This page attempts to examine briefly some of the issues behind part L and UK energy policy  - debating some of these issues  from a  non-expert point of view.

SCOPE

Part L applies to England and Wales  - other regions of the UK have similar legislation.
The current Regulations have been in place since April 2006. The next tightening of the regulations has been drafted  for  public consultation  -  planned implementation is in October 2010.

Part L concerns the Conservation of Fuel and Power  - applied when buildings are constucted or renovated.
In the UK we use vast amounts of energy in heating and lighting our houses factories offices and public buildings. Most of the heat loss is from existing buildings of different  types e.g. offices factories shops houses  These are of different ages and design.  Buildings can have quite a long life - much of our  building stock is quite old  and  is a consequence of our rapid industrialisation and expansion in the past. We are all familiar with rows of Victorian terraces, 1930s council houses, and the the post WW2 suberbs that surround our towns. For much of this time real energy prices were much lower than they are today Coal then gas and oil
Right upto the 1960's ,most houses were designed to be heated by open coal fires  -  Victorian houses often  had fireplaces in every room. People were also more tolerant of cold conditions. The houses vere drafty they had to be,  because the combustion products, the smoke, had to pass up the chimneys.  Constuction techniuques such as suspended timber floors sash  windows dafty doors allowed uncontrolled ventilation into rooms Heat was constantly lost due to drafts particularly on cold winter days  - you could  roast yourself in front of the fire but a cold draft froze your posterior .  Many houses were also built to mimimal standards of insulation. Until recently there was no requirement to put additional insulation in the walls roofs and floors of our houses  - initially the standards introduced in the regulations were quite poor so even houses built in the 1980s can have quite a poor performance. There is a similar story with central heating systems  - once these were inroduced either to replace or upgrade the heating or in new dwellings  - initially there was no standard for efficiency  - methods of measuring the efficiency had to be formulated and then mimimum standards enforced.
Modern fossil fuel boilers are much more efficient than their predecessors due to  advanced technology, legislation of standards, energy costs and public awareness .

In the past industrial buildings were often little more than sheds  - to keep out the rain. But with the changing nature of our economy and the less enduring construction techniques have resulted in a shorter life than housing with many sites having been cleared ( brownfield sites ) But many post war commercial buildings were constructed poorly, with inadequate  and inefficient heating and ventilation.

It would be practically impossible and highly unpopular  to introduce legislation to compel owners of  exsiting buildings to upgrade their heating systems insulation or draftproofing. So the government needs to consider alternative approaches (grants etc ) to address this. The only major opportunity reduce  this  vast  heat  loss by legislation is  to enforce standards as buildings are naturally  replaced ( over time buildings reach the end of their life and are knocked down or adapted and are replaced by new ones.)

As the shelf life of buildings particularly housing is quite long and the levels of new house building is quite low   - there is a gap in the governments planning. The levels new house building and replacement is currently very low  partially as consequence of the credit crunch. The governments  has set challanging targets   for reducing for C02 emissions and that includes the consequential emissions from heating and lighting our building stock.

The government will miss its targets for the reducion in CO2 emissions it has set. The government has to grapple with various issues. A governments first concern is the opinion polls and  its main aim is to  get re-elected  It will water down or mitigate measures that are un-popular in the face of public or commercial demand. It will sign up to all various ideas and protocols to reduce C02 and set targets - and if neccessary miss them completely if the measures required  are unpopular  - alhough it will allways deny that this is the case.

Pre-credit crunch there was  cheap poorly regulated credit that stimulated the  demand  for new housing. Planning constraints  restricted new land supply so house prices soared and  lack of affordability bacame  the main  public issue - The  government tried to release new land (e.g from brown field sites) and make it easier for people to get onto the housing ladder.

Post credit crunch - developments already started that can  not be sold profotably  become financial risks.There is a resticted supply of credit either  to cover losses, or start new projects. This has  resulted in developments  being abandoned, mothballed or postponed and banks (some now publicly owned)  taking control. Loss of employment (e.g. in building sector ) , negative equity and  housing reposessions  becomes a priority.  House prices fall but little new housing started. Higher taxes to cover increased benefits lost revenue and get us out of this mess. Developers complain about the cost of compliance to various controls.

Other other issues relate to the supply of fuel and power. and the governments energy policy.

Renewable resources in the UK can only meet a fraction of the current energy demand. We rely mainly on fossil fuels but these are running out, come from unstable parts of the world, and cause global warming.  FF burning  power stations producing electricity are not very efficient mainly  because of the physical constraints of the laws of thermodynamics. Capturing the emissions from power stations would use up much of the energy generated.

The obvious solution is to rehabilitate nuclear energy  - but this has  a poor public safety image  a strong NIMBY element and a green element that is on the whole anti-nuclear.  It is difficult to apportion costs per unit for nuclear power as the project costs  / the waste stroage issues./ and the decomissioning costs are much greater than for fossil fuels. However nuclear power  generation is more expensive than fossil fuel burning.

Is nuclear power green?

Instead of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide to capture and store  from FF's  -  nuclear energy produces vast amounts of power from very small amount of uranium producing  very small amounts of waste products  But these fission products are  highly toxic and radioactive.  However  technology exists to encapsulate and store these products safely.  There are several designs for safe and nuclear plants that have run sucessfully for many years.But The industry has got an awful public image  - much of it was its own making -  The race for nuclear weapons of dustruction took precidence over the peaceful use of nuclear power and many corners were cut   People know about the dreadful consequences of  dropping A bombs during WW2  /  Atmospheric testing   / leaks from military production facilities /  and the production of plutonium )  There have  also been accidents from the and poor design and operation of some  civilian plants (e.g.chenobyl  and Three Mile Island).

Yes nuclear accidents could threaten large areas of our planets   upset ecosystems  and make areas of our planet uninhabitable  but then global warming is doing that right now   - as a consequence of burning fossil fuels.

The green alternative.

• The alternative is very different way of life than we know at the moment
• Turn off fossil fuels and nuclear plants and most of the energy underpinning our "developed" economy is gone

• The economy is likely to return to practices abandoned during the industrial revolution  - not all of them difficult but the scale of change is  is drastic.
• Much scarcer energy - very expensive
• Higher food prices only seasonal and local produce will be affordable. Organic farming practices  - instead of fertiliser.
• Roads  / cars  lorries  decline due to energy cost, railways and canals become economic again. Horse transport makes a comeback.Motorways returned to cultivation.
  
• Goods much more expensive to produce, disposable items not economic  Deposits on containers / compulsory recycling.
• people live  work and play  locally  -  rarely travel far because it is very expensive. English seaside resorts get a renaissance.
• People will dress up more to keep warm and work more seasonally and during daylight hours.

But if your government told you that it was
Increasing energy prices by a factor of 10 say
That you MUST abandon your car  use public transport, work locally, go to bed when it is dark, use less hot water, turn your heating right down  wear wooly jumpers and thermals, throw away your drier because you cant afford it , shop locally for local seasonal produce  only, your kids have to walk or bus to school, you should only holiday in the UK.  Disposible containers outlawed, deposits on bottles etc air conditioners outlawed  and you  may get  frequent power cuts when the wind is not blowing.



Would YOU vote for them?