"Stephen Gower" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"Stephen Gower" wrote
IMM wrote:

guess which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly
and command a higher price.

The one with the nicer kitchen.

You didn't read! It said "two well appointed identical houses in the
same
road".

Yes, John, if there were absolutly no other factors, then the
insulation would make a difference to the sale.

Outside of this hypothetic world (where there are two identical
properties: same layout, same decoration, same seller, same agent,
but with different insulation) insulation is not a very important
factor in whether a house sells, or for how much.

No one buys a house because it has 300mm of cellulous insulation in the
loft. The running costs are the point though. Show them the difference in
bills and that it was due to insulation (not some miser keeping the heating
off) and they will take notice. No one wants to pay an extra £500 a year at
current rates, which could be even larger in the not too distant future.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote
| "Owain" wrote
| Have you read her Property Ladder book?
| I was reading part of it in WHSmiths yesterday and she has an
| 'interesting' viewpoint of the relative merits of combi boilers
| and instant electric showers.
| What might they be?

AIUI her point was that it was best to install instant electric because
combi's couldn't deliver enough hot water for a shower.

She probably wrote that, at the wrong time of the month, or she just is
thick.

I might have got it wrong, I was only thumbing through it too.

Owain




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:55:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Certainly people will expect to
buy a fixer-upper at a lower price,



You said it! A house like that is not up people's expectations of comfort
and running costs.

More like facilities and appearance.


Loft insulation may be done since it's easy and cheap, although not
the major loss of heat.

You what???? Do your calcs in a house with 300mm of loft insulation and
with none whatsoever. Then there is the intangible comfort conditions.
Well insulated house have less cold stops and are much more comfortable to
live in, in winter and summer.

I was comparing the heat loss through walls with the loss through the
roof in a typical house.

For a cavity wall with air gap only, the U value is in the 1.5 W/m^2.K
area.

A pitched roof with no insulation has a U value in the 1.5 to 1.8
area.

Since the wall area is much larger than the roof area, the heat loss
through the walls are also similarly greater.

It's interesting to add 100-200mm of insulation to the roof because
the U value can be reduced to 0.35 to 0.15.

It is more interesting to insulate the walls.






Cavity insulation? probably not, yet that's
likely to be the largest heat loss.

I don't see lower energy costs as a major motivator at this point.

It is a major factor.


It might be for you and maybe for me and one or two others but not a
large seller of houses......




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:59:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Stephen Gower" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"Stephen Gower" wrote
IMM wrote:

guess which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly
and command a higher price.

The one with the nicer kitchen.

You didn't read! It said "two well appointed identical houses in the
same
road".

Yes, John, if there were absolutly no other factors, then the
insulation would make a difference to the sale.

Outside of this hypothetic world (where there are two identical
properties: same layout, same decoration, same seller, same agent,
but with different insulation) insulation is not a very important
factor in whether a house sells, or for how much.

No one buys a house because it has 300mm of cellulous insulation in the
loft.

I would view that very suspiciously because it makes little
improvement over 200mm in the total context of the house energy
requirement. More to the point, somebody that does that to a house
that wasn't designed for it has probably blocked off all the
ventilation as well and created the conditions for timber decay.

It would ring the same alarm bells for me that spray on rafter
insulation would.


The running costs are the point though. Show them the difference in
bills and that it was due to insulation (not some miser keeping the heating
off) and they will take notice. No one wants to pay an extra £500 a year at
current rates, which could be even larger in the not too distant future.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:55:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Certainly people will expect to
buy a fixer-upper at a lower price,

You said it! A house like that is not up people's expectations of
comfort
and running costs.

More like facilities and appearance.

No. the e.g. I gave was a 1930s spec', maybe with a recent rewire with white
sockets. Everything totally liveable and in excellent decorative order with
well cared for gardens. So the appearance would be excellent all around
inside and out with excellent kerb appeal.

Loft insulation may be done since it's easy and cheap, although not
the major loss of heat.

You what???? Do your calcs in a house with 300mm of loft insulation and
with none whatsoever. Then there is the intangible comfort conditions.
Well insulated house have less cold stops and are much more comfortable
to
live in, in winter and summer.

I was comparing the heat loss through walls with the loss through the
roof in a typical house.

For a cavity wall with air gap only, the U value is in the 1.5 W/m^2.K
area.

A pitched roof with no insulation has a U value in the 1.5 to 1.8
area.

Since the wall area is much larger than the roof area, the heat loss
through the walls are also similarly greater.

It's interesting to add 100-200mm of insulation to the roof because
the U value can be reduced to 0.35 to 0.15.

It is more interesting to insulate the walls.

Lay in bed on a freezing night with no insulation in the loft. It gets cold
super quickly, hence why they had hot water bottles. And most people know
that.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:59:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Stephen Gower" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"Stephen Gower" wrote
IMM wrote:

guess which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly
and command a higher price.

The one with the nicer kitchen.

You didn't read! It said "two well appointed identical houses in the
same
road".

Yes, John, if there were absolutly no other factors, then the
insulation would make a difference to the sale.

Outside of this hypothetic world (where there are two identical
properties: same layout, same decoration, same seller, same agent,
but with different insulation) insulation is not a very important
factor in whether a house sells, or for how much.

No one buys a house because it
has 300mm of cellulous insulation in the
loft.

I would view that very suspiciously because
it makes little improvement over 200mm
in the total context of the house energy
requirement.

Nonsense. Cellulous insulation make the bedroom to loft air tight.
Cellulous insulation also is the equivalent of mineral wool that is 25%
thicker.

More to the point, somebody that does that to a house
that wasn't designed for it has probably blocked off all the
ventilation as well and created the conditions for timber decay.

More nonsense. A cold roof has eves ventilation. There should be no air
transfer from bedrooms to loft. None at all.

It would ring the same alarm bells
for me that spray on rafter
insulation would.

Totally different products. Cellulous insulation is heavily used in eco
houses.

The running costs are the point though. Show them the difference in
bills and that it was due to insulation (not some miser keeping the
heating
off) and they will take notice. No one wants to pay an extra £500 a year
at
current rates, which could be even larger in the not too distant future.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:40:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:55:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Certainly people will expect to
buy a fixer-upper at a lower price,

You said it! A house like that is not up people's expectations of
comfort
and running costs.

More like facilities and appearance.

No. the e.g. I gave was a 1930s spec', maybe with a recent rewire with white
sockets. Everything totally liveable and in excellent decorative order with
well cared for gardens. So the appearance would be excellent all around
inside and out with excellent kerb appeal.


You didn;t say that at the outset and are just changing the rules as
you go along. This makes the discussion rather pointless.







Lay in bed on a freezing night with no insulation in the loft. It gets cold
super quickly, hence why they had hot water bottles. And most people know
that.


It doesn't alter the fact that most of the heatloss is demonstrably
through the walls.






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:46:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

..

No one buys a house because it
has 300mm of cellulous insulation in the
loft.

I would view that very suspiciously because
it makes little improvement over 200mm
in the total context of the house energy
requirement.

Nonsense. Cellulous insulation make the bedroom to loft air tight.



Cellulous insulation also is the equivalent of mineral wool that is 25%
thicker.

More to the point, somebody that does that to a house
that wasn't designed for it has probably blocked off all the
ventilation as well and created the conditions for timber decay.

More nonsense. A cold roof has eves ventilation. There should be no air
transfer from bedrooms to loft. None at all.

That was not my point. It was of situations that I have seen where
people have crammed the roof space with insulation and effectively
stopped the air flow from the eaves.

It's the same mentality that seals the rest of the house hermetically
and then wonders why they are getting condensation.



It would ring the same alarm bells
for me that spray on rafter
insulation would.

Totally different products. Cellulous insulation is heavily used in eco
houses.

I wasn't referring to the product but the mentality of its use




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , IMM
writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?


--
Richard Faulkner

In message , IMM
writes
Worst case example. Take a bog standard, structurally sound, in excellent
order 3 bed never been modernised in any way 1930s detached house, with
original kitchen, coal fires, doors, bathroom, etc, and NO insulation in the
loft. See how many people would interested to buy it at full price, the
same price as a new house in insulation to current building regs and high
efficeint heating system. NONE at all. Some will want a knock done price
to "renovate" it, to modern specs. Comfort conditions and expectations are
rising and expectations of low running cost are too. The point? Improved
comfort and running costs "do impact".

But adding just insulation, condensing boiler, double glazing, would not
have the same impact as adding ordinary C/H, new bathroom, new kitchen,
nice decorating and saving the original style windows.

House for house, the condensing boiler, insulation and windows would
probably not even recover their cost.

--
Richard Faulkner

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:46:18 +0000, Richard Faulkner wrote:

In message , IMM
writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on £500 a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.


[1] There are a good number of factors involved with this wide variation
and one of which is simply how good the managing agents are.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on £500 a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.

15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.


--
Richard Faulkner

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:40:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:55:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Certainly people will expect to
buy a fixer-upper at a lower price,

You said it! A house like that is not up people's expectations of
comfort
and running costs.

More like facilities and appearance.

No. the e.g. I gave was a 1930s spec', maybe with a recent rewire with
white
sockets. Everything totally liveable and in excellent decorative order
with
well cared for gardens. So the appearance would be excellent all around
inside and out with excellent kerb appeal.


You didn;t say that at the outset and are just changing the rules as
you go along.

I'm not changing the rules at all. I clearly said an excellent house, but
in 1930s spec 100%. That does not mean ramshackle, as you thought.

Lay in bed on a freezing night with no insulation in the loft. It gets
cold
super quickly, hence why they had hot water bottles. And most people
know
that.

It doesn't alter the fact that most of the heatloss is demonstrably
through the walls.

It doesn't alter the fact that comfort conditions the bedroom rise
dramatically when you make the ceilings air tight and heavily insulate the
loft. So much so that in most houses with double glazed low "e" glass or
triple glazing no heating is required on the upper floors.

There is more surface area of walls in "most" house. In bungalows their is
more ceiling area in most, so putting in 300mm of cellulous insulation is
well worth it, making it air tight and dramatically reducing hear loss.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes
Worst case example. Take a bog standard, structurally sound, in
excellent
order 3 bed never been modernised in any way 1930s detached house, with
original kitchen, coal fires, doors, bathroom, etc, and NO insulation in
the
loft. See how many people would interested to buy it at full price, the
same price as a new house in insulation to current building regs and high
efficeint heating system. NONE at all. Some will want a knock done
price
to "renovate" it, to modern specs. Comfort conditions and expectations
are
rising and expectations of low running cost are too. The point?
Improved
comfort and running costs "do impact".

But adding just insulation, condensing boiler, double glazing, would not
have the same impact as adding ordinary C/H, new bathroom, new kitchen,
nice decorating and saving the original style windows.

That is not the point at all. It was: one house with poor comfort
conditions and one with none at all.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:46:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

.

No one buys a house because it
has 300mm of cellulous insulation in the
loft.

I would view that very suspiciously because
it makes little improvement over 200mm
in the total context of the house energy
requirement.

Nonsense. Cellulous insulation make the bedroom to loft air tight.



Cellulous insulation also is the equivalent of mineral wool that is 25%
thicker.

More to the point, somebody that does that to a house
that wasn't designed for it has probably blocked off all the
ventilation as well and created the conditions for timber decay.

More nonsense. A cold roof has eves ventilation. There should be no air
transfer from bedrooms to loft. None at all.

That was not my point. It was of situations that I have seen where
people have crammed the roof space with insulation and effectively
stopped the air flow from the eaves.

You are looking at a cowboy job as regarding this as the norm.

It would ring the same alarm bells
for me that spray on rafter
insulation would.

Totally different products. Cellulous insulation
is heavily used in eco houses.

I wasn't referring to the product but the mentality of its use

You have the mentality that all insulation fitters are cowboys.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
news
In message , IMM
writes
If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

Unfortunately, the chances are that
buyers wouldn't believe it, and
would perceive the value that you do.

With bills to prove it and a surveyors report that indicates high insulation
levels that confirm that, they will have super low bills, people will
believe it. Luckily eco houses tend to look differently than the standard
developer house. Just the individual looks alone attract buyers. The tag
"eco" also attracts buyers too. It is not the 1970s any more. Buyers in
general are a lot more discerning as many of the property TV shows indicate.

How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

er..err...£500?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
news
In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on
account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on £500 a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.

15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

Savings in heating costs? What do you base your assumptions on. Sorry you
"certainty" on?

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.

Have you tried? Have you had this experience? I gather not and you are
just guessing.

Tell them this house has virtually no heating bills making it super warm in
winter and very cool in summer (it works both ways), and summers are getting
hotter.

Also tell them that there is less to go wrong, which means less expensive
service bills, as the heating system is just a background system. Tell them
insulation never goes wrong and no service bills for it either.

Tell them the comfort levels are brilliant as their are no cold spots in
winter or hot spots in summer. Then see what their reaction is.

If you came across such a situation it is clear you wouldn't have a clue how
to highlight the virtues of such a house and sell it properly. God help
anyone hiring you to sell such a house.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:01:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:40:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You didn;t say that at the outset and are just changing the rules as
you go along.

I'm not changing the rules at all. I clearly said an excellent house, but
in 1930s spec 100%. That does not mean ramshackle, as you thought.

You said that the bathroom and kitchen etc. were original.
Everybody, apart from you would spend the money on replacing those
first.



Lay in bed on a freezing night with no insulation in the loft. It gets
cold
super quickly, hence why they had hot water bottles. And most people
know
that.

It doesn't alter the fact that most of the heatloss is demonstrably
through the walls.

It doesn't alter the fact that comfort conditions the bedroom rise
dramatically when you make the ceilings air tight and heavily insulate the
loft. So much so that in most houses with double glazed low "e" glass or
triple glazing no heating is required on the upper floors.

That's a separate topic entirely and doesn't detract from the fact
that the heat loss is greater through the walls than the roof. In
an earlier thread we already demonstrated that in the overall context
of the house going for ridiculously large amounts of loft insulation
is pointless.



There is more surface area of walls in "most" house.

That's what I said.

In bungalows their is
more ceiling area in most

there's a surprise...

, so putting in 300mm of cellulous insulation is
well worth it, making it air tight and dramatically reducing hear loss.


You put it in your ears??




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:07:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:46:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


That was not my point. It was of situations that I have seen where
people have crammed the roof space with insulation and effectively
stopped the air flow from the eaves.

You are looking at a cowboy job as regarding this as the norm.

That wasn't it. I meant well intentioned DIY jobs where people have
stuffed insulation into the eaves and the timbers are soaking with
condensation.



It would ring the same alarm bells
for me that spray on rafter
insulation would.

Totally different products. Cellulous insulation
is heavily used in eco houses.

I wasn't referring to the product but the mentality of its use

You have the mentality that all insulation fitters are cowboys.

That is not what I said either. I certainly think that the spray on
foam technique and its purveyors are questionnable because it is
marketed as a means of holding the roof material on rather than
repairing it properly. Since the timbers are then covered up, it
makes survey inspection impossible. I would walk away from any
property that had had this done.

I'm all for doing proper energy management and insulation, but the
notion of putting ever increasing amounts of insulation in lofts and
ignoring the walls is ridiculous; especially in existing properties.

The law of diminishing returns is important here.

Adding insulation to a wall cavity takes the U value from 1.5 to 0.5
which is highly significant. Adding insulation in a loft to take
the U value from 0.2 to 0.1, especially when the areas are considered
is of very little value in comparison,








---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:01:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:40:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You didn;t say that at the outset and are just changing the rules as
you go along.

I'm not changing the rules at all. I clearly said an excellent house,
but
in 1930s spec 100%. That does not mean ramshackle, as you thought.

You said that the bathroom and kitchen etc. were original.

Yes? That is not ramshackle. They could have replaced the old Belfast sink
with another identical one 10 years ago, same with taps. They sold have
replaced the elecrical sytem and still had one single socket in each room.
Eveything as per original spec'.

I viewed one just like this the last time I was house hunting. A flahback
in time. The owner bought it new. A one owner house.

Everybody, apart from you would spend
the money on replacing those first.

Would they? Ask our estate agent man on the list. Have a look around at
some house and see the state of the bathrooms.

It doesn't alter the fact that comfort conditions the bedroom rise
dramatically when you make the ceilings air tight and heavily insulate
the
loft. So much so that in most houses with double glazed low "e" glass or
triple glazing no heating is required on the upper floors.

That's a separate topic entirely

It is not at all !!

In bungalows their is
more ceiling area in most

there's a surprise...

Shocked eh!

, so putting in 300mm of cellulous insulation is
well worth it, making it air tight and dramatically reducing hear loss.

You put it in your ears??

Yes integrated ear muffs. I am now going to patent this idea. Off the
patent office...where's me coat.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

You have the mentality that all insulation fitters are cowboys.

That is not what I said either. I certainly think that the spray on
foam technique and its purveyors are questionnable because it is
marketed as a means of holding the roof material on rather than
repairing it properly.

That is very different to spay on cellulous.

I'm all for doing proper energy management and insulation, but the
notion of putting ever increasing amounts of insulation in lofts and
ignoring the walls is ridiculous; especially in existing properties.

What strange logic!

The law of diminishing returns is important here.

Adding insulation to a wall cavity takes the U value from 1.5 to 0.5
which is highly significant. Adding insulation in a loft to take
the U value from 0.2 to 0.1, especially when the areas are considered
is of very little value in comparison,

A normal house is split into two halves a top half and a bottom half. In
then top half, insulating the loft to the best you get using cellulous
insulation is well worth it. Say 300mm. the Centre of Alternative
Technology say 350mm is the optimum, their book, The Whole House Book covers
this. So in the top half of a house their is a highly significant ceiling
area that can be easily and cheaply insulated via the loft. My loft is well
insulated and even recently in -2 temps, most of the time the TRVs were
fully off. In winter it is nice and snug in the upper rooms and in summer
nice and cool. A win, win situation.

Looking at the whole house when assessing insulation levels is very
misleading. Loft insulation is easy and cheap and can be DIYed, unlike say
cavity wall insulation. Do you understand it better now? I doubt it.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:34:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

You have the mentality that all insulation fitters are cowboys.

That is not what I said either. I certainly think that the spray on
foam technique and its purveyors are questionnable because it is
marketed as a means of holding the roof material on rather than
repairing it properly.

That is very different to spay on cellulous.


If it hides the roof structure so that it can't be inspected then that
is not a good idea.


I'm all for doing proper energy management and insulation, but the
notion of putting ever increasing amounts of insulation in lofts and
ignoring the walls is ridiculous; especially in existing properties.

What strange logic!

Just simple physics of heat transmission and economics.




The law of diminishing returns is important here.

Adding insulation to a wall cavity takes the U value from 1.5 to 0.5
which is highly significant. Adding insulation in a loft to take
the U value from 0.2 to 0.1, especially when the areas are considered
is of very little value in comparison,

A normal house is split into two halves a top half and a bottom half. In
then top half, insulating the loft to the best you get using cellulous
insulation is well worth it. Say 300mm. the Centre of Alternative
Technology say 350mm is the optimum, their book, The Whole House Book covers
this.

You can use alternative technology if you like. I prefer to stick to
with the economics and proven technology.


So in the top half of a house their is a highly significant ceiling
area that can be easily and cheaply insulated via the loft. My loft is well
insulated and even recently in -2 temps, most of the time the TRVs were
fully off. In winter it is nice and snug in the upper rooms and in summer
nice and cool. A win, win situation.

Likewise, and with only 150mm of insulation. The difference between
150mm and 300mm of insulation in terms of total energy saving isn't
significant. It would almost cost more in petrol and environmental
impact to go to B&Q to buy the stuff.



Looking at the whole house when assessing insulation levels is very
misleading. Loft insulation is easy and cheap and can be DIYed, unlike say
cavity wall insulation. Do you understand it better now? I doubt it.

There's nothing to understand. You can bluster and alter the rules as
you go along as much as you like, but it doesn't alter basic physics.








---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:


Sorry Andy, I missed that.

Its no use talking 'diminishing returns' and 'cost benefit analysis'
with IMM. They aren't in the Bumper Book of How Things Work

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:


Sorry Andy, I missed that.

Its no use talking 'diminishing returns' and 'cost benefit analysis'
with IMM. They aren't in the Bumper Book of How Things Work

Andy has that edition under his pillow each night.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:34:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

You have the mentality that all insulation fitters are cowboys.

That is not what I said either. I certainly think that the spray on
foam technique and its purveyors are questionnable because it is
marketed as a means of holding the roof material on rather than
repairing it properly.

That is very different to spay on cellulous.

If it hides the roof structure so that
it can't be inspected then that
is not a good idea.

Look at, which you need to look at:
http://www.warmcel.com/

Cellulous insulation is made from old newspapers. It is used as part of
breathing walls. As I said, which didn't sink in, it is used by most eco
home builders. It is not plastic based.

I'm all for doing proper energy management
and insulation, but the notion of putting ever
increasing amounts of insulation in lofts and
ignoring the walls is ridiculous; especially in
existing properties.

What strange logic!

Just simple physics

No strange logic.

The law of diminishing returns is important here.

Adding insulation to a wall cavity takes the U value from 1.5 to 0.5
which is highly significant. Adding insulation in a loft to take
the U value from 0.2 to 0.1, especially when the areas are considered
is of very little value in comparison,

A normal house is split into two halves a top half and a bottom half. In
then top half, insulating the loft to the best you get using cellulous
insulation is well worth it. Say 300mm. The Centre of Alternative
Technology say 350mm is the optimum, their book, The Whole
House Book covers this.

You can use alternative technology if you like.
I prefer to stick to with the economics and
proven technology.

How British! How 19th century! Read the book!! Don't guess as usual. All
is there. If our snotty uni man had read it first he wouldn't have a Heath
Robinson house with a screwed up heating system.

So in the top half of a house their is a highly significant ceiling
area that can be easily and cheaply insulated via the loft. My loft is
well
insulated and even recently in -2 temps, most of the time the TRVs were
fully off. In winter it is nice and snug in the upper rooms and in
summer
nice and cool. A win, win situation.

Likewise, and with only 150mm of insulation. The difference between
150mm and 300mm of insulation in terms of total energy saving isn't
significant.

It is. BTW, 300mm of cellulous insulation is equivalent to near 400mm of
mineral insulation.

It would almost cost more in petrol and environmental
impact to go to B&Q to buy the stuff.

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO upper
level in insulation. As fuel gets more expensive, global warming takes
hold, with hotter summers (insulation keeps a house cool) and colder
winters, superinsulation is cost effective, and much sooner than you think.
And our resident estate agent will then understand the issues and sell
accordingly.

Looking at the whole house when assessing insulation levels is very
misleading. Loft insulation is easy and cheap and can be DIYed, unlike
say
cavity wall insulation. Do you understand it better now? I doubt it.

There's nothing to understand.

There is and you don't understand it.

You can bluster and alter the rules as
you go along as much as you like, but
it doesn't alter basic physics.

You were on about economics!!! Physics? No one is questioning that
insulation keeps heat in, in winter, and heat out in summer.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


If it hides the roof structure so that
it can't be inspected then that
is not a good idea.

Look at, which you need to look at:
http://www.warmcel.com/

Cellulous insulation is made from old newspapers. It is used as part of
breathing walls. As I said, which didn't sink in, it is used by most eco
home builders. It is not plastic based.

Ah, you mean cellulose......

Did you build the web site as well? I notice that whoever did can't
spell 'separate'.....





Likewise, and with only 150mm of insulation. The difference between
150mm and 300mm of insulation in terms of total energy saving isn't
significant.

It is. BTW, 300mm of cellulous insulation is equivalent to near 400mm of
mineral insulation.




It would almost cost more in petrol and environmental
impact to go to B&Q to buy the stuff.

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.


As fuel gets more expensive, global warming takes
hold, with hotter summers (insulation keeps a house cool) and colder
winters, superinsulation is cost effective, and much sooner than you think.
And our resident estate agent will then understand the issues and sell
accordingly.

I am sure that Richard sells what people will buy.

If you believe that what you are saying is a saleable proposition to
the average buyer then why not set up in business as an eco-estate
agent? You could spend time educating the great British public on
these matters, convincing sellers to superinsulate their houses and
buyers to pay more for them. I would be interested to see whether
you would still be in business after a few months. I rather doubt
it, because I don't believe that people see the value in or are
experiencing the pain of what you are trying to sell.
Until either or both of those happen this remains a theoretical
exercise.


Looking at the whole house when assessing insulation levels is very
misleading. Loft insulation is easy and cheap and can be DIYed, unlike
say
cavity wall insulation. Do you understand it better now? I doubt it.

There's nothing to understand.

There is and you don't understand it.

You can bluster and alter the rules as
you go along as much as you like, but
it doesn't alter basic physics.

You were on about economics!!! Physics? No one is questioning that
insulation keeps heat in, in winter, and heat out in summer.

If you add the notion of applied physics and engineering then you
apply the technology where it is economically sensible.




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:25 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


If it hides the roof structure so that
it can't be inspected then that
is not a good idea.

Look at, which you need to look at:
http://www.warmcel.com/

Cellulous insulation is made from old newspapers. It is used as part of
breathing walls. As I said, which didn't sink in, it is used by most eco
home builders. It is not plastic based.

Ah, you mean cellulose......

Did you build the web site as well? I notice that whoever did can't
spell 'separate'.....

I can spull sepirate.

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.

It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.

As fuel gets more expensive, global warming takes
hold, with hotter summers (insulation keeps a house cool) and colder
winters, superinsulation is cost effective, and much sooner than you
think.
And our resident estate agent will then understand the issues and sell
accordingly.

I am sure that Richard sells what people will buy.

When it happens he will, and much sooner than you think.

If you believe that what you are
saying is a saleable proposition to
the average buyer then why not set
up in business as an eco-estate
agent?

Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK housing stock is far too old, with
most of it deserving the bulldozer. 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.

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. They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft. Many are aware of the value of
condensing boilers and when a Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out, they will be
fully aware.

snip drivel




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.

It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.

... snd is called 'alternative technology'. Generally this is a
label used for things that are academically interesting but not
commercially viable.



As fuel gets more expensive, global warming takes
hold, with hotter summers (insulation keeps a house cool) and colder
winters, superinsulation is cost effective, and much sooner than you
think.
And our resident estate agent will then understand the issues and sell
accordingly.

I am sure that Richard sells what people will buy.

When it happens he will, and much sooner than you think.

Oh, I think that it will happen relatively soon but as a result of
political tinkering, not because of scientific or economic reasons.


If you believe that what you are
saying is a saleable proposition to
the average buyer then why not set
up in business as an eco-estate
agent?

Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK housing stock is far too old, with
most of it deserving the bulldozer.

The existing housing stock is an economic reality, and there is no
politically acceptable way of changing that situation at any great
speed.


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.



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

There's nothing wrong with the principle of reduced CO2 emission and
similar factors, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that any of this is
anything other than politically motivated.

They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft.

They realise about double glazing because the DG firms plant people in
the entrances of DIY sheds and supermarkets and canvas door to door.

Many are aware of the value of
condensing boilers and when a Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out, they will be
fully aware.

Some people are clearly aware of the technology, but obviously not
enough or the proportion of sales would be higher. I agree that
condensing boiler technology is desirable, but it should be sold on
economic arguments (which it can be), not via legislation.

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.







---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in
:



You put it in your ears??

Yes integrated ear muffs. I am now going to patent this idea. Off
the patent office...where's me coat.


Quite a number might think that you have it between your ears. :-)

Rod

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO
upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.

It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.

.. snd is called 'alternative technology'.

When CAT was setup in about 1973ish, they added the term "Alternative",
which is now mainstream. In the 1980s the "alternative " comedians are now
mainstream. British mainstream construction technology is outdated to
Scandinavia and North America. The most inventive nation in history is
Britain. Yet tell me one major innovation the British have added to
construction over the past 50 years? err, err, errr? Keep thinking.

We are stuck in the past. Yet there are beacons of hope in the likes of
CAT in Wales and BedZed in Surrey.

I am sure that Richard sells what people will buy.

When it happens he will, and much sooner than you think.

Oh, I think that it will happen relatively soon but as a result of
political tinkering, not because of scientific or economic reasons.

You mean Two Jags laying it on the line to the 19th century minded rip-off
construction industry? Great man. Takes no crap! What we need. He is
not impressed by some Oxbridge parasite giving a presentation on behalf of
the construction industry. Cuts no ice with the man.

If you believe that what you are
saying is a saleable proposition to
the average buyer then why not set
up in business as an eco-estate
agent?

Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK
housing stock is far too old, with
most of it deserving the bulldozer.

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.

and there is no politically acceptable way
of changing that situation at any great
speed.

Two Jags has the right idea. Change or I will force you too. New Labour is
in for a generation at least, so Two Jags will around if they take the ****.
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.

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.

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.

There's nothing wrong with the principle
of reduced CO2 emission and
similar factors, but we shouldn't kid ourselves
that any of this is anything other than politically
motivated.

Yes to reduce it. Duh!

They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft.

They realise about double glazing
because the DG firms plant people in
the entrances of DIY sheds and supermarkets
and canvas door to door.

So they realise it then. Duh!

Many are aware of the value of
condensing boilers and when a
Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out,
they will be fully aware.

Some people are clearly aware of
the technology, but obviously not
enough or the proportion of sales
would be higher. I agree that
condensing boiler technology is
desirable, but it should be sold on
economic arguments (which it can be),
not via legislation.

You are foolish. Look at the UK construction industry. Way behind the best
in the west. Way behind. Because it is so behind the government, with Two
Jags, has to lay it on the line to them, to get heir act in order or else.
That is shameful that the government has to step in to drag an industry
forwards 60 years.

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.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote in
:



You put it in your ears??

Yes integrated ear muffs. I am now going to patent this idea. Off
the patent office...where's me coat.


Quite a number might think that you have it between your ears. :-)

Rod

LOL. You are so funny. And a name like Rod too.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:36:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO
upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.

It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.

.. snd is called 'alternative technology'.

When CAT was setup in about 1973ish, they added the term "Alternative",
which is now mainstream. In the 1980s the "alternative " comedians are now
mainstream. British mainstream construction technology is outdated to
Scandinavia and North America.

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.


The most inventive nation in history is
Britain. Yet tell me one major innovation the British have added to
construction over the past 50 years? err, err, errr? Keep thinking.

We are stuck in the past. Yet there are beacons of hope in the likes of
CAT in Wales and BedZed in Surrey.

I wouldn't use the word 'hope', but rather ideas that may one day be
economically interesting.



I am sure that Richard sells what people will buy.

When it happens he will, and much sooner than you think.

Oh, I think that it will happen relatively soon but as a result of
political tinkering, not because of scientific or economic reasons.

You mean Two Jags laying it on the line to the 19th century minded rip-off
construction industry? Great man. Takes no crap! What we need.

He may be what you need if he takes no crap.



If you believe that what you are
saying is a saleable proposition to
the average buyer then why not set
up in business as an eco-estate
agent?

Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK
housing stock is far too old, with
most of it deserving the bulldozer.

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.


and there is no politically acceptable way
of changing that situation at any great
speed.

Two Jags has the right idea. Change or I will force you too. New Labour is
in for a generation at least, so Two Jags will around if they take the ****.

Hopefully not..

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?



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.



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.



There's nothing wrong with the principle
of reduced CO2 emission and
similar factors, but we shouldn't kid ourselves
that any of this is anything other than politically
motivated.

Yes to reduce it. Duh!

They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft.

They realise about double glazing
because the DG firms plant people in
the entrances of DIY sheds and supermarkets
and canvas door to door.

So they realise it then. Duh!

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



Many are aware of the value of
condensing boilers and when a
Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out,
they will be fully aware.

Some people are clearly aware of
the technology, but obviously not
enough or the proportion of sales
would be higher. I agree that
condensing boiler technology is
desirable, but it should be sold on
economic arguments (which it can be),
not via legislation.

You are foolish. Look at the UK construction industry. Way behind the best
in the west. Way behind.

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

Because it is so behind the government, with Two
Jags, has to lay it on the line to them, to get heir act in order or else.
That is shameful that the government has to step in to drag an industry
forwards 60 years.

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?





---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

I can spull sepirate.


Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.


It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.


That is entirely irrelevant. We went down this route some time ago, and
when I pointed out to you the necessaity of breathing, you retorted that
even more expensive technology would be able to warm up the incoming air
requied for ventilation using nothing more than the power of your
farts as I recall.

There is no upper limit to insulation. There is an upper limit to the
*benefit derived from huge excesses of insulation* in e.g. the loft when
you haven't draughtproofed the doors...




Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK housing stock is far too old, with
most of it deserving the bulldozer. 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.



Ah., Right. So instead of maybe adapting or living in these slighltly
energy inefficient homes, we are goind to pourt diesle into bulldoszer
to knock em down, then pouyr gas into power statins to profdoduce the
energy efficient materials to build new ones with!

It all makes sense! By the time we have replaced em all we will all be
broke and the world will be so warm we will need the insulation to stay
cool!

DO look up cots benefit anaylis, and star applying it to things like Co2
production, theres a dear chap...No? To hard for you? Go back to knee
jerk silly eco-leftist thinking then. But shut up first.



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.



No, they are as usual being fed a load of half truths and downright
codswallop by the medai and the politicians, not to menyion Grreen****
and Frankly Outright EEjuts.

They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft. Many are aware of the value of
condensing boilers and when a Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out, they will be
fully aware.


Gosh. Will they? The major benefit of DG is that is stops draughts. Its
about time they DID the energy calcs an realised that DG is a complete
con, and what they actually need is cavity wall insulation..and
underfloor insulation.



snip drivel




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:00:20 +0000, Richard Faulkner wrote:

In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on £500 a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.

15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.


I agree, when it comes to something as improbable as £500 on/off the bills
(which if it were true would be an enourmous dwelling anyway - where 7.5k
would be lost in the noise on the price of 1.n million round here.)
And 7.5k might be the sort of capital outlay required to acheive a £500 a
year saving in _that_ sort of home.

With management charges and buy-to-let purchasers a degree of hard reckoning
comes into play on prices.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:26:20 +0000, IMM wrote:


"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
news
In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on
account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on £500 a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.

15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

Savings in heating costs? What do you base your assumptions on. Sorry you
"certainty" on?

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.

Have you tried? Have you had this experience? I gather not and you are
just guessing.

Tell them this house has virtually no heating bills making it super warm in
winter and very cool in summer (it works both ways), and summers are getting
hotter.

Also tell them that there is less to go wrong, which means less expensive
service bills, as the heating system is just a background system. Tell them
insulation never goes wrong and no service bills for it either.

Tell them the comfort levels are brilliant as their are no cold spots in
winter or hot spots in summer. Then see what their reaction is.

If you came across such a situation it is clear you wouldn't have a clue how
to highlight the virtues of such a house and sell it properly. God help
anyone hiring you to sell such a house.


The above post is IMHO unecesarily abusive.
I'm sure that RF has an extremely good idea of what really is important to
buyers and sellers of houses. I suspect that the precise details of how
the house is heated and how energy efficient it is might make a low 30th
on the wish list (if that).

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

Savings in heating costs? What do you base your assumptions on. Sorry you
"certainty" on?

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.

Have you tried? Have you had this experience? I gather not and you are
just guessing.

Tell them this house has virtually no heating bills making it super warm in
winter and very cool in summer (it works both ways), and summers are getting
hotter.

Also tell them that there is less to go wrong, which means less expensive
service bills, as the heating system is just a background system. Tell them
insulation never goes wrong and no service bills for it either.

Tell them the comfort levels are brilliant as their are no cold spots in
winter or hot spots in summer. Then see what their reaction is.

If you came across such a situation it is clear you wouldn't have a clue how
to highlight the virtues of such a house and sell it properly. God help
anyone hiring you to sell such a house.


The above post is IMHO unecesarily abusive.
I'm sure that RF has an extremely good idea of what really is important to
buyers and sellers of houses. I suspect that the precise details of how
the house is heated and how energy efficient it is might make a low 30th
on the wish list (if that).

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.

Thank you for the support Ed.

I have been doing this for 16 years, sell between 100 & 150 houses per
year, and have actually educated one, or two, local
developers/speculators into providing what people will pay the most
money for, without resistance. Some still think they know best.

New Contemporary Kitchen
White bathroom suite with shower and nice simple tiling
Stripped wooden floors, or reasonable quality carpet (£10 per yd fitted)
Nice newly decorated in plain pastel shades internal. Paint as
appropriate outside.
Cast iron Fireplaces
Retain original windows where possible. Replace with White UPVC if not.
New C/H only if not already fitted.
New boiler if appropriate.
Damp proof course and timbers guarantee
Simple landscaping of gardens - gravel, railway sleepers, few shrubs,
window boxes, hanging baskets
Overhaul roof.
provide schedules of work & guarantees for work done as appropriate.

Dont bother with the extra expense of insulation, condensing boilers
etc.

All to do with presentation.

Buyers attach little, or no, value to potential savings on energy bills,
and have a tendency not to believe any claims, even if true.

These are all factual recommendations for my local area, modified over
the years as tastes and demands change. people who do not take my advice
do not make as much money, or sell as quickly, as those who do.


--
Richard Faulkner

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:36:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO
upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic
idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.

It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.

.. snd is called 'alternative technology'.

When CAT was setup in about 1973ish, they added the term "Alternative",
which is now mainstream. In the 1980s the "alternative " comedians are
now
mainstream. British mainstream construction technology is outdated to
Scandinavia and North America.

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.

The most inventive nation in history is
Britain. Yet tell me one major innovation the British have added to
construction over the past 50 years? err, err, errr? Keep thinking.

We are stuck in the past. Yet there are beacons of hope in the likes of
CAT in Wales and BedZed in Surrey.

I wouldn't use the word 'hope', but rather ideas that may one day be
economically interesting.

I am sure that Richard sells what people will buy.

When it happens he will, and much sooner than you think.

Oh, I think that it will happen relatively soon but as a result of
political tinkering, not because of scientific or economic reasons.

You mean Two Jags laying it on the line to the 19th century minded
rip-off
construction industry? Great man. Takes no crap! What we need.

He may be what you need if he takes no crap.

If you believe that what you are
saying is a saleable proposition to
the average buyer then why not set
up in business as an eco-estate
agent?

Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK
housing stock is far too old, with
most of it deserving the bulldozer.

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.

and there is no politically acceptable way
of changing that situation at any great
speed.

Two Jags has the right idea. Change or I will
force you too. New Labour is
in for a generation at least, so Two Jags
will around if they take the ****.

Hopefully not..

He will.

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?

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?

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!

There's nothing wrong with the principle
of reduced CO2 emission and
similar factors, but we shouldn't kid ourselves
that any of this is anything other than politically
motivated.

Yes to reduce it. Duh!

They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft.

They realise about double glazing
because the DG firms plant people in
the entrances of DIY sheds and supermarkets
and canvas door to door.

So they realise it then. Duh!

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.

Many are aware of the value of
condensing boilers and when a
Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out,
they will be fully aware.

Some people are clearly aware of
the technology, but obviously not
enough or the proportion of sales
would be higher. I agree that
condensing boiler technology is
desirable, but it should be sold on
economic arguments (which it can be),
not via legislation.

You are foolish. Look at the UK construction industry. Way behind the
best
in the west. Way behind.

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?

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.

Because it is so behind the government, with Two
Jags, has to lay it on the line to them, to get heir act in order or
else.
That is shameful that the government has to step in to drag an industry
forwards 60 years.

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.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

I can spull sepirate.

Nonsense. Read "EcoHouse - A Design Guide". They say there is NO
upper
level in insulation.

They would do wouldn't they. This is all based on dogmatic idealism
and has nothing to do with the real world.

It is not. It is based on real technology proven in the field.

That is entirely irrelevant. We went down this route some time ago, and
when I pointed out to you the necessaity of breathing, you retorted that
even more expensive technology would be able to warm up the incoming air
requied for ventilation using nothing more than the power of your
farts as I recall.

You have been at the Xmas port. Now stop it.

There is no upper limit to insulation. There is an upper limit to the
*benefit derived from huge excesses of insulation* in e.g. the loft when
you haven't draughtproofed the doors...

Good idea. One problem. Most of the UK housing stock is far too old,
with
most of it deserving the bulldozer. 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.

Ah., Right. So instead of maybe adapting or living in these slighltly
energy inefficient homes,

"slighltly energy inefficient homes"??? You have to be joking...


There are currently three million people in the UK living in 1.5 million
homes officially classified as unfit, and this situation is unlikely to
improve in the foreseeable future. 2.5 million homes suffer from severe
damp, and the cost of remedying these conditions is estimated between 46 and
70 billion pounds.

House conditions were found to contribute to "chronic chest disease",
hypothermia and digestive condition.

The above was some of the findings of a report commissioned by the Joseph
Rowntree Organisation published by the National Housing Forum in 1996. The
situation has changed little since then. In fact the UK (pop 60 million)
last year built only 3 times as many homes as Ireland (pop 3.4 million). The
situation is chronic, and the land issue is at the base of all the ills.


we are goind to pourt diesle into bulldoszer
to knock em down, then pouyr gas into power statins to profdoduce the
energy efficient materials to build new ones with!

What other way is ther to do it?

It all makes sense! By the time we have replaced em all we will all be
broke

It didn't break the Japanese!

and the world will be so warm we will need the insulation to stay
cool!

Good point! It also keeps you cool.

DO look up cots benefit anaylis, and star applying it to things like Co2
production, theres a dear chap...No? To hard for you? Go back to knee
jerk silly eco-leftist thinking then. But shut up first.

In the medium or long term all analysis has pointed to eco homes being the
way forward.

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.

No, they are as usual being fed a load of half truths and downright
codswallop by the medai and the politicians, not to menyion Grreen****
and Frankly Outright EEjuts.

"EEjuts"? Are Irish too. You on the same boat to Mars as Maxie.

They realise the value
of double glazing and insulation in the loft. Many are aware of the
value of
condensing boilers and when a Minimum SEDBUK of 86% is out, they will be
fully aware.

Gosh. Will they?

They will.

The major benefit of DG is that is stops draughts. Its
about time they DID the energy calcs an realised that DG is a complete
con, and what they actually need is cavity wall insulation..and
underfloor insulation.

Double glazing improves comfort condition. It reduces the cold spot near
windows. In fact if you are replacing windows, use low "e" or triple
glazed. They you can use the room all year around with having to move to
the centre of the house (people do this naturally).


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:26:20 +0000, IMM wrote:


"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
news
In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year
or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on
account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on
£500 a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.

15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the
chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

Savings in heating costs? What do you base your assumptions on. Sorry
you
"certainty" on?

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can
save
£500 per year on bills.

Have you tried? Have you had this experience? I gather not and you are
just guessing.

Tell them this house has virtually no heating bills making it super warm
in
winter and very cool in summer (it works both ways), and summers are
getting
hotter.

Also tell them that there is less to go wrong, which means less
expensive
service bills, as the heating system is just a background system. Tell
them
insulation never goes wrong and no service bills for it either.

Tell them the comfort levels are brilliant as their are no cold spots in
winter or hot spots in summer. Then see what their reaction is.

If you came across such a situation it is clear you wouldn't have a clue
how
to highlight the virtues of such a house and sell it properly. God help
anyone hiring you to sell such a house.

The above post is IMHO unecesarily abusive.

It is not abusive at all.

I'm sure that RF has an extremely good
idea of what really is important to
buyers and sellers of houses.

I think it clear he hasn't. It was clear he didn't know the benefits and
how to sell the benefits. If I hired him, I would "tell" him how to sell
it. These guys are locked into a ser angle of viewing matters.

I suspect that the precise details of how
the house is heated and how energy efficient
it is might make a low 30th
on the wish list (if that).



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:00:20 +0000, Richard Faulkner wrote:

In message .uk, Ed
Sirett writes
How much is £500 per year worth anyway?

Round these parts there are many flats in low rise blocks, these have
management service charges which can run at anything up to 2000 year or
be as low as a few hundred. [1]

So it's necessary to make some adjustment to the purchase price on
account
of the _mandatory_ running costs. I use 15:1. So I would reckon on £500
a
year being worth 7.5k on/off the price.

15 years purchase, or a 6.6% return.

I'm not convinced that this is achievable for offering merely the chance
of a £500 per year saving, (in fact, I am certain that it is not
achievable, in general).

I do this for a living and, in fact, I can just see the buyers laughing
at me, when I tell them that the reason that one of 2 apparently
identical houses is £7,500 more than the other, is because they can save
£500 per year on bills.

I agree, when it comes to something as improbable as £500 on/off the bills
(which if it were true would be an enourmous dwelling anyway - where 7.5k
would be lost in the noise on the price of 1.n million round here.)

Not everyone lives in rip-off London.

And 7.5k might be the sort of capital
outlay required to acheive a £500 a
year saving in _that_ sort of home.

With management charges and buy-to-let
purchasers a degree of hard reckoning
comes into play on prices.

See my post on the benefits of a eco house and house they should be
highlighted to potential buyers.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003