Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘sustainability’ Category

Rather than taking action to meet its commitments on renewable energy, Brown’s government is actively wriggling out of them. Even more pathetically, it’s trying to persuade other governments to soften their line, let the targets slide a bit, don’t worry so much about climate change. Why? Because in the view of Brown’s advisers (in which we might include the CBI), the targets just aren’t realistic. We’ve done all we can and it just won’t work.

Over a year ago, the Carbon Trust were sending up warning signals about the inefficiency of the Renewables Obligation (RO), the Government’s primary method for supporting renewable energy technology. They found that the RO is the worst of all possible options. Yep, of the methods they considered, the RO is the least practical and cost effective method of achieving renewables targets and carbon reduction. And the best? Feed in tariffs similar to those that sparked the PV boom in Germany and that you find in Italy, Spain, Greece, and other countries.

So why does the UK stick to a doomed policy? Probably a number of things: Government inertia, the nuclear lobby feverishly presenting themselves as a silver bullet, utilities hoping to maintain current margins. But little in the way of valid argument. There’s no excuse for shirking responsibility on this issue.

Read Full Post »

Over the summer there was a debate between some big names in engineering over whether combined heat, cooling, and power (CHCP) using absorption chillers actually saves carbon. The theory goes that because engine size is usually dictated by the base summer heat load, the additional heat load from the chillers allows you to upsize your engine and generate more low-carbon electricity throughout the year.

However on a current project, we’re looking at the feasibility of installing a district heating and cooling network, including installation costs. And one thing is clear: regardless of whether CHCP saves carbon, the capital cost of cooling is unaffordable.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Back in the UK for project meetings, I arrived at my inlaws’ house in Dorking yesterday evening and within minutes my father-in-law was spreading the Telegraph on the table, pointing to the article about how long efficiency measures take to pay back. Phil at the Sustainability Blog has already commented on the RICS claims and I agree with him.

And here’s first hand proof of the damage their histrionics have done: as I explained to my father-in-law that the RICS study was making unreasonable assumptions (e.g. simple payback calculations) his eyes glazed over. Why? Because the soundbite had already done its job. Nevermind the VAT debate or discussion of EPCs, he’s now more convinced than ever that there’s no point in pursuing any of this eco-treehugging-mumbo-jumbo as it’s obviously frivolous and expensive.

Thanks RICS.

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 »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started