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.

Response to the Chancellor’s Spending Review

The Chancellor’s statement yesterday was well trailed beforehand so there were few surprises. It seems that the “greenest government ever” is in fact true blue in tooth and claw with a continuing policy of reducing leadership in central government (by decreasing funding of staff) and increasing the expectation of self-reliance by industry.

Buried in the lengthy statement that dwelt very largely on the “back to work” theme was the commissioning of HST1, the prospect of a new North South Crossrail and additional funds for flood defences. All good news for the concrete farmers.

As far as greenness was concerned, there was little said but it is clear that the message concerning the long term availability of secure energy is now well embedded. A number of key issues were put forward:

  • Firstly there was the promise of a strike price for electricity that may bring the construction of new nuclear a little nearer. Without this underpinning of future revenues the private sector is always going to be shy of the massive investments needed with very long term recovery periods.
  • Secondly there was the promise of additional investment incentive for shale gas exploration. Shale gas has the potential to fill a difficult hole in energy supply whilst the nuclear builds take place. Hardly green but a pragmatic response badly needed.

One of the difficult issues our industry is going to face is the additional loss of leadership/sponsorship and infrastructure that civil servants have given us through departments such as DCLG, BIS and DECC. As their resources have been pared to the bone, it is unsurprising that delays associated with regulation, planning reform, energy reduction programmes (Green Deal for example) are becoming ever more visible. The question is do we have the energy will and resource to fill that void? The Chancellor specifically identified other industries as the future – “synthetic biology to grapheme” but did not repeat his earlier commitment to a zero carbon built environment.

In a nutshell my take-away from this statement is one of the need for self-reliance and the need to build better “regulation” from within our community rather than expect government to lead. Either that or don a cowboy hat.

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.

%d bloggers like this: