A chara, – In acting as authors for the Government’s publication on Improving Thermal Efficiency in Traditional Buildings, we drew attention to the important research of the UK’s Crichton Carbon Centre. It had demonstrated that the most cost-effective and most carbon-effective improvements to the thermal performance of existing buildings were the least intrusive: some draught proofing, some attic insulation, other minor measures.
Such works are very affordable, and emphatically more sustainable than the “deep retrofit” being currently proposed, which has a very long pay-back period for the investment, and is, possibly, never carbon-neutral.
The role of vested interests in determining Government policy, such as manufacturers of petroleum-based insulation materials, (which have no place in a sustainable energy programme) should be investigated. It is now almost 10 years since the independent Building Regulation Advisory Board was subsumed into the Department of the Environment, thus depriving the administration of the necessary perspective that a diverse, independent, board brings. – Is mise,
PAUL ARNOLD,
Architect,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6
Sir, – Your front page article (November 6th) estimated the cost of the Government’s house retrofitting plans at €28 billion or €56,000 per family home.
We must question whether this level of private and public investment is justifiable and whether it will reduce our carbon emissions. A principal element of this retrofitting will be the addition of significant amounts of insulation to our existing houses. The majority of insulation products currently in use are actually quite harmful to the environment and have a service life of 15-20 years.
We are potentially creating a situation where we are making an investment that will only pay off in energy savings in 30 years, using materials that have to be disposed of as hazardous waste in 20 years. If the majority of our energy is being generated from renewable sources in the near future, this poses the question of whether or not this enormous investment in energy efficiency is really warranted and whether the emissions created in retrofitting are greater than the emissions they are supposed to prevent.
We might be better to direct this investment into a massive programme of bringing empty and under-used buildings in our villages, towns and cities back into use, with direct benefits for communities throughout the country. This would be more environmentally and socially sustainable.
– Yours, etc,
MICHAEL PIKE,
Assistant professor,
UCD School of
Architecture,
Dublin 4.