Ideas competition – How would you make buildings better?

PrintBSRIA and Designing Buildings Wiki are giving you the chance to win £500 of BSRIA membership, training or publications and to be featured in Delta T magazine by suggesting ways that buildings can be made to perform better. Gregor Harvie, co-founder of Designing Buildings Wiki explains why.

The UK government’s commitment to progressively reduce carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels is broadly in line with the COP21 goal agreed in Paris last year for keeping global warming well below 2 degrees centigrade.

But the Climate Change Committee has reported we are not on track to meet the fourth carbon budget, which covers the period 2023-27, and that meeting the 2050 target, a reduction of more than two thirds compared to today’s levels, will “…require existing progress to be supplemented by more challenging measures.”

construction emissions The construction industry generates or influences 47% of UK carbon emissions, and 80% of those emissions are from buildings in use. So unless the performance of buildings is improved, we will struggle to meet our carbon reduction commitments or the COP21 goal.

The tightening of the building regulations is intended to help deal with this. But figures from Innovate UK’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme have revealed that the carbon emissions of the 76 homes assessed were 2.6 times higher than their building regulations calculations, and emissions of the non-domestic buildings were 3.8 times higher.

And of course the building regulations do little to improve the existing building stock. Its estimated that around two thirds of the housing that will be occupied in 2050 has already been built.

emissions target v actualIn fact, our actual energy consumption has changed relatively little since the 1970’s, and the reduction in carbon emissions achieved to date has largely been the result of a shift away from coal powered generation. Now that the low hanging fruit have been taken, the task gets harder.

Couple this with a population expected to rise from 65 million now to around 77 million by 2050, and we have a problem.

So what can be done?

BSRIA and Designing Buildings Wiki have launched an ideas competition asking ‘how would you make buildings better’.

The challenge requires outside the box thinking to come up with radical ideas for reducing the emissions of buildings in use. Tell us about those innovations you think of in the middle of the night and the solutions to the world’s problems you only come up with after a few hours in the pub. Whether you think the answer lies in the adoption of smart technology, better regulation, on-site generation, monitoring and feedback, or more drastic measures such as carbon rationing or a contractual requirement for buildings to achieve design standards. The more innovative and far-reaching the idea the better.

The competition is very simple to enter. You don’t need to write a long essay, your idea might only take a paragraph, or even a sentence to explain.

To enter, go to the ‘Make buildings better’ page on Designing Buildings Wiki 

The winner will receive £500 worth of BSRIA membership, training or publications, and along with 4 runners-up, will be featured in the July edition of BSRIA’s Delta T magazine and on Designing Buildings Wiki.

The competition closes on Wednesday 18 May.

Architect Dr Gregor Harvie is co-founder of Designing Buildings Wiki, a free, cross-discipline knowledge base for the construction industry written by its users. It is home to more than 3,200 articles and is used by more than 10,000 people a day. Designing Buildings Wiki is supported by BSRIA, CIOB ICE, BRE, RSH+P, Buro Happold and U+I Group.

COP 21 – Success or Failure

This blog was written by Richard Hillyard, a Senior Environmental Consultant

This blog was written by Richard Hillyard, a Senior Environmental Consultant

Well, we have a climate change agreement for 2020 and beyond in the Paris Accord, approved this weekend.  But is this an adequate level of progress needed to seriously tackle the problem of climate change?  Compared to 6 years ago and the utter failure in Copenhagen, first glance suggests yes, but it’s not perfect.

Two weeks ago leaders from around the world gathered for probably the most important and significant international government conferences of our time, COP21. Prior to these talks, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s), campaigning organisations, environmentalists and individuals from all over the world took to the streets to protest and generate an atmosphere of urgency for a strong positive agreement to be achieved.

COP21 started with an inspiring speech of HRH Prince of Wales calling to arms the politicians of the world to take responsibility and deliver an agreement that will start the progress to reduced CO2 emissions and planetary stability. “On an increasingly crowded planet, humanity faces many threats, but none is greater than climate change. It magnifies every hazard and tension of our existence… It threatens our ability to feed ourselves, to remain healthy, and safe from extreme weather, to manage the natural resources that support our economies, and avert the humanitarian disaster of mass migration and increasing conflict.”

This was followed by leaders of each country all making the same points, using strong rhetoric, all pointing out the obvious and what the informed already know.  The rhetoric from the politicians had a passion and sincerity on a level that I had not heard before.  Could Paris and COP21 be the success the world and its people need it to be?

Barack Obama, a driving force in these discussions, determined to leave behind a Presidential legacy before he steps down, not worried about re-election stated “the future is on that we have the power to change – right here, right now… One of the enemies we will be fighting is cynicism – the notion that we can’t do anything about climate change” urging a “common purpose [for a] world that is not marked by conflict but by co-operation”, concluding “Lets go to work.”

One of the few blemishes being David Cameron stating, “what would we say to our grandchildren if we failed. We would have to say it was too difficult, they would reply, well what was so difficult?… How can we argue that it’s difficult when in London alone there’s 5 trillion of funds under management and we haven’t already begun to generate the private finance that is possible to help tackle climate change?”

Highly contentious in my view, as it is him and his government that are cutting financial support for clean and renewable energy and instead pushing for shale gas fracking with a very questionable UK energy policy.

Following the opening day, the media lost interest and there was practically no coverage in the mainstream media during the 2 weeks of discussions.  However, from what was available, it was clear there was a hive of activity between the main discussions, informal meetings and fringe campaigns that appear to have been running 24/7. Such is the complexity over agreement of document text, working groups were giving paragraphs to negotiate with each country.

From the start, the French leadership were doing their job perfectly, they communicated a sense of direct urgency and urged the UN to deliver an approved agreement.  In the latter part of  the second week the ‘High Ambition Coalition’ represented, a group of 100 countries, who have been working in the wings secretly for half a year. They helped to push policy agreements through late in the day and on Saturday the world finally got to hear what was agreed.

Not only a commitment to limit global warming to 2oC change, but also to aim to reduce it further to 1.5oC.  This is highly ambitious, yet committed unilateral agreed target., seeing as the world is already heading to a 1oC degree increase in global temperature, limiting it by another half a degree is some target to have agreed.

There are a few challenges with this target, and where the Paris Accord shows cracks, there is no time frame except for ‘second half of the century’ and there are no real mechanisms agreed to ensure delivery of this target, just a promise.  But this is a start, to seriously tackle climate change and hopefully the beginning of releasing the world from its fossil fuel addition.

The agreement includes a legally binding 5-year review of countries targets, and the ability for them to improve their objectives to work towards a low carbon future.   However, 5 years is a long time, long enough for the world leaders not to be in power next time around and be held accountable.  Considering the target of 1.5 degrees, this time frame is not feasible, the reviews are important and are legally binding but should have been annually or every 2 years to ensure targets and commitments are being delivered in a time frame that will actually limit temperature increases. Additionally, how will this be policed and by whom to ensure accountability by nations?

It is also worth noting that the terms ‘fossil fuels’, ‘oil’, ‘coal’, and ‘gas’ do not appear once in the text of the Paris Accord. It looks like corporate lobbying has played a part in the delivery of this final text, which is a real shame as the document should of at least acknowledged the link between the use of these finite resources, their link to GHG emissions and climate change.

Developing countries already receiving financial aid for assisting them with the effects of climate change, all feel they need further support from the countries already causing climate change and in many cases rightly so. This was a contentious area in the negotiations and Saudi Arabia caused a lot of problems due to their economy largely dependent on oil.  But none the less, an agreement of $100bn base line annual aid would be made available.  Many NGOs and commentators believe this to be a significant failure in the process as more help is needed from the developing world to mitigate the effects as well as evolve their economies to the new low carbon energy infrastructure needed.

Listening to the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, their Prime Minister, Francois Hollande, and head of UN, Ban Ki-moon speaking on Saturday morning was for me emotional, are we on the brink something truly incredible as they would have us believe or is the Paris Accord another ‘empty promise’ with no substance to actually deliver?  In the hours and days that have passed, I have had time to reflect and take it all in, I am optimistic and definitely more positive about the international political landscape in this area than I have been for a number of years.  COP21 has managed to get an agreement from nearly 200 countries and this should be applauded long with the target and legally binding reviews.

As Ban Ki-Moon stated, there had to be compromise, no one got 100% of what each country wanted at the start of the negotiations.  I think this is also true from the environmental campaigning, activist and NGO perspective with the agreement not delivering on a level that many believe is required, not going in to detail on how targets would be achieved and not committing enough to help those who will suffer first and most with the effects of climate change.

Wholesale system change doesn’t happen over night, we know this and I believe no matter what would have been agreed in Paris, to many, myself included, it would not have been enough and open for criticism.

Expectation is high and its easy to pick holes in the agreement.  What needs to done, is to reflect and look at the outcomes differently – There is an agreement approved, there is a target agreed, there are legally binding elements and there is some financial aid. I would of taken that 2 weeks ago and I think many others would.

Paris and COP 21 is not the end of the road when it comes to climate change, it is the beginning of the next part of our worlds environmental and climate journey.  The targets are in place, the leadership of the world is agreed that limiting GHG emissions is critical to success.  In fact just 24 hours after COP 21, the UK governments energy policy is already being scrutinised by politicians and media, an early indication of positivity from the Paris talks.

It is now up to us, the environmentalists, the activist and the environmentally considered to continue to drive for delivery against promises, hold those who fail to account and keep on the pressure to those who stand in the way of climate revolution, at the same time, applaud and celebrate where there have been successes and victories. The optimist in me tells me that Paris and COP21 was one of those victories and successes. So let’s embrace it and make it work for our future and the planet.

This blog post was written by Richard Hillyard MSc. Pg Dip. BA(Hons). AIEMA. Richard is a Senior Environmental Consultant at a major international property management company with 13 years environmental and energy experience, including the provision of CRC, ESOS, EED, EUETS compliance, CDP and Carbon Standard Reporting as well as EMS implementation and management. Prior to this, Richard was part of the FM consultancy team with BSRIA and also holds a MSc in Environmental Decision Making.

Think in £s not kWhs and Start Reaping the Rewards

Steve Browning is Marketing Manager of Trend Controls, a BSRIA member company

Steve Browning is Marketing Manager of Trend Controls, a BSRIA member company

Often considered an unwelcome expense, the truth is that investing in energy saving initiatives offers significant financial benefits, as well as enhancing an organisation’s environmental credentials. I’m Steve Browning, marketing manager of Trend Control Systems and in this blog I will explain how a Building Energy Management System (BEMS) can increase the bottom line.

Although better energy management and the need to reduce carbon emissions are both moving to the forefront of the corporate agenda, they are doing so far too slowly. Rising prices, combined with the increasing scarcity of resources and a growing raft of environmental legislation, means that addressing the issue of how energy is used is no longer just an option, but something that requires serious attention by all businesses.

To put the issue into perspective, the long-term framework outlined by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) sets out plans for achieving the reductions stated in the Climate Change Act 2008. When compared to 1990 levels, this equates to a reduction of at least 34 per cent by 2020 and at least 80 per cent by 2050. As they are responsible for 17 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions, the nation’s 1.8 million non-domestic buildings are at the very heart of meeting this challenge.

The government is also ramping up the pressure to comply. In addition to the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, the Climate Change Levy (CCL), Air Conditioning Assessments, Display Energy Certificates (DECs) and Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), earlier this year the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) was introduced to address the requirements laid out in Article 8 of the European Union (EU) Energy Efficiency Directive.

It means that ‘large enterprises’ employing 250 or more staff, or that have an annual turnover of in excess of around £42m and an annual balance sheet total of around £36m, must complete regular energy audits. The first must be undertaken by 5th December 2015, and then at least every four years.

The government hopes that ESOS will drive the take-up of energy efficiency measures amongst businesses, enhancing their competitiveness and contributing to the wider growth agenda. Furthermore, for organisations wishing to comply with increasingly popular international standards such as ISO 50001, a certified energy management system (EnMS) must be in place.

It is therefore a constant source of bemusement and irritation to me that some organisations aren’t making the obvious correlation between investing in technology that can reduce energy use and saving money. By failing to ensure that energy is being used as well as it could be they are, quite literally, paying the price.

One reason for this could be that for energy bills are often low compared to items such as wages, research and development, and property rental. However, companies must consider other issues such as brand reputation, employee expectations and competitive positioning, while customers expect them to play an active role in reducing the carbon footprint of their operations and products.

Even more frustrating is that in many circumstances it doesn’t even involve a vast capital outlay on new technology – for example, by simply maximising the potential of an existing BEMS energy savings of 10-20 per cent are easily achievable. This could equate to a 0.1-0.4 per cent saving on a company’s total cost base, instantly increasing profitability.

When a BEMS is first commissioned it is configured around an existing building layout and occupancy patterns. These can change over time and incorrectly configured time clocks and setpoints, new layouts, and repartitioning can all lead to poor control and energy wastage.

Failure to maintain a BEMS on an ongoing basis will result in degradation of the building’s energy performance. In order to rectify this, it is advisable to undertake an audit that ascertains what can be achieved and identify any energy saving opportunities. While items such as boilers, chillers, air conditioning, and pumps can be checked to make sure they are working correctly, any maintenance issues to do with the BEMS itself or the building services equipment use can also be addressed.

BEMS providers will be able to offer expert advice on how to enhance the operation of plant by installing items such as variable speed drives. The investment can pay for itself in a matter of months – for instance a centrifugal pump or fan running at 80 per cent speed consumes only half of the energy compared to one running at full speed.

It is critical to achieve stakeholder buy-in for any business enhancement programme and by using a standard Internet browser, software based packages are available that act as a window to a BEMS. It is also possible to access utility meter readings from a BEMS and present a continually updated record of a building’s energy consumption and carbon emissions – showing employees and visitors whether they are on, below or above performance targets.

Hopefully, I have demonstrated that reducing carbon emissions and lowering energy expenditure are closely linked. The savings that can be made through the use of a correctly specified and maintained BEMS are considerable and will help achieve compliance with environmental legislation. My advice is to take action before it is no longer a choice!Trend_RGB SMALL

For further information please call Trend Marketing on 01403 211888 or email marketing@trendcontrols.com. Trend are the main sponsors of this year’s BSRIA Briefing – Smarter ways to better buildings.

You can read more BSRIA blogs about BEMS here.  BSRIA’s WMI team also produce a BEMS market report –Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS) in Europe and the USA – which is available to buy from the BSRIA website. 

%d bloggers like this: