ARTÍCULO XVI.- INFORME REFERENTE SOLICITUD DE INFORMACIÓN 17
ENCUENTRA A NOMBRE DE LA SEÑORA PRISCILLA CERDAS SOLÍS
7.1.1 What makes a house low energy?
While the term low energy housing was not considered to be common in everyday life, it was nonetheless easily interpreted, rapidly bringing to mind a range of different meanings. Broadly understood to be ‘a house that uses little energy’ (Russell, Focus Group 3: Church group, King’s Lynn), the most common interpretations revolved around energy conservation measures. The concept of a low energy house was primarily understood in relation to the low energy features that a house may have, rather than through an image of what it might look like. For this reason, the design of the house itself was not seen to be particularly relevant, with discussion dominated by energy efficiency measures, such as cavity wall and loft insulation, as well as double- or triple- glazing. Low energy houses were thus believed to have a low energy requirement, leading to a reduced need for heating and lower energy bills:
Gareth: [A low energy house] would be different, because prob- ably you’d have lower bills wouldn’t you. And we probably wouldn’t have the oil fire in here, because if you had more in- sulation in here, you probably wouldn’t need hardly any heating at all.
Despite the focus on energy conservation, on-site electricity generation was still consid- ered a relevant feature of low energy housing, following the understanding that creating your own energy effectively reduced energy bills, as you were not paying for energy from the grid. Renewable energy sources were also seen as a way to ‘generate energy to offset any energy that you do use’ (Louise, Focus Group 1: Postgraduate students, Cardiff) from the grid. However, interestingly, the inclusion of renewable energy sources within understandings of low energy housing was a point of confusion for many, who, due to the association with climate change and environmentalism, were uncertain whether to classify this feature as low energy or low carbon.
The low energy concept was generally seen as something that was realistic and achiev- able, and a desirable step towards reducing energy use and carbon emissions in the home, with the idea that homes would no longer need to use energy, whilst retaining the warmth and comfort that energy provided particularly appealing:
Russell: Well it doesn’t need to use energy does it. Like you said, you barely need to turn the heating on because of your insulation. So using little energy, because you don’t need to.
Focus Group 3: Church group, King’s Lynn
For this reason, all homes were generally thought to be capable of becoming low energy houses, due to the ability to retrofit existing houses with energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies. Several participants also expressed the perspective that their existing homes were already low energy, describing how they were well insulated and had (in their opinion) low energy bills, questioning whether in fact they were already living in a low energy house and highlighting the ordinary everyday understandings of the concept of low energy:
Edna: Well that’s why I feel at the moment my bungalow is low energy. Because it’s been seen to outside, the cavity walls and that, so I don’t need a great deal of heating. And whether you
CHAPTER 7
class that as low energy. Is there any other form of low energy? Focus Group 3: Church group, King’s Lynn
7.1.2 What makes a house low carbon?
In contrast, the term low carbon house was less clearly understood, with many admit- ting to having never heard the term previously and unsure of its meaning. For this reason, the meanings ascribed to the term often arose through discussion, as questions over the credibility of labelling houses as low carbon was debated. While renewable energy sources were considered an important element of low carbon housing, the most prominent focus of discussion was the importance of utilising low carbon materials and products during construction. Requiring consideration of the materials used and/or the energy required to construct the house, a low carbon house was thus seen as something more than just one which consumed little or no energy from the grid:
Mervin: I always think of a low carbon house as being something that is built from materials that have not, they’re not possibly the best materials [technically speaking] and in cases they’re almost impossible to put in, but are sourced locally.
Focus Group 5: Environmental group, Barmouth
Demonstrating an implicit understanding of embodied energy, the idea that carbon is emitted as a result of the energy used to produce, manufacture and transport materials for construction was a key consideration in classifying a house as low carbon. The high carbon content of construction materials such as concrete and their incompatibility with the concept of low carbon housing was thus a prominent focus of discussion, and seen as a key determinant of the carbon footprint of a house. Due to the short transport distances required, local materials were generally considered lower carbon. In addition, the carbon needed to produce energy efficient or low carbon products such as double glazing units and photovoltaic solar panels was also considered highly relevant.
Questioning the idea that through efficiency improvements, these products payback the carbon that has been used in production and construction, the difficulty in determining the true carbon footprint of a home is highlighted:
Mervin: I heard a very interesting theory today, that double glazing or triple glazing is not low carbon. Because 1) on build it would take two lorries as opposed to one lorry to bring the glass in, and 2) double glazing panels fail with unerring regularity, so they have to be changed more, when you’d never get that with a single glazed window.
Frank: Single glazed windows smash more easily. Mervin: Pardon?
Frank: Smash more easily. Footballs, cricket balls [laughs]. Mervin: Ahhhh. No, not particularly, you’ll still find. Yes I suppose you’re right.
Mary: It’s not simple is it?
Focus Group 5: Environmental group, Barmouth
Combining these issues, the need for carbon savings achieved through the reduction of energy use in the home to balance or exceed the embodied energy used in the construction of a low carbon house was therefore considered key for the categorisation of a house as low carbon:
Glen: Yeah, so if you live in a so-called low carbon house, how much carbon have you used to build that, or create, there’s got to be industry somewhere that’s making that stuff. I can’t think, you can’t really make things without making some pollution. So even if you’re making a low carbon
Russell: [Interrupts] Or it’s how much, it’s working it out isn’t it. It takes so much to make this house, how much to make this
CHAPTER 7
house.
Glen: It’s balancing one against the other.
Focus Group 3: Church group, King’s Lynn
Taken to the extreme, this focus on the importance of embodied carbon led to the idea that even the length of time a house could be used for was important, and should be taken into account before the true carbon credentials of a house could be established:
Mervin: You’d be lucky to get a wooden house to stay up more than 100 years, whatever they do.
Frank: Yes, there’s been no energy spent in rebuilding, well there has been actually, we redid some of them didn’t we. But yes, potentially if you get an old house.
Jane: Cost per decade [laughs].
Mervin: Well, when you’re doing costing, should you add in the decades? It’s going to last longer, so should that be part of the formula?
Focus Group 5: Environmental group, Barmouth
7.1.3 What makes an eco-house?
Introduced repeatedly by participants, the term eco-house signified a third distinct interpretation of a low carbon/energy house that was rooted in popular culture and provided a more immediate and commonly shared image, in comparison to the terms discussed above. The term eco-house was often linked explicitly to known examples of autonomous eco-houses, seen within the media and in particular TV programs, such as Grand Designs, as well as to personal experiences of visits to existing eco-houses, such as those seen at the Centre for Alternative Technology. The design and visual aesthetics of eco-houses were seen as a key element of an eco-house, with the term ground house, as well as terms from popular culture such as ‘Teletubby house’ and
‘Hobbit house’ (Focus Group 1: Postgraduate students, Cardiff), used repeatedly to reference the more unusual design of these houses.
In some ways similar to descriptions of a low carbon house discussed above, the type and localness of construction materials was also considered an important characteristic of eco-houses. However, descriptions of this type of house were more detailed, highlighting the more unusual features and materials, such as grass roofs and straw bale walls. In contrast to low energy houses, eco-houses were therefore generally considered to be outside the realms of ordinary housing developments. Described as individual and bespoke, eco-houses were thought of as one off homes, often self-built by the owners or constructed to demonstrate an alternative way of living. These homes were thus deemed to be the pinnacle of environmentally friendly living, placing them well beyond the normal everyday home that the average member of the public would aspire to:
Russell: Yeah, well they’re extreme low energy aren’t they. So yeah, they’d look different, you’re talking about eco-houses they look very different. So underground houses and houses that are made out of something completely different.
Edna: And on the roof they have gardens.
Russell: That’s right. So obviously they look very different. Glen: If this was the motoring world, they’d be the Formula1.
Focus Group 3: Church group, King’s Lynn