It seems that some building design software is helping builders all over the UK to keep to their old, outdated approach to the insulation of houses. I met a friend the other day who prepares home plans for building regs submission, and, since April last year the firm he works for has been sending their designs (prior to submission) over to a second firm who runs the proposal through software developed by a well known insulation manufacturer. Apparently what the software does is tot up the CO2 shortfall of the design (in this case just what they were doing before last April) then offer advice on how many solar panels (active or pv) can be put on the roof to offset the difference to save on using a better insulated wall/roof or whatever.

This not only smacks of dreadful cop-out in the extreme but harks back to the late eighties when builders were allowed to trade-off walls against windows etc.

I see at least two serious issues with this state of affairs:
1. this is probably the reason why the LCBP is over-subscribed. Actually being abused to let builders and their clients build building that don't meet the regulations.
2. the solar panels wood burning boiler or whatever is used is not part of the structure of the building so the homeowner could easily switch it off/remove/replace it at any time.

Someone told me there may be an amendment in the pipeline to close this loophole but why does the gov not target the software or insulation manufacturer/s for encouraging it?

I may be wrong about all the above. If I am no doubt you will all correct me. But if I'm not then I want to get this exposed in the next issue of BFF so any supporting feedback would be appreciated.

You might be right. I'll have to ask the EST but I think they are aware of the problems.

Why would an insulation manufacturer be trying to help builders reduce the levels of insulatio in their buildings?
I would have thought they would be happy to sell them as much as they want?

Also the LCBP is not open to residential builders it is only open to householders.

There are minimum elemental u values which I think are the pre 2006 Part L U values but you have to make a reduction over those levels and its the means of achieving those thats the problem.

That was me by the way. Forgot to log back in.

From Paul T.

When I perform SAP calculations I always ignore the U value calculations supplied to the Architects as the majority of them are optimistic (to say the least). Some Insulation suppliers also provide SAP calculations, with the condition that the builder uses their insualtion... It is the same system that allows valuers towork for estate agents... so no suprise there.

To , maybe digress, but relvant:

I have been giving SAP, Part L and the grant system some thought recently and have come to the conclusion that SAP is doing more harm than good. Because it is relatively complex very few people/inspectors understand it; leaving it open to abuse. Alllowing systems to fix poor insulation is also NOT SUSTAINABLE. This is then compounded by the grant system that rewards fitting systems instead of insulating. (eg £1500 for a heat pump, a complete nonsense).

My view is that the grants should be restricted to existing homes only and based on a pro-rata valuation of the amount of CO2 saved, irrespective (within reason) of the method used. This would then be adjusted for the full life cycle so passive and 'true' renewable measures are valued above systems that rely on non renewable energy (energy efficiency is not the same as sustainability - ?)

(As an aside one of the reasons I get realy anoyed is that my business - improving air tightness and designing HRV systems is hurt by clients getting grants for systems that save less CO2 than our solution based approach).

(also why VAT on insulation?)...

So my proposal for new buildings would be:

Part L is split into two parts
Passive (net heat loss / gain).
System performance - leading to total CO2 -energy performance of the building.

(Passive being insulation, thermal bridging, solar gain, air tioghtness and ventilation, the later being the one 'system' necessary to occupy an air tight building);

I would go so far as to say that if the Passive design was to a high level then the rest relatively insignificant (?); this is based on Mandatory A rated boilers anyway. The one possible provision could be a mandatory Solar system (or equivalent saving elsewhere).

The advantage would be a system that most professionals could actualy understand and 'future proof' buildings. It is worth noting that the EchoHomes/Sustainable homes code DOES assess the passive nature of the building.

My experience with builders is that if life is kept simple and everybody is being forced to insulate to the same high standards then they will get on with the job because it is a level playing field and, also, building controll will be able to enforce; something that is a huge problem at the moment.

Keith,
Thought this would make you smile, we are currently pricing a site that the land owner is demanding that we achieve code level 4 and also an indication of additional costs to achieve level 5. Playing with the Part L software we can easily achieve level 4 by using base Bregs u values but using a biomass community heating system for heating and hot water, this to me means a big cheat as the whole idea is to insulate so that heating not required, we also have to achieve renewable energy on the scheme so ticks that box as well. I wonder how many other developers will twig this loop hole?
Code level 5 is another issue either a massive windmill or £12K of pv's per home or who knows biomass CHP?

Paul T again.

Just worked through a SAP model for a Victorian terraced home:
105m2
double glazing
Solid walls - solid walls!!!!
current loft insulation

Wood pellet boiler and stove.
2 Kw Peak PV's

Zero Carbon home - according to SAP.

It simply does not matter how much heat you lose and you do not need to prove that the pellets or wood source is sustainable.

Posted By: Peter AKeith,
Thought this would make you smile, we are currently pricing a site that the land owner is demanding that we achieve code level 4 and also an indication of additional costs to achieve level 5. Playing with the Part L software we can easily achieve level 4 by using base Bregs u values but using a biomass community heating system for heating and hot water, this to me means a big cheat as the whole idea is to insulate so that heating not required, we also have to achieve renewable energy on the scheme so ticks that box as well. I wonder how many other developers will twig this loop hole?
Code level 5 is another issue either a massive windmill or £12K of pv's per home or who knows biomass CHP?

I don't believe it Peter. Can you send me a summary of how you got to that conclusion by e-mail please or by using the whisper option. The only way I've heard that code 4 can be achieved is by using passivhaus standards.

Also I would be grateful if you would write me a short story (by mid April if you can) on perhaps which walling methodology your company plans to approach the future of housebuilding. Mind you, if what you are saying is true it looks as if the good old cavity wall has a few years left in it yet! Give me a ring if you wish.

Keith will put something together that I believe developers will be using for walls with perhaps the steps that will be ahead. Could be really inflamatory and say "revert to b.regs standard and use biomass, job done until 2010 and with 1.5-2 kwp of pv's that's 2013 sorted, some off site generation and we're at 2016 with the same insulation standards as 2005!!!!!!!!!!"
Was going to whisper this one but the devil got the better of me!

Dear Guest and Student,
Bolt on technologies are after thoughts in the development of a sustainable design. Energy conservation and energy efficientcy are the first things that need to be considered. Space heating acounts for 60% of household energy consumption. Insulation and airtightness are the cheapest and most sustainable and durable means of reducing CO2 emissions. Next is energy efficient electrical goods, these are also cheaper than renewables (the reduced incidental gains also help to avoid over heating during the summer and thus reduces cooling loads). It's the laws of thermo dynamics that are at play here, not whimisical phobias of gadgets and technology.

Also you have to consider what happens when the renewable and alternative power source breaks down? BedZed hasn't managed to replace its failed woodchip boiler, some resident have even installed gas heating! As a consequence can not longer be regarded as zero carbon. The technology with no moving parts has the greatest longevity and the least maintenance concerns. Have a look at the German design standard known as PassivHaus and the work by the appropraite annex of International Energy Agency.

I'm suprise that you're tutors have been sucked into the trendy techno-babble and stopped asking how to achieve more with less resources. Don't get me wrong bolt-ons have there place, but only after you have minimised energy consumption. Especially electricity!

1900’s, 1950’s and 1970’s: Have a look at the refurb info on the Energy Saving Trust website. This may begin to point you in the right direction (no SAP ratings though.)

Hi Gideon here.

Very interesting debate. As SAP is about overall rating of the building there are bound to be crazy variations on the theme. I agree that we must start with the basics of insulation and for new build that should be passivhaus or some other pertinent method, however, for existing stock I must say that something is better than nothing. As for insulation and bridging over renewables, I am very concerned by the debate. We should not be blasting one as 'bad' and the other as 'good' or that one technology is 'rubbish' even when it doesn't make total sense! We need both.

As for smoke control areas. I can give chapter and verse on them, Guest! There are exempt appliances and more on the way, which will all biomass to be used in these areas. There are two issues as I see it, 1. there is too much reliance on outdated data, which does not explain the current emissions from modern highly efficient stoves and boilers and 2. There is so much pollution created by transport that local Air Quality Management Assessment (AQMA) areas are frightened of what biomass will do in areas where there AQMA it at its limits. Particulates are only one part of the equation, admittedly an important one, however, once the gas has gone it's gone!

Everything said about insulating, energy efficiency and technology at this stage in the game is being scutinised and used as a tool by those that are adverse to change. If we are going to move the agenda forward and look credible when talking to government, government departments, commerce and the public we must be careful how we proceed! Or we can solve the problem be going all Electric and put up lots more Nuclear power stations (not!) after all they too are carbon neutral, aren't they?

Remember the governments agenda is carbon savings to meet targets. Saving carbon will automatically make climate change happen won't it!!!!!!!

Buried in the Technical Guide for the Code (see all 200 plus pages in the download at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314116927.html for the definitive guidance) on page 29 you will see that the Heat Loss Parameter must be less than 0.8 in order to get to Code Level 6. So just changing fuel and adding PV will not get Code Level 6 if the fabric is poor. Without wishing to sound too smug, the people involved in the guidance did try pretty hard to cut out the really easy but wrong headed ways of getting to zero carbon.

Posted By: GuestSo just changing fuel and adding PV will not get Code Level 6 if the fabric is poor. Without wishing to sound too smug, the people involved in the guidance did try pretty hard to cut out the really easy but wrong headed ways of getting to zero carbon.

Dear Guest, reading between the lines you must have been one of those people who wrote the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Thanks for pointing out that zero carbon can't be achieved without improving the fabric, what about Code Level 4 and 5 is there a minimum Heat Loss Parameter requirement, can't find one, so my comment stands from earlier post that you can build to minimum building reg standard and still achieve code levels 4 and 5 by relying heavily on Biomass.
Really hope you prove me wrong.