Nett Zero Madness #379 : Wooden Houses Are Potentially Lower Maintenance.

[peak4 285]

Has anyone actually gone back and read the original opening post?
It would be helpful if the article from which the quotes were taken was provided as a link, to help with context.
M&G tops up Greencore sustainable homes investment with £30m    The Times
Group aims to build 10,000 carbon-friendly houses over the next decade

The capital allocated to Greencore has been drawn from M&G’s £5 billion Catalyst fund, which is designed to invest “in innovative companies tackling some of the world’s biggest environmental and social challenges”.
Greencore manufactures timber-frame panels that are insulated with natural materials including hemp and wood-fibre.

The panels are assembled on development sites in a matter of days.

Better energy efficiency means that Greencore’s homes have the potential to be cheaper to maintain and warm compared with older housing stock.

 

Not the last part,  warm compared with older housing stock.

This isn't talking about comparing the eco homes with new brick, block & slate built houses, it's talking about comparing older housing stock.

Older housing stock is almost certainly less well insulated; some older buildings don't have cavity walls, or even double glazing.
To bring older houses up to modern insulation standards, suitable for heat pumps etc, will be expensive, and that counts as maintenance.
New all brick, or stone houses can be built to a higher insulation standard, but take much longer and cost more.
Even now, newbuilds aren't mandated to have solar panels or heat pumps.

[Chekhov 488]

11 hours ago, Prettytom said:

You can also treat softwood to slow the decay process. 

We talked about that up thread.

The problem is that modern environmental regulations are banning the best anti rot treatments. As an example it is common knowledge in the trade that modern tanalising is no where near as good as that 30 years ago.

[Chekhov 488]

9 hours ago, peak4 said:

To bring older houses up to modern insulation standards, suitable for heat pumps etc, will be expensive, and that counts as maintenance.
New all brick, or stone houses can be built to a higher insulation standard, but take much longer and cost more.
Even now, newbuilds aren't mandated to have solar panels or heat pumps.

Heat pumps are vastly over rated, I personally think it is a blind alley. Older houses cannot practically speaking, be insulated to the level required  for heat pumps because the latter give out very little heat ! As an example internal insulation required on houses with no wall cavity is very expensive, and very disruptive (complete redecorating is required....) and it makes the rooms smaller. Not that that will stop the powers that be from forcing property owners to fit it, particularly Landlords who are an easy target (and they wonder why there is  shortage of rented properties.....).

 

>>that counts as maintenance<<

 

Not many people would agree with you that enforced (and impractical...) modifications to ones house would count as "maintenance".

 

Definition of maintenance:

 

the process of preserving a condition or situation or the state of being preserved.

 

 

 

 

[Chekhov 488]

11 hours ago, Padders said:

You could put a small bungalow inside a Giant Redwood..

Aren't Redwoods hardwood ?

Using hardwood for construction is an environmental no no (apparently).

[RJRB 688]

11 hours ago, Padders said:

You could put a small bungalow inside a Giant Redwood..

Alternatively you could put a little Giant Redwood inside a bungalow

[Mkapaka 220]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Older houses cannot practically speaking, be insulated to the level required  for heat pumps

If only someone could think of a more modern sustainable method of construction that would accommodate them.

[Chekhov 488]

26 minutes ago, Mkapaka said:

If only someone could think of a more modern sustainable method of construction that would accommodate them.

Preferably one which will last as long and not need any more maintenance ?

 

The word sustainable is interesting.

Hardwood takes much longer to grow and much of it is imported, which is apparently "environmentally unfriendly".

But surely a building which lasts significantly longer and/or needs less maintenance is more environmentally friendly ?