The requirement for all homes to be zero carbon by 2016 is going to fail unless we take action now. In particular, a set of interim requirements under the Code for Sustainable Homes must be imposed on private housebuilders. In addition, the Code must allow more flexibility in how zero carbon is achieved.
Big developers are publicly embracing the zero carbon target for all new homes by 2016. The House Builders’ Federation says it’s on the case. Barratt’s have installed a range of green technologies at their eco village in Chorley and have just won a Carbon Challenge site in Bristol.
At the end of November, Barratt’s published preliminary findings on the performance of the green technologies at Chorley. To pick one example, according to the press release the GSHP is running with an average COP of 2.5 (ouch). But they’ve nicely gift-wrapped this turd by claiming:
At these performance levels, an £7,800 GSHP would reduce CO2 emissions by 62 per cent and would take around 15 years or less to pay for itself at today’s electricity prices using a simple payback method of analysis.
Look closely and you’ll see that’s 62% carbon savings relative to direct electric heating. Same with costs. And to skew it a bit further, that’s 62% savings for space heating only, not for the house overall. So they haven’t told us how good GSHPs are, only how rubbish direct electric heating is!
Those GSHPs will most likely have immersion coil backup, so if you compare the entire heating system for a 100m2 semi you’re emitting at least 10% more carbon than the equivalent home using a condensing gas boiler (assuming 70kWh/m2.yr space heat and 35kWh/m2.yr hot water and a seasonal boiler efficiency of 88%.)
I’m not bringing this example up to be pedantic or disparage GSHPs but to illustrate the spin that large developers are putting on their green efforts. It’s in their interest to toe the green line and go along with government plans, at least for now. Be seen to be green: it helps marketing and land acquisition, and positions you as a voice of reason when negotiating with the DCLG.
There are currently no mandatory Code levels for private developers. But developers are coming under pressure to adopt targets before 2016 to create a more stepped approach to reaching zero carbon. So rather than going from minimum standards to zero carbon in one giant (and impossible) leap, they would be forced to meet increasingly stringent levels of the Code.
This is the approach already adopted by housing associations. If private developers are forced to take a similar approach, the environmental performance of new housing will “ratchet” up with each new required Code level.
However, some developers are likely to make every effort to look green while fighting off the imposition of interim targets. Without a stepped approach, it will be impossible for developers to hit a 2016 target for zero carbon homes – the industry simply won’t be able to make the leap. And worst of all, come 2016, developers will be able to point the finger at others: lack of product availability, inadequate supply chains, untrained technicians, etc.
Interim mandatory targets are essential if there is any hope of all new homes being zero carbon by 2016. And targets must be brought in now, while developers are keen to prove their green credentials. After all, if they already expect to hit the 2016 target, how could they reasonably argue against lower targets in the meantime?
But even with interim targets, developers probably won’t get all the way to Code 6. And why should they? It’s becoming increasingly clear that Code 6 doesn’t make economic or environmental sense – it was an eye catching initiative made by a minister who hadn’t given any thought to the implications. Zero carbon homes are desirable and achievable, but the current Code level 6 is not the way to get there. I feel that the 2016 requirement, as it stands at the moment, will never come into force.
Assuming the requirement will change, there are two ways it can go. Either 1) leave the Code as it is and reduce the Code level required or 2) change the Code. The latter is undoubtedly the best course: keep the zero carbon target for 2016, but change the means by which Code 6 is achieved. In particular, we need three changes:
-
Eliminate the 0.8 HLP requirement. The HLP is a hindrance to CHP and pushes all homes down the Passiv Haus route without considering the cost-benefits in the UK. We can save more carbon for less money by removing this requirement.
-
Allow near-site and off-site renewables to count towards the Code, with strict rules on demonstrating additionality. Interestingly, Ofgem has just made proposals to revise market and licensing arrangements to support distributed generation, including establishing a dedicated wholesale market. As ESCOs step up to meet demand for near-site and off-site renewables, these regulatory changes may further improve economics of medium size renewable energy systems.
-
Give planners the choice of whether to make the stringent water use requirements mandatory or tradeable. In the drought prone SE of England maybe 80 litres makes sense, but what about those areas of the UK that have excess water?
And if we don’t make these changes now? At best, good developers will be unable to achieve their stated aim of all homes being zero carbon by 2016. At worst, foot draggers will have all the ammo they need to protect the status quo. Either way, we lose.
[…] Without action, 2016 will fail – Excellent article from Casey, picks up both Martin and Mark’s points re: CSH […]
[…] 7, 2008 · No Comments CarbonLimited have posted a more informed and detailed view on whats wrong with the […]
[…] CarbonLimited – scathing comments on performance […]
[…] projects, the designs are based on the Chorley homes technology – so I hope the comments made by CarbonLimited are taken into […]
You’re right, this does need to be taken seriously now. The focus also needs widening beyond technical solutions to include issues such as training, attitudes, and culture. Failure to address these softer issues is already causing problems even with the current much less stringent standards. This is illustrated in further detail in an article on my Web site at http://www.mikebriggs.org/rsph, which may be of interest.