Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air

Linda asks…

zero carbon interview questions wanted

Hi,

I want to write an article on zero carbon homes in the UK, whether the government target of 2016 will be met or not. I intend to interview professionals in the building and construction industry. I am currently arranging an appointment with RIBA environmental president and the current president.. However, my journalism skills are very weak at the moment. I was wondering whether if someone can give me any idea on questions to ask.

I have ideas as in their views on the scheme, what they intend to do to meet the target etc. but I need more questions. Also can someone tell me where I can find information on the German Passivhaus scheme. As in how they set the target, and how they met it etc.

Your help will be much appreciated.

Thanks.

admin answers:

U may look here for all tht u need regarding zero carbon homes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6176229.stm

all questions tht u want for zero carbon homes are here:
http://www.zerocarbonhouse.com/FAQs.aspx

The energy efficient German / Austrian PassivHaus standard is recognised by the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) as one design approach for dwellings that goes some considerable way towards the government’s ‘Zero Carbon’ target, as TRADA’s new Construction Briefing explains.

The PassivHaus standard is considered by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) to be broadly equivalent to Code Level 4 in the CSH. It recognises that the principles underlying the PassivHaus approach have been driven by the simple desire to drastically reduce the demand for energy in buildings, yet they also achieve an enviable build quality that UK designers and housebuilders might well wish to study.

The following clear targets are set for each dwelling:

The building must not use more than 15kWh/m2/year in heating energy
The specific heat load for the heating source at the desired temperature must be less than 10W/m2
Air leakage levels at 50Pa must not exceed 0.6 times the house volume / hour (approx. 1m3/hr/m2 @ 50Pa)
Total primary energy consumption (heating, hot water and appliance electricity) must not exceed 120kWh/m2/year.
PassivHaus principles cover both new and upgraded buildings and have been broadened beyond dwellings to include educational and commercial buildings. Another major difference between PassivHaus and the CSH is that although the scheme is voluntary, it has grown in popularity particularly because funding mechanisms have been set up to make it commercially attractive to the developer and to give financial support for training to architects and others involved in the build process.

And in true German fashion, the scheme is carefully monitored at every stage. An architect trained in PassivHaus principles and practice designs the dwelling in accordance with all PassivHaus requirements. The design must be successfully appraised using the PHPP (Passive House Development Package). PHPP is a software program similar in concept to SAP2005, designed to consider many aspects of the dwelling’s energy performance at the same time. It seeks to achieve a much higher level of energy performance than that set out in Part L 2006, however, and concerns itself with a wider range of issues.

The PassivHaus Institut (PHI) double-checks the design calculations using PHPP. Products certified by PHI for the external envelope, windows and ventilation systems are then chosen by the architect / client. An air tightness test is carried out at an optimum time in the build process.

The architect is responsible for the Quality Control on site and specific checks must include the following:

Design of heat bridges – using bridge-free connection details or calculating the losses at heat bridges
Design of airtight connection details
Design of all heating, plumbing and electrical systems
Installation of heat free bridges
Installation of insulation layers which are continuous and without air pockets
Installation of joint details and service penetrations for air tightness
Adjustment of ventilation in normal service.
Although there is flexibility in the design of homes and the materials chosen, there are, however, a number of significant constraints in translating the PassivHaus design into a workable scheme for the UK, as the TRADA Construction Briefing explains.

Many within the UK construction industry would agree that we are not building to a sufficient quality to meet even current minimum standards within Part L for energy conservation. The important points about the PassivHaus standard in relation to quality are that:

The actual quality of the building is probably related more to what cannot be seen than by what we can see
The high quality of design and build are not just ‘nice to have’ but fundamentally necessary to achieving the low energy usage
The acid test to for the homeowner will not be whether it looks high quality but whether the quarterly energy bill is near to zero. This test is entirely objective and indisputable!
In short, we would need a very long awaited cultural revolution in design and site practice if we were to adopt the PassivHaus approach, as this would mean embracing the methodical and on-going training, auditing and testing on site which are necessary components of the PassivHaus process.

All ur answers regarding Passivhaus are here:

http://livemodern.com/buildblogs/ac420e4fb774f916b29045a00a3ec6c1

hope i’ve helped!gudluck!!

Joseph asks…

WHERE DID UNEP FAIL IN ITS STUDY OF GLOBAL WARMING & CLIMATE CHANGE?

UNEP & its scientists then blame transportation & industries as the primary source of pollution. And the world’s defense mechanisms are emission reduction, sustainable development, clean air act, ecological solid waste management act, mitigation & adaptation, etc. But these are subjective beliefs of wishful thinking, not realistic perception & objective reality of how nature works. This is because UNEP & its scientists undermined nature, failing to render better study before & after the treaty was conceived in 1997. Following are scientific grounds which would invalidate the treaty, among others, to wit:

1.Their study did not identify the stages as to how CO2 gas originated. The process of reverse transformation of gas from solid state (biology & physics) is necessary in order to determine the solid matter. Since the world claims that CO2 gas came from fossil fuels, then the origin is plants. To capture pure carbon, the appropriate method is to make natural gases work effectively (via organic matter cycling than carbon reduction).

2.Their study did not consider two classes of organisms. One that takes up CO2 & releases O2 (plants & forests) and the other that takes O2 & releases CO2 (man, animals, birds & sea creatures). If we devoid earth with plants & forests, the other organisms suffer.

3.Their study did not evaluate plants (biology) &/or reactants (chemistry) as possible means to reduce GHG. Concentrating on nature’s secondary process via photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, these will ultimately balance excessive GHG energy as waste gas from all emissions & respirations, conducive for mankind’s primary living.

4.Their study did not identify an abiotic environment which would best suit or gain control to store solid matter (instead of storing in gaseous state) with pure carbon & other carbon compounds (biology, chemistry & physics).

5.Their study did not consider the might of decay microorganisms to send off large volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Microbes can pollute in billions of CO2 a DAY per gram in solid wastes (like molds growing in spoiled foods), far more than billions (or even trillions) of CO2 a YEAR in tons of burnt coal & oil from transportation & industries since decomposing (or CO2-emitting) microbes are dominant during extreme hot environment (at temperatures between 25-40 degrees Celsius) than beneficial photosynthetic microorganisms (at temperatures between 20-25 degrees Celsius).

6.Their study did not consider that warming has intensified not only due to emissions from transportation & industries but rather due to organic decay from massive desertification of land (losing its capability to photosynthesize).

7.Their study did not consider that if CO2 is higher (claimed at 350 ppm or more), then its leverage with O2 has been impaired, meaning O2 is lower or weaker. In other words, O2 has reached a point of shortage or loss (temporarily) below the standard science record of 20-21%.

8.Their study did not consider O2 as a neutralizer of elements & compounds, taking action with another, being the common denominator of solids, liquids & gases.

9.And finally, their study did not invest on the biological service of CO2 as food and biological necessity of O2 as ingredients to sustain growth & preserve life respectively.

This is a grave & serious fault of UNEP & its scientists, causing faulty analysis & reasoning. The worse of it, IPCC acted as accomplice by introducing its false science too to favor carbon emission reduction and cover up the fraud in science.

admin answers:

Not to be rude.. But have you or anyone else that will read this think about what the world has been doing since the last ice age?? The world has been getting warmer.. The earths temp. Will cycle and continue to do so.. Maybe humans contribute to the effects of the warming.. But the earth will continue to get warmer with or without us.. You would think that the human race would see this and adjust instead of trying to fight something that cannot be changed..who knows maybe overall man has prolonged the global warming effect that we are seeing now.. Or have we increased it??

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *