Today, more and more people are becoming aware of our changing climate and as a result some are beginning to make their homes ‘Greener’. There are hundreds of ways to do this from installing solar panels on the roof to buying a composting toilet! Either way, making any house greener will help the climate in the long run but will it add value to your home as well?

Green homes are usually assessed at the time of selling using a number of environmental questionnaires so that estate agents can determine a fair price. There are a few agents that sell nothing but green homes and these are probably the best ones to go to for a quality valuation. The various questionnaires assess factors such as the energy efficiency and carbon footprint of the property, the water efficiency, the degree of household and site waste management and the satisfactory use of materials. Once a score has been determined, the house can be placed in class system based on ‘greenness’.

Surprisingly, the few estate agents that concentrate solely on selling green homes agree that, in general, they don’t cost much more to buy than an equivalent non-green home, unless of course they have been modified to the point of needing no gas, electricity or water supplying at all! Houses that have been converted to make them more green and efficient can be slightly more expensive than conventional equivalents as the sellers often want to recoup their investments. The difference however is rarely more than a few thousand pounds or so. Homes that have been built from scratch to be green are, even more surprisingly, often slightly cheaper than their non-green counterparts as it is actually cheaper to build a green house than a conventional house.

Saying this, there is some variety in price differences depending on where the property is located. For example, a green house or apartment in London will often cost more than a similar sized conventional property in the same area. This is because homeowners in some areas of the big cities can get small rebates if they keep their carbon footprint and energy usage below a certain level and as you can imagine, any saving is welcome in today’s economic climate. Green houses in the countryside however are often valued at around the same price as if they were non-green houses which is great for those couples or families that want to experience the country way of life while also being environmentally friendly.

Sadly there is no definitive answer for the question of whether buyers pay more for a ‘greener’ house – it depends on the house itself, the location and the sellers. In general though it would seem that, at present, there isn’t a big difference between the price of a green house and the price of an equivalent non-green house but who knows what the future holds as more and more energy efficient rules and regulations make an appearance.

Guest Article by Clare Lynock

Over the last few years millions of people have begun to wake up to the fact that the world’s energy sources aren’t going to last forever and a growing proportion are now starting to look for alternative methods of satisfying their domestic energy needs. One option that many people consider is installing a domestic wind turbine, either attached to their property or close by, but is this really a viable option for the general population?

The amount of energy that a wind turbine produces can be calculated using a rather complex equation which relates the average wind speed to the collection area of the turbine. In simple terms however, it is estimated that a domestic wind turbine that measures 2 metres from tip to tip would supply around 500kWh per year in a suitably windy location. Unfortunately the average household uses around 4500kWh per year and so in order to use a turbine as the only energy source it would have to measure somewhere in the region of 5 metres from tip to tip and stand over 12 metres high!

In urban areas this obviously isn’t practical however a small domestic wind turbine can often be fitted and used to supplement the energy coming from the National Grid, thus saving you money on your energy bills. It is thought that a 500kWh wind turbine can save a household around £160 per year however at a price of around £1500 it will take nearly ten years to recoup the purchase price. In addition, you have to make sure your property is suitable with regards to average wind speeds because if you don’t catch the wind then the whole thing is pointless. Most companies who fit domestic wind turbines will visit your property before agreeing to the order just to make sure you aren’t wasting your time and money on a useless piece of equipment.

Saying this, if you live at the top of a Scottish mountain or in any other extremely windy place then a good sized wind turbine could in fact save you a great deal of money over the years. Large, free standing turbines can cost anywhere between £3000 and £4500 however they have been known to generate up to 80% of the average household energy requirements and if this is the case then they are well worth the expense. In fact, if you have the space and the money then you could consider multiple turbines and disconnect yourself from the National Grid altogether. This is of course the best case scenario and there probably aren’t many people with the money, space and planning permission for several large wind turbines in their back garden.

Simply put then, if you are happy to just supplement your energy supply with an alternative method and you don’t mind having a domestic wind turbine stuck to the side of your house or stood in your back garden, then they can save you money in the long run. You need to be in a windy position however and you’ll need a decent sized one to make it worthwhile. Experts suggest that solar panels are more efficient and economical though and so it may be worth thinking about these as well.

Guest Article by Clare Lynock

No, it’s not something out of the next series of Doctor Who. Biomass originates from living, or recently living organisms. It is thus a biological material and when talking about biomass in terms of energy, it usually means vegetable material, although biomass strictly can mean animal material as well.

And for you chemists out there, it is carbon based and is made up of organic molecules which contain hydrogen, usually including oxygen and nitrogen. Other atoms are also present and these might include heavy metals, alkaline earth and alkali.

The carbon that it used to build biomass comes from the atmosphere by plants absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2), deriving the necessary energy from the sun.

Now biomass has a number of fates. It might be eaten by animals, when it becomes animal biomass, or it might be eaten by micro-organisms and released back into the atmosphere as CO2, or methane. If it is burned, it’s released straight back into the atmosphere as CO2.

All these processes have been occurring since the start of the earth and it is called the carbon cycle.

Now, to understand the difference between biomass fuels and fossil fuels, is to understand that the biomass process will have happened recently. The plant will have absorbed the carbon dioxide as it grows and will then release it as it burns, creating what’s known as a closed carbon cycle.

The problem with fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) which is also made up of biological material, is that the carbon was captured in these materials many millions of years ago and basically represents a store of harmful CO2 which, ideally, should not be released up into the atmosphere.

Biomass crops can therefore be regarded as a sustainable source of fuel, constantly absorbing and then releasing carbon in a replenishing cycle.

Okay, all good so far. But the problem is that creating enough sustainable biomass crops requires a huge change in the human mindset. In the human view, mining a provable fuel source such as oil, is a far simpler and more economic solution to satisfying the worlds energy needs.

So, people need to think a little harder and embrace the numerous sources of sustainable biomass fuels that already exist.

And for convenience, it has been established that biomass fuels originate from around five different sources.

Firstly, energy crops, which include high yielding crops which are grown specifically for fuel. Secondly, food waste, which is in abundance and mainly comes from consumer waste. Thirdly, virgin wood which can be sustainably harvested from a number of activities. Fourthly, products from industrial processes, such as manufacturing. And finally, the fifth source, agricultural residues which arrive from the normal process of agriculture and the harvesting of crops.

So, it’s hurray for biomass crops and boo for fossil fuels. The big question is, will the human population be able to make the switch from relying on fossil fuels, to harnessing the full potential of biomass fuels. And indeed, is there enough biomass for us to wean ourselves completely off fossil fuels.

Of course, only time will tell.

Biomass Worries

There are however, safety concerns over new biomass boilers which are preventing their use in Edinburgh schools, despite their promotion by the Scottish Government.

Biomass fuel is regarded as a sustainable source of fuel, constantly absorbing and releasing carbon in a replenishing cycle. They are far better for the environment than fossil fuels. But new fears have been raised over the production of particulates in the emissions from biomass boilers. And these particulates have worried scientists who think they may cause people breathing problems, especially children.

So new biomass boiler systems destined for seven Edinburgh schools have been put on hold whilst further reports are studied.

But Scottish Government scientists are adamant the new biomass boilers are safe, as long as they are used together with technology that removes any particulates from the emissions. This depends on filters and the correct type of chimneys being installed.

Thus a stalemate has been reached between the council chiefs of the authority where the schools are situated and the Scottish Government. But cynics have pointed out that the decision to install the boilers is actually down to worries over costs and that health screens are a convenient excuse to delay the project.

Supporters of the biomass boilers point that it has always been known their installation has depended on emission cleaning technology which ensures their safety.

Biomass Boilers May Not Be The Answer

As many companies and householders consider the option of an eco-friendly biomass boiler, the Environmental Agency has warned they could actually be harmful to the environment.

But it’s not so much the process of burning wood and similar fuels that is the problem. It comes down to the planting and growing of the biomass crops in the first place. The main issue centred on the fact that the ploughing up of pasture for the energy crops would create more CO2 than their actual use would save.

The report, called ‘Biomass: Carbon Sink or Carbon Sinner’ also stated the gas emissions from different types of biomass fuels varied enormously. Some of the best fuels represented a huge advance over say coal, producing 98% less emissions of CO2 per megawatt hour. But other biomass fuels faired less well; some even worse than fossil fuels.

Waste wood and MDF were some of the best performers; oil seed rape, poplar and willow, not so good.

And the report called on producers to take into account the effect of emissions from all stages of the process, from ploughing to growing, to cropping and use; not just the final stage, in order to get an accurate picture.

With the popularity of biomass boilers increasing daily, there are also worries about the sustainability of the fuel source. The agency further warned that by 2030, the production of biomass fuels will have to be as efficient and as low in emissions as possible, otherwise the good work achieved will have been wasted.

It reiterated the fact biomass fuels are a limited resource and their use should not be wasted without thought for the future.

Guest Article by Neil Camp