Low Carbon People

Posted on March 8, 2013 by Doug King

MP Don Foster announced at Ecobuild this week, funding for a programme by the Zero Carbon Hub to investigate why energy consumption in low carbon dwellings is higher than expected. The answer is apparent in evidence also available at Ecobuild pointing to the obvious, which the industry and policy makers continue to fail to recognise.

On Tuesday, Ed Davey defended the Green Deal in the face of poor take up and a recent YouGov survey which revealed that the majority of householders have little interest in energy conservation and believe instead that the energy companies should be forced to lower their charges.

In the Edge Debate on Politics of Carbon Measurement, on Wednesday, Lynne Sullivan showed that actual energy consumption in Passivhaus dwellings is 90% below the average and substantially below the best of the rest.

So the reason for the performance gap between prediction and actual outcomes in low carbon homes should be obvious to all:

Passivhaus homes are voluntary. They are built or commissioned by individuals who are already concerned about their carbon footprint and are therefore pre-disposed to a low energy lifestyle.

The Code for Sustainable Homes, Building Regulations Part L et al are well meaning in intent, but the people who will buy the homes are no more interested in energy conservation than the average Briton. They will happily leave the heating on and open all the windows.

Studies of low carbon refurbishments by social housing landlords have already shown the vast variation in energy consumption in identically refurbished flats that occurs simply as a result of lifestyle. In some cases this variation is so great that it actually masks the improvement in efficiency achieved in the refurbishment.

The message is clear. Personal preference and individual behaviour is what drives energy consumption or conservation, not fantastic building fabric energy efficiency standards, nor regulation or checklists and not energy bills (at least yet).

When are politicians going to finally wake up and admit that the climate change and energy crisis is down to the way in which we all behave, not the buildings we behave in. If we want to make any substantial progress on sustainability it is time to start apportioning blame where it really belongs: the workmen (and workwomen) not the tools. Then we need to get on with changing people’s attitudes towards energy.

Pointless Part L

Posted on November 15, 2012 by Doug King

A question following a lecture I gave at the Building Centre the other morning asked why it is that Part L of the Building Regulations is still failing to deliver substantial improvements in building performance. The answer is so obvious that I thought I’d better share it more widely.

“Commercial competition drives quality standards down”.

In the case of building regulation, a previous government thought that it would be a good idea to open Building Control up to competition from the private sector in the form of Approved Inspectors. Once you remove the protected status of Building Control then the whole field of regulation actually becomes one of competition for work.

Now consider, if a Building Control Officer or an Approved Inspector needs to be concerned about where future work will come from, their priority is to ensure that their clients are happy with their service. Happy clients will return or recommend the service to others. This is a basic requisite of business, but it is entirely contrary to the need for a regulator to enforce unpopular regulations. The basic incentive of continuing employment means that the regulator is unlikely to insist on strict compliance but will work to find loopholes for the client to exploit.

Enforcing regulations will inevitably create conflict. That is why the jobs of the enforcers need to be protected against unhappy clients and developers who have fallen foul of the regulations.

Code for Unsustainable Homes

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Doug King

I’ve been looking at options for sustainable housing recently following a raft of competitions for housing associations who want to achieve Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Level 5 requires zero carbon emissions from heating lighting and ventilation, so you have 2 options; install a conventional boiler and enough extra PV to offset the carbon or install a biofuel boiler. Since PV is vastly expensive, this really only leaves the biofuel boiler.

Now, we can design well insulated housing these days with peak heating loads well below 5kW. However, can you find a fully automatic woodfuel boiler below about 15kW in output? No – at these low loads the only option seems to be manually fuelled room heaters. Wood boilers really need to be fired at full power for a reasonable period to avoid problems with tarring up. In other words the smallest automatic boiler is sufficient for 3-4 homes at CSH Level 5 or 6. This is great if you are a housing association and can install common plant and distribution, but what about developing housing for private sale, or even single properties.

The Government insists that all new housing shall be CSH Level 6 by 2016. So, if you are building a single house and don’t fancy inconvenient manual fuelling, you’d be better off not insulating the house at all in order to create sufficient load for long term reliable operation of your woodfuel boiler After all, the fuel is carbon neutral so you get all the credit even if your consumption is excessive. How stupid is that?

I think that this is another example of legislators adopting a voluntary code and forcing it on the market without ever considering the implications.

No More London Please

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Doug King

Another building that has been getting quite a bit of publicity recently for all the wrong reasons is 7 More London. This new office for PriceWaterhouseCooper is the first building in the capital to be awarded a BREEAM Outstanding rating. Yet when you look at it, this conventional, air-conditioned, steel and glass monstrosity probably should not have even passed Part L of the Building Regulations. Its saviour is that elixir of apparent carbon goodness, biodiesel.

Now is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong about an environmental rating system that allows you to construct a building that is just as energy guzzling as all the rest, but then feed its hunger with a scarce and valuable renewable fuel source?

Biodiesel is hardly sustainable, you simply need to look into its impacts on land use and food production to understand that, but it will have a valuable role to play in maintaining essential freight transport in the future. Unless, that is, we consume it all in running un-necessary air-conditioning for poorly designed, inefficient buildings. Actually this is true of all renewable energy sources, we simply cannot generate sufficient to waste it on gratuitous consumption. Oh and by the way I’d love to know how the biodiesel is to be delivered to the building.

The impending energy crisis is likely to be so severe that we will need every drop of fuel available from what-ever source we can find, simply in order to maintain our quality of life. We certainly cannot afford to pretend to be environmentally responsible by rushing to exploit a new resource before anyone else gets there. That’s how we got into so much trouble over fossil fuels.

Unintended Consequences

Posted on July 3, 2010 by Doug King

Someone mentioned to me the other day that it was next to impossible to find a new washing machine with both hot and cold fill. So how are we supposed to reduce carbon emissions from domestic laundry by using water from low carbon sources such as solar thermal?

To check whether this was true, I did a quick survey online. Of the 50 top selling washing machines from 13 different manufacturers, none has the option to fill with hot water. Yet all of these machines are A or A+ rated for energy efficiency. I wondered why this had come about, so I did a bit of further research.

The Energy Information (Washing Machines) Regulations 1996 is the UK enactment of the EC Directive on the energy labeling of domestic appliances. These explicitly state that “These Regulations shall apply only to appliances which are electric mains operated and unable to use other energy sources”

The second bit of this statement is the significant one. In order to deliver a universal rating system it must be possible to compare like for like. How could you compare the efficiency of an electrically heated machine with one that receives hot water from an external source of unknown quality. This little get out clause is clearly included to ensure that the energy efficiency ratings will be equivalent across the board. What this means in practice of course is that a washing machine with a hot fill cannot be given an energy label.

Now when it comes to heating water, even a conventional boiler will do it with less carbon emission than an electric heating element in a washing machine. Since energy labels are mandatory this little sentence, buried in the verbiage, creates a prohibition on what are potentially the most carbon efficient washing machines.

The washing machine manufacturers must have been delighted. As the sale of appliances without energy labels was prohibited they no longer needed to include a second set of water control valves in their machines, thus reducing manufacturing costs. I don’t suppose that the savings were passed on to consumers, but just try to get them to add back the hot fill now without putting the price up.

Then we have to factor in the fact that the energy label rating is based on a very specific wash cycle, whilst consumers apparently are tending to use more energy intensive quick wash cycles. According to a number of studies the electricity consumption for laundry is much higher than would be inferred from the energy labels.

In the UK, Building Regulations and policies like the Renewable Heat Incentive are designed to reduce carbon emissions in building services installations, including hot water generation. Washing machines are excluded from these policy instruments because they are already covered by the energy labelling regulations. But water heating is water heating and probably best dealt with as an efficient integrated system, not in isolation in your washing machine.

So, in drafting regulation which is supposed to promote energy efficiency the European Union scribes have actually written one that prohibits the most carbon efficient means of operation. Maybe one day our Governments will consult people who understand the issues before writing new laws.