Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘energy’ Category

far end
A project I’ve been involved in at XCO2 won the Building Design /100% Detail Cool Wall contest last Sunday. It’s Far End House, set to be the first PassivHaus in the UK (fingers crossed). My involvement has been limited to working through the PHPP spreadsheets – Jayde Austin has done all the hard work – but I wanted to shout about it anyway.

In this case, mob justice was right.

Read Full Post »

David Orr’s comments at the NHF annual conference last Friday have sparked off a row with the Homes Builders’ Federation. In response to Orr’s suggestion that developers won’t hit the governments target of all new homes being carbon neutral by 2016, head of the HBF Stewart Baseley said oh yes we will.

But given that it appears the Treasury is trying to make it much harder (and more expensive) to officially go carbon neutral, it’s likely that developers will have to pay up or change their tune before long. Maybe to one of the old protest songs – We shall overcome perhaps?

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 »

(Spotted by Mel at Elemental) Cyril Sweett have published their research into the potential for improving energy performance of existing building stock. The importance of greening existing buildings is brought home by two facts:

  1. 44% of all CO2 emissions in the UK comes from energy use in buildings
  2. According to one of the report’s authors, in 2050 60% of Britain’s buildings will still pre-date the 2006 revisions to Part L

So we can  look forward to the carbon reductions required by Part L being ratcheted up in future, but the overall effect will be modest, even in the long term. If we want to save carbon NOW then energy consumption in existing buildings is too important to ignore.

Predictably, the report’s top recommendation is for “brave decisions” by the government. But in a political climate where politicians would rather engage in creative accounting than be decisive on climate change, it’s hard to be hopeful.

Read Full Post »

What’s going on?

There’s been a fierce debate among energy bods this summer over the environmental effectiveness of combined heat and power (CHP) and CHP with cooling (CCHP) – a debate closely tied to assumptions about the carbon emissions associated with grid electricity in the UK.

What happened?

As noted in this blog in May, Arup associate director James Thonger opened up with a broadside aimed at the GLA policy of requiring CHP and CCHP on new developments. In particular he refuted LCCA claims that gas CHP saves 54% of carbon relative to grid electricity. The LCCA is headed up by Allan Jones, former green god of Woking and now darling of the London Mayor, who didn’t take the criticism lightly.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Gibbs BuildingFollowing our recent blog conversation about the energy consumption of Portcullis House, Phil at the Sustainability Blog has pointed out the recently published consumption figures for another Hopkins scheme – this time the Gibbs Building owned by the Wellcome Trust. Like Portcullis House, it’s an office building kitted out with plenty of green gear. And like its cousin, the Gibbs Building is consuming more energy than predicted at design stage. So is the green office building just a myth?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

An article in the Times over the weekend claims that walking to the shops emits more CO2 than driving. It’s a sensationalist claim (even if they can back it up with calcs) that doesn’t help anyone except Daily Mail readers desperate to shore up their view that anyone who thinks about energy or the environment is a commie pinko control freak determined to spoil everyone’s fun. Chris Goodall, the man behind the claim, should have known better and is clearly more interested in headlines than making a genuine difference.

Every little helps. But all things being equal, the fight to alleviate the effects of global warming isn’t going to be won between your house and the shops. It’s much more useful to keep your eye on the crucial issues rather than handing ammunition to the folks who like nothing better than a bit of obfuscation.

Read Full Post »

Via zerochampion, the Guardian’s architecture commentator suggests that buildings

…should only really be offered prizes 20 years after their completion. While we can comment on the merit of the design, look and feel of a particular building when new, and celebrate the intentions of its designers, there is no guarantee that it might not prove to be a failure.

I know we ought to be happy that architecture is being discussed on TV at all. Having said that, if I were in charge of the Stirling Prize I’d consider actual measured energy use and give occupants a vote on whether they think the building is a success.

Read Full Post »

Client (on seeing the staircase dominating his hall): But I didn’t want a black marble staircase, I wanted an oak one!

Lutyens: What a pity.

miesThis is driving me nuts. There’s now a huge emphasis on sustainability in architecture but some architects still don’t get it. Aflame with good intentions at the start of projects, they enthusiastically buy into sustainability concepts. But later in the design when there’s a perceived conflict between the energy performance and the architecture, the energy performance is chucked out the window.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started