Why should we bother with Renewable Energy?

If you are hoping that in the future fuel costs will reach a peak and then start to reduce then I am afraid you are going to be bitterly disappointed. There may well be short term reductions, however it is inevitable that fuel costs will not only continue to rise, but rise significantly

Source: Business Standard

There is no shortage of media coverage in respect of the impact of global warming, climate change, energy conservation, sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions and so on........ Our understanding and concern about these issues will vary significantly from those who have a genuine concern about protecting the planet for future generations to those who’s work may be directly related to these issues, right through to those who know very little and even those who make a conscious choice to ignore them!  The problem however is that even if you are one of those who fall into the latter categories, it does not change the fact that you will be affected in exactly the same way as everyone else.  This is no more starkly demonstrated than in the increased cost of energy over recent years, which have soared to record levels.

Over the last two hundred years we have become dependent on fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal, which has allowed us to develop our world at a staggering pace.  All of this development in terms of infrastructure, buildings and the like require large amount of energy, to heat, cool, ventilate, provide light and power etc.  If we are to maintain, or more likely increase the rate of development around the world then we also need to consider alternative ways of creating this energy. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are a depleting resource and at some point, in the future it will run out.  Now this is unlikely to happen in our generation or indeed generations in the foreseeable future, but one thing is for certain in that at some point, however far in the future, fossil fuels will become incredibly scarce and are likely to run out.  If you are under the impression that we should not be concerned about this now, as it will not have any major impact on us in our lifetime then think again!

Source: Daily Record

The problem with anything that is in short supply is that basic economical principles come into play.  Fossil fuels are a prime example of this. Remember they are a depleting resource and therefore a commodity in short supply.  The impact of this is that when demand is high (which it always is) and supply is limited (which it is), then market conditions allow energy providers to increase costs as they know that they are providing something that people actually need. The market then adjusts to these increased costs. The Guardian (November 2017) reports; ‘Gas and electricity companies have been the biggest culprits for raising prices over the past 20 years, according to an analysis published just a day after utility giant’s SSE and npower revealed plans for a mega-merger – prompting fears of yet more price rises. The research found that the cost of utilities has risen at triple the rate of inflation over the past two decades. The average rise in prices for a basket of goods between 1997 and 2016 was 50.7%, but utility bills went up by 139% – far outstripping the average 78% rise in weekly household income, which has gone up from £316 to £562 over the period’ (Link).

If you are hoping that in the future fuel costs will reach a peak and then start to reduce then I am afraid you are going to be bitterly disappointed. There may well be occasional short term reductions, however due to the economical principles described above it is inevitable that fuel cost will not only continue to rise, but rise significantly. Of course, the majority of articles that you will see in the media focus on the damage to the environment caused by greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon, from the burning of fossil fuels. This is something that we need to deal with immediately, however I would suggest that if you were to talk to most people on the high street they would be more concerned about the increase in fuel costs rather than the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The positive thing however, is that if we can create energy by using alternative renewable technologies then we can deal with both issues at the same time!

In future articles I will focus on the use of renewable technologies as a way of impacting on greenhouse gas emissions, however for the remainder of this article I will continue to demonstrate the financial effect of creating and using energy from fossil fuels, which is happening and impacting on us all right now!  The Committee on Fuel Poverty annual Report – October 2017 (Link), in its Executive Summary states; ‘The Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Fuel Poverty Statistics published in 2017 report the number of households in fuel poverty has increased from 2.38 million in 2014 to 2.50 million in 2015 (the statistics provide data on a two-year time lag). The average fuel poverty gap (this is the average additional amount that fuel-poor households need to spend to meet their energy needs, compared to the national median spend) has only fallen £18 per year from £371 to £353’.  The reference to fuel poverty is defined by Poverty.org.uk (Link) as: ‘Households are considered by the Government to be in 'fuel poverty' if they would have to spend more than 10% of their household income on fuel to keep their home in a 'satisfactory' condition. It is thus a measure which compares income with what the fuel costs 'should be' rather than what they actually are.  Whether a household is in fuel poverty or not is determined by the interaction of a number of factors, but the three obvious ones are: The cost of energy, the energy efficiency of the property (and therefore, the energy required to heat and power the home) and Household income’.

It is abundantly clear that many in the UK are continuing to suffer financial hardship as a result of increasing energy costs, and unless we can find alternative ways of creating and conserving our energy, then this situation is likely to become even more critical. Increased demand for a depleting resource is a recipe for disaster. We therefore have to introduce alternatives, which is now a necessity not a choice. If you are in one of those categories described at the beginning of this article who have not really paid much attention to global issues, perhaps it is now time to think very carefully about how you individually, and all of us collectively can save energy as well as also being open to consider retrofitting of  new renewable technologies. This will not only provide benefits from a financial viewpoint, which may not be immediate (although costs associated with enhancements is an article in its own right!), but also from an environmental viewpoint, where we can start to have a real impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice.

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency – The Challenge of Tackling Older Buildings

Whether you have your own political views or are sceptical about government policy and initiatives it is important to embrace them as we only have the possibility of making a difference, if we are prepared ‘to give it a go’, after all, we have to start somewhere

Source: Source: http://www.cjhole.co.uk/news.html

Are you aware of the significant impact of climate change on our planet?  Are you aware of the major influence that those working in the built environment, could have in dealing with this very serious issue? Or, like many do you really care at all?  We are already experiencing the impact of climate change as a result of the way that we have used our planet to a point where many of these changes are now irreversible. The issue now is how we slow down the process and try to protect the environment for future generations. The Environment Agency website (Link), emphasises the human impact on our climate, and portray some very stark and worrying facts:

‘There is a scientific consensus that the recent observed rise in global temperature can only be explained by the rise in greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities.

Since the industrial revolution, human activity, mostly the burning of fossil fuels, has resulted in the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is enhancing the greenhouse effect and pushing up global temperatures.

Average global temperatures have already risen approximately one degree Celsius since pre-industrial levels, and even if we could stop emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow, they would continue to rise by at least a further 0.6 degrees. Limiting temperature rise to below two degrees is the internationally agreed target to avert dangerous climate change.

There are clear signs that our world is warming. We’ve had markedly higher global average temperatures over the last decade, ice sheets and glaciers are melting and average river water temperatures are increasing. Globally, the hottest ten years on record have all been since 1990, and February 2010 was warmest on record for southern hemisphere’

Source: http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues

It is therefore clear that action is needed now and whether we like it or not, we must all play our part. Much of this action is actually imposed on us through legislation such as Building Regulations and other initiatives such Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM etc. which are primarily voluntary (although funding requirements may in effect make these mandatory). This is fine if we are dealing with new buildings, but how do we deal with the existing varied and largely energy inefficient building stock we have in the UK?  These are the types of buildings that waste a great deal of energy through older inefficient elements and therefore readily lose heat through the building fabric, requiring additional heating and therefore more energy to try to achieve acceptable internal temperatures.  If we make our buildings more thermally efficient, this heat energy is retained longer in the building, therefore reducing the amount of additional heating we need and subsequently reduces our reliance on fossil fuels.

According to BBC News (2006), ‘Transport consistently grabs the headlines on climate change emissions but buildings pour out about half of the UK's CO2 - 30% from homes, 20% from commercial buildings’.  The Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) completed an assessment of a variety of impacts of various sectors may need to prepare, which included the Built Environment: ‘The UK’s built environment includes: 27 million homes, commercial and industrial properties, hospitals, schools, other buildings and the wider urban environment. At the current replacement rate, around 70% of buildings that will be in use in the 2050's already exist. It is clear therefore that those working in the built environment have the opportunity of influencing the impact of climate change in all sectors including both new build and existing buildings. This has also been emphasised by the UK government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% (from the 1990 baseline) by 2050 under the Climate Change Act 2008. In order to achieve this it is necessary to significantly reduce our reliance on depleting resources such as fossil fuels (which emit high quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon) and consider the use of more energy efficient and low carbon ways of creating energy (renewable technologies), making our buildings more thermally efficient in addition to educating people to operate and use buildings more efficiently. This is fundamental to achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and necessary if we are to stand any chance of meeting our targets.

The government have set a strategy with the objective of achieving the targets set within the Climate Change Act 2008 (Link). Whether you have your own political views or are sceptical about government policy and initiatives it is important to embrace these policies as we only have the possibility of making a difference, if we are prepared ‘to give it a go’, after all, we have to start somewhere.  It is ok to be sceptical, however until policies and initiatives are introduced and tested we have no way of knowing whether they will work or not. I along with many others raised issues with the now demised Green Deal, however I have also gone onto state that I think in principle Green Deal was a good idea undoubtedly needed some re-adjustment to make it more effective. The important thing here is that the UK government decided to tackle poor energy efficiency in existing buildings. However, trying to encourage people to incorporate energy efficient measures and renewable technologies into their buildings is always going to be difficult for a number of reasons.  

The Green Deal worked on the basis of a low interest loan which is added to fuel bills, for energy efficient enhancements which were recommended by a Green Deal Assessor. The ‘golden rule’ then assumed that the repayments on the loan would not exceed the savings made on the energy bills, therefore the bill payer/s should not notice any difference in the amount they were are paying each month. 

There is also constructional detailing issues in respect of retrofitting existing and occupied buildings to increase thermal efficiency and also issues in respect of introducing and installing renewable technologies. Once installation of enhancements has been completed it is also necessary to ‘educate’ occupiers to help them to understand how to use them.  It is pointless increasing thermal efficiency and installing new technologies into a building if the occupier continues to waste energy because they don’t understand how to use the system correctly.  Again, this emphasises the need for a holistic approach to dealing with energy efficiency in existing buildings rather than concentrating on the technologies alone.  This is a tough nut to crack with no easy solutions. It will be interesting to see what the government come up with next when trying to tackle energy efficiency in existing buildings.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog

Energy efficiency in residential dwellings

One in every five UK households are currently in fuel poverty. Coupled with the fact that energy providers are continually raising their prices, this issue is becoming increasingly prominent; the basic necessity of keeping warm can no longer be taken for granted. It is estimated that a minimum of 5.5 million people within the UK are living in houses that are inadequately heated

Source: www.eco-uk.co.uk

Fuel poverty occurs when a household spends 10% or more of its income on fuel; figures show that one in every five UK households are currently in fuel poverty. Coupled with the fact that energy providers are continually raising their prices, this issue is becoming increasingly prominent; the basic necessity of keeping warm can no longer be taken for granted. It is estimated that a minimum of 5.5 million people within the UK are living in houses that are inadequately heated due to self-rationing, made necessary by insufficient funds (The Guardian 2011). Modern new build properties benefit from legislation such as Part L of the Building Regulations, which ensure that construction is adequately insulated. Efficient methods of heating property are also being implemented more regularly; this however, provides no relief for the millions of people living within existing housing stock. 

While there are ways in which home-owners can improve thermal efficiency, methods often require financial investment (sometimes substantial), and exhibit long payback periods. Improving thermal efficiency, using external wall insulation for example, can result in payback periods of 12 years and cost as much as £65 per square metre (Oxford Solar n.d.). This can mean that while people may want to improve their homes, the same financial concerns which mean they are subjected to cold living conditions, prevent steps being taken to make improvements.  In addition to financial benefits, increasing efficiency will also result in fewer carbon emissions. The Climate Change Act 2008 has made the UK the only Country which has introduced a legally binding framework intended to address climate change by reducing emissions by at least 80% by 2050, when compared to the levels seen in 1990 (Committee on Climate Change n.d). Ensuring that existing homes are used efficiently is a cost effective way of contributing towards this target. The former coalition government saw Green Deal as a vehicle for meeting these targets; however Green Deal did not have the effect that the government had hoped. 

A Thermostatic Radiator Valve (TRV) - Source: abodesolutions.com

Daniel Coghlan, a recent graduate of mine at Coventry University, considered energy efficiency in residential dwellings as part of his final year dissertation, and undertook some very interesting research. The purpose of the research was to ascertain whether heating costs could be reduced by using an existing heating system more efficiently. If this was possible then this would allow savings to be made with little or no financial investment. The research involved taking meter readings in a selected residential property both before and after alterations were made to the use and set-up of the heating system. The usage during both periods was then compared to ascertain whether the alterations that were made have affected the efficiency of the central heating system, and if they have, to what extent.  The property selected was a detached 1970’s house with insulated cavity walls. The heating system comprised of a condensing combination boiler which fed a wet radiator array; heat was controlled using a programmer integral to the boiler, a central room thermostat and thermostatic radiator valves on each of the radiators.

A meter reading was taken on the 1st October 2011 and one was obtained from the resident for the 1st September 2011. The resident at the property was then left to utilise the heating system as they normally would; repeat readings were taken at the first of each month for a total period of 3 months, ending on 01st December 2012. The purpose of this was to ascertain energy usage over a set period of time prior to any system alterations. Following this, alterations were made to the system. These alterations included:

       1. Bleed radiators to remove trapped air
       2. Balance System
       3. Discuss room use and set TRVs accordingly
       4. Reduce temperature of system slightly
       5. Remove restrictions surrounding TRVs
       6. Set a programme timer suitable for general daily use
       
The results from the case study showed that alterations made to the set-up and use of the central heating system within the property resulted in a reduction of 18% in energy usage. It is understood that there were a number of limitations to the research, however this result  provides a strong indication that considered use can improve efficiency. In addition to the case study a questionnaire was devised to establish the levels of understanding of the use of a central heating system. Of the returned questionnaires, only 14% of those who responded used their central heating systems efficiently. Therefore, the combined result of the research shows that the efficiency of a central heating system can be improved by altering use, and currently, there is a deficiency in understanding or common practice of incorrect central heating system use within the UK.  

Limitations with the research were; 

Within the case study, monitoring was undertaken for three months in each period consecutively. This meant that varying weather conditions will have affected the boiler efficiency and the consequential energy consumption may not be completely representative of the alterations made. 

Another consideration is gas usage within the case study property as gas is not used exclusively for heating; the cooker hob is also fuelled using gas. This means that, while the same number of residents were residing within the property during both periods, varying eating patterns may have introduced further inaccuracy into the results. December for example is a time when residents are off work, and likely to entertain, again resulting in more cooking, higher gas usage and less reliable results. 

Different families are likely to have different comfort requirements and eating habits for example. In addition to this, differing windows, doors, thermal insulation, boiler type and radiator sizing for example would all make data obtained from different properties less directly comparable.  In addition there are a number of potential limitations commonly associated with observational information gathering techniques, such as when individuals or groups of individuals are aware they are being watched, they can sometimes change their behaviour, a phenomenon known as the Hawthorne effect (Kumar 2005: 120-121).

Despite these limitations the research demonstrated that energy and consequently cost savings can be made by educating and encouraging people to use their heating systems more efficiently.  Notwithstanding the fact that buildings also need to be made thermally efficient in the first instance, otherwise all of the heat created is likely to disappear through the walls.

(The above article is a summary of research undertaken by Daniel Coghlan BSc(Hons) as part of his final year dissertation at Coventry University and is published with the express permission of Daniel)

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog. 

Air Tightness and Ventilation in UK Dwellings - A sensitive balance!

In the near future it will be interesting to see how our buildings are reacting to increased air tightness, together with ventilation.  In truth only time will tell if this is working when these buildings have been occupied and used for a number of years

Source: Source: http://www.brookvent.co.uk/

In order to tackle climate change the UK government have made commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008 to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% (from the 1990 baseline) by 2050.  Buildings in particular have been identified as a means making significant reductions to meeting these targets: According to BBC News (2006), ‘Transport consistently grabs the headlines on climate change emissions but buildings pour out about half of the UK's CO2 - 30% from homes, 20% from commercial buildings’.  The Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) completed an assessment of a variety of impacts of various sectors may need to prepare, which included the Built Environment: ‘The UK’s built environment includes: 27 million homes, commercial and industrial properties, hospitals, schools, other buildings and the wider urban environment. At the current replacement rate, around 70% of buildings that will be in use in the 2050s already exist.

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within buildings, particularly carbon dioxide, can be achieved in two broad categories, the first is the way in which we create energy and the second is the way in which we can conserve or limit waste of energy.  In an earlier article, why should we both with renewable technologies? (Link) I considered the former and emphasised the importance of installing and utilising renewable technologies within buildings, which will significantly reduce our dependency of burning fossil fuels and subsequently reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  For the purposes of this article however I want to briefly focus on conserving energy in buildings and in particular the important balance between air tightness and ventilation.

Source: Source: http://www.airtightbuilding.com/

In order to try to make buildings more energy efficient UK Building Regulation, particularly Approved Document L has evolved beyond all recognition of the last 15 to 20 years.  Those like myself who were in practice prior to this will remember a much shorter, single Approved Document (now there are four parts, L1A, L1B, L2A & L2B), where the most complex issue was how to navigate your way through a SAP calculation.   Nowadays the focus on external envelope is only part of the story and there is now a requirement to consider carbon dioxide emissions for example: under Approved Document L1A , all dwellings must be designed and built in a manner that their Dwelling Carbon Dioxide Emission Rate (DER) measured in kg of CO² produced annually per m² floor area is no worse than a defined Target Carbon Dioxide Emission Rate (TER), as well as air permeability (or air leakage).

Since 2006, Building Regulations in England & Wales and Northern Ireland have required mandatory air leakage testing of new homes. These regulations were further revised in England and Wales in October 2010. ‘Air leakage, air permeability and air tightness are all terms that refer to the uncontrolled loss of air from inside a building to the outside and the infiltration of air coming from outside to inside. This loss or gain of air through cracks, holes or gaps in the fabric of the building is often felt to us as draughts.

Achieving a good level of air tightness is important for the energy efficiency of the building. The benefits of improved insulation and more energy efficient heating systems are lost if warm air can leak out of the building and cold air can leak in. Poor air tightness can be responsible for up to 40% of heat loss from buildings’ Source: http://www.nhbc.co.uk/

The above statement makes a good point in relation to heat loss in those buildings with poor air tightness and that by ‘plugging the gaps’, so to speak, we can ensure that our buildings remain warmer for longer.  This in turn will mean that we will not need as much heating in our buildings and consequently reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the process.  The added other benefit should be a reduction in our energy bills.  Constructing or upgrading a building to meet these air tightness standards is all well and good but we must also consider a balance with ventilating a building.

Ventilation is an important consideration in buildings as it helps to control the internal environment in respect of health & comfort, control of condensation and humidity, discharge of emissions from fuel burning appliances and removal of any airborne pollutants.  Building Regulations Approved Document F provides requirements for ventilation rates in various rooms such as kitchens, bathrooms etc as well as rates for whole house ventilation. The Approved Document also provides examples of different forms of ventilation such as mechanical, background, passive stack etc.  Consideration of the Approved Documents will be crucial in firstly complying with Building Regulations and secondly ensuring that there is an adequate balance between air tightness and ventilation. It would be a mistake to consider each of these in isolation.  It is important to realise that the level of air tightness achieved within a building will have an important influence on the overall ventilation rates that will be achieved (higher levels of air tightness, lower ventilation rates) and the type of ventilation strategy that should be adopted.

In the near future it will be interesting to see how our buildings are reacting to increased air tightness together with ventilation.  In truth only time will tell if this is working when these buildings have been occupied and used for a number of years.  As an example; with the increased use of construction methods such as timber frame which is nicely concealed within a highly air tight environment it is easy to foresee problems in the future with timber decay and other common defects if the balance between air tightness, ventilation and indeed detailing is not adequately considered.  This is also the case for control of both surface and interstitial condensation (condensation that occurs within the fabric of a building), which are both influenced by air tightness and ventilation in conjunction with other factors. We will no doubt find out within the near future if we have got this balance right.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Energy Efficiency - Why measuring ‘performance in use’ is the key to energy efficiency in buildings

Guest Article from Professor George Martin, Low Impact Building Centre, Coventry University

With approximately 80% of the properties that exist today still being in existence in 2050, the key issue for landlords in the run-up to the 2018 change is that they understand the scale, nature and cost of the various interventions that will be needed to update properties now

Source: www.sustainablecommercialsolutions.co.u

For the past 10 years or more I have been driven by the mantra - If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it. This applies to each and every key performance indicator linked to the built environment sector with energy arguably being the most important. It is for this reason that I consider it essential that the Government mandates the use of Display Energy Certificates (DECs) for all buildings as a vital first step to cutting carbon emissions.

The Display Energy Certificate (DEC) provides an up to date snapshot of how well a particular building is performing, based on actual energy consumption unlike its poor relation the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) that only provides a theoretical rating based on assumed patterns of use and occupation and can be up to10 years old!  The DEC also reveals what the rating score was in previous years. Consequently it is possible to see at a glance the progress in making that building more energy efficient and less costly to run.  There is now considerable evidence (initially anecdotal, increasingly academic) that requiring energy usage to be professionally monitored and the results made visible, delivers enormous improvements in performance.

Landlords need to be aware that the Energy Act 2011 proposes to make it unlawful to lease residential or commercial buildings with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of F or G from April 2018.  In addition, there is a requirement for all new build domestic to be 'zero carbon' from 2016 and for new build non-domestic to be ‘zero carbon’ from 2019.  However, the biggest challenge, especially for landlords, relates in particular to the UK's ageing property stock, not built for a world of high energy prices and carbon reduction targets, and lacking in investment in low carbon retrofit over time.

Source: http://valentemike.blogspot.co.uk

With approximately 80% of the properties that exist today still being in existence in 2050, the key issue for landlords in the run-up to the 2018 change is that they understand the scale, nature and cost of the various interventions that will be needed to update properties now. And that means learning in more detail about how properties actually perform in use.  A one-size-fits-all approach will not work and landlords will need to develop an evidence based approach, backed up with a robust whole life cost database for their properties.  Smart landlords will be using sensors to monitor energy use against temperature and other indicators such as relative humidity in order to identify more specific issues – so that they can identify whether the source of any inefficiencies is due to the building fabric, the equipment, the maintenance regime or indeed the behaviour of occupiers.

Property developers and landlords also need to ensure that their design, delivery and maintenance teams do not have a blinkered approach to energy efficiency and carbon reduction - as it is vitally important to ensure that the health of the fabric and the occupants are also considered. The existing stock of ‘leaky’ properties, whilst bad for energy efficiency, is good in terms of ventilation and here there is some distressing news from recent research that is showing that many - if not most - of the Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery units installed in recent times are underperforming, which is seriously bad news for the occupants.

It is most certainly not right to assume that all 'modern' property will achieve a good performance in use just because it has a good EPC rating or indeed an ‘high’ BREEAM design rating.   Even the highest spec builds with energy efficiency in mind may not be performing as expected. The limited performance gap research available has demonstrated that design targets (and we must remember that EPC is a design tool) are missed by between 20% and an astronomical 500%. We must stop assuming that sustainability-minded design and construction methods are the whole story. Buildings need to be monitored and evaluated for performance once occupied.  Only then is it possible to gain a clear picture of the performance in use and capture the learning for future designs.

The property sector needs to move from making procurement decisions based on design tools (e.g. EPCs), capital cost and payback time to making primary decisions based on the performance in use (DECs)  and 'whole life costs', backed up by an assessment of the return on investment.  

In turn, as attitudes and understanding begins to evolve around performance  in use and whole life costs, the construction industry and here I include clients, designers and constructors, will become more focused on delivering buildings that perform sustainably i.e., environmentally, socially and economically.

Professor George Martin, Low Impact Building Centre, Coventry University

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/business/supporting-your-business/sustainable-building-futures/

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Energy Supply – Is ‘fracking’ just a short term distraction?

It is clear that fracking carries a number of risks, environmentally it will still result in large quantities of CO2 emissions and for the UK it has an extremely limited lifespan.  Perhaps the Government should consider investing the time and money that they plan to invest in fracking, into renewable energy?  

Source: http://occupydenver.org/

A few years ago very few had even heard of the term Fracking, let alone understand what it actually is.  Nowadays with the amount of publicity relating to our over dependence on fossil fuels (a depleting resource), together with the negative impact on the environment due to greenhouse gas emissions when fossil fuels are burnt, there has been a realisation that we need to find alternative ways of providing our energy to meet our increasing demand. 

In the UK our need to find alternative ways of creating energy is critical. In June 2013 MSN News highlighted the urgency of the problem in respect of our electrical supply: ‘The UK's ability to produce enough electricity for the nation has been declining. Ofgem predicts that the amount of spare electricity production capacity could fall to as little as 2% by 2015. This will mean more likelihood of supplies running low enough to cause blackouts’. In May 2013 The Guardian reported similar issues in respect of our gas supply: ‘Some of Britain's biggest energy suppliers were holding back gas in storage tanks at a time when the market ran into an acute shortage two months ago, triggering a doubling of wholesale prices. The revelations came after claims the UK was within six hours of running out of gas completely on 22 March and will feed rising public and political anger over soaring power bills and previous allegations of market manipulation’. Make no mistake the problem is serious, and although we can import to supplement any shortfalls, this will come at a cost, a cost that we have little control over.  If we want to keep our country ‘running’ and as numerous politicians have put it ‘ ensure that the lights do not go out’, we need to find alternative ways of creating energy and find them quickly.  

Fracking is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from shale, which is a technique that has been used for decades in the United States.  ‘Horizontal drilling (along with traditional vertical drilling) allows for the injection of highly pressurized fracking fluids into the shale area. This creates new channels within the rock from which natural gas is extracted at higher than traditional rates. This drilling process can take up to a month, while the drilling teams delve more than a mile into the Earth’s surface. After which, the well is cased with cement to ensure groundwater protection, and the shale is hydraulically fractured with water and other fracking fluids. – Source:  http://www.what-is-fracking.com/   The video below provides an animated demonstration of the fracking process:         

So how much shale gas could we expect to extract in the UK? The answer appears to be inconsistent depending on what you read, with estimates suggesting that shale gas could meet demand in the UK for anything between 25 and 40 years – According to the Guardian in June 2013:

‘Britain is sitting on shale gas deposits that could supply the UK for 25 years, suggests an independent report that ramps up previous estimates for the controversial energy source. New figures published on Thursday by the British Geological Survey (BGS) indicated that the amount of shale resources, mainly sitting under the north of England, will trigger a new dash for gas. BGS published a long-awaited report that suggested an area stretching from Lancashire to Yorkshire and down to Lincolnshire could hold at least 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas.’ 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment

Energy Minister, Michael Fallon, has stated it would be "irresponsible" not to take advantage of this resource, which has transformed the US and could provide energy security, if not cheap prices, for Britain.  This view however is extremely short term.  The US is far larger than the UK and has a much greater capacity to produce shale gas over a longer period of time. Estimates suggest that shale gas in the US and Canada could meet demand for nearly 100 years!  In the UK, even if we were to produce 40 years worth of energy from shale gas (which is at the top end of estimates) then this will not solve our problem once this resource has been exhausted.  It is a little disconcerting that our own Energy Minister cannot look at the issue from a more sustainable and long term point of view and focus our strategy and resources on renewable energy.  No doubt the Government will argue that they are already doing this, however, it is clear that our dependence of fossil fuels is far too great and something that we cannot sustain and must address much more rapidly.  Focussing on extracting shale gas through fracking is a short term distraction which is avoiding the real issues of providing energy in a renewable and sustainable way and is just papering over the cracks.

Natural gas when burned produces half the CO2 that coal does when burned (http://blogs.reuters.com) Therefore gas produced through fracking may reduce our need to burn coal, however it will still produce large quantities of CO2, something that does not happen with renewable technologies.  If we focus our strategy on renewable energy then this will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and help us reach or 2050 emissions targets.  Why waste time and money in extracting shale gas through fracking when surely it would be better to invest this time and money in renewable energy?

There are also concerns particularly in the US about the amount of water used in the fracking process as well as the possibility of contamination of water supplies due to the chemicals used in the process.  Recently in the UK fracking has also been attributed to be the cause of a number of small earthquakes.  The British Geological Survey reported: ‘On 1 April and 27 May 2011, two earthquakes with magnitudes of 2.3 ML and 1.5 ML were detected in the Blackpool area. These earthquakes were immediately suspected to be linked to hydraulic fracture injections at the Preese Hall well, operated by Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. This well was hydraulically fractured during exploration of a shale gas reservoir in the Bowland basin. As a result of the earthquakes, operations were suspended at PH1 and Cuadrilla Resources commissioned a number of studies into the relationship between the earthquakes and their operations’

It is clear that fracking carries a number of risks, environmentally it will still result in large quantities of CO2 emissions and it has an extremely limited lifespan.  Perhaps the Government should consider investing the time and money that they plan to invest in fracking, into renewable energy?  Our reliance on fossil fuels has to be addressed urgently.  Focussing on extracting shale gas, which is still a fossil fuel, is really a way of avoiding the main issue, something which many politicians appear to be extremely good at!   

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Green Deal – Five reasons why take up is so slow

Unless awareness is significantly increased and consumers can be convinced that the scheme will provide financial benefits to them, then unfortunately the Green Deal will be doomed to failure.

Source: http://www.eecuk.co.uk/

At present it seems that whatever you read in the press or hear in the media about the Green Deal, is nothing but negative.  A chaotic, confusing and frustrating image is painted of something that the Government had hoped would have members of the public scrambling for energy efficient enhancements to their buildings.  This was all based on the premise that any costs for these enhancements would be ‘absorbed’ by the savings that would be made on future energy bills, something referred to as the Golden Rule. Therefore, the cost of any enhancements should not be noticed by the consumer or business. Seems very simple doesn’t it? So why has take up been so slow (some would argue embarrassing!) since the Green Deal was officially launched on 28^th January 2013?

On May 15^th 2013 Knauf Insulation warned that ‘the latest Green Deal statistics, released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), showed that it would take more than 200 years to reach the Government’s target of tackling 14 million homes, if the current rate of assessment continued….Data shows that 38,259 assessments have been carried out, resulting in just 245 plans being put in place – an embarrassingly low number that tells you everything you need to know. Behind the scenes the project has been mired in IT and other (legal) delays and, most depressingly for those who have trained as assessors, very few consumers know anything about it’

You may occasionally hear the odd Conservative Member of Parliament or representative from the insulation or renewable technology industry trying to put a more positive spin on the prospects of Green Deal however even in these instances you often feel that they are trying to convince themselves as much as the rest of us.  In short the introduction of Green Deal has shown that there are fundamental flaws in the way the scheme has been set up, the way it has been publicised and the way in which the general public perceive it.  Below I offer some suggestions (in no particular order) of why the Green Deal has so far struggled to have the desired impact:

Source: http://www.thegreendealfactory.co.uk/

1.  The Golden Rule suggests ‘no cost to consumer’?  - The principle of the Golden Rule is good as long as it works, however after making initial enquiries the consumer will soon find out that there are financial implications attached which will impact on them personally.  For example, they will be informed that there is an upfront cost of around £100 for a Green Deal Assessor to visit their property to undertake an inspection and assessment and to make recommendations for enhancements that will meet the Golden Rule.  The Green Deal Assessor will then produce a Green Deal Plan for which the consumer can then approach approved Green Deal Providers in order for the enhancements to be installed. The costs for these enhancements can then be financed through a loan, with interest currently set at 6.9%.

It will be extremely difficult to convince members of the public that taking up a loan and paying an upfront Green Deal Assessment fee, will not be a financial burden to them.  If Green Deal enhancements are implemented, even though there may be cost savings for future energy bills, most consumers live in the here and now, not the future, and will be more concerned with their immediate finances. This is where I think the Government have made an error, by underestimating the public perception of the scheme in the first place.

2.  Poor publicity – People just do not know about it. - Whatever has been done to date to publicise the scheme has not worked:  ‘Awareness about the Green Deal has been steadily rising, growing from 10 per cent before the scheme launched to 22 per cent last month (June 2013), according to latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). This follows a £2.9 million communications campaign by the Government when the Green Deal launched. But today's survey findings suggest that building awareness remains a major marketing challenge for many companies and there are growing calls from the industry to do more to incentivise take up of the Green Deal. Source: http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk

Awareness of the scheme is one thing however it would be interesting to find out what level of awareness the 22% above actually have.  For example, is their awareness restricted to having heard of the Green Deal or do they actually know about the scheme and how it works?  From the experience I have when talking to people I would suggest that it will more than likely be the former.

3.  Beset with problems – Financing, IT, Training Assessors – There has been a lot of publicity about these problems, not just after the Green Deal’s implementation but many months before.  ‘Energy Minister Greg Barker has blamed the lack of take-up on delays with setting up software systems to manage the Green Deal and funding problems for the long-term finance plans people take out to pay for the upgrades’. http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk 

Although these problems will have an impact on progress of Green Deal, they almost become irrelevant if consumers are not interested in the first place and do not take up the scheme.  Also, Green Deal has been years in the making and you would have expected these issues would have been ironed out before the scheme was implemented.    For the Energy Minister to blame the poor take up on these issues is a poor indictment of the way the scheme has been developed and implemented by the Government.

4.  Possibly seen as ‘blight’ to property as loan stays with the property  - One of the core principles of Green Deal is that the ‘loan’ belongs to the property and not the individual.  Therefore when property is bought and sold, any outstanding payments will become the responsibility of the new owner and deducted via their energy bills. This is an additional check that a Solicitor will need to make during the conveyance process.  Again, those who do not understand the scheme are likely to see this as an additional debt, which they may not have chosen for themselves and one that they may not be prepared to take on.

5.  Lack of interest in the environment and understanding of technologies - As much as many may want to contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the vast majority of people will undoubtedly be motivated by the financial benefits 'signing up to the 'Green Deal' will bring to them, and herein lies a potential problem.  Many will have little to no knowledge of the numerous enhancements/renewable technologies that could be installed in their property.  In the event that a consumer proceeds with a Green Deal, it is likely that there will be confusion in the way that enhancement/technologies are used efficiently, which could actually prove to be very cost ineffective. It could prove to be difficult therefore to convince large numbers of people to sign up to a Green Deal scheme when they may have no interest in the environment, will not have any desire to learn about new technology and will not be prepared to take on any financial burden.  Basically, there will be people (and these could be in large numbers) who will just not be interested.

In summary, I have stated in a previous article that in principleGreen Deal is a good idea.  The problem however is the difference between in principle and in practice.  In practice although Green Deal is still in the early stages of implementation where it appears that the general public are both not aware and not convinced by the scheme, which is demonstrated by the extremely disappointed take up to date.  Unless awareness is significantly increased and consumers can be convinced that the scheme will provide financial benefits to them, then unfortunately the Green Deal will be doomed to failure.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.