Yahoo News 20 Jan 10;
LONDON (AFP) – Installing wind turbines and solar panels in people's homes is "eco-bling" that will not help meet Britain's targets on cutting carbon emissions, engineers warned Wednesday.
In a new report by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), Professor Doug King said it was better to adapt buildings to make them more energy efficient than try to offset energy use with "on-site renewable energy generation."
The leader of Britain's main opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, is among those who have installed wind turbines, fixing one onto the roof of his home in the plush west London district of Notting Hill.
"Eco-bling is a term I coined to describe unnecessary renewable energy visibly attached to the outside of poorly designed buildings," King told the Daily Mail newspaper ahead of the report's publication.
"It achieves little or nothing. If you build a building that is just as energy-hungry as every other building, and you put a few wind turbines and solar panels on the outside that addresses a few percent of that building's energy consumption, you have not achieved anything.
"It's just about trying to say to the general public that 'I'm being good, I'm putting renewable energy on my building'."
In existing buildings, which account for the vast majority of those in use in 2050, King suggested low cost alternatives such as installing thermostats on central heating systems or using low-energy light bulbs.
The report said it was also vital to engineer buildings to minimise energy demands in the first place, including using masonry to store heat or ensuring a good use of natural light in homes and offices.
"Before renewable energy generation is even considered it is vital to ensure that buildings are as energy efficient as possible, otherwise the potential benefits are simply wasted in offsetting unnecessary consumption," it said.
However, it warned a lack of skills in understanding energy use in buildings meant the construction industry would struggle to meet government targets to make all new buildings "zero carbon" by 2020.
Eco-bling and retrofitting won't meet emissions targets, warn engineers
Engineers' report says building industry will struggle to meet zero-carbon government targets due to lack of skills and training
Alok Jha, guardian.co.uk 20 Jan 10;
Attaching "eco-bling" such as wind turbines or solar panels to buildings will not help the UK cut the carbon emissions from buildings fast enough to meet the government's ambitious targets, engineers warned yesterday . They also said the building industry will "struggle" to meet requirements to make all new buildings zero-carbon by 2020 because of a lack of skilled workers who understand how energy is used, and therefore saved, in buildings.
The UK government has committed the country to cut its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. On the path to that, all new homes are required to be zero-carbon by 2016 and all remaining new buildings should be zero-carbon by 2020.
In a report published today by the Royal Academy of Engineering, experts called for a "step-change" in retrofitting old buildings to make them waste less energy. They also want funding for a study to work out how many workers will need to be trained in order to meet the demand for designing and building the number of energy-efficient buildings required to meet government targets.
Doug King, a visiting professor of building engineering physics at the University of Bath and author of the new report, said that it had become fashionable for people to install renewable energy at home but warned against it. "Eco-bling describes unnecessary renewable energy visibly attached to the outside of poorly-designed buildings – it's a zero-sum approach," he said. "If you build something that is just as energy-hungry as every other building and then put a few wind turbines and solar cells on the outside that addresses a few per cent of that building's energy consumption, you've not achieved anything … You can't put a turbine onto a building that is big enough to have any decent electrical generation, because the vibration it would cause would knock it off the building."
He added that eco-bling seemed to be more about showing off environmental credentials to neighbours than saving carbon. The reality, he said, was that it would cost the same amount of money designing a more sustainable building in the first place as it does to install renewable energy on a building, with the added benefit that residents could save up to half on their energy bills.
That means designing new buildings to, for example, use masonry to store heat and ensuring best use of natural light. In existing homes and offices, low-cost solutions that can save carbon include fitting thermostats to central heating systems and using low-energy light bulbs.
Scott Steedman, of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said that retrofitting was a major issue. The majority (80%) of the buildings that will be used in 2050 have already been built and applying traditional energy-saving measures such as insulation and double-glazing were not happening quickly enough for the UK to meet its targets. "We know that, between 1990 and 2005, we did achieve a 4% reduction in carbon emissions for homes just through the normal processes of upgrade, people putting in loft insulation, draft proofing," he said. "That steady process over 15 years led to a 4% reduction, not a big win really. What we need is a step-change. Traditional methods take decades to penetrate the market."
Instead he called for a major ramping-up in retrofitting activity that would involve owners of major estates driving the supply chain for energy efficiency technologies. "Whether it's universities, the health service or ministry of defence – that's a huge pool. If they take a lead and say we're going to stimulate new products, new skills and training that is going to lead to the decarbonisation of our existing properties, that's a big help."
King criticised the government for its "woeful" practice of setting targets it never met. "The classic example of that is a National Audit Office report from 2008/9, which said that, in 80% of cases, government procurement of building projects have failed to meet their own targets for environmental sustainability."
The engineers did not advocate altering the government's zero-carbon buildings strategy. However, they warned of major potential problems in achieving it, given how few people were trained in analysing how buildings used energy and then designing the best ways to make them more efficient. "The delivery side is what's missing," said Steedman. "We've got plenty of targets and aspirations but what's missing is an implementation plan. To do that, you have to speak to the industry, you have to speak to the professions, because they're the ones who are going to do the work."
