Comments on: Zero carbon housing – what does it mean?

By: Mike Briggs

Mike Briggs — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:57:46 +0000

While they are the most debated issues, I believe that the financial and technological aspects of zero-carbon are actually at the easier end of the scale.

What will be much harder is changing the attitudes and culture of the industry to actually achieve the required quality of construction, and educating the other parties involved – for example the estate agents and the public. Even with the current relatively undemanding standards problems are being experienced in these areas. The following article on my Web site explains why, and outlines the need for an integrated change management approach to address the issues: http://www.mikebriggs.org/html/zero_carbon.html

By: Shane

Shane — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:46:46 +0000

Hey Mel,
Just inviting myself to join.. Excellent article I wonder about just getting the basics very right, if passiv haus standard were to become the building standard of choice then surely the zero carbon approach could easily follow suit?

By: on zero carbon and routes to get there … « isite

on zero carbon and routes to get there … « isite — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:55:42 +0000

[...] articles and comments on the definition of and feasibility of zero carbon recently – take a look at Mels post .. and Phils post for excellent round ups and for good technical comment take a look at [...]

By: Iain Fraser

Iain Fraser — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:17:36 +0000

Great article Mel.

I think people are getting far to hung up about the ‘zero carbon’ tag. If you have a poor site or a certain type of amenity then there’s no way you’ll be zero carbon.

To create a mechanism whereby you can call a development which offsets their residual energy use, through a bung of cash, ‘zero carbon’ surely devalues the term and fails to differentiate between fortunate developments and those constrained.

And yet if all homes were to be the best energy performing homes possible then we do need a mechanism whereby constrained developments contribute in another way.

We need to grasp terminology here and resist the pressure of developers and government. Every home cannot be a zero carbon home and we shouldn’t pretend they can.

By: Peter Marc Burke

Peter Marc Burke — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:25:24 +0000

Lower carbon homes may be better, and lower carbon may not necessarily mean only the carbon used in construction. It would be a good idea to build homes that used less fuel because of ultra insulation ecoblock please take a look by searching this on youtube where they have a channel would be good, ecoblock is an ICF (insulating concrete former)buildings can be constructed very fast the shell of a home is possible in one day, think about the transportation (CO2 emissions)to and from construction sites. I agree with you about the toxic materials used in ‘zero carbon’ homes maybe if the ICF were for instance made from Hemp or organic (surplus)waste material panels it may be more sustainably affordable than oil bi-products. Robert Kyriakides is an inspiration for people to think about the problems as we come near to the end of the energy age and for us to think of new solutions, I am sure he would be able to sharpen up my ideas, but as far as I can see the problem is that it is gonna get harder to get the energy into the bucket so you don’t want that energy to leak through holes in the bucket. If we need a new school for some children then building it with clay furnace fired bricks for two years is really a high cost solution when it is possible to build from ICF in two months. because the building is ultra insulated the heat from the children in the school will actually be contained in the building and will not require to be heated with fossil fuel. Yet the building will not be zero carbon because the children will release CO2 when they give of this heat obviously from the cereals in their breakfast.
Could I ask if the children in the 1908 built school are still using slate writing tablets and candle light on the cloudy days?

By: Matt Robinson

Matt Robinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:29:10 +0000

I am in complete agreement – ‘zero carbon’ is unattainable – on the grounds of cost and that we simply cannot manage it. Unfortunately the ‘carbon’ and energy focus at present is allowing many architects to rely on ‘gimmick’ and ‘eco-technology’ rather that good old fashioned and proven reductions in energy need and use. This focus also means that other issues of health, resource depletion, pollutants in buildings etc are being missed – what is the point in building ‘zero carbon’ homes from toxic materials with high embodied energy from a depleting resource?
Experience says that the smaller house builders are more open to change and pragmatic, practical solutions to more sustainable housing – but as you point out, its the big players that hold the keys to industry wide change.
I do feel that many of the ’sustainable buildings’ we see touted and exalted at present may fail to deliver on the promises, and indeed may come back to ‘bite’ those involved in the project. We have a local school that was launched as ‘the most sustainable school in the uk’ – yet their energy use and bills are higher than my kids school – half of which is a single glazed, 100yr old building….