|
|
2. Zero Carbon Buildings
Offsite Renewables not allowed
There’s been a debate over Merton Council’s ‘10%
from renewables’ rule, and over whether green power could be imported
from remote offsite renewable generators to meet it, and then over the
governments new target of having all new build attain zero emissions
by 2016. Under pressure to clarify her Departments position, the Minister,
Yvette Cooper, insisted that she strongly supported the Merton Rule
but also indicated that long distance imports should not be eligible.
She wrote to the Guardian (7/12/07) saying ‘Councils need to continue
to set Merton rules on the proportion of renewable energy supplied directly
to developments from local sources. An offshore wind farm would not
count.’ She added ‘We need councils to do far more to promote
the use of decentralized renewable and low carbon energy, looking at
community energy schemes like combined heat and power plants, as well
as micro-generation’.
In her letter on the rules, to Merton Council, she commented ‘we
believe they should be sufficiently flexible to allow for offsite as
well as on site renewables and councils should consider wider local
low carbon opportunities. The emphasis should be on minimising carbon
emission and maximizing the scope for innovation.’ The British
Property Federation welcomed what it evidently saw as a relaxation of
an otherwise too constraining rule- not all sites were suitable to deliver
enough power from on-house wind, solar etc . But that still means they
can’t make use of remote sources.
In Dec. Cooper published the new Planning Policy Statement on Climate
change, which adopts a ‘Merton plus’ approach.
Zero Carbon Buildings Offsite or on site renewables?
The new report from RAB, the Renewables Advisory Board (see below),
argues that the contribution from “offsite” renewable energy
generation to the delivery of zero carbon homes should be kept to a
minimum i.e. they shouldn’t import power from remote renewable
generators, but should do it themselves, using domestic-scale micro-generation
(e.g. PV solar, micro wind, and micro-CHP).
Micropower enthusiasts were clearly very pleased: there had been lobbying
against the building trade, who, worried about the extra cost of having
to install integrated renewables, were calling for imports to be allowed.
Jeremy Leggett, (then) CEO of leading PV installer Solar Century said
‘At last, here is a serious, independent piece of work which confirms
what I and others in this industry have been saying for many years.
The onsite renewable technologies are out there, they work, they’re
practical, and they’re reliable. The sheer weight of evidence
presented will surely encourage the Government that incorporating renewables
on site is a completely viable option in delivering its zero carbon
homes target. Surely now, we will hear no more about how remote “offsite”
renewables such as wind farms might need to be included in the definition
of zero carbon buildings. We really can go zero, and our ailing planet
needs us to.’
Solar Century note that the Zero carbon standards will involve a high
uptake for solar PV ‘because it requires no added space and can
be integrated into the fabric of the building’. The report suggests
that solar PV could be installed on 70% of new homes (i.e. 200,000 per
year) from 2016 and over 2 million PV systems could be installed on
new build housing by 2025. The report sees micro wind as less attractive,
but micro CHP is seen as playing a significant role. There’s talk
of 20GW or more being installed. Micro-CHP was initially pushed by British
Gas, maybe keen to eat into the electricity market, but it has now abandoned
its Microgen project. Powergen is still developing its Whispergen, but
some of the electricity utilities and generators may actually be less
happy with on site micro power- since it could eat into the market for
power from their grid-linked renewables like wind farms. If the new
build housing market (and presumably also a growing part of the retrofitted
existing housing sector) is lost to them, that might cut their market
share, although it’s likely that demand for electricity from renewables
from the rest of the economy will more than suffice.
Conflicting pathways However the On-Site/Offsite generation issue also
raises wider concerns. One way to balance the variable power output
from some large offsite renewables, like wind farms, is by storing some
of the energy as heat in domestic boilers and by interactive management
(re-phasing) of their energy demands. If the housing sector becomes,
in effect, mostly autonomous with no, or few, imports, these interactive/balancing
opportunities are reduced. Individual houses can of course have smart
plugs and heat stores, or, more efficiently, maybe there can be grouped
heat stores at street/community level so enabling some local balancing.
This may make sense for solar heating, although large scale CSP buffs
might not agree- they want us to import power from N Africa! But in
most other cases, PV apart, in general there are still economies of
scale- large wind turbines are very much more efficient that micro wind
units, and medium scale community CHP is much more efficient that micro
CHP. Indeed, a case can be made for city-wide CHP with large 600 kW
power plants- as Orchard partners have argued recently in evidence to
the Select Committee on the Environment. But then the RAB report calls
for biomass-fuelled CHP- which is a whole new game. So we may be entering
uncharted territory- and it may not be just about banning electricity
imports: we’ve heard rumbles from some eco-groups, keen to push
full adoption of on-site renewables, about calling for a ban on gas
links to new houses. So much for the longer term prospects for hydrogen!
Zero carbon homes RAB see gap
A report from the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB), which advises Government
on renewable energy issues, looks at the role of ‘on site’
energy generation, e.g. domestic scale renewables/micropower, in the
delivery of the Government’s policy of ensuring that all new homes
are zero carbon from 2016. Amongst it key findings is the conclusion
that the electricity load created by appliances means that ‘renewables
are essential to meet zero carbon standards even where homes are built
to the highest levels of energy efficiency’.
In theory this power could be supplied via the grid from larger renewable
energy projects elsewhere, but this report, which was produced for RAB
by Element Energy, focusses on self-generation on site. It argues that,
though this approach may initially be more expensive, it will help build
a market for the new micropower technologies, so that prices fall- a
‘technology forcing’ approach, helping them move down their
learning curves. However, as things stand, it will be a slow process.
The report’s modelling suggests that the proposed timescale of
the Government’s green homes policy, which is based on new low
carbon regulations and planning rules, will create ‘very little
demand for renewable energy until 2016’. But if the programme
works, ‘from 2016 the market for onsite renewables rises dramatically
and could be worth between £1.4 bn and £3 bn a year, with
the base case estimating a market of £2.3 bn a year’. But
RAB says there could be constraints, since the projected annual uptake
of on-site generation ‘is greater than UK manufacturing capacity
for all renewable energy technology, and greater than global manufacturing
capacity for a number of the most cost effective technologies’.
So a gap could open up.
The report suggests that technologies that are likely to experience
the highest levels of uptake are biomass combined heat and power (installed
in around 120,000 dwellings by 2016) and solar photovoltaics (around
220,000 units by 2016). Micro wind doesn’t fare so well- only
around 20,000 units by 2016. Solar heating is even smaller. All of this
assumes a big jump from the very much lower levels in each case reached
by 2013- in response to the requirement in the governments zero carbon
housing plans to move to 100% zero emissions by 2016. By then, all new
houses are expected to reach level 6, as set out in the Code for Sustainable
Home. RAB clearly feels that as things stand, this jump is likely to
be too big. In particular it warns the adoption trends it outlines are
‘sensitive to the level at which government allows offsite generation’-
there has been a lot of lobbying from the building industry for the
latter on the grounds of costs. Instead it wants to ensure that the
development of micropower is speeded up, with offsite power inputs avoided.
Matthew Spencer, RAB microgeneration working group chair said: ‘The
zero carbon policy is long-sighted and bold, and could produce big environmental
benefits in existing and new homes if it is used to accelerate the development
of decentralised energy services and technology. However the Government’s
current timescale postpones much of the hard work until 2016, with little
opportunity to learn or build capacity in the UK onsite renewables sector
in the next eight years. If left unaddressed this could slow house building
but we think there are options to overcome this supply gap. This includes
using the planning system to require earlier uptake of renewable energy
in larger housing developments.’
Speed it up
The report says the average cost of meeting zero carbon standards from
on site renewables is expected to be ‘£6,000 per dwelling,
with higher costs for small urban developments and the lowest costs
for large rural developments’. However that all depends on how
rapid the uptake is. The RAB report claims that if demand is not accelerated
there will not be enough economic technology to meet the target of zero
emissions by 2016. It therefore argues for a change in the proposed
policy ‘to create earlier stimulation for onsite renewable energy
e.g., encouraging local authorities to use the planning system to require
zero carbon standards in the largest housing developments in advance
of 2016’. In addition it wants to see accelerated technological
and commercial development of Biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
e.g. ‘making deployment of biomass CHP a priority of the Environmental
Transformation Fund’. It also want to ‘minimise the use
of remote offsite energy generation in meeting zero carbon standards
e.g. by settting a tight cap on its use and a high ‘buy-out’
cost for any offsite generation fund’.
Clearly then they want the housing sector to deal with its energy problems
directly and soon, and so they call for the use of imported power from
remote off site generators to be limited, although they do say that
there could be a role for local offsite power. This does seem to be
how the government see it. In Nov., Minister Yvette Cooper told Prospect
magazine ‘We won’t allow offsetting with a wind turbine
in Cornwall; we want to promote real energy innovation at the local
level’, although that presumably could involve some local offsite
generation.
RAB acknowledge that their proposed approach involves a strategic trade
off between on the one hand getting ‘technology forcing’
for mainstream grid linked renewables, and on the other hand, the technology
forcing that would occur if the power came from on-site renewables.
But they come down on the side of the latter, since they say the former
has the benefits on wider support under the Renewables Obligation (RO).
Could forcing work?
RAB’s ‘technology forcing’ approach has some similarities
with what was done in Germany, with its 100,000 PV roof programmes.
But that was aided by the Renewable Energy Feed In-Tariff, which gives
a clear incentive for generation using PV and other renewables: it means
that self-generators can earn extra by exporting any excess power. By
contrast, RABs approach seems to be based mainly on the use of regulations
and planning rules, although DBERR has been trying to ensure that domestic/small
self- generators can earn reasonable amounts from any export via adjustments
to the RO. But it’s been an uphill struggle so far, not helped
by the cut in grant levels for house-holders under the Low Carbon Building
Programme. Whether RABs new proposals for using the regulations to force
the pace even faster will work, much less be acceptable to the building
industry, remains to be seen.
It’s also unclear if it will be feasible to get most of the renewable
energy needed just from on site generation- or whether that is actually
a sensible idea. The construction industry may just be trying to dodge
extra costs, but it is reasonable to ask- what is wrong with importing
power from remote wind farms, wave farms, tidal farms- if using those
resources is more efficient and cost effective than say PV solar on
houses? The RAB scenario is dominated by PV, the cost of which dominates
the whole programme- PV installation costs, in new build, total around
£820m p.a. by 2016, compared to only £520m p.a. for biomass
CHP. PV costs would of course fall if the market expanded on the scale
planned, but it would still be expensive. The RAB report claims that
solar heating is much less cost effective as a carbon abatement option
and while it may play a role earlier on, it won’t be used that
much for the level 6 projects. Presumably in part this is because solar
heat only substitutes for gas heating, whereas PV and other micropower
units are seen as replacing coal derived electricity- which is more
carbon intense. RAB also think that ground source heat pumps wont play
much of a role at level 6, since they need electricity which, if it
is to come from on site generation, will be constrained at that level.
This sort of constraint seems rather counter-productive- is it so vital
for houses to generate all their power? Is demand from other sectors
going to be so great that all the remote large scale renewables must
be reserved to meet it?
It’s a good general principle that they should generate as much
as they can themselves, but since we also want to upgrade existing houses,
a bit of flexibility is needed. RAB in fact mention a 50% cap on off-site
imported power, which seems reasonable.
For the RAB report see: www.renewables-advisory-board.org.uk/
Merton Rule Battles
The Merton rule, requiring developers to get 10% of the energy used
in new non-residential buildings from renewables, has been stoutly defended
by a group of MPs led by Tory Michael Fallon who has tabled a Private
members bill, co-sponsored by John Battle, one time Labour Energy Minister
and backed by ex-environment ministers Michael Meacher (L), John Gummer
(C) and Elliot Morley (L), plus Lib Dem Chris Huhne.
The Building industry says that this would be too expensive and has
argued for allowing some imports from remote offsite renewables- and
there were worries that the government might back down (see later report).
The Merton rule only applies to non residential buildings but it’s
been copied by150 or so other UK councils, and it’s seen as a
crucial issue for how the new ‘Zero Carbon Homes’ programme
unfolds.
Merton rule supporters say that remote offsetting in this way is just
ducking out of developers responsibilities- and will not help increase
the total amount of renewables in place, since the remote wind farms
etc. will happen anyway. It’s also been argued that the Merton
approach will encourage developers to think about energy efficient buildings-
in order to reduce the amount they have to spend on high-cost onsite
renewables. However, the RAB report’s analysis (p.6) of the need
to resist imports of offsite renewables and to get on-site power for
all new build by 2016, takes this argument to the next stage- in effect
from 10% to 100%. That may raise some eyebrows, since, even if prices
(e.g. for PV) are forced down by this ruling, 100% may not be technically
optimal or realistic in practice by 2016. But that does not mean that
the Merton Rule should not be defended- it’s a step in the right
direction, and local councils ought to be allowed to set standards as
they see fit, and even go faster. As Fallon put it, his proposed Bill
would enable local councils ‘to reach beyond the minimum standards
set by the government. It encourages localism.’
How far you can go like this is debatable. But to some extent, the battle
over Merton and RABs views misses the point- new build is only about
2% of housing stock each year. What matters more is the upgrading of
existing houses- and even new houses.
Green Building battles
EU and UK legislation on planning regulations and building standards
have already resulted in a 14% increase in build costs, a figure which
could rise to more than 60%, if the new BRE Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) standards of excellence are met, according to Miller
Developments, a division of Miller, the UK’s largest privately
owned property development and construction company. Phil Miller, Miller
developments CEO, told the Sunday Telegraph (28/10/07): ‘There
seem to be lots of authorities competing with each other to set higher
targets without listening to the industry and finding out whether these
targets are viable. European targets are now coming through in both
planning and building regulations, but they are coming though in a very
disorganised way.’
Miller based his calculations on a notional 50,000 sq. ft office building
and found that just meeting current targets for on-site power generation
would add 6% to build costs, and achieving 27% CO2 savings would add
an extra 8%. The extra 14% would be needed to pay for technology like
ground-source heating, high-performance glass and energy-efficient heating/cooling
plants. If the new BREEAM guidelines are met, the costs could rise by
60%.
There have been industry pressures to recind policies such as the Merton
Rule which stipulates that new developments must generate 10% of their
energy through on-site renewables. But in a letter to Merton Council
the Minister Yvette Cooper said: ‘Let me assure you the Merton
Rule will not be scrapped, despite reports to the contrary. The Merton
Rule has acted as a real incentive to provide local renewable energy
and cut carbon emissions’. And answering a Parliamentary Question
on Oct 24th, she said ‘The consultation draft of the planning
policy statement(PPS): planning and climate change, sought views on
the proposal that local planning authorities should ensure that a significant
proportion of the energy supply of substantial new development is gained
on-site and renewably and/or from a decentralised, renewable or low-carbon,
energy supply. Of the 324 consultation responses received, 52% of respondents
agreed with this approach and 6% disagreed. No non-governmental organisation
disagreed with the approach.’
In Dec, the new Planning Policy Statement on Climate change emerged,
calling on councils to boost the use of on-site renewable energy and
local community energy schemes to help cut carbon emissions from new
developments (details in Renew 173). However some still detect pressures
to water down the targets. Andrew Warren, director of the Association
for the Conservation of Energy, said that not only are minimum standards
too low, but the Government is refusing to let local councils adopt
higher standards because of their drive to build huge quantities of
new homes. ‘You either get cheap, quick and dirty, or you go slower
and get it right. At the moment the need for volume is taking precedence
over energy efficiency.’
* Asked in the Commons last Oct. about the impact of energy standards
on the energy performance of buildings, Minister Iain Wright said:‘Since
April 2007 when the Code for Sustainable Homes was introduced in England,
all Government-funded homes and homes built on land owned by English
Partnerships will be built to Code level 3, which is a 25% improvement
minimum energy efficiency standards set down in Part L of the Building
Regulations. It is too early to say what proportion of private sector
housing will be built to Code level 3. All new homes, whether built
by the private or public sector, are required to meet the minimum energy
efficiency standards set down in Part L of the Building Regulations.
Following extensive consultation with the home building industry, environmental
groups and other stakeholders, on 23 July 2007 the Government confirmed,
in its Housing Green Paper, its intention to increase the energy efficiency
standards of new homes above 2006 levels by 25 % in 2010, 44% in 2013
and for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016.’
Micro wind doubts
A report on ‘Micro-wind turbines in the urban environment’
by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Trust suggests that in
many urban areas they are unlikely to pay back either their carbon emissions
or the home owner’s costs for installation and maintenance. It
looks at both the carbon and financial payback times that can be expected
from typical domestic micro-wind turbines in a range of representative
locations in Manchester, Portsmouth and Wick, and compares the financial
and carbon costs of manufacture, installation and maintenance with the
likely carbon and cost savings made by the electricity generated during
their useful life. It found that in windy locations such as the outskirts
of Wick and parts of Portsmouth, micro-wind turbines can generate enough
energy to pay back their carbon costs within a few months to a few years,
but in large, less windy urban areas like Manchester they are very unlikely
to ever pay back their carbon costs.
A Micro turbine in a city like Manchester:150kWh p.a.- 2% of average
energy use. In a windy location like Wick, it could be 3MWh p.a.- about
40% of energy use, with payback thus being under a year. BRE
BRE says that even when optimally sited financial payback is unlikely
for all but the most efficient, low maintenance, low price turbines.
Performance is highly sensitive to relatively small changes in local
wind conditions (standard performance calculations are usually based
on wind speed databases, which don’t account for surface roughness
and local effects), installation and maintenance regimes (including
associated transport costs) and expected service life. The energy and
therefore carbon embedded in manufacturing turbines varies dramatically-
from 180 kg up to 1,444kg, similar to that produced per person for a
return cross-Atlantic flight. Delivery, installation and maintenance
can add 18-147kg of CO2. The report highlights the need for manufacturers
to develop more efficient low maintenance designs.
FIT for micropower?
Energy minister Malcolm Wicks says that in the proposed new consultation
on how the meet the 15% by 2020 renewable energy target "we will
be looking afresh at microgeneration, and any proposals to boost microgeneration,
including a feed-in tariff, are ones we are open to consider."
But he insisted that this "is not at all challenging the mainstream
renewables obligation" which he clearly will not abandon. "I
think it is important for confidence, including investor confidence,
that we don't, as it were, change policies halfway through. I am confident
about the reforms we are making." The micro generation programme
is in tatters with a 66% reduction in people seeking grants since they
were reduced. The Tories have proposed a Feed-In tariff to help- see
later.
|
