The Greenbuild News blog, for one, is glad to see that Gary Neville has won planning permission for an eco house on moorland in Harwood, near Bolton. His proposal for an £8m sustainable family home, built into the earth (and therefore dubbed by the nationals as a Teletubbies house), was approved after the height of the wind turbine was reduced. Usually spotted in gas-guzzling cars or jetting off on long-haul flughts, footballers aren't known for their planet-saving tendancies. So Neville's desire to reduce his family's environmental impact, with a combination of a groundsource heat pump and wind power, is both surprising and admirable.
There are a number of vocal locals who are not in favour of the planned house and have branded it as 'disgusting'. According to the Manchester Evening News, the protestors believe the house will 'decimate' the land and lead to noise pollution. Due to the site being on greenbelt land, the final decision rest with the Government Office for the North West (GONW), who will decide if the design is innovative enough to justify building on protected land.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Friday, 5 November 2010
All roads lead to Rome
Fabulous story in the papers yesterday about the birth of eco-friendly building: in common with roads and sewers, sustainable construction was apparently invented by the Romans. Archeologists at Oxford University have analysed the building methods used on an average Roman villa and compared them with a standard 1930s semi-detached property.
The results of this research, which was carried out in conjunction with energy company E.ON, showed that the Romans had a far greater understanding of energy efficiency, using underfloor heating instead of inefficient radiators placed near windows is just one example. As Professor Andrew Wilson from the Institute of Archaeology explains: "One of the many things the Romans did for us was to show us ways to be much more imaginative and efficient with their energy use. They made heat and water work much harder round the house than most of us do today.”
TV presenter Dick Strawbridge worked with Professor Wilson, comparing the two building methods using criteria highlighted by E.ON as part of its Energy Fit campaign. The findings were analysed and E.ON has given the follwing summary:
Heating rooms
The results of this research, which was carried out in conjunction with energy company E.ON, showed that the Romans had a far greater understanding of energy efficiency, using underfloor heating instead of inefficient radiators placed near windows is just one example. As Professor Andrew Wilson from the Institute of Archaeology explains: "One of the many things the Romans did for us was to show us ways to be much more imaginative and efficient with their energy use. They made heat and water work much harder round the house than most of us do today.”
TV presenter Dick Strawbridge worked with Professor Wilson, comparing the two building methods using criteria highlighted by E.ON as part of its Energy Fit campaign. The findings were analysed and E.ON has given the follwing summary:
Heating rooms
- Roman Villa: Romans used underfloor heating systems called hypocausts, which heated the entire room starting with the floor and walls. In addition, rooms which featured this system tended to face south or south-west, with glazed windows to catch the sun, making clever use of solar radiation;
- British Semi: Houses in Britain can waste heat unnecessarily. For example, we tend to place wall-mounted radiators underneath windows, where heat can escape, or we cover radiators with drying clothes and curtains, and don’t use the right radiator size to fit a room. All of these things can mean that your central heating is failing to heat the room effectively and can waste money. Interestingly, underfloor heating has been making a come-back in recent years, 2,000 years after it was last used extensively in Britain. Providing a gentle and even heat, underfloor heating is unobtrusive with no radiators and the heat is where people need it most, at ground level.
- Roman Villa: Romans visited public baths where the water was kept hot with a device called a testudo – a bronze semi-cylinder with an open end which linked to the hot pool and was placed close to the furnace of the hypocaust (underfloor heating system) This effectively re-heated the water with the same air going into the hypocaust and heating the room. Water was then circulated back into the pool at the top of the opening and replaced by cooler water at the bottom by convection;
- British Semi: Compare this multi-tasking heating system to common British houses, which often shut the hot water tank in a cupboard where it fails to heat the rest of the house.
- Tip – if your hot water tank is in a cupboard make sure the heat isn’t being lost, fill any holes in and around the water tank so the warmth doesn’t escape.
- Roman Villa: The Romans had a keen sense of putting different qualities of water to varying uses. Many of their cities were fed drinking water by an aqueduct served by a spring, river or by groundwater. At the same time, they were also heavily reliant on rainwater cisterns for laundry and household cleaning;
- British Semi: Thanks to our heritage of Victorian water schemes, which aimed to purify all water to drinking standard, we use the same quality of water for drinking as we do flushing the toilet.
- Finally, Romans were highly energy efficient when it came to recycling building materials. Abandoned properties were systematically stripped of their metal fittings which could be melted down and used again. Pottery could be reused for building materials – old amphorae (the traditional Roman vase with two handles) might be used as hollow aggregate to lighten the concrete of a vault; drains might be made from amphorae; broken ceramics might be crushed as an ingredient in water-proof cement linings for aqueducts, cisterns and baths.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Green on the inside
An article in The Independent today describes a prison in America that is aiming to cut carbon as well as crime. The Coyote Ridge Corrections Centre in Connell, Washington, has just received the gold LEED award (the first prison in the world to do so) from the US Green Building Council for a 21-unit extension that means it can now house almost 2,500 prisoners. The green credentials of the revamped facility will save Washington State's Department of Corrections hundreds of thousands every year and, according to some experts, could have a massive impact on the prisoners' behaviour too by improving what is described as the 'balance between security and a human environment'. That last quote is taken from the book Prison Design, which also says that it's important to have 'buildings that will facilitate positive activities with staff and prisoners'.
Complex social engineering aside, the sustainable achievements of the building are impressive. Simply by removing all the grass and replacing it with gravel has cut the prison's water use by a quarter, that's a saving of 5.5m gallons every year. I don't imagine a site landscaped entirely with gravel looks particularly attractive but, let's face it, it's not Kew Gardens, it's a prison.
Complex social engineering aside, the sustainable achievements of the building are impressive. Simply by removing all the grass and replacing it with gravel has cut the prison's water use by a quarter, that's a saving of 5.5m gallons every year. I don't imagine a site landscaped entirely with gravel looks particularly attractive but, let's face it, it's not Kew Gardens, it's a prison.
Monday, 12 July 2010
Power of God
Fundraisers for church roof repairs could be a thing of the past if places of worship are all kitted out with solar panels. According to British Gas, religious buildings could make up to £29m per year by generating their own electricity and selling it back to the grid under the Feed-in Tariff scheme. There would also be carbon savings of up to 42,000 tonnes, which has got to be good for the soul, as well as the planet.
As Phil Bentley, managing director of British Gas, explained: "Religious buildings are particularly well suited to solar power as they tend to have large south-facing roofs which receive direct sunlight for the main part of the day."
As Phil Bentley, managing director of British Gas, explained: "Religious buildings are particularly well suited to solar power as they tend to have large south-facing roofs which receive direct sunlight for the main part of the day."
Monday, 5 July 2010
Let's go fly a kite
An American inventor (that's my favourite type of inventor) has come up with an interesting way of generating energy from wind. JoeBen Bevirt, of Joby Energy, has created kite-like airborne wind turbines, that make the most of the high-speed winds found at higher altitudes. As Bevirt told BBC's Radio 4, higher altitude winds are not only faster, but more consistent than the winds nearer the ground and considerably more power can be converted to electricity.
This seems to be a fabulous idea that is not only a more efficient way of harvesting wind energy, but less likely to annoy those people who don't want a wind farm near their house. One concern would be safety. I'm a nervous flyer already and the thought of an aircraft getting tangled with a giant kite would add to the already substantial list of things that I'm worried will go wrong. Not an issue, says Joby in its FAQ: "Well-established air traffic control procedures have been in place for decades to ensure the safety of aircraft around areas of Restricted and/or Special Use Airspace (SUA). We are actively working with the Federal Aviation Administration and military airspace coordinators to choose sites in existing SUA, or where our airborne wind turbines will not adversely affect existing traffic. Our turbines will be equipped with lighting and radar transponders to ensure their visibility to pilots and controllers."
So with that worry dismissed, airborne wind turbines do seem to have a lot going for them. They're even cheaper than conventional wind turbines (the materials cost less and the units produce more, so the capital costs are reduced). Although still at the development stage, it seems likely that airborne turbines could be producing some of our renewable energy soon.
This seems to be a fabulous idea that is not only a more efficient way of harvesting wind energy, but less likely to annoy those people who don't want a wind farm near their house. One concern would be safety. I'm a nervous flyer already and the thought of an aircraft getting tangled with a giant kite would add to the already substantial list of things that I'm worried will go wrong. Not an issue, says Joby in its FAQ: "Well-established air traffic control procedures have been in place for decades to ensure the safety of aircraft around areas of Restricted and/or Special Use Airspace (SUA). We are actively working with the Federal Aviation Administration and military airspace coordinators to choose sites in existing SUA, or where our airborne wind turbines will not adversely affect existing traffic. Our turbines will be equipped with lighting and radar transponders to ensure their visibility to pilots and controllers."
So with that worry dismissed, airborne wind turbines do seem to have a lot going for them. They're even cheaper than conventional wind turbines (the materials cost less and the units produce more, so the capital costs are reduced). Although still at the development stage, it seems likely that airborne turbines could be producing some of our renewable energy soon.
Friday, 25 June 2010
Greenbuild's Most Wanted
Footballer Gary Neville has failed in his bid to build an eco home after planning permission was turned down this week. According to the Daily Mail, Neville spoke passionately about his desire to create an energy-efficient dwelling for a whopping 90 minutes (perhaps that's the only timeframe he's comfortable with), but his enthusiasm wasn't enough to convince the good folk of Lancashire that the project wouldn't adversely affect the green belt.
Anyone who can speak passionately about a subject (and coherently, let's hope) for 90 minutes is going on my just-created list of most-wanted contributors for the website. It's called Greenbuild's Most Wanted. It could also be called Greenbuild's Most Unlikely, as I don't think even my powers of persuasion will be enough to bag any of these as contributors:
Anyone who can speak passionately about a subject (and coherently, let's hope) for 90 minutes is going on my just-created list of most-wanted contributors for the website. It's called Greenbuild's Most Wanted. It could also be called Greenbuild's Most Unlikely, as I don't think even my powers of persuasion will be enough to bag any of these as contributors:
- Gary Neville (see above).
- Al Gore. Definitely beyond my budget.
- Daryl Hannah.She appears to be completely bonkers but clearly can't be accused of greenwash.
- Bill Bryson. He's president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and one of the few writers to make me laugh out loud.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
In good company
It's taken me a while but I've finally had a good look through this year's Sunday Times Green List, a compilation of the UK's best 60 green companies, to see how well the construction industry is respresented. According to the introductory comment, written by managing editor Richard Caseby: "Our Best Green Companies enterprise is unique. There are plenty of other environmental awards out there, but this is the first robust methodology to measure environmental performance and, crucially, to survey staff to find out whether the corporate green glow is more than just window dressing." All great stuff.
He goes on to say: "A total of 92 companies took part in the competition, of which 87 completed the process." Now, do correct me if I've misunderstood, does this mean that the 60 best green companies are, in fact, the 60 best green companies taken from a list of just 87? If that is the case, it's not quite as impressive as it sounds.
But anyway, I digress. I studied the supplement as I wanted to see how construction fared compared to other industries. Particularly as many construction companies will already have a high environmental impact as they tend to be energy intensive. Skanska is the highest ranking construction company, coming in at second place behind office supplies company UKOS. Last year Skanska UK cut its carbon footprint by almost a fifth, which is an impressive achievement and went way beyond its 10% target.
I realise that the way I started this post sounds as if I want to take some of the shine of those 60 green companies' achievements, and that's not what I meant to do. If these companies are willing to put themselves up for scrutiny like this, jumping through whatever green hoops that involves, then the chances are then they really are some of the best green companes in the UK.
There's certainly more than 87 companies in then UK claiming to be green, so why aren't more of them actually trying to prove it by undergoing some kind of environmental audit? Perhaps it's a cost issue or perhaps it's because they haven't got the eco credentials to back up their claims. Either way, the 60 companies in the list might not have had much competition, but should be applauded nonetheless for a fanstastic achievement.
He goes on to say: "A total of 92 companies took part in the competition, of which 87 completed the process." Now, do correct me if I've misunderstood, does this mean that the 60 best green companies are, in fact, the 60 best green companies taken from a list of just 87? If that is the case, it's not quite as impressive as it sounds.
But anyway, I digress. I studied the supplement as I wanted to see how construction fared compared to other industries. Particularly as many construction companies will already have a high environmental impact as they tend to be energy intensive. Skanska is the highest ranking construction company, coming in at second place behind office supplies company UKOS. Last year Skanska UK cut its carbon footprint by almost a fifth, which is an impressive achievement and went way beyond its 10% target.
I realise that the way I started this post sounds as if I want to take some of the shine of those 60 green companies' achievements, and that's not what I meant to do. If these companies are willing to put themselves up for scrutiny like this, jumping through whatever green hoops that involves, then the chances are then they really are some of the best green companes in the UK.
There's certainly more than 87 companies in then UK claiming to be green, so why aren't more of them actually trying to prove it by undergoing some kind of environmental audit? Perhaps it's a cost issue or perhaps it's because they haven't got the eco credentials to back up their claims. Either way, the 60 companies in the list might not have had much competition, but should be applauded nonetheless for a fanstastic achievement.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
