Although may experts are focusing on energy alternatives and greener technologies such as carbon capture, one study has shown that heat capture techniques alone could meet 5% of the U.K.’s future requirements.

The report, from the University of Southampton and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), claims that over 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be saved every year if the waste heat from the country’s power stations could be captured and diverted to offices and homes.

This forms part of a new way of thinking called combined heat and power (CHP) schemes, which is a theory based on homes and offices being provided with heat and power from a localised power plant. The key is to have homes and businesses near enough power sources to make use of the central heat and power facility.

Many of the U.K. biggest power stations, such as Kingsnorth and Drax, are near populated areas and if the waste heat were to be captured from their energy making process, it could be used to heat local communities.

And producing heat accounts for nearly half of the U.K’s energy requirements.

The problem with many power stations is that they are woefully inefficient. They currently return an efficiency rating of only 35%, which in practice means that for every 1,000 mega watts of electricity the average power station produces, some 2,000 mega watts of heat goes up into the atmosphere via the cooling towers.

If this waste heat were to be captured, then it would make the power stations nearer 80% efficient and allow the heat captured to be used elsewhere. The report did acknowledge that all power stations could not be used in such a way (many, including nuclear facilities, are sited away from heavily populated areas), but there were enough near conurbations to make a significant difference.

The report also acknowledged that a great deal of investment would be needed in terms of the heat capture technology and the piping needed to distribute the heat.

But with a ten million carbon dioxide saving in the offing, the government might well decide to take the plan forward.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

For those with an older style boiler which does not have an in-built modulating control, it may be worth getting one installed.

In fact, say the manufacturers of such controls, they reckon it could save between 10% and 20% on an average energy bill.

A modulating control is basically a sensor that picks-up the level of warmth in a room and acts to vary the hot-water cylinder temperature. This is vital, because the overheating of water is not only expensive, wasteful and harmful in terms of increased emissions, but also means that the gas is burnt in a far more efficient manner putting les stress on the boiler.

It works by keeping the boiler in condensing mode for longer, producing less heat, as the room gets to the desired temperature.

Installation is not a DIY job, but most companies that supply modulating controls will also provide an installation service.

For an extra few bob, you can also get a sensor for outside the house which calculates, given the temperature, how much heat will be needed inside.

Don’t expect much change from £200 for buying and fitting such a control to a standard boiler, and £150 for a combination boiler. If you want the outside feature, then you will need to part with another £40.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

When it comes to insulating your house for the coming winter, don’t ignore sheep’s wool.

If we know anything about sheep, it is that they don’t freeze to death in fields during the winter, so suppliers who recommend such materials for keeping houses warm, might be on to a good thing.

Sheep wool is now being used extensively to make rolls of loft insulation material. And experts reckon it is up to 20% more efficient, meaning that you only need a depth of 225mm of sheep’s wool insulation, as opposed to 270mm of normal (fibreglass) insulation.

Now this depth figure is important, because it is the government’s minimum recommended thickness needed to keep the heat inside the house and not heating the street outside. And this figure is not arrived at in an arbitrary fashion. It’s derived at by estimating the amount of fibreglass (depth) needed to arrive at the standard of current loft insulation of 0.16W/m2K. This might sound like a tricky mathematical formula, but it refers to watts per square metre per degree Kelvin. This is referred to as the U-value and the lower the U-value, the better the insulating effect.

The trouble is of course, and this is a fact that many DIY insulators find to their cost, is that most attic roof joists are 100mm deep, which means that the insulation is way thicker than the joists. And if you want your attic boarded over to create a usable floor, then you cannot just compress the fibreglass as it’s insulating properties will be cancelled out. So, people who want to board over are usually faced with the decision of having to add to the current joists with new pieces of timber up to the required depth.

Adding new timbers in even a comparatively small loft space can be an expensive and time consuming job, which will dramatically increase the cost of insulation.

The base cost of laying down fibreglass is around £5 per square metre. If you choose say mineral wool fibre, which is said to not irritate the skin so much as fibreglass when laying, you still need a depth of 270mm, but it will set you back nearer £8 per square metre. You can get various types of non irritant fibreglass and lesser thicknesses, all achieving the desired U-value of 0.16, but some of these will cost between £10 and £25 per square metre.

And sheep’s wool? That will cost you £20 per square and say the salesmen, this will last the lifetime of the house and will not degrade like synthetic and mineral fibres, which will eventually collapse and lose their insulation properties.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

House builders Persimmon Homes think they have a great eco-selling point with one of their new developments.

Called The Limes, at Long Stratton, Norfolk, the new development uses a number of heat source air pumps which extract energy from the atmosphere outside of the houses and transfers it as heat for the central heating and hot water systems.

Persimmon believes that the system will save residents money, as the pumps are driven by electricity, saving the need for separate gas, or oil installations.

The Energy Savings Trust state the each home should save residents nearly £900 a year in bills, although this has been calculated on a householder previously using electricity as their main energy and based on a medium sized property.

Persimmon are very proud of their eco-credentials and consider these properties to be very kind on the environment, but also cost effective when compared to traditional heating methods.

The houses range from two bedroomed bungalows to five bedroomed detached houses, each constructed in sympathy with the existing area’s housing stock.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

According to many eco-experts, the current government is in danger of setting too many targets that it firstly cannot hope to reach and secondly, seeking a way out with loose definitions.

And a large number of organisations and activists are becoming a little worried as to the increasing levels of confusion.

Take carbon zero homes for example. The government has a target that all new homes after 2016 should be carbon neutral. Very laudable, yet since the government announced this target in 2006, the construction industry has spent years trying to define a carbon neutral home.

The backdrop to this target is more government ambitions, such as reducing U.K. CO2 emissions by 2050. And housing is one of the areas where many hopes are invested. This housing sector is responsible for around 25% of all U.K. emissions. And given that 35% of the housing that will be around in 2050 is likely to be built from now, it is clear why such an emphasis is being placed on low and zero carbon new homes.

When the target was first envisaged, carbon zero status was achieved when a property, over the course of a year, would emit no carbon emissions from its appliances, heating and lighting. This usually meant that a housing development would be carbon neutral by making use of off-site technologies.

Great, but there followed some months of studies which examined the feasibility of such off-site measures. In short, many of the original recommendations and methods of achieving a zero carbon status home were deemed to be unworkable.

So, a new set of standards were prepared which introduced a range of allowable solutions. This included such old on-site stalwarts as low energy lighting, better insulation and alternative fuel use.

In short, the construction industry is still somewhat confused as to how new homes can become carbon free by 2016, given that the debate between on-site and off-site solutions continues.

And this, say the experts, is one of many areas in which confusion reigns. If the government worthy targets are going to have any hope of being met say many in the sector, then some joined up thinking will be needed, and quickly.

Guest Article by Neil Camp