Contact →

Category: Guest Blog

  • Ten things we learnt about building a house

    Ten things we learnt about building a house

    Janice Gardiner reflects on her eco build and shares ten of the most significant lessons from the project.

    1. Spend time thinking about how you want to live in your house

    We knew from the start that we wanted to build an eco house so contacted architectural practices that specialised in eco builds and soon found Green Trace Architects. Our architect, Joshua Wood, then took us through a process to determine our values, how we wanted to live in the house, how we wanted the spaces to interact with each other and what we wanted it to feel like, before any designs were put on paper. For us sustainable materials, along with a social space for family and friends to gather was important. We also wanted to feel that the house was connected to the land around it. This informed Josh’s designs which included a large open plan living area, a wood panelled ceiling, clay plaster walls and large windows that connect us to the outside. The end result has lived up to our vision.

    2. Visit other self-builds of a similar style

    Whilst researching different building systems Josh came across EcoCocon and discovered the architect Juraj Mikurcik had built with this system just up the road from our site. Juraj kindly showed us round his house, Old Holloway, which was the first time we experienced what might be possible. It’s all very well talking about and seeing images of Passivhauses, but it’s only when you experience one that it really sinks in. There was a calmness and a feeling of peace that had quite an emotional effect on Colin and that was the moment when we could imagine how fantastic our build could be. Juraj was also able to pass on lots of useful advice and ideas, which we incorporated into our designs. This included getting rid of the wood burning stove and underfloor heating as in his words they operate as very expensive pair of slippers. The reality is that we only need minimal additional heating in the coldest months.

    We didn’t go for the EcoCocon straw system, because we were building in the winter and didn’t want to risk the straw panels getting wet. In the end, we had a very dry winter and EcoCocon may have been an easier material to apply the clay plaster to, but that is just how things go.

    3. Understand the planning process

    We bought the land with outline planning permission, but no design for the new dwelling, which left us free to submit our own designs. Permission had been granted based on replacing an old wooden building, with the condition that the new house could not be more than 100m2 internal floor area. This is relatively small, but by including the double height ceiling over the dining area, Josh was able to increase the house footprint and make the house feel more spacious. Upstairs the roof line slopes to the floor in places, and anywhere where the height is 1.5m or less is not included in the floorspace calculation. Again, this added to the house volume and these areas became useful storage with built in cupboards. These design features have made the house feel bigger without adding to the internal floor area, showing that you can be creative within the planning restrictions.

    Whilst we never wanted a large house, in hindsight we could have made an argument to make the building slightly bigger. Areas like the second bedroom and the plant room would have benefitted from a few extra square metres and the site itself could also take a larger property.

    4. Do your own research even if you have a project manager

    As novice builders we were not sure what we didn’t know and maybe relied too heavily on the professionals around us, who didn’t always realise what we didn’t understand. At times it may feel like you’re speaking different languages! For example, with the cost of the round window we just thought about the actual window, not how it would fit to the external tin and how to produce a curved frame. So even though everyone was saying this will be expensive, we didn’t really get the whole picture. Doing research into the different stages of the build and becoming familiar with the different processes would have helped us to ask better questions and make more informed decisions.  

    5. Know your own strengths and weaknesses

    Personality traits are important, as they will influence your decisions, so really think about what you are good at and when you may need extra help. We knew what we wanted, had dreams of a Passivhaus, had watched Grand Designs avidly for years, but never thought we would be in the position to do it. So, when faced with a simple design or a more architecturally interesting one, we were instantly tempted by the latter, which inevitably led to us spending more money!  Our original design also didn’t include solar panels or aim to be Passivhaus certified, although we did ideally want to do both. So, when we found out our builder was also a solar panel engineer, and the designs were actually achieving Passivhaus standards we went for both. Consequently, we really stretched our finances but have achieved a better outcome. In general, we are better at interior design than sticking to budgets!

    6. Work with people with similar values and trust them

    The desire for an eco-build influenced our choices from the start and what we hadn’t realised is that Herefordshire is a hot spot for Passivhaus builders. Serendipity brought us Dai Rees, The Passive House Builder, who lived just 8 miles away. Dai and his team were brilliant to work with, had wide ranging skills, including carpentry and tiling, and put so much thought into making the house as beautiful as possible. One example is the internal wooden ceiling. Juraj from Old Holloway shared a photograph of his ceiling, where with 3 widths of timber he created a pattern that appeared random. Dai and his team painstakingly replicated this and then added new edging to create a slightly different feel.

    Inevitably there is problem solving needed during the build and it probably would have been useful to have had Dai on board before Josh’s designs were complete. This would have allowed them to work through some of the technical aspects together, like how the roof met the main beam, before starting the build. The downstairs shower room was another conundrum, with the design only getting finalised late on in the build.

    7. Your builder will follow your architect’s plans

    That may sound obvious, but we did forget that the plans contained things we weren’t totally sure about. For example, Josh was aware that we were doubtful about the external low wall around the front of the patio, but Dai was not party to those discussions, so footings for the wall were in place before we realised. In the end we didn’t build the wall, so work had been done unnecessarily.

    8. Effective and timely communications are important

    We found we were quite redundant in the early stages of the build; Dai was following Josh’s plans and we weren’t really needed. But when it came to the fitting out, we suddenly found we had numerous decisions to make. The first thing was:

     “Where would you like all the electrics? The electrician starts next week!”

    These weren’t on the plans, so a few late nights were spent working out socket positions, lighting and light switches. We had been a little naïve about this aspect and maybe too laid-back. We then had to look at light fittings, toilets, bath, showers, tiles, kitchen design and fittings, staircase, interior doors, handles – everything that goes inside a house needed to be chosen and sourced. Sometimes these decisions are needed to be made before the structures/walls were even in place, so it was hard to visualise the end result. How do you choose the colour of bathroom tiles when you have no walls or green OSB board as your backdrop? Never mind that every space looks so small before the walls are in place!

    Good fun when you get your head around it and you will never have to make this many decisions so quickly ever again in your life… unless you build another house.

    9. Look at different financial models

    We went for a cost-plus approach, where we had a broad indication of the cost of the build at the start, but were open to any fluctuations in material costs during the build. In effect we held the risk for price increases but potentially could also make savings along the way. Timber prices increased during this period of time, but we also chose a more cost-effective roofing/cladding material. We trusted our builder to get us good prices, and it gave us lots of flexibility during the build, but it was harder for us to keep on top of costs. We would also agree to things without asking for the full costs, often not factoring in the labour costs of a particular item, such as a custom-made sink unit for the main bathroom.

    Basically, we were dealing with a changing budget rather than having things agreed up front through a fixed price build. In some ways this flexibility suited us and resulted in better finishes, but it did mean we spent more overall.

    10. Don’t aim for perfection

    Things will inevitably go wrong, hopefully minor and easily put right, but problem solving is part of building a house. Sometimes potential problems will be spotted early on and so can be avoided. For us, it was Dai realising we needed to make one of the walls in the plant room removable in case the boiler broke down. We were very glad he did this as the boiler was faulty on installation, so had to be taken out and replaced straightaway. Other times you will make decisions you end up having to live with. For us, not putting a hand basin in the downstairs shower room was one of them. Water pipes and wastewater points are put in with the foundations and at that point we hadn’t decided on the layout of the shower room. As it was small, and we didn’t know how the shower doors would open and we decided to do without a handbasin. The room was next to the utility, which has a sink and most of the time this is okay, but it’s not ideal for people staying over. We can now see there actually would have been plenty of space for a hand basin.

    Working with a good team certainly made the build an enjoyable process for us. It didn’t necessarily stop us worrying about the decisions we were making, but that’s part of building a house. We now have a beautiful calm home that sits lightly on the land and will look after us for many years to come. We still have lots of external landscaping and gardening to do, but luckily we like doing that!

  • From Passivhaus . . . to conventional house?

    From Passivhaus . . . to conventional house?

    What makes someone swap the comfort of a Passivhaus self-build for a conventional 1960s bungalow? Former ITV news cameraman Mike Coe explains his unexpected transition.

    When Mike Coe built his ultra-low-energy eco-build – the Cropthorne Autonomous House in Worcestershire – after he retired in 2006, he was determined to make a difference.

    Water neutral and off-grid apart from electricity, the house trod as lightly on the earth’s surface as possible. It encapsulated Mike’s optimism that UK housebuilding was on the cusp of change.

    But five years on, after much soul-searching, Mike and his partner Lizzie made the difficult decision to move on.

    A shift in values, combined with an appetite for new adventure, has taken the couple from the comfort of a Passivhaus with no heating system, which never fell below 16°C even on the chilliest of winter nights – to a three-bed 1960s bungalow in Portree on the Isle of Skye. So what changed?

    The comfortable Passivhaus they left behind

    Reality check

    “When we built The Autonomous House, I naively thought I was on the vanguard of some kind of movement in ultra-low energy homes,” says Mike. “But while I was attempting to build as ecologically as I possibly could, the government was in the process of trashing UK planning laws and allowing developers to build rubbish wherever they wanted. I became disillusioned quite quickly.

    “I still feel The Autonomous House itself has value and was a great project – but I lost my sense of optimism that it was the dawn of a new era.”

    Their current home – a traditionally built 1960s bungalow – is merely a temporary stop-over as they embark on another self-build challenge. And while Mike’s focus has changed since building his radical, largely off-grid Passivhaus, he hasn’t lost faith in low-energy building methods.

    “I still try to live in an environmentally sympathetic way – and my next house will be a Passivhaus,” says Mike. “But I no longer think anything I’m doing will have any great impact on the world.

    “Since retiring I returned to work as a cameraman, but only on carefully selected, mostly environmental projects. As a result I’ve met some of the world’s leading climate scientists and been able to talk to them informally. From what I’ve learned I’ve concluded that it could become uncomfortably hot in the south of England, even in my lifetime (I’m 60 now). This realisation was the trigger for a decision to move as far north as was practical without leaving the country – and we’ve ended up in Portree.”

    Portree

    Skye’s the limit

    In planning their move north, Mike’s original intention wasn’t to build again. Despite being very practical and capable – having done all the electrics, plumbing and more at Cropthorne – he doesn’t particularly enjoy the building process. The couple’s first thought was to find an existing house that they could adapt.

    “It quickly became obvious that we wouldn’t find anything that came close to what we had at Cropthorne in the areas we wanted to move to,” says Mike. “Once you’ve lived in a Passivhaus it’s very hard to settle for a conventional draughty house that’s expensive to heat and live in. So we decided to look for a temporary house, while we considered our options.”

    It was during this search that they heard about a building plot with planning – that also had ready-made accommodation on site.

    “While it wasn’t our intention to build again, the site we found, almost accidentally, had so much potential,” says Mike. “It had nine acres of croft land, two building plots with Permission in Principle (the Scottish equivalent of Outline Planning Permission) and a perfectly acceptable bungalow on site that we could move straight into. It was too good an opportunity to miss.

    “It’s rare to find somewhere with ready-made accommodation on site when you build. We can build a south-facing, solar-heated home here with views over Portree harbour and distant views of the Cuillins. It’s perfect.”

    View from the Croft

    ‘Conventional’ house v Passivhaus

    So how does living back in a ‘normal’ home compare to the comfort of living in the Cropthorne Passivhaus?

    “The most notable thing is how rapidly the temperature inside conventional buildings follows the temperature outside,” says Mike. “The heating goes off and half an hour later you notice that it’s really cooling down. Two hours later, it’s freezing.

    “In our Passivhaus, which was high-mass with thermal storage in the structure of the building, the process was slowed down. In autumn, when you started getting chilly nights, you simply weren’t aware of it.

    “Living here has made me realise how lucky we’ve been to live in a Passivhaus. The bungalow’s clunky old oil boiler drinks kerosene that I have to pay for. It’s not cheap – whereas at Cropthorne we had no heating bills, and it was more comfortable. That’s a stark contrast.”

    The warm and cosy upstairs at the Cropthorne Autonomous House

    Laying plans for a new adventure

    What of Mike’s plans for the new build? Have his shifting views led to a fundamentally different approach this time?

    “It will still be a very low energy design for both comfort and running costs, because it’s a good way to live,” says Mike. “It just won’t have unrealistic goals.

    “With the Cropthorne project we were quite hard line. The house used entirely harvested rainwater, we had composting toilets, and everything was designed to minimise impact. We’ll still follow that path to some extent. For example, we’ll aim for zero heat, even though the climate here is different. There’s also a stream running down the site that should be capable of powering a small hydro generator to provide some of our electricity. Eventually we may even add a wind turbine.

    “But this house will have more mainstream appeal. The autonomous systems at Cropthorne were brilliant but they added to the costs, and you don’t get those back when you sell. We had practical reasons for doing what we did there. On Skye, water is in abundant supply, so we’ll probably connect to the mains.

    “So, overall, the new house will still be very comfortable, environmentally benign and energy-efficient, but will be more mainstream and more saleable – just in case I have another brilliant idea in five years’ time and we end up moving again!”

    Artist’s impression of Portree Passivhaus

  • Passivhaus Retrofit – Is it Worth it?

    This is a guest contribution from Ron Marsh.

     

    I’m reading and learning a lot about Passive Houses at the moment in readiness to start my own project. Finding a plot to build a new house on is almost impossible these days in many parts of the country. So, the other option is to retrofit an existing home. This is when my troubles really started. As hard as I try to crunch the numbers, they simply don’t add up.

    Since the Passive House Institute came up with the “EnerPHit” standard for existing homes, everyone seems to be ranting on about retrofitting the housing stock in the UK. It will save energy, save the embedded CO2, and save the planet. However, as far as I can see, the underlying reality is that this is not anyway near cost effective in most cases. Some further investigation is required.

    I have therefore put together some thought provoking ideas about this in order to stimulate the debate, and openly challenge anyone to come up with a solution that will clearly show the boundary between “sensible” and “impossible” that can reliably guide anyone considering an improvement to their comfort and eco-credentials through their house.

    “Anywhere can be retrofitted” is something I hear being banded about recently. That’s true enough, it can. Just throw money at it and it can be done. There are loads of enthusiastic practitioners out there ready to help you, and a plethora of available products to assist.

    There are some examples around, mainly housing associations, where they have retrofitted. Even with the existing inhabitants staying put while it happens. Very admirable. I can’t see quite why they have done this yet, but time will tell. I am finding it difficult, however, to find any examples where a normal family have successfully attempted it, starting with their normal fully functional house.

     

    What’s at Stake if We Do Retrofit, and What Can We Do About the Problems if We Can’t?

    The contentious issue must be energy costs. They keep going up. There’s no sign of them slowing down. Fuel poverty is biting at low income households.

    Next, there’s the planet. Climate change through excess CO2 generation. Almost everything we do makes more CO2. How can we stop this for future generations? Will it do any good?

    And finally, the crunch question – Can your wallet handle it?

    It has been suggested in some published articles/books that retrofitting can be more expensive than the house itself is actually worth. That’s not a good start, is it? This depends on where in the UK the house is of course, but many northern cities have average house prices at around £100k, and in the affluent south, they may be £250k or much more. The cost of retrofitting is probably similar wherever you are, so that’s the first problem. I’ve seen a few retrofit project totals mentioned on the web as a rough ball-park guide. One of £80,000 and one of £110,000 come to mind, which are probably indicative. But even though, if you invest between 30% and 120% of your house’s value in this idea, will that add to the street value of the house if you were to sell up? That’s one for the estate agents to answer, but when the same looking house in the same street is up for sale, will a potential purchaser see the increased value and be prepared to pay double the price of the one next door? Will they be able to get a mortgage? Will they want to live in a lower class area relative to the amount they’ve spent? They will make the same calculations themselves, and may decide it’s not worth it, maybe less so if it doesn’t tick all their other boxes perfectly as well, and that may make a retrofitted property unsaleable. This problem reduces, as the area becomes more affluent, and because the value in most houses is actually in the land rather than the bricks, there must be a price point where it gets close to the same cost of knocking it down and doing a proper Passivhaus rebuild. You can build a nice new Passivhaus for about £150k. (Denby Dale as an example)

    Even the Passive House Institute themselves have a much lower standard for retrofits (called EnerPHit) because it’s so hard to do it properly on an existing building frame. That speaks volumes in itself to me. What are they thinking of? Knocking down the original house and rebuilding it to the best Passivhaus standards, would save more energy than by retrofitting it. You’ll end up with a new house into the bargain, and with a better design for modern living. But even that option will cost a relative fortune, far beyond what normal people can afford.

    The simple fact is this; retrofitting allows you to keep the same house. It might save a little bit of CO2 (less than £1000 worth -see below). But that’s where the fantasy stops.

    Realistically, retrofitting (or rebuilding) is only affordable for the well heeled green householder with money to burn. Where will a normal home owner in this current climate of austerity find upwards of £80,000 to insulate their home, with the understanding that they will save some of their energy bills. The average energy bill is in the region of £1500 of which, so I am told, 61% or £915 – is for heating; the portion that a Passivhaus retrofit is mainly concerned with. If you could wipe a £1000 off your bills it would be great, but even with a 10% rise each year, it’s going to be some time before taking out a loan for £80,000 is eroded away. The remaining £500 bill for hot water and domestic electricity is easy to deal with in smaller bit-by-bit upgrades by installing solar panels, changing bulbs or getting an A+++++++ washing machine etc. Even after retrofitting, you won’t get a ZERO bill, so you are going to save something like £750 a year if you are lucky.

    So here’s the crunch. Your new heating bill is, say, £250. Interest on £80,000 at a special Green Government rate of 1% (that I have just invented!) comes to £800, and that kisses goodbye to your £750 retrofit saving in the blink of an eye, and unless you can plough in something like £3000 extra income per year for the rest of your working life at the expense of your already shrinking pension pot, your children will wind up with a minus £80,000 inheritance! My maths isn’t brilliant, but unless I’ve made a big mistake somewhere, alarm bells need to start ringing, don’t they?

    Front-loading your energy bills to the tune of £80,000 is a big lifetime risk to take. Especially when you can’t afford it.

    What’s ironic, is that if you did have a zero energy bill, all that would actually improve is your standard of living. You would just spend the money elsewhere instead, probably converting it into more CO2 via a trip or two to New York . . .

    We will stay warm enough one way or another whatever happens to prices. As more people start choosing from the “heat or eat” option, we get closer to anarchy and the Government are closer to getting voted out. They run a very thin line with a vested interest. A lot of the green building movement are talking about lobbying the Government about this stuff. Nothing is going to happen that makes retrofitting a realistic possibility for the Government to buy into. As you can see, the cost of doing this to ~15 million homes at ~100k a pop is in the order of £1,500,000,000,000. Er, how much? The Social Security and defence bill combined for the UK plus the cost of HS2 is less that 20% of that total . . . so if you want to see the back of austerity, you’ll have to stick to the Government adding £120 onto your energy bill towards their minimal contribution to renewable energy.

    Don’t forget that there are some people living right on or below the breadline. They can’t afford to heat their homes to a healthy standard as it is, so spare a thought for those people. They probably need a passive home if anyone does, and certainly won’t be able to fund any retrofitting themselves. Then there are all the landlords out there. The buy-to-let market is quite huge. It’s hard enough to squeeze a replacement fridge out of many a landlord, so I can’t see them investing in any form of retrofitting. Then there are second and holiday homes. I have no idea of the size of these groups, but it must be a significant number.

    Renewable Energy

    Is the Energy Problem Going to Go on Forever?

    Extra cheap and clean CO2-free energy is starting to loom on the horizon. Lockheed are suggesting that they will have cracked nuclear fusion within 10 years and you can have a safe nuclear power station that fits into your back garden! Unbelievable maybe but decide for yourself; (or Google “Lockheed fusion”). Fusion apart, there are big changes in solar farms, wind farms, and wave things. It won’t be that long before some serious renewables will be coming on tap.

    There’s another way of offloading the high cost of retrofitting; Fill your roof, walls, and garden with PV. If you “over harvest” as it’s called, you can potentially generate your total energy bill and get paid for doing it, giving 20+ years of trouble free energy. The average cost of a 4kw system is about £8000 – so for £25,000 you could virtually wipe your bills out of the sky, literally! Panels can be flat against a wall now or point off-South and still produce power. Your provider can advise on this.

    The Feed-In Tariff is slightly less for over 4kw, but not to be sniffed at and could still knock a big hole in your total energy expenditure. I believe you may have to get planning permission to mount panels away from your house though.

    Spare day time PV (while out at work you don’t use much electricity) can be used to heat water, which could be stored to run underfloor heating. At night you normally buy back from the grid, but you can also store daily excesses in Lithium-ion batteries to use at night now while you panels are sleeping. The funny thing is that FIT assumes that 50% of your generation is used, and 50% sent back to the grid. So you can actually use 100% of what you generate AND get paid for the 50% that NEVER goes back to the grid. Amazing! Or invest in a solar farm – there’s plenty of those popping up, due to the Government incentives. And more exciting is that there are transparent panels on their way that can also act as your windows, and PV that works after sunset! The future’s looking bright in the mid term.

    And as far as making BIG green energy is concerned, a modern wind turbine costs about £1.5 million to install, and it pays for itself in 3 years. It generates enough energy to run over 1000 houses pretty much for free, and for 25 years. I was told that by an Ecotricity rep. The one they have in Norfolk runs 1200 homes for virtually nothing now, although the company reinvests the money they get into more turbines. They just need more customers to speed things up. We would be better off clubbing together in a community and buying one or two of those. That is literally what has happened in Swaffham – they actually asked Ecotricity to build another one right on their doorstep! Only 2% of the UK is currently choosing 100% green energy providers, although since the recent price increases Ecotricity have been inundated with new customers, so more turbines will be popping up soon. The green snowball is gaining size and momentum.

    It’s looking likely, that current energy prices will be regarded as a blip, because things might be getting better sooner than we think.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Passivhaus idea. I still want a Passivhaus. I believe in it. I believe in preserving humankind and the environment. I want to live in a perfect comfy atmosphere with no worries if the power does turn off.

    All new houses should be made like this by law from now on. All major extensions should meet these standards too. And any buildings that actually need to be demolished, should be rebuilt this way. The additional cost is minimal when it’s a new build. This can be quickly recovered in energy savings and other benefits and is a good investment. It’s good to be cosy, and have a nice environment to live in. In an ideal world we would all do it tomorrow. The planet also needs saving, Makes perfect sense at that level.

     

    So What About CO2 and the Planet?

    What is the real impact of the CO2 that our energy use is creating? And what could that retrofit do towards it? Well, using the Climate Care website, you can pay for the damage you cause in CO2 and become guilt free for surprisingly very little outlay. An average house’s annual CO2 generation through energy use can be offset for about £60 a year, and using BP’s Target Neutral website, you can extrapolate that the cost of off-setting the building of a whole house from scratch would be less than £1000 worth.

    I believe the real retrofit issue goes back many years to the time when central heating became widely available, around the late 60’s. Your house was warm and it didn’t cost much to keep it that way. Then we started filling the cavity walls and adding secondary glazing as energy prices started rising. Now, it costs quite a bit, so it’s worrying for us all, and there’s not much more we can do to improve our houses. And now, retrofit has arrived on the scene to save us. But most people are not really worried about embedded carbon and greenhouse gases. They still worry about the £pound in their pocket. When someone can twist their arm into retrofitting their house, they’ll do it. Solar PV is still not worth it if you just buy the panels, but when the Government twist your arm with the Feed In tariff, no one gives a moment’s thought about the production of green energy. They say “Look how much money I made from my FIT this quarter”. It’s an investment to them. Not a solution to anything.

    We are worrying about the future, yet retrofitting is the unobtainable holy grail.

    Having come from a cold cave, I don’t think the human race is in any danger if we don’t all “Passivy” ourselves quite yet. We’ve got much bigger fish to fry, before the human race does.

    But I don’t believe that retrofitting is going to help anyone, other than builders themselves by generating unnecessary work in return for a very dubious pay-back.

    Someone did mention that retrofitting can create jobs etc, and this would be true, but someone still has to pay for it in the end. It doesn’t just grow on trees. HS2 is costing every one of us about £1000 alone, so trying to calculate the effect of retrofitting our housing stock as an investment in jobs is pretty much impossible to contemplate outside of the Government’s own plans. It’s simply too complicated and would require a total change in the way the country is managed. It’s not going to happen.

    I still think that a certain amount of cheap, added insulation can make a temporary cost effective contribution here and there to an older house, but it still has to be carefully costed out. Have a look on the internet, and you’ll find all sorts of home made solar panels made from computer fans, coke tins, cardboard, and pallets. These are cheap. They can save money if you are that close to the financial abyss. We should be doing more of that sort of thing while we wait for the future. Every square metre of sunshine has about 1Kw of energy in it, waiting to be sucked up.

    So, my answer to retrofit? Don’t bother even thinking about it. Unless demolishing the building or wasting a load of money is what you are into. Just throw some cheap add-ons at your existing house (new boiler, solar, loft/wall insulation, draught strips, new bulbs, thick curtains, educate the inhabitants, buy A+ when replacing consumer durables, home made solar collectors, etc) and make sure no one is left in financial poverty if the bills do go up for a few years until the renewables change things completely.

    As with self builds, there might be some mileage in retrofitting your own house, but this is going to be very hard for a self builder to contemplate, because a lot of experience is required to overcome many of the retrofit nightmares lurking in the existing house fabric. If that’s what you fancy, then flatten it and start again.

    View of the pollution in ShanghaiPollution in Shanghai

    And the Planet? Can We Save it?

    Passive houses will not save this planet of ours. With China and the like filling the air with CO2 at a rate of knots, what the UK, and any other passive house aware country can counteract with a few bits of glass, plastic, and concrete is pretty much microscopic. The money should be thrown into green energy instead as fast as possible. Governments should, however, change planning rules to Passivhaus levels for all new building work with immediate effect to gain the most from that future. That is the best solution we have until we treat the problem globally.

    Individually, we can all do our bit too by not going on planes, becoming vegetarian, and riding a bike. The carbon saved from those activities alone is enormous in itself and easy to do. And it will save you a lot of money – enough in fact to pay for your current energy bill without even having to flinch.

    Get yourself some solar panels, revisit your insulation levels, and change to a 100% green energy provider. Then off-set your CO2 and you can be warm and squeaky clean at the same time, and living comfortably in the house you probably already love.

    You might, of course, skip all of what I have suggested so far, and simply look for a ready made Passivhaus if and when the chance becomes available. But be warned, I have noticed that the retail price of a few new ones I have seen is reflecting the savings you might make in the future. Someone out there is trying to get you to pay up front for your future. If it costs 5% more to build a passive house (according to the Passive House Institute themselves), then buying a new one should cost no more than 5% extra on top of a comparable house. And that’s the building cost, not the actual cost of the house. A £300k house in the South East say, with the assumed building cost of about £150k should therefore cost no more than £317k in a full Passive overcoat and with 4kw of solar on board. Toasty! (5% x 150 = £7500 4kw PV ~£9000 Total £16500) So don’t get caught out by the sales pitch.

    This of course, explains the final reason why retrofitting is a waste of money. Just sell up, and buy a new one as soon as you can. They are few and far between at the moment, but those in the know have the advantage of knowledge, and there will be more opportunities to get one as time goes by, but before the rush comes. If it even does.

    So, that’s pretty much “Check Mate” isn’t it?, but I challenge anyone to calculate more accurately whether retrofitting a bog standard house could be worth it at any level. And if it is, how on earth it will be paid for by the average person. And if it isn’t worth it, say so now, and let’s all move on to NEW passive houses only, and get that working even better, just in case we need it.

    So is Retrofitting an old house worth it? No, not from what I can see. For once, it’s not about the technicalities of doing it. It’s about the practicalities of doing it. And it fails on that count very convincingly.

    That’s the prosecution case complete. Will the defence now please step forward . . .

  • White Paint Not So Pure and Brilliant?

    What do paint, sunscreens, paper, toothpaste, plastic windows and catalytic converters have in common?

    The answer is E Number 171, aka titanium dioxide.

    Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a common mineral found in many parts of the world, it has a wide range of uses but is mostly used as a pigment, especially for creating white due to its outstanding opacity and a high refractive index. As much as 25% of a tin of brilliant white paint may be made up of TiO2. It replaces the toxic lead oxide which was once a common constituent in paint.

    It is also a key component in the manufacture of catalytic converters, cosmetics and even food colouring. 4.2 million tons are used worldwide each year. Ultrafine particles of TiO2 have been found to absorb certain types of air pollution through photocatalytic reaction, when used as a coating on pavements and roads in cities.

    TiO2 nanoparticles have been developed for use in sunscreens, however, there is some evidence that at this size the particles can enter human cells, cause DNA damage resulting in cancer [1]. Other research has raised concerns over inhalation of fine dust leading to respiratory diseases.

    The problem with TiO2 is that the extraction of pure material from the natural mineral deposits is destructive to the landscape, hugely energy intensive and polluting at every stage.

    TiO2 is found in minerals known as rutile, ilmenite and anatase. The largest mines are in Australia, Canada, and Norway, with other deposits found in India, Ukraine, Brazil, Madagascar and South Africa. Rutile is the purest form but most scarce.

    Open cast mining is common. In some cases the mineral only contains 5% TiO2, resulting in vast swathes of land being destroyed, only to return 95% of the material, but devoid of the ecosystem it once supported. This is happening in sensitive locations such as Madagascar.

     

    Pic Fort Dauphin, Rio Tinto’s Ilmenite mine in Madagascar. By Ed Kashi, Prix Pictet.

     

    There are two main manufacturing methods. The sulphate method involves dissolving the mineral in strong sulphuric acid, then heating the material to 1000°C. This process results in 5kg of CO2 per kg of TiO2, as well as emissions of SO2, NOx, methane, and VOC’s to atmosphere and sulphates to water along with small amounts of chromium, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Energy consumption is estimated at 54 to 76 MJ/kg. [2].

    The chloride method is cleaner but is more expensive, using either ilmenite or rutile. Heating the mineral to 1000°C in the presence of chlorine creates a vapour which crystallises during cooling. Combustion produces TiO2, the chlorine is recycled. The process emits less CO2 at 4.1kg per kg of material, but a similar amount of energy is consumed.

    The acidic wastes from some TiO2 production plants are dumped in the sea, the alkaline seawater quickly neutralises the waste, but the process de-oxygenates the water decimating sea life. Waste is also landfilled or neutralised by adding chalk, but land and air pollutions still results.[3]

    As chartered surveyors at Conker Conservation Ltd, we have promoted sustainable construction and avoidance of damaging chemicals since the early 1990’s.  We believe it is important to consider the constituents of paints and other building products, even if they are not harmful themselves, as the manufacturing process has a major impact on the environment.

    Choosing products which are not pure white, avoiding PVC, choosing low tech paints such as clay paint, lime wash and casein, are ways to avoid TiO2. We also recommend using the website GreenSpec as a wonderfully useful resource for designers and specifiers wanting to check out the true green credentials of materials and products.

     

    So remember, to be green, avoid white.

     

    [1] Kamazawa, et.al. “Effects of Titanium Ions and Particles of Neutrophil Function and Morphology”. Biomaterials 2002 Sep 23

    [2] Environmental impact of coated exterior wooden cladding, VTT Building technology, 1999.

    [3] EU Directive 89/428