We keep coming back to the same problem.

At the AEC Network meeting on Wednesday one of the great talks was on Sustainability and Facilities Management by Gordon Ludlow, an FM Consultant, non-exec Director of British Institute of Facilities Management and Chair of BIFM’s Sustainability Group.

Facilities managers are in an unenviable position. On one hand everyone wants you when the plumbing fails or someone steals your car parking space. On the other hand, you’re persona non grata when it comes to commissioning a building – no-one wants to talk to you!

Gordon pointed out that sustainability had to have economic and social aspects as well as an environmental one. FMs have such a huge range of tools to help them meet the demands of managing facilities (‘buildings etc’) sustainably.

1. Because FMs know about running costs they can tell you what your design decisions will cost in the long term.
2. Because they know about users they can tell you if your design decisions will work (or even better, help brief your architects in the first place!)
3. And because they have to be strategic thinkers, they can help you reduce the largest cost of a new building, its long term management costs.

But no one is listening.

Why not?

It’s not because there’s no money in it, because there clearly is – see the value in Don Ward’s diagram illustrating this post (and taken from the July 09 AEC Network meeting presentation you can view here).

No-one is listening because the people who influence the decision makers on design, procurement and operation costs don’t care about life cycle costs. They don’t care because they might build or procure the building, but they probably won’t be using it, running it or funding its running.

So who will care?

The only people with the pain are the ones who will have it later. Get them involved and everyone will save money.Otherwise you’re wasting your breath.

How do you connect the building procurement people with the building commissioning/operating people? At the AEC Network the suggestion was that funders could provide the link. Whoever it is, find the link and you’ve got your audience.

When I was studying to be an architect in 1990s Liverpool our design tutors gave us a project. We were to choose a method of generating renewable energy by the Mersey, and then design a ‘theme park’ ride that would be powered by this energy.

Now it’s worth remembering that as a design project in an architecture school, this was a vehicle for learning, and did not include a cost element. Thinking about it, only one project I ever did in 7 years of academic study to be an architect involved the monetary cost of anything.

Well, I couldn’t get with the brief. I just didn’t accept that this was a reasonable thing to do, in a recession, in a northern city struggling with unemployment and social tension. There were people living in the same street as me who couldn’t afford to heat their houses. But mostly, I didn’t agree that one should create energy simply to waste it on a theme park. It felt so much like the Liverpool Garden Festival debacle all over again but with Greenwash. Why not save energy instead?

Apparently, saving energy was not sexy.

Later we discovered that the purpose of this project was to generate ideas for the tutors to use to enter a competition in a national architecture journal about renewable energy. I kid you not.

Anyway, what has that 19 year old story got to do with today’s debates on sustainable housing?

Points

In those days energy standards for homes were incredibly lax by today’s standards. These days it’s all about points, and points mean prizes.

The Code for Sustainable Homes which is the compulsory standard by which all housing must be measured in the UK. Level 3 of the Code is compulsory for Grant Funded Housing now and will be for all housing next year. The Code involves calculations designed to reduce the carbon emissions of the construction and operation of housing. It is based around the concept that carbon emissions are what are causing global warming, so by reducing the huge carbon footprint of new build housing we can reduce our CO2 emissions and thereby save the planet.

One of the ways in which you get points in your quest to reach higher levels of the code is to generate renewable energy on site. You can take it out of the sunshine, fish it out of the ground or catch it from the wind. You can even grow it and burn wood chip in boilers. The homes are better insulated too, but you get points for making ‘green energy’, and at higher levels it is almost mandatory.

These days, sustainable housing isn’t just about points though, its also about money.

Money

Unlike my university project, meeting the code for sustainable homes has to have a cost implication, and as architects our objective must be to deliver a project that meets all the needs of the client, including cost criteria.

In the short term, open housing market, and for those whom capital (construction) cost is the only issue, this means choosing a technology whose first and sometimes only objective is to meet the needs of the Code as cheaply as is possible.

But if you are a Housing Association or a Residential Property Investor, the homes you build also have a maintenance cost to consider, which may affect your choice of technology.

And as a property owner with a long term interest in your property, you may also want to provide homes which you or your tenants will find cheaper to heat. Energy costs money, even if you don’t have to dig coal out of the ground to get it. So why not save energy instead?

This is why Barefoot & Gilles developed the GreenGauge Homes approach to affordable housing, to look at the whole picture and take all the clients needs into account. If this means assessing what training tenants need to live in the houses (and choosing technology to minimize it), how easy they are to look after (and choosing approaches which made it easier), what their energy bills might be (and designing to help reduce bills), then so be it. The University of East Anglia are doing the monitoring and lessons learned about both tenant attitudes and real energy bills are moulding the progression of future projects. A bit of joined up thinking at the beginning will save so much heartache (and cost) which is going to face our Code rated homes in years to come.

What has come to mind for me, is that like my story about the theme park powered by renewable energy generation, the Code isn’t quite getting it. House builders don’t have to think about the future energy use of their Code 3 & 4 houses, indeed they are installing technology which makes ‘free’ energy and perpetuates the idea that the amount of energy one uses is not the issue.

Furthermore all this new and largely unfamiliar technology is making homes more complex, more prone to maintenance problems, more difficult for ordinary people to live in.

One thing which has stayed the same though. Making energy on site is still sexy, but that is really all it is. It might be sexy but it’s not clever.

This is where PassivHaus comes in.

Energy

PassivHaus is an approach developed in Germany. The basic premise is to reduce the energy use of a home to a minimum, firstly by ‘super insulating’, and then by reducing heat lost by air loss. The result is homes which use a tiny amount of energy, because all the energy in the bodies of the occupants, the equipment and lighting in the home, contributes towards heating it and is not lost through exhaust air or poor insulation.

Now I’m not saying that PassivHaus is the answer. The homes have to be airtight, something which normal British housing just is not. Airtightness is such an issue that it bears upon the construction process so much that there is debate about whether our industry has the capability to build these homes in volume. There are also voices raised about the wisdom of such an air controlled home, about stuffiness and practicality.

Perhaps the practical implementation of a PassivHaus type of approach would be just as challenging as the Code is turning out to be for the UK. Maybe we will have to find a reasonable compromise.

Nevertheless, the idea of a home built to save, conserve and reuse energy just seems to be a much more sensible starting point. Don’t you agree?

I love doing things online. I’m very practical about it; the main reason is that it allows me to spend time with my family instead of getting up at some godawful hour and eating a poor breakfast in a dank hotel with a load of suits.

So any opportunity to network online is ok by me. Fora, blogging, twitter, chat, webinars, unconferences, LinkedIn, you’ll find me there making connections. Making connections is what I do, which is why I set up the Architects Twitter League earlier in the year, and @UKConstruction last month. I wanted to find out who else in the construction and property industries was doing these online things I loved doing so much, so that I could connect them up.

So why the big green button on the Right? It’s a present from Phil Clark (aka @ZeroChamp) who has invited me to be a Sustainability Now Champion – helping support and encourage attenders to the Sustainability Now Virtual Event which is taking place on 13 & 14 May. Phil’s got this idea that I’m good at getting people to connect, and maybe I can do this before, during and after the conference, joining with the other Champions to help make it as productive as possible for everyone.

So I said, ‘I get to connect people online? Fab!’

If you’re interested in Sustainability Issues, particularly in regard the Construction Industry, do take some time to come along. Its a free event, you can come and go as you wish, but there will be plenty to do. Last year’s event attracted 1800 active participants.

Hope you go and register, check out the features of the show and the topics we’ll be debating, and I’ll see you inside. Looking forward to connecting you…

Gazelle Wind Turbine at MSC (UK) Ltd Ipswich

Last year one of Barefoot & Gilles Architects’ new buildings became the first in Suffolk to have a Gazelle Wind Turbine, to comply with Ipswich Borough Council’s new 10% Renewables Policy. The building is the New 30,000 sft Headquarters for MSC (UK) Ltd, the agents of the world’s second largest shipping line, Mediterranean Shipping Company. You can see the 20Kw wind turbine from the A14, just along from the new office building which I like to think looks a bit like a big black crow.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit the elegant turbine at Ransomes Europark as a guest of the Suffolk and Essex Environment and Energy Group and Bower Fuller, who installed the turbine. A demonstration and talk was given by the MD of Gazelle Wind Turbines, Ken Chaplin.
Here are some of the things I learned from Ken, and some of my thoughts about it.

How much energy does a turbine Generate?

In ideal conditions the Gazelle will generate 60,000 kWh a year, displacing 20 tonnes of CO2. Note the caveat. What are ideal conditions?

The turbine will cut in and generate electricity between wind speeds of 2.5m/s (10mph) and 20 m/s (45 mph which is Gale Force).  Ideal wind speed is 6.5m/s. At the maximum wind speed the turbine cuts out for self preservation. Below the minimum speed it also cuts out, otherwise the turbine starts to suck energy from the grid – effectively becoming a rather large fan. Whilst you can find out about the general wind conditions in your postcode by visiting the BERR website, it is recommended that windspeed is monitored in the proposed location for 3 years to identify the likely conditions on your particular site.

Location and Height

Location and height is everything for a wind turbine. The higher the turbine the more winds it is likely to benefit from, and the more energy it can generate. The Gazelle has a nacelle (hub) height of 13.5 – 20.5m depending on what height you can get planning permission for. Ken pointed out that local authority planners can insist on the shortest possible turbine height, for example to avoid distracting passers-by, only to find that this can make the turbine dramatically less efficient.

Ideal conditions to locate your turbine are near the top of a gentle hill on the windward side. Too close to buildings, trees and clifftops and turbulence will break up the wind and dramatically reduce efficiency.  Ken told us some sad stories about some retail clients who had chosen the turbines on wholly inappropriate sites as a statement of their eco-credentials, something that they may live to repent at leisure.

There are just 22 Gazelle Turbines in the UK so far and the most efficient ones are on Southport seafront in Lancashire and in the Welsh countryside. The turbines are often erected for dairy farms, industrial units and rural schools, where they can generate electricity pretty efficiently.

Lifetime costs are very difficult to calculate because each location is different, but in ideal conditions the Gazelle has a 14 year payback time and a 25 year lifespan.  Dover Council was able to obtain grants for 95% of the construction cost of their Gazelle, clearly this reduces the payback time somewhat!

Are they Noisy?

Turbines make noise, but when we saw it demonstrated (and stood underneath and at various distances) I was surprised at how quiet it was. Research suggests noise levels are 36dB at 180m which is the minimum distance they should be installed from houses, and for comparison 30dB is the noise level of someone whispering 1.5 meters away. The sound one can hear is the turbulence caused by the blades, which very much depends on where you are standing.

When you see one it does appear to spin rather fast – the Gazelle has an 11m rotor diameter and a rotation speed of 106rpm. I think our collective consciousness automatically compares it to the huge offshore ones one often sees in advertising.

As the turbines need to be such a distance from buildings in any event (research advises distances between 10x and 60x the height of the buildings) I couldn’t imagine that noise would be a major problem. The MSC turbine is at the far end of a car park, next to the busy A14, so traffic noise is more of an issue.

Ken has supplied a Gazelle Turbine to a site in North Wales just 60 metres from a riding school, where the owners report no adverse effects on the horses, and commented on how quiet the turbine was.

What about Bird Strikes?

Apparently wind turbines do kill birds – on average one or two per year per turbine. In comparison, cars kill 10 million birds a year. And don’t mention cats.

So are Wind Turbines a good idea?

Last year the East of England Plan Policy ENG1 advised that

… new development of more than 10 dwellings or 1000m2 of non-residential floorspace should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, unless this is not feasible or viable;

With the pressure to meet a renewables target like this you might be tempted to install a wind turbine on your development project. They make a very clear statement about your organisation’s philosophy to the general public. They can be an educational tool and certainly draw attention to your project.

However their effectiveness in generating electricity which is their main role, is dependent on the site conditions. Make a proper site evaluation and use the results used to inform your decision, otherwise you may just end up with an expensive, if attractive, outsize table fan.

Turbine erected in a morning

Would you like to see the MSC building’s Gazelle Wind Turbine being erected? You can view a time lapse video of the installation on the Bower Fuller website. Scroll half way down and click on the image of the crane.

For my talk on GreenGauge Homes this week, I tried to find a visualisation of the compulsory introduction of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which came into use in 2007, and the Ecohomes rating which it superseded. When I couldn’t find one, I decided to make one myself.
Here it is:

Timeline for the Code for Sustainable Homes

Notes on the timeline:

The timeline shows the standard required for Grant Funded Affordable Housing in Green, and All (including Open Market or Developer) Housing in Blue. The red line is where we are now.
For example, Grant funded housing has had to meet Ecohomes Pass since 2003, and Code 3 since 2007. Developer Housing will need to meet Code 3 by 2010 and Code 4 by 2013.
This is for newbuild homes of course, in England and Wales. More details here at the Communities and Local Government Website.
Note the Ecohomes ratings have been superseded by the Code ratings, but they aren’t really comparable as they have different indicators. They are arranged in order of their compulsory introduction. The timeline has also been simplified, taking out optional items and only showing annual steps.

What does this mean for the industry?

The timeline covers 13 years – just 9 years for the Code alone, which is not really very long in the construction industry. To turn new UK housebuilding around in that time is a big deal. In particular, 2010 will be difficult – the open market will have to meet code 3, and there is a significant step between code 3 and code 4 for affordable housing to meet.
Housing associations have had a head start dealing with the Code, but Design and Build tenders coming in recently have shown that some contractors aren’t entirely sure how they are going to meet the requirements of Code 4. Like the planning system, things are getting more complicated. It’s important therefore, to get your Design Stage Assessment sorted early and then not muck about chopping and changing.

And for the Open Market?

Before the latest financial problems, open market housing developers were also starting to realise that some of their contractors might have a few problems building to the code.
There may a lot less housebuilding going on now, but when things pick up again the deadlines will still be there. Make the time now to understand what the code means for your business.
Meanwhile to up the pressure a little more, some planning authorities are already making a code rating a condition of some planning permissions.

And lastly , why not take a positive spin…

In practical terms, developers have to make money, so they have to avoid unnecessary expenditure. To be the most cost effective, a developer is going to want to meet the code as cost effectively as possible, and this means choosing renewable technologies purely on capital cost.

However it is also worth considering the commercial benefits of your choice of technology. If the renewables option you choose can be shown to further reduce utility bills, this may be a selling point for open market or shared ownership homes, or a useful extra benefit for your tenants.

Over to you

What is your experience of dealing with the Code?  Lets share our experiences and suggestions.