"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

You mean you have no idea whatsoever.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:36:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


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.

That's the justification given when governments want to legislate in
that they can convince themselves that they can direct it in a small
and practical place and have an effect. That is delusory.



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.

This would appear to be a classic chicken and egg situation.

It is a leap of faith to suggest that people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda. There are a bunch of issues
that will need to be addressed before meaningful change will happen.
Availability is but one of them.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:48:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


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.

You mean you have no idea whatsoever.

On that I will agree to differ.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:36:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


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.

That's the justification given when governments want to legislate in
that they can convince themselves that they can direct it in a small
and practical place and have an effect. That is delusory.

You are mad. Perfect examples are the car and construction industries which
do not deliver. Then our electected representatives have to act on our
behalf.

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.

This would appear to be a classic chicken and egg situation.

Missed the point again.

It is a leap of faith to suggest that people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda.

It hasn't sunk in yet after saying it many times. Peo;el have not been
exposed to eco homes yet. Duh!

There are a bunch of issues
that will need to be addressed before
meaningful change will happen.
Availability is but one of them.

What are the others?

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:01:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



You are mad. Perfect examples are the car and construction industries which
do not deliver. Then our electected representatives have to act on our
behalf.

You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.



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.

This would appear to be a classic chicken and egg situation.

Missed the point again.

It is a leap of faith to suggest that people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda.

It hasn't sunk in yet after saying it many times. Peo;el have not been
exposed to eco homes yet. Duh!

I'm aware of that, but I do not believe that simply making something
available means that people will buy it.

The graveyards are littered with products that somebody thought was a
great idea but which did not sell because that somebody didn't think
through or foresee all the issues.



There are a bunch of issues
that will need to be addressed before
meaningful change will happen.
Availability is but one of them.

What are the others?

You can look at my posts from earlier in this thread, or Tony's quote
from earlier, which was from a sustainable housing organisation.
The points are essentially the same.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:01:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



You are mad. Perfect examples are
the car and construction industries which
do not deliver. Then our electected
representatives have to act on our
behalf.

You missed the point. Legislating for
the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion
of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them.

If all house built are eco then the populous would have no choice.


It is a leap of faith to suggest that
people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda.

It hasn't sunk in yet after saying it
many times. Peo;el have not been
exposed to eco homes yet. Duh!

I'm aware of that, but I do not believe
that simply making something
available means that people will buy it.

If only eco is available then they have to buy it.

The graveyards are littered with products
that somebody thought was a
great idea but which did not sell because
that somebody didn't think
through or foresee all the issues.

Eco is a great idea and will never go away. I do seen that some nut would
want a heating system so as to pay £2000 a year for no apparent reason. he
will probably end up in a rubber room though.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:25:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



If all house built are eco then the populous would have no choice.

It's populace, and I think you just demonstrated the point that
legislation does not drive progress. It would take centuries for
that choice to disappear because of the existing housing base.



It is a leap of faith to suggest that
people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda.

It hasn't sunk in yet after saying it
many times. Peo;el have not been
exposed to eco homes yet. Duh!

I'm aware of that, but I do not believe
that simply making something
available means that people will buy it.

If only eco is available then they have to buy it.

.... and existing properties?


The graveyards are littered with products
that somebody thought was a
great idea but which did not sell because
that somebody didn't think
through or foresee all the issues.

Eco is a great idea and will never go away.

I'm sure it is and I am sure that the technology, economics and
marketing on it will eventually become more broadly accepted.

I do seen that some nut would
want a heating system so as to pay £2000 a year for no apparent reason. he
will probably end up in a rubber room though.

Well, it appears that in general people don't agree with your premise
for right or wrong. Eco is not high on their agenda.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

--
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

IMM wrote

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

Nor under the bed, apparently.


[Building Societies] are throwing money at people.

That I agree with. That's why the price of houses is so high.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.


I was recently surprised to see a number of company car drivers have opted
for twin cab pickups of the gas guzzling 4x4 ilk. apparently they are
classified as commercial vehicles with appropriate tax breaks despite being
kitted out with top spec incar entertainment and other goodies. I don't
suppose they were quite what our tinpot gods thought would result in putting
tax charges up on company cars!

Andy Hall wrote:

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

That is an odd place to put your heating Andy. Most of us have it IN the
house, not somewhere down the high street.

and is
built traditionally.


You mean like it has an Aga for heating?

Hmmm.

Tony Bryer wrote:

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


Actually, thats bollocvks too.
The reaosn why people haven't insulated houses is teh cost of doing it
is a large capital expsne, once you have shoved insulation in the loft
and fitted ghastly double glazing, in most older properties you are
faced with a SIGNIFICANT bill to do floor or wall insulation.

The sort of people who DO 'do up' propertioes for profit, will fol;low
the market. The average houseowner will not be nearly so concerned as
tro whethert his heating bills will be 600 or 1200 quid, as to whethert
he has two ensuite bathrooms with showers. Whicgh probably costs a
similar amount.

Take the above scenario, in which the superior house is 600 quid cheaper
to run. At current mortage rates (6% gross?) that is equivalent to
paying an extra 10 grand for the house.

Whilst you MIGHT be able to cavity inject a house for that, you
certainly won't be able to lift the floors and put down insulation under
for that. Its probably barely enough to replace teh windows with DG
units in teh sort of sized house a heating bill like that applies to.

What this means is, that at current fuel prices, super insulation unless
done at the time of building, where it is relatively cheap, is a
complete waste of money. It makes no commercial sense on a property you
inhabit for a few years.

Which is precisely why things are the way they are. If e,g, windows rot
teh are replaced with DG. Very low oppotunity cost. If doors leak seals
are fitted. Rooves are nsulated. Old boilers replaced with newer mpre
efficient ones. These are all thuibgs that are mainetance upgardes.

But insulating and old house is not worth it beyond a certain point.

New houses are to a stnadar where teh laws of dminishing returns start
to kkick in. What is easy to do is required. What is hard or expensive
to do, is not.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:05:00 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.



Well.... yes..... However the timescales are going to be a lot
longer.

A car has a lifetime of two or three years in the fleet market, and
may last on the road for another ten. Therefore changes in taxation
and other government meddling have an effect pretty quickly.

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take
much longer to have an impact.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:23:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

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

That is an odd place to put your heating Andy. Most of us have it IN the
house, not somewhere down the high street.

Tee-hee.



and is
built traditionally.


You mean like it has an Aga for heating?


No, you need a Rayburn for that. :-)



Hmmm.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take
much longer to have an impact.

You think a Barrett hutch is going to last that long ??

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:25:19 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take
much longer to have an impact.

You think a Barrett hutch is going to last that long ??


Possibly not, but hopefully more than ten years.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:25:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



If all house built are eco then the
populous would have no choice.

It's populace, and I think you just
demonstrated the point that
legislation does not drive progress.

I never demonstrated that at all. Legislation can ensure progress keeps
going along and state-of-the-art is used.

It would take centuries for
that choice to disappear because of
the existing housing base.

The housing problem could be solved in a few years if land was made feely
available to build on. The government could ensure high building standards
using the latest methods and the private sector would fill the need.
Encourage selfbuilding and individula homes would emerge.

It is a leap of faith to suggest that
people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda.

It hasn't sunk in yet after saying it
many times. Peo;el have not been
exposed to eco homes yet. Duh!

I'm aware of that, but I do not believe
that simply making something
available means that people will buy it.

If only eco is available then they have to buy it.

... and existing properties?


The graveyards are littered with products
that somebody thought was a
great idea but which did not sell because
that somebody didn't think
through or foresee all the issues.

Eco is a great idea and will
never go away.

I'm sure it is and I am sure that the
technology, economics and
marketing on it will eventually become
more broadly accepted.

I do see that some nut would
want a heating system so as to pay
£2000 a year for no apparent reason. he
will probably end up in a rubber room though.

Well, it appears that in general
people don't agree with your premise
for right or wrong. Eco is not high
on their agenda.

You can't focus that is certain. Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

Very true. The government can encourage people to do thing by various
methods.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:05:00 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

Well.... yes..... However the timescales are going to be a lot
longer.

A car has a lifetime of two or three years in the fleet market, and
may last on the road for another ten. Therefore changes in taxation
and other government meddling have an effect pretty quickly.

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take
much longer to have an impact.

Your lack of common sense amazes me. We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes. And also any
extension can also be eco. Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy. There must be a way of preventing these from being
built. Most people would rather have a proper roofed high insulated
extension, so provision to make them easier to build rather than energy
sucking conservatories is the way.

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

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

That is an odd place to put your heating Andy. Most of us have it IN the
house, not somewhere down the high street.

and is
built traditionally.

You mean like it has an Aga for heating?

Traditional building in the UK is of wood. Brick has only been around for a
few hundred years. Now in Scotland, most homes built are of timber frame.

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote

[Building Societies] are throwing money at people.

That I agree with. That's why the
price of houses is so high.

Wrong again. The reason house prices are so high is that an artificial
(rigged) land shortage is here ramping up land prices. The UK has a land
surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:07:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:25:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



If all house built are eco then the
populous would have no choice.

It's populace, and I think you just
demonstrated the point that
legislation does not drive progress.

I never demonstrated that at all. Legislation can ensure progress keeps
going along and state-of-the-art is used.

In the case of houses, it would take decades to centuries to reach the
point that eco houses could be the only choice. No doubt in 20
years, the technology situation will have changed anyway.
It's not politically interesting for a government to legislate
something that will take that long to have an effect. They are
looking for opportunities that will have an effect within three years
or better still three minutes.


It would take centuries for
that choice to disappear because of
the existing housing base.

The housing problem could be solved in a few years if land was made feely
available to build on. The government could ensure high building standards
using the latest methods and the private sector would fill the need.

There is the problem. Need. The customers who are buying do not
perceive (for right or wrong) a *need* at this point for eco houses.
Creating a product does not guarantee its sale.


Encourage selfbuilding and individula homes would emerge.

I don't have a problem with self building or individual development as
long as the properties produced are acceptable to those living near
them.



You can't focus that is certain.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of factors have to be in place.
Availability and awareness are only two of them.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:

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


Actually, thats bollocvks too.
The reaosn why people haven't insulated houses is teh cost of doing it
is a large capital expsne, once you have shoved insulation in the loft
and fitted ghastly double glazing, in most older properties you are
faced with a SIGNIFICANT bill to do floor or wall insulation.

The sort of people who DO 'do up' propertioes for profit, will fol;low
the market. The average houseowner will not be nearly so concerned as
tro whethert his heating bills will be 600 or 1200 quid, as to whethert
he has two ensuite bathrooms with showers. Whicgh probably costs a
similar amount.

Take the above scenario, in which the superior house is 600 quid cheaper
to run. At current mortage rates (6% gross?) that is equivalent to
paying an extra 10 grand for the house.

Whilst you MIGHT be able to cavity inject a house for that, you
certainly won't be able to lift the floors and put down insulation under
for that. Its probably barely enough to replace teh windows with DG
units in teh sort of sized house a heating bill like that applies to.

What this means is, that at current fuel prices, super insulation unless
done at the time of building, where it is relatively cheap, is a
complete waste of money. It makes no commercial sense on a property you
inhabit for a few years.

Which is precisely why things are the way they are. If e,g, windows rot
teh are replaced with DG. Very low oppotunity cost. If doors leak seals
are fitted. Rooves are nsulated. Old boilers replaced with newer mpre
efficient ones. These are all thuibgs that are mainetance upgardes.

But insulating and old house is not worth it beyond a certain point.

New houses are to a stnadar where teh laws of dminishing returns start
to kkick in. What is easy to do is required. What is hard or expensive
to do, is not.

The point is a new house, and as you say they are cost effective to
superinsulate. A house can be built with zero heating, and this is proven
with many examples around, to be no more expensive to build than an energy
sucking house. Gear a whole industry to eco houses and the prices will drop
to what they build as standard today.

With existing homes the situation is very different. The payback period?
How long is a piece of string. Difficult to pin down. Currently the payback
will be quite short as oil is high in price. From what I read energy prices
will steadily go up in proportion to our income, so high insulation makes
sense and must have a shortish payback in existing homes.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:15:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:05:00 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

Well.... yes..... However the timescales are going to be a lot
longer.

A car has a lifetime of two or three years in the fleet market, and
may last on the road for another ten. Therefore changes in taxation
and other government meddling have an effect pretty quickly.

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take
much longer to have an impact.

Your lack of common sense amazes me.

I think that the boot's on the other foot here, but go on.

We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them? Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

And also any
extension can also be eco.

It can be.

Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy.

That's an overstatement. With double glazed low-E glass, the heat
loss is reduced substantially. With solar gain taken into account,
it isn't typically an order of magnitude more than a conventional room
of the same size.

You seem to advocate large glass areas as part of an eco house on the
argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.

There must be a way of preventing these from being
built.

That would really be a popular move for the government to make.
There's even reluctance to bring construction within building
regulations.

Most people would rather have a proper roofed high insulated
extension, so provision to make them easier to build rather than energy
sucking conservatories is the way.

Would they? So why do most of them buy conservatories rather than
building extensions?

I can think of three factors, and there are probably more -

- Because they like them (of course "like" is not an issue in a
totalitarian world)

- Because bureaucracy does not normally need to be involved

- Because they can be built and completed pretty quickly





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:08:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

Very true. The government can encourage people to do thing by various
methods.

Staying out of their affairs being the most effective one.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:23:48 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
. ..
IMM wrote

[Building Societies] are throwing money at people.

That I agree with. That's why the
price of houses is so high.

Wrong again. The reason house prices are so high is that an artificial
(rigged) land shortage is here ramping up land prices. The UK has a land
surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.


Are you on a royalty for this book or something?

I wouldn't give up the day job.....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:07:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:25:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



If all house built are eco then the
populous would have no choice.

It's populace, and I think you just
demonstrated the point that
legislation does not drive progress.

I never demonstrated that at all. Legislation
can ensure progress keeps
going along and state-of-the-art is used.

In the case of houses, it would take
decades to centuries to reach the
point that eco houses could be the only choice.

That may be so. But the standard would have been created and a population
educated towards it. You have to start somewhere.

No doubt in 20
years, the technology situation will
have changed anyway.

The Canadian R-2000 is a "standard". How you achieve it is yours and the
BCOs business.

It's not politically interesting for
a government to legislate
something that will take that long
to have an effect.

It puts a feather in their environmental hat.

It would take centuries for
that choice to disappear because of
the existing housing base.

The housing problem could be solved
in a few years if land was made feely
available to build on. The government
could ensure high building standards
using the latest methods and the private
sector would fill the need.

There is the problem. Need. The
customers who are buying do not
perceive (for right or wrong) a *need*
at this point for eco houses.
Creating a product does not guarantee its sale.

Lack of understand and poor focus yet again. Once agin. Eco is not on their
agenda because they know nothing of it.

Encourage selfbuilding and individual
homes would emerge.

I don't have a problem with self
building or individual development as
long as the properties produced are
acceptable to those living near
them.

So you prefer Barratt pastiche. My God.

You can't focus that is certain.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of
factors have to be in place.
Availability and awareness are only two of them.

A product is made to standards. If all are to an eco standard then the
public will know the standard and buy accordingly. In short, they will only
have an eco choice in a new house. So, if a 100 homes are eco and next to
them another 100 homes of similar size and spec that are not, the eco homes
will command a higher price.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:15:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:05:00 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going
to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

Well.... yes..... However the timescales are going to be a lot
longer.

A car has a lifetime of two or three years in the fleet market, and
may last on the road for another ten. Therefore changes in taxation
and other government meddling have an effect pretty quickly.

Houses have a lifetime of a hundred years or more so changes will take
much longer to have an impact.

Your lack of common sense amazes me.

I think that the boot's on the other foot here, but go on.

We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

And also any
extension can also be eco.

It can be.

Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy.

That's an overstatement.

It is not. Compare a conservatory to a superinsulated extension.

You seem to advocate large glass areas
as part of an eco house on the
argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.

You obviously know nothing of passive solar.

There must be a way of preventing these from being
built.

That would really be a popular move for the government to make.
There's even reluctance to bring construction within building
regulations.

Most people would rather have a proper roofed high insulated
extension, so provision to make them easier to build rather than energy
sucking conservatories is the way.

Would they? So why do most of them
buy conservatories rather than
building extensions?

Because of planning regs and conservatories are cheap, being just kits.
Can't you even see that?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:08:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to
have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to
necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross
simplification.

Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a
major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel
BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.

Very true. The government can encourage people to do thing by various
methods.

Staying out of their affairs being the most effective one.

Exactly. Preventing land from being built on, by people who need spacious
cheap accommodation is a gross infringement of civil liberties.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:23:48 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Taylor" wrote in
message
. ..
IMM wrote

[Building Societies] are throwing money at people.

That I agree with. That's why the
price of houses is so high.

Wrong again. The reason house prices are so high is that an artificial
(rigged) land shortage is here ramping up land prices. The UK has a land
surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.


Are you on a royalty for this book or something?

No. Hve you read it?

Andy Hall wrote:


Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy.


That's an overstatement. With double glazed low-E glass, the heat
loss is reduced substantially. With solar gain taken into account,
it isn't typically an order of magnitude more than a conventional room
of the same size.


Mmm. In winter it is tho. You can get a U value o about 0.2 out of a
well insulated wall: best glass I have seen is around 2.

OK, that doesn't take into account solar gains, true, but...


You seem to advocate large glass areas as part of an eco house on the
argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.


People in glass houses...ahahaha


There must be a way of preventing these from being
built.


That would really be a popular move for the government to make.
There's even reluctance to bring construction within building
regulations.


Most people would rather have a proper roofed high insulated
extension, so provision to make them easier to build rather than energy
sucking conservatories is the way.


Would they? So why do most of them buy conservatories rather than
building extensions?

I can think of three factors, and there are probably more -

- Because they like them (of course "like" is not an issue in a
totalitarian world)

- Because bureaucracy does not normally need to be involved

- Because they can be built and completed pretty quickly





.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:50:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




It's not politically interesting for
a government to legislate
something that will take that long
to have an effect.

It puts a feather in their environmental hat.

They have achieved that already to the extent of window dressing for
the Kyoto Protocol. That's all they actually care about.


It would take centuries for
that choice to disappear because of
the existing housing base.

The housing problem could be solved
in a few years if land was made feely
available to build on. The government
could ensure high building standards
using the latest methods and the private
sector would fill the need.

There is the problem. Need. The
customers who are buying do not
perceive (for right or wrong) a *need*
at this point for eco houses.
Creating a product does not guarantee its sale.

Lack of understand and poor focus yet again. Once agin. Eco is not on their
agenda because they know nothing of it.

Since I've been involved in the design, engineering, marketing and
selling of products at various times, I do have an appreciation of
what is involved.

Awareness is one factor but there are many more. I've made that
point and if you wish to disagree then I'll agree to differ.



Encourage selfbuilding and individual
homes would emerge.

I don't have a problem with self
building or individual development as
long as the properties produced are
acceptable to those living near
them.

So you prefer Barratt pastiche. My God.

I didn't say that at all. I said acceptable to people living
nearby, which is entirely reasonable.



You can't focus that is certain.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of
factors have to be in place.
Availability and awareness are only two of them.

A product is made to standards.

There is a great deal more to it than that.

If all are to an eco standard then the
public will know the standard and buy accordingly.

Only if educated on the benefits, if the association with the sandals
and earth parents brigade is removed, if they like the designs and if
they are close to the facilities desired.


In short, they will only
have an eco choice in a new house. So, if a 100 homes are eco and next to
them another 100 homes of similar size and spec that are not, the eco homes
will command a higher price.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. You are looking at this from
one perspective only and making the assumption that energy saving is
as high on everybody else's agenda as it is on yours. Unfortunately
this is not the case.

If you take all of the factors into account it is by no means as
clear.






..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:56:04 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

That's an awfully big assumption for which there is no evidence at
all.


Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

Fine.


And also any
extension can also be eco.

It can be.

Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy.

That's an overstatement.

It is not. Compare a conservatory to a superinsulated extension.

I wasn't - I was comparing it to a conventional house which is what
most people have.


You seem to advocate large glass areas
as part of an eco house on the
argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.

You obviously know nothing of passive solar.

I know enough not to be hoodwinked by your BS.


There must be a way of preventing these from being
built.

That would really be a popular move for the government to make.
There's even reluctance to bring construction within building
regulations.

Most people would rather have a proper roofed high insulated
extension, so provision to make them easier to build rather than energy
sucking conservatories is the way.

Would they? So why do most of them
buy conservatories rather than
building extensions?

Because of planning regs and conservatories are cheap, being just kits.
Can't you even see that?

Conservatories can range from cheap to more expensive than an
extension.. They also largely avoid bureaucracy. There's a clue
there as well.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:58:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy.


That's an overstatement. With double glazed low-E glass, the heat
loss is reduced substantially. With solar gain taken into account,
it isn't typically an order of magnitude more than a conventional room
of the same size.


Mmm. In winter it is tho. You can get a U value o about 0.2 out of a
well insulated wall: best glass I have seen is around 2.

OK, that doesn't take into account solar gains, true, but...


Well.... I calculated a heat requirement of about 4kW for mine, using
the standard CH heat loss methods.

It doesn't face south so is not in the direct sun for most of the day.

Even on the coldest day, I've never needed more than about 1-2kW to
feel comfortable, and averaged over the heating season, a lot less
than that.


You seem to advocate large glass areas as part of an eco house on the
argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.


People in glass houses...ahahaha



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:58:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:23:48 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Taylor" wrote in
message
. ..
IMM wrote

[Building Societies] are throwing money at people.

That I agree with. That's why the
price of houses is so high.

Wrong again. The reason house prices are so high is that an artificial
(rigged) land shortage is here ramping up land prices. The UK has a land
surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.


Are you on a royalty for this book or something?

No. Hve you read it?

Why don't you send me a copy for Christmas.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:56:04 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

That's an awfully big assumption for which there is no evidence at
all.


Well I wouldn't buy one, so count me out of that 99%.

All the things that make it "eco" make it unpleasant to live in - things
like low ceilings, air tight rooms and strange modern materials that make
people sick. Not to mention the sheer uglyness and brutality of most
modern designs (why do they think everyone wants walls of glass and a house
that looks and feels like an office?)



Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

Fine.


Roll on fusion power then. Then we can heat our homes guilt free, and not
have to suffer the awful compromises demanded by eco-nuts.

Bob

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:50:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

There is the problem. Need. The
customers who are buying do not
perceive (for right or wrong) a *need*
at this point for eco houses.
Creating a product does not guarantee its sale.

Lack of understand and poor focus yet again. Once agin. Eco is not on
their
agenda because they know nothing of it.

Since I've been involved in the design,
engineering, marketing and
selling of products at various times,
I do have an appreciation of
what is involved.

You don't. You know nothing of eco homes or the construction business and
lack common sense.

Encourage selfbuilding and individual
homes would emerge.

I don't have a problem with self
building or individual development as
long as the properties produced are
acceptable to those living near
them.

So you prefer Barratt pastiche. My God.

I didn't say that at all.

You implied that. Appalling.

You can't focus that is certain.

It isn't an issue of focus, but of reality.

Eco is not on their agenda because they
know nothing of it.

That's one of many reasons.

For a product to sell, a whole bunch of
factors have to be in place.
Availability and awareness are only two of them.

A product is made to standards.

There is a great deal more to it than that.

There isn't much more at all.

If all are to an eco standard then the
public will know the standard and buy accordingly.

Only if educated on the benefits,

That will happen. I recall how people from Victorian slums (now they put in
a bathroom and call them cottages) moved into new homes with CH. They
couldn't understand what a thermostats was, never mind a time clock. They
thought it was an on-off switch. Many abandoned the Ch and put in an
expensive to run electric fire and all huddled around it. Now people
understand CH and no one in their right minds does what they did. People
know what a thermostat and programmer is. They know about rad valves, etc.
they are all educated up to it.

In short, they will only
have an eco choice in a new house.
So, if a 100 homes are eco and next to
them another 100 homes of similar size
and spec that are not, the eco homes
will command a higher price.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all.

It does.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:56:04 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99%
of people would love an eco house.

That's an awfully big assumption

No observations on life and people and eco homes.



Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

Fine.


And also any
extension can also be eco.

It can be.

Then there is the conservatories which are heated
and burn fuel like crazy.

That's an overstatement.

It is not. Compare a conservatory to a superinsulated extension.

I wasn't - I was comparing it to a
conventional house which is what
most people have.

Selective comparisons eh, to back a ridiculous stance.

You seem to advocate large glass areas
as part of an eco house on the
argument of solar gain. At least be consistent.

You obviously know nothing of passive solar.

I know enough not to be hoodwinked by your BS.

You obviously know nothing of passive solar.

Conservatories can range from cheap to more expensive than an
extension.. They also largely avoid bureaucracy. There's a clue
there as well.

The clue is they as responsible for an amazingly unnecessary amount of CO2
being emitted and reduction of fuel reserves too, because they have
virtually no insulation value.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:58:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:23:48 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Taylor" wrote in
message
. ..
IMM wrote

[Building Societies] are throwing money at people.

That I agree with. That's why the
price of houses is so high.

Wrong again. The reason house prices are so high is that an
artificial
(rigged) land shortage is here ramping up land prices. The UK has a
land
surplus. Read Who Own Britain by Kevin Cahill.


Are you on a royalty for this book or something?

No. Hve you read it?

Why don't you send me a copy for Christmas.

Amazon will sell you one right now and cheaply too. Read it and be educated
for once in your Little Middle Englander life.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:56:04 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

We are short of about 4 million homes.
The government can easily make most of them eco homes.

But would people buy them?

They would have no choice and 99% of people would love an eco house.

That's an awfully big assumption for which there is no evidence at
all.


Well I wouldn't buy one, so count
me out of that 99%.

Now let's see what this uninformed person says...

All the things that make it "eco" make
it unpleasant to live in

Total nonsense. people who live in them comment on the even pleasant
temperatures and airiness.

He aimlessly continues....

- things like low ceilings,

Low ceilings? Where did you get that tripe? many have high ceilings to keep
cool. A slow moving fan can direct any heat up there downwards.

he assumes all sorts of things now.....

air tight rooms

With controlled ventilation. It is illegal to have air tight rooms. All
rooms must have ventilation.

and strange modern materials that make
people sick.

These materials you are on about are in the "traditional" built developer
homes. Eco homes have natural renewable resource materials. The stange
materials you are on about is mainly the off-gassing of the glues in plys
and MDF. Eco homes do not hav ethese materials in them.

He continues....

Not to mention the sheer uglyness
and brutality of most
modern designs

An eco house can look like any other house. Your statement is regarding your
poor taste in architecture rather than eco homes in general.

Have a look at Sue Roafs house in local stone. This view is showing the
solar roof. The other side looks like any other house, as does this this
view apart from the roof.
http://www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=224&lang=English

(why do they think everyone wants
walls of glass and a house
that looks and feels like an office?)

I know of no modern house like that.

Are you proposing legislation to enforce
that as well?

We need to cut CO2 emissions.

Fine.

Roll on fusion power then. Then we can heat our homes guilt free, and not
have to suffer the awful compromises demanded by eco-nuts.

It is clear you know nothing of eco homes. Eco design is near standard in
Germany and Scandinavia. Maybe about 100 million people are silly and nuts
then. Then there is the Canadian R-2000 standards. Find out about eco
homes. Read ECOHouse - A Design Guide, The Whole House Book and The Natural
House. The Whole House book is very good for people like you.

Go to http://www.cat.org.uk That will start you off.