On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:22:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I've looked at houses in both Scandinavia and the U.S. They are not
*that* innovative and when you talk to people about their views of
their construction industry, thy also feel that it is pretty
conservative.

All relative of course.

Exactly, and certainly not earth shattering.



The existing housing stock is an
economic reality,

Yes forced by the 1947 Town & Country Planning act, to keep the super
rich,
rich, and the rest of us in cardboard boxes.

I'm not getting into that silly nonsense again.

Once again you don't understand. Sad but true.

I understand all that I need to on that subject.




They better not with him around. The useless rip off construction
industry
is preying for him to go. My vote next time around goes to NL.

You're moving to Holland? When?

Are you on the same boat to Mars that Maxie and Jerry are on?

I didn't think that you would understand that one.


There are too few eco houses around to
make a living I'm sure. Come back in 10
years time and I'm sure Richard
will have an eco homes section.

He might well, but that's 10 years away.

That is when it will probably mature. It is on the way there. The
simple
fact you heavily insulated your house indicated that.

I didn't. It was already done to a sensible standard.

Your house is 10 years old? Sensible standard? Please?

18 in fact. Improvements have been made to it in terms of
insulation in order of economic considerations.
These do not put knee deep insulation in the loft or double glazing at
the top of the list. Don't bother to argue this point because I have
done the calculations in detail using several different approaches and
sets of data.


You could spend time educating
the great British public on
these matters,

I should, but greater authorities than me are already doing this.
The
people are eco aware and are getting better at it.

I think that that is stretching it.

It is not.

The government is having to
legislate new standards in order to be seen to be doing something
towards meeting the Kyoto political targets.

What you mean is that you want greater government action. So do we all.

No I don't. I would prefer greater government inaction by their being
less government.

So you mean you want low specced, cold and damp houses. How sad!

No of course not. The right way would be to encourage people to
improve their properties through education and financial incentive
based on sound scientific, economic and practical considerations; not
legislating because of political dogma and international treaties.



Through it being rammed down their throats, not for any economic,
scientific or altruistic reason.

Nonsense. Speak to anyone who has changed over from draughty single glazed
to sealed double.

Single glazing does not automatically equate with draughty. There is
nothing wrong with double glazing per sec, apart from the cheap
plastic stuff looking ugly. In terms of energy conservation for the
whole house and return on investment, it is not at the top of the
list.

The stupid aspect is when people hermetically seal their homes, do
nothing about the walls and then wonder why there is mould growing on
the wallpaper and water running down the walls.. We have a thread on
this subject every couple of weeks.




That depends on your definition of best. I travel extensively and
do look at houses and construction on occasions.

Do you break open the plaster and look behind?

No, I just see a few under construction.


There are different
methods and materials but these appear to be much more based on
availability and tradition than one being better than or more advanced
than another.

You need to do some more research.

No I don't.



The current government has grossly
overlegislated to the point that
many people are of the opinion that
when something is it is because it
is not in their best interest.

NO government wants to interfere with industry, unless it is not doing
its
job right.

As in legislating around electrical safety when there is no issue that
requires tackling for example?

The legislation is to get rid of cowboy operators, as what CORGI is doing.

That is one of the arguments being presented for it. The reality is
that it won't do that, nor will it make any noticable difference to
injuries. It is simply a control game for the sake of control,
entirely in character for your pugilistic pal.





---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl