1 / 18

Why we did this

Why we did this. Solid Wall Insulation a focus of the ECO (and Green Deal) 9 million still to do (conservation? Bitty etc?) Plenty of work on the technical benefits already Very little on the human barriers to uptake (particularly amongst FP groups)… Questions like:

ike
Télécharger la présentation

Why we did this

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why we did this • Solid Wall Insulation a focus of the ECO (and Green Deal) • 9 million still to do (conservation? Bitty etc?) • Plenty of work on the technical benefits already • Very little on the human barriers to uptake (particularly amongst FP groups)… • Questions like: • …disruption considered to be a very significant barrier to uptake of SWI1 …how do people feel about disruption? • how can we use insights from experience of SWI • to design schemes better? (1. Consumer focus - scaling the solid wall 2011)

  2. How we did it • In 2009 B&NES had funded a pilot scheme - “Freedom from Fuel Poverty” to examine technical barriers and opportunities using mix of renewables and efficiency measures • Those households receiving SWI under FfFP were asked to take part in a long term evaluation of the their experience funded by eaga • Interviewed before, during and after the measure –all to have experienced a complete heating season post measure • Recorded fuel bills • Measured living room temps and did SAP assessment

  3. Our respondents.. 11 households (7 fuel poor according to official definition): Mix of park homes, system built steel frame and 1930 semis lose heat quickly, draughty, condensation, cold spots, damp, some ineffective and poorly controlled heating systems

  4. Underheating?

  5. Modelled effects of SWI Conclusion: One measure alone may not be sufficient to lift the most severe cases out of fuel poverty. For these households a package of measures and/or raising household income will be required. Right time to do it?

  6. Comfort and coping • Most were underheating, others heated to desired level • ( effects of the measure were experienced differently) • Various strategies to keep warm - usually heating the body – blankets, early to bed, sleeping bags, sitting in different parts of the house to track the sun • In extreme situations - leaving the house • Such a poor fabric / controls that various dysfunctional practices resulted: a) blocking up ventilation b) thermostat as a switch • Conclusion: SWI will disturb a whole range of behaviours and should cause lifestyle change. Danger that some dysfunctional habits will remain?!

  7. Recruitment • Difficulties with recruitment (risk aversion, too good to be true, who are you?) • Leaflet drop by B&NES officers in area where SWI already underway most effective • SWI installation process is VISIBLE! • “We had seen some people having their cladding done because the Housing Association had done their houses here on the green and down further. And I said to my husband, ‘Well maybe that’s the way to go?’ So we had started making enquiries about having some cladding done.” (C36, single, female, retired). • Conclusion: LA sponsored and area-based best for scheme rollout ?

  8. Disruption and snagging • We found an expectation of some disruption but that this was not really an issue and for most experience of actual disruption was better that expected. Some not however.. • “I knew it was going to be an upheaval, I expected that and that’s fine, that didn’t bother me. I thought, it’s going to be disruptive, I could have put up with, well I did put up with it, but I mean, all these little bits I had to pull them up on, I didn’t like that really.” (C.11, retired female) • Avoidable disruption e.g builders mess not cleared up properly was mentioned The cold snap…. • Snagging seem to be a particular issue – because • of the detail needed - Guys out from Taunton! Tentative conclusion 1: disruption need not be a barrier Firmer conclusion 2: keep it local

  9. Impacts –thermal comfort • For some the impact was “massive” • “It surpasses it, absolutely surpasses it [expectations]. I didn’t really think it was going to make a lot of difference; I thought it might make some difference, but it’s way beyond my expectations.” (C32, final interview). • Main thermal impacts noted by respondents : • Home heated up more quickly • Less drafts • Heat is more “even” • Heat is “held better” • For others, effects more subtle….linked to whether home heated to desired level before measure and also control strategy…

  10. Impacts –thermal comfort

  11. Thermal comfort • Conclusions: • a wide range of practice – some heated their homes to comfortable temps, others underheated and tried to stay warm by other means. • comfort taking is a continuum – all savings taken as either savings or comfort in only a minority of cases – most fall somewhere between – ie make some savings and also become more comfortable

  12. Thermal comfort • Conclusions: • where you are on the continuum depends on your starting point (underheated or not) • underheated because of cost concerns - most savings taken as comfort • heated to comfortable temps prior to measure? then response to SWI more subtle and depends on control strategy - either way you’ll make financial savings

  13. Living with your insulation.. • For example we found big impact on draughtiness • Warmer air – more moisture • Remedial efforts to prevent drafts included blocking ventilation • Could result in more condensation on eg windows if ventilation left blocked • For example, susceptibility to damage from point loads • For example, remove vestigial habits - thermostat as an on-off • “OK to turn your thermostat down if you need to” • Conclusion: need a guide, “living with your insulation”

  14. Lifestyle and unanticipated impacts • Reported improvements to well being (coughs and colds) • Spending more time at home • Home noticeably cooler in summer • Home is noticeable quieter • Home is more “liveable” – rooms are opened up for use, damp patches disappear

  15. Lifestyle and unanticipated impacts: appearance • It looks either no different or A LOT better (in some circumstances) • Perhaps not all: Georgian townhouse? Conservation areas • Conclusion: SWI lends itself to marketing as a home improvement much better than other (invisible) efficiency measures

  16. Conclusions • SWI can be transformative of lifestyle in underheated homes • Multiple “non-energy benefits” not least its affect on appearance • Suggests that can be marketed as a “home improvement” not only as energy saver to GD and ECO recipients • Its highly visible installation suggests it is well suited to area based schemes • Snagging critical to economics and customer experience • Dealing with vestigial habits and new characteristics – need a guide?

  17. Lots of work to be done.. www.cse.org.uk Search hard to treat for a copy of the report

More Related