Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in
Zero carbon? In yer dreams!
Andy C
26 Posts
Governments are renowned for making rash promises and the recent ones on the subject of zero-carbon future are no different. What are the chances of this actually succeeding? Can the UK's existing housing stock be upgraded to ZC heating? Will more people be forced into fuel poverty as a result? Considering the lamentable record for commissioning new nuclear power stations to take up the base load (and replace those due to close in the next few years) will we be looking at energy shortages or even rationing in the future? Discuss.
2 Replies
143 Posts
Hi Andy , yes we can build carbon negative housing , its matter of materials and ensuring those materials work well over the 100yr period .I think that material is wood , but some others may come close , passive haus is a bit of pain , and some people dont like the air tightness , but a straw bale 3 bed semi has been built and his heating costs are £450 a year . Ime not a fan of ground source heat pumps as I wonder if taking heat from the soil might have an impact on soil temperature and actually delay slightly plants emerging from winter , but other systems are possible ,including electric heating , which I have studied for some time and I think a 3 bed highly insulated design should need only 5000w or 5kw at temperatures of -5 oC , and given these temperatures for prolonged periods in the uk are unusual and infrequent , if by using extra plasterboarding or the super high density plasterbards ,are used to create an internal thermal mass , then in a draught free (but well ventilated) new build , timber frame using CLT ,(cross laminated timber)then steady internal temperatures should be possible that enable a low level of energy maintenance and can adjust with the seasons.
As for new nuclear , the 14MW wind turbine pretty much ended the leaning to nuclear power , that and the large decomissioning bill that appears to energy users at the end of life , oh and the 1000yr wait for certain nuclear wastes to be safe .The recent news of a 28000 yr nuclear isotope battery certainly pricked my ears up , just wasnt clear on how much synthetic diamonds would be needed , still at least you get the diamonds back in 28000 yrs time  
Rob Eagle
149 Posts
What is the bloody point, our contribution to global pollution is so small that any change will be insignificant on a global scale.
It is a vanity project to appease some climate change groups, it will cost the tax payers a fortune and the government of the day will not be around in 2030 so cannot be held to account.
If this is to be tackled at all then the biggest polluters need to start making significant changes before we even have to think about it, without their contribution there is absolutely no point in us wasting our money.
Furthermore the government, or any government, are the last organisation you want to manage this, look at how much was wasted developing CFL lighting only for it to be superseded by LED from the private sector.  Government is woefully inefficient, let the private sector take the lead backed by market forces, that is the only way.


Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in