(Spotted by Mel at Elemental) Cyril Sweett have published their research into the potential for improving energy performance of existing building stock. The importance of greening existing buildings is brought home by two facts:
- 44% of all CO2 emissions in the UK comes from energy use in buildings
- According to one of the report’s authors, in 2050 60% of Britain’s buildings will still pre-date the 2006 revisions to Part L
So we can look forward to the carbon reductions required by Part L being ratcheted up in future, but the overall effect will be modest, even in the long term. If we want to save carbon NOW then energy consumption in existing buildings is too important to ignore.
Predictably, the report’s top recommendation is for “brave decisions” by the government. But in a political climate where politicians would rather engage in creative accounting than be decisive on climate change, it’s hard to be hopeful.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Jason Hawkes
A lot of our marketing is based on those two stats. And the public are waking up.
This might be one of those occasions where the market drivers are from the bottom up- I hope so
September 10, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Casey
The stat about buildings by 2050 was a new one to me. I agree with you about bottom up, but on the other hand which one wins on the financial and environmental stakes: resurrecting a the nuclear industry or spending the money on greening existing buildings in a top down approach.
September 11, 2007 at 10:25 am
Jason Hawkes
Interesting Q. If we refurb 22 million houses to achieve a 60% reduction, how much of the Nuclear industry would we actually need? The simple fact is that almost all of the industry is concerned with new build, which represents a tiny fraction of the work that needs to be done.
I think the mixture of top down initiatives and bottom up demand will do the job on its own (optimistic, I know). The building industry will just have to catch up.
Dont know if you have seen this blog, but here is an interesting article thats worth a debate or three:
http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/architectural-sustainability.html
September 21, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Phil Clark
It’s hard not to be cynical but I think the point is beginning to be grasped. The Liberal Democrats, who are usually first to new ideas only for them to subsequently swiped by those who actually get into power, have included the existing stock as part of their climate change strategy http://www.libdems.org.uk/environment/. However the RIBA has questioned the party’s contention that retrofitting a house to make it Code Level 6 will cost between 5-10K (they think it’s more like to cost 15-30) - http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3095783&c=2&encCode=00000000013a1e53. Ken Livingstone is also all over the issue but there’s obviously a way to go to see retrofitting become a reality.
September 21, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Casey
I’m surprised that anyone is proposing to take most existing housing stock to Code Level 6 at all.
For one, they’d have to achieve a heat loss of 0.8W/m2K - which means you’ve got to get an existing building to PassivHaus standard. Nobody in the UK has managed to get a new building to this standard yet, so achieving it with existing buildings would be a huge (and expensive) challenge - in many cases I think it won’t be possible.
And then: retrofitting rainwater or greywater harvesting to get down to 80l/person/day. Daylighting? Materials?
The smart option would seem to be going for less complex, less expensive measures that get you 80% of the way there. Code level 6 for existing buildings is a grand political gesture but in reality I think it’s a non starter.
September 25, 2007 at 9:39 am
Jason H
I agree. Unless conservation area laws are changed, you would lose half of your floorspace to insulation, even if the retrofit is possible.
May 1, 2008 at 9:09 am
using new schemes to decarbonise existing buildings « carbon limited
[...] buildings are only a small part of the emissions problem (I’ve posted on this topic here and here). The argument goes that we must address existing stock in order to get anywhere near our carbon [...]