Previous post:

Next post:

Links for July 29th through August 2nd

by Mel Starrs on August 4, 2011

in News

These are my links for July 29th through August 2nd:

  • IES » » Weather – One of the “Big Uglies” in Energy Modelling! – Loving the Big Uglies concept (and agree with the four chosen): “This seminar was Part 2 of the IBPSA’s “Big Uglies”. The “Big Uglies” represent four of the major unknowns in energy modelling: Occupancy, Plug Loads, Weather and Infiltration.”
  • EVALOC | Evaluating low carbon communities – “The project seeks to assess, explain and communicate the changes in energy use due to community activities within six selected case study projects under the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) Low Carbon Communities Challenge (LCCC) initiative, a government-supported initiative to transform the way communities use and produce energy, and build new ways of supporting more sustainable living. These low carbon community projects are evaluated in terms of their IMPACTS on changing individual, household and community behaviours, EFFECTIVENESS on achieving real-savings in energy use CO2 emissions and SUCCESS in bringing about sustained and systemic change.”
  • House 2.0: The Salford Low Energy Homes – Excellent observations – read the whole thing: “There are huge variations on how individual homes perform. The Salford study suggests that the difference is largely down to the temperatures that people choose to heat their homes to, and that a house heated to 23°C would use four times as much as one heated to 18°C. They also suggest that that is true for badly built homes as much as well built ones. If this is true (and it seems likely, though once again there is no way of verifying it), then it has huge implications for the Fuel Poverty debate. The definition of fuel poverty is that you spend more than 10% of your income on energy bills, but without an effective way of monitoring how a household consumes energy, it’s pretty meaningless.”
  • Linn Rafferty

    no, the definition of fuel poverty is not that you spend more than 10% of your income on energy bills, but that you would need to spend that amount to achieve suitable temperatures, i.e. 21 in zone 1, 18 in zone 2.  Not sure what point House 2.0 is making here?  There is an argument along the lines that older/infirm residents need higher temps than 21, and so the definition for them should be based on, say, 23 – but I can’t see us winning that one.