re new ables at home

[TimberWolf]

From what I can gather the only way to make it work financially atm is in an eco-friendly new build using straw bales rather than bricks/blocks. The money you save on the building materials offsets the cost of putting in the extra eco bits to the point where it can pay for itself in a few years, rather than decades.

Bricks cost around £190 per pallet of 400. Average cost for a 3 bed semi containing 11,000 bricks = £6000.

Straw Bales cost £1.50 each. 1 straw bale = 120 Bricks = 92 bales = £138.

This doesnt count costs for morter, rendering labour etc. You need to clad or render the bales outside which adds to the costs but bales are quicker to build with which custs down on labour costs.

I imagine build costs with haybales would be minimal to zero. Like one normal fit healthy adult male could put up a (straw) house on his own in day. Cladding is for woofters? Just need some land. £138 to build a house sounds good, I don't see why people pay hundreds of thousands of pounds. I expect you'd also need planning permission, building regs and another other red tape sorted, which would turn that £138 one-day house into an expensive nightmare. We used to do it as kids, with being chased by the farmer thrown in for free.

[BoredBloke]

From what I can gather the only way to make it work financially atm is in an eco-friendly new build using straw bales rather than bricks/blocks. The money you save on the building materials offsets the cost of putting in the extra eco bits to the point where it can pay for itself in a few years, rather than decades.

Bricks cost around £190 per pallet of 400. Average cost for a 3 bed semi containing 11,000 bricks = £6000.

Straw Bales cost £1.50 each. 1 straw bale = 120 Bricks = 92 bales = £138.

This doesnt count costs for morter, rendering labour etc. You need to clad or render the bales outside which adds to the costs but bales are quicker to build with which custs down on labour costs.

You can find more about this here

[BoredBloke]

They'll have to go up an awful lot.

I looked into these as an alternative for an oil boiler. The only way a quote was acceptable was if I could afford (space) to dig 3 x 42m long x 1m deep x 1m wide trenches in my garden with 160m of pipe in each, with a 2m gap between each trench. Couldn't put them in a field either due to planning permission not being granted since it's agricultural land. Boreholing or alternative heat collection pipe was prohibitively expensive.

They're ok for a new build, insulted to the max, with underfloor heating throughout, otherwise the operating costs can be very rude.

A mate has got 40 solar-tubes on his roof, and they're doing a very good job. Hardly a need for the boiler to come on at all during the summer months. A whole solar heating system can be done for between 2-3k.

Surely those figures relate to if you wanted to 100% replace your boiler. What about if you were to take some of the load off your boiler. Wouldn't you just need less space. So if you were to half the space needed and add a few solar panals, wouldn't that do the trick?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

.......

They're ok for a new build, insulted to the max, with underfloor heating throughout, otherwise the operating costs can be very rude.

.......

What kind of insults do you hurl at a new build?

[Dow Jones]

Re: new ables

Re: new ables (MB: take a deep breath and say it-renewables, that's it, well done). Lots of properties in SW England (Devon/Cornwall) use solar panels for free hot water. Thinking of doing it too for mine down there.
Minimal cost, offset in a couple of years. Use the boiler as a back up on cold days.

[Alf W]

We've got some solar lights in the garden which were quite cheap. The only downside with them is that they are utter cr@p!

[Chugnut]

Any links ? Info ?

http://www.navitron.org.uk/

As seen on "It's Not Easy Being Green" off the BBC.

Bugger!! I knew the costs for the borehole would be higher but not that bad (we were considering it for when we do the extension and putting underfloor heating in the new kitchen)..

The most efficient approach is a straight pipe in a trench, curled in a slinky is slightly less so but saves a stack of space (I'd have needed 500m of trench otherwise!). Boreholing has the pipe (which has to return to form the loop) operating in a smaller diameter hole. This means it has less surrounding area to draw heat from. I had costs of 8-10k quoted for the borehole(s) - 2 x 75m or 3 x 50m.

Seriously, if you're just doing a small area like a kitchen for UFH, go with an electric mat-type system, not a wet system.

Surely those figures relate to if you wanted to 100% replace your boiler. What about if you were to take some of the load off your boiler. Wouldn't you just need less space. So if you were to half the space needed and add a few solar panals, wouldn't that do the trick?

Yes they do. You'd just adjust the area based on how many Kw you need. Heat pumps don't tend to retro fit or integrate with existing systems very well. Panels / tubes are good at the moment, and getting better all the time. Heat pumps have some way to go yet. With no radiators, UFH throughout, lots of land (or a fast flowing river) for the slinky pipe, Economy 7 /10 heating, and good insulation levels, they start to look better.

What kind of insults do you hurl at a new build?

That's easy.

"F**king cost a fortune!"