On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:05:40 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Could it be that no one has heard of them?

The problem is that the marketing
and designs have been really poor.
The impression of most people
is that eco-houses are futuristic
designs using unfamiliar materials
and pushed by the beards and
sandals brigade.

Most people have never heard or seen one. Ab eco hous ecan look much like
any other house.

That wasn't my point. Of course it *can*, but that is not the
impression that people have.


One can argue on the merits and
demerits of that impression, but it's
the case.

It isn't. The reason why we don't see major developers building them is
that like the major car companies, they don't want change. They are making
millions by pushing outdated technology which they are familiar with.

That may well also be true. The effect is the same.


I think that if you were to survey
people in the street, you would
find that most look for the conventional,
traditional and "safe" bet.

If there are two similar priced and
sized houses and one has no hearting bills,
which one do you think people will go for?
Now think hard about this and I
hope you don't have brainache in the process.

There's no need to think a great deal on this one.

There isn't at all.

You should read what was written..

"She was out to build a "low" energy house that cost no more to build than
others. She succeeded. It has a heating system of 3 rads and high thermal
mass with a PV roof too. It is about 5-6 years old now and if she did it
today I'm sure she would do it differently. She does mention what would
improve the house."

The house was clad in the local stone and looked pretty well much like all
the others around.

"The economics DO add up. She built a low energy house to the local
vernacular (built to last 500 years) and spent no more than building an
energy sucking house. Deveci in Scotland has done the same. There must be
over 1000 very low energy homes now in the UK."

I have, and the details are not in dispute. It only came about
because Sue Roaf is an eco pioneer who went out of her way big time to
make it happen.

1000 eco homes in the context of several million built over the last
five years is a drop in the bucket.



"Just because Wimpy is not building them doesn't mean they are not cost
effective. They are."

"See ECO-House A Design Guide by Sue Roaf."

The point is that it does not cost any more to build an eco house than any
other, as one poster repeated asserted, who obviously knows nothing of them,
not how people perceive matters or how luddite builders view matters.


The builders are only going to build them if they can do so quickly
and efficiently with the trades at their disposal and if they think
that they will sell.

All of those things have to be in place or it won't happen.

Clearly there is not strong market demand because people either don't
know, don't want or are not economically motivated. I don't exclude
construction companies being conservative either.

It still comes back to the same three things though - education,
economics legislation. At present, the government is clearly
focussed on the third of these.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl