Is the government's strategy to encourage the installation of renewable energy components on new build developements failing?
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
Showing posts with label LAW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LAW. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Book 'em, R2D2: Mistaken segregation, 3 counts!.
It's about cars, but it could just as easily soon be about our waste system.
Call for car number plate revamp
"...horrendous. You are guilty until you can prove you're not. It's the first time that I've thought that English law is on its head."
Amazingly, it seems by taking the human element out of the monitoring, proof and prosecution...'the problem has grown because of the amount of camera-based enforcement... which relies on computer records on who [is responsible for what]'.
No mention of not going straight to fine with burden of proof being for the innocent to provide.
Welcome to the New Britain. You are... welcome to it.
Call for car number plate revamp
"...horrendous. You are guilty until you can prove you're not. It's the first time that I've thought that English law is on its head."
Amazingly, it seems by taking the human element out of the monitoring, proof and prosecution...'the problem has grown because of the amount of camera-based enforcement... which relies on computer records on who [is responsible for what]'.
No mention of not going straight to fine with burden of proof being for the innocent to provide.
Welcome to the New Britain. You are... welcome to it.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Trust Drive.
£15 speeding tax for victims of violence - but REAL criminals pay nothing
Might one ask what the surcharge will be that those who are incorrectly charged with a road-based infraction can impose on the authorities?
I have on two occasions been, eventually, found in the right having been subjected to ever-escalating authoritarian pressure and threats, both financial and legal, most likely by automated system.
The only penalty that the accusers suffered was the cancellation of the original, unjust fine.
This is barking. There is no incentive at all to apply common sense to the imposition of such threats, as simply by pushing a computer key a computer racks it up until the individual caves.
This is government-sanctioned extortion, pure and simple.
I'd suggest it was resisted. By all of us.
Might one ask what the surcharge will be that those who are incorrectly charged with a road-based infraction can impose on the authorities?
I have on two occasions been, eventually, found in the right having been subjected to ever-escalating authoritarian pressure and threats, both financial and legal, most likely by automated system.
The only penalty that the accusers suffered was the cancellation of the original, unjust fine.
This is barking. There is no incentive at all to apply common sense to the imposition of such threats, as simply by pushing a computer key a computer racks it up until the individual caves.
This is government-sanctioned extortion, pure and simple.
I'd suggest it was resisted. By all of us.
Deterrence
I was watching the BBC Breakfast News when a piece came on about a train crash enquiry/case.
They had of course wheeled out a spokesperson/victim, to whom our sympathies must be extended.
He seemed to be of the view that a fine of £10M will be appropriate. I fear I must question the logic of all this as an effective deterrent. While money is a great motivator, just how it works in ways to the decision makers in corporations is in question. Look at the famous Pinto case.
As I wrote:
How is a fine, of any size, or a company apology, going to act as a deterrent when individuals must have been culpable? Have there been any individual, career-related penalties?
Until people take responsibility, and are held truly accountable, I rather fear that all that's happening is money getting shunted to where it is really not going to do much use from where it could be better applied to rectify faults.
They had of course wheeled out a spokesperson/victim, to whom our sympathies must be extended.
He seemed to be of the view that a fine of £10M will be appropriate. I fear I must question the logic of all this as an effective deterrent. While money is a great motivator, just how it works in ways to the decision makers in corporations is in question. Look at the famous Pinto case.
As I wrote:
How is a fine, of any size, or a company apology, going to act as a deterrent when individuals must have been culpable? Have there been any individual, career-related penalties?
Until people take responsibility, and are held truly accountable, I rather fear that all that's happening is money getting shunted to where it is really not going to do much use from where it could be better applied to rectify faults.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Something to chew on
I guess I'm a critic. Hence this piqued my interest: Irish News suffers from disgraceful libel loss
"defamatory, damaging and hurtful".
"Juries do not like the press,"
I clicked the links but could not find any further info, so may I ask a few questions here.
It is indeed hard to imagine a critique that, if negative, could not at least err on the damaging. Hurtful seems harder to prove. Defamatory looks more promising legally, based on evidence.
Now I appreciate that the legal process and justice can be inconvenienced by the sometimes erratic nature of '12 good persons and true', but I'm not sure that 'not liking the press' would be allowed.
I just wonder on what basis the jury found in favour of what seems to be a legal, if not very legitimate charge? Was the food too whatever. Were the venue and the staff as described? If not, and this was proven, then we have another story. If so, one can only wonder at the quality of the defence.
"defamatory, damaging and hurtful".
"Juries do not like the press,"
I clicked the links but could not find any further info, so may I ask a few questions here.
It is indeed hard to imagine a critique that, if negative, could not at least err on the damaging. Hurtful seems harder to prove. Defamatory looks more promising legally, based on evidence.
Now I appreciate that the legal process and justice can be inconvenienced by the sometimes erratic nature of '12 good persons and true', but I'm not sure that 'not liking the press' would be allowed.
I just wonder on what basis the jury found in favour of what seems to be a legal, if not very legitimate charge? Was the food too whatever. Were the venue and the staff as described? If not, and this was proven, then we have another story. If so, one can only wonder at the quality of the defence.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
One hung low
I am just listening to last night's Newsnight, and in getting to the piece I'm interested in, happened across a bit on the Prison's crisis.
One telling point made by a newly-resigned official, unchallenged by the BBC interviewer and hence I presume accurate, was that the police get credited as much for a quick ASBO collar as a 3-month fraud investigation. These are called 'low-hanging fruit'.
I am trying to reconcile this following yesterday morning's speech and Q&A that I attended with the Herefordshire Chief Superintendent. A charming, erudite and confidence-inspiring chap, he clearly stated that his officers were measured only by dispensing justice fairly and appropriately, and not by target.
Another example of the problem we the people are having getting clear information upon which to decide on how we vote. Maybe that is their intention, to try and maintain the status quo?
One telling point made by a newly-resigned official, unchallenged by the BBC interviewer and hence I presume accurate, was that the police get credited as much for a quick ASBO collar as a 3-month fraud investigation. These are called 'low-hanging fruit'.
I am trying to reconcile this following yesterday morning's speech and Q&A that I attended with the Herefordshire Chief Superintendent. A charming, erudite and confidence-inspiring chap, he clearly stated that his officers were measured only by dispensing justice fairly and appropriately, and not by target.
Another example of the problem we the people are having getting clear information upon which to decide on how we vote. Maybe that is their intention, to try and maintain the status quo?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
A dish best served cold.
The makers of the Big idea are probably thinking this is over. Sorry, I'm just starting.
TV phone-in quizzes
'My personal experience is not with a phone-in quiz, but a phone-in show, but whichever one it is, the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes!' to 'better' (whatever that may mean) 'regulation' (ditto).
I believe with all these things, both contestants (who often commit a large amount of time and often money, for free to contribute the 'content') and those who phone in on premium rate lines (to take part or 'vote') must be able to expect a fair delivery (and explanation of what that entails, or not) of the contest/show's stated structure.
That's nothing to do with 'people taking responsibility' for THEIR actions, but a rip-off industry, which is making millions for those unscrupulous, unethical and greedy enough to take advantage of slack or toothless monitoring and policing.
Can you imagine if the advertising industry - or the lottery, for that matter - was allowed to promise one thing and then deliver another, or nothing at all, with rules changing and/or shrouded in secrecy, plus little or no official audit of fairness or numbers?
Doesn't matter if it's a quiz or a contest, if these guys are allowed access to your 0900 billing there is only ever going to be one winner, and they'll make sure it is them, their ratings or their incomes, whichever comes highest, and regardless of skill or result.
Other than that, I'm sure it's all good, honest entertainment.'
Guardian - Call quiz shows dodge bullet
'A similar discussion is going on via the Newsnight online blog as we write. They seem to think it's a matter of better regulation and people should be responsible for their own actions. By that logic a person getting into a licensed (I presume if it is on air, OFCOM grants one) London taxi is 'repsonsible' for being driven to their destination via Alaska.
I'll cut and paste my contribution here, as I doubt that they'll moderate it in for being slightly 'off brief' by referring to any show that has contestants and/or phone-in partcipants/guests/votes via a 0900 number.
I still think the points I made hold true, and looking at that last sentence wonder how the telecoms companies who are willing partners in this racket can avoid some responsibility for being the collection agents.'
ADDENDUM to original:
It seems some smug folk reckoned being gullible warrants you being fair game:
Let he (or she... must be PC) who casts the first stone...
As one who catches all other's typos but never his own, I'd say a wee bit of slack could be offered as it a) was not exactly a world-changing cock-up and b) about the first I've seen (and passed over, chuckling to myself) on these pages in a fair long time.
Meanwhile, back on the topic....
As one of those it seems deemed by some to have got what he deserved, I do look forward to their posts when they next engage with well, pretty much anything in life really, where what they have been told is not true, or even is as can be reasonably presumed by virtue of no clarifications being obvious, when in good faith they make a financial transaction. If so I look forward to running ads for beachfront property development in certain parts of Florida soon.
It is called fraud. And it doesn't matter if it's your accountant running off with your life savings or a TV production company taking 50p knowing full well you have a 'BMW gearbox on a beach's' chance of getting it back.
And I remain ensure how the collectors of the money (the telecoms companies) on behalf of the con-artists in question, are also allowed free rein to take their skim, especially when I presume both, to repeat, require a licence from those we pay to defend our interests against such sharp practices.
Unless they are in on the deal, too inept or frightened of lobbyists to do anything about it.
TV phone-in quizzes
'My personal experience is not with a phone-in quiz, but a phone-in show, but whichever one it is, the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes!' to 'better' (whatever that may mean) 'regulation' (ditto).
I believe with all these things, both contestants (who often commit a large amount of time and often money, for free to contribute the 'content') and those who phone in on premium rate lines (to take part or 'vote') must be able to expect a fair delivery (and explanation of what that entails, or not) of the contest/show's stated structure.
That's nothing to do with 'people taking responsibility' for THEIR actions, but a rip-off industry, which is making millions for those unscrupulous, unethical and greedy enough to take advantage of slack or toothless monitoring and policing.
Can you imagine if the advertising industry - or the lottery, for that matter - was allowed to promise one thing and then deliver another, or nothing at all, with rules changing and/or shrouded in secrecy, plus little or no official audit of fairness or numbers?
Doesn't matter if it's a quiz or a contest, if these guys are allowed access to your 0900 billing there is only ever going to be one winner, and they'll make sure it is them, their ratings or their incomes, whichever comes highest, and regardless of skill or result.
Other than that, I'm sure it's all good, honest entertainment.'
Guardian - Call quiz shows dodge bullet
'A similar discussion is going on via the Newsnight online blog as we write. They seem to think it's a matter of better regulation and people should be responsible for their own actions. By that logic a person getting into a licensed (I presume if it is on air, OFCOM grants one) London taxi is 'repsonsible' for being driven to their destination via Alaska.
I'll cut and paste my contribution here, as I doubt that they'll moderate it in for being slightly 'off brief' by referring to any show that has contestants and/or phone-in partcipants/guests/votes via a 0900 number.
I still think the points I made hold true, and looking at that last sentence wonder how the telecoms companies who are willing partners in this racket can avoid some responsibility for being the collection agents.'
ADDENDUM to original:
It seems some smug folk reckoned being gullible warrants you being fair game:
Let he (or she... must be PC) who casts the first stone...
As one who catches all other's typos but never his own, I'd say a wee bit of slack could be offered as it a) was not exactly a world-changing cock-up and b) about the first I've seen (and passed over, chuckling to myself) on these pages in a fair long time.
Meanwhile, back on the topic....
As one of those it seems deemed by some to have got what he deserved, I do look forward to their posts when they next engage with well, pretty much anything in life really, where what they have been told is not true, or even is as can be reasonably presumed by virtue of no clarifications being obvious, when in good faith they make a financial transaction. If so I look forward to running ads for beachfront property development in certain parts of Florida soon.
It is called fraud. And it doesn't matter if it's your accountant running off with your life savings or a TV production company taking 50p knowing full well you have a 'BMW gearbox on a beach's' chance of getting it back.
And I remain ensure how the collectors of the money (the telecoms companies) on behalf of the con-artists in question, are also allowed free rein to take their skim, especially when I presume both, to repeat, require a licence from those we pay to defend our interests against such sharp practices.
Unless they are in on the deal, too inept or frightened of lobbyists to do anything about it.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Some are more equal
Maybe you can help me? What is a lobbyist? I ask because this post got me to wondering.
'I have sympathy, as even in the delicate groves of enviro e-academe, you can end up with some rather disconcerting equivalents of G.Bush's 'bring it on'. Especially prevalent where one uses humour, logic and facts to successfully counter (and show-up, wherein may lie the problem), bias, agendas, hissy-fits and hype. Speaking of which, you are right to ponder one's contribution to 'no such thing as bad publicity', but logically staying silent is not an option should one be concerned that all good persons (ok, I'm a PC-brigade coward) do nothing.
In one rather nasty incident recently, I found myself pulling out of a deteriorating online 'debate' with an 'Anon' (who knew who I was when I did not know them) when they said the next time the 'gloves were coming off' and they 'would get into the gutter'. I have since wondered whether, at risk of sounding like a schoolyard wimp, that was worth taking further with the Forum host at least, if not further. Surely what you describe above could be deemed a threat of assault?
As a pure aside, and bearing in mind my area of specialisation, I was interested in your use of the word 'lobby', as it has cropped up a lot, like with Tony 'D2AID2AIS' (don't do as I do, do as I say) Blair's holiday flip-flops on airlines and travel. Thanks to a Green MEP press release I read a government Minister is frustrated he can't do anything because of 'the power of the air lobby'!
I know it has its origins in meeting out of Chambers or some such, and hence doubtless originated here, but until now I had it as a US-based phenomenon and didn't really pay it much heed. No longer. These guys are unelected yet shaping my future.
But what is it? Far as I can gather it's a guy paid a lot by some other guys to whisper into a guy with a vote's ear to swing their way. So far, so open to corruption. But in the case of people not open to a bung, which I presume includes HMG and its officers, how is it any more powerful than 'putting one's point across'. Which is fine, unless it gets more sinister and drifts into areas of undue influence.
If we're talking 'or else' then surely it is illegal, he said naively, having watched Judge John Deed last night.'
'I have sympathy, as even in the delicate groves of enviro e-academe, you can end up with some rather disconcerting equivalents of G.Bush's 'bring it on'. Especially prevalent where one uses humour, logic and facts to successfully counter (and show-up, wherein may lie the problem), bias, agendas, hissy-fits and hype. Speaking of which, you are right to ponder one's contribution to 'no such thing as bad publicity', but logically staying silent is not an option should one be concerned that all good persons (ok, I'm a PC-brigade coward) do nothing.
In one rather nasty incident recently, I found myself pulling out of a deteriorating online 'debate' with an 'Anon' (who knew who I was when I did not know them) when they said the next time the 'gloves were coming off' and they 'would get into the gutter'. I have since wondered whether, at risk of sounding like a schoolyard wimp, that was worth taking further with the Forum host at least, if not further. Surely what you describe above could be deemed a threat of assault?
As a pure aside, and bearing in mind my area of specialisation, I was interested in your use of the word 'lobby', as it has cropped up a lot, like with Tony 'D2AID2AIS' (don't do as I do, do as I say) Blair's holiday flip-flops on airlines and travel. Thanks to a Green MEP press release I read a government Minister is frustrated he can't do anything because of 'the power of the air lobby'!
I know it has its origins in meeting out of Chambers or some such, and hence doubtless originated here, but until now I had it as a US-based phenomenon and didn't really pay it much heed. No longer. These guys are unelected yet shaping my future.
But what is it? Far as I can gather it's a guy paid a lot by some other guys to whisper into a guy with a vote's ear to swing their way. So far, so open to corruption. But in the case of people not open to a bung, which I presume includes HMG and its officers, how is it any more powerful than 'putting one's point across'. Which is fine, unless it gets more sinister and drifts into areas of undue influence.
If we're talking 'or else' then surely it is illegal, he said naively, having watched Judge John Deed last night.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)