Built
IN

As the great Monty Python sketch writers might say, air-conditioning is dead. It's no more. It has ceased to be. It has kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible.

Although I'm afraid to admit, that's not quite accurate! Particularly since air-conditioning has grown its market in commercial buildings and even homes very rapidly over recent years.

But the future is looking decidedly dicey for an energy-intensive, high maintenance technology that strictly speaking is no longer required for new buildings in the UK, even in the face of global warming and the associated climate change.

One of the first potential nails in the coffin was the announcement earlier this year by the British Council for Offices that they had updated their Guide to Specification to address sustainability. The previous 2005 specification had been heavily criticised by many in the property sector as it implicitly recommended four pipe fan-coil air-conditioning systems and contained a requirement that office buildings should be designed to achieve internal summer temperatures of 22^oC, with a very narrow control band of +/-2^oC. This made it virtually impossible for designers of naturally ventilated, or passively cooled, buildings to comply.

The 2009 Guide has relaxed the internal temperature requirement to 24^oC for air-conditioned offices. However, and most important, it has introduced a new design target for mixed mode and naturally ventilated offices of not exceeding 25^oC for more than 55% of the occupied hours and 28^oC for no more than 1%. This is a very pragmatic and sensible change, since it now makes it possible to deliver much more energy efficient buildings without resorting to full air-conditioning.

Explicit references to specific systems have also been removed. As a consequence, we are likely to see many more of the next generation of office buildings adopting a mixed-mode approach to cooling and ventilation, and probably much greater use of free cooling systems.

My own consultancy is already busy talking to clients keen to know about these systems. Of particular interest to us is the potential offered by ground-coupling (NB not to be confused with ground source heat pumps). This is a way of cooling air in the summer (and pre-heating in the winter) by passing it through underground ducts and utilising the thermal mass of the earth. This delivers free cooling in the summer, without the need for large areas of high embodied-carbon exposed concrete. They have been specified at more than 200 office buildings in Germany already - expect to see this greener technology in an office near you sometime soon.

There is also a growing interest in evaporative cooling (also known as adiabatic cooling). The principles of evaporative cooling were used by the Persians centuries ago and is still used in many traditional Arab buildings. This is, arguably, still air-conditioning, but it gets rid of the need of refrigerant based mechanical refrigeration and allows us to make use of a much more efficient and carbon neutral technology, at very low operational and maintenance cost, albeit with a small additional water demand.

That's all very well and dandy, you may say, but where's the regulatory driver for these changes? Is it too soon to announce the demise of air-conditioning?

Possibly, but it looks as if a coup de grace will come from the new Part L regulations for 2010. One of the most significant changes will be the closing of the loophole, which has in the past made it easier for fully air-conditioned commercial buildings to demonstrate Part L compliance than their more energy efficient counterparts.

It seems very likely that the new Part L2A requirements will contain a tougher improvement factor for air-conditioned buildings, which will address this anomaly. As a consequence it will become considerably more expensive for an air-conditioned building to achieve Part L compliance from next year.

This is good news for achieving improved environmental sustainability in the built environment. Occupants will be happier - passive natural ventilation can easily be provided without opening windows or sitting in draughts. It should not cause headaches for developers or designers either. Architects are already much more experienced at designing buildings that exploit orientation, shading and ventilation to overcome summertime overheating. Internal temperature gains are reducing too with the development in better IT systems and the return to centralised servers, often located offsite. We can also enjoy improved daylight controls and more efficient lighting that doesn't generate lots of excess heat.

All we need to do now is to wean the world's architectural celebrities off of their obsession with fully glazed 70 storey skyscrapers and call time on artificial ski-slopes in the desert.

First published in Building Magazine, August 14th 2009 - Online Article

Ask anyone interested in the energy efficiency of buildings what has been the greatest influence on their market over the past two or three years and they are likely to talk about the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

As EU Directives go, this one has pretty much escaped the wrath of the Daily Mail, but it is responsible for many of the energy efficiency requirements enshrined in UK law today, including Energy Performance Certificates and Display Energy Certificates.

Now the EU has published its proposals to recast the EPBD. A consultation was launched a couple of weeks ago by Communities and Local Government to consider how the UK should respond (a copy of the Consultation can be downloaded from the DIAG website www.diag.org.uk ).

There is much to welcome in the proposals, including improvements to Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) to make the energy saving recommendations that are given to people selling, buying and renting homes much more bespoke to the property and with extra advice to encourage their implementation. Similarly, I'm pleased to see that the energy rating of a home will be required in property advertisements.

The proposed requirement for an early assessment of the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of alternative energy systems for all buildings, as part of gaining planning permission or building regulations compliance, will also bring detailed energy efficiency discussions to a much earlier stage in the design programme. This can only be a good thing, as genuine sustainability demands a more integrated approach from day one.

Of course, as with any new legislation, the devil is in the detail. There are several small - but crucial - issues still to be thrashed out. For example, what are the EU's principles for a common definition of 'low and zero carbon'? The UK is creeping closer to a consensus on these terms, but our definition may be threatened by a rather ridiculous suggestion from one European Commissioner that zero carbon means all energy consumed by a building being generated onsite by solar panels or heat pumps (and no more 'allowable solutions' that UK housebuilders are relying on in order to reach Code level 6). That's certainly one to watch.

There is also one bizarre and much bigger anomaly within the EU's proposals which appears to have our Government's support, but which makes no sense to me or others concerned to see tangible improvements in the energy efficiency of the UK's building stock.

The proposal in question suggests that all commercial buildings over 250 square metres (such as shops, restaurants and other buildings visited frequently by the public) should display an Energy Performance Certificate - the energy rating they would have received when the building was built, sold or leased.

Now there may be some merit in making the display of EPCs mandatory, if only to ensure such certificates are actually produced. Recent research by National Energy Services suggests that the majority of High Street commercial properties are flouting the law and do not have an EPC available.

However, EPCs show only the theoretical energy performance of buildings based on standardised data and assumptions that rarely, if ever, reflect the true energy performance of a property in use. Only Display Energy Certificates (DECs) give the true picture. For example, the MPs new office building opposite Big Ben, Portcullis House, would probably be awarded an EPC rating of A (or possibly B), but actually only achieves a DEC rating of G.

The proposal for displaying EPCs is probably supported by CLG because it's an easy thing to do. The thinking goes: these commercial properties will have to have an EPC produced if they change hands anyway, so the certificates might as well go up on the wall.

But it's an entirely pointless exercise from a market transformation point of view.

Company directors only sit up and take notice when DECs come into play. Buildings are only improved when the truth is published. Ministers told us exactly this when Eland House (home of CLG) received its DEC. This year's ESTA Energy Manager of the Year, Andy Stanton at TFL, specially acknowledged the use of DECs as significantly aiding his work to get energy efficiency taken seriously.

So what would make far more sense is for the EPBD threshold for DECs to be extended beyond public buildings over 1,000 square metres to all commercial buildings of a similar size. Thus large hotels, supermarkets and privately owned buildings visited frequently by the public would have to tell the truth every year about the actual energy performance of the premises. This is a much more logical progression in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions from existing buildings.

I shall be beating a track to CLG's doors to discuss these issues with them as soon as possible. For I have no doubt the new, recast Directive could have just as important an impact on our industry as the first.

I also know that, while the CLG consultation continues until October, the EU Council is already developing its position, ready for negotiations with the Parliament and Commission straight after the summer break. There is no time to lose.

So much of the regulatory landscape appears to be shifting right now. What are designers, developers and contractors to make of it all? What sort of patterns in the landscape start to emerge if you take a broad sweep of all the new codes, regulations and consultation proposals currently hovering on our horizon?

Trying to take a bird's eye view, we can start to spot some interesting themes.

First of all, there is a continuing emphasis for all newbuild on designing a more insulated and airtight fabric, with absolutely no sign of any let up in the drive towards much higher thermal standards in 2010, 2013 and beyond.

The recent consultation on the definition of zero carbon spelled it out. The forthcoming changes to SAP, Parts L and F will spell it out too. The first place to start, and arguably the most important basis for any push for more sustainable buildings, is all about making the structural fabric as good as you can get it. This is certain to be a major theme for designers and developers for years to come.

Closely linked to this is the second hint of what's in store: an increasing scrutiny on actual as-built performance, and the standards of insulation, airtightness and energy efficiency being achieved in new buildings of all types compared to their design aspirations. The Heat and Energy Saving Strategy document is just one that stresses the need for much better enforcement of Building Regulations.

This issue will also come to the fore because of the third major theme to emerge from recent regulatory changes and proposals - a focus on the refurbishment and regeneration areas of the industry. In other words, the existing building stock.

Government is trying to show that it's got the message - in our attempts to meet ever more rigorous carbon targets, the energy-greedy nature of the UK's existing stock is the biggest part of the problem.

Past attempts to apply Part L to existing buildings have had very mixed results and the general suspicion is that not many of the recommendations made in Energy Performance Certificates are being implemented by homeowners or landlords. But in line with the consultation on the next stage of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, expect more 'consequential improvements' to be written in to future regulations to encourage improvements in the existing stock.

Unfortunately, most of the quick wins have probably been had already, including the activities from the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) obligations on fuel suppliers which have led to an uptake in cavity wall insulation, loft top ups and low energy lightbulbs. The next level is the big retrofits such as external wall insulation and solar water heating. All more expensive and harder to apply. Alternative individual heating systems such as ground source heat pumps and biomass boilers are also hard to retrofit.

Thus we see a growing trend towards a 'whole-house approach' to building improvements, where after a visit from an energy assessor all possible improvements are made at once, rather than just the cheap, easier options. These concepts run through Government papers on extending CERT, the proposed new Community Energy Saving Programme, the Heat and Energy Saving Strategy and the 'Great British Refurb' idea.

The next round of Government discussions will probably have to look more closely at funding for all these retrofits of course, especially given the scale of the job to be done just when business and consumers can afford it least.

The Community Energy Saving Programme idea could be a useful source of funds on large scale housing refurbishments and redevelopments in targeted areas, but is more likely to increase the scope of existing initiatives than create new ones.

There will be continued channelling of funds towards the social housing sector. We might also see incentives that reward a bit more frugality, for example by tariffs that rise the more we use instead of decrease, although to some extent the market may do this for us since fuel costs will continue to go up and up so bring their own economic influences.

The last major theme that we see coming from the current soup of ideas and proposals is a big sign that spells out in words ten foot tall: district heating. Put crudely, pipes in the street bringing our central heating water from a low carbon 'energy centre' a mile or so away.

There are questions in the strategy proposals over the costs and risks of district heating systems (and CHP schemes), but councils are being set up as potential champions and this issue could have huge impacts on future planning, design and development.

For example, we are likely to see planning authorities including heat networks in their strategic infrastructure plans and greater pressure for builders to connect to them. There will be a big push towards communal heating systems at a building level (particularly flats and terraces), and at site or district scale. Who will be responsible for constructing this is a big question and it is likely that we will see the emergence of new utility companies specialising in this type of work.

We will also need to start preparing householders to get used to not having their own heating system and the 'metering' of heat. It is yet to be seen how easy this will be, especially in low rise housing.

Nick Jones is associate director of Inbuilt

Someone once described consumerism as buying stuff you don't need, using money you don't have, to impress people you don't like.

Of course consumerism has brought great benefits, but only for some, and despite a huge increase in GDP and consumer spending, all the evidence suggests that our quality of life is worse and we are less happy now that our parents were 60 years ago.

Now we are told that conspicuous consumption is out and frugality, prudence and sustainability are in.

The 'holy grail' of sustainable development is to deliver long-lasting economic, social and environmental benefits - but could this goal prove to be just as much an illusion as the pursuit of unbridled economic growth?

We are in uncharted territory.

On the one hand, awareness is growing all the time of the urgency of the need to tackle climate change. Scientists are telling us that we must achieve an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, and in the recent Budget the Chancellor committed the UK to the world's first carbon budgets which fix binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions over five-year periods, including carbon dioxide reductions of 34% by 2020.

That target may be below the recommendations of Lord Turner's committee on climate change, but it's still a gargantuan task.

As a recent report by the ESRC pointed out, if we are to meet our carbon targets, virtually all 24 million existing buildings in the UK would need some attention to reduce their carbon emissions by that sort of amount, and to do that job over the next 40 years we would need to refurbish an entire city the size of Cambridge every month. That's about 23,000 teams of people working on each building for a two week period and keeping that rate of refurbishment going non-stop for the next 500 months.

On the other hand, those same politicians were at the G20 Summit just a short while ago focusing on restoring consumer confidence and economic growth, measured by retail sales, booming business and driven by ready access to unlimited credit and liquidity in the money markets. There are clearly many powerful people with a vested interest to get us back to the way things used to be as quickly as they can.

In my view there is another way - a way to reconcile economic growth with a genuinely sustainable future.

It's an approach which doesn't require political rhetoric and grandstanding, or seemingly endless rounds of consultation about new all-singing all-dancing building codes and regulations.

Instead it draws upon the Natural Capitalism movement promoted by my friend Avory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Natural capitalism shows how it is possible to create a vital economy that uses radically less material and energy. Such an economy can free up resources, reduce taxes on personal income, increase per-capita spending on social ills (while simultaneously reducing those ills), and begin to restore the damaged environment.

To adopt such an approach in the UK would require truly radical political leadership.

In particular, all politicians should take note of the recent Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) paper on redefining prosperity and the new macroeconomics for sustainability. As Professor Tim Jackson, economics commissioner at the SDC, explains:

"Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must…. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people's livelihoods."

He continues: "This may seem an inopportune moment to question growth. It is not. On the contrary, this crisis offers the potential to engage in serious reflection. It is a unique opportunity to address financial and ecological sustainability together."

I agree wholeheartedly with Jackson's view that we need to think differently about what it means to be prosperous. If ever there was an appropriate time to do so, it is now in the face of the global financial meltdown.

Dr David Strong is chief executive of Inbuilt

You may have noticed a flurry of media interest last week about the Government's announcement that all homes are to be fitted with 'smart meters' by 2020.

This could be a much bigger deal than the press realise. Smart meters do offer a great opportunity to enhance consumer awareness and understanding regarding their actual (real-time) energy use in the home.

However, we're missing a trick to achieve even greater cost savings and to ramp up the carbon savings.

Smart meters can pay a crucial role in what is known in the electricity industry as 'demand-side management' - the name for a whole host of techniques to balance out supply and demand in energy markets.

In some countries, demand-side management is achieved simply by switching off the electricity supply. Too much demand? Turn the whole system off!

Clearly, this would be unacceptable in the UK. But we could adopt a more sophisticated technique, known as dynamic load manipulation (DLM), and this is where smart meters come in.

Invisible to consumers, DLM allows suppliers to reduce peak electricity demand and smooth the demand for power. This approach delivers significant energy cost savings to consumers, and could also enable a number of inefficient power stations to be decommissioned (with significant CO2 savings) because they would no longer be required to provide costly 'spinning reserve' to meet demand peaks. It would also help address the intermittency of power production from renewable energy sources.

The way it works is through constant two-way communication between the energy supplier and the consumer via the smart meter in the home, coupled with a smart plug-in controller for domestic appliances (tumble driers, washing machines, dishwashers, hot water heating etc) that can be set to turn on at certain times of day or night when the national demand for electricity is low.

Householders can choose to trigger their appliances to switch on automatically this way (by pressing a 'cost saving' button on the controller) or could choose to operate it at any other time (but pay a price premium at peak times).

The data the smart meters provide to the utility companies allows them to introduce much more flexible tariffs, offering significantly lower cost energy supply at non-peak times.

Two-way communication between the energy supplier and the consumer via a smart meter makes it possible to automate this.

There was a hugely successful trial of this technology in the mid 1990's (the system was called CELECT), but it was abandoned when the Regulator bowed to industry pressure not to require half-hourly metering of domestic customers.

The Government should force Ofgem to re-introduce the requirement half-hourly metering of domestic customers. This was what was originally intended when the electricity industry was privatised, but abandoned because of the cost associated with smart meters.

Now that all homes are to have a smart meter by 2020, there is no reason why we should not pursue these vital energy-saving benefits.

Dr David Strong is chief executive of Inbuilt