There is a lot of stuff going on in the world of energy in buildings and we are slowly moving in the right direction. We have tried every other option, but we are finally acknowledging that we need to electrify heating in almost all buildings. The Building Regulation updates are going to lock that in for new build and then things will move fast.
There are still two areas that we are still behind on:
- Fabric First – Stop
Firstly, there is the issue of “fabric first,” the principle that improving existing buildings should always start with the fabric. This mantra was based on the logic that it is better not to use energy than to generate more. It sounds sensible, but really the question should be overall is it better to generate an additional unit of energy or to reduce demand by a unit of energy. (You can include in that question, cost, environmental impact, etc.) As solar has got cheaper, the balance has tilted. I won’t go into more detail, as Nigel Banks and others have explained this very well, but it is still be chanted by the new government.
2. When, not how much
Secondly, is that the big issue for our net zero future will not be the amount of electricity you use that will matter; it will be when. There is no meaningful limit to how much wind and solar power we can generate, and it will get cheaper forever. But, as everyone knows, there are times when the wind aint blowing and the sun aint shining. (With nuclear it is the opposite issue of being difficult to turn down/off.) That means in the future the crucial role consumers and most organisations will play is in helping to balance their demand with the supply. We see early steps already as residents with electric cars and heat pumps use variable energy prices to charge their car cheaply overnight or heat the hot water tank when their solar system is generating. We are just at the start of this; in a decade it will be almost all we are concerned about.
The problem is that, even now, planning policies, building regulations and industry net zero standards simply are not acknowledging this at all, or at least not enough. We wasted the 2010s by not acknowledging the inevitable logic of electrification. I am desperate for us to avoid another lost decade of focus on energy efficiency, before we realise energy supply is effectively infinite, it is just intermittent.
Examples
Examples of where this needs to change are across the board:
Building Regulations
The consultation on the new Part L in England came out last Christmas. It is intended to set a standard for new homes to be “net zero ready.”
An interesting area in the consultation is the analysis on fabric standards. The values proposed are “worse” than were suggested in the 2019 consultation and no better than current regs. There has been vociferous criticism of this, but the consultation explains several reasons, including:
“Grid decarbonisation also means that fabric improvements are increasingly not a cost-effective intervention to reduce carbon. This means that as we increase fabric beyond the proposed level, the monetary value of carbon saved by increasing fabric efficiency is less than the cost of installing that additional fabric. As such, there are other interventions that decrease carbon and consumer bills in a more cost-effective way, such as (above) switching heat source and including solar PV panels.”
Nigel Banks analysis echoes this, but this still isn’t being picked up. Anyway, back to the when of energy.
In the new proposed Regulations, you are still in a situation where installing a battery will not show up as offering a benefit for GHG emissions and supporting the future grid decarbonisation. Despite the new modelling software being half-hourly, there is still no suggestion of it incorporating variable energy prices or CO2 emission factors, to support demand when there is lots of solar and wind and vice-versa. The software will estimate the energy bill on the principle of a single energy price and your CO2 emissions on an average annual factor. It will be wrong.
These options aren’t addressed in the consultation.
Planning Policy
There are several new Local Plans coming forward in a similar vein for homes, with some very low space heating targets for housing and an aim to generate as much energy as they use. (E.G. See Bristol, Cornwall, Essex, Greater Manchester, etc.) They all draw on similar evidence bases and often involve some of the people and organisations I respect most in the sector, such as LETI.
There is normally reference to reducing peak demand and being flexible, but the real focus is on space heating demand and energy generation.
The fabric standards required to hit the targets, (~15-20kWh.m2.yr), are very high; almost Passivhaus level. But as the government and other analysis concluded these standards are counter-productive, being more expensive and carbon intensive to install than the savings, why are they being recommended?
The demand to generate as much energy as a building uses also seems logical on the face of it; that way there is no extra generation required and it is zero carbon. It isn’t like that; solar power is the only option on most buildings. Solar power is great, but it generates much more energy in the summer than winter, meaning its deployment requires additional back-up / top-up generation elsewhere. Also, our energy system uses most fossil fuels in the winter, in the evenings, just when solar isn’t helping. This means that solar is generated when our grid is already low carbon and not when it is high carbon. Even on a simple net basis, over the year you would still have significant CO2 emissions.
Planning policy needs to focus on the need for new buildings and whole developments to be flexible about when they use energy, rewarding demand side technologies and energy storage.
CRREM (Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor) and SBTi
CRREM and sets out trajectories for different building types to decarbonise in line with the aim to limit global warming to 1.5OC. In principle it is simple, each year the target for CO2 intensity (kgCO2.m2.yr) emissions per m2 declines, as does the energy use intensity target (kWh.m2.yr) I have pasted a trajectory below as an example on energy use intensity.
For your building to be on target it must be on or below the line to 2050. When it rises above the line it is at risk of being “stranded.” It is difficult to overestimate its influence; it is increasingly the benchmark for assessing environmental performance of buildings for sale/purchase and major funds are investing massive amounts to get their portfolios aligned to it.
There are two areas where it needs to change:
- Remove the Energy Use Intensity Target – Whilst a global budget for CO2 emissions makes sense; global warming is directly related to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, there is no budget for energy use. CRREM assumes that we must reduce energy use to a certain level to be aligned with 1.5 degrees of global warming, but there is no limit to how much renewable energy we can generate. The real issue is that the energy generation is intermittent and needs balancing.
- Introduce Energy flexibility targets – This could be a peak demand figure and energy flexibility metric. This would recognise that the ability to change demand at times of need is the most crucial contribution buildings can make.
UK Net Zero Carbon Building Standard
The UK Net Zero Carbon Building standard is due soon and has already confirmed that it will follow the same principle as CRREM. To have a net zero badge a building will need to reduce CO2 emissions to a certain level and energy use intensity. The flaw is identical to CRREM. No limits for peak demand are set and none for flexibility of demand.
I hope this standard will be able to evolve, but it is a shame such an influential standard will not regulate for this on day one.
Corporate Reporting
Finally, on corporate reporting, almost all organisations, including my own, report our CO2 emissions using an annual emission factor, rather than the varying reality. This means there is no incentive from this perspective to be flexible around energy demand or to use energy storage. For energy intense industries, the energy price fluctuations already incentivise some flexibility, but for most business this is not effective.
The carbon intensity of our electrical grid is freely available at ten-minute intervals; it is easy to report your emissions based on real time emission factors and would reward companies for increasing demand when there is lots of wind and solar and vice versa. This corporate reporting can then feed into Science Based Targets
Conclusion
For our wonderful, abundant, very wealthy net zero future, we are making steps in the right direction. Renewable electricity generation is growing and we are electrifying much use. We have even been fairly energy efficient, with electricity demand declining about 25% since 2008, albeit partially due to deindustrialisation. I am supportive of energy efficiency, what I am saying is that when you use energy is as important as how much. Our policies need to recognise that.
Leave a Reply