Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Are Our U-Values Really Bad


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 28 April 2016 - 08:58 AM

I have often heard, and believed, that the UK has 'the lowest' thermal requirements for buildings.
I decided to have a look and found this:
http://www.eurima.or...let_0412071.pdf
Page 11 has a chart of major cities in EU countries.
Seems we are about the same as Helsinki, so not bad at all.
It can be argued that we don't implement the rules, but that is a different issue, the same can be said for not striving to improve on the current standards.
But interesting that what I thought was true, isn't. What science is all about.

Does anyone know of any other standards i.e windows, doors, quirky floors or roofs that show that are standards are worse than Athens?

Found this on airtightness.
http://www.stb.rwth-...rable_WP1_a.pdf
Seems to be different pressures for testing though, anyone care to take a stab at normalising them?

Edited by joiner, 28 April 2016 - 09:16 AM.
car to care


#2 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:54 AM

You hit the nail on the head by mentioning that we don't implement the rules.

If all houses were built to the specs in PartL1A then they wouldn't be too bad. They'd not be great, with countries like Ireland being a fair be better, but they would still be better that the majority of new houses built.

Our problem is that we just don't enforce the regs on big developments, it's only on one-offs where reasonably OK houses are built. The difference between what the building regs say and what is built in practice is pretty big, and summed up well here: http://www.aecb.net/...energy-savings/

#3 tonyshouse

tonyshouse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • LocationThames Valley

Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:29 AM

The prevailing philosophy of scraping by the current regs leaves us cold, literally

I am strongly of the opinion that u values still need to give us much higher levels of insulation than they currently do.

Insulation is cheap to build in, very expensive to add afterwards, and very expensive not to have compared to the heating energy needed over life of a building. This is costing us a lot nationally and an increasing number of people are livinginenergypoveryty as a result.

#4 Barney12

Barney12

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 393 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:34 PM

View Posttonyshouse, on 28 April 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

The prevailing philosophy of scraping by the current regs leaves us cold, literally

I am strongly of the opinion that u values still need to give us much higher levels of insulation than they currently do.

Insulation is cheap to build in, very expensive to add afterwards, and very expensive not to have compared to the heating energy needed over life of a building. This is costing us a lot nationally and an increasing number of people are livinginenergypoveryty as a result.

Great aspiration but entirely pointless for the reasons already presented by the first two posts.

It would be akin to reducing ALL road speed limits to 30mph to save lives without any form of enforcement.

#5 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:37 PM

But, according to that chart on page 11 (which may or may not be right), we have the same standards.
Not building to the standards is a totally different issue, and not one I want to take up on this thread. It is more to do with the misunderstanding that our standards are lower, which they don't seem to be.
It looks like our airtightness is lower (worse), than the Scanwegans.

#6 Barney12

Barney12

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 393 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:39 PM

Sorry, just to add:

It is consumer apathy that is the issue. If the consumer demanded a well built home then that is what the developers would deliver. We need to remember that the self builder is still a tiny minority and those who want to build a well insulated home an even smaller subset.

A development (albeit fairly small) of mainly FTB homes near me has recently sold out off plan before they've even put a shovel in the ground!

Edited by Barney12, 28 April 2016 - 01:39 PM.


#7 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:59 PM

Quite right. People just don't have a clue what is possible.

#8 joe90

joe90

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 03:45 PM

View Postgravelld, on 28 April 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

Quite right. People just don't have a clue what is possible.

Definately right plus the fact if it's not inspected at every stage how is a normal buyer to know its up to standard.