Government funded Insulation improvements

FreeBear

BUFF said: Solid walls are imo a bigger concern (especially in detached or semi-detached), obviously more invasive to improve & once more, may be subject to potential Listing & Conservation Area approvals. Again when, I have run the nos. for my own terrace & with my consumption even if I were allowed to it's not cost effective for me.

Fortunately, I am not subject to Conservation area or listed building restrictions. For me, insulating the solid brick walls here does make sense, and doing the work myself, I can keep costs right down. I'm not particularly concerned with the theoretical return on investment (payback should be less than 5 years). It is the improvement in comfort levels that are much more important.

wittynamegoeshere

savers_united said:

I was quoted more than £25k for EWI, approx 3 years ago, at the time the payback would have taken 30+ years. Its these schemes that are crying out for govt support, I would happily pay 50% of the cost even though its still alot of money and a long payback period compared to other measures as it does improve the appearance of the property, flat roof insulation is another as these warm roofs need the old roof removed, but again they look attractive once done so it's a win win. 

Perhaps, over time, a house with solid walls that hasn't been insulated would be worth £25k+ less than one that has had it done.  Then market forces should make it worthwhile for a homeowner or developer to do it as, regardless of heat savings, the money would be returned to you when selling it, probably with profit.

But I suspect that this is not the case at present.  Despite attempts such as the EPC, housebuyers in the UK seem to generally mostly look at the number of bedrooms and little else, and common sense evaporates if it looks like a chocolate box picture.

There's also another factor, that many of the younger population can't afford houses at all.  It doesn't seem reasonable to ask the working age population to pay additional tax in order to improve the homes of generally older people who already own a lot more than they're ever likely to get in their lifetimes.

savers_united

wittynamegoeshere said:

savers_united said:

I was quoted more than £25k for EWI, approx 3 years ago, at the time the payback would have taken 30+ years. Its these schemes that are crying out for govt support, I would happily pay 50% of the cost even though its still alot of money and a long payback period compared to other measures as it does improve the appearance of the property, flat roof insulation is another as these warm roofs need the old roof removed, but again they look attractive once done so it's a win win. 

Perhaps, over time, a house with solid walls that hasn't been insulated would be worth £25k+ less than one that has had it done.  Then market forces should make it worthwhile for a homeowner or developer to do it as, regardless of heat savings, the money would be returned to you when selling it, probably with profit.

But I suspect that this is not the case at present.  Despite attempts such as the EPC, housebuyers in the UK seem to generally mostly look at the number of bedrooms and little else, and common sense evaporates if it looks like a chocolate box picture.

There's also another factor, that many of the younger population can't afford houses at all.  It doesn't seem reasonable to ask the working age population to pay additional tax in order to improve the homes of generally older people who already own a lot more than they're ever likely to get in their lifetimes.

But at their current costs then it's unlikely that individuals are going to get the work done, so what is the answer for solid walled homes. £25k is alot of money for anyone and for us even if it improved the properties value would not be realised for many many years. 

There needs to be a solution, there must be thousands like myself who would have the work done but at more realistic cost, like I say I would happily meet half the cost, or even if the Gov't could set up a scheme where materials for the work could be bought by approved fitters at cost price that would massively reduce the cost,  scaffolding contracts, insulation boards and other materials if bought in bulk, or as a minimum some kind of interest free repayment scheme.

I would not say it is generally older people, those looking for this type of work would be looking at payback and many pensioner aged people tend to see little point at their age in life, it would be working families, How much have scheme like help to buy cost, they are targeted at first time buyers in the main but everyone pays towards it and all it does is line the pockets of developers. 

markin

Cardew said:

wrf12345 said:

The big heat loss is mostly through the windows, so no point doing more insulation until the windows are upgraded to triple glazing but, of course, DIY's who can buy direct from the factories either have to get a Fensa guy to fit  them or building control to sign them off, so much more expensive than it needs to be. Rather than throwing yet more money away, the govn should allow DIYers to fit their own windows without needing to involve the council or Fensa (their own windows not doing it for business and only triple glazing). They can even tout it as one of the benefits of Brexit, god knows there are few others.

Are windows the source of big heat loss? 

The consensus seems to be that 10% of heat is lost through window - albeit unsurprisingly some double-glazing firms will quote a higher figure.

The Energy Saving Trust website updated 08 September 2022 Energy efficient windows and doors - Energy Saving Trust states:

'A set of A-rated windows for a semi-detached house will typically cost around £7,500.

By installing A-rated double glazing to windows in an entirely single-glazed semi-detached gas heated property, you could save £145 a year and 335kg of carbon dioxide.

If you installed A++ rated double glazed windows replacing single glazing, the savings could be up to £175 a year and 410kg of carbon dioxide.'

Note those savings are for replacing single glazing - not upgrading old double glazing. So hardly a decent return on investment!

Also raised before on this forum, but a problem largely ignored, is the life of double-glazed units before they 'blow' and need replacing.  

If they are drafty it must be far more of a saving, Glass is cheap to replace but should last 30-40 years anyway, Its the frames and install that are the money makers. 

BUFF

markin said:

Cardew said:

wrf12345 said:

The big heat loss is mostly through the windows, so no point doing more insulation until the windows are upgraded to triple glazing but, of course, DIY's who can buy direct from the factories either have to get a Fensa guy to fit  them or building control to sign them off, so much more expensive than it needs to be. Rather than throwing yet more money away, the govn should allow DIYers to fit their own windows without needing to involve the council or Fensa (their own windows not doing it for business and only triple glazing). They can even tout it as one of the benefits of Brexit, god knows there are few others.

Are windows the source of big heat loss? 

The consensus seems to be that 10% of heat is lost through window - albeit unsurprisingly some double-glazing firms will quote a higher figure.

The Energy Saving Trust website updated 08 September 2022 Energy efficient windows and doors - Energy Saving Trust states:

'A set of A-rated windows for a semi-detached house will typically cost around £7,500.

By installing A-rated double glazing to windows in an entirely single-glazed semi-detached gas heated property, you could save £145 a year and 335kg of carbon dioxide.

If you installed A++ rated double glazed windows replacing single glazing, the savings could be up to £175 a year and 410kg of carbon dioxide.'

Note those savings are for replacing single glazing - not upgrading old double glazing. So hardly a decent return on investment!

Also raised before on this forum, but a problem largely ignored, is the life of double-glazed units before they 'blow' and need replacing.  

If they are drafty it must be far more of a saving, Glass is cheap to replace but should last 30-40 years anyway, Its the frames and install that are the money makers. 

I would put money on most DGUs not making it to 30-40 years without failing in some way.

FreeBear

BUFF said:

markin said:

Cardew said:

wrf12345 said:

The big heat loss is mostly through the windows, so no point doing more insulation until the windows are upgraded to triple glazing but, of course, DIY's who can buy direct from the factories either have to get a Fensa guy to fit  them or building control to sign them off, so much more expensive than it needs to be. Rather than throwing yet more money away, the govn should allow DIYers to fit their own windows without needing to involve the council or Fensa (their own windows not doing it for business and only triple glazing). They can even tout it as one of the benefits of Brexit, god knows there are few others.

Are windows the source of big heat loss? 

The consensus seems to be that 10% of heat is lost through window - albeit unsurprisingly some double-glazing firms will quote a higher figure.

The Energy Saving Trust website updated 08 September 2022 Energy efficient windows and doors - Energy Saving Trust states:

'A set of A-rated windows for a semi-detached house will typically cost around £7,500.

By installing A-rated double glazing to windows in an entirely single-glazed semi-detached gas heated property, you could save £145 a year and 335kg of carbon dioxide.

If you installed A++ rated double glazed windows replacing single glazing, the savings could be up to £175 a year and 410kg of carbon dioxide.'

Note those savings are for replacing single glazing - not upgrading old double glazing. So hardly a decent return on investment!

Also raised before on this forum, but a problem largely ignored, is the life of double-glazed units before they 'blow' and need replacing.  

If they are drafty it must be far more of a saving, Glass is cheap to replace but should last 30-40 years anyway, Its the frames and install that are the money makers. 

I would put money on most DGUs not making it to 30-40 years without failing in some way.

Did all right with the DG windows that were fitted back in the mid 1970s. One large sealed unit replaced and a couple of hinges. The whole lot have been replaced over the last couple of years. It was only when the frames were ripped out, I found out just how badly they had been installed back in the 70s. A ruddy great gap along the top of the windows upstairs, and the only thing stopping a howling gale coming through was the wood trim around the reveal and great gobs of mastic.

Unfortunately, the cowboys that did that installation are still in business (now calling themselves First Home Improvements), having adopted the same sales tactics of Anglian, Zenith, etc.

A half decent DG window that is well fitted will always outperform a badly fitted A++ window.

BUFF

There is a reason that the glazing industry don't warranty DGUs for 30+ years (indeed you would be lucky to find 15+).

Your DGU fitted in the 70s would most likely not have an inert gas between the panes nor many of the other improvements made over the following decades. This means that whilst they won't have been as efficient (probably U-value ~2.5 rather than the current Building Standards part L mandated 1.4) on installation nor will the effects of failure be as great on their performance.

I have been in this house 31 years - of the 8 DGUs that were/have been fitted/replaced at the rear of the house 7 have failed in some way. Because they too, predate  inert gas being commonly used in DGUs the actual effect isn't a problem to live with & indeed they still perform better than single glazing but I am aware that the units have failed. The performance fall off from failure of modern inert gas-filled DGUs would be both much more & therefore imo more noticeable.

wittynamegoeshere

Our windows are about 30 years old, double glazed sealed units in white uPVC frames.  We had one unit in the lounge that had misted up, so I replaced it with a new one.  It's one pane of 5 that make up a bay window.  The new one looks identical but you see a striking difference on a cold damp morning - often the new one has condensation on the outside but the rest do not.  This results from the outside surface of the glass remaining colder than the air while the air temperature is rising.  The other older units don't get condensation on them as they're presumably letting more heat out through them from the inside.

So yes - near identical looking newer windows are definitely superior to older ones.

Replacing a sealed unit requires some knowledge but is within competent DIY skill levels.  There are things to know, but it can be learnt online.  They're amazingly cheap too - I paid £28 for a pretty big one, delivered.  Take out the old one, measure it and order a replacement then fit it back in while the new one arrives.  So you end up removing and refitting twice, so at least you get a bit of practice.