A rough guide to BREEAM 2008
I’ve been promising forever to write some kind of field guide to BREEAM. With the launch of BREEAM 2008 to the general public on 24th June, a perfect opportunity has arisen and I don’t need to be as worried about accidentally releasing information into the public realm, as BRE have done it themselves. Major brownie points for doing so.
By putting the manuals into the public domain, design teams may be tempted to cut corners by Doing-It-Themselves to try to save money. This is clearly folly. With 346 pages of documentation to wade through in Offices alone (other schemes have even more!), the time wasted will eat any fees saved. To properly embed BREEAM into a design I would still strongly advise clients and design teams to ensure they have a suitably experienced and qualified advisor on their team, as do BRE:
The BREEAM Assessor Manuals are technical guidance documents which have been created to aid licensed BREEAM Assessors in carrying out Assessments. Please note that the manuals and the information detailed therein has been designed for, and to be used by trained and licensed BREEAM Assessors.
This document must be used by non assessors for reference only (in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of use).
Having the guidance in the public domain gives a transparency which was previously lacking. BREEAM can now be openly compared to LEED. In fact BREEAM now beats LEED, as it costs $200 to get the full LEED guidance (although checklists are available for free).
On to the meaty stuff - what’s changed and how difficult will it be to get an ‘Outstanding’ grade?
The big change which has to be applauded is the Innovation credit. Now there is a route to get accreditation for innovations which BREEAM does not cover. For each innovation for which accreditation is sought and approved, 1% is added to the overall score. More on this later.
And what of the scores? As widely publicised, a new rating has been added for scores over 85% of ‘Outstanding’. In order to get the rating, not only does the building need to gain 85%, but there are minimum requirements in several individual criteria PLUS information on the building HAS to be published as a case study (written by BRE Global).
Minimum levels have been set at ALL ratings for some criteria, the onus of which increases as the rating rises. And don’t forget you still need to gain the minimum percent for each rating band.
- To gain a Pass (30%), credits Man 1 - Commissioning, Hea 4 - High frequency lighting and Hea 12 - Microbial contamination are compulsory.
- To get a Good (45%), add the following: Wat 1 - Water consumption and Wat 2 - Water meter.
- Very Good (55%) adds Ene 2 - Sub-metering of substantial energy uses and LE 4 - Mitigating ecological impact.
- For Excellent (70%), Man 2 - Considerate Constructors, Man 4 - Building user guide, Ene 5 - Low or zero carbon technologies and Wst 3 - Storage of recyclable waste are added plus a minimum of 6 points must be awarded in Ene 1 - Reduction of CO2 emissions (i.e. an EPC of 40 of less for a new build office).
- To get the new rating of Outstanding, in addition to all of the above (plus scoring 85% of more), 2 points for Man 1 - Commissioning, Man 2 - Considerate Constructors and Wat 1 - Water consumption (total available in Wat 1 is 3), plus a minimum of 10 points must be awarded in Ene 1 - Reduction of CO2 emissions (i.e. an EPC of 25 of less for a new build office).
In addition, the building now has to have a Post Construction Review (before these were not mandatory unless the client required them). A BREEAM assessment made at stage D is now known as a DS (design stage) assessment and is an interim stage towards final certification as building completion. This will vastly improve the credibility of the scheme - it will not be possible to value engineer out the BREEAM features between design and completion without getting penalised (or put another way, caught).
I’m not going to review every single credit, it will take me a little longer to work out what’s different or startling, but I will mention that the weightings have changed. Energy now accounts for 19% of the toal (an increase) and water now accounts for a slightly larger slice of the pie. Waste is a new section meaning when added to Materials, there is a much greater focus on embodied energy, with Management, Land Use and Ecology and Pollution now accounting for realtively less of the overall score.
Now back to these innovation credits. Would it be possible to gain over 100%? I doubt it. It’s never been possible to gain 100% in BREEAM (mainly due to the recycled facade and structure credits (not available to new build for obvious reasons) - by reusing a building it is highly unlikely that the fabric would perform as well as new build in energy terms, even if the embodied energy is less), and the highest score I am aware of is 87.55% (King Shaw’s Innovate office building in Leeds). After a quick look at the points, I doubt if anyone will ever manage to get more than 100%.
And as for the 1% number? This makes sense when you look at what credits are now worth. The spread between points has narrowed. The mean percentage value of one credit is 0.99%, top value is 1.2% and bottom 0.8%. This is more evenly distributed than before. So in practice I would expect it to operate as a mechanism for replacing points, rather than adding them (i.e. we can’t do X to gain a standard BREEAM point, but we are proposing doing Y instead). I may be proved wrong, but that is my hunch.
All in all, the scheme is moving in the right direction. It remains to be seen how well the market will react - buildings will have to be assessed under BREEAM 2008 from 1 August. My feeling is that a well thought out building will find it slightly easier to score an Excellent under 2008 than 2007, but those who are resorting to bolt-on features (due to lack of joined up thinking or lack of early design input) to gain points will find it considerably harder.
So, the race is on. Who will be first to design and deliver an Outstanding BREEAM 2008 building?
My del.icio.us bookmarks for June 24th through June 26th
These are my links for June 24th through June 26th:
- My M&M’s® - Get Your Favorite Faces on Your Favorite Candy - Upload a Picture and Message - Completely OT, but really? Printing photos on M&M's.
- Sex and the City and Handbag Insanity » Transition Culture - Poor Rob is stunned that women rent handbags in NY. I don't have the heart to tell him they do it in the UK too…
- workinproperty: Spinning Blocks in Dubai - OMG. In fact OMGG. Where do I even start on this one. Twisting to optimise orientation would be almost forgiveable, but on the occupants whim? Barking…
- Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (National) RAB says UK’s proposed renewable energy target is achievable - 3.3% of 15% to come from built environment.
- GOOD Magazine: The Life And Death Of Green Design - Living on The Huffington Post - Excellent article on LEED from Huffington Post: "Like any standardized test, LEED works best as a measurement tool, not a paradigm shifter. Change has to come from the architects themselves."
- BeGreen Launches First-of-Its-Kind Calculator to Help Businesses Achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED(R)) Certification - The tool allows businesses to calculate the number of RECs required to meet the Green Power LEED certification standard, based on actual or estimated energy usage.
- Home - The Carbon Trust Standard - The Carbon Trust Standard certifies that an organisation has genuinely reduced its carbon footprint and is committed to making further reductions year on year.
- Where Has All the Water Gone? | The American Prospect - via the Triple Bottom Line. "The world may not exactly be running out of water, but it is running out of clean water."
Gordon’s low carbon future
I love Twitter. Settled down this morning to some light email and RSS catch up when a tweet flashed up (via twhirl) to tell me Gordon Brown was addressing the Government’s Low Carbon Economy Summit on London’s South Bank, complete with a link to the live speech. One click later I was watching the speech and minutes after it finished the transcript* was available here. One of the most interesting points for me and one to watch for was:
And in the autumn we will consult on a new Suppliers Obligation aimed at changing the way in which energy companies operate —– incentivising them not to supply ever more units of electricity and gas, but to make profits from reducing not increasing demand.
Gordon then goes on to justify the need for new nuclear, which I remain agnostic on, as I’ve said before. My trouble is in seeing both sides of the argument, and agreeing with much of both.
It’s worth reading the section on renewables - very broad brush stuff but the underlying message is:
“we will get rid of all the obstacles that have in the past held renewables back”
John Hutton is to make further announcements later this morning. Reading the speech on paper it comes across as quite exciting:
And let us be clear. Building a low carbon economy is not just something to do with climate change. It is not just an energy security issue. It is not just a part of economic policy. It is all of these things, and more. It is nothing less than the basis for our future prosperity.
*I spotted some references to Heathrow and runways which were in the live speech but not the transcript. I expect the transcript will be updated to reflect what he actually said?
Deja Vu!
I’ve swapped my WordPress theme back to DeepBlue, which you will probably recognise. Readers were reporting difficulties using IE6 on the old theme (which was only a placeholder, really) so I’ve switched things back and tested it on Firefox2, IE6 and IE7. Virtually no-one who visits here uses IE5 or below, so I didn’t test with that. I’ve not upgraded to FF3 yet either, so someone let me know if it looks squiffy on there. For all you Safari and Opera guys, I’m afraid you’ll have to let me know too. Of course, it’s only ever IE that seems to have the problems ;o)
I’ve tidied up the sidebar too, pulled out a few widgets which were redundant. I had wanted to get a cleaner look but struggled to find something which looked how I wanted and did what I wanted. Maybe I’ll treat myself to a professionally designed theme next time. Or learn to write one from scratch…
BSJ online facelift
Everyone’s favourite monthly building services magazine has had an online facelift.
The website now matches the look of the publication and there’s even 6 RSS feeds to subscribe to!
Very ‘cool’ ideas at TED
Apologies for the pun. I try to keep up with all the interesting stuff that goes on over at TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) and came across this great idea for a mini fridge which works with a wood burning stove, based on absorption chiller principles.
My del.icio.us bookmarks for June 20th through June 24th
These are my links for June 20th through June 24th:
- Nuclear Power Crawling Forward | Worldwatch Institute - Fairly level headed (considering it's author is from Greenpeace) and well researched appraisal of global nuclear power reactors construction in 2007. Some interesting facts and figures.
- No Impact Man: LV GRN: Slimy pets to eat your garbage and entertain your kids - DIY wormery advice from Colin Beaven.
- How to Save the World - Getting Rid of E-mail - Dave Pollard on why we don't need email for 90% of the time. Excellent advice, especially #10.
- My Business Magazines Lied to Me : Coconut Headsets - Rob's past experiences in the business blogosphere have scarred him, and made him uber-cynical, but his sparce postings have an insight which make him compelling reading…
- STROMA RELEASES FREE CODE SOFTWARE - Free CSH software from Stroma in Castleford.
- THE TOP 100 Green Design Firms - ENR | McGraw-Hill Construction - Construction Industry, News Articles, Business Conditions & Analysis, Markets, Finance, Costs, Legislation, Government, Management, Labor, Construction Methods, Equipment & Materials - ranking of ENR's Top 100 Green Designers is based on firms’ 2007 design revenue from projects registered with, and actively seeking certification from, third-party ratings groups under objective environmental or sustainable design standards.
Part L consultation and multifoils
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.
Code for Sustainable Homes and SAP software
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…)
Global air conditioning
It’s not like me to talk about air conditioning - I spend most of my time trying to design it out. However, I found myself pondering the international market and what else is a blog for, than a place to throw out your half-baked thoughts to the world. Feel free to jump in and correct any misguided notions I have come up with…
Every year BSRIA publishes a review, the latest of which can be found here.
In 2007, the world market for air conditioning was valued at US$62 billion compared to US$55 billion in 2006. Asia Pacific is the largest market with total sales amounting to US$28 billion in 2007. The Chinese market alone was valued at US$12 billion in 2007. Sales of air conditioners in the Total Americas region were valued at US$15 billion, followed closely by Europe with US$13 billion market size in 2007. The Middle East, Africa and India market was valued at US$5 billion.
If you’ve ever been to Beijing, or any other city in China, you can’t help but notice the hundreds of split units haphazardly sprouting from beneath windows on every tower block.
There is a case to be made for installing cooling in China (close to 40ºC in the south central areas), and I’m not (yet) party to the school of thinking that believes humans can adapt to every temperature on earth and should therefore live without air conditioning technology. You should however design out as much heat gain with the fabric as possible.
To demonstrate, here are two buildings in Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay, S. America. The first, Palacio Salvo was once the tallest building in South America at 26 storeys high and completed in 1925. I don’t know if it has central air, but it is faces south east (remember, we’re in the southern hemisphere) and is constructed from heavy weight materials with tall floor to floor heights, tall windows, but relatively small window to wall ratio. No external units to be seen on the facade (although there might be some on the roof).
Compare this to the building on the opposite side of the Plaza Independencia. I couldn’t find the name but I suspect it was built in the sixties. The building axis is north-south, exposing the major facade to sun for most of the time. And look at the facade!
Covered in through the wall units, which is no wonder given the light weight construction and high proportion of glass.
Clearly, things ought to have moved on. We ought to have learnt our lessons. But the apartments going up in China leave a lot to be desired. These apartment blocks are relatively new. Why were they not designed with central air or with splits in a central location? I’m no expert on Chinese construction, but I suspect it could be to do with the common practice of selling apartments as ’shells’ - the buyer fits out and finishes the apartment. And of course it could be that the wealth of the inhabitants is increasing at a rate faster than the housebuilders are planning on.
BSRIA point out that the window units market is shrinking (except in India), so we are learning lessons and moving away from individual window units (except in India, where they are expecting slow growth), but the market for minisplits continues apace.
My main gripe with splits (especially when the condenser is mounted on the external wall outside) is that it indicates a bolt-on solution, and therefore a sloppiness or laziness in the design of the building. They smack of retrofit and are, let’s face it, ugly. Aesthetically, they ruin buildings. There is an argument to be made in that minisplits ensure that only the areas required are colled at any one time, but I’m sure how well this stacks up. Can anyone point me to study which defends or argues against this position?
Given a global view of the world, what do we need to do next to ensure that air conditioning growth in hotter* countries doesn’t negate any carbon savings made elsewhere in the world? Whose responsibility is it?
BSRIA point out that mature markets are well placed to help out:
A growing awareness of green technologies and energy efficiency will continue to have a significant impact on air-conditioning applications in saturated markets and will support a trend for more advanced products such as inverters, heat recovery and VRFs.
But there are warning signs too. The market in moveable units has plummeted in Europe:
This was partially caused by customers switching to permanent cooling solutions such as minisplits in anticipation of changes in global weather.
Is it too late? Are we going to have to mitigate against expected warming and start designing back in air conditioning which we have been trying to design out for the past decade? It’s a worrying thought.
*Jared Diamond’s excellent book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’