After basically deleting the blog and starting from scratch (importing all the old posts into Wordpress) I think the issues are now resolved. I may still be changing hosts so a little oddness may occur over the next week or so, but for now, enjoy the new look.
Apologies for the weirdness on the site for the past week or so. I have a tech support ticket lodged and hopefully things will be looking like normal again soon. Those reading via RSS should not be affected.
I was just about to draft a blog post which pointed out one of the advantages of LEED over BREEAM was that the assessors were listed on the LEED Accredited Professional Directory at the gbci website here.
Historically, you have only been able to see which companies offer BREEAM with no way of knowing who in each office is qualified to do which scheme. I say historically, as Martin Townsend has launched Green Book Live, where you can now search for BREEAM assessors on a geographical basis, and under each company listing you can find who is registered for each scheme. This is a brilliant addition – the only thing I would ask is to be able to search for individuals as a variable, but I have ways round that (using google search term ” name site:http://www.greenbooklive.com ” would work).
There is also a database of “Building CO2 emission rate calculation – Competent Persons Scheme” people too. From the description:
The current scope of this scheme is for non-Domestic buildings using the user interface for the Simplified Building Energy Model (iSBEM) and the Hevacomp Design Database Package (Non domestic).
There are currently 139 people listed. Of course, this does not include anyone who is qualified via CIBSE under IES software packages. For these, you would have to go to the CIBSE LCEA database here. CIBSE obviously believe their accreditation to be superior:
CIBSE Certification does not offer a qualification in ‘energy assessment’. All LCEAs have considerable professional experience in offering services with a direct link to energy certification, rather than having qualified after only a short period of desk study, so you can be sure that their recommendations will be based on sound knowledge and practical experience of what actually works in real life.
Another thing to remember with the Green Book list is that the competent persons are unlikely to be level 5. The definitions from the CLG website:
Level 5 – uses dynamic simulation modeling (DSM) software to produce EPCs for very complex buildings, including those with large amounts of glass and those which are curved
Level 4 – uses SBEM (Simplified Building Energy Model) software to produce EPCs for complex buildings without those special features listed above.
Level 3 – uses SBEM (Simplified Building Energy Model) software to produce EPCs for simple buildings
To further add to confusion, in addition to BRE and CIBSE running accreditation schemes, a further 5 companies are listed under APEL as offering non-domestic accreditation. I’ve not checked to see if each of these have databases too.
Is it too much to wish for a concerted effort which pulls everyone into one place?
Baby steps – I’m still happy to see further transparency happening over at BREEAM.
Been tidying up my RSS feeds, doing a bit of pruning and catching up on feeds. One of the feeds I’ve been diligently ignoring has been Brian’s Brickonomics. Having now read back over the past month, I’m utterly depressed.
Having had a quick look at the mortgage market out there, the best deal I could find was 20% deposit, 1.5% tracker and only 2.7 times combined earnings. Yikes. Given the median salary for the UK in 2008 (pdf), for a couple both in full time employment (both earning median wage), this means an “affordable”* house is roughly an overall price of £132,030 with a massive deposit of £26,406.
The average price according to the Halifax in November is still £163,605 (not sure if this is a median?). So, there are two paths. Either the lending gets ‘unfrozen’ and goes back up to 3.5 (i.e. 3.5 times median combined salaries of £171,150) or house prices continue to fall. The second scenario seems the most likely currently.
Brian has been accused of being gloomy. Looks to me like he’s just being realistic.
*affordable in this context is not the same as the generally accepted definition of “affordable housing” where rent or mortgage (and in some definition utilities) are no more then 30% of household income.
You may have noticed it’s been quite quiet around these parts. Life has been busy and it’s clearly not quite as easy to switch to knocking up a blog post whilst out socialising as it was when I was chained to my PC every night studying.
I may have found a solution though. I am writing this post from within Wordpress on my crackberry. If this works, expect posting to resume on a slightly more regular basis, especially if I can get outgoing links to work (any hints on that gratefully received – I’m giving up for the minute).
via Twitter, Solve Climate have a useful summary of Dr. Martin Weitzman’s paper “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change” (pdf).
Whilst I haven’t tried to wade through the paper myself (my grip of economics, although much improved, is not quite up to that level yet ;o)), the point which resonated me was the analogy of Pascal’s Wager:
French mathematician Blaise Pascal concluded that even though God’s existence can’t be proven through reason, you should live as if He does because of the size of the risks and rewards involved. Eternity is a long time to spend in hell.
Likewise, if you bet that global warming is nothing to be worried about, and you’re wrong, most of the species on Earth become extinct.
Whilst I’m quite happy gambling on the afterlife, I’m with them on the climate change thing. Yes, it might all be a gamble, but I’d rather think the worst and be happy when it doesn’t happen than the other way around.
Which is why I tend to keep out of global warming debates – in a way, I don’t really care. I’m waging on the side of the pessimists and from this position, low carbon buildings make sense.
It’s that time of year again – the government’s Sustainable Indicators in your pocket 2008 is out.
Those long time readers will know I’m a sucker for stats and pretty graphs – and this document does not fail to satisfy. Some of the headlines for me (and there’s a wealth of stuff I don’t touch on below – if you have an interest in crime and poverty, download the pdf) I’ve picked out below.
To start – a definition:
the goal of sustainable development as enabling all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations
A nice global outlook to begin with, which is picked up elsewhere in the statistics, such as the introduction of a measure which estimates the level of carbon dioxide emissions associated with goods and services consumed by the UK.
In 2006 the UK government contributed 0.52% of GNI (gross national income), an increase from 0.27% in 1990, to official development assistance internationally.
The report does not try to give an overall indicator of progress as, “it is not practicable or meaningful to combine all 126 disparate indicator measures into a single index of sustainable development”.
Carbon Dioxide and Transport
The report clearly shows that aviation remains the bad guy in the UK mix of CO2. Although between 1990 and 2006 CO2 fell by 6%, business and residential users account for 14% and 5% each. Those associated with transport have risen by 12%. Between 1990 and 2006 emissions from aviation fuel use more than doubled to 36 million tonnes (carbon dioxide equivalent).
Consumption
One thing the report makes abundantly clear is that our consumption is on the way up. So whilst we get more efficient at using the stuff we use (resources) and emit relatively less, it’s a smaller proportion of a bigger pie.
For instance, although we are now recycling 31% of waste, overall waste has increased by 2.4% since 1990, with each person generating half a tonne on average.
In addition, whilst the economy (GDP) has grown (48% since 1990) without an associated increase in UK resources, the UK is still consuming the same amount of the world’s resources every year as it did in 1993.
Renewables
Between 1990 and 2006 generation from non-hydro sources (wind, wave, solar and biofuels) increased from being 10% of all renewable energy to 75%. Renewables now account for 4.6% of electricity compared to 1.8% in 1990.
Water
Households consumed an average of 148 litres per person each day in 2006.
Land Use
In 2006, land use in the UK broke down as follows:
Health
Only 42% of women and 36% of men in the highest income group ate 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day and just 22% of adults exercised for 30 minutes 3 times a week.
There was also a definition of fuel poverty, which I should have known but didn’t (much like the definition of recession which I only just learned) – the need to spend more than 10% of income, excluding housing benefit, on fuel to maintain an adequate standard of heating.
I’m still here, but only just got my wifi up and running in my new part-time pad. Proper posting will resume next week, I suspect.
In the meantime, I’ve been busy settling in with my new colleagues, getting used to working and commuting again and finding my wardrobe remarkably bereft of ’smart-casual’ clothing appropriate for work. Jeans and combats aplenty, tailored suits in buckets – not much in between. Pyjamas aren’t classified as smart casual by any chance?
I’ve read through the (non-technical) consultation which is out for Part L – comments to be back by 9 September.
The only item which piqued my interest was the clarification regarding multifoils.
3.1 BR 443 “Conventions for U-value calculations” sets out test methods and
calculation procedures for determining the thermal performance of building
elements that are considered appropriate for demonstrating compliance
with Part L of the Building Regulations. These test methods and calculation
procedures are based on the British and International standards that were
previously listed in earlier versions of the Approved Documents L.
3.2 In a judgment given in 2007, the High Court concluded that the Department
had not properly notified the European Commission, as required by the
Technical Standards Directive (98/34/EC), of the specific provisions contained
in paragraph 3.10.2 of BR 443 (March 2006 edition) for measuring the
thermal performance of multi-foil insulation products. Paragraph 3.10.2 was
declared unenforceable and remains so unless and until the correct notification
procedures under the Technical Standards Directive are completed.
3.3 That judgment did not affect other parts of BR 443 or the Approved
Documents L, and so the references in the Approved Documents L to BR 443
have continued to form part of the approved guidance on how compliance
with building regulations may be shown. Thus the general guidance in BR
443 for measuring thermal performance continues to apply to all building
elements, including multi-foil insulation products. This means that it remains
the case that only test results obtained from “hot-box” tests or tests that have
been agreed at a European level, such as those forming part of an agreed
European Technical Approval (ETA), carry a statutory presumption that they are
correct. However, the consequence of the judgment is that there is currently no
approved guidance which relates specifically to the measurement of thermal
performance of multi-foil products.
I’ll admit, this would not normally have been on my radar, except for the previous posts here, here and here from Mark Brinkley. Although the wording has now been cleared up, the performance of multifoils has still not been confirmed. It appears that paragraph 3.10.2 will eventually be reinstated:
3.5 The Department’s present view is that the appropriate methods for measuring
the thermal performance of materials and products are the hot-box test (which
is a British Standard test based on Standardised European Norms), or tests that
have been agreed at a European level. BR 443, including paragraph 3.10.2,
requires that measurement of thermal performance should be carried out using
such agreed tests. For this reason, the Department’s view is that the references
in the Approved Documents to BR 443, including paragraph 3.10.2, are
appropriate. It is for this reason that those references are retained in the draft
Approved Documents L that are the subject of this consultation.
3.6 This position has previously been set out in Communities and Local
Government Circular 06/2007, issued on 7 December 2007 as part of the
Department’s compliance with the judgment of the High Court.
I expect we’ll be hearing more from multifoil manufacturers between now and September then.
3.9 The Department is currently of the view, based both on international
scientific opinion and on scientific evidence commissioned and published by
it, that comparative testing does not provide accurate indications of thermal
performance.
3.10 The Department is however keen to know your views on this matter and
on whether generally the references to BR 443 as set out in the proposed
Approved Documents should be retained in the Approved Documents, and the
reasons for those views. If your views are that they should not be retained, the
Department would like to know your views on what should replace them.
The rest of the alterations are substantially cosmetic, but with a technical review due in 2010, and the last version 2 years old, we’ll have 3 copies of the regs within 2 or 3 years.
I’m in two minds about this. On the one hand, it is better to have the entire document updated rather than having an errata addendum (such as the recent Code for Sustainable Homes which has the April 2008 Technical Guidance (pdf, 302 pp.) and the Addendum published 4 June 2008 (pdf, 16 pp), but on the other, with only cosmetic changes, it seems a waste of paper and a potential source of confusion.
Today I have been testing out Stroma’s new FREE software for Code for Sustainable Homes. It’s a spreadsheet tool which allows you to see the consequences of adding or deducting points from CSH. Something you could do yourself with an hour or two and editgrid or excel, but it’s nice to have a slick professional product to do it for you and it saves all that swearing when you realise you’ve wasted an afternoon creating a spreadsheet which already exists.
As an aside, I had a quick look to see what SAP software is currently available (the free CSH software sadly does not include this – too much to hope for). The latest changes in May haven’t trickled through to all software providers yet, and it was interesting to compare costs too. As usually, there is a lag between the big software packages which do more than one thing (i.e. IES, Hevacomp etc) and the stand alone software packages which have the advantage of being nimble. I used the exercise to try out Mindmeister (an online mind mapping tool).
I’m very impressed with Mindmesiter so far, but the image above may not show up in RSS feeds and if you’re reading on the website you may have to drag the image around till it fits in the screen. As a tool for sharing ideas online, it seems to be good. Any experience with or comments on any of the listed SAP 2005 software? I suspect most medium to large practices will be using one of the big 3 (IES, Hevacomp or Cymap) or else software which is aligned with the training provider for their accreditation (that’s a mindmap for another day…)
Recent Comments