Previous post:

Next post:

Links for November 23rd from 16:41 to 17:01

by Mel Starrs on November 27, 2009

in News

These are my links for November 23rd from 16:41 to 17:01:

  • All new buildings to be ‘near-zero-energy’ by 2020 – Too little, too late for existing buildings?: "MEPs were less successful in their attempts to force governments to upgrade the efficiency of existing buildings. Governments agreed to "develop policies and take measures such as targets" to transform existing buildings into near-zero-energy buildings when they are refurbished.
    The council rejected a proposal to immediately scrap a 1,000 square metre threshold above which existing buildings undergoing major refurbishment must meet minimum national efficiency standards. Parliament sources told ENDS the deadline for scrapping the threshold had been delayed until June 2013, if not later."
  • Footprint » RIBA joins with other institutes to mount a ‘Call for Action’ in Copenhagen – RIBA's five guiding principles directly aimed at the architecture profession:

    1. Support emissions reduction targets to achieve per capita emissions of less than 2 tonnes CO2 by 2050.
    2. Support requiring the majority of all new buildings in developed countries to be designed to be carbon neutral in energy use by 2020.
    3. Help to establish an international mechanism for the building sector to offset emissions from the use of energy in the built environment particularly from existing stock.
    4. Design to reduce the emissions generated by existing buildings in developed countries by 30 per cent by 2020.
    5. Assist the transfer of knowledge and technologies to developing economies.

  • KPMG: Global construction optimism is misplaced – Building – Doom: "One of the report’s authors, Fiona McDermott, UK head of building and construction at KPMG, said: “The optimism appears to be down to the strength of order books; work in the pipeline has either increased or stayed the same. But many firms are working through order books built up before the recession. So I wonder if the full effect has yet to hit them and the worst may be yet to come.” "
  • http://www.elementalsolutions.co.uk Nick Grant

    In my mind ‘Near Zero’ is far more exciting as a concept than the UK’s redefinition of ‘zero’ farce.

    Near Zero is actually worthy of analysis, debate and consultation, economic levels of efficiency, life cycle costing etc etc.

    Have been working on strategy for a business park development where we argued for efficiency to deliver buildings with 10% of standard heat demand and no active cooling. Argument was won on practicality and cost. But then the M&E were appointed to look at infrastructure and they said that 10% isn’t zero so propose putting in biomass powered district heat (after rightly pointing out that all other energy supply technologies were too expensive or not invented yet).

    However that makes no sense with such low heat demand buildings as losses greater than actual demand (especially summer hot water). The solution? Save the money that would have been spent on efficiency – after all the heat is zero carbon, until biomass prices go through the roof. Unbelievably oil boilers running on biodiesel were actually considered but rejected on cost!

    Just need to sort the overheating now!

    Since rational argument has been exhausted a friend, Mr Naughty has pointed to this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mr._Men#Mr._Nonsense

  • http://www.elementalsolutions.co.uk Nick Grant

    In my mind ‘Near Zero’ is far more exciting as a concept than the UK’s redefinition of ‘zero’ farce.

    Near Zero is actually worthy of analysis, debate and consultation, economic levels of efficiency, life cycle costing etc etc.

    Have been working on strategy for a business park development where we argued for efficiency to deliver buildings with 10% of standard heat demand and no active cooling. Argument was won on practicality and cost. But then the M&E were appointed to look at infrastructure and they said that 10% isn’t zero so propose putting in biomass powered district heat (after rightly pointing out that all other energy supply technologies were too expensive or not invented yet).

    However that makes no sense with such low heat demand buildings as losses greater than actual demand (especially summer hot water). The solution? Save the money that would have been spent on efficiency – after all the heat is zero carbon, until biomass prices go through the roof. Unbelievably oil boilers running on biodiesel were actually considered but rejected on cost!

    Just need to sort the overheating now!

    Since rational argument has been exhausted a friend, Mr Naughty has pointed to this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mr._Men#Mr._Nonsense