this is not achievable. I disagree. I think it's a knowingly unpopular move led by clear science on particulate emissions. But let's just agree to disagree on this. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 7 hours ago, Crofter said: I disagree. I think it's a knowingly unpopular move led by clear science on particulate emissions. But let's just agree to disagree on this. Sure but the argument is that the impact of wbs in rural homes is minimal. I’m with you but I can understand the other side of the debate for rural houses. The house we rent is freezing. You’d have to set it alight to heat it. It does have a wbs and we get free seasoned wood from the farmer which is all produced on the farm. But I hate the thing. It’s makes a mess, the heat is hard to control, the air quality in the room it’s in isn’t great etc. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Kelvin said: impact of wbs in rural homes is minimal Not as you mention later on, on indoor air quality. Edited April 15 by SteamyTea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 6 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: Not as you mention later on, on indoor air quality. Indeed but I meant the impact on the outside air quality. The only argument my wife and I had about the house build was over the fitting of a wbs. She loves them and wanted one in our house. Not for any practical heating reasons more because of the romance and cosiness of a real fire on the worst winter days when it’s blowing a gale outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 5 minutes ago, Kelvin said: romance and cosiness I had a girlfriend unexpectedly cough in my face when out for a romantic meal once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenki Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 On 12/04/2024 at 21:53, Iceverge said: Apart from this bit. Like @Kelvin says. Our PHPP predicts 2625kWh/m2/Annum at the moment. If I put the limiting values in for Air permeability and ditch the MVHR it goes to 7525kWh. It really is the lowest hanging fruit. Far more so than super insulation. @Kelvin and @Iceverge have, IMHO highlighted the glaring omission. Just using the heat loss calculation spreadsheet easily shows the importance of airtightness. Once you plug in the required U value, even slight improvements in airtightness have real positive impacts on heating requirements. Even to a point where lesser levels of insulation can still achieve lower running costs with better airtightness. I think the changes should have focused more on heat loss giving the designer more flexibility to balance u values and airtightness to achieve an efficient solution. The cynic in me would suggest a bit of lobbying from the expensive insulation manufacturers added more weight to the argument. For my build Airtightness was, in material costs, relatively inexpensive to achieve, but labour and attention to detail expensive. And "no body" would be lobbying for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 My cynical view too. Plus better insulation is easier to understand for the average home buyer and easier to achieve for your average builder. I also think some of this is because they knew that setting a much better airtightness target wouldn’t be achievable by the building industry. Also when you get to three or below you increasingly need active ventilation which adds to the complication and cost. An opportunity missed imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenki Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 4 minutes ago, Kelvin said: Also when you get to three or below you increasingly need active ventilation which adds to the complication and cost. An opportunity missed imo. They have changed the ventilation as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 I never spotted that on first reading. Makes even less sense then to go with such a poor airtightness target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 Air change less than 3 in Scotland triggers the need for MVHR, so the mass builders will aim for just under 5 to pass without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now