40
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: WORKING TOWARDS ZERO CARBON Design priorities & calculations
When it came to the most popular practical building element for achieving low carbon for our respondents, insulation was out in front for survey respondents, with 76% picking it as a ‘critical area to focus on.’ Next in line was ‘air-tightness measures’ (67%), followed by low carbon heating systems such as heat pumps (61%), and PV/solar thermal/battery storage (59%). Lagging slightly behind were thermal breaks, picked by 48% as a critical area of focus, as was glazing, including solar control coatings. Then came the use of recycled materials (44%), MVHR (35%), followed by electric vehicles (28%) rainwater/greywater (27%), and green and blue roofs at 24%.
EXPERT VIEW
Rodrigo Moreno Masey: “Be lean, the rest is a bonus, you can’t run out of energy if you don’t use any.” Louisa Bowles: “Some sustainable measures which are certainly good for many reasons are often confused with those that are effective at reducing carbon emissions. For example, green roofs are great at increasing biodiversity, but they increase the embodied carbon of the roof build up. Water usage is not a huge emitter at the moment, but could be in the future if supply is reduced and treatment methods change as a result. The most effective way of reducing emissions is low energy passive design, fabric first approaches, retrofit, re-use and recycling.”
Calculating carbon emissions in projects is complex, and requires specific expertise. 66% of respondents were relying on outsourced consultants, while 42% were using info from manufacturers. ‘Internal data from previous projects’ was chosen by 29%, just ahead of using inhouse architect expertise, and upskilling staff (27%). Other architectural practices’ resources on embodied carbon were also being used, by 12% of respondents. 12% picked ‘Other’ methods, including LETI, RIBA and UKGBC information. In focusing on operational and embodied energy in its targets for 2030, the RIBA has avoided explicitly targeting ‘whole life carbon,’ with its rationale being reducing occupants’ energy demand is “necessary regardless of the use of renewable energy.” Respondents agreed with this approach, however commenters added caveats such as that reducing energy demand “will only be partly achievable unless people agree to reducing their standard of living,” while being vital to alleviate the effect of rapidly increasing fuel costs. One commenter added: “Not every site is able to accommodate renewable energy and more often than not clients need convincing (although recent energy costs have made convincing them a little easier).” Given the short timeframe to 2030, there was the greatest consensus on one particular question, namely whether a purist approach to zero carbon ‘or else’ was not helpful, and whether essentially the profession should not ‘let the perfect be the enemy
“Is greenwash from suppliers still a major issue?”
of the good.’ From our sample, 95% said that ‘any efforts towards reducing carbon were worthwhile.’
EXPERT VIEW
Louisa Bowles believes that idealism isn’t appropriate in the pursuit of net zero carbon design: “Low carbon and sustainable design is not an all or nothing. Anything that can be done to reduce emissions, even
if one specific element, should be explored.” Embodied carbon expertise
Embodied carbon is raised up the agenda for zero carbon by the RIBA Climate Challenge. For domestic properties it is asking for <800 kgCO2
(versus ‘business as usual’ 1000 kgCO2
build offices, the target (versus business as usual 1400 kgCO2 is <970 kgCO2
figure of 1200 kgCO2
e/m2, and for new build schools, <675 kgCO2 e/m2).
e/m2 by 2025, as opposed to a ‘business as usual’ e/m2, and <625 kgCO2
e/m2 by 2030. For new e/m2)
e/m2
However when it came to whether they were tackling embodied carbon in their projects currently (which isn’t mandated in the Future Homes Standard), our respondents gave a fairly lukewarm response; 63% said they were not tackling the issue. However, for the 30% who were, we asked them how, and several said they were using external consultants and software, for example a respondent from Hawkins\Brown mentioned they were using their inhouse-developed tool H/B:ERT, as well as OneClick LCA (life cycle assessment) software. Another mentioned they were using BRME U-value calculations to counteract embodied carbon,
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF NOVEMBER 2022
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
