"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:38:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:48:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Best of luck. I hope you get it and you build the house. We need more
people
like you around.

I hope he's got plenty of money, as
the kind of spec you just came up
with will cost a fortune! Probably half
a million to build, I reckon.

You reckon? On what do you base this groundless assertion? Zero heating
houses cost no more to build than any other. It is primarily design and
selecting the correct materials.

All that kind of stuff is specialist work that doesn't come cheap.
This is not Barrat the Builders we're talking about here. I reckon you
might get it erected for a bit cheaper, say £495K.

Nonsense! Where do you get that figure? Wet finger in the air. You have no
experince of these matters.

Facing a house south with larger windows on the south side and less on the
north (passive solar), calculating the roof overhangs to give shading (keeps
the house cool), calculating the roof pitch for maximum solar gain (max
insolation) is all design only. This costs nothing in materials or labour.
The calulations can be done yourself.

The only extra above a normal house is the extra insulation, but this can be
negated by using a timber frame or SIP panels. The UFH has to be larger to
run at alow temp and will cost a few hundred quid. Many new buillds have
UFH as stadard. The roof as a solar panel is offset by not installing tiles
and is cheaper to do as a new build. The thermal store is offset by the fact
you already need one for the UFH anyway, it just needs to be bigger.

"Sue Roaf's Ecohouse in Oxford is one of the most high profile low energy
houses in the country. Sue has had a one-woman crusade to get ecohouse
design on the agenda. In
1994 she put her money where her mouth is and took on a huge mortgage to
design and build what is still one of only a handful of net zero energy
houses in the UK"

She was out 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 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.

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.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:46:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



It appears you can't see further than your small village.

Agatha Christies Miss marple was accused of the same thing but she had
a
razor sharp mind and always solved the murder. So thats no mean
acheievement
either. The village is a microcosm of the global one.

It is indeed.

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.

What has this tripe to do with the topic?

I rather thought that it would go over your head. The point being
made is that the structure and essence of the village is the template
for the larger issues.

Which has nothing to do with land availability which is the crux of the
problem in the UK. Sort that out and many of the ills of society disappear.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:02:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



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


Could it be that people don't *want* them I wonder?




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:02:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

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

Could it be that people don't *want* them I wonder?

What a stupid thing to say. Could it be that no one has heard of them? 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 brain ache in the process.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:05:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I rather thought that it would go over your head. The point being
made is that the structure and essence of the village is the template
for the larger issues.

Which has nothing to do with land availability which is the crux of the
problem in the UK. Sort that out and many of the ills of society disappear.

Single item "fixes" to perceived problems are generally too
simplistic to work because they fail to take account of all of the
issues and the effects of other factors.

The Keynesian and Monetarist models of the economy are classic
examples of that. Other factors overtake them na dafter a while
corrections have to be made.

Focussing purely on one issue simply doesn't work in the real world,
especially when it's an academic one anyway.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:45:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The Miller vs. Jackson case is very pertinent to this thread and
Denning sums up the point very eloquently.

"In summer time village cricket is the delight of everyone" was how
Lord Denning MR famously began his judgment in Miller v Jackson [1977]
1 QB 966, 976. An injunction had been granted to local householders
who complained of cricket balls landing in their gardens. Lord Denning
feared that, if it were upheld, cricket would cease in the village and
"the young men will turn to other things"

He held that the public interest in the playing of cricket should
prevail over the individual interests of the householders, and,
instead of the injunction, awarded £400 for past and future
inconvenience.

I don't know what the outcome of the "Hook the street trader" case
was, but the introduction to the judgment is hilarious.

He was a demented old fool.

Not what the evidence shows. No sign of dementia right up until
his death at aged 100.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:24:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:02:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

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

Could it be that people don't *want* them I wonder?

What a stupid thing to say.

Not really.

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.

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

For most people, their home is the largest purchase that they will
make and also represents, rightly or wrongly, something in which they
tie up and hopefully grow a significant part of their capital. With
the poor performance of the financial sector, pension schemes and the
like, property is seen as a long term safe bet.

In view of this, most people tend to be quite risk-averse when
selecting a property to buy. Even in a seller's market, buyers walk
away from property that has been underpinned, even though it is
probably better than it has ever been because the insurers are
conservative.

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.

Technical features don't win the argument. If they did, there would
be no need to legislate around energy saving. I'm not saying that
energy saving is a bad thing, but requiring legislation to create
change implies that the market is not in broad support for whatever
reason. This could be lack of knowledge, apathy, cost or a number of
other factors.


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 brain ache in the process.


There's no need to think a great deal on this one. This point was
discussed a few weeks ago.

Most participants thought that the use of energy issue and its cost
was not a major factor in choice of property to buy.

They are far more interested in location, proximity or not to other
properties and facilities, whether the kitchen and bathroom are
decent; potential for growth.


Another explanation is that the construction companies aren't making
eco-houses because they believe that people won't want them for
whatever reason. Again that may be for right or wrong, but the effect
is the same.

Even at the relatively low numbers of houses being built, a very small
proportion dramatically exceed the requirements of the Building
Regulations and very very few could be described as highly eco in
nature.

That's the way it is. Gradually things will change. It will
become more interesting to build eco houses when energy really does
become expensive. Without that, there is no economic driver.

The alternatives, to make things change more quickly are education to
encourage people to see the merits (slow and not very effective
without economic driver) and legislation (usually not popular).




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The Building Structu

- A light framed superinsulated structure (Minimum of 400mm of Warmcell in
the roof, 250-300mm in the walls, heavy foam in the floor if a concrete
slab).
- Face the house south to capture passive solar energy.
- Calculate the pitch of the roof for maximum insulation at your latitude.
- Calculate the roof overhangs to keep the sun off the windows and walls in
summer.
- Have the north side with few windows.
- Triple glazed with low "e" glass.
- Eliminate thermal bridges. These tend to be where the walls meet the
ground and the roof, or one material meets another. Use nylon tie bars if
cladding in brick
- Use SIP panels or TJI "I" beams. The void in the "I" beams can be filled
with Warmcell cellulous insulation (re-cycled newspaper). The Warmcell makes
the structure air-tight.
- Have all of the south facing roof being a solar panel heating water from
the sun. That is a large surface generating much heat.
- Could have a full width conservatory on the south side. Better if full
width and full height. This will help but not essential. Nice to have
though as bedrooms could have a balcony opening into the conservatory.
- No letterbox in front door. All doors heavily insulated and sealed (the
Swedes do the best doors).
- Specify a study for home working.

Heating, Vent, Thermal Storage:

- Store the heat in a large thermal store, which would have to be sized to
suit. Better have a battery of small cylinders, so if one leaks it is an
easy and cheap job of replacing.
- The heavy thermal stores can be at ground level. They could even be in a
separate building with superinsulted underground pipes between it and the
house if need be. The thermal store should hold enough energy to heat the
building over 3 or 4 cloudy days.
- Use "very" low temperature underfloor heating.
- In winter not a lot of very hot water will be generated, but hot enough
for very low temp underfloor heating.
- This low temperature water can act as a preheat for DHW.
- If hot water is generated, hot enough for domestic hot water, then this
water should be suitably stored for ready use rather than merging into a
large low temperature water store.
- The controls will be off the shelf and all be using the odd pump here and
there.
- A backup heat source can be incorporated when cloudy days extend over 3 or
4 days.
- The water system is understandable by any intelligent plumber.
- As underfloor heating is being used, bets have an extract only vent
system. Heat recovery is expensive. The thermal store should store enough
energy for the heating system to compensate for vent losses.

Water reclamation:

- There are large water tanks that fill from the roof available ready made.
The BENELUX countries have these as standard in new builds.
- The water tank is under the garden.
- The water is used to water the garden and flush toilets, reducing water
consumption drastically.

PV Cell:

- Don't bother as they are still super expensive with very long payback
times. If the hosue done as above then little elecricity will be used.

Low Energy Appliance:

- These tend to be German like AEG, etc. Find out which of these is the
most economical in energy and water consumption and put these in the spec.

Comms:

- Wire the place out in CAT 5 to accomodate computers and home working.

The above is the basic concept. Then, depending on site, size of house, etc,
it is a matter of applying numbers to size up the thermals store, heat loss,
How much energy the solar roof will generate, sizing a "very" low temp
underfloor heating system, etc.

Best of luck. I hope you get it and you build the house. We need more people
like you around.

Some good stuff there. Just one thing though, the walls are the best
solar collectors (for space heating) due to the angle of the sun in
winter. So you'd have small windows on the south side too but the
walls would be built using glass on the outside (or maybe
polycarbonate), and a black collector surface behind. The heat that
builds up here would (by convection) be collected in another cavity
behind the first wall which contains drums of water as a thermal
store.

This article on solar closets explains it better than I can:

http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick/

Nick.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:24:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:02:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

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

Could it be that people don't *want* them I wonder?

What a stupid thing to say.

Not really.

It was very stupid.

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.

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.

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."

"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.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:05:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I rather thought that it would go over your head.
The point being made is that the structure and
essence of the village is the template
for the larger issues.

Which has nothing to do with land availability
which is the crux of the problem in the UK.
Sort that out and many of the ills of society disappear.

Single item "fixes" to perceived
....
The Keynesian and Monetarist models

snip off topic babble about Keynesianism

Our towns, villages and cities were laid out was when we never had
ridiculous draconian Stalinist planning systems geared to keep the stinking
rich very rich. It worked. natural evolution of the town. Attempting to
master plan seldom works.

On 7 Jun 2004 00:17:48 -0700, (NickW) wrote:

...... which contains drums of water as a thermal
store.

A pretty good case for Legionnaires's Disease, if you ask me. Er, how
long does the water remain tepid?

MM

"NickW" wrote in message
om...
The Building Structu

- A light framed superinsulated structure (Minimum of 400mm of Warmcell
in
the roof, 250-300mm in the walls, heavy foam in the floor if a concrete
slab).
- Face the house south to capture passive solar energy.
- Calculate the pitch of the roof for maximum insulation at your
latitude.
- Calculate the roof overhangs to keep the sun off the windows and walls
in
summer.
- Have the north side with few windows.
- Triple glazed with low "e" glass.
- Eliminate thermal bridges. These tend to be where the walls meet the
ground and the roof, or one material meets another. Use nylon tie bars
if
cladding in brick
- Use SIP panels or TJI "I" beams. The void in the "I" beams can be
filled
with Warmcell cellulous insulation (re-cycled newspaper). The Warmcell
makes
the structure air-tight.
- Have all of the south facing roof being a solar panel heating water
from
the sun. That is a large surface generating much heat.
- Could have a full width conservatory on the south side. Better if full
width and full height. This will help but not essential. Nice to have
though as bedrooms could have a balcony opening into the conservatory.
- No letterbox in front door. All doors heavily insulated and sealed
(the
Swedes do the best doors).
- Specify a study for home working.

Heating, Vent, Thermal Storage:

- Store the heat in a large thermal store, which would have to be sized
to
suit. Better have a battery of small cylinders, so if one leaks it is an
easy and cheap job of replacing.
- The heavy thermal stores can be at ground level. They could even be in
a
separate building with superinsulted underground pipes between it and
the
house if need be. The thermal store should hold enough energy to heat
the
building over 3 or 4 cloudy days.
- Use "very" low temperature underfloor heating.
- In winter not a lot of very hot water will be generated, but hot
enough
for very low temp underfloor heating.
- This low temperature water can act as a preheat for DHW.
- If hot water is generated, hot enough for domestic hot water, then
this
water should be suitably stored for ready use rather than merging into a
large low temperature water store.
- The controls will be off the shelf and all be using the odd pump here
and
there.
- A backup heat source can be incorporated when cloudy days extend over
3 or
4 days.
- The water system is understandable by any intelligent plumber.
- As underfloor heating is being used, bets have an extract only vent
system. Heat recovery is expensive. The thermal store should store
enough
energy for the heating system to compensate for vent losses.

Water reclamation:

- There are large water tanks that fill from the roof available ready
made.
The BENELUX countries have these as standard in new builds.
- The water tank is under the garden.
- The water is used to water the garden and flush toilets, reducing
water
consumption drastically.

PV Cell:

- Don't bother as they are still super expensive with very long payback
times. If the hosue done as above then little elecricity will be used.

Low Energy Appliance:

- These tend to be German like AEG, etc. Find out which of these is the
most economical in energy and water consumption and put these in the
spec.

Comms:

- Wire the place out in CAT 5 to accomodate computers and home working.

The above is the basic concept. Then, depending on site, size of house,
etc,
it is a matter of applying numbers to size up the thermals store, heat
loss,
How much energy the solar roof will generate, sizing a "very" low temp
underfloor heating system, etc.

Best of luck. I hope you get it and you build the house. We need more
people
like you around.

Some good stuff there. Just one thing though,
the walls are the best solar collectors (for space
heating) due to the angle of the sun in
winter.

A full south facing roof as a solar collector, angled correctly is as good,
and the walls are not impeded by glass. The house can then look pretty much
how you like it. The roof can be angled to the optimum angle on the south
side and at a shallower angle on the north side, which allows cold north
winds to blow over the house more easily.

So you'd have small windows on the south side too but the
walls would be built using glass on the outside (or maybe
polycarbonate), and a black collector surface behind. The heat that
builds up here would (by convection) be collected in another cavity
behind the first wall which contains drums of water as a thermal
store.

This article on solar closets explains it better than I can:

http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick/

I am not that enthused, although I'm sure it works. It is an air system,
nothing wrong with that, operating by gravity. This restricts the house
design. You need an expensive strong structure to hold all that tonnage of
water in the loft. That ramps up build prices. So straight away two
problems.

Solar air heaters get very hot and scorch marks occur at the top of them
which makes them unsightly. Storing the thermal mass (water in large
cylinders) at ground level is cheap in structure costs, and using a large
full roof solar collector means you have house design freedom. No large
glass areas on the walls.

Storing the heat in a thermal store and then pumping it into a "very low
temperature" UFH system means you have far more control of the comfort
conditions. No far too hot or far too too cold situations. You can also
use a conventional boiler to heat the UFH directly (do not store its heat in
a large thermal store) when the thermal store is exhausted of heat after a
week of cold cloudy conditions.

The problem with passive solar designs is that you live inside the heat
generator itself, so it can get a little too hot inside the house at times.
With my spec you don't even need to us passive solar as long as
superinsulation is used, as the heat is stored and used as you dictate. But
using passive solar is a great bonus as should be used. Shades can go some
way to preventing unwanted heat entering the house. Although this situation
would be very rare as the roof overhangs would take care of unwanted sun in
summer. It has been said that all house are solar houses as all have the
sun on some part of them. It is a matter of harnessing that sun. This could
be via a solar attic in some houses that do not have a south facing
elevation.

The spec I have outlined is cost effective and easy to build using materials
that are cheap and readily available with ready available skills that can
also work with them. It is a matter of getting the "design" right, which is
not expensive at all, and can be zero cost.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On 7 Jun 2004 00:17:48 -0700, (NickW) wrote:

...... which contains drums of water as a thermal
store.

A pretty good case for Legionnaires's Disease, if you ask me. Er, how
long does the water remain tepid?

The drums are sealed and the water does not come into contact with people.
Read the web site.

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

"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.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



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.

Possibly, but Wimpey are a commercial company with shareholders and
would perceive this as a risk that they may not wish to take.



The car is ubiquitous, how many people have actually seen an eco house?

Not very many probably, which is why I made the point that education
is a factor in this as well.

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.

The very notion of Milton Keynes and all that goes with it is a big
turn off to a lot of people.



And??????? Does that mean they do not work and they are not cost effective,
which is what this is really about.

No of course not. Something can work and be as cost effective as you
like, but people won't buy it if they either don't like it, think it's
too big a risk or are unaware of it.

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.

Yes there is. They perceive that people don't want them, or that
they are more complicated or cost more or they can't get the people to
build them. Whether that is true or not doesn't really matter.

The same for the car makers. Why do they persist in using
outdated polluting technology when proven alternatives are around.

Same point exactly. Electric cars. manufacturers like GM and Toyota
launched them in the U.S. and made them available on lease, then had
second thoughts and terminated the leases.


The only way to charge these large money making dinosaurs is to legislate.

In the short term possibly. This is clearly not without political
risk or successive governments would have legislated zero energy homes
for all new builds.


"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.

We know all of that.

John Prescott has warned them to catch up or he will
make them do it.

By sticking one on the chairman of Wimpey?

So your view that if it was feasible they would do it
doesn't stand up.

I didn't say that it wasn't feasible or that it wasn't desirable -
clearly it is on both counts.

That isn't where the issues are.


They never even looked into other more cost effective
ways, just going along doing the same old expensive inefficient thing.

Because it is what they perceive that the public wants, and what they
know how to do.



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.

The present one does it all the time.

If the private sector was delivering they
could just sit back. Unfortunately the government has to intervene.

There are a combination of factors.

Legislation is a short cut to achieving what the government doesn't
know how to do properly. It generally doesn't work or doesn't last if
it doesn't follow the natural order of things. Why is the government
thinking of legislating (in effect) condensing boilers? Because
people want to buy cheap and the construction industry is
conservative.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



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.

Possibly, but Wimpey are a commercial
company with shareholders and
would perceive this as a risk that they
may not wish to take.

I really couldn't a hoot about a developer and its shareholders. If they
will not deliver the goods then the government has to force them into the
20th century. Getting them into the 21st century is asking too much.

The car is ubiquitous, how many people
have actually seen an eco house?

Not very many probably, which is why I made
the point that education
is a factor in this as well.

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.

The very notion of Milton Keynes and all that goes with it is a big
turn off to a lot of people.

You said it. "ignorance".

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.

Yes there is. They perceive that people don't
want them,

What balls! They don't want change. They are frightened of change.

The same for the car makers. Why do
they persist in using outdated polluting
technology when proven alternatives are around.

Same point exactly. Electric cars. manufacturers like GM and Toyota
launched them in the U.S. and made them available on lease, then had
second thoughts and terminated the leases.

Hybrids sell well in the USA. Yet hybrids are not state-of-the-art of what
can be done.

The only way to charge these large
money making dinosaurs is to legislate.

In the short term possibly.

It has to be to get them to deliver. they virtually have monopolies
governments should control them when they fail to deliver.

This is clearly not without political
risk or successive governments would have legislated zero
energy homes for all new builds.

It is going that way. The new insulation regs are a major hype. the
Canadian government is operating their R-2000 over here too, as well as many
other countries too.

John Prescott has warned them to catch up or he will
make them do it.

By sticking one on the chairman of Wimpey?

I hope so.

They never even looked into other
more cost effective ways, just going
along doing the same old expensive inefficient thing.

Because it is what they perceive that
the public wants, and what they
know how to do.

What tripe. They build to what they "think" they make the most money on.
They are doing very well so why should they change. That is theri mentality.

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.

The present one does it all the time.

Because it has to keep the country keeping up. I widh they woudl
de-legislate on land though.

If the private sector was delivering they
could just sit back. Unfortunately the
government has to intervene.

Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The same for the car makers. Why do they persist in using
outdated polluting technology when proven alternatives are around.


Same point exactly. Electric cars. manufacturers like GM and Toyota
launched them in the U.S. and made them available on lease, then had
second thoughts and terminated the leases.


Its worse than that Andy.

The automotive industry has huge plant spread around many major
subcontractors dedicated to producing the bits and pieces that comprise
a car.

VIRTUALLY NONE OF THESE BITS with the exception of wheels, suspension
and brakes, have any applicability in an electric car.

No established manufacturer is going to spend billions on an electric
car when it means the complete death of the industry, its workers and
the investment in plant that they have made over the years.

Big businesses have their own inertia. In many cases its virtually
impossible for a company making e.g. CRT's to re-invest in producing
e.g. LCD screens or plasma screens.

At the very best, what we may see in car technology, is some
enterprising small manufacturer- brand new - making a halfway decent
model that achieves some market penetration, and then is bought up by
one of the giants.

There is zero chance that they themselves would be able to produce one.

As far as building go, things do move, but slowly. IMM is an idealistic
fantasist, but but by bit the market learns from elsewhere, and
gradually adapts to changing conditions. You cannot retrain an industry
of ill educated bodges to use different techniques overnight. But in due
course people with good ideas that save money and make better products
become examples to others, and progress happens.

You can't legislate FOR progress: At best you can legislate to remove
some of the obstacles. Progress comes from a very small group of
individuals with vision. Not from governments, and not from armchair
fantasists.

In article , Imm wrote:
What a stupid thing to say. Could it be that no one has heard of them?
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 brain ache in the process.

They will go for the one with central heating. Seriously. This was
reported at a BRE conference: building society 'valuers' are not the
most clued up people when it comes to heating and were marking down the
value of a house if it didn't have c.h. even though it didn't need it.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article , Imm wrote:
Our towns, villages and cities were laid out was when we never had
ridiculous draconian Stalinist planning systems geared to keep the
stinking rich very rich.

But in the absence of planning controls many properties were sold with
very rigourous covenants, which many residents associations try and
exploit today. On some of the private estates on Coombe Hill (Kingston,
SW London) any alterations to the outside of your property have to be
approved by the Residents Association. Tough if you've crossed the
chairman as there's no appeal.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Could it be that no one has heard of them?
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 brain ache in the process.

They will go for the one with central heating. Seriously. This was
reported at a BRE conference: building society 'valuers' are not the
most clued up people when it comes to heating and were marking down the
value of a house if it didn't have c.h. even though it didn't need it.

I am not about stupid estate agents. A developers has a mixed bag of 50-50
eco and non-eco on the same development for the same price and similar spec.
Which ones are going to sell, well?

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:

Our towns, villages and cities were laid out was when we never had
ridiculous draconian Stalinist planning systems geared to keep the
stinking rich very rich.

But in the absence of planning controls many properties were sold with
very rigourous covenants, which many residents associations try and
exploit today. On some of the private estates on Coombe Hill (Kingston,
SW London) any alterations to the outside of your property have to be
approved by the Residents Association. Tough if you've crossed the
chairman as there's no appeal.

Painting your front door is very different to the planning system. Covenants
were put in as there was no planning system. People made up their own. It
worked to a degree. Sometime they put in aspects that made it easy to rip
off people such as ransom strips. these are illegal in Canada, and should
be here. One poster has bought a field so no house will be next to him.
Fine, I have no problems with that. The ransom strips were put in, so the
landowner could sell the land, and still have control and potentially rip
people off for running services across his 6 inches of land.

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

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The same for the car makers. Why do they persist in using
outdated polluting technology when proven alternatives are around.


Same point exactly. Electric cars. manufacturers like GM and Toyota
launched them in the U.S. and made them available on lease, then had
second thoughts and terminated the leases.


Its worse than that Andy.

The automotive industry has huge plant spread around many major
subcontractors dedicated to producing the bits and pieces that comprise
a car.

VIRTUALLY NONE OF THESE BITS with the exception of wheels, suspension
and brakes, have any applicability in an electric car.

No established manufacturer is going to spend billions on an electric
car when it means the complete death of the industry, its workers and
the investment in plant that they have made over the years.

Big businesses have their own inertia. In many cases its virtually
impossible for a company making e.g. CRT's to re-invest in producing
e.g. LCD screens or plasma screens.

At the very best, what we may see in car technology, is some
enterprising small manufacturer- brand new - making a halfway decent
model that achieves some market penetration, and then is bought up by
one of the giants.

There is zero chance that they themselves would be able to produce one.

As far as building go, things do move,
but slowly.

They actually move? Where? The only innovation I can see is the recent TJI
beams, which were introduced in 1964 in the USA; 40 years ago.

IMM is an idealistic
fantasist,

A realist me boy. eco home are cheap and work. No pie in the sky.

but but by bit the market learns from elsewhere,

The British market does not learn. That is one of the points. That is why
the government is having to force them to change. By not intervening the
government would be irresponsible, as irresponsible as the builders.

and gradually adapts to changing conditions.
You cannot retrain an industry
of ill educated bodges to use different
techniques overnight.

Eco is not new. it has been around in a big way since the 1970s oil
shortages, and then pollution forced them through even further.

But in due course people with good ideas
that save money and make better products
become examples to others, and progress happens.

What tripe. In the building game there have been many brilliant innovations,
all foreign of course, few have been taken up in the UK. They will not
adapt, that is why Prescott is threatening them.

You can't legislate FOR progress:
At best you can legislate to remove
some of the obstacles. Progress comes
from a very small group of
individuals with vision.

That is true.

Not from governments, and not from armchair
fantasists.

But if governments see innovations that are common elsewhere that are not
being used here they have to act. Sitting there and hoping these money
making dinosaurs will see the light is irresponsible government. They will
not change, they do not want change for the good of the consumer. They have
to force them to change for the benefit of the people they represent, as the
US did with car emissions in the early 1970s. If the US government had your
attitude most of the USA now would be dead or dying with poisonous car
fumes.

The car industries did not want to change and were not going to wither. The
same applies with car safety. The car giants did not care one iota about
people being needlessly killed in their crap cars. Only when governments
came in did we get safer cars forcing standards on these rip-off merchants.
The private sector can solve many problems; the housing problem of the UK is
one if land was made available. If it does not deliver then government HAVE
to come in as car emissions and safety have proven, and now the British
construction industry.

You have to get the big picture and get this snotty uni Tory ******** from
washing around your conditioned brain.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:16:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



I really couldn't a hoot about a developer and its shareholders. If they
will not deliver the goods then the government has to force them into the
20th century. Getting them into the 21st century is asking too much.


You may not directly, but this is a naive view. The shareholders are
typically pension and other managed funds, not to mention the
contribution of corporation tax to the exchequer.



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.

The very notion of Milton Keynes and all that goes with it is a big
turn off to a lot of people.

You said it. "ignorance".

That is how it is, however. It would be pretty difficult to
legislate people to like Milton Keynes.



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.

Yes there is. They perceive that people don't
want them,

What balls! They don't want change. They are frightened of change.

It isn't balls, but I don't disagree with you. As I said, people
perceive their houses as their major investment and protection, for
right or from wrong. This results in being risk averse in that area.
You can't legislate against human nature either.



The only way to charge these large
money making dinosaurs is to legislate.

In the short term possibly.

It has to be to get them to deliver. they virtually have monopolies
governments should control them when they fail to deliver.

There is more than adequate monoplies control legislation as it is.



This is clearly not without political
risk or successive governments would have legislated zero
energy homes for all new builds.

It is going that way. The new insulation regs are a major hype. the
Canadian government is operating their R-2000 over here too, as well as many
other countries too.

I didn't know that Ottawa had jurisdiction in the UK. You learn
something new every day.


John Prescott has warned them to catch up or he will
make them do it.

By sticking one on the chairman of Wimpey?

I hope so.

I think that it would be about the only way.....


They never even looked into other
more cost effective ways, just going
along doing the same old expensive inefficient thing.

Because it is what they perceive that
the public wants, and what they
know how to do.

What tripe. They build to what they "think" they make the most money on.

The two are inextricably linked. It's called the free market.

They are doing very well so why should they change. That is theri mentality.

Why indeed. The economic drivers are not there.


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.

The present one does it all the time.

Because it has to keep the country keeping up. I widh they woudl
de-legislate on land though.

I wish that they would repeal most of the garbage regulations and
stealth taxes introduced since 1997.

I very much doubt whether there will be meaningful land reform in our
lifetimes.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:22:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



At the very best, what we may see in car technology, is some
enterprising small manufacturer- brand new - making a halfway decent
model that achieves some market penetration, and then is bought up by
one of the giants.

There is zero chance that they themselves would be able to produce one.

Very true.


As far as building go, things do move, but slowly. IMM is an idealistic
fantasist, but but by bit the market learns from elsewhere, and
gradually adapts to changing conditions. You cannot retrain an industry
of ill educated bodges to use different techniques overnight. But in due
course people with good ideas that save money and make better products
become examples to others, and progress happens.

You can't legislate FOR progress: At best you can legislate to remove
some of the obstacles. Progress comes from a very small group of
individuals with vision. Not from governments, and not from armchair
fantasists.


Exactly. Very succinctly put.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:30:28 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Could it be that no one has heard of them?
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 brain ache in the process.

They will go for the one with central heating. Seriously. This was
reported at a BRE conference: building society 'valuers' are not the
most clued up people when it comes to heating and were marking down the
value of a house if it didn't have c.h. even though it didn't need it.

I am not about stupid estate agents. A developers has a mixed bag of 50-50
eco and non-eco on the same development for the same price and similar spec.
Which ones are going to sell, well?


The non-eco ones to the majority of people. This is the whole point.

This is like the famous joke about the boss who interviews three
candidates to be his secretary. All of them have a superb range of
skills in different areas of the job.

Which does he choose? The one with the biggest tits.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:16:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



I really couldn't a hoot about a developer and its shareholders. If they
will not deliver the goods then the government has to force them into the
20th century. Getting them into the 21st century is asking too much.


You may not directly, but this is a naive view. The shareholders are
typically pension and other managed funds, not to mention the
contribution of corporation tax to the exchequer.

You missed the point yet again.

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.

The very notion of Milton Keynes and all that goes with it is a big
turn off to a lot of people.

You said it. "ignorance".

That is how it is, however. It would be pretty difficult to
legislate people to like Milton Keynes.

Well seeing as it is a boom town/city and they are short of houses you naive
view of the world is once a again off mark.

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.

Yes there is. They perceive that people don't
want them,

What balls! They don't want change. They are frightened of change.

It isn't balls, but I don't disagree with you. As I said, people
perceive their houses as their major investment and protection, for
right or from wrong. This results in being risk averse in that area.
You can't legislate against human nature either.

Once again mossed the point.

The only way to charge these large
money making dinosaurs is to legislate.

In the short term possibly.

It has to be to get them to deliver. they virtually have monopolies
governments should control them when they fail to deliver.

There is more than adequate monoplies control legislation as it is.

This is clearly not without political
risk or successive governments would have legislated zero
energy homes for all new builds.

It is going that way. The new insulation regs are a major hype. the
Canadian government is operating their R-2000 over here too, as well as
many
other countries too.

I didn't know that Ottawa had jurisdiction in the UK. You learn
something new every day.

John Prescott has warned them to catch up or he will
make them do it.

By sticking one on the chairman of Wimpey?

I hope so.

I think that it would be about the only way.....

You are right. Just as well we have Johnny then.

They never even looked into other
more cost effective ways, just going
along doing the same old expensive inefficient thing.

Because it is what they perceive that
the public wants, and what they
know how to do.

What tripe. They build to what they "think" they make the most money on.

The two are inextricably linked. It's called the free market.

Free market? about 15 companies build about 85% of all homes. Monopolies.

They are doing very well so why should they change. That is theri
mentality.

Why indeed. The economic drivers are not there.

Exactly, so the government should force change through.

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.

The present one does it all the time.

Because it has to keep the country keeping up. I wish they would
de-legislate on land though.

I wish that they would repeal most of the garbage regulations and
stealth taxes introduced since 1997.

I hope they keep them except the taxes as LVT should be introduced.

I very much doubt whether there will be meaningful land reform in our
lifetimes.

If, in 1988 you said that the Soviet empire would be dismantled in a few
years with Russia apply to join NATO you would have found a van pull with
men in white coats pulling you in. And os that exactly what happened.

Land re-distribution is taking place on a small scale in Scotland right now.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:22:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



At the very best, what we may see in car technology, is some
enterprising small manufacturer- brand new - making a halfway decent
model that achieves some market penetration, and then is bought up by
one of the giants.

There is zero chance that they themselves would be able to produce one.

Very true.


As far as building go, things do move, but slowly. IMM is an idealistic
fantasist, but but by bit the market learns from elsewhere, and
gradually adapts to changing conditions. You cannot retrain an industry
of ill educated bodges to use different techniques overnight. But in due
course people with good ideas that save money and make better products
become examples to others, and progress happens.

You can't legislate FOR progress: At best you can legislate to remove
some of the obstacles. Progress comes from a very small group of
individuals with vision. Not from governments, and not from armchair
fantasists.


Exactly. Very succinctly put.

But wrong.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:30:28 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Could it be that no one has heard of
them?
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 brain ache in the process.

They will go for the one with central heating. Seriously. This was
reported at a BRE conference: building society 'valuers' are not the
most clued up people when it comes to heating and were marking down the
value of a house if it didn't have c.h. even though it didn't need it.

I am not about stupid estate agents. A developers has a mixed bag of
50-50
eco and non-eco on the same development for the same price and similar
spec.
Which ones are going to sell, well?


The non-eco ones to the majority of people.

Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you in.
The word "eco " sells.

snip drivel

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:18:58 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:16:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



I really couldn't a hoot about a developer and its shareholders. If they
will not deliver the goods then the government has to force them into the
20th century. Getting them into the 21st century is asking too much.


You may not directly, but this is a naive view. The shareholders are
typically pension and other managed funds, not to mention the
contribution of corporation tax to the exchequer.

You missed the point yet again.

It's very much the point in terms of whether anything, right or wrong,
will change.



Well seeing as it is a boom town/city and they are short of houses you naive
view of the world is once a again off mark.

Everywhere is short of houses, it is alleged. The majority of
people don't live in new towns or would wish to do so.



It isn't balls, but I don't disagree with you. As I said, people
perceive their houses as their major investment and protection, for
right or from wrong. This results in being risk averse in that area.
You can't legislate against human nature either.

Once again mossed the point.

We'll have to agree to differ on that.




You are right. Just as well we have Johnny then.

His boss sees him as a liability, but then he's a snot, of course.



Free market? about 15 companies build about 85% of all homes. Monopolies.

Nothing close to it. The authorities became interested in the
prospect of less than five supermarket chains. Fifteen construction
firms is not.


They are doing very well so why should they change. That is theri
mentality.

Why indeed. The economic drivers are not there.

Exactly, so the government should force change through.

it's exactly why it shouldn't.




Because it has to keep the country keeping up. I wish they would
de-legislate on land though.

I wish that they would repeal most of the garbage regulations and
stealth taxes introduced since 1997.

I hope they keep them except the taxes as LVT should be introduced.

Very unlikely to happen, so purely academic.


I very much doubt whether there will be meaningful land reform in our
lifetimes.

If, in 1988 you said that the Soviet empire would be dismantled in a few
years with Russia apply to join NATO you would have found a van pull with
men in white coats pulling you in. And os that exactly what happened.

The Soviet empire was doomed from the outset, as are all government
controlled societies sooner or later. Yet this is what you advocate.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:22:16 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Which ones are going to sell, well?


The non-eco ones to the majority of people.

Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you in.

The one with the heating that is nearer to the better school and is
built traditionally.

The word "eco " sells.


I'm afraid it doesn't. It is still perceived as alternative
technology and a curiosity.

This perception extends to all sorts of areas.
Look in the supermarket.

You can buy eco cleaning products (at least that's how they are
marketed) from Ecover. They do reasonably well. Which are the big
sellers? The brand names because of brand loyalty and the own brands
because they are cheap.

You can buy organic foods. They also sell reasonably well to a sector
of the market. However, most people prefer to buy known brands or
cheap own brands if they want to save money.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Imm wrote:
Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you in.
The word "eco " sells.

"The reason why house-owners have generally chosen to spend money on an
unsustainable central heating system rather than on insulation can only be
explained by the cheapness of gas and the social status of owning (and
selling) a house with central heating. By insulating the house to a high
degree the central heating system could have been very much smaller and
less expensive to run, but "economy" and "inconspicuous consumption" at
present carry little social cachet in mainstream society. Only a few
eco-pioneers such as Sue Roaf (Oxford Ecohouse), and CAT have been brave
enough to build and live in an autonomous house. For the masses, relying as
they do on mortgages from ultra-conservative Building Societies,
conventional solutions dominate"

http://www.sustainable-housing.org.u...n%20Papers.htm

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Well seeing as it [Milkton Keynes]is
a boom town/city and they are short of houses you naive
view of the world is once a again off mark.

Everywhere is short of houses, it is alleged.

That is true.

The majority of
people don't live in new towns

becausedon't have many of them.

or would wish to do so.

They would, tat is why MK is booming and peopel want to live there.

You are right. Just as well we have Johnny then.

His boss sees him as a liability,
but then he's a snot, of course.

Johnny is not a snot. He went to Oxford for a month or two to do a course.

Free market? about 15 companies build about 85% of all homes.
Monopolies.

Nothing close to it.

It is.

They are doing very well so why should
they change. That is their entality.

Why indeed. The economic drivers are not there.

Exactly, so the government should
force change through.

it's exactly why it shouldn't.

You are confused.

Because it has to keep the country keeping up. I wish they would
de-legislate on land though.

I wish that they would repeal most of the garbage regulations and
stealth taxes introduced since 1997.

I hope they keep them except the taxes as LVT should be introduced.

Very unlikely to happen, so purely academic.


I very much doubt whether there will be meaningful land reform in our
lifetimes.

If, in 1988 you said that the Soviet empire would be dismantled in a few
years with Russia apply to join NATO you would have found a van pull with
men in white coats pulling you in. And that is exactly what happened.

The Soviet empire was doomed from
the outset,

Missed the point again. A clear inability to focus

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:22:16 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Which ones are going to sell, well?


The non-eco ones to the majority of people.

Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you in.

The one with the heating that is nearer to the better school and is
built traditionally.

You must re-read. A clear inability to focus. The NHS can help here.
Free.

The word "eco " sells.

I'm afraid it doesn't.

It does.

This perception extends to all sorts of areas.
Look in the supermarket.

You can buy eco cleaning products (at least that's how they are
marketed) from Ecover. They do reasonably well. Which are the big
sellers? The brand names because of brand loyalty and the own brands
because they are cheap.

You can buy organic foods. They also sell reasonably well to a sector
of the market. However, most people prefer to buy known brands or
cheap own brands if they want to save money.

And eco houses save them money, lots of it, so they buy one of them.
Simple.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:
Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But
one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you
in.
The word "eco " sells.

"The reason why house-owners have
generally chosen to spend money on an
unsustainable central heating system
rather than on insulation

What the hell are you on about? You make pout that 50% of all homes are
eco. Eco is houses are few and far between to the point I doubt if anyone
reading this has even been in one.


can only be
explained by the cheapness of gas and the social status of owning (and
selling) a house with central heating.

People spend a fortune on UFH because they don't like reds on walls.

by insulating the house to a high
degree the central heating system could have been very much smaller and
less expensive to run, but "economy" and "inconspicuous consumption" at
present carry little social cachet in mainstream society. Only a few
eco-pioneers such as Sue Roaf (Oxford Ecohouse), and CAT have been brave
enough to build and live in an autonomous house.

There are reckoned to be around 1000 eco homes inthe UK, and growing by the
year.

For the masses, relying as
they do on mortgages from ultra-conservative
Building Societies,
conventional solutions dominate"

Ultra conservative? they are throwing money at people.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:12:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



The majority of
people don't live in new towns

becausedon't have many of them.

I'm not sure that that's the reason.



or would wish to do so.

They would, tat is why MK is booming and peopel want to live there.

I am not sure about that either.



Free market? about 15 companies build about 85% of all homes.
Monopolies.

Nothing close to it.

It is.

On that, I'll agree to differ.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:12:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

The majority of
people don't live in new towns

becausedon't have many of them.

I'm not sure that that's the reason.

or would wish to do so.

They would, that is why MK is booming and people want to live there.

I am not sure about that either.

Stop making things up. MK is the greenest town/city I have ever been to. It
is full of parks and woods and has a longer shoreline than Jersey with all
the lakes it has.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:14:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:22:16 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Which ones are going to sell, well?


The non-eco ones to the majority of people.

Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you in.

The one with the heating that is nearer to the better school and is
built traditionally.




The word "eco " sells.

I'm afraid it doesn't.

It does.

I'll agree to differ.


This perception extends to all sorts of areas.
Look in the supermarket.

You can buy eco cleaning products (at least that's how they are
marketed) from Ecover. They do reasonably well. Which are the big
sellers? The brand names because of brand loyalty and the own brands
because they are cheap.

You can buy organic foods. They also sell reasonably well to a sector
of the market. However, most people prefer to buy known brands or
cheap own brands if they want to save money.

And eco houses save them money, lots of it, so they buy one of them.
Simple.


It may be true that eco houses may save money, but this is not driving
the industry.

If this were the case, there would be a huge market demand. There
isn't.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:14:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Which ones are going to sell, well?

The non-eco ones to the majority of people.

Nonesene. Two homes that look the same, similar spec and price? But
one
has virtually no heating bills. ********!! What naive world are you
in.

The one with the heating that is nearer to the better school and is
built traditionally.

The word "eco " sells.

I'm afraid it doesn't.

It does.

I'll agree to differ.

This perception extends to all sorts of areas.
Look in the supermarket.

You can buy eco cleaning products (at least that's how they are
marketed) from Ecover. They do reasonably well. Which are the big
sellers? The brand names because of brand loyalty and the own brands
because they are cheap.

You can buy organic foods. They also sell reasonably well to a sector
of the market. However, most people prefer to buy known brands or
cheap own brands if they want to save money.

And eco houses save them money, lots of
it, so they buy one of them. Simple.

It may be true that eco houses may save money, but this is not driving
the industry.

The industry drives itself. The market has little to do withy it.

If this were the case, there would be
a huge market demand. There isn't.

The parallels with the auto industry, where the industry drives the market
is real. People don't demand fuel cell cars because they have never had
them. Eco homes have never been available in any numbers for people to
decide. When they are they will flock to them in their droves.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:26:11 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:12:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

The majority of
people don't live in new towns

becausedon't have many of them.

I'm not sure that that's the reason.

or would wish to do so.

They would, that is why MK is booming and people want to live there.

I am not sure about that either.

Stop making things up. MK is the greenest town/city I have ever been to. It
is full of parks and woods and has a longer shoreline than Jersey with all
the lakes it has.

Nothing being made up.

I simply said that I am not sure about people liking new towns.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl