|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Shane
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3467
Location: Doha. Is hot.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 02, 06 10:11 am Post subject: |
 
|
I think the Western world has learned a big lesson from Iraq. I think any non-diplomatic efforts that they make in Iran will be purely aimed at getting the Iranian population to oust the president. As I understand it, he was elected on the basis that he would do the usual good stuff for schools, hospitals, blah blah blah and the fact that he now appears to be hellbent on building nuclear weapons and shaking them at the west has scared the hell out of the population of his country as much as it's putting the wind up the west.
To be fair on Bush (for once), the investing in new technologies thing isn't new at all, and hence isn't jumping on the bandwagon. The reason the US hasn't signed up to the Kyoto Protocol is that they argue that it is more effective to invest in researching the next generation of fuel technologies that to spend the money on reducing current emissions by a small percent (which, they argue, will only delay the effects of global warming by 6 years by the year 2100). I can see where they're coming from on that, as if global warming is caused by the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the ecosphere from fossilised reserves, cutting their use doesn't remove the problem, it just delays it. Once all reserves of fossil fuels are exhausted, you have the same amount of additional CO2 in the ecosphere regardless of the length of time it takes you to burn them all.
I'm sure that fact that new technologies would reduce the dependence of the US on foreign oil reserves is purely coincidental  |
|
|
|
 |
Bernie66
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 13967
Location: Eastoft
|
|
|
|
|
Andy B
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3920
Location: Brum
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 06 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
| Shane wrote: |
| To be fair on Bush (for once), the investing in new technologies thing isn't new at all, and hence isn't jumping on the bandwagon. The reason the US hasn't signed up to the Kyoto Protocol is that they argue that it is more effective to invest in researching the next generation of fuel technologies that to spend the money on reducing current emissions by a small percent (which, they argue, will only delay the effects of global warming by 6 years by the year 2100). |
I just can't help thinking that it's been inventing new technologies which has got us into this mess. It's always possible that a new one might get us out of it, but I can't really see it.
And, as far more sophisticated thinkers than I have argued, it's perhaps not just the technology per se, but the technological mindset (for want of a better phrase) which gets us into this problem, and without changing that, we aren't going to get out of it,
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 45540
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Andy B
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3920
Location: Brum
|
|
|
|
|
Bernie66
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 13967
Location: Eastoft
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 06 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
| Bernie66 wrote: |
| It is a bit daunting isn't it. Surely the optimum quality construction should be a standard layed down by government. that alone would contribute to affecting usage of non renewable recource. |
I'll do Tahir's job and provide this (?press release) from the Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders:
| AECB wrote: |
ODPM overlooks energy savings in buildings
The Association for Environment Conscious Building has disclosed strong evidence that demonstrates the urgency for the UK Government to adopt more rigorous building standards more quickly in the effort to combat climate change.
The evidence shows that higher standards and more rigorous design and construction techniques could save nine million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2020, 21 million tonnes a year by 2030 and 45 million tonnes a year by 2050.
The research, carried out by a team of energy experts, shows current energy performance measurement tools are inaccurate, causing the UK to substantially under predict CO2 reductions from building new homes with improved thermal envelope and energy efficiency standards.
The study reveals that for Government to make rational decisions about where Building Regulations and the Code for Sustainable Homes should head - with respect to energy use and climate change - the UK must agree a realistic ‘base case’ against which building energy performance standards are expressed. Additionally, the UK must resolve the flaws in the main methodology for assessing buildings’ energy consumption, BREDEM (BRE Domestic Energy Model), to more accurately describe the physical reality of building related CO2 emissions.
The AECB also states that SAP 2005 (Standard Assessment Procedure) worksheets need to expand their coverage of energy efficiency technologies in order to give realistic results for the UK’s currently proposed set of advanced energy performance standards.
AECB is concerned that ODPM is inadvertently overestimating potential savings from improvements to the building regulations Approved Document L1, while at the same time underestimating the much higher level of savings which could be achieved by using other advanced UK energy performance standards already developed.
AECB Executive Officer and member of the AECB Energy Standards Working Group, Andrew Simmonds says: “We have looked at the basic BREDEM and SAP tools and they have a number of significant flaws.”
When AECB examined the inherent flaws in the procedures, backed up in a research paper and using a semi-detached home for the analysis, the research shows it is possible that space heating energy use for dwellings built under Approved Document L1 2002 could be more than double what is currently calculated using SAP/BREDEM, meaning these buildings are performing twice as badly as currently assumed.
The research project looked at the assumptions which underlie the computer model as well as figures from other European countries where monitoring of buildings has been carried out over a longer period of time.
It takes into account assumptions of how high a temperature level people heat their rooms, as well as workmanship issues on installing insulation and construction details that lead to increased heat loss.
AECB claims the flaws it has identified and the over-reliance on the “outdated” computer models are distorting policy.
“The problem is we are not monitoring homes and we don’t actually know with adequate certainty what level of CO2 savings successive revisions to the Building Regulations have made,” Simmonds says.
The AECB has submitted its report and proposals to the Energy Saving Trust and hopes that EST will adopt AECB’s new Silver and Gold energy standards in its Energy Efficiency Best Practice for Homes Programme, currently under review. Simmonds is optimistic: “We have been engaging with EST on the principles and with BRE on the technical details of the proposed new standards. This is an ongoing process towards developing a joint set of robust standards designed to help the UK achieve its CO2 reduction targets.”
With the support of these two key organisations the AECB wants to persuade the ODPM to adopt the Silver and Gold standards in its Code for Sustainable Homes. AECB Silver and Gold are required to deliver around 70 per cent and 95 per cent CO2 reductions versus the average dwelling stock. The AECB is currently assessing the CO2 reductions from building to the proposed 2006 regulations.
At present the proposed Code for Sustainable Homes does not include a “bottom line” for advanced energy performance. Under CO2 emissions it only contains Building Regulations up to 2006 standards.
Simmonds says the AECB is making attempts to harmonise standards across the board and that one strong set of energy performance standards could be adequately resourced. The organisation believes that following on from the standards there has to be consistent support, training and guidance in order to realise the full CO2 savings possible.
“We have to prioritise reducing CO2 emissions associated with buildings. At the end of the day we will build our way to disaster if even ‘green’ buildings continue to squander energy.”
For more information about the AECB’s research contact Andrew Simmonds via the AECB web site www.aecb.net
Footnote:
Many of the latest sustainable construction products and services will be on display at Ecobuild 2006, 22-23 February at London’s Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre. An address on ‘Delivering Sustainable Building in the Current Regulatory Environment’ and other closely related issues will be made during the conference. Visit www.ecobuild.co.uk/visit to register and for access to over 20 seminar programmes free for visitors to Ecobuild.
|
Seems like the government isn't doing a very good job,
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45440
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45440
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
Bernie66
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 13967
Location: Eastoft
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Peter
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 2400
Location: Milton Keynes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts