# Implications of New Part L for planning applications after 30 Nov 2011



## onq (20 Nov 2011)

Implications of New Part L for planning applications after 30 Nov 2011


I cannot help feel that this Part L has been let run away with itself with no real assessment of its implications.

Far too much of the billing and cooing on Construct Ireland seems to be without critical comment - nothing is THAT good.

As usual the RIAI "show" costs a Kings Ransom - someone needs to impress on them the need to get the information out there on a value for money basis.

They need to get the unit cost down and numbers up.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied             upon                                   as a defence or support -    in     and      of     itself  -         should       legal           action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                               Real Life with rights to       inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the           matters        at           hand. 		

===========================================================================================================

From: http://www.riai.ie/index.php/news/a...tant_message_from_the_riai_practice_director/

News
REVISED PART L - Important Message from the RIAI Practice Director

Posted: Friday, November 11, 2011

RIAI Practice Director, Joe Miller has issued an important message to RIAI Members on the forthcoming revised Part L of the Building Regulations.

“I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand the forthcoming changes in Part L 2011 of the Building Regulations to the way we design domestic dwellings.  As you will see below, Part L 2011 will come into force in about 3 weeks, on the 1st December 2011; the transitional period ends on the 30th November 2011. Unless a planning application is made by that date, compliance will be required with Part L 2011 for planning applications on and after 1st December 2011.

Compliance with Part L requirement is quite onerous, both in terms of design and construction. The Part L Road Show programme will analyse the changes that are relevant in the new Part L 2011 and comparisons will be drawn between them and the current Part L requirements. The case studies, which form the latter part of the Road Show, will demonstrate how compliance can be achieved at the design stage, in some cases with the greatest difficulty, for the semi-detached house; an apartment building; an extension to an existing dwelling and an historic building with an exempted development to the rear. We announce the RIAI Road Show below and urge as many of the RIAI members, as possible, to attend.”

Download Technical Guidance Document Part L - Conservation of Fuel & Energy - Dwellings (2011)
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publicatio...g/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad,27316,en.pdf

The RIAI has arranged an RIAI Skillnet CPD Road Show on the New Part L with dates, costs and location below:

View the event programme

Download the booking form

Dates:

Dublin on Thursday 24 November 2011 - (9.15am-1.30pm)
Galway on Tuesday 29 November 2011 - (1pm-5.15pm)
Cork on Thursday 1 December 2011 - (1pm-5.15pm)

Tutors: Members of the RIAI Sustainability Taskforce

Cost: RIAI practices €95 (price includes RIAI Skillnet funding as applicable)

RIAI member* €105 (price includes RIAI Skillnet funding as applicable)

Non-RIAI member €160

For further information contact:Teresa Harte, RIAI, 8 Merrion Square, Dublin 2. Tel (01) 676 1703 Fax (01) 661 0948 e-mail: tharte@riai.ie


----------



## lowCO2design (20 Nov 2011)

yes it has its flaws, and of course DEAP has not yet been updated. NOR  have the acceptable construction details been updated!! they are  certainly missing a trick allowing such retarded thermal bridge details  and poor air-tightness standards. the way technology is forced on us,  over the construction of a well orientated, super building fabric,  compact designed buildings, with little or no heating requirements

imho 90% of the entire construction industry here is not even complying  with the 2008 40% reductions on the 2005 Reg's, never mind this  impending 60%

I wouldn't be overly interested in this seminar, I'll be waiting for the  updated software and sitting down with a sample house, the TGD-L and  mess around with the values in DEAP

you've seen this and this 

[broken link removed] another seminar option, but still in An Pháil! but  sure who cares anyway, there's no building control and no one believes  in building regulations when retro-fitting or extending anyway !!


----------



## onq (21 Nov 2011)

I do try to comply with the building regulations when extending, actually, but I am unwilling to put in these ever higher standards which are unworkable.
You mentioned the details and I'd ask you to follow the link and read through the Appendix in the New Part L 2011 and offer opinions to me on it.
I intend talking with a lot of people over the next few weeks and putting feedback to the RIAI and the Minister on this part of the law.

Let me focus on one bugbear of mine - the installation of blocks of low thermal transmissivity at the base of walls to avoid a cold bridge.
Most of these blocks obtain their low thermal transmissivity by being 80% air, with consequent reduction in structural strength.
Picture the block having been saturated by a day of torrential rain after a wet period where water simply isn't getting away.
The block is within a foundation stricture so drainage "out" is limited anyway and there is no "outboard" insulation.

How reasonable is the following scenario, given the huge number of new settlement  cracks that have appeared in walls and buildings around Dublin in the  past six months following last years frost?
A deep freeze follows on and penetrates to the level of the block, and the water within the interstitial spaces in the blocks matrix freezes and damages the block.
I'm not saying structural collapse is imminent even after this, but it seems as though the base of the wall is weakened.
The block at the base of the inner leaf now has a compromised structural matrix.
Over time this could have serious consequences for the house.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied              upon                                   as a defence or support -     in     and      of     itself  -         should       legal            action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                Real Life with rights to        inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the            matters        at           hand.


----------



## lowCO2design (21 Nov 2011)

*theraml bridging*



> average overall standards (U-values) as set in the Elemental Method in Building Regulations 2008 TGD-L (Dwellings) for instance, the proportion of the overall heat loss due to thermal bridging in average dwellings built recently is probably between 10% and 15%.


acd details
now if the DOE states the above and only recommends thermal-bridge reductions from 0.15W/m2K to 0.08W/m2K then surely getting them down to 0.01W/m2K(considered 0 by the PHI) would be a good idea? Would it not be better than the 10% renewable requirement, when all that's need is more attention to architectural detailing!



onq said:


> Let me focus on one bugbear of mine - the installation of blocks of low  thermal transmissivity at the base of walls to avoid a cold bridge.
> Most of these blocks obtain their low thermal transmissivity by being  80% air, with consequent reduction in structural strength.



your referring to quinlite or similar lightweight aerated blocks, they  do come in different strengths to suit structural requirements 5 - 7 or 9N/mm².

I would generally look to the certifying structural  engineer to be happy with their compressive strength, an have had no  issues to date.



> Picture the block having been saturated by a day of torrential rain after a wet period where water simply isn't getting away.
> The block is within a foundation stricture so drainage "out" is limited anyway and there is no "outboard" insulation.


how about covering the porous blocks? 


> How reasonable is the following scenario, given the huge number of new  settlement  cracks that have appeared in walls and buildings around  Dublin in the  past six months following last years frost?
> A deep freeze follows on and penetrates to the level of the block, and  the water within the interstitial spaces in the blocks matrix freezes  and damages the block.
> I'm not saying structural collapse is imminent even after this, but it seems as though the base of the wall is weakened.
> The block at the base of the inner leaf now has a compromised structural matrix.
> Over time this could have serious consequences for the house.


interesting assumptions, I've never worried about it, but if I was I'd just use some other material 

Have you heard of [broken link removed]

There are different materials that can be used as a thermal break other than aerated concrete. If your not happy with aerated blocks due to structural/moisture concerns use something else, we were quiet late to catch on to them in Ireland and they have been used elsewhere in the EU for sometime. 
or why not change the construction method, many are now going for an insulated foundation systems for instance 

There are loads of ways of building and detailing to avoid Quinlite if you wish.

ONQ I presume you've seen [broken link removed]software

As a more general look at thermal bridging (for any home-builders out there) have a read here:
[broken link removed]



[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]


----------



## onq (21 Nov 2011)

Okay, I'm now officially snowed under with information.

I'll have to sift through all this - not for the first time - and thanks 

I've stated on this and looked at the foam glas product -  I've downloaded the brochures and I need more materials information.

Being able to withstand a load isn't the same as being durable, and if there are hollows that water can fill and within which it can freeze generating outward pressure, it may be a similar issue to the lightweight blocks.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied               upon                                   as a defence or support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should       legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                 Real Life with rights to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the             matters        at           hand.


----------



## lowCO2design (21 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> Okay, I'm now officially snowed under with information.
> 
> I'll have to sift through all this - not for the first time - and thanks
> 
> ...


Just check it out, I'm sure you'll find its the alternative to Quinlite that still allows your preferred traditional block/ cavity/ block construction.


----------



## onq (21 Nov 2011)

I appreciate you taking the time to respond online to this LCO2D.

I enjoy new areas of knowledge and I have been looking at this for two years now.

The important thing for me is to strike a reasonable balance and to do it in a manner that is cost effective and achievable.

Looking at some of the sealing details for intermediate floors I see them as a huge cost riser, but equally if people are going to insulate without sealing in a competent and compliant manner they are not doing so as effectively as they might.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                upon                                   as a defence or  support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should        legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                  Real Life with rights  to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the              matters        at           hand.


----------



## threebedsemi (21 Nov 2011)

The new Part L really ups the ante to a large degree, and at least the RIAI are flagging the issue. There is very little other broadcasting of it within the construction industry as far as I can see. It really is going towards passive standards in a lot of areas, and ye olde award winning 'glass box' domestic extension is unlikely to be possible any longer.

Re. the RIAI training, I actually think €95 for four hours training/information dissemination is not too bad, as they do usually pack in a lot of info into those seminars. And there is a lot to pack into this one.

To be honest, though, without proper supervision and accountability re. the finished product, they can publish as many Part L’s as they want. They will just be ignored or adhered to in a piecemeal fashion by the majority of builders, certifiers and clients like the previous ones were. 

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## lowCO2design (21 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> Looking at some of the sealing details for intermediate floors I see them as a huge cost riser, but equally if people are going to insulate without sealing in a competent and compliant manner they are not doing so as effectively as they might.


what details are you referring to?


----------



## lowCO2design (21 Nov 2011)

threebedsemi said:


> The new Part L really ups the ante to a large degree, and at least the RIAI are flagging the issue. There is very little other broadcasting of it within the construction industry as far as I can see. It really is going towards passive standards in a lot of areas,


+1 
there should be a balance achieved between embodied energy and the scale and size of the building, when achieving reg complaince and kwh/m2/y. 




> To be honest, though, without proper supervision and accountability re. the finished product, they can publish as many Part L’s as they want. They will just be ignored or adhered to in a piecemeal fashion by the majority of builders, certifiers and clients like the previous ones were.


 +1 
we need building control


----------



## onq (21 Nov 2011)

lowCO2design said:


> what details are you referring to?



The ones for sealing timbers into walls for example.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                 upon                                   as a defence or   support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should         legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                   Real Life with rights   to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the               matters        at           hand.


----------



## onq (21 Nov 2011)

threebedsemi said:


> Re. the RIAI training, I actually think €95 for four hours training/information dissemination is not too bad, as they do usually pack in a lot of info into those seminars. And there is a lot to pack into this one.



You've been conditioned into believing that. 

A tenner on the door should be more than enough to pay.

The RIAI numbers and venue policy is a disaster, as if they're reaching pre-teens.

A dissemination of information like this should really be free given the annual fee MRIAI's pay.

There seem to be far too many people giving "conferences" who are barely operating above parrot level.

ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                 upon                                   as a defence or   support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should         legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                   Real Life with rights   to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the               matters        at           hand.


----------



## Docarch (21 Nov 2011)

I've often wondered why the DoELG does not pay for/subsidise this type of course or even _pay_ people to attend these courses!!! 

They write/update the Building Regulations and then basically ask architects (and other certifiers) to essentially implement the regulations, i.e. do the dirty work!


----------



## Complainer (21 Nov 2011)

Docarch said:


> I've often wondered why the DoELG does not pay for/subsidise this type of course or even _pay_ people to attend these courses!!!
> 
> They write/update the Building Regulations and then basically ask architects (and other certifiers) to essentially implement the regulations, i.e. do the dirty work!



So Revenue are supposed to pay to train all the accountants and tax advisers too then? And the Gardai are supposed to pay to train all the lawyers too then? And the HSA are supposed to pay to train all the safety consultants too then?

Come on - a professional has to maintain their own knowledge for their clients.


----------



## onq (22 Nov 2011)

I think Docarch's point relates more to the number of times Part L has been updated over the past six years or so - its really getting ridiculous!

Pick a standard and stick with it and allow proficiency to working to one standard develop.

Are we still on gormless Gormley's timeline for Carbon Neutral - is that it?

Carbon Neutral hermetically sealed housing by 2013 wasn't that it?

All of us will be dead from lung ailments by 2020. 


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                  upon                                   as a defence or    support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should          legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                    Real Life with rights    to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the                matters        at           hand.


----------



## Docarch (22 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> I think Docarch's point relates more to the number of times Part L has been updated over the past six years or so - its really getting ridiculous!


 
Yes indeed, and a little bit of tounge in cheek!


----------



## onq (22 Nov 2011)

Gormley's agenda still hasn't been revisited has it?

This was drawn up when Irish building was going through a boom.
There was a logic to pushing it through then, but the underlying conditions have changed.

Now they're arguing that we need it to combat future proof the economy against fossil fuel prices.
€400 Billion worth of gas sitting off our coasts and all of us seem to be worrying about next year's fuel prices.

We should be getting Professor Nannites in Trinity to find a way to create hydrogen out of seawater cheaply and change the world.
The hydrogen fuel cycle has almost no carbon footprint, but it seems as though the vested American oil interests are holding this work back.

Lets develop the technology, get a world patent on it, and make trillions to re-float our ailing economy!

ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                   upon                                   as a defence or     support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should           legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                     Real Life with  rights    to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on      the                matters        at           hand.


----------



## Superman (22 Nov 2011)

> €400 Billion worth of gas sitting off our coasts and all of us seem to be worrying about next year's fuel prices.


Point it out and I'll buy it - I'll give you a 1% commission as well.



onq said:


> We should be getting Professor Nannites in Trinity to find a way to create hydrogen out of seawater cheaply and change the world.
> The hydrogen fuel cycle has almost no carbon footprint, but it seems as though the vested American oil interests are holding this work back.
> 
> Lets develop the technology, get a world patent on it, and make trillions to re-float our ailing economy!


That really is nonsense.


----------



## lowCO2design (22 Nov 2011)

thats the end of the discussion on the new TGD L so?? 



onq said:


> Gormley's agenda still hasn't been revisited has it?
> This was drawn up when Irish building was going through a boom.
> There was a logic to pushing it through then, but the underlying conditions have changed.


what's is the problem with Gormley, he often seems to be the scape goat, have we forgotten that most of our  building legislation is just drip feed from the EU/UK? - are you aware that  Whales was the first to commit to zero carbon in use by 2016 (whether that happens is another story)

Gormley also tried to tidy-up our councillors that were making a mockery of our planning zoning, but now it looks like Hogan is going to erode that as well  Draft Retail Planning Guidelines - its turning into another Galway tent crew, instead of getting our town centres back to life!


> Now they're arguing that we need it to combat future proof the economy against fossil fuel prices.
> €400 Billion worth of gas sitting off our coasts and all of us seem to be worrying about next year's fuel prices.


 we import 97% of all our fuel into Ireland, but don't confuse fuel security with climate change, and don't forget our EU commitments to reduce or Carbon emissions, again blamed on Gormley.

Buildings are one of the main culprits as regards co2 producing and we have a long way past energy in issue to consider. Buildings are of course the easiest to attack/reduce consumption in, as there is no coherent lobbying like the road hauliers, concrete federation and farmers etc. But the whole idea is we improve the comfort of our homes while, reduing energy consumption,with the idea that this will actually save home-owners money in the long run.


> We should be getting Professor Nannites in Trinity to find a way to create hydrogen out of seawater cheaply and change the world.


 its a similar argument many people use when austerity or legislative measures don't suit them. shouldn't we be trying to reduce energy consumption in buildings, even if we found the miracle cure for cheap fuel storage?


> The hydrogen fuel cycle has almost no carbon footprint, but it seems as though the vested American oil interests are holding this work back.


 is there a reincarnation as Jim Corr happening here?


> Lets develop the technology, get a world patent on it, and make trillions to re-float our ailing economy!


 yes please, but lets leave that to the 'Professor Nannites' and how about we use our skills as a designers to design out the issues that are causing comments like this:


> Carbon Neutral hermetically sealed housing .... All of us will be dead from lung ailments


 ???


----------



## onq (22 Nov 2011)

Superman said:


> Point it out and I'll buy it - I'll give you a 1% commission as well.



I just did point it out.

We are bringing foreign investment in to develop our natural resources - we should be doing this ourselves.


> That really is nonsense.


You think that an economy based on the hydrogen cycle is nonsense?
I see it as the future base of a world economy, but each to their own.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                    upon                                   as a defence or      support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should            legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                      Real Life with   rights    to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on       the                matters        at           hand.


----------



## Superman (22 Nov 2011)

> We are bringing foreign investment in to develop our natural resources - we should be doing this ourselves.


There is also about 100,000 tonnes of gold spread around the country. If we only collected it all, we'd be rich.
It's just a pity that it is such minute quantities (the odd atom here and there)...

Who is this "ourselves" when it comes to off continental shelf deep sea oil and gas well development.  Do you have any idea how sophisticated and beyond the reach of any Irish company such development is?



> You think that an economy based on the hydrogen cycle is nonsense?
> I see it as the future base of a world economy, but each to their own.


Hydrogen functions as a rather poor medium for conveying energy - i.e. a battery.
It is part of the carbon cycle if what powers the battery is carbon based energy. "Getting hydrogen out of seawater" requires energy - this has to be provided by an energy source. This energy source would be an existing energy source - i.e. a gas power-station. 
Unless you think that Steorn are going to have success any day now.


----------



## onq (22 Nov 2011)

lowCO2design said:


> thats the end of the discussion on the new TGD L so??
> 
> what's is the problem with Gormley, he often seems to be the scape goat, have we forgotten that most of our  building legislation is just drip feed from the EU/UK? - are you aware that  Whales was the first to commit to zero carbon in use by 2016 (whether that happens is another story)


This is part of the problem - MBA bureaucrats in Brussels making decisions about stuff they don't really understand. Figures, not values. Aspirations with no feedback loop. This thread is a feedback loop.


> Gormley also tried to tidy-up our councillors that were making a mockery of our planning zoning,


Gormely tried to put manners on one or two Councils - did you see that going anywhere? Miserable damp squib. Planning corruption won't go overnight. Flood/Mahon only scratched the surface and missed the point.


> but now it looks like Hogan is going to erode that as well  Draft Retail Planning Guidelines - its turning into another Galway tent crew, instead of getting our town centres back to life!


Have yet ot read them.


> we import 97% of all our fuel into Ireland, but don't confuse fuel security with climate change, and don't forget our EU commitments to reduce or Carbon emissions, again blamed on Gormley.


And I say again, why aren't we developing a hydrogen fuel cycle instead of polluting ourselves with wood burning stoves - have you gone for a walk recently in the newly polluted atmospheres in our suburbs? Another misguided measure. We need to stop relying on fossil fuels altogether. We have geothothermal under our feet and we're surrounded by water. Refocus.


----------



## onq (22 Nov 2011)

lowCO2design said:


> Buildings are one of the main culprits as regards co2 producing and we  have a long way past energy in issue to consider. Buildings are of  course the easiest to attack/reduce consumption in, as there is no  coherent lobbying like the road hauliers, concrete federation and  farmers etc.


We could be using geothermal, producing our own sugar beet and  rapeseed oil, and working towards a hydrogen cycle - this should be the  real focus of Part L in conjunction with a government taking the lead in  this - instead we're pumping millions into electricity grids and gas  pipelines. Who gets the long term benefits of these?


> But the whole idea is we improve the comfort of our homes while, reduing  energy consumption,with the idea that this will actually save  home-owners money in the long run.


But instead we're adopting and adapting partly thought out cut-down  technologies suitable for buildings with an alert occupation, not homes  where people sleep.


> its a similar argument many people use when austerity or  legislative measures don't suit them. shouldn't we be trying to reduce  energy consumption in buildings, even if we found the miracle cure for  cheap fuel storage?


Now you're making sense - I'm working on just such a project at  the moment for roll out next year, with any luck. We'll see how it goes.


> is there a reincarnation as Jim Corr happening here?


Ask why more electric/hydrogen hybrids aren't out there. Ask  what is the real reason behind programmers like "top gear". Safe  driving? Economy? No. Just like the cheap money, our habits and  addictions are being used ot enslave us. Deny with proofs down in  Letting off Steam at your leisure and I'll join you 


> yes please, but lets leave that to the 'Professor Nannites' and how  about we use our skills as a designers to design out the issues that are  causing comments like this:
> ???


If your immune system isn't tested by a certain age, you can  develop deficiencies. Someone working with sealed technologies should  know this.


----------



## lowCO2design (22 Nov 2011)

before I respond, I'll answer my own question regarding whether this is a 
discussion on the new TGD L. This is no longer a serious discussion! 


onq said:


> We could be using geothermal,


so the answer to the new part L  becoming more onerous for the specifier (remember we've discussed my  preferred thermal bridging requirements), is a geothermal system ie heat pump that's more  hungry electrically than MVHR is? that uses miles of high embodied  piping?





> producing our own sugar beet and  rapeseed oil, and working towards a hydrogen cycle - this should be the  real focus of Part L in conjunction with a government taking the lead in  this - instead we're pumping millions into electricity grids and gas  pipelines. Who gets the long term benefits of these?


  this discussion now just gets ridiculous, as its off to the food v fuel debate! we cant even sustain enough building materials from the trees grown in Ireland, never mind considering Rapseed and Sugar beet as an alternative to fossil fuels while we wait your hydrogen to work.


> But instead we're adopting and adapting partly thought out cut-down  technologies suitable for buildings with an alert occupation, not homes  where people sleep.


? stricter energy conservation and the new part L does not assume any specific technology thats your job to solve. have you seen Bedzed for instance? why not improve on this system?


> Ask why more electric/hydrogen hybrids aren't out there.


 because We still generate over 90% of our electricity from fossil fuels. and the battery's last less than 5 years and come from an open mine in some Brazilian forest and can only get 160km max on an 8 hour charge, so its back to hydrogen then.



> Ask  what is the real reason behind programmers like "top gear". Safe  driving? Economy? No. Just like the cheap money, our habits and  addictions are being used ot enslave us. Deny with proofs down in  Letting off Steam at your leisure and I'll join you


 Jim, to me its entertainment, but I suppose some people are certainly open to brainwashing. 


> If your immune system isn't tested by a certain age, you can  develop deficiencies. Someone working with sealed technologies should  know this.


 sealed technologies? are you referring to the new part L's really tough standards with the outrageous permeability value of 7m3/hr/m2 at 50 Pascal ?


----------



## onq (25 Nov 2011)

Superman said:


> <snip>
> 
> Who is this "ourselves" when it comes to off continental shelf deep sea oil and gas well development.  Do you have any idea how sophisticated and beyond the reach of any Irish company such development is?


Any undertaking starts with an endeavour - Ireland spends too much of its time NOT developing our skills for our own use.
We train people to the highest standards then watch them wave goodbye, taking their value-added learning with them.
This is a defeatist mindset, not a business strategy - we need to break out of that mould.

Not developing and utilising our own energy resources because "it costs a lot" is not a valid reason for not attempting it.


> Hydrogen functions as a rather poor medium for conveying energy - i.e. a battery.


Hydrogen as a fuel is what I was talking about.
Yes, you can tie it back to how the fuel is generated, but ambient power can be used - it needn't be fossil fueled.
We have some sun, a lot of wind, high waves and plenty of water to supply power.
With the proper catalyst, we can extract hydrogen from several sources, our abundant supply of water being one of them.

ONQ.


----------



## Superman (25 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> Not developing and utilising our own energy resources because "it costs a lot" is not a valid reason for not attempting it.


Yes it is: paying no attention to  "makes no economic sense" is what got Ireland into its current situation. 


onq said:


> Yes, you can tie it back to how the fuel is generated, but ambient power can be used - it needn't be fossil fueled.
> We have some sun, a lot of wind, high waves and plenty of water to supply power.
> With the proper catalyst, we can extract hydrogen from several sources, our abundant supply of water being one of them.
> 
> ONQ.


So your solution is a long winded way of saying "renewables".


----------



## onq (25 Nov 2011)

Its well known that extracting fossil fuels does make economic sense, so the  "makes no economic sense" argument is out the window.
You're talking funding, equipment and expertise, all of which can be bought. When you look at what we're "investing" in our banks for no foreseeable return, you realize what can be done.

My solution is a detailed way of saying -
(i) realise what I meant when I said "hydrogen fuel" and
(ii) don't automatically assume that you need a huge carbon footprint to do this.

In fact, the technology can be developed almost anywhere you can drill down to geothermal, catch waves or absorb sunlight.
Somewhere on the equator near a sheltered sea would be ideal to maximise solar power generation.

The west coast of Saudi would be fine, and they're the ones who'll need to be one step ahead of the game with the technology because it'll hit oil producing nations hardest, so they'll be motivated to join in the race.
And if you invest in processing sea water efficiently you have a lot of useful by products apart from hydrogen and water including salt and yes, gold.
But all that's for another thread.


----------



## Superman (27 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> Its well known that extracting fossil fuels does make economic sense, so the  "makes no economic sense" argument is out the window.


This sentence makes no sense. 

It does sum up your position however.


----------



## Lecorbusier (5 Dec 2011)

As per the government publications shop in Molesworth Street, the government has not yet printed and may never print TGD Part L from the Building Regulations 2011.

This would be a first... I have all the Government printed hardcopies of TGDs in my office; it seems that I will never have this one...

Why do they refuse printing it? Part M which is only to be implemented on 01/01/12 was available months ago...

They probably think that it does not worth printing a document that will be in service for only 2 years...


----------



## lowCO2design (6 Dec 2011)

RokkyR said:


> I'm not fully agreed with topicstarter


thats great thanks for the input


----------

