The UKGBC is launching plans for a Code for Sustainable Buildings to “address the confusion arising from the myriad of different green building standards.” Although they’ve used the name, this isn’t the same Code for Sustainable Buildings that we were promised a few years back and that was eventually pared down into the Code for Sustainable Homes. This is an “open-source” UKGBC-managed standard which could then be used in other standards.

Reading between the lines, the UKGBC have just pre-empted a situation in which BREEAM is adopted wholesale as the basis of a future Code for non-residential buildings (a situation like we saw with EcoHomes and the CfSH). It looks to me like they’re looking to usurp BRE’s place as guardian’s of the public interest when it comes to building performance and I suspect the use of the words “open-source” is a stinging reference to BRE’s increasingly mercenary approach. So take that BRE - you’ve just been King-slapped.

Or am I just looking for drama on an otherwise dull Tuesday?

Developers are taking a hard look at their pipelines in an effort to find savings and many projects are grinding to a halt. Redrow, Taylor Wimpey, Bovis, Barratts, Persimmon - each laying off thousands from their workforce. There’s no doubt that the credit crunch is taking a deep bite out of the construction sector. In addition, oil and energy prices are exacerbating the situation, rising continuously for the foreseeable future.

All this comes at a time when the UK is looking to new build projects to help it meet a significant proportion of its carbon and renewable energy targets, some of which are legally binding and carry fiscal penalties for failure.

If ever there was a time for investment in renewables and low-carbon energy, this is it. But the mechanism for delivery, specifically the regulatory requirements for new build such as the Code for Sustainable Homes, is dependent on a robust programme of building in the housing sector. Under the current model, you can’t have the low and zero carbon technology without the new homes to attach them to.

Government will find it difficult or impossible to walk away from its carbon and energy obligations. Meanwhile developers will struggle to stay afloat, never mind carry the additional costs of meeting Code requirements. A compromise will be necessary and the Code certainly won’t survive in its current incarnation.

I’ve got two predictions on what might happen next:

1. RSL’s (housing associations) will step in to pick up some of the slack. £8.4 billion has been earmarked for housing provision over the next three years and will be spent to provide a boost to the development sectors in an echo of the 1990’s, either paid to directly to RSL’s or as a subsidy to private housebuilders who then hand over the completed homes to the RSL sector. In either case, the homes are likely to adhere to the Housing Corp’s more stringent requirements for energy and carbon.
2. The Code for Sustainable Homes will become more flexible. The UKGBC report on the zero carbon definition suggested that a community buyout fund should be introduced for use on projects where it’s not feasible to go beyond Code level 5 (i.e. 100% reduction in regulated emissions). I think we’ll see this concept adopted by the CLG and the threshold will eventually be set at Code 4 (44% reduction in emissions) rather than Code 5.

The timing of the credit crisis is ironic: just at the moment when we most need to focus on delivering emissions cuts in the built environment and just when energy prices are making low and zero carbon energy much more attractive. With some foresight and flexibility we may still be able to meet targets while encouraging construction.

I’m now an accredited Code for Sustainable Homes assessor. Is that a good thing? I’m not sure.

A Poyry report out today finds that by installing new CHP at just nine industrial sites around the country we could meet the electricity demand of 2/3 of the UK households and reduce gas imports by half. CHP is cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient than nuclear with no toxic legacy. It’s also much much faster to deploy. So shall we?

Yesterday BERR and OFGEM released proposals for changing the way the electricity regulations work with regard to distributed energy generation. This is particularly important because it’s BERR’s first public reaction to the Citiworks ruling by the European Court of Justice two weeks ago.

In case you missed it, Citiworks challenged the electricity supply monopoly at Leipzig airport on the grounds that it breached rules on third party access to electricity networks. ECJ found in favour of Citiworks, sparking fears in the UK that private wire networks (commonly used on CHP and other distributed energy schemes and in many cases essential to their viability) would be outlawed.

BERR and OFGEM’s reaction to the ruling is crucial and they weren’t giving anything away before the release of yesterday’s document. Because of the implications for small energy generators in the UK, quite a few people have been anxiously awaiting this reaction.

There is good news in BERR’s proposals. One example is that the license exemption threshold will not be raised. In other words, the size limit on private wire networks (currently about 1000 homes) will not be increased as some of the bigger players had been lobbying for. As BERR imply, for schemes above 1000 homes there’s not much excuse for basing your business plan on locking in your customers.

And the bad news?

It’s mostly in the form of hints about forcing private wire networks to allow third party access. BERR acknowledge that the many DE schemes rely on private wires to secure funding and operate successfully: banks are more likely to loan you money and you’re more likely to stay afloat if your customer base is guaranteed. They also recognise that forcing third party access to these schemes could have a “detrimental effect” on their financial viability. And then they follow up with a bizarre conclusion: 

“However, it appears that schemes that allow third party access when requested to do so will be able to operate as before.”

In other words, if a customer wants to switch to another supplier you can still operate on private wire (i.e. outside the licensing regime), you’ll just have fewer customers. Not much consolation if your business has just fallen over.

What happens next? BERR will accept feedback on the DE consultation until the end of July with implementation of proposals by the end of the year. However, it looks like BERR may tackle the issue of third party access separately (though they promise this will be “in a timely fashion”). Until then, plenty of small schemes (and their funders) are going to have to keep biting their nails.

For a while, I have suspected that the thermal efficiency requirements for Code 6 would almost certainly require MVHR. But I was always dimly aware that I hadn’t actually done the numbers and so couldn’t be sure. Now I am: no MVHR means no Code 6.

To reach Code 6, you have to achieve a SAP heat loss parameter (HLP) of 0.8W/m²K. The HLP is the total fabric and ventilation losses divided by the dwelling area.

To see how hard this target would be to hit, I put together numbers for five dwelling types, shown in the table below. A “mid level” flat is one with flats above, below, and on either side. A “top floor” flat is the same but with no flat above. The other types should be self explanatory.

I then played with the U-values and infiltration rates to try and get down to an HLP of 0.8 without resorting to MVHR. I ratcheted the U-values and air tightness right down and managed to succeed only in the case of the mid-floor flat:

Just look at what I had to do just to get this far. The pressure testing results are 2m³ per m² of fabric area at 50 Pa. Last year, at the pressure testing of a prototype house I worked on, we only just managed to hit this figure and it was the best result the tester from the BRE had ever seen. How are constructions from your more run-of-the-mill contractors likely to perform?

In addition, the window U-values are down to 0.9 W/m²K. That’s triple glazed low-E with some fancy gas filling and thermally broken frames. Very very expensive.

The wall U-values are down to 0.16. In a masonry cavity wall, that would mean 300mm of rock wool. I’ve also assumed no thermal bridges. Having been through this process once with an architect I can confidently say that doing away with thermal bridges altogether takes a huge amount of time and attention to detail.

So all that work and only the mid floor flat made the target. In fact only the mid floor flat even got close.

What happens when you add MVHR? Now all the units meet the requirement apart from the detached house, which, amazingly, still has some work to do.

And none of this considers how people will actually use the houses (or whether they’ll want to!). As Mark Brinkley pointed out a couple of weeks ago, this type of Passiv Haus living isn’t for everyone. It requires a thorough knowledge of how your heating and ventilation systems work and willingness to take an active role in managing these systems.

In order to achieve these results in practice, you’ve got to learn how to drive your house: shut windows, clean air filters regularly, and stay vigilant for damp, stuffiness, or any other signs of a mechanical fault. Fine if you’ve volunteered, but not likely to work if the occupants are unwilling or feel they’ve had this kind of living foisted on them.

In my view, the HLP requirement for Code 6 is a dead end. As soon as the implications become clear to house builders and the general public, it’s likely to get chucked out the hermetically sealed window. And considering there are much much better ways to spend the money, that’s no bad thing.

Listening to Radio 4 on my phone on the way home I heard the evening news: Gordon Brown, keen to show he’s doing all he can to ease the fuel crisis, has taken two decisive actions.

First he’s met with North Sea oil producers to urge them to pump more petroleum from their fields, which have been in decline since 1999. He apparently managed to persuade these producers to up their output by promising them a tax break (i.e. subsidy), which will make costly enhanced recovery techniques economically viable.

The total additional output is expected to amount to about 50 million barrels, enough to keep the world running for about 13 hours. Given that petroleum is a fungible globally traded commodity (there’s no such thing as local prices as the oil price is entirely determined by global factors), this tiny drop in the bucket won’t do anything to lower the price of fuel here in the UK or anywhere else. And you’ve got to think that if $130 a barrel wasn’t enough to stimulate recovery, maybe that subsidy would be better spent elsewhere. After all, given the record profits posted by oil companies this year, I think we could find one or two other technologies more deserving of a break.

The second decisive action Gordon took today was to announce that more nuclear power is the answer to our fuel problems: not just new plants on old nuclear sites but new plants on new sites too. The government’s own sustainability advisors, the SDC, have already done a great job of making the rock solid case against nuclear so I won’t rehash it here. But it’s worth asking what the hell Gordon thinks nuclear energy has to do with the fuel crisis. Because the answer is absolutely nothing, unless you drive an electric car.

So hard-hitting stuff all round from the team in Number 10. Confronted with a transport energy crisis, they’re demonstrating their competence by launching two useless and irrelevant (but environmentally destructive) measures. Seriously, it makes you want to cry.

When it comes to carbon from energy and the built environment, misdirected government measures (however good the intention) are now likely to do more harm than good. Eye-catching initiatives, if and when they fail, provide justification to cynics and people whose interests lie in maintaining the status quo. And more importantly the measures waste time and damage the chances of introducing more effective alternatives in future.

We’re seeing this now with the zero carbon targets. As the UKGBC recently found, the targets as they stand will be impossible to meet for up to 80% of new homes. The current zero carbon definition is a great idea very badly expressed.

We can no longer applaud the government for doing something (anything) green simply because it shows they’re taking the issues seriously. Perhaps motivated by a fear of a public whose intelligence they underestimate, ministers will offer what they think people want. Meanwhile the Treasury works in the background to ensure that whatever ministers may promise, there will be no impact on government coffers.

We now have to demand more from government. Not necessarily more radical measures, just better considered ones, even if they’re not immediately eye-catching and even if they may cost a bit more in the short term.

Ministers think people won’t wear any green measures during an economic downturn. But economics, energy, and environment are no longer separable. Without cheap credit and plentiful energy, it won’t be possible to put the environment on hold while we address economic issues. Instead, the government will have to take action aimed at meeting environmental and energy needs while stimulating the economy.

In the energy sector and built environment this means adopting an 80:20 approach and focusing the effort where it really counts. It means supporting microrenewables - via a feed-in-tariff, for example -without shackling our entire carbon strategy to them. It means working across all of the built environment rather than narrowly focusing on new-build. It means acknowledging the huge value and importance of heat and making sure people have affordable access to it. It means decarbonising the grid and telling the MOD to shut the hell up so we can install turbines they already agreed to. And it means recognising that by taking a leading role in developing low carbon technology and expertise, the UK can create jobs, stimulate industry, and begin to rebuild some of its lost credibility.

Weird reporting in the Observer today on the IEA’s upcoming study on the narrowing margin between oil demand and oil availability. Two snippets:

The International Energy Agency has ordered an inquiry into whether the world could run out of oil, The Observer has learnt.

Wow, hard hitting stuff from the IEA (and the Observer). I hadn’t realised it was possible that we wouldn’t run out of oil. Finite resource, projected exponential growth in demand. You might have thought it was a no brainer. I appreciate that there are some convincing arguments out there for why peak oil might still be several years off but I hadn’t realised there was anyone out there pushing the view that oil is infinite.

IEA researchers have warned that even if there is enough oil under the ground, which is probable, supply difficulties could emerge because national oil companies and Western multinationals have failed to invest sufficiently…

So the IEA says there is probably enough oil under the ground? Enough for what? To run the world forever? To avoid peak oil in 2012? What?

It’s just odd that the Observer would write in such a vague and useless way about a topic that’s tied for first on the end-of-the-world watch list.

From out of nowhere, twice in one week, there have been indications that a feed in tariff is on the way. First, at Tuesday’s PRASEG (Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group) meeting, BERR and DEFRA both hinted that a feed in tariff would replace the renewables obligation for installations under 50kW. Then on Thursday at Think08, Hillary Benn delivered the same message (thanks to Phil for pointing that out).

So how soon might this happen? Probably not as quick as we’d like as it’s likely to require a change to the RO legislation. But until then hopefully small generators will be able to console themselves with double ROCs.