OPINION
design stage for testing different configurations and materials, especially if it makes ‘Building Physics more accessible to non-specialists’. But I do hope that this ‘non-specialist’ term is not intended to include architects, because Building Physics has actually been taught in Schools of Architecture for at least 50 years. The subject matter of what
has been described recently as ‘the new discipline of Building Engineering Physics’ was wholly covered by the syllabus of the RIBA B2 and B3 examinations from as early as the 1960s. In particular, I had architecture students doing Peak Environmental Temperature calculations at least 35 years ago, but they were also made well aware of the fact that Environmental Temperature was never intended to be a comfort index, which the writer seems to have ignored by then talking about operative temperature. A key aspect of Environmental Temperature, which should not be forgotten, is the fact that the original formula is based on rooms being roughly cubical in shape. Using it as a calculation basis for offices with large floor and ceiling areas but comparatively low walls will not necessarily give accurate results. Also, since Environmental Temperature and Operative Temperature are dependent on Mean Radiant Temperature, they will both vary considerably across a large office with windows. Neil Sturrock
Let’s tax non-renewables I totally agree with all of the Editor’s commentary (February Journal, page 5). A technically
www.cibsejournal.com
Services engineers would thrive as it would be economical for building owners to pay us to help drive their buildings better
simple fix would be to stop subsidising everything, but instead put significant taxes on all non-renewable resources. Why? First, we would better appreciate that by consuming non-renewable resources we are using something up which we’ll never, ever be able to replace. Second, if for example fuel would cost five or 10 times as much as it does now, then nobody would need further incentives to drive efficiency. We services engineers would thrive, since it would be economical for building owners to pay us to help drive their buildings better. Labour is currently far too expensive
compared to resources. Imagine a world where we don’t have to worry as much about treading lightly on our planet, because we would live more in line with our planet by default. Can we make our politicians like the thought as well? Stefan Waldhauser, New Zealand
Btus/hr are back Rereading the Brookwood Farm case study on page 38 of the June 2011 Journal, I was pleased to see the small gas-fired boiler rated as 40.3k Btu/hr. Too much to hope it comprises a simple cast iron heat exchanger, and no electronic gizmos. The article explains that the
pitched roof supports a PV array, with roof insulation at ceiling level to keep the roof void cool and so dissipate heat from the inverters. This begs the question, what about summer when these inverters are going full bore? John Shankster
MANUFACTURER’S VIEWPOINT
The industry needs to have its voice heard by policymakers. Sharing professionals’ opinions on websites is important, but so too is responding to consultations, writes Martin Fahey of Mitsubishi Electric
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has launched a strategy document called The future of heating – a strategic framework for low carbon heat in the UK, and if the responses to my recent post on the LinkedIn CIBSE Group are anything to go by, then it is clear that this is a hot topic (forgive the pun!).
Sharing opinion on websites is a valid way to debate an issue, but more important is making sure that everyone’s views in this industry are also heard by the policymakers. As engineers, you will be critical to achieving the low carbon future we aspire to and DECC is asking for comments by Thursday 24 May. I would urge everyone to take the time and send a response
comment to the strategy document (send an email to heatstrategy@
decc.gsi.gov.uk).
The DECC document details that around 80% of our heat demands are currently served by gas. This is something that simply cannot continue as prices continue to rise, the UK continues to be more reliant on imports, and as we head towards our legally-binding carbon reduction commitments. As an industry, we therefore need to work together, to decide what technologies and combined solutions can help move us towards low carbon. However, looking at the response to my blog, it is clear that if there are lots of questions – there may be even more answers! Do we think that renewables are still too unsophisticated or expensive? Or is there technology out there that is usable now but not widely known about?
Are there better ways to integrate the heating into the architecture and fabric of the building? And should we be seeking ways to incorporate more passive heat recovery systems so that we minimise the need for energy consuming equipment? How do we force architecture and engineering to work more closely together? Or is this happening anyway?
Are we all just sitting, waiting for a renewable silver bullet, when a combination of what is currently available off the shelf could provide an answer that will work?
Are we just waiting for a renewable silver bullet, when a combination of what is currently available could provide the answer?
What about the Green Deal? Shouldn’t we all find ways to encourage better use of existing resources and minimise energy consumption? And finally, what about
operation? When
the Carbon Trust states that 90% of heating systems are not controlled effectively, how much is the operation of a heating system left to chance? And why aren’t we making more use of advanced, intelligent controls?
Lots of questions. Now is the time to come forward with your opinion on the answers.
The Future of Heating can be found at:
www.decc.gov.uk/assets/ decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/ heat/4805-future-heating-strategic- framework.pdf
Martin Fahey is sustainable solutions manager for Mitsubishi Electric’s Living Environmental Systems Division
SPONSORED BY
May 2012 CIBSE Journal
21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72