Jump to content

Why insulate


Russell griffiths

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 

Just tongue in cheek - should have put a smiley in there.  Apologies to any non-wood burning stove owning Conservatives........

 

Don't be so quick with you're apology to the nimby, AGA set! (Said tongue in cheek). Not that I read the rag, I'm a Times man, (or Viz :) ) but I found this:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/06/eco-guide-to-heating-your-home

 

I vaguely remember reading prepped type plans for building fallout shelters and I'm sure they advocated making air filters stuffed with wire wool....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Actually the government COULD do a lot to reduce wood burning.

 

For a start they could stop paying the RHI for wood burning devices.  I have lost count how many domestic oil boilers I have seen removed, and replaced by pellet boilers, because of the salesmen pushing the RHI payments they will receive for doing so.  And the salesmen make the problem worse by selling it as a "green" , renewable and environment friendly source of fuel. Even those just installing a WBS  withour any RHI are doing so largely because they perceive it to be a "green" and environmentally friendly fuel.

 

 

I have no evidence, other than seeing two new nicely built covered wood stores being built by houses in the village, but I do strongly suspect that the RHI may well have encouraged some here to buy wood stoves, and that may well have led to the recent problem.

 

In the previous three years I've only once had to turn the MVHR off because of smoke, and that was a neighbour having a bonfire.  Now I've had three days in a week when the MVHR has had to be turned off, because the valley is full of woodsmoke.

 

Something has changed, and I suspect its a few people fitting wood stoves.  One reason may be that most houses in the village have (or had) oil fired central heating and the oil price makes this expensive to run.  Perhaps they've been enticed by the grant to fit a wood burner, to save on heating oil.

Edited by JSHarris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

Funnily enough, but I was just re-reading this and had the same thought, move the MVHR intake down towards ground level.

 

Practically this isn't that hard for me, as the intake is out of sight, high up around the back of the house, so I could add some external ducting to bring the intake around the corner of the house (which then fix the other issue I have, of having the intake at right angles to the exhaust) so that it is on the East facing wall, lower down, by the back door.  This would also make it less susceptible to drawings in any smells that come with the wind, that tends to tunnel along the gap between the North wall and the retaining wall, especially in a strong Westerly wind.

 

Other advantages would be that the length of duct down the Eastern wall would warm up in the early morning sun (useful in winter for pre-heating the MVHR intake) and having the intake grill lower down would make it easier to clean out all the cobwebs and fluffy seeds that tend to clog it up.

 

It's an interesting idea, and one that I'll definitely give some further thought to.

 

Our MVHR intake / exhaust is at ground level (about 500mm off the paving) by necessity as the unit is in the basement plant room below the utility and the large ductwork goes up through the utility floor and out the wall, covered by the utility sink & units. Gas flue also runs up the floor and vents out around the corner (was tricky getting all the necessary separations but we just about managed it).

 

The utility wall faces south but immediately faces the garage  so there is a 1m wide alley between the two.

 

A few neighbours have stoves and/or open fires (the older houses have chimneys) but I can't say that smoke is ever an issue. Only the occasional smokey bonfire causes an issue, again only when the smoke is lingering at ground level.

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just imagine the scenario where an "enclave" of relatively high disposable income inhabitants, maybe some envisioned retirees, all had passive type builds. All with pv, ASHP, GSHP etc. Collectively the Government are going to be getting sweet FA back in terms of tax on fuel. Self builders with an eco slant were once considered fringe hippies. Now they're a threat.

 

Likely those rural areas will attract the type who wants to self build and go passive / MVHR. So you make wood burning attractive. Let's face it the Tories if serious about the environment wouldn't have killed the FiT rates. You could eventually enforce the burning of "approved" fuel by limiting supply etc. Equally you could tax it like any other fuel. Big Brother is not interested, at it's core, in individuals freeing themselves from reliance on fossil fuels. They will rig the system to address diminishing taxes, such as with the FIT rates and making technology prohibitively expensive. I think some relatively arid states in the US have banned the storing of rainwater. At it's simplest water is a potentially taxable commodity.

 

They will accept a few doing it but not the many!

 

F***! I can hear the black helicopters....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bitpipe said:

 

Our MVHR intake / exhaust is at ground level (about 500mm off the paving) by necessity as the unit is in the basement plant room below the utility and the large ductwork goes up through the utility floor and out the wall, covered by the utility sink & units. Gas flue also runs up the floor and vents out around the corner (was tricky getting all the necessary separations but we just about managed it).

 

The utility wall faces south but immediately faces the garage  so there is a 1m wide alley between the two.

 

A few neighbours have stoves and/or open fires (the older houses have chimneys) but I can't say that smoke is ever an issue. Only the occasional smokey bonfire causes an issue, again only when the smoke is lingering at ground level.

 

   

 

Thanks, that's useful to know and makes me even more encouraged to try it.  I have some lengths of 150mm rigid PVC duct left over, plus some bends and clips, so it wouldn't be hard to just jury rig something up to see if it makes a difference.  If it works, I could look at boxing the duct in with some of the spare larch boards I kept, and that are getting in the way a bit (they are too good to throw out!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alphonsox
20 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Read the Guardian article! :)

 

That kind of reinforces my experience and predujice on the subject. It's my lefty, city living friends that have all been opening up old chimneys and installing woodburners - largely because they beleive this is an save-the-planet/eco-friendly way to heat their homes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JSHarris said:

  You're OK here -  I still have a few contacts that should let me know if the helos are on the way to you............ :ph34r:

 

Isn't being able to hear the black helicopters unlikely due to their sound suppression characteristics? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

That kind of reinforces my experience and predujice on the subject. It's my lefty, city living friends that have all been opening up old chimneys and installing woodburners - largely because they beleive this is an save-the-planet/eco-friendly way to heat their homes.

 

 

Is the Guardian a lefty paper? I really can't get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

Thanks, that's useful to know and makes me even more encouraged to try it.  I have some lengths of 150mm rigid PVC duct left over, plus some bends and clips, so it wouldn't be hard to just jury rig something up to see if it makes a difference.  If it works, I could look at boxing the duct in with some of the spare larch boards I kept, and that are getting in the way a bit (they are too good to throw out!).

 

The old adage of keeping to the floor in the event of a fire. Makes sense. 

 

How about switchable main intakes on different sides of the house according to the prevailing wind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alphonsox
4 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Is the Guardian a lefty paper? I really can't get on with it.

Generally centre-left and labour party supporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

Thanks, that's useful to know and makes me even more encouraged to try it.  I have some lengths of 150mm rigid PVC duct left over, plus some bends and clips, so it wouldn't be hard to just jury rig something up to see if it makes a difference.  If it works, I could look at boxing the duct in with some of the spare larch boards I kept, and that are getting in the way a bit (they are too good to throw out!).

 

I will say that you probably get a bit more cr@p in your filters as there will be more dust and leaf litter etc blowing around at ground level.

 

I've not fitted the external cowls (which have a 5mm gap mesh) yet as there's still landscaping going on and I don't want them to get knocked. As a result, I needed to vacuum the intake filter fairly regularly and it got pretty filthy, as did the internal cell. All scrubbed up fine though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

That kind of reinforces my experience and predujice on the subject. It's my lefty, city living friends that have all been opening up old chimneys and installing woodburners - largely because they beleive this is an save-the-planet/eco-friendly way to heat their homes.

 

 

To be fair, it was an apolitical bit of daft policy on the environment that caused the driver for this in the first place.  Years ago the "green" movement kept stating (completely without any basis in fact) that burning wood was "CO2 neutral".  They were very wrong, as the idiots failed to understand the time factor in the atmospheric CO2 equation, they were so dim that they assumed that plants and trees absorbed CO2 at the same rate that fires burn it (I really can't understand people who fail to see the obvious like this).

 

It takes decades for plants and trees to absorb atmospheric CO2, but only hours to burn the wood and put it back into the atmosphere.  Sadly, the idiots in the "green" movement had a fair bit of input into government (of any flavour) energy policy, so we ended up with ludicrous decisions like converting Drax to burn wood and giving subsidies to home owners to burn wood.  What's worse is that there is a massive inertia associated with changes like this.  It took decades for the idiots in the "green" lobby to get government policies to include some of their views and it will take decades to have those policies changed now we know just how barking mad they were.

 

One of the sad things about government (any government) is that they very rarely take any heed of their scientific advice.  In fact they often play down the scientific advice they receive, change it's emphasis, or even reverse it's meaning, when it suits.  There are some classic examples of this, ranging from all the advice that showed that limited badger culls were not going to achieve any useful aim (they haven't) through to the way they ignored epidemiological advice during both the BSE and foot and mouth outbreaks.

Edited by JSHarris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Is the Guardian a lefty paper? I really can't get on with it.

 

Some of the commentators are unashamedly left wing but many are a bit more middle of the road.

 

I read it regularly online and would argue that it's one of the few quality (wrt journalism) broadsheets left - they're also part of the international association that get the real juicy scoops such as Panama Papers, Snowden files etc. I balance it with a salacious read of the Daily Mail and also read the Washington Post for quality US coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

 

I will say that you probably get a bit more cr@p in your filters as there will be more dust and leaf litter etc blowing around at ground level.

 

I've not fitted the external cowls (which have a 5mm gap mesh) yet as there's still landscaping going on and I don't want them to get knocked. As a result, I needed to vacuum the intake filter fairly regularly and it got pretty filthy, as did the internal cell. All scrubbed up fine though. 

 

I have external finned vents and the intake one regularly clogs with cobwebs and fluffy seeds.  The "old man's beard" fluff seem the worst of the fluffy seeds, as there is loads of it in the hedges around here and I'm forever having to get up a ladder and brush the intake grille clear.  Being able to do this from ground level would be a lot easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

The old adage of keeping to the floor in the event of a fire. Makes sense. 

 

How about switchable main intakes on different sides of the house according to the prevailing wind?

 

What about a rotating one on the roof (or at a low level) as part of a weathercock for new Builds?

 

Could have a modern version of the Sisyphus myth with @Onoff making his bathroom in cut-out sheeting :ph34r:.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JSHarris said:

 

I have external finned vents and the intake one regularly clogs with cobwebs and fluffy seeds.  The "old man's beard" fluff seem the worst of the fluffy seeds, as there is loads of it in the hedges around here and I'm forever having to get up a ladder and brush the intake grille clear.  Being able to do this from ground level would be a lot easier.

 

I'd expect that you'll also be less susceptible to gusts of wind unbalancing the system. 

 

Not sure if the cooling effectiveness in summer would be compromised as the ground releases heat in the evening - our spot is shaded so not much of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

I have external finned vents and the intake one regularly clogs with cobwebs and fluffy seeds.  The "old man's beard" fluff seem the worst of the fluffy seeds, as there is loads of it in the hedges around here and I'm forever having to get up a ladder and brush the intake grille clear.  Being able to do this from ground level would be a lot easier.

 

Would considering Part M be sensible and put it no lower than 450mm? (As in socket heights). As well as accessibility considerations, too low and you could be taking in "fox wee" smells or dust from vermin droppings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the "carbon neutral" aspect of burning wood.

 

Even if that were true, if you instead made the wood into something useful, that's not just carbon neutral but carbon capture (see how I introduced a new buz phrase) which is infinitely better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Oz07 said:

Haha

outside tap ✅ 

someone had to come up with a certain number of ticks!

 

higest spec?! Haven't they heard of solid work surfaces or is a £50 outside tap more of a deal breaker

 

Highish for a developer house ie better than average eg ufh, an ensuite, and all double bedrooms in the 4 bed.

 

I need to get the gumf as it is quite close.

 

The detailed planing ref, including specs etc, is here:

https://www2.ashfield.gov.uk/cfusion/Planning/plan_view_docs.cfm?reference=V/2017/0534

 

There is an earlier Outline.

 

The site backs onto allotments and has a few mature trees, so it will be pleasant. Given that *this* is the site as of 9am this morning, there is scope for negotiating changes:

 

20171204broadleaf-close-building-site-small.jpg.eb3316aed0a9a570648841b00969ff3d.jpg

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

 

I'd expect that you'll also be less susceptible to gusts of wind unbalancing the system. 

 

Not sure if the cooling effectiveness in summer would be compromised as the ground releases heat in the evening - our spot is shaded so not much of an issue.

 

The area by the back door (which is where this intake would end up) is pretty sheltered by the retaining wall that is still around 1.5m high at that corner, so the intake itself and the air around it is in near permanent shade.  A bit higher up the wall (say from above about a metre above ground level) and the duct would catch the early morning sun, as that tends to be around the level of the lower edge of the window in the top half of the back door.

 

41 minutes ago, Onoff said:

 

Would considering Part M be sensible and put it no lower than 450mm? (As in socket heights). As well as accessibility considerations, too low and you could be taking in "fox wee" smells or dust from vermin droppings.

 

Good idea, I reckon around a metre off the ground might be about right, not only for access, but also for neatness.  I can tuck it down the edge of the rear wall without getting too close to the rear of the ASHP if I do that.

 

39 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Re the "carbon neutral" aspect of burning wood.

 

Even if that were true, if you instead made the wood into something useful, that's not just carbon neutral but carbon capture (see how I introduced a new buz phrase) which is infinitely better.

 

Unmanaged woodland has it about right.  A tree that falls and decays naturally releases CO2 at a rate that's pretty close to the uptake rate of the living trees around it.  Making things like houses out of wood is even better, as they will last many decades, locking up the CO2 for a lot longer.

Edited by JSHarris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oz07 said:

this is what keeps me from wanting an all singing and dancing passive level house atm. A lot of issues to be ironed out. Ok if your a scientist like @JSHarris but a lot of it goes over my head!

It's a digression, but I think your logic is arse over tit with that statement. 

If someone lights a fire now and then youd still rather a lifetime of high and higher fuel bills :S

 

Not me :/. I'd go passive in the wink of an eye. Then all the money your used to throwing at the energy companies can be thrown to your mortgage instead. It's a no-brained afaic.  

I hate the house we're in, as I'm paying to keep it warm and like @Onoff I can literally hear the meters going round whilst I continue to pump heat in to offset its draughty inefficient ways, but capital expenditure puts any sensible anti-measures in place. :(

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...