It seems the new version of the UK Building regulations has been brought forward from 2007, to sometime in 2005.
It greatly increases the requirements for energy efficiency.
It mandates a minimum efficiency of 86% for a newly installed gas or oil fired boiler. This will require the installation of a high efficiency 'condensing' boiler - installation of an older non-condensing model will be prohibited.
There are recommendations about exterior lighting:
- Absolute maximum of 150W per lamp fitting
- Automatic shut off (e.g. infra-red motion detectors) must be fitted to any light which could be fitted with an incandescent bulb
Anybody performing work on their property (e.g. renovation, extension, adding a conservatory, etc.) where the work is worth £8000 or more, would be required to upgrade the rest of their property to the best practive standard as part of building approval, even if the extension itself meets energy efficiency standards.
Such mandatory improvements would include:
- minimum loft insulation of approx 10 inches
- replacement of non-condensing boilers of 15 years or older
- Cavity wall insulation to all suitable walls
Other requirements include:
- Where air conditioning is installed, annual inspection by a certified installer is required (similar to the annual inspection of gas appliances)
- Draft reduction and air-tightening of the building to specified levels
- Interal lights in 'high-use' areas must be designed so that they can only be fitted with fluorescent bulbs
- Suitable precautions against solar overheating must be taken e.g. fitting blinds to South facing windows, etc.
- Careful consideration must be given to installation of a water softener to prevent limescale formation on water heaters
You may also be expected to bring your property up to compliance with these standards if you plan to sell, otherwise you may be forced to significantly reduce your selling price.
PeakOil is You
THE Conservation Laws Thread (merged)
THE Conservation Laws Thread (merged)
by MarkR » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 12:34:45
- MarkR
- Peat
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
THE Conservation Laws Thread
by Backpacker » Sat 19 Feb 2005, 23:23:34
Mandatory energy conservation laws are a subject that goes over like a lead balloon in modern day America. The thought of a WW2 style gas rationing plan, peak electrical demand rate hikes, tamper-proof thermostats, etc. is repulsive to Americans and seen as an infringement on their civil liberties. Any attempt to enact mandatory conservation laws would almost certainly incite riots and protest and would mean the politicians enacting the laws would most certainly lose the next election.
Yet, what other choice do we have? Letting Americans continue in their present energy gluttony is a recipe for disaster as it will only hasten peak oil. The only viable option for at least a softer landing in peak oil is to enact mandatory conservation laws and start forcing the public to conserve...seeing as voluntary conservation isn't exactly cutting the cake.
Gas rationing would force people to carpool and cut down on unnecessary trips. Bicycle use for short trips would be more common as would the use of public transport. Outlawing incandescant light bulbs and making CFL's mandatory would reduce electrical demand. Tamper proof thermostats that cannot be turned above a pre-set temperature, say 66 or 67 would save lots of natural gas.
Mandatory conservation would most likely spark widespread protest and possible riots but it is certainly less of an evil than a hard landing with peak oil and finding ourselves in a depression. You can politely "encourage" people to conserve all you want and the overwhelming majority are not going to do it. It is time to enact laws and start forcing people to conserve whether they like it or not. What would the public rather have? Mandatory conservation or sending their children off to fight in Iraq and the future energy wars that will come along?
Yet, what other choice do we have? Letting Americans continue in their present energy gluttony is a recipe for disaster as it will only hasten peak oil. The only viable option for at least a softer landing in peak oil is to enact mandatory conservation laws and start forcing the public to conserve...seeing as voluntary conservation isn't exactly cutting the cake.
Gas rationing would force people to carpool and cut down on unnecessary trips. Bicycle use for short trips would be more common as would the use of public transport. Outlawing incandescant light bulbs and making CFL's mandatory would reduce electrical demand. Tamper proof thermostats that cannot be turned above a pre-set temperature, say 66 or 67 would save lots of natural gas.
Mandatory conservation would most likely spark widespread protest and possible riots but it is certainly less of an evil than a hard landing with peak oil and finding ourselves in a depression. You can politely "encourage" people to conserve all you want and the overwhelming majority are not going to do it. It is time to enact laws and start forcing people to conserve whether they like it or not. What would the public rather have? Mandatory conservation or sending their children off to fight in Iraq and the future energy wars that will come along?
Advocating car-reduced living, most trips done by bicycle, and loving being free from automobile over-dependency
-
Backpacker - Peat
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun 23 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Massachussetts
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")
by Backpacker » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 00:18:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'U')mm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?
Because the higher prices rise the greater the risk of recession. As prices rise businesses will only increase the price for their goods and services to the consumer to cover the higher cost of gas. In addition, a price increase will not really spur most middle or upper middle class or wealthy to conserve. We need to have rationing across the board so that all will have to conserve, including the upper crust.
Advocating car-reduced living, most trips done by bicycle, and loving being free from automobile over-dependency
-
Backpacker - Peat
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun 23 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Massachussetts
by Jack » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 00:36:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'U')mm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?
Because the higher prices rise the greater the risk of recession. As prices rise businesses will only increase the price for their goods and services to the consumer to cover the higher cost of gas. In addition, a price increase will not really spur most middle or upper middle class or wealthy to conserve. We need to have rationing across the board so that all will have to conserve, including the upper crust.
Rationing is more likely to create a recession. It assures that everyone will stay home.
No thanks. I'll go with price.
- Jack
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4929
- Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by Aaron » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 01:51:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')mm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?
As if there will be a choice.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
