backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 88 comment(s) - last by lco45.. on Dec 3 at 7:11 AM


An older model home which has gone energy-efficient conversion into a green alter-ego.  (Source: University of Oxford)
One of the oldest and most venerable universities in the world is looking to help homeowners take a chunk out of a very new problem

The University of Oxford is helping households both reduce their energy bills and reduce the CO2 needed to generate their energy, by as much as 80%.  Oxford revealed the framework of the plan to the public, and it is already creating much excitement and interest.

Central to the plan are Oxford's suggestions of government financial incentives for homeowners and higher efficiency standards on household appliances.

Brenda Boardman, a senior research fellow at Oxford University, authored the report and points that homeowners choosing to adopt the plan wouldn't just be acting altruistically -- they would be saving £425 each year -- enough say, buy that new iPhone, pick up a PS3, or snag a couple of Wiis (if you could find any!).

DailyTech recently reported that UK legislators had adopted the ambitious drive for emissions to be cut by 60% of 1990 levels by 2050.  Oxford's plan is even more ambitious.  Ms. Boardman states, "The bill calls for at least a 60% reduction, which is great, but this report shows that you can get an 80% cut in the domestic sector by 2050."

The UK government has stated its intention of making every new home zero-carbon emissions by 2016, even promising to possibly ban energy-hungry plasma TVs.  However, even if this is accomplished, Boardman points out, in 2050 over 80% of people will be living in homes in homes that had already been built, so the need for reform in existing housing is essential.

Ms. Boardman went on to state that if the government wants any hope of reaching its emissions goals, then changing and modernizing home usage was an essential step.  She explains, "It is crucial because it is large. Depending on what year's measurements you use, it accounts for about 25-27% of all the UK's carbon emissions."

The precise details of the plan are as follows:

  1. The housing sector would be legal bound to cut emissions by 3.8% a year, starting in 2008 (if adopted).
  2. Build more densely concentrated homes, chiefly in urban areas, to cut car use and increase adoption of micro-generator systems.
  3. A large program of tax breaks, including taxes for installing energy efficient insulation and reduced taxes on energy efficient goods and appliances.
  4. Develop a database to track fuel efficiency across the UK and target poverty afflicted areas with additional financial assistance.
  5. Have government sponsored home analysis program which delivers efficiency certificates to homeowners looking to make improvements and gives them suggestions for various potential activities to improve the property.

In an interview with BBC News, Ms. Boardman explained the practicality of the plan, saying, "The technologies are already there.  People know about cavity wall insulation, double glazing and more efficient boilers and lighting.  We are trying to give a framework to government policy so everybody will realize this is important and what we have to do in our homes to help with climate change mitigation."

One promising idea discussed in the report is micro generation.  The concept, which can be applied equally well to businesses and large homes involves using small electric generators and heaters, typically combined to local power and heat production and take stress of the power and gas grids.  By making the production local, energy use can be cut nearly 20%.

Carbon Trust, an environmental analyst has done a study on currently implementations and after exhaustive research feels that there is definitive evidence that this local production delivers tremendous benefits.  Their representative stated, "Our analysis of more than 30,000 days worth of data shows that micro CHP can deliver significant CO2 savings for small businesses and certain types of housing. However, if the market for this exciting technology is to develop, it needs a policy framework which provides appropriate incentives to target applications which offer worthwhile carbon savings."

A recent study showed the majority of people worldwide were willing to make lifestyle changes to help the environment -- so Oxford's plan just might work.  While Britain's emissions goals seem lofty, perhaps with Oxford University's plan, the nation will have a shot of reaching them, and even put a few dollars back into homeowners' pockets in the process.

Ms. Boardman's main study can be viewed here (PDF) and an additional paper by her released this year on energy efficiency and emissions achievability can be viewed here (PDF).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By TomZ on 11/29/2007 11:25:06 AM , Rating: 1
So basically we're talking about improving the CO2 efficiency of homes even though we don't know if CO2 is actually a real problem that needs to be solved. Sounds like a huge waste of precious human effort for nothing.




RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By Grast on 11/29/2007 11:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
Tom,

It sounds like to me that Britian is going to finally up-date their building codes to include modern technology. Insulation in wall cavities is manditory in the U.S. However, we do not have a large amount of buildings which are over 500 years old either.

You know the U.S. motto. If it is run down, tear it down and build it new.

Later...


By martinrichards23 on 12/2/2007 6:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
Britain's building regulations (for new builds) are well ahead of those in the many other countries, likely including the US. Heavy cavity wall insulation, for example, has been a requirement for ages.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By clovell on 11/29/2007 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. And they're using taxpayers' money to do it. Why do people continue to single out CO2? Why not have a 'renewable energy initiative'?


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:41:17 PM , Rating: 3
Tom, no matter where you rest on the global warming debate, more energy efficiency translates into both consumer savings, as pointed to by Oxford and the article (see the headline) and reduced energy useage. Aside from CO2 cuts, reduced energy useage will cut a broad array of industrial contaminates, such as sulfides/etc., which I'm sure you can appreciate as a good thing.

Global warming may be an issue open to debate but the hazards of industrial pollution is certainly a harsh reality, particularly in the UK.

So again consumer savings (check), less pollution in general (check) -- why complain?? Its better than useless government pork like building bridges to nowhere or something...


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By clovell on 11/29/2007 1:35:05 PM , Rating: 1
We complain because we're being lied to when tax dollars are at stake. I'm all for saving money and using renewable energy, but I don't appreciate being fleeced. Save the 'Ends justify the means' crap for a real problem.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By diablofish on 11/29/2007 2:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
I work in the building design industry and have spent a good amount of time doing cost and payback analysis on many design options for buildings of all shapes, sizes, and uses. The cost savings of these technologies over the long term are real. A typical payback period for LEED Silver or Gold is anywhere from 6-8 years, after which point you are saving money (not to mention energy, water, and resources).

Since a typical commercial building is occupied for decades, it makes sense to take a serious look at LEED and other design philosophies which advocate sustainability.

One of LEED's credits includes cogeneration and microgeneration.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By clovell on 11/29/2007 3:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds pretty neat - is there anyplace on the web you can recommend where folks wanting to learn more about that can go?


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By diablofish on 11/29/2007 4:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
www.usgbc.org for starters. www.doe2.com is another good one. The Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory is yet another.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By arazok on 11/29/2007 12:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you're doing it only to reduce CO2 emissions, I'd agree it's an unworthy exercise. However, if you are doing it to improve energy efficiency then I'd say all the better.

I'm looking at buying an Energy Star home in the next year or two. They consume up to 30% less energy then a normal home and only cost about 3% more to build. I'm only interested in it because of the lower utilities, and not because of some environmental fantasy of mine. Plus my current home (only 8 years old!) is drafty as hell, and I'm sick of being cold all the time. I look at energy star as a certification that a home is properly built.

A 30% reduction in energy consumption for a 3% increase in upfront costs is a small price to pay. All new homes should be energy star rated IMO.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By AlexWade on 11/29/2007 12:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a bad idea. It saves money in the long run and helps the environment. It doesn't harm people in any way, just helps.

The problem with eco-nuts is they want to cut CO2 no matter what the cost. Some of these are on record expressing utter hate for human beings as a whole. I bet they would love to be like the guy in Indonesia (I think it was Indonesia) who had a rare skin disease and grew roots like a tree.

People first, then conservation.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/29/2007 2:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
You mean this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

Thats actually really sad, I wouldn't joke about it. I know what you mean about people put conservation ahead of human life, but its kinda in bad taste.

Anyhow, the roots guy had HPV, but based on the immuno-deficiency genetic disorder it spiralled out of control and he grew roots.

They think that giving him Vitamin A will cure him as it halts wart growth. Fascinating medical case, though.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By AlexWade on 11/30/2007 3:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't joking. I'm serious about the eco-nuts. They are just crazy enough to want to be like that poor man.

And the man is getting help. He won't ever be problem free, but life will be better for him.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By AnnihilatorX on 11/29/2007 2:21:50 PM , Rating: 3
As the other replies had mentioned, it isn't only about CO2 but also for energy savings as well.

But your argument is flawed. There is virtue in preparing for uncertainties. It's like you don't know if your trip will go well so you buy travel insurances.

In addition, human efforts are hardly precious. More human effort requirement = more jobs. There are unemployment problems everywhere. More jobs are always better.

Lastly, I don't agree with others about wasting tax payer's money. The article mentions you get large tax cuts/breaks with a energy efficient home.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By Aarnando on 11/29/2007 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
even promising to possibly ban energy-hungry plasma TVs.


Any government that will dictate what type of TV you are allowed to own will probably be less than likely to give up its control on where a citizen's money goes (i.e. tax dollars). If they offer tax breaks for energy efficient homes, they'll probably make up for it by grabbing more taxes from somewhere, or someone, else.


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By TomZ on 11/29/2007 3:33:58 PM , Rating: 3
Hopefully Ringold will come along and explain it better than I can, but in the meantime...
quote:
There is virtue in preparing for uncertainties.

Yes, true, but dollars you spend in preparing for problems that are unlikely can't be spent on problems that are more certain. For example, if I spend a certain amount of money to reduce CO2, that is less money I can save for retirement.
quote:
In addition, human efforts are hardly precious. More human effort requirement = more jobs. There are unemployment problems everywhere. More jobs are always better.

I disagree - what you are advocating is economic inefficiency, and I don't understand how that can raise the standard of living. Imagine a country that employs a team of workers that digs ditches and another that fills them in. Sure, both teams are getting paid, but where is the value that is creating that can pay for the salaries? Someone's got to pay for that.
quote:
Lastly, I don't agree with others about wasting tax payer's money. The article mentions you get large tax cuts/breaks with a energy efficient home.

If the government gives a tax break, where does that money come from? Other taxpayers, of course! All you're doing is taking dollars out of one taxpayer's pocket to put it into another. No thanks!


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By diablofish on 11/29/2007 4:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you use energy-efficient equipment you reduce CO2 AND you save yourself money. Therefore, you have MORE money to invest in retirement AND you've also worked to reduce CO2 loading to the atmosphere. So why not do it?


RE: CO2 Cart Before the Horse
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 5:03:49 PM , Rating: 3
You did a good job, don't need me here. I blew all my energy in a different thread :P

quote:
I disagree - what you are advocating is economic inefficiency, and I don't understand how that can raise the standard of living. Imagine a country that employs a team of workers that digs ditches and another that fills them in. Sure, both teams are getting paid, but where is the value that is creating that can pay for the salaries? Someone's got to pay for that.


That's what I heard from him too, and it's entirely wrong. The way to create jobs, and wealth, is to increase the productivity of labor by getting more work done (or making work easier for an equivalent unit of output), not less. More goods can then be supplied at a given price level, making everybody better off, and firms can afford to pay their employees more to reward this higher productivity. With more cash in their pockets, they can then, of course, buy more goods, and a more varied basket of goods, thereby creating jobs.

Example:
A community of 100 people, all subsistence farmers.

Fred figures out how to improve the plough such that it breaks the dirt easier, allowing oxen to work faster.

At first, Fred can only afford to quit farming himself, selling his land to another farmer. Before long, Fred hires a couple fellow farmers to help manufacture these ploughs for everyone else.

Now 5 people are, lets say, are now decently paid industrial workers, 95 are farmers, and everybody is able to eat more with increased crop yields.

One of the farmers now see's an opportunity; he got lucky, bought a plough, has more excess profits, but sees other farmers can't afford to buy a plough. Jake opens the Bank of Example.

Before long, Jake is taking so many deposits, he hires a couple hands..

Fast forward 200 years, and you've got about what America looks like; 95 post-industrial age workers and 5 farmers, everybody living fantastically well by comparison.

One can also see this happening in slow motion globally by looking at the productivity of an American farmer compared to farmers in, say, Africa. American farmers are probably about 100 times more productive at a minimum compared to most of Africa, where most people toil in the fields, though I'd have to drag out statistics to be exact.

On the other hand, lowering productivity of labor across an economy lowers the output of the economy (that should be straightforward); goods are more expensive and supplied at lower quantities, making workers worse off. As productivity drops off, firms lay off workers as profit turns toward loss, and unemployed workers consume even less then the employed ones, exacerbating the downturn. This is why recessions are self-sustaining to a degree; the loss of one highly-paid job can mean the loss of 2 - 3 more lower paying service jobs in a local community.

If I haven't explained it enough for the OP now then I give up, time for a sandwich.