But unless you have a clear idea of how you are going to achieve a low carbon building it is easy to get lost in the detail.

Here are six questions which can help structure your thinking from the outset.

6 principles of low carbon design

Does the design follow the carbon hierarchy? i) Reduce energy demand to the minimum and use passive heating and cooling, ii) Maximise use of renewable energy, iii) Maximise the efficient use of fossil fuels for any residual demand.

Is it “embedded” in the locality? We are used to the idea that buildings reflect the local vernacular. But they also need to reflect the local climate and potential renewable energy resource. There is no point in designing a building to use wood heating if the nearest source of wood is 100 miles away. Are there other renewable sources which would complement passive heating and cooling?

Will the building encourage energy and carbon saving behaviours? A super efficient, low carbon building can be ruined at a stroke if it doesn’t lead and encourage the occupants to use it in an energy and carbon efficient way. There are plenty of examples of occupants ripping out low carbon features to install energy intensive secondary heating and air conditioning.

Has it been designed to avoid climate obsolescence? This is not an easy one to get right, not least because of what could be increased variability in the weather as a consequence of changes in the climate system. Problems are often caused by focusing on one issue at the expense of others; so a number of schools designed to be low energy buildings have proved very susceptible to summer overheating.

Is it pleasant and desirable? No matter how good the environmental credentials if people don’t want to live and work in it isn’t “working”.

Does it draw on simple solutions first? You only have to spend a few minutes at any of the green building exhibitions to see that there are literally thousands of environmental products on offer. Appealing as they are the more gadgets you specify the more there is to go wrong and the more there “stuff” there is for the occupants to get to grips with, understand, service and repair.

Keep it simple and build your design around the basics; insulation (boring possibly, but effective undoubtedly), thermal mass, controlled ventilation, orientation and built form.

You can view other posts and resources here.

Though it sounds easy, dial meters can be fiddly and converting gas consumption from cubic feet or cubic meters into energy (kWh) involves a calculation.

So here is a quick guide (presentation) on taking accurate readings.

Non-domestic meters and tools and tips for monitoring oil consumption will be covered in other posts.

Read other posts and download resources from our blog here.

The switch from grant funded energy efficiency programmes to the “pay as you save” Green Deal marks a major change for councils, energy efficiency providers and householders. Unsurprisingly, many council members and officers are nervous about promoting the Green Deal and about householders accruing more debt at a time of widespread financial hardship.

CWL has been working with three local councils in the South West to develop a business plan for the Green Deal and ECO. Research for this project suggests that Green Deal providers are looking to develop partnerships with councils that have done their homework and know what they want from the Green Deal and particularly the ECO.

It is also clear that a failure to manage the transition from grant funded programmes risks a loss of the momentum needed to drive affordable energy programmes, and a breakdown in the referral networks that are crucial for identifying households most at risk and in need of energy efficiency improvements.

But the biggest concern remains that of fuel poverty. Domestic energy prices have doubled over the last 5 to 6 years and continue to rise. As more and more households move into fuel poverty the social, and health impacts, as well as damage to building fabric may not be immediately apparent. But previous slow-downs in measure installation have shown that these problems don’t go away and often precipitate more complicated and costly issues further down the line. For proactive councils there is the prospect of additional Government money to ease the introduction to the Green Deal and ECO.

Many may wish for the return of grant funded programmes, but for the time being at least it looks as if the Green Deal and ECO are here to stay. Planning how to make the best of this new approach looks to be sensible way forward.

For countries looking to become, or eager to hang on to their status as economic big hitters, high speed rail is today’s “must-have”. Done well it is an elegant, sophisticated, and efficient way to travel. But cheap it is not. The most recent phase comes with price tag of £32 billion, and in a country where space is at a premium new rail will always be controversial and unpopular with those living on or near the route.

The Birmingham to Manchester link announced in January won’t open before 2032, so with a 20 year journey time we had better be sure that we are getting on the right train before embarking.
The case for high speed rail in the UK is that it will increase business connectivity, deemed to be essential for the creation of jobs, prosperity and growth. The assumption being that better connectivity is about cutting travel times, and increasing the number of journeys we make, including commutes to and from work.

But if shorter journey times equals better business why not cut them to nothing? Right now I can use my laptop to speak to and see colleagues and clients all over the globe from the comfort of my office, or living room. A year ago I might have done this once or twice a month, now I Skype several times a week where before I would have travelled to a meeting in person. True the quality is not always great but it works, costs nothing more than my internet connection and saves me eons of time. That’s today, using my intel core whatever. What might I be able to do by 2032?

If Moore’s law holds good and the power of computers continues to double every two years then by 2031 my laptop or whatever I am using by then will be about 500 times more powerful than it is today. And if the opening of the HS2 happens to be delayed by a year or two the generation of computers after that should be twice as powerful again.

The point is that this change will happen anyway regardless of whether HS2 trains run or not. Will it replace the face to face meeting? I doubt it, we are social creatures after all, but it is already reducing the number of journeys I make in person and I expect it keep doing so.

Of course this connectivity doesn’t come carbon free – the virtual “cloud” connecting us all is driven by real servers springing up in deserts and industrial estates around the world, and these are now significant contributors to energy demand and pollution themselves. And more connectivity equals more computers which have to be manufactured and operated both energy and carbon intensive activities.

But this is not an “either-or”. HS2 is not a substitute for electronic networks – they will be built anyway, and building and operating high speed rail is itself energy and carbon intensive.

If the Government wants to improve connectivity it may just need to hold its nerve and let it happen. If it what is really wants is a boost to the economy why not start by insulating all the solid wall homes in the UK and upgrading the energy distribution network (grid)? Granted, neither has the glamour of rail but they are “shovel ready”, bring immediate benefits and are there is no danger of them becoming obsolete before they have even begun.

In typically moderate language, on the 19th September the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, in Boulder Colorado, reported that the extent of the arctic sea ice had settled at a record seasonal minimum. In other words it had reached its lowest recorded level.

This year’s minimum was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) and 18% below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007. It is also 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average.

So why does it matter? Here are five reasons:

One. It is a visible indication of climatic warming to date.
The summer melting of sea ice in the arctic is an indication of the responsiveness of key systems to warming to date. The poles are the most sensitive regions on the planet, due in part to ‘feedback loops’.

Ice is highly reflective, so between 40-70% of the sun’s radiation that reaches it is reflected back into space. But when it melts, the water which is exposed beneath it absorbs most of the radiation that reaches the surface (reflecting 15-40%) raising its temperature and leading to further thawing, creating a ‘positive feedback’ (which despite its name is not a good thing).

Two. Feedback in the arctic is accelerating the release of reserves of greenhouse gases.
As the arctic region has thawed large reserves of methane have begun leaking into the atmosphere. Methane is trapped in and beneath the permafrost overlying the Arctic’s sedimentary basins, and is common in the organic material previously deposited by glaciers, and in marshy lakes and ponds.

The frozen soil acts like a bathtub, holding water in the lake basins and preventing methane beneath the permafrost from percolating to the surface. When the permafrost thaws beneath lakes, gas-permeable chimneys open up, and the methane seeps out. The issue here is that methane is a potent greenhouse gas 25 to 28 more times as effective at retaining heat as carbon dioxide(1).

Three. It shows that current climate models of the arctic region are too conservative.
The summer melting of the arctic sea ice has been predicted for some time. But previous models projected that the arctic will not be ice free until 2030-40. Based on observations this summer the arctic is now expected to be ice free in the next four to five years. This shows that the climate models of this region have been too conservative and calls into question assumptions made about the rate of emission reductions needed to prevent an uncontrolled breakdown in the climate system.

Four. Changes in the arctic ocean are intimately linked to the climate system around it.
Antarctica and the Arctic are reacting differently to climate change partly because of geographical differences. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water, while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Wind and ocean currents around Antarctica isolate the continent from global weather patterns, keeping it cold. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean is intimately linked with the climate systems around it, making it more sensitive to changes in climate.

Research by the European Weather Centre suggests that there may be a connection between increased sea temperatures around the arctic and reduction in the area of the sea ice, and the likelihood of a poor summer in the UK and northern Europe (2).

Five. It is a litmus test of the political response to climate change.
There is deep concern amongst climate scientists about the events in the arctic this summer, yet from politicians the response has essentially been mute.

Evidence from the arctic combined with weather related events around the world this summer suggests that existing policies and targets (even if enforced) will be insufficient to prevent an uncontrolled breakdown in the climate system.

The message is clear. It is time to wake up and act.

Sources:
1: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/07/03/what-does-seeping-methane-mean-for-the-thawing-arctic/
2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19508603

Other sources:
National Snow and Ice Data Centre. http://nsicd.org/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change

Launched earlier this month, the Bristol Pound is a complementary local currency designed to support Bristol’s independent businesses, strengthen the local economy, keep our high streets diverse and distinct, and help build stronger communities.

It’s the UK’s first city wide local currency, the first to have electronic accounts managed by a regulated financial institution, and the first that can be used to pay some local taxes.The Bristol Pound is run as a partnership between the Bristol Pound Community Interest Company and Bristol Credit Union and is  a not-for-profit social enterprise.

What encouraged us to join was the fact that money can be transferred electronically, and easily exchanged with sterling, and with the backing of businesses across the city and the city council there is a real opportunity to boost local enterprise.

What’s more the notes are thought provoking and beautiful.

Since the London Borough of Merton first introduced the ‘Merton Rule’ in 2003 the vast majority of LAs in England have introduced similar policies. Mostly these require new developments to achieve a reduction in predicted emissions of carbon dioxide through the use of on-site or building integrated renewable energy systems.

Despite being so widely adopted, up until now it has been unclear is whether these policies actually result in the required, 10, 15, or 20% reduction in emissions they are intended to produce.

Research by Climate Works Ltd with Impetus Consulting on behalf of South Cambridgeshire D.C. and three neighbouring authorities suggests that Merton Rule policies are resulting in the installation of on-site renewable energy technologies, but unlikely to be generating sufficient energy to meet specified carbon reductions.

In non-domestic buildings this is partly due to the use of ‘back-up’ systems, which are often used in place of the lead renewable energy system wiping out intended carbon savings. This highlights a key problem for local planning authorities; how can Merton Rule policies be monitored and enforced?

The use of renewable systems in domestic dwellings may be less complicated than non-domestic buildings, but it is clear that developers have yet to fully accept or embrace renewables in new homes and regard them as a negative rather than a positive selling point. Furthermore developers are now able to build to the equivalent of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and in some cases 4 without incorporating on-site renewables into the design, meaning that without some form of policy intervention the use of renewables in new homes cannot be assured.

Taking account of these and other issues such as upfront cost, and the need to avoid overlap with the next revision to Building Regulations, we have suggested that Merton Rule policies in Cambridgeshire are amended so that a 10% reduction in total carbon emissions is met through:

‣ PV and/or solar thermal in the domestic sector (with the policy applying to all new developments), with a requirement that a solar energy display or readout is provided for each property;

‣ PV in the non domestic sector (applying to all developments over 1000 sq m), with a requirement for there to be prominent signage, stating that the building is meeting part of its regulated energy demand from renewable energy, with a readout or display.

This marks a step change from existing policies which will be unpopular with some developers. But it is clear that in their present form Merton Rule policies have significant shortcomings. Solar thermal and PV are both mature technologies which are popular with users, require minimum levels of user intervention and provide developers and LPAs with quality assurance and monitoring when combined with the Clean Energy Cashback scheme and the Renewable Heat Incentive.

This project was developed as part of the Climate Change Skills Fund. The fund is managed by Sustainability East on behalf of Improvement East.

You can view the Executive Summary here and download the full report here.

In this edition:

GreenTalk – ‘radical’, ‘inspiring’ and short!

When is PV on churches a good deal?

8 habits of highly effective carbon reduction in schools.

Farm renewables: Beware white elephants and expensive mistakes.

Policy: Greener leaner development in urban areas.

Comment: Are government proposals to raise the motorway speed limit a ploy to addressing flagging sales of petrol and diesel?

And is the Code for Sustainable Homes a creaking door?

Plus staff and other news.

As September segued into June and another UK temperature record fell the Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced plans to consult on raising the motorway speed limit from 70 to 80mph.

The announcement coincides with government figures showing a slump in sales of petrol and diesel which according to the AA has deprived the Treasury of almost £1bn in fuel duty over the first six months of the year (1).

Increasing the limit by 10mph means that given an empty stretch of motorway, you could shave very nearly eleven minutes off a 100 mile journey (2). The Government thinks this will bring ‘huge economic benefits’ and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds to the economy. But don’t start planning how you’ll use all that free time just yet.

Contrary to what might be expected a higher speed limit is more likely to increase congestion and journey times than reduce them.

As speed increases so too do the typical (safe) stopping distances between vehicles (3). This reduces the number of cars you can slot into any stretch of road. Move up from 70mph to 80mph and it drops from 16 cars per mile (4) (of motorway lane) to 13 (and just 6.5 when wet and stopping distances double). That may not sound much but that’s 300 fewer cars per 100 miles of motorway lane on a dry day which adds about another mile (5) of tailback leading to more not less congestion.

Then there is safety. We can expect a big dust-up between the petrol heads and road safety campaigners on this one. But whatever the arguments about improvements in vehicle design, there’s some basic physics which may be a bit dry, but can’t be ignored.

The energy of a moving vehicle increases in proportion to the square of its speed. This means that a one tonne car travelling at 80mph has 35% more kinetic energy than one travelling at 70mph (6). So what? In energy terms that’s equivalent to dumping 350kg (7) of cement in back of the car and driving at 70.

That’s a lot of extra energy to get rid of in the event of a crash.

Given that people’s reaction times don’t speed-up as you go faster, it will be interesting to hear the views of the NHS and emergency services on a higher speed limit as they will be ones picking up the pieces, and the cost of any reduction in safety. The Department for Transport certainly used to think that speed was a significant risk factor in road safety. Why else install speed cameras and run TV adverts reminding us that ‘Speed Kills’?

So what’s behind this proposal? The real reason may be to do with fuel consumption, and another dry but revealing characteristic of moving vehicles.

The power required by a car on a motorway is roughly proportional to the cube of its speed. What this means in practice is that at 70mph a typical car requires about 80kW of power to push it along. At 80mph this increases one and half times to 120kW (8) of power. (That’s the same power requirement as 120 one bar electric fires turned on at the same time, or 1200 incandescent 100W light bulbs). More power means more energy consumption per hour (see footnote (9) for just how much) and more fuel consumption.

So raise the speed limit for the fleet of cars and motorcycles in England and Wales and at a stroke you dramatically increase the amount of fuel consumed. Of course officials in the Department for Transport (at least in Scotland), know this. There you’ll find signs on the motorway encouraging drivers to slow down to 60mph to save fuel which indeed it does by more than halving the power required to drive at 80mph (10).

So it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that this is simply a ploy to put more money in the Treasury’s coffers by getting us to buy more fuel.

Aside from the fact that it is likely to achieve very little of positive benefit, it drives a Chelsea Tractor through the Government’s claim to want to be the greenest ever and to be serious about responding to climate change. Will the emission increases from higher fuel consumption be met by reductions elsewhere in the economy? If so from where? And does this indicate a shift in policy so that action on climate change is no-longer a priority and government departments such as the DfT may now treat this as optional?

Climate change is as real as the economic crisis. It requires real solutions that add up, and which cannot be put on hold until the economy is fixed. It is possible to align the solutions to both the financial and climate crisis, thereby cutting emissions, improving our energy security, saving money and creating new jobs. Raising the speed limit does none of these. Insulating the nation’s homes so they are fit for purpose, rebuilding our energy infrastructure to name but two, could.

At a time when the pain of government cuts is being felt across the country it is galling to see time, effort and money being diverted into a flawed consultation.

© Climate Works Ltd, October 2011.

Footnotes and sources

(1) Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/cash-­‐strapped-­‐drivers-­‐cut-­‐petrol-­‐use-­‐by-­‐15-­‐per-­‐cent

(2) Time = distance/speed

So at 70mph time = 100/70 = 1.43 hours = 85.8mins

And at 80mph time = 100/80 = 1.25 hours = 75mins

Difference = 10.8mins

(3) Safe stopping distance at 60mph (dry) = 73m

And at 70mph (dry) = 96m

Source: Direct gov – The Highway Code. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070304

Estimated stopping distance at 80mph = 400ft = 122m

Source: Various sources. Consensus seems to be that typical (dry) stopping distance at 80mph is 400ft.

According to the highway code stopping distances are double in wet conditions.

(4) Cars per mile.

Assume length of average car is 4m

At 70mph car plus typical stopping distance is 96m + 4m = 100m

Cars per mile = 1609/100 = 16

At 70mph (wet) car plus typical stopping distance is 192 + 4 = 196m

Cars per mile = 1609/196=8

At 80mph car plus typical stopping distance (dry) is 122m + 4m = 126m

Cars per mile = 1609/126=12.8=13

At 80mph (wet) car plus typical stopping distance is 244m + 4m = 248m

Cars per mile = 1609/248 = 6.5

1 mile = 1609m

Source: Average length of car – Highway Code.

(5) Additional tail back with 80mph speed limit.

Assume average car is 4m in length and average space between cars is 2m.

300 cars require 300 x 6m = 1800m = 1.1miles

(6) Kinetic energy of a moving vehicle = ½mv⌃2

So for a one tonne car moving at 70mph (31 m/s) the kinetic energy of the vehicle is:

1/2 x 1000 x 31 x 31 = 480,500 Joules = 0.13kWh

And at 80mph (36m/s) the kinetic energy is:

1/2 x 1000 x 36 x 36 = 648,000 Joules = 0.18kWh

((648,000-480,500)/480,500) x 100 = 34.86% ≈ 35%

(7) To increase the kinetic energy of a one tonne car travelling at 70mph (31m/s) add 350kg to the mass of the car.

New mass of the car  = (648000/(31 x 31)) x 2 = 1349kg ≈ 1350kg

(8) The power consumed by the engine is estimated to be roughly:

4 x ½ρAv⌃3 where A is the frontal area of the car, v is speed in meters per second and ρ is the density of air (kg per cubic meter).

Assume the frontal area of a typical car to be 1 sq meter and the density of air to be 1.3kg per cubic meter

So at 70mph (31m/s)the sum is:

2 x 1.3 x 1 x 31 x 31 x 31 = 77.5 kW ≈ 80kW

And at 80mph (36m/s) the sum is:

2 x 1.3 x 1 x 36 x 36 x 36 = 121kW ≈ 120kW

And at 60mph (27m/s) the sum is:

2 x 1.3 x 1 x 27 x 27 x 27 = 51kW ≈ 50 kW

Source (equation): Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, Cars II, page 256, MacKay, David, J.C.

These calculations ignore rolling resistance which increases the power requirement by about 15% when travelling at constant speed.

(9) How much energy is required to drive 100 miles at 60mph, 70mph and 80mph?

At 60mph it takes 1.67 hours to complete the journey.

At 70mph 1.43 hours and at 80mph 1.25 hours

The energy needed to make the journey is given by the equation: Power x time

So at 60mph the energy = 50kW x 1.67 = 83.5kWh

And at 70mph = 80kW x 1.43 = 114kWh

And at 80mph = 120kW x 1.25 = 150kWh

In each case we ignore rolling resistance which adds about 15% to these figures.

So driving at 80 rather than 70mph adds roughly 36kWh to the energy required to push the air out of the way. But these figures ignore the efficiency of the engine.

If we assume this is 25% then the energy required to push the car along (again ignoring rolling resistance) is:

At 60mph: Energy required = 83.5kWh x (100/25) = 334kWh

At 70mph Energy required = 114kWh x (100/25) = 456kWh

At 80mph Energy required = 150kWh x (100/25) = 600kWh

A one bar (1kW) electric fire will consume 1kWh of energy if running for one hour. So the energy required to complete 100 miles at 80mph is equivalent to running a one bar fire for 600 hours or 600 one bar fires for one hour.

(10) – See footnotes 8 and 9 above.

Our new address will be:

Climate Works Ltd,

CREATE Centre,

Smeaton Road,

Bristol, BS1 6XN.

Tel: 0117 903 0361.

Please update your records accordingly.