Elemental

These are my links for October 24th through October 29th:

• Campaign calls for strengthened renewables policy – PlanningResource – "Ministers pledged in July to update the guidance in PPS1 and PPS22 to "ensure that they set a clear and challenging framework for delivering energy infrastructure consistent with national ambitions."
  TCPA energy policy manager Kate Henderson said: "The planning system can play a key part in tackling climate change by ensuring we get the right amount of renewable energy, by encouraging carbon zero development and by shaping development which reduces the need to travel by car.
  "But despite some excellent rhetoric, much of the planning system is still locked in the age of stupid. It allows carbon intensive development and often refuses real solutions to climate change such as renewable energy projects."
  Ministers plan to publish a draft new PPS on climate change and renewable energy by the end of the year, with the aim of adopting new guidance before the end of the current parliament."
• Energy standards for homes to fall short of Passivhaus – Building – The death knell for CSH?: "The Hub has proposed a radical overhaul, with builders asked to meet an annual energy output per square metre depending on building type, rather than satisfy the points-based system operated by the code."
• UK must replace 12 million non-condensing boilers by 2022 says CCC – CCC recommends that: "Non-residential buildings achieve a minimum Energy Performance Certificate rating of F or higher by 2020."
• SuperFreakonomics Ignores the Business Case for Sustainability – Andrew Winston – HarvardBusiness.org – I have largely missed the Superfreakonomics geo-engineering debate – this is a good starting point. Hoping to catch Levitt and Dubner at LSE later this month – some pointed questions will be ready…
• Statistics watchdog hits out at government emissions claim – PlanningResource – "The government has been exaggerating the UK's success in cutting carbon emissions, according to the UK Statistics Authority.A Department of Energy and Climate Change claim that carbon emissions were 12.8 per cent lower in 2007 than in 1990 is "unsatisfactory" and falls short of the government's code of practice for official statistics, said the watchdog's chairman Sir Michael Scholar.In a letter to the Commons environmental audit committee chairman Tim Yeo, he said nearly a third of that fall is made up of carbon credits in the EU trading scheme and do not represent real
  cuts. The fall is 8.5 per cent without the credits."
• RIBA to bin ‘outdated’ fee scale graphs | News | Architects Journal – So everyone will be laminating their old copy then? : "The RIBA is to drop its fee scale graphs in the latest edition of A Clients Guide to Engaging an Architect.
  The loss of the graphs, which featured percentage fees based on independent cost survey data, marks the demise of the institutes once compulsory fee scales abolished as mandatory in 1982 and as recommended scales in 1992.
  The RIBA maintained the revised guide would still contain concise written advice about how practices calculate fees and structure payment options."
• PassivHaus UK – My current obsession with U-values unearthed this gem: "Please note that whilst PHPP includes a worksheet for calculating the U-values of components it is not sufficiently accurate for demonstrating compliance against UK building regulations as it does not adhere to BRE document Conventions for U-value calculations (2006 Edition). Whilst the U-value calculator incorporated within PHPP is used as a basis for certification purposes designers are recommended to use suitable U-value calculator software packages for demonstrating UK building regulations compliance and undertaking SAP calculations, suitable software includes BRE's own U-value calculator, or other software packages such as BuildDesks free U-value calculator."
• Climate Change (Political Response): 21 Oct 2009: House of Commons debates (TheyWorkForYou.com) – Andrew Stunell (Lib Dem) reminds us all of a forgotten Bill during last week's 1010 debate: "In 2004, I was fortunate to be top of the ballot and able to introduce the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill in this House. I wish to say to the House and to the Minister that there have been missed opportunities as a consequence of the Government not choosing to implement what was in that Bill, which allowed them to amend the building regulations to take account of the sustainability and efficiency of buildings."
  Worth reading the entire debate (despite the outcome)

admin News BRE, carbon, CCC, CSH, Economics, emissions, EPC, fee, government, hub, lib_dem, passivhaus, PPS, SAP, scale, TCPA, u-values, zero

What I’ve been reading about:

• Population (Jonathon Porritt) – "And the mega-reality I'm talking about here is carrying capacity: how many people can the Earth’s resources and life-support services sustain on an indefinite basis? The answer to that is obviously determined in part by the level of consumption of each individual human being. But even if, by some currently unimaginable miracle, the richest people in the world today learn to lead what WWF calls "one planet lifestyles", does anyone seriously suppose that this would work for the next 3 billion people aspiring to live in the same way – and the next 3 billion who will be staking a claim on those self-same resources and services before 2050?"
• H&V News – Flaws in SAP ‘cost builders millions’ – The Sustainable Building Association (AECB) has criticised The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) as inaccurate and says it promotes expensive technology at the expense of cheaper but more effective products.
  The association has predicted this will lead to at least half a billion pounds of inappropriate spending on microgeneration technologies.

mel starrs News population, porritt, renewables, SAP

Additional guidance has been published on the NCM FAQ’s page regarding how to deal with shared spaces within blocks of flats using iSBEM:

Each flat is a separate dwelling and must be assessed using SAP (the relevant guidance is in ADL1A). However, the common areas in the flats are not classified as dwellings. As stated in ADL1A paragraph 14, the appropriate approach to compliance depends on whether the common areas are heated or unheated. If they are heated, the guidance in ADL2 should be applied using SBEM. If they are unheated, reasonable provision would be to provide fabric elements that meet the fabric standards set out in paragraphs 33 to 36 of ADL1A. 

A new activity will be added to the activity database in a future version of iSBEM for these areas. For now, please select Building type ‘Hotel’ and activity ‘Circulation area (corridors and stairways)’. This activity has no DHW demand associated with it. It is still necessary to assign a DHW generator to these areas, this will not cause any problems in the project because the generator will not be used where there is no DHW demand. The default DHW generator should be used in this case, if gas is not available in the building, the DHW fuel should be changed to any fuel other than natural gas.

In related new, IES have announced that their SAP 2005 and SBEM packages have been approved by DCLG. Version 5.6.1 was released yesterday:

IES are the only provider that can now offer approved software for all of the possible CO2 calculation methods allowed under Part L:

·               SAP 2005 (L1A)
·               Dynamic Thermal Simulation (L2A)
·               SBEM (L2A)

admin Regulation calculation, dsm, ies, isbem, ncm, Part L, SAP, SBEM, simulation, Software

Announced today on the BRE website:

Large dwellings over 450 m²

The limitation of SAP to dwellings of floor area not exceeding 450 m² has been removed and SAP, rather than SBEM, should be used for Part L compliance for such dwellings.

Is this the beginning of the end for SBEM? Or might this be due to the difference in cost between a SAP and an SBEM calculation (I’m estimating a factor of 5-10)? Either way, all dwellings will now be assessed under SAP.  I believe common areas in flats are still under SBEM – I haven’t seen anything to contrary yet.

I referred in an earlier post to the elusive Appendix Q – it is now available here.

SAP 2005 Appendix Q allows the energy performance of new technologies and advanced versions of existing technologies to be evaluated for inclusion in SAP assessments.

This website provides a searchable database of performance data for technologies and products that can be entered into a SAP calculation using Appendix Q.

These calculation processes can only be used with performance data featured on the Appendix Q website. If the system being specified is not included in the database then Appendix Q is not applicable

And another approved software has been added to the list – SAPPER. On the website there are a number of other tools including a free EcoHomes checker.

admin Regulation appendix Q, Part L, SAP, SBEM, Software

If, like me, you have been tearing your hair out, trying to get your head around Part L since long before April this year, this book may help alleviate some of those stresses. Available from RIBA and NBS, the Guide costs £25. The RIBA blurb is below:

Guide to Part L is a thoroughly researched, in-depth guidance for architects, construction professionals and building control officers about the complex new regulations governing the conservation of fuel and power in buildings. More than a general overview, this guide cuts through the jungle of new provisions and requirements to provide a logical, straightforward road map to compliance.

Guide to Part L comprises detailed step-by-step guidance to every section of the new four-part document, highlighting essential points and anomalies, and is illustrated by invaluable process flowcharts. It is backed up by extensive appendices that give further information about almost every issue affecting compliance, including: target emission rates, SAP, SBEM, U-values, overheating, air permeability, efficient boilers and controls, insulation, ventilation, efficient air conditioning, efficient light fittings, commissioning, log books and how to assess ‘simple payback’.

Written by the Building Performance Group at the BRE and published by NBS (the official publishers of the Approved Documents), this guide has been written specifically from the building professional’s perspective and will make the difficult Part L more easily assimilated and applied.

“Thankfully there is now a guide that unpicks these unfamiliar and rather tortuous new requirements … I can see it becoming a genuinely important reference work for architects, construction professionals and even building control officers as they grapple with the new approach”. Bill Gething, of Feilden Clegg Bradley LLP, chair of the RIBA Sustainable Futures Committee and the RIBA President’s Advisor on Sustainability.

Note the language used in the review: complex, jungle, anomalies, difficult. Putting it mildly, I think. In the Foreword to the book, Bill Gething describes the regulations as ‘unfamiliar and rather tortuous’.

The highlight of the book for me are the flow charts and the appendices, but there are plenty of other nuggets of information. Many of these I had surmised already, but it is gratifying to see the experts agree with me:

• It is likely that U-values will have to exceed the standards of Part L 2002 in order to meet the TER
• It will probably be necessary to design for an air permeability better than 10m³/h.m²@50Pa, particularly in buildings with mechanical ventilation and air conditioning
• 2 calculations may be required for BER (Building Emission Rate) – a design stage which identifies the critical features of the design that will affect the energy performance of the building, and the second one when the building is completed. This version includes the actual results of air permeability, ductwork leakage and fan performance tests.
• Solar gain needs to be controlled in areas which do not include comfort cooling (does this seem wrong to anyone else? Surely this encourages the use of comfort cooling, because by the time the solar overheating problem is identified, the building fabric and form are fairly fixed, and the only option for compliance is to add comfort cooling. The moral of the story being that architects will need to realise what an impact their design has on compliance at a very early stage)
• Ductwork on systems served by fans with a design flow rate greater than 1m³/s should be tested for leakage

The one disappointment with the document is a lack of clarification on energy efficient building services and LZC technologies. Instead the book refers the reader to the ‘Non-Domestic Heating, Cooling and Ventilation Compliance Guide’ (pdf) and ‘Low or Zero Carbon Energy Sources: Strategic Guide‘ (pdf), neither of which are particularly light reading. I was hoping the Guide to Part L would fill the gaps between these two documents and the SBEM tools (including Hevacomp).

The intention of Part L 2006 was to conserve fuel and power in the built environment. The manifestation appears to be a complex, misunderstood calculation which whilst academically sound, does not lend itself well to how the industry operates today. The luxury of a period of time where the architect and engineer could fine tune the design using an iterative process before going out to tender is harping back to the ‘good old days’ when we used to have time to draw every pipe out in double line. Perhaps this change in regulations will see a return to longer design lead times? It will certainly require a greater deal of collaboration between the architect and the engineer at an earlier stage of design. It is not in the architect’s interest to design the fabric and form without consideration to Part L compliance and the building services, as this will undoubtably drive the capital cost of the building up, as technologies are added to the building in an effort to make it comply.

admin Book Review Bill Gething, collaboration, Feilden Clegg Bradley, LZC, Part L, RIBA, SAP, SBEM, u-values