{"id":2565,"date":"2011-03-30T15:16:21","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T15:16:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=2565"},"modified":"2011-03-30T15:16:21","modified_gmt":"2011-03-30T15:16:21","slug":"gha-responds-on-est-carbon-%e2%80%98villains%e2%80%99","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=2565","title":{"rendered":"GHA responds on EST carbon \u2018villains\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Good Homes Alliance (GHA) has successfully responded on relevant parts of a new report from Energy Saving Trust (EST) highlighting housetypes, including pre-1919 structures, that EST sees as \u2018carbon villains\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Neil May of the Good Homes Alliance warns against leaping to conclusions about who the carbon \u2018villains\u2019 of existing building stock are, without further research.\u00a0\u00a0Neil May says:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018There are considerable gaps in our understanding about the actual performance of different building types in the UK.\u00a0\u00a0Certainly we have to be very careful not to rely on modelling on its own.\u2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018For example it has been shown recently in work by Glasgow Caledonian University and others that traditional solid wall building thermal performance is often a lot better than the modelling predicts.\u00a0There is also small scale research evidence to show that much cavity walling is a lot worse in reality than modelling suggests.\u00a0 Recent work by Leeds Metropolitan University (using co-heating tests) has shown that many modern buildings have up to twice the predicted heat loss as built compared to design. The suspicion is that the poorest performing stock in the UK may actually be from the 1970s and 1980s.\u2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018However the fact is that we don\u2019t have many facts.\u00a0\u00a0We need far more high quality research both detailed and epidemiological in order to ascertain the actual performance of building types.\u00a0\u00a0So let\u2019s not jump to conclusions which may drive policy or funding initiatives which bear little relation to reality.\u2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018Another major problem with the headline grabbing summary of the EST document as reported on Building4Change is that it confusingly mixes up issues of energy supply, building fabric and energy efficiency measures.\u00a0\u00a0The energy supply issues may be the key measures in this regard, with very little impact of the fabric itself. On the other hand it may be parts of the fabric not mentioned, such as windows.\u2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018The report also picks on 4 particular pre-1919 building types which, according to the EST figures, only constitute 0.73% of our building stock, when in fact pre 1919 buildings overall constitute about 25% of UK building stock.\u00a0 Unfortunately the effect is to tar all pre-1919 buildings with the \u201cimpact\u201d of less than 3% of pre-1919 traditional buildings. \u00a0\u00a0Also we have to ask what a pre-1919 building is.\u00a0 There is a huge difference in thermal performance of the fabric of Victorian 215mm brick work buildings from 500mm thick limestone walled buildings or 100mm oak framed brick infill buildings.\u00a0 Lumping all pre-1919 buildings together is not helpful either for analysis or for possible solutions.\u2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018The use of the language such as \u201ccarbon villains\u201d is inflammatory and leads to a conclusion that such villains need dealing with strongly and quickly.\u00a0 This is unfortunate.\u00a0 We need to take time to properly understand traditional building performance (and modern existing building stock performance) as well as the best way to address such issues and the costs, risks and benefits of doing so, before rushing to accusation and potentially damaging judgements and \u201csolutions\u201d.\u2019<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

EST reported:<\/span><\/p>\n

Insulating lofts in homes across Britain could create nearly 45,000 jobs, while replacing inefficient G-rated boilers would support nearly 40,000 jobs. A full-scale eco-facelift would support 4.7 million jobs, save around \u00a38.7 billion on domestic energy bills and cut CO2<\/sub> emissions by\u00a0around 48\u00a0million tonnes. The economic and carbon benefits of housing retrofit are outlined in a new report published by the EST.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Many numbers have been circulated in the quest to promote housing retrofit’s potential to give a boost to the UK’s ailing economy.\u00a0Home economics – cutting carbon and creating jobs by nation and region<\/em>, looks at the economic impacts for three \u2018scales of ambition’:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n