Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency & Construction
James

Building industry seeks to broaden ‘zero-carbon’ definition

Looks like goal-posts are being shifted before the game has started.....

Building industry seeks to broaden ‘zero-carbon’ definition

The current definition of ‘zero carbon’ is not achievable for up to 80 per cent of new homes, a group representing the construction and energy industries said this week.

A report from the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) has recommended that the government change its definition of ‘zero carbon’ in order to achieve the carbon savings envisaged though its plans for new energy-efficient housing.

The Communities Department (DCLG) has a target to build three million new homes by 2020. All of those built after 2016 are to be ‘zero carbon’.

The DCLG’s definition of ‘zero carbon’, issued in the technical guidance of the Code for Sustainable Homes last year, stated that off-site renewables could be counted in meeting buildings’ demand for energy.

However, the Treasury defined ‘zero carbon’, in its stamp duty land tax relief scheme, as excluding off-site renewables unless connected to a development by private wire.

Housebuilders complained that this definition was unworkable. The UKGBC, with representatives from the DCLG, the Business Department (BERR) and the Treasury, set out to find a solution.

Its report suggests that all new buildings must first meet strict minimum energy efficiency standards, both in terms of the building design and household appliances, where they are supplied by developers.

Carbon emissions should be mitigated on or near the development. Where this is not possible, a minimum level of carbon mitigation must be met on or near-site.

Above this threshold, the UKGBC suggested that off-site technology could be allowed, provided that it has been built specifically to deliver the energy needs of the development, or the developer could pay into a community energy fund to pay for new installations.

UKGBC chief executive Paul King said: “Our proposed definition recognises that off-site renewables could play a part, and also gives a big boost to community-scale technologies.”

This would also enable the distribution of zero- or low-carbon heat through district networks, which lead to carbon reductions in the current stock, he added.

The government will formally consult on a definition for ‘zero carbon’ this summer

from "The ENDS Report". original article found here by free subscription
RichardW

So if you cant meet the target you get the target changed?


Ok for some.

Oh sorry cutomer what you what is just to much effort so have this lesser item instead.

Justme
Shane

Justme wrote:
So if you cant meet the target you get the target changed?

Sounds in keeping with the New Labour way of doing things. Either that, or you change the reporting system so that the results no longer correspond to the previous system, thus making before and after comparisons impossible.
gnome

it's not the building trade to blame - it's the architects. the key to energy efficiency is in the design, and let's face it - most architects today are witless fools with no imagination or scope. any that do have flair tend to end up designing bridges and civic buildings - only the failures end up designing houses for living in. there are exceptions - but that's exactly what they are - exceptions.
Behemoth

My guess is that an architect employed by a major developer is given a brief that involves minimal expenditure. Architects are paid to do as they are told. If you are doing as you're architect tells you you've got something wrong...and an empty wallet, they usually get 12.5% of the build cost.
Gervase

To be honest, a six-star passivhaus building meeting a zero carbon ideal is largely unachievable today except for a few specialist builders. To insist on zero carbon homes before the technology and skills have advanced considerably will actually result in fewer houses being built, which would defeat the purpose.
And then there's the problem of definition. No-one can actually say what a zero-carbon building would actually entail. Should it generate all its own energy, how would it pay back the embodied energy in construction and transport of components? It's a piece of verbiage trotted out by politicians with little concept of the practicalities.
Far better to aim for reducing carbon and increasing sustainability, but not to set absurd and unreachable targets which will merely flatten the trade.
I've just come from a three-hour brainstorming session on drafting a new LDP, and the consensus seems to be that zero-carbon targets are pie in the sky for the foreseeable future.
gnome

Gervase wrote:
To be honest, a six-star passivhaus building meeting a zero carbon ideal is largely unachievable today except for a few specialist builders. To insist on zero carbon homes before the technology and skills have advanced considerably will actually result in fewer houses being built, which would defeat the purpose.
And then there's the problem of definition. No-one can actually say what a zero-carbon building would actually entail. Should it generate all its own energy, how would it pay back the embodied energy in construction and transport of components? It's a piece of verbiage trotted out by politicians with little concept of the practicalities.
Far better to aim for reducing carbon and increasing sustainability, but not to set absurd and unreachable targets which will merely flatten the trade.
I've just come from a three-hour brainstorming session on drafting a new LDP, and the consensus seems to be that zero-carbon targets are pie in the sky for the foreseeable future.


i agree with that entirely. there is a lot that can be done to improve efficiency - but setting a goal that is unrealistic is counter-productive.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency & Construction
Page 1 of 1
You must set the ad_network_ads_377.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).