Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘biomass’ Category

Martin at isite has got in touch to urge us to wear blue on Earth Day (April 20th) to signify opposition to new coal.

We’re with you, Martin. Time to break out the body paint.

Read Full Post »

Today Lord Turner’s panel met for the first time to discuss a concrete strategy for fufilling the UK’s commitment to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050 (and to consider upping the target to 80%). With around a third of UK emissions coming from housing, this sector will inevitably play a key role in their strategy. You might think we could rely on the Code for Sustainable Homes to get us there – after all, if all homes from 2016 are Code level 6 then there will be no net emissions from new housing. But unfortunately new homes are only a small part of the problem.

The graph below illustrates the predicted emissions from the housing sector by age of housing stock for the period 2002 to 2050. It shows that the overwhelming proportion of emissions will continue to come from houses built before 2002. The dotted lines represent the emissions from all housing required to achieve a 60% and 80% reduction in emissions vs 1990 levels. Emissions from each band decreases over time due to demolition.

carbon emissions from housing by age of stock

Figure 1. Carbon emissions from housing sector by age of housing stock, 2002 – 2050

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Greenpeace has created their version of a model town, stitching together examples from all over the UK. It’s a very cool combination of flash pages with lots of case studies, animations, and videos. Worth a wander.

Read Full Post »

Phil Clark and Fulcrum have put together a fantastic list of upcoming proposed policy changes relevant to construction. Though I couldn’t find the attached doc he talks about: Fulcrum’s housing chart – where is it? Phil’s promised to keep the list updated as more information is released.

That’s just saved me a pile of research this morning, Phil. Thanks.

Read Full Post »

[Update March 20 – while it’s true that SAP gives misleadingly high emissions savings for CHP, I got the methodology wrong. See an updated post here. Points 3 and 4 below are still valid.] 

The SAP results for dwellings using CHP are badly skewed. This may cause large developers to formulate strategies for meeting the Code for Sustainable Homes which fall well short of the targets.

Doing some research this week, I read the Housing Corporation’s report on the estimated costs of meeting various levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes. It’s an interesting document, but at a certain point I was confused by their claim that you can meet the carbon reductions required by code level 4 (i.e. a 44% reduction in DER relative to TER) just by using gas CHP. In fact, when I looked closer I found that in some cases, they were claiming an emissions reduction of over 50% – an extremely high figure. Something closer to 10 and 15% is much more reasonable, unless you want to get Orchardesque.

The source of these wild claims is the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for dwellings – SAP 2005. As hinted at in the CHP debate running in the BSJ over the summer, SAP does some funny things when it comes to CHP. Have a closer look at the SAP worksheets and you find that SAP:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

I’m doing financial comparisons of energy systems on one of our projects. It’s a pretty standard part of our work but this morning the precision of the figures appearing in my spreadsheet strikes me as particularly specious because it doesn’t tell the whole story. Sure, clients need a comparator and you can’t preface every report with a thesis on complexities of the energy market (not that I’m capable) but just the same these results are making me uneasy and here’s a short list of reasons why:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The Draft Statutory Instrument (DSI) for Stamp Duty Exemption for Zero Carbon Homes, announced at the last budget, will undermine the majority of attempts to deliver the greenest of housing. The DSI doesn’t appear to be available online, but the link is to a copy we acquired from the Treasury after badgering them.

The DSI is to be laid before Parliament at the end of next week for Committee approval by the end of the month. It is at best a misguided piece of well-meaning legislation that will do more harm than good, or at worst a genuine attempt by central Government to limit the loss of stamp duty receipts from too many zero carbon homes.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The Green Building Council published a response in July to the Draft Statutory Instrument (which comes into force on October 1) for stamp duty exemption as proposed by our now Prime Minister in the last budget. I wish I had read it more carefully at the time…

Colleagues and I have been trying to disentangle the most cost-effective routes to achieving Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes for a number of far-sighted and sincere clients who want to deliver the most efficient housing possible, and not just for those that can afford it.

Anyway, the budget announcement stated that zero-carbon homes would be exempt from stamp duty, which in reality is nothing more than a political gesture as the costs involved outweigh the stamp duty savings. Originally, the Code was written to allow for accredited offsite renewables which could demonstrate clear additionality, to be acceptable in achieving true zero carbon status. This was a bold step that, despite the uncertain mechanics of administration had the potential to allow developers the choice of investing in off-site renewables. Imagine being able to deliver say 30-50% CO2 reductions for the cost of a planning requirements of 10%? Or even a 100% reduction for an acceptable extra over to secure a particularly plum site. Too good to be true perhaps?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

In Building yesterday, a study by London South Bank University says a quarter of schemes in London are exceeding the 10% target. The article states:

In total the study, undertaken by London South Bank University, looked at 113 detailed energy statements for schemes that had been given planning approval.

Erm, but none of those scheme has been built yet. And currently there’s no mechanism for enforcing adherence to the commitment by developers – unless it’s written into a Section 106. This enforcement mechanism is a tricky issue that hasn’t been resolved as far as I know. The study also finds that:

…the most effective technologies at cutting carbon are CHP and CCHP, particularly where biomass fuel is used.

Fantastic, and I’m looking forward to seeing more biomass in London. We’ve specced it on a number of jobs, the first of which is up and running. But I can say that using biomass heating (never mind biomass CCHP) brings its own logistical tangles. It’s one thing to tot it up on a spreadsheet and another entirely to bring to fruition.

Without succumbing to the pessimism that seems de rigeur when blogging about the government’s or the GLA’s green policies, I’d just like to add a note of caution. The schemes have been granted planning permission but are by no means home and dry. A follow up survey is needed to see what’s actually built.

Read Full Post »

There was an article in the Guardian last Saturday (thanks to Tessa for spotting it) by Alex James, the bassist from Blur, about having an architect come to his home to give green advice. It’s a scheme run by the RIBA where architects provide green advice in exchange for a donation to charity. At first glance this sounds positive. Certainly it’s a great channel to spread information on energy efficiency.

But things get a little weird when the article states that thick rubble walls keep the house warm in winter – which they don’t. Then architect George Stowell suggests that Alex installs a biomass CHP unit to generate his own electricity on site from wood chips. But there aren’t any commercially available biomass CHP units on a single house scale (or even twenty times that big). He may have meant biomass heating, but it’s a hell of a mistake to make, recommending something that doesn’t exist.

It might be better to send a services engineer. CIBSE should consider something similar to the RIBA programme.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started