Want to know more about BuilderScrap.com… visit our Youtube Channel

As I’m sure you all know we’re a completely free website for the construction trade, set up by builders for builders, that aims to facilitate contact between different trades people and help them to use up surplus in the supply chain. BuilderScrap.com provides an outlet to encourage reuse of material that would otherwise be thrown away. It’s a way for the industry to work together to reduce the amount of builders’ waste sent to landfill.

Lets have a look at some of our more interesting available items…. with a water theme.

Executive Restrooms

A Swimming Pool Slide

Stainless Steel Urinal Trough

We do have a wide and varied range of items available

At the BuilderScrap.com office we’re discussing Carbon offsetting and we’d love to hear your thoughts. Comments not just from our regular visitors using the site to trade Builders Surplus but people who believe its either a great idea so simply doesn’t work.

Carbon offsetting schemes operate in a number of areas, to compensate for travel emissions but also for emissions coming from energy use in the home. Respondents who had ever paid into a scheme or were thinking about paying in were asked what they would be willing to offset (choosing items from a pre-coded list of three options). In total 371 were asked this question. Just over half (51%) of these respondents said they would be willing to offset the electricity and/or gas that they and their household used. This was followed by 29% who said they would be willing to offset the flights they take for holidays and 26% their annual car mileage. A smaller proportion of respondents (14%) said they would not be willing to offset any of these three items while 7% indicated that they did not know. Results from this question are summarised in Table 35.

This same group of respondents were also asked whether they would be most interested in paying into projects in the UK, projects in other countries (particularly in developing countries), or whether they did not mind which. Just under half (46%) of these respondents expressed a preference for paying into a UK-based project, with 15% expressing a preference for paying into projects in other countries. Slightly fewer than a third (29%) indicated that they did not mind which type of scheme.

As anybody who’s watched the television adverts about climate change knows travel, transport and in-particular car ownership are hot topics.

BuilderScrap.com are continuing to post about the current Defra report on attitudes to environmental issues. As part of the survey, respondents were presented with three statements about travel and transport. Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each of these. The findings are summarised in Figure 12 and Table 33.

About half (49%) agreed that they would only travel on a bus if they had no choice with 21% strongly agreeing with this. Just over one third (37%) disagreed with the statement.

Nearly half (44%) of respondents agreed that ‘people who fly should bear the cost of the environmental damage that air travel causes’, with less than one third (27%) disagreeing with this.

In contrast, over half (55%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “for the sake of the environment car users should pay higher taxes” (including just over one quarter, 28%, who strongly disagreed).

The results from the current survey are broadly consistent with those from the 2007 Defra survey, with a small increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed that ‘I would only travel by bus if I had no other choice’ (up by 3%).

Attending the home builders convention in Las Vegas might be the most important date in your calendar but emissions when flying long haul have a negative effect on our environment. Surely we all know this? BuilderScrap.com aren’t suggesting you stop but lets be smart about it. Lets look at the detail.

Slightly fewer than half of respondents (41%) had taken a flight in the twelve months prior to the survey (between March 2008 and February 2009) for leisure, holidays or for visiting friends or family. This represents a small decrease over the last two to three years – 45% of respondents in the 2007 Defra survey said they had flown during the year 2006.

Those who had flown in the last 12 months were asked how many flights they had taken within the UK, to other European countries and to countries outside of Europe. The results from these questions are presented in Table 31 compared with results from the 2007 Defra survey.

Respondents who had flown in the last year were most likely to have flown to other countries within Europe (75%), followed by flights to countries outside Europe (41%). About one quarter who had flown in the last year said they had taken a flight within the UK (24%). For each of these destination categories, it was most likely that respondents had flown once within the 12 month period.

Around half (55%) of those who had taken a flight within the UK had done so once. Similarly, around half (56%) who had taken a flight to another country within Europe had done this once, while nearly two-thirds (63%) who had taken a flight outside of Europe had done this once.

The mean number of flights taken within the UK had increased from 0.4 to 0.8 between 2007 and 2009. However, this appears to have been driven partly by a small proportion of respondents (less than 1%) who had taken a very large number of flights within the UK (20 or more in the last 12 months). Also the proportion of respondents who had flown within the last year and had taken at least one flight within the UK had increased to just less than one quarter (from 18% in 2007 to 24% in 2009).

The mean number of flights taken to other countries within Europe and to countries outside Europe had not changed since the 2007 Defra survey.
All respondents including those who had not flown in the last twelve months were asked the extent to which they had considered taking fewer flights. The question was asked using the stages of change response scale and the results are presented in Table 32 (including as a percentage of all respondents and of all respondents who had flown in the last 12 months).

About one quarter of respondents said they were already taking fewer flights and maintaining this as a behaviour. The proportion of respondents who reported that they were taking fewer flights was similar regardless of whether it was expressed as a proportion of all respondents or of those who had flown in the previous 12 months. Of those who had flown in the last 12 months, nearly one quarter (22%) were at the pre-contemplative stage of reducing the number of flights they took and more than one third (36%) said they had considered taking fewer flights but had rejected the idea – the latter compared with 21% of all respondents reporting this. A small proportion, of those respondents who had flown in the last 12 months, were contemplating the behaviour (6%) or had relapsed after trying to take fewer flights (3%).

More from BuilderScrap.com on our habits.  To all those contractors and white van men. This questionnaire includes a number of questions which use the stages of change response scale to assess how willing people were to alter the way they used their cars (including cutting down on the amount they drove). The results from these questions are shown in Table 30.

Of the five behaviours shown in Table 30, the majority of drivers reported they were already driving in a fuel efficient way and intended to keep this up (78% of all drivers were classified at the maintenance stage). Of the remaining respondents these were split between those unaware of driving in a fuel efficient way (6%); those who had rejected doing this (4%); those thinking about it (6%); and those who had tried it but relapsed (4%).
Nearly two-thirds (62%) of all drivers said they had switched to walking or cycling instead of driving for short, regular journeys and intended to keep this up (the maintenance stage), although nearly one in five (18%) had rejected the idea of switching to walking or cycling (the second largest group for this behaviour). It should be noted that those who said they had already switched mode of transport need not have switched all of their short regular journeys. For example, a respondent who had switched to walking to instead of driving to work might still be making short regular trips by car for other purposes such as shopping.

In comparison, about a quarter (26%) of drivers said they had switched to public transport instead of driving for regular journeys (the maintenance stage), although nearly half (47%) had rejected this behaviour. One in ten (10%) drivers were at the pre-contemplation stage indicating that they “hadn’t really given the idea any thought” with a similar number either contemplating this switch (6%) or having made the switch only to relapse into using their car again (5%).

Just 1% of drivers had switched to and maintained use of an electric / hybrid / LPG car with the same proportion having switched at some point in the past and relapsed. Just over half (53%) said they had rejected the idea of switching and a quarter (26%) were at the pre-contemplation stage, having never really thought about doing this. However, 16% of drivers claimed to be contemplating making this switch.

The Builderscrap.com team are back from the Christmas break. This next post states that respondents were quite likely to already be buying fresh food that had been grown when it is in season in the country where it was produced – 60% had done this and were maintaining the behaviour while a further 3% had tried this but had relapsed. Very few respondents (6%) had rejected the idea of buying locally in season produce but one in five (21%) were at the pre-contemplation stage indicating that they “hadn’t thought about doing this” or “hadn’t heard” about it.

The omnibus survey included some additional questions about seasonal food. Firstly, omnibus respondents were presented with a fuller definition of what seasonal food was before being asked whether they ever purchased it:
‘Seasonal food is defined as food that is grown outdoors or produced during the natural growing / production period for the country or region where it is produced. It need not necessarily be consumed locally. As a result less energy is likely to have been used in its production’

Providing this fuller definition led to responses that were broadly similar to the response already presented in Table 22. Just over half (55%) said they were already buying seasonal food and maintaining this as a behaviour, 9% said they were contemplating it, 6% had thought about it but had rejected the idea, and 19% were at the pre-contemplation stage (having either never thought about it or having never heard of it). A comparison of responses to these two questions is provided in Table 23.

All respondents in the omnibus survey were also asked what factors might encourage them to buy more seasonal produce. More than one third (37%) of respondents said that they would buy more “if the price was similar to the food they usually bought / if it was cheaper”. A smaller proportion (14%) said that they would if shops made it clearer which food was seasonal, 9% if packaging on food told them it was seasonal and 6% if shops only sold seasonal produce. Just over one in ten (11%) said that nothing would make them buy more seasonal food because they wanted to buy the food they desired whenever they wanted.

Roger Harrabin the Environment analyst for the BBC News suggests;

The cost of installing and owning solar panels will fall even faster than expected according to new research.

Tests show that 90% of existing solar panels last for 30 years, instead of the predicted 20 years. According to the independent EU Energy Institute, this brings down the lifetime cost.

The institute says the panels are such a good long-term investment that banks should offer mortgages on them like they do on homes.

At a conference, the institute forecast that solar panels would be cost-competitive with energy from the grid for half the homes in Europe by 2020 – without a subsidy.

Basically everything (in the industry) is bound to grow still further. Growing further means less cost Heinz Ossenbrink, EU Energy Institute

Incentive programmes for solar panels in Germany, Italy and Spain have created manufacturing volume that’s bringing down costs. Solar panel prices dropped 30% last year alone due to an increase in output and a drop in orders because of the recession.

But Heinz Ossenbrink, who works at the institute, said China had underpinned its solar industry with a big solar domestic programme which would keep prices falling. There are large-scale solar plans in the US and India too.

Panels had been expected to last for 20 years and price calculations were based on this (with a free energy source, purchase and installation represent almost the entire price of solar power).

But Dr Ossenbrink says the institute’s laboratory has been subjecting the cells to the sort of accelerated ageing through extremes of heat, cold and humidity that has long been a benchmark for the car industry.

Long lifetime

It has shown that more than 90% of the panels on the market 10 years ago are capable of still performing well after 30 years of life, albeit with a slight drop in performance.

Dr Ossenbrink says 40-year panels will be on the market soon.

A key goal for solar is what is known as grid parity. That is the point when it is as cheap for someone to generate power on their homes as it is to buy it from the grid.

It varies from country to country depending on electricity prices, but the institute estimates that Italy – which has a combination of sunny weather and relatively high electricity prices – should reach grid parity next year. Half of Europe should be enjoying grid parity by 2020, it estimates.

Cloudy northern countries like the UK could wait further, possibly up to 2030. But the day would come when solar panels on homes would be cost-competitive without a subsidy, even in Britain.

Dr Ossenbrink says: “Basically everything (in the industry) is bound to grow still further. Growing further means less cost. Less cost means grid parity.”

“We have been surprised in the past five years at the drop in prices. It’s due to good incentive programmes first in Germany then Spain and Italy. That created a kind of a boom that was helping industry to reduce costs and get into profitability. And when an industry is in profit it drives on its own.”

Owning solar

Professor Wim Sinke, from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who leads the solar umbrella group the European Photovoltaic Technology Platform, says the industry has even greater ambitions.

“The target of the sector as a whole is to reach grid parity in almost all of Europe over the next 10 years. So by 2020 we should have grid parity in most of Europe,” he told BBC News.

Key sticking points for domestic solar, he said, would be the lack of flexibility in electricity grids to take in surplus generated energy and difficulties with finance.

Dr Ossenbrink said: “What I would like to see is the finance sector saying solar power is a product like financing a house – except they can predict the value of the solar panel much more safely than they can predict the value of the house in a volatile market.

“Electricity will never be given away free. Banks should offer mortgages on people’s solar panels like they do on homes – the bank should own the panel, then it would transfer to the householder when the loan has been paid off. It would be perfect for life assurances.”

It will take much longer for solar to match fossil fuel power at the point of generation, the institute says, as wholesale electricity prices are much lower than retail prices.

Hopefully one day we might see second hand solar panels on BuilderScrap.com or Builders merchants

Are you concerned about packaging, the BuilderScrap.com team are. Check out this defra survey. Respondents were asked how frequently they decided not to buy something because it has too much packaging (using a six-point scale ranging from always to never). Just 6% of respondents said they always decided not to buy for this reason, while 8% said they did this very often, 7% quite often, 14% sometimes and 14% occasionally. Come on UK lets Recycling gb

The largest group of respondents (46%) said they never decided not to buy something because it had too much packaging. It should be noted that this is less than the proportion of respondents who were at the pre-contemplation or rejection stage for this behaviour (58% of all respondents said they hadn’t really thought about the behaviour or had rejected it – as shown in Table 15). This implies that some people who said they had rejected or had not really given any thought to not buying things because they had too much packaging were actually (at least occasionally) avoiding products because they had too much packaging.

Come on guys… lets make Recycling gb our priority!

Here at BuilderScrap.com we look out for our Building contractors uk, Todays post looks at a number of purchasing behaviours. This study assesses using the stages of the change response scale . The results from these questions are presented in Table 15.

For each of the three behaviours covered, respondents were most likely to be at the pre-contemplation stage (between 30% and 42% of respondents) where they had either not heard of them or thought about them. In addition, for each of these behaviours at least one in ten respondents said they had rejected the behaviour. That said, there were still significant proportions who had adopted these behaviours: around a third (30%) said they were not buying things because they had too much packaging and intended to keep this up, and one in five respondents said they were buying wood and wood products from certified sustainable sources and buying peat free compost and intended to keep this up (21% and 19% respectively).