'Greenwash'

[Revolution Mike]

So saving = £0 or < £10 which is going to go up by £0 or even 100% ! < £20 vs. cost of installation £100s

 

It is not a matter of bothering - it is a matter of not having any trust in the distorted figures presented. I would rather work on the facts that I know. As I said it made virtually no difference to a neighbour's bills, certainly not enough to recover the costs.

 

Also the proportion of house heating costs on our annual energy spend is very low to start with - perhaps that is why it will have so little impact. Most of our energy use goes on hot water (not for radiators), cooking, washing, lighting, and gadgets. The CH is off from May to October and yet the summer units used is more than the winter. So adding more loft insulation is never going to have much impact.

 

Fair enough, but that suggests either that your house is well insulated to start with, you have a relatively warm climate or you tolerate colder temperatures than most. It certainly is not the normal pattern of energy costs for them to increase in summer!

 

However just because insulation may not help you does not in any way make it a con...you don't have to trust other people's figures you can work it out for yourself which is far more accurate than anecdotal evidence from your neighbour.

[Kenton]

you can work it out for yourself

The problem is the calculations do not account for the variables and a starting point is difficult to establish.

How can one determine the small part of the units used in heating compared to the rest of energy use? Remembering of course that there is contribution all year round heating from other activities?

Then such calculations probably do not take into account the differences in roof structure, existing partial insulation/material, boarding %, and many other factors not least of which is where in the house the heat is generated, and of course the optimum temperature.

 

Our summer energy bills are higher mainly due to heating & pumping the pool and air conditioning (washing/cooking/gadgets etc are pretty constant throughout the year).

[Guest]

How can one determine the small part of the units used in heating compared to the rest of energy use?

It doesn't really matter. For a given difference in temperature you can calculate how much heat leaks through your roof. You can put a definite £ value on that heat and decide if it's worth saving.

 

Our summer energy bills are higher mainly due to heating & pumping the pool and air conditioning

Well, insulation will help with your AC bills too.

[Revolution Mike]

You can use the insulating ® value of the insulation as a starting point which enables a theoretical calculation of how insulation should effect your heating needs - insulation is well...insulation there isn't a way that it won't work when essentially you are trying to keep something relatively warm with a colder temperature outside. After that you are right that it will depend on your exact set up.

 

Having a pool to heat and air conditioning to power is definitely not a "normal" energy use scenario for the UK, but I still struggle to see how insulation would not help reduce the portion of your bills that come from heating requirements. The question as you acknowledge is will the savings in my energy bills > cost of insulation. Given that decent insulation can be picked up pretty cheaply from DIY type places/builders merchants etc then in the majority of cases the pay off time is normally quick. (The proportion of your energy use that *you* use for heating is not really that relevant to answering the question of pay-off time).

 

Plus of course insulation may* help reduce your need for air-con and heating of the pool...*but again it will depend on a variety of factors (is the pool indoors/outdoors, how much of the property is in direct sunlight, how much ventilation there is etc etc.

 

We can go round and round on this...

[spamcan61]

You can use the insulating ® value of the insulation as a starting point which enables a theoretical calculation of how insulation should effect your heating needs - insulation is well...insulation there isn't a way that it won't work when essentially you are trying to keep something relatively warm with a colder temperature outside. After that you are right that it will depend on your exact set up.

 

 

It should be easy to calculate a 'typical' saving for a 'typical' house, but I can see it being very tricky to calculate a specific figure for an individual case, particularly in an older house with more unusual/hybrid construction methods. To be honest though, with loft insulation the cost of buying more is fairly trivial, as already mentioned it's the faff factor of moving all the treasured family heirlooms /junk that's up there. I suppose all those old Railway Modellers must have some sort of ® value anyway ;-)

[Ashcombe]

Fascinating as all these comments are re savings (or not) to be achieved from insulation, surely the real issue is about the cost to the planet? Hence the Government (past and present) is actively encouraging householders to improve loft insulation, install cavity wall insulation, etc., with a view to meeting its targets re lower fossil fuel emissions. Financial incentives to do so are available, even for retired public servants like me with my wonderful pension!!

 

 

[Taz]

That may be because some of us don't buy the global warming theory (or in my particular case don't think it is the world ending catastrophe it is made out to be).

 

I personally invested in insulation (and have costed various other green improvements to my home) primarily to save money but also to try and reduce my reliance on fossil fuels as they won't be here forever. If I can do my bit to slow down consumption then they will last a bit longer and give us more time to come up with alternatives. I also try very hard to recycle everything that the council will allow for the same reason.

 

I think this obsession with carbon emissions has made us take our eyes off much more important things such as deforestation and dwindling natural resources.

2000 years ago this country was much warmer than it is now and in the 17th and 18th centuries the Thames used to freeze over every winter. Global temperature variations, man made or not, are nothing new to this planet.

As always we will adapt and get on with life one way or the other.

[Kenton]

That may be because some of us don't buy the global warming theory (or in my particular case don't think it is the world ending catastrophe it is made out to be).

Absolutely.

 

There are enough coal reserves to keep the world going for many years more than what is left of my lifetime. There are other power sources (nuclear and some "o called" renewables) available now at a premium price and there may well be others in the future. Whatever, the only thing that is going to happen overnight is the is the destruction of our way of life by the green agenda.

 

If anything needs to be attended to - and it is far more pressing than any climate change - it is the growth of world population and the impact that has on water and food resources.

[Revolution Mike]

While I agree that the science behind man-made global warming is far from exact, I think that the pointers are all there that we have had some influence.

 

CO2 causes temperature rises - that part of the science is not debated, it has been established as fact since Arrhenius. The question is then whether man's CO2 input (which is admittedly an extremely small % of total CO2 emissions) is enough of a tipping point to push the earth's natural feedback loops past equilibrium and whether the rate of temperature change is quicker than we have seen before (given that normal geological timescales where we have seen dramatic changes in T are far longer than the last 150-200 year timescale that we are really looking at for man-made CO2 emissions I think that is another clue).

 

For me it is a bit of a win-win - forget the hair shirt environmentalists who want growth to stop, there is little reason why we can't increase efficiency, reduce resource use and reduce emissions. If global warming is ha

 

I agree with the idea that the world will save, I would question whether man will! But then as Kenton acknowledges there are other issues surrounding increased population and increased longevity.

 

There is coal available, but then coal is not oil which is what we really need for plastics and chemicals.

 

As for the idea that the "green agenda" (whatever that is) is going to destroy our way of life - why? Sorry but that is fairly laughable - for example what has more influence on our energy prices at the moment? A premium for a relatively small percentage of renewable energy or global gas prices (which are dictated by supply/demand)?

[Chris Chewter]

I don't get the problem with the advert. They plan to recycle old window frames into other products. So what? You get nice shiny new windows. They turn the waste into a profit. Sounds like a good business plan to me!

 

I also don't get this argument about misleading people about climate change. The argument about whether climate change exists or not is irrelevant. It won't go away no matter how hard you try to argue otherwise. Its here to stay whether you like it or not!

 

If we take the cynical viewpoint, Its all about £££. After all, money make the world go round. It works both ways: Save energy, save cash! Simple! If you take another cynical view, you spend money, they sell you a product, money changes hands and generates jobs! Good for the economy. No one makes you spend the money other than yourself!

 

Wise words about payback though. People need to do their research. Jump blindly for something you don't need, and you only have yourself to blame. Whilst double glazing does have a long payback, you also need to think about the dwelling your fitting it too. It could make it easier to sell you house! Just a thought...

[Guest]

I don't get the problem with the advert. They plan to recycle old window frames into other products. So what? You get nice shiny new windows. They turn the waste into a profit. Sounds like a good business plan to me!

They're still made out of UPVC which is energy intensive to manufacture and full of unpleasant chemicals. It's good that they're recycling though. Previously the old frames would be burned or go to landfill.

UPVC windows only last about twenty years which is less than wooden frames if you look after them.

[Chris Chewter]

They're still made out of UPVC which is energy intensive to manufacture and full of unpleasant chemicals. It's good that they're recycling though. Previously the old frames would be burned or go to landfill.

UPVC windows only last about twenty years which is less than wooden frames if you look after them.

 

Depends on the timber window. Have you seen the chemicals that go into pressure treated timber? That'll burn the hairs off your chest! How about repairing timber frames? Two part epoxy anyone? That lasts longer than the timber itself!

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm playing devils advocate here. Just pointing out the nasties used in timber can be just as bad! That two part epoxy is fantastic, and lets hope pressure treated timber keeps being manufactured for a long long time. Its great stuff!

 

As to what to do with your windows, depends on the application. If you lived in a Victorian house, I'd keep those timber sashes and repair. If you lived in a 1980's semi, I'd fit plastic. Why? Honestly its down to resale value! You can apply "green" credentials to either application if your clever enough!

[Bernard Lamb]

 

UPVC windows only last about twenty years which is less than wooden frames if you look after them.

At the front of my house I have hard wood windows, they are in keeping with the style of the property. Several of my neighbours have similar windows from roughly the same period. They were rather expensive at the time but do look good. At the rear I have UPVC. The actual glazing units in some of the windows have just been replaced after some 25 + years. The hard wood frames are still sound and get a regular coat of oil. A few months ago a DG salesman told me that I ought to replace the hard wood frames as UPVC had a better e value or whatever it's called. I could save money and be greener. I told the numpty I didn't care about the higher energy cost/useage (in this instance), I just wanted good looking, long lasting windows.

 

Bernard

[Oldddudders]

As to what to do with your windows, depends on the application. If you lived in a Victorian house, I'd keep those timber sashes and repair.

A friend in Kent runs a glazing firm. Some years ago he was asked to work in Central London (Bloomsbury) on a job - well outside his delivery area, and not a place he frequents at all! - because he knew how to work on sash windows, and that is not a common skill any more. While sashes look absolutely right on such properties, our expectations of warmth and draught-proofing in C21 may make their refurbishment and retention a less comfortable, but probably still quite expensive option. Not everyone wants to shiver for the planet!

[Guest Max Stafford]

Most 'green' claims about products are mere snake oil anyway. I'd go with the notion that you pick a type of window that best suits your property.

I wouldn't lose sleep over 'carbon footprint' issues either, in the UK at least. It doesn't matter how squeaky clean we make our processes, they're irrelevant in the face of the emissions generated by the BRIC nations.

That's if you buy into the whole thing anyway. I don't although I do believe strongly in tidying up our mess - it's just plain old fashioned good housekeeping!

 

Dave.

[Horsetan]

....UPVC windows only last about twenty years which is less than wooden frames if you look after them.

 

Not necessarily true. Current home has mix of Anglian and Kindlelight UPVC glazing which is entering 20th year in service with absolutely no sign of any degradation or impending failure.

 

My parents' old house had aluminium-framed double glazing which lasted the best part of 30 years - only being replaced because some git put a brick through it.

[Re6/6]

Back to my original post on general product 'greenwash' the latest is in regards to the biscuits I buy for the cats. Nestlé have printed on the box "10% less cardboard"..so what! It will save them money, I will recycle the box anyway...........

[The Stationmaster]

Back to my original post on general product 'greenwash' the latest is in regards to the biscuits I buy for the cats. Nestlé have printed on the box "10% less cardboard"..so what! It will save them money, I will recycle the box anyway...........

 

So because of their action you aren't recycling as much cardboard as you once did - very 'green'

[Brinkly]

So because of their action you aren't recycling as much cardboard as you once did - very 'green'

 

It's not being sustainable and that is the key issue in going green. For example does a packet of cereal need to be in a box when it is already packaged inside with a plastic bag, which is after all quite strong. Ok storage wise yes the bag is easier to contain within a box, but is the box actually needed? (I put all my cereal into glass jars anyway and keep them in the cupboard!)

 

Another example I use when teaching this in school is it right to get rid of plastic bags in super markets? Most answers come back as yes, but the bag is used for other things (such as lining a bin) and if I don't get a carrier from the shop I have to buy bin bags solely for that purpose, is that sustainable? Surely having one bag doing multiple jobs is better? The same with very thin bags, if they are thin yes they break down more quickly, but if your shopping is heavy to take two and double bag the items! Again is that sustainable?!

 

America use brown paper bags allot, perhaps not suitable for heavy things, but to put your fruit and veg in their fine and can be easily recycled, perhaps something that could be considered.

 

I've had some really good ideas from children who are 7 and 8 years old and at times they seem to be more on the ball than the adults are! (Other times their not(!), but still you get the idea!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Nick

[Baby Deltic]

I'm afraid to say that when it comes to all things greenhouse gas and carbon footprint, I believe Professor Bob Carter.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

 

Part 2

 

Part 3

 

Part 4

 

Edited to add links

[Guest Max Stafford]

This man talks sense!

 

Dave.

[Baby Deltic]

This man talks sense!

 

Dave.

 

 

When you read all the comments under his video's he's being totally slagged off by man made climate change advocates. I personally think he does put across a reasoned argument in the video's.

[Guest Max Stafford]

I've always maintained that the 'Man Made' camp is more a political movement than a scientific one in any case.

The way the same simple message is repeated over and over again without variation and with emotional hooks attached (that polar bear again!) whilst being dismissive of argument just comes across like propaganda to me.

 

Dave.

[Revolution Mike]

Sorry to disappoint you but those sorts of arguments (as made in the videos) have been well and truly debunked by the vast majority of the scientific community.

 

Dave - I agree with you to a point that there has been an element of man made climate change that has been political (which personally I think has been a mistake), but if you look at the underlying science it is difficult to refute. Sure there are lots of unknowns, but that doesn't invalidate many of the arguments.

 

I still struggle to see why people object to us using technologies that pollute less and use resources more efficiently (nothing to do with hair shirt reductions in growth and quality of living). It seems like basic common sense.

 

Of course I will defend your right to be inefficient or pollute more, but then don't be surprised if I also defend the right to tax you or charge you more for doing so!

 

Cheers, Mike

[Baby Deltic]

At first it was bandied around as 'Global Warming' until it was realised that its not getting hotter, and we're probably heading towards global cooling so it was very quickly changed to 'Climate Change'. Repeat the mantra and re-program the populace using TV and media.