Should read 40% of the pre renovation amounts

Geronimo
You do know, don't you raft, that we'd only reduce CO2 output by 4% if we stopped all human emissions? Doesn't that worry you as it's such a dangerous gas for you chaps?

Actually that is not quite accurate. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 4% of the annual CO2 FLUX between the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and mainly sedimentary rocks.

Raff, as has been mentioned earlier, the UK has always had higher energy costs, than the USA for example. Coal was relatively cheap, but oil was not. Town gas was made from coal.

The London Smogs triggered the 'first air quality' Environmental legislation, and the use of coal as a domestic fuel started to decline.

North Sea gas allowed the phasing out of Town gas, and this was after coal had been removed from the railways.

North Sea oil did not make fuel cheaper in the UK, as the price was pegged with OPEC.

The oil price hikes by OPEC in the 70s massively hiked the price of oil, but made the financial returns from North Sea Oil exploration possible.

The price of energy has been hiked massively due to Green Blob interference with market forces, and provided no benefit to anyone outside the Green Blob. The vulnerable and poor die of cold.

Peak oil has not happened. Peak Fracking is a long way off. OPEC can't price fix oil at the moment, partially due to Islamic terrorists flogging all the oil they can from Syria, Iran, Iraq etc.

Ironically, until military intervention occurs to remove ISIS/DAESH, OPEC can't raise oil prices.

Yes we are having a warmer than normal winter, luckily for electricity supplies. According to the BBC, the last time it was this warm was 1948. The BBC fail to mention that 1947 was the coldest winter in living memory.

Wind and solar are hopelessly Unreliable, and have not provided any benefit. I may be no physics whizz, but I probably know more than most about construction, design, failures, defects, fraud busting, scams etc from a working knowledge, not just reading articles in the Guardian.

So I do have well considered opinions based on experience, clearly you do not, given your rhetoric.

For what it is worth, Margaret Thatcher was generally correct more often than not. In my opinion, her biggest mistake was stopping councils from building houses, particularly with the money raised from selling the existing ones. The creation of Housing Associations out of rented council houses has helped develop new housing, but Housing Associations operate like commercial developers and profit comes first.

If we hadn't been wasting money on preventing non manmade climate change, we could have spent the money on something useful, like housing improvements.

Attempts to fix prices, via restrictive practices, tax, market rigging etc always have consequences, and are always exploited by profiteers.

Do you have any relevant experience that can contribute to constructive debate? Or is this part of your course in Environmental Communication, and how to avoid difficult subjects?
Housing confiscated from convicted climate scam fraudsters, should be used to benefit the poor and vulnerable.

Meanwhile you hold the moral high ground by wanting to make energy more expensive, so only the wealthy can afford it.

Perhaps you could start a thread on 'Why are the Green Blob losing the Hearts and Minds of the UK Public?' It might prove very popular.

One of the pits that people fall into when thinking about making homes more efficient is lots of insulation and bunging the holes up - as the Oxford study shows, it's actually quite hard and expensive to bung all the holes up and once you've done that you need to put ventilation and dehumidification in as well. Even normal insulation needs care because it can make any damp problems much worse. Places that have been heavily insulated are then sometimes too warm in summer and might need air conditioning too.

Ground source heating wasn't used in that property but it would have added at least another £10,000 and would have involved digging the garden up. I didn't find enough info to tell if it had underfloor heating after the mods but that would be essential for ground source heating. Think about the remodelling to accomodate that - raised floors, skirtings, shortened doors etc. Think about parquet or block floors. Think about listed buildings. What about properties without gardens. The problems are endless.

The easy things to reduce energy loss that aren't that expensive have already been done in many homes. The first and foremost being loft insulation. A lot of homes have double glazing and new boilers (gas, ha, ha ha). There isn't that much low hanging fruit to be picked. Look at the super efficient homes, invariably they're new builds with lots of space and above all cash. At the same time the home owner is forking out for all this, they're supposed to be buying storage batteries and electric cars, plus paying for the changes to industry, government, amenities and social housing.

Yes Raff, we have thought about this.

Raff, why do I get the impression you want us to do your homework project assignment for you? As Green Blob taxation is destroying the economy, it should be scrapped, with no further public money wasted on pointless Green Blob Scams. Some of the savings could be put towards improving the housing stock.

TinyCO2, no generation wants to pay for previous mistakes. The Green Blob ate determined to turn the enlightened age, into one of Endarkenment. Our Grandchildren are going to have to pay the price.

When the Green Blob get control of a construction or refurbishment project, it is always a financial disaster, because they are spending other peoples money, and do not have to face the consequences.

New build construction with improved thermal insulation is not a major cost. The minimum standards have been increased over 40 (?) years for energy conservation. Double glazing offers excellent value for money when included at the design stage. Replacing perfectly serviceable single glazing, with double, does not have a realistic payback period. Replacing knackered single glazed windows with modern double glazed, does have a good payback.

Of course Scandanavians don't understand why the UK doesn't use Triple glazing. Scandanavians are also bemused by the quaint British custom of putting soil and vent pipes (sewage) on external walls, as all Scandanavians know they will freeze solid in winter, and the loos will block.

The next Green Blob refurbishment of an older terrace, should start with building a double glazed greenhouse/conservatory enclosing the entire terrace, plus some garden area front and rear. Call it a biodome if you like, and don't heat it, but allow to ventilate massively to prevent summer overheating. Then look at what needs to be done to the existing properties.

Yes you can put solar panels on the biodome. Yes you can grow food in the gardens. Yes you can collect rainwater. Yes you can generate hotwater from solar panels on the original roofs. Etc, etc, etc.

Yes you could do this with new construction. Build a large warehouse type shed, but clad with glazing/solar panels, and then bring in prefabricated mobile homes, stackable containerised flats etc. On site construction time costs would be reduced, and delays for bad weather would be less likely. It would be cheaper.........

People like you, who want to CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT would love it..

Martin, yes that was a sweeping statement - it depend on the house and location. I seem to remember last time I looked at it that (oddly) the UK excess winter death rate was highest in the South East. Anyone owning a home there can extract capital (which can be recovered on death) against the value of the home. I don't know the mechanisms but I if can't be done in a country with such an extensive financial services industry, then bankers are missing a trick.

It is not, in my view, the business of the tenant to improve the building fabric - not when they can be turfed out at a moment's notice. The owner should make the house cheaply (but define cheaply!) livable. If he cannot extract enough blood rent in the market to cover the cost of buying and upgrading the building then he paid too much for it.

Tiny, yes I'm sure it is not easy to turn poor quality old buildings into anything like a passivhaus. That is why it is important to get new ones built to very high standards. The example you quoted was interesting. There's no detailed before/after comparison (of fittings) and so it is difficult to know which expenditure was most worthwhile. The PV system was probably pointless, so strip 10K. Also the choice of internal insulation over external is odd. My guess is you could get a lot of the gain for a lot less money. Turning the heating down to 20 from 24 and putting on a vest would probably do most of the job (cue abuse).

Raff we don't do external cladding because it changes the look of the building. Even ignoring rules about styles, people buy houses often because they like the traditional look.

Yes, there are loads of things we could do and yes, there is money that could be spent doing it (although not as much as you imagine) but people just won't do it. Don't think governments will make them either unless there is mass public agreement because there is always someone else who will come along and say 'vote for me and I'll change the rules). That's what democracy is all about and why climate science isn't good enough for what people like you dream of.

Raff, do explain how tenants can be "turfed out" at a moments notice.

Is this another sweeping statement based on what you have been told? Yes there are rogue landlords. Yes there are years of delays for people on the Council Housing list. Yes there is a shortage of affordable accommodation.

You aren't getting the responses you belived you would are you?

Are you Lewandowsky? Simply waiting to report on your rigorous survey of denier mindsets?

As for building new ones - we already have a massive shortage of new homes. Developers can't build super efficient homes and then sell them on at an affordable price. People would shun them for older properties or just not bother, leaving the new ones empty and not helping the shortage problem. The only option for the building firms would be to rent but then the return on investment would be ages. What if it turns out AGW is not so bad? What if we discover fusion and energy becomes super cheap? What if the few countries that act on AGW decide to drop their goals because they're not going to ruin their own countries for no reason. Suddenly the great investment in green measures become redundant and the investor ends up with small, ugly, over engineered white elephants.

The Green Deal failed because people realised that future buyers would be very wary of taking on someone else's debt and eco upgrade of doubdtful benefit. The interest rate was higher than an ordinary loan. If the entire country was doing the same then it wouldn't matter but how do you start the ball rolling without making laws that see you out of office at the next election?

It is not, in my view, the business of the tenant to improve the building fabric - not when they can be turfed out at a moment's notice. The owner should make the house cheaply (but define cheaply!) livable. If he cannot extract enough blood rent in the market to cover the cost of buying and upgrading the building then he paid too much for it.

No it's not the job of the tenant to improve the building. But I see you agree that it's the rent paid by the tenant that would pay for it.

And the landlord would also agree that, if legally compelled to insulate the house/flat, and they can't charge a rent that covers the cost of doing so, then they paid too much for it.

The problem with Green economics, is that nothing and nobody ever works, unless subsidised from the Magic Money Tree.

It is about the same as children working out that Father Christmas may not be as real as portrayed in fairy stories in the Guardian and on the BBC. When will the Green Blob realise that someone has to earn money, in order for it to be wasted by selfish idiots who think they are saving the planet?

The simple answer to this question is to ask how many Green Jobs have been created. Then assume that every Green Job created is 2 real jobs lost, and 1 property that could have been improved with better insulation to reduce the exorbitant cost of staying warm. So every Green job is one cold household. That is the true cost of fabricating a green economy.

My figures are approximate to +/- 50%, which is Unprecedented accuracy in Green Economics where +/-97% is the norm.

As I understand the question, the plan is to maintain the current levels of economic growth and at the same time reducing CO2 and related emissions to zero. So all domestic heating, lighting and cooking, all transport, all industrial production will be carried out using electricity. There is no completion date for this in the question but it'll take a fair amount of time and a huge amount of money. Say 30 million domestic gas central heating and cooking systems. 30 million cars and several million commercial and PSV vehicles. Ignoring industry for this debate, that is a huge undertaking.

As there is no slack in the electricity system at the moment, the reverse is the case with an impending shortfall. Renewables are goining to be a no starter, once climate change has been reversed the periods of blocking highs over fallen snow from a couple of decades ago will return with the inevitable consequences for wind and solar. The only viable solution is nuclear. My back of the envelope calculation is that four or five times the generating capacity of the current grid and the distribution network will be needed. Better insulation, LED lighting and the like are tinkering at the edges in terms of consumption. Heat pump systems are beyond the pocket of 97% of households so a gas central heating system will be replaced by electrical heating, with no real energy saving.

Given the known issues with Nuclear in terms of speed of ramp up and shutdown and the unpredictable nature of renewables a totally Carbon free economy with today's technology is a non-starter. Something like 20% of electricity will have to be generated by gas even if everything else is run on electricity.

If the level of atmospheric CO2 does start to fall say as a result of schemes like this and natural cooling then things start to get problematical at pre-industrial levels.

Tiny, does that mean that external cladding is not allowed? Much of the UK housing stock is pig ugly, especially new build, so cladding is unlikely to make it worse. It is true that most people wont upgrade their house without an incentive. But I see no good reason why rental properties should not be required to be safe, secure, dry and warm.

Golf, there are plenty of reports of tenants being turfed out after having asked for repairs or improvements. And if a tenant is going to install new windows for example any tenancy less than the life of the windows is too short.

Martin, as with the economics of "tax incidence", price elasticity determines who really pays. That will doubtless vary depending upon the location. There are actually two sources of money, the rental income and the sale value. Improving the house should raise the sale value even if the rental income cannot be increased to cover the cost in the short term.

Sandy, I agree with much of what you say. We will need much higher generation capacity and although I have no problem with wind and maybe solar in the south, most needs to be nuclear. I find the issue of nuclear not ramping well to be puzzling. For one because nuclear submarines must be able to ramp up and down quickly. And for another because if nuclear plant don't ramp we can use the excess electricity (which would otherwise be wasted) to power fuel synthesis from airborne CO2 (inefficient, but maybe better than ramping unresponsive plant). We'll always need liquid fuels in some applications.

Timescales for this are long, don't forget, and most appliances, lorries and cars existing now will be replaced long before 2050. The costs are huge if you look at them in isolation, but if we are replacing things gradually anyway that is not an issue. But things that last much longer like houses and power stations are the big issue. And some costs are offset, for example instead of importing more than $25bn oil/gas each year we can use electricity generated by nuclear. That's almost a bloated Hinkley C per year the UK is bleeding.

I don't know what you mean by "once climate change has been reversed" and "If the level of atmospheric CO2 does start to fall". That seems to indicate a misunderstanding.

Raff, if the terms of the lease were FRI, then not to do so would be a breach of contract. Where is the problem, or are you getting confused? There are lots of examples of people going on about stuff they are clueless about.

There are lots of examples of companies being driven out of business because of Green Blob instigated changes in legislation. Do you have a problem with that?

There are lots of examples in the last week alone of hundreds of coal miners losing their jobs due to Green Blob instigated changes in legislation. Where is their fault in that?

Shouldn't you improve your use of rhetoric before making sweeping assumptions based on your lack of knowledge? Is this how climate science was taught to you, because it is not how science works. Unfortunately climate science seems to depend on too much verbatim regurgitation, and the same rubbish keeps being repeated.

Landlords are not required to do anything to reduce the renter's bills. If it needs a new boiler they have to put a condencing boiler in but that's about it. If it didn't have a boiler, there's nothing to make a landlord fit central heating. They'd have to sort obvious problems like a broken window or a hole in the roof. Landlords certainly don't have fifty to a hundred thousand for every property. Upgrades won't even automatically increase the value of the property. External cladding isn't allowed on listed buildings as they have to remain true to the original when it was listed. On ordinary buildings it would have to depend on appearance, location, if it changed the overall size of the building, ensure it didn't make existing problems worse, You couldn't just do it, you'd have to negotiate with the authorities.It all costs time and money.

"The UK has a million empty homes" is somewhat misleading. Not every home that is empty is suitable for someone to move into. The home could be awaiting probate (could take ages if the estate is complicated or if there's a dispute); it could be being renovated; it could be in the wrong place (eg Burnley instead of London); it could be awaiting planning permission; it could be being sold; etc.

"For one because nuclear submarines must be able to ramp up and down quickly. "
Surely the reactor runs gently charging the batteries, if the sub needs sudden power then the battery charge goes down as you draw charge from it quickly

I don't think (but I'm by no means an expert) that nuclear subs have batteries for propulsion. Never heard of it and logic says that they don't for several reasons.

They probably can ramp reactor power output up and down *very* quickly.

A submarine reactor is *far* smaller than a power station reactor, core reportdly about the size of a dustbin (much smaller power output *and* using fuel with a much higher proportion of U235). [With pure U235 you can make a reactor the size of an orange -- in principle...]

And with higher reactivity of the enriched fuel, presumably much less problem with xenon poisoning if it needs to start up again soon after having shut down. Plus if shut down instantly, it can presumably just dump the fission product decay heat into the sea around it.

I doubt that there is a Haynes manual for a nuclear sub but it would be interesting to read one if there were.

Can nuclear power plants be expected to load follow?

http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/can-nuclear-power-plants-be-expected-to.html