Changes to Part L – is carbon neutral possible for 2016?

282px-AD-L_Part_2A2006 was a big year for building energy efficiency, the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive started to be implemented. This triggered a radically new Part L, requiring all new building designs to meet CO2 emissions targets. The Code for Sustainable Homes was launched that year, and the government made bold plans to require new dwellings to be carbon neutral by 2016, non-dwellings three years later.

A glide-path to zero carbon was published with interim Part L changes planned for 2010 and 2013. Come 2010, and the first round changes took place, with a 25% reduction in CO2 targets. Then the following year, the government (now a conservative-led government claiming to be the greenest ever) watered down the definition of zero carbon to exclude appliances and cooking. Fair enough, absolute zero carbon perhaps wasn’t a feasible target anyway.

Fast forward to August 2013, and the second round of changes still hasn’t happened. The government has indicated that there will be a meagre reduction of 6% in CO2 targets for dwellings, and 9% for non-dwellings, and that these will kick in in April 2014. What this says to me is that the government, at the moment, aren’t all that interested in being green. Also, that 2016 is going to be very painful for housebuilders, who will have to make a huge leap to zero carbon. This zero-carbon commitment is still in place, and was even reaffirmed in the budget announcement in March. But of course, there’s another general election before 2016….

When will the lights go out?

In the UK and some other countries the maximum demand on our supply network is perilously close to the supply capacity. In the UK we have a total supply capacity of 80 Gigawatts, and only around 67GW is available at any one time according to OFGEM director-general Alistair Buchanan. The maximum demand last winter was 60.5GW and the peak summer demand isn’t much less. It would only take a prolonged cold spell or a power station failure to drop the supply capacity below our maximum demand.

What this means in practice to an individual customer is that there is an increased risk of outages or voltage dips. It has been predicted that this could be a one in twelve chance of losing power in a year for any customer by 2015 and an increasing risk until either the supply capacity is increased or demand is cut. In the UK we are closing our coal fired power stations, decommissioning our old nuclear stations and not building new capacity fast enough to replace them. Read more about this in The Spectator.

Last week OFGEM published electricity supply and demand forecasts, showing that spare capacity has fallen as more gas-fired plants have been mothballed. It reiterated warnings that even if blackouts are avoided, power prices will rise steeply.  With the UK generation capacity margin likely to drop to 2% by 2015 the competition for supplies is likely to push prices up by 20%. Read more in The Telegraph.

Graph taken from Bill Wright's presentation given at BSRIA Workshop

Graph taken from Bill Wright’s presentation given at BSRIA Workshop

The profile of generation capacity over the next ten years is affected by political decisions such as closure of coal-fired power stations, extending the life of old nuclear stations, availability of imported gas, introduction of fracking for shale gas and planning permission for renewable energy.

Businesses need to prepare for the increased risk to protect their business continuity. At a recent BSRIA workshop, business leaders talked about how they could respond to the risks and the knock-on effects of power outages.

There are two main approaches:

  • reducing demand, including demand side management
  • adapting to a less reliable power supply with standby power.

But the effects of power outage on security of supplies, transport and even public order and crime need to be considered.  The process of planning for outages and continuity of power is part of a more general process of Business Continuity Management, for which there is a British Standard Code of Practice, BS25999.  This Standard covers all the threats to business continuity, but with the risk of power loss to a business and its supply chain and the effects of power loss on staff, customers and the public there may be a need to re-assess the risks and amend the business continuity plan.

OFGEM are hosting a Working Group to develop solutions to network capacity problems using the Low Carbon Networks Fund.  Their recent seminar presented the results of commercial and domestic demonstration projects.  The domestic demand peaks at nearly double the daytime demand between 4pm and 8pm on weekdays.  The early part of this peak coincides with the last hour of the working day so commercial demand is also high.  Various approaches to demand management are being trialled in different areas of the UK including incentives and variable pricing.

There are incentives for customers agreeing to cut their demand when local supply nears capacity.  These are set up locally with different priorities, such as the Thames Valley Vision which utilises Automated Demand Response and Business Consumer Consortia along with energy storage to reduce peak demands and avoid the need for supply network reinforcement.

In summary, the UK electricity supply network is expected to become less reliable and this will affect consumers as soon as 2015.  If consumers don’t do something they are likely to be hit by power cuts more often.  Solutions include planning for power failures, checking the reliability of standby systems, negotiating demand reduction facilities or permanently reducing demand.

BSRIA is keen to work with building operators, manufacturers, network operators, consultants and anyone involved in power continuity management.

Threats to the Building Automation and Control Systems Market – or Opportunities?

My smart technologies team within BSRIA’s Worldwide Market Intelligence division have been looking at the threats to the traditional building automation and control systems market. But of course, what is a threat to one is an opportunity to another and we are looking at both angles of the changes currently taking place. We will shortly be publishing our findings and conclusions in a new report to be launched later this month.

The global BACS market is currently worth more than $20 billion and is continuing to grow year on year, having pulled through a global recession quite robustly. Not surprisingly, this market has in recent years been attracting new entrants. Now, new technologies, innovations and novel business models are threatening to disrupt the traditional business.

New technologies that utilise the “Cloud”, developed by relative newcomers such as BuildingIQ and Mios, as well as established multinationals like Johnson Controls and Schneider Electric are providing energy management, self-diagnosis and adjustment functionality not previously available in a Building Automation and Control System (BACS). Suppliers are now faced with the reality “If I am not in the cloud, my competitors probably will be.” There is a growing assumption that all key services and solutions should be accessible via “the cloud” but there are concerns and these are explored in our report.

As building automation becomes more IT-based, software is growing in importance, within both targeted applications and in detailed analytics to identify areas where performance may be improved. BACS suppliers need to be proactive in this area or risk becoming more commoditised and marginalised.

Suppliers of variable refrigerant flow (VRF) and DX systems are also entering the BACS market with integrated controls and rudimentary energy management functions. The market for VRF based systems has overtaken chillers globally and VRF systems are gaining market share fastest where the markets are expanding most rapidly. We have looked at how the BACS equipped VRF systems in the $9bn VRF market are affecting the HVAC and BACS markets. We analyse whether they pose a great enough threat to change the BACS market altogether or whether they are a factor that could help the BACS market. Since VRF-based systems are becoming ever more ‘intelligent’ this changes the scope for building automation. Incumbents must be asking themselves, “how long until they start offering the same sort of capabilities as high level BACS?”

Residential smart home systems from the low-voltage electrical equipment suppliers such as Jung, Busch-Jaeger and Berker are being used in light commercial buildings; interestingly 60% of such systems sold in Germany are used in the light commercial market and demand is increasing. So here too, it is smart residential controls that are posing a threat to traditional commercial building solutions.

However, is the residential value add market at risk of be snatched away from the current players by the telecoms operators and utilities, bundling remote monitoring and energy management as just further services in their offerings? And could this be the way things will go in the non-residential market too?

Threats to BACS – or Opportunities?

Threats to BACS – or Opportunities?

However, opportunities exist in numerous areas, including in integration and convergence of diverse systems. BACS and in particular, building energy managements systems and services (BEMS) penetration in to the existing building stock is still very low and the opportunities for refurbishment are simply staggering. Perhaps the good news is that for the most part, these new markets remain highly fragmented. We are witnessing heightened activity in the areas of partnerships, mergers and acquisitions. This is enabling companies to broaden their scope of offering and to leverage their core skills and follow the rapid evolution of the market.

Our new report analyses these changes and provides information on how the BACS market is coping with the changes and the wider opportunity to expand “beyond BACS”. Supported by facts, figures and enlivened by charts and illustrations, it will be presented in an accessible PowerPoint format of some 60-70 slides. It draws on BSRIA’s long standing expertise in built environment.

There is more to BIM than a model

By mandating the use of Building Information Management (BIM) on all its construction projects by 2016, the UK Government has taken the world lead in driving forward the BIM agenda.  Many blue chip construction organisations, in all parts of the supply chain, are investing heavily to help maximise the potential benefits that the adoption of such an initiative can bring to them.  This may take the form of eligibility to work on Government projects, or just increasing their own efficiency through improved working methods.

 However, whilst there is undoubtedly enormous momentum to the uptake of BIM in the UK, some areas of the BIM process are progressing faster than others.  New uses and applications for the software model seem to be found daily, with links to design software and facilities management programs now coming on line.  But more focus is needed on the other parts of the process – the organising and ‘naming’ of data and the methodology for issuing the data in a form that can be used both during and after the construction phase.

 Whereas the use of a software model may not present obvious advantages for those in house-building, looking at the wider BIM process may be of more benefit.  Considering how they arrange and control their flow of data may help house builders to realise savings through increased efficiency, which in turn may enable them to invest in relevant software tools.

 The introduction of a simple document management system (another key part of the BIM process), arranged in accordance with BS 1192:2007 Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information – Code of practice, for example, enables the controlled naming and flow of data between parties.  This allows data to be easily found rather than having to create it time and again. This assists current work activities procedures and can be ofBIM blog benefit on all projects, not just those employing BIM. Similarly, presenting construction and operational data for occupiers and end users in a readily understandable form will greatly increase their understanding of the facility and its systems.

 The message to house builders should be to look at the whole BIM process and carefully consider how it can be applied to what they do.  Adopt the simple measures in the short term and develop a strategy to achieve ‘full BIM’ in the context of the type of work they do as they gain experience.  A BIM project of social housing may look very different to that of a high-tech commercial building, but there are elements of BIM which can add real value to both. 

 BSRIA has worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce  NF49 Building Information Modelling – an introduction for house builders.  Reading NF49 could be their first BIM step.

An intelligent building is one that doesn’t make its occupants look like idiots

Air conditioning controls in an office in Adelaide

I’ve spent about nearly 20 years in the post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of buildings, many of which were designed to be sustainable and low energy. Some even claimed to be intelligent buildings. If only they were. Sadly, as many working in POE will despairingly concur, unmanageable complexity is the enemy of good performance.

It’s important to remember that the term intelligent building is very much the lingua franca of the controls and building automation community. It’s not a natural phrase in architectural and engineering lexicons. You won’t find many clients using it either. It’s also a very ‘nineties’ term, like its not-so-distant relation, sick building syndrome (which, somewhat ironically, seems to have died a death). Most of the design community is now working to the ‘keep-it-simple, fabric-first’ definition of intelligence. Why? Because the high-tech approach has proved to be a mirage.

Time and time again, almost without exception, systems and technologies that rely on complex automation in order to achieve energy savings usually fail because practice doesn’t mirror design theory. Practice is a heady mix of:

  • Over-complicated design with little understanding or appreciation of what occupants really want
  • Design that is difficult to apply in the real world, leading to poor detailing, poor installation quality, inadequate commissioning, and the unwitting introduction of technical risks by contractual and product interfaces that go unnoticed until it’s too late
  • Incompatibility of components that require constant adjustment or re-work
  • Over-sensitive and/or hard to adjust controls and settings
  • Excessive need for management vigilance over systems that were assumed by designers and the supply chain to be fit-and-forget, but which become fit-and-manage in practice,
  • General lack of usability, compounded by false assumptions that occupants will take an interest in controlling and optimising the operation of building systems, where frankly they don’t want the responsibility
  • Unexpected consequences and revenge effects: systems modulating automatically annoying occupants, systems that don’t allow enough occupant override, or which people don’t understand because the controls are not intuitive to use,
  • Systems that default to an energy-saving condition rather than putting occupant expectations first (in severe cases causing a breakdown in relations between facilities managers motivated to maintain set-points come what may, exacerbated by a professional belief that things are best controlled centrally)
  • The creation of a maintenance and aftercare dependency culture, where the building owner is dependent on expensive call-outs to maintain or modify the settings of digital systems for which they do not have the expertise to maintain, nor the access rights (and software) to modify themselves.

Is all this intelligent or just stupid?

The essential question a building designer needs to answer is simply this:  what problem are you trying to solve? The solution needs to be the simplest, the most appropriate, the least costly, and the most robust and reliable.  

Designers need to understand more about what end-users actually like and dislike about buildings and their systems. Although making things simple may not be the top of every designer’s list, they need to remember that buildings are intended for people – they are a means to an end not an end in themselves. Automation, in itself, should not be a goal. Building intelligence should therefore, above all else, lead to intelligible and sensible systems. Those systems shouldn’t challenge, they shouldn’t alienate, and they shouldn’t lock building owners into an expensive maintenance dependency.

Most of all, automation mustn’t disenfranchise occupants from making decisions about their working conditions, and prevent them acting upon them. It’s important to give occupants what they actually want, not what they don’t want but what designers think they ought to have.

As the author Guy Browning said: Most problems are people problems, and most people problems are communication problems. If you want to solve a communication problem, go and give someone a damn good listening to…

How will you invest in Soft Landings?

Budgeting for better building handover

Soft Landings is an open source process designed to overcome problems after handover. It is arguably an increasingly important part of procurement philosophy. Three year periods of aftercare are regularly being considered a core element of project plans; however, with Soft Landings comes great responsibility. The question is whose responsibility is it to include Soft Landings and ensure it gets done?

All clients want high performing buildings but are not always willing to pay additional costs for the aftercare process. On the other hand the building industry has a right to demand additional fees if they are taking on more responsibilities and higher risks. This standoff won’t resolve itself without some easing of tensions.

As an advocate of better building handover, I believe that both clients and contractors need to change their expectations. More fundamentally, both sides of the contractual fence need to recognise that although they may share an ambition for a high-performing building, it does not become such until it is proved to be. This means troubleshooting the building and fine-tuning it way beyond resolving snags and defects.

Once a client acknowledges that it wants its project to adopt Soft Landings, it needs to ensure that the methodology is expressed throughout the entire process. The client should not assume that the contractor will take responsibility for it all; BSRIA has seen a number of documents that puts the responsibility of Soft Landings completely with the contractors when it should definitely be a result of negotiations between all parties involved. A client also needs to be specific in what they expect from their consultants and sub-contractors. Therefore such a project should unquestionably be a collaborative effort with equal responsibility and realistic expectations shared by all.

However, this commitment can’t come for free, which begs a question of where the costs lie, and what they amount to.

Setting aside a budget

It is essential that clients acknowledge that a budget needs to be set aside for Soft Landings, especially if they want a three year period of aftercare. A reasonable place to start is by feeling a nominal budget and then to discuss how it can be best invested, all projects are different but BSRIA believes that 0.1% of the total contract value is a good place to start. Then comes the hardest part, how do you distribute such a budget?

The budget needs to include the three year aftercare period but also other additional Soft Landings activities required during the design and construction process, such as periodic reality-checking. It is also important for clients to note that they will have additional costs at later points if they take into consideration the need for independent building performance monitoring. So, overall, does the 0.1 per cent rule hold true? By and large it’s a good place to start.

If the budget proves inadequate for the client’s ambitions, then those ambitions either need to be scaled back, or the budget increased. Undoubtedly, all parties to the aftercare process stand to gain from the lessons learned, so it is absolutely in their professional interest to meet each other halfway. 

If an agreement and a clear plan can be put into place early then it is entirely possible for such a project to be successful.

To gain a better understanding Soft Landings procurement and budgets read the full article here:

 http://www.bsria.co.uk/news/soft-landings-budgets/

How much light do we need?

Olympic ring sunglasses with flashing LED lights

Olympic ring sunglasses with flashing LED lights

As electric lighting developed, recommended light levels were raised. This was due to; in part, increased luminous efficacy of lamps, overall national prosperity and the availability of relatively cheap electricity. However, with the oil crisis in the 1970s energy costs suddenly rose steeply and lighting levels became static and are basically the same today.

More recently, many common visual tasks have been made easier by the introduction of electronic visual displays replacing printing and handwriting and many office occupants are satisfied with lighting levels less than the recommended 500 lux.

In future should lighting levels be based, not simply on visual efficiency, but on requirements of good health? Electric lighting originally supplemented daylight but now we are totally dependent upon it and people are rarely reliant on daylight alone whilst indoors. Deep plan offices and shopping malls are illuminated all the time regardless of the amount of daylight available. Traditional outdoor sports are now played in enclosed stadia and at night. Even our cars have tinted windows to reduce the amount of daylight. Lifestyles today spend less time outdoors. A lunchtime kick-about outdoors in the car park is more likely to be a sandwich at your desk these days.

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) was identified in the 1980s and is considered to be because of the lesser amount of daylight during the winter months (for northern hemisphere). Treatments suggested include exposure to 10,000 lux of white light for at least one hour a day, although more recently 300 lux of green light is considered to be equally effective.

I can remember my grandfather suggesting that time should be found to view the distant green hills, and he offered two reasons. To focus at ‘infinity’ relaxed the eye muscles, and green was a restful colour in the middle of the visual spectrum. He was a countryman at heart and I suspect it also gave him a chance to dream.

Introducing more daylight in our lives must be a benefit. We just don’t know how to quantify its value.

BREEAM – What’s your opinion?

BSRIA recently held an event as part of our Building Environmental Assessment Network to discuss opinions on BREEAM.  This is always a hot topic with lots of views, and this event was no different.

For those new to the world of environmental assessment, BREEAM (the BRE Environmental Assessment Method) is a criteria based assessment of the sustainability of a building.  Developed by the BRE in 1990, it is now the UK’s most used environmental assessment method, and is often a requirement of planning.  More details can be found at www.breeam.org.

The aim of the event was to see if the 2011 changes were sitting well with the industry or needed changing.  It was also a chance to give BRE feedback directly for future changes, or problems that have been encountered.

Particular issues raised were:

  • The transparency of some of the calculation methods
  • Getting feedback or answers to queries from BRE
  • Issues with the energy credits in the 2011 version, especially when dealing with CHP units. 
  • Some refrigeration related credits appear impossible to get

Questions raised in the presentations were:

  • Is the value of each credit appropriate?
  • Is the industry ready for all the changes made in 2011?
  • Is the qualification route for assessors and BREEAM APs appropriate?
  • Is there need for more information for the industry?

The presentations given on the day are available from: http://www.bsria.co.uk/services/membership/networks/building-assessment-network/

So do you have an opinion on BREEAM?  What works well and what needs some adjustment?  Of particular interest would be your experience of the latest version of BREEAM, i.e. 2011.

Room temperature measurement

Measuring temperature in a room is one of the things we do most often as building services engineers.  It seems straightforward, but is it really as simple as it appears?

Specifications often state that a certain temperature must be maintained in a building, but what does this mean? Designers need to know what they are designing for. Contractors need to know where to put the sensors. Commissioning engineers need to know how to confirm the building meets the specification and last, but not least the occupants need to be satisfied and comfortable.

I would like to know what you think and what you do for temperature measurement….

  • Do you measure air temperature, radiant temperature, environmental temperature or something else?
  • What height do you measure it?
  • Where in the room? At desks or in the centre?
  • At the worst spot, the best spot or the average?
  • How long do you measure for?
  • Should you take the average over time, the lowest or the highest?
  • How long should you leave the system to warm up or cool down?
  • What do you use to measure temperature; liquid in glass bulb, thermistor, thermocouple or infrared?
  • How is your thermometer or temperature sensor calibrated and how often?
  • Should we really be specifying temperature at all?  It is often occupant comfort that matters most.

This might lead to a Best Practice Guide or a series of guides because we could also look at other measurements for building services such as water temperature, humidity and air flow. You can feedback using the form below or by commenting on this post.

Taking lighting to task

For many years the conventional method of interior lighting for workplaces was by ‘general illumination’. As lighting was not expensive to purchase, install or operate, the principle was to provide illumination over the whole floor area with a high degree of uniformity. This enabled plants or furniture to be subsequently positioned anywhere in the space and easily moved without recourse to changing the lighting array.

Council House 2 - Offices. Spot the five sources of light....

 However for the past decade UK lighting codes and standards have recommended not ‘general’ but ‘task’ lighting. The significance of this change has either been ignored or gone largely un-noticed as the illumination values were basically the same. The new concept recognised that the main critical visual task is only carried out over a small part of the total floor area. The rest of the space is used for circulation, storage, filing and similar activities all of which are less demanding in terms of illumination. Lighting the whole area to the highest illumination required can use about a third more energy than matching the illumination to the different activities.

Energy costs are continuing to rise and therefore providing the right amount of light only where it is needed is beneficial both economically and environmentally. Also variation in illumination can make the space visually more interesting than overall uniformity. Normally the reason for still providing ‘general’ illumination is because the building is a speculative development and there is no client to determine the furniture layout, or simply that the layout has not been decided yet. I think potential tenants need to be aware that for lighting to be visually efficient the equipment should be electrically efficient and the lighting design should suit the activities across the space. Providing light where and when it is not needed is inefficient regardless of lumens per watt performance of the luminaires.  

Recommended illumination levels in the past were based upon the need to determine detail in the visual task, together with the amount of contrast critical nature of the work and the importance of colour discrimination. Recently there have been massive changes to how we read the written word with print on paper largely being replaced by self-illuminated screens of computers, tablets, telephones, information signs, cash registers, etc. At the same time there has been the move towards ‘hot desking’. No longer does a space have a constant lighting need. The visual task performed at any point will depend upon the occupant at any one time. Does this mean we should revert to general illumination?

Or does the lighting of our buildings require a fundamental rethink so it is more appropriate to today’s sometimes conflicting needs of energy conservation, use of electronic media devices and flexible occupancy of spaces?   Modern lamps have long lives and therefore lighting is only infrequently changed. Installations over twenty years old are not uncommon, a time span when most other electrical equipment will have been replaced several times. 

%d bloggers like this: