-
While it is right in theory for the Govt to insist on zero carbon homes, and the sooner the better, your carbon cost calculations illustrate how far this policy is from making economic sense given the poor state of Britain’s existing housing. The law of diminishing returns applies (as always). The money being spent going from Level 3 to Level 6 would almost certainly give a better return for society and mankind if used to retrofit thousands of existing under-insulated houses with loft lagging and new boilers.
Your analysis suggests to me that one consequence of CSH might be that already built, high quality, well insulated and maintained houses will enjoy a price rise above the market in future years as the higher prices of new houses hit the market. Another incentive (like EPCs?) for home owners to start investing in their current properties to make them low energy?
One aspect of future housing which doesn’t get a lot of coverage is adaptability. Here the Code for Sustainable Homes is silent – as far as I know. A large proportion of houses are eventually modified in some way, either internally, or are extended. Will the new zero carbon homes be built in a way that facilitates this? How will local authorities implement building control to ensure that an extended level 6 house is as airtight, has a larger PV panel to guarantee zero carbon etc etc?
Similary with maintenance. What happens if your 4.7kWp PV panel fails at 12 years old and you can’t afford to repair it? Maybe you don’t feel you should if you choose to buy green electricity from the grid instead. Do you have that choice? Do you have to face the consequences of failing to be zero carbon only when you come to sell and your HIP finds you out?
Strangely the Govt policy on new houses doesn’t really square with their approach to aviation. Here I’m quoting Hilary Benn from evidence he gave to the Environmental Audit Committee in December 2007, when challenged to explain why there seemed to be little enthusiasm to try to curb the growth in flying:
“However, we still come down to a choice about where we emit.
I think one of the issues that we have to address is are we saying that
there are certain types of greenhouse gas and carbon emissions that we
think, because of their character in some shape or form, are particularly
bad as opposed to other types? I made the point that agriculture and
aviation are currently seven per cent each roughly of UK emissions. Are we
able to accommodate a system in which in the end people or the system will choose where emissions take place? As long as you meet the overall target, does it matter whether the emissions came from this sector or that sector as long as you achieve a reduction? That, it seems to me, is the issue that we are debating here.”Read literally, it appears that in 2016 we will be able to choose to emit as much GHG as we like by driving and flying, but if we want a new house we have to ‘choose’ the zero carbon option. Perhaps the idea of zero carbon homes is to free up emissions capacity so activities like flying can continue longer into the future?
Robert
-
Chris,
A nice, well-informed piece. But one point I must take issue with:
>>The more conservative elements in this most old-fashioned of industries are quietly and not-so-quietly saying that the rules will be impossible to meet and calling for a concerted campaign to persuade the government to relax the Code.
I am one of the ringleaders of this campaign to “relax the Code” but I don’t regard myself as one of the industries conservatives. In fact I fully agree the sentiments expressed in your article: turning houses into renewable power stations is a nutty policy. Expensive, unrealistic and wasteful. Homeowners won’t understand the systems that have been landed on them, they won’t maintain them and the promise of a zero-carbon home will be quickly revealed as an empty one.
There are other aspects of the CSH which are questionable too – only 36% of the points required to get to Level 6 have anything to do with energy saving. When the big issue is carbon saving, why is all this other stuff cluttering up the future building regulations. The Code is a repository of good intentions, but bears little reality to the economics of development, as you have pointed out. That is a fundamental flaw.
-
I came to this site, having seen the announcement today about Centrica buying Ceres to develop CHP units and searching for articles on Ceres. I am in favour of developing techniques to minimse carbon reductions (and other polution), but am skeptical about some of the enegy usage figures and savings acheivable. I wonder about the TOTAL lifcycle polution costs of some of the solutions being proposed – initial manufacturing costs, running costs, maintenance costs and disposal costs. For instance the provision of PV cells is put at a very high cost. I don’t know the figures, but having worked for most of my career in the semiconductor industry where the energy, chemical and water usage is high, I suspect it is not dissimilar for PV cells. How does this affect the overall calculation for carbon neutrality?
The space heating cost is commenbaly low in both monetary and carbon terms, but in the longer term how sustainable is the use of wood? Can we grow enough locally on a sustainable basis to avoid transporting it long distances?
-
Will the goverment be assisting on giving a discount for buyers?
-
A greater problem is the concept of an eco-town – a site of 5,000 to 20,000 houses (approximately 10 of these in the thinking of the UK government) that is self sustaining with a ‘zero carbon footprint’. As yet no-one has come forward with a plan in sufficient detail that can be challenged, but our guess is that the extra energy required to build the town will not be factored into the equation – only the benefits (sic) after the town is built. This situation is clearly similar to the one re biofuels in that energy input is ignored and the possible benefits of output grossly over stated.
Near here there is an outline proposal for an eco-town for 15,000 houses (for 35,000+ people), shops, six schools, playing fields, a tram system, a new railway station, a bridge with houses over a main road, leisure facilities, etc. (The Weston-Otmoor proposal) They are trying to reduce car use, but at the same time are planning a large ‘park and ride’ area with regular busses/trams to Oxford and trains to London.
Ideally we want to know the energy cost of producing this eco-town, the energy cost of producing the same as an ordinary town, and then determine the time it would take to recover the difference between the two for different efficiencies of the eco-town relative to the same normal town. My County Councillor believes ‘never’!!!
Has anyone done the sums?
-
Chris, the Government share your analysis that the additional costs will be balanced by a reduction in the cost of land, as set out in the original consultation document ‘Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development’ (http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/buildinggreener). This includes the following section:
“Land values are, in effect, arrived at as a residual (i.e. development value less costs, including remediation, constructions costs, Section 106 agreements and normal profit). This should not, therefore, distort investment decisions. Apart from providing certainty for the industry, this is another reason why there is an advantage in setting a clear timetable for future environmental regulation.”
While challenging, I believe that the financial and technological aspects of zero-carbon – which are getting most of the attention – are actually at the easier end of the scale. Changing the culture of the industry to actually achieve the required quality of construction, and educating the other parties involved – for example the estate agents and the public – are likely to be the most demanding aspects of the change. The following article on my Web site explains why, and also proposes the use of an integrated change management approach to address the issues: http://www.mikebriggs.org/html/zero_carbon.html
-
A very illuminating article.
I attended one of the seminars on the Lighthouse by Potton, and the presenter was very cagey when the notion of costs came up. No ‘exact’ figures were given, just a series of ‘ball park’ figures. But as the questions rained down, it was clearly evident that there were a list of more ‘hidden’ costs, including additional fees for a Potton site manager (recommended), the ‘wind catcher’ was ‘extra’, most of the high tech energy devies were indeed ‘extra’. From my rough estimation, when you factor in a bit of land to errect the building, you were looking at £400,000………no wonder one 2 had been built last year according to the presenter, and one of those was the showhome!
Ads by the Guardian Green Ad Network




7 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/69/trackback