"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
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.

Most people have no impressions these homes are out of their experience. If
Wimpey stared to build al their homes as eco and they looked much like all
others, then the non-existent perceptions will disappear.

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millions by pushing outdated technology which they are familiar with.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.

The car is ubiquitous, how many people have actually seen an eco house?
Energy Park in Milton Keyens has people touring it in their cars to see the
wonderful homes, which counters your pie in the sky claims.

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.

And??????? Does that mean they do not work and they are not cost effective,
which is what this is really about. If you want to know why Wimpey is not
building eco's by the 100s of thousands then go and ask the these people why
they are not? There is no reason whatsoever why they should not be building
eco homes. The same for the car makers. Why do they persist in using
outdated polluting technology when proven alternatives are around.

The only way to charge these large money making dinosaurs is to legislate.
The US government in the early 1970s set emission limits which were not
achievable at the time. The US car giants spent billions on fighting the
government in courts while foreign VW and Bosch cracked it very easily with
not much effort.

"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.

The builders have built expensive to build homes in the Uk for the past 70
years. We are virtual alone in using cavity walls. The Germans think we
are mad building two expensive walls when one can do. The British building
industry is backward. John Prescott has warned them to catch up or he will
make them do it. So your view that if it was feasible they would do it
doesn't stand up. They never even looked into other more cost effective
ways, just going along doing the same old expensive inefficient thing.

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.

It has to be as certain industries are still in the 1930s. No government
wants to legislate unnecessarily. If the private sector was delivering they
could just sit back. Unfortunately the government has to intervene.