Category Archives: energy

Eco … build, homes, villages and towns – pah… greenwash?

1 Reply

James Meikle’s article in yesterdays guardian paints a picture of growing concerns and gaps in the thinking behind the current push towards ‘eco‘ villages and towns.

As a flagship for the huge number of homes to be built and eco towns to be created, Northstowe, if the Guardian report is correct has problems:

As the town takes shape, en route to at least a 20% – and hopefully higher – supply of renewable energy, combined heat and power plants could prove more efficient and cost effective than solar gadgets and micro generation on separate houses.

Sounds great, but the debate is our on micro generation – but only 20% renewable? !!!

More recently, Cooper decided that Northstowe must not be delayed by having to meet zero-carbon standards subsequently imposed for all new houses from 2016.

Ah ha – explains the 20% but if we can do it as an eco-challenge at Hanham Hall in Bristol – why not here?

James too makes the point on the level expected on the homes:

To start with, … private homes will only be at level 3 on the code for sustainable homes, producing 25% lower emissions than legally required so far, but no more revolutionary than homes already being built on some smaller developments. The requirement for affordable homes will be slightly higher at code level 4 – a 44% improvement on minimum standards, but again not as tough as might have been expected, given the experimentation already under way elsewhere.

In my opinion this is not flagship or even eco…

David Bard, a senior councillor on South Cambridgeshire council, which, with the county council, will consider the Northstowe plans in the next few months, says: ” I am not sure that anyone actually knows what is meant by an ‘ecotown’, let alone a ‘prototype ecotown’.

Time to rethink? Time to get back to basics?

Time to recall where Eco comes from – as it is a prefix used in most ‘sustainable ‘ iniatives at the present. Eco-this eco-that and eco-other is indeed the zetigeist of the moment. Eco is of course an abreviation of ecological – and as a prefix used to describe things realted to ecological issues. Except it isnt today, at least in its use for eco homes and villages etc.

Eco villages stem back to 1960’s community living, alternative technologies, living off grid with alternative lifestyles. Are todays eco villages just a clever greenwashing of of that ideal? (A greenwash that probably covers all 6 of the greenwash sins!)

Where is the community, social enterprise, regeneration, ecological diversity protection thinking in these developments?

It would be very interesting to see calculations for the ecological footprint of eco-developments such as Hanham Hall and Northstowe and how they would compare to other or non eco developments. There is much focus on carbon footprints, understandably as its tangible and easy to understand – but if we use the prefix eco – lets focus on the ecological footprint as well.

I have posted on the LEED ND (neighbourhood development) scheme here a few times – it would be fascinating to assess Hanham Hall or Northstowe against this standard. Just looking at the evidence required for submission for this standard would (hopefully) cause a rethink, or dropping of the prefix Eco ! for example:

  • Smart Location and Linkage, (smart location means ecological consideration!)
  • Neighborhood Pattern and Design,
  • Green Construction and Technology and
  • Innovative Design

Any BREEAM assessors, any LEED ND assessors out there looking for a challenge? Anyone out there willing to fund a project to ‘test’ the claims being made? These projects underway now will shape our future housing construction, living, and social well being.

Why do I hear the Pete Seger song when I think of eco-towns

Little boxes on the hill side, little boxes made of ticky-tacky.
Little boxes, little boxes, little boxes all the same.
There’s a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one,
… more

So time for a rethink and real innovation – as Henry Ford famously said “If I asked people what they really wanted they would have asked for faster horses” Will we still get little boxes ?

And quietly the transition-towns movement gains pace …. but thats another post !

Carbon management, route to zero and waste management event

Leave a reply

Over 70 people from the regional construction, fm and energy sector attended last nights Lancashire Best Practice Club event at the Solarus Center in Blackpool.  The event , in two parts, covered sustainability, targets for the built environment  and carbon issues from Martin Brown and in the second half site waste management plans from Colin Woods

Presentation and links will be available on the events page for downloading.

For more information, or for those present, to discuss any of the issues raised in the evening email Martin or Colin – or both!

Manchester plans low-carbon future

Leave a reply

Manchester city council is embarking on an ambitious plan to tackle global warming by controlling all aspects of the city’s energy supply by 2020. Report – Guardian 31 Jan

Excellent news, that will put it in the league of other cities around the world with similar aspirations.

As it appears to be a daunting goal, the council has produced a strategy which includes bite-size targets in three key areas; commercial, domestic and transport.

However, will this drive  improvement in the energy and domestic and commercial built environment sectors ?  Will universities, academia and collages in the region gear up to be able to deliver the skills required – (the track record dosen’t look good).

Also that date 2020 – how does that tie in with all the other milestones for acheiving zero or low carbon in the built environment sector?

eco-friendly warehouses go carbon positive

Leave a reply

From the Guardian today

Warehouses aren’t normally associated with sustainability and environmentally friendliness; they are rather grey and anonymous looking. But a £50m scheme on a brownfield site at a former colliery in north Staffordshire is set to change this.

The project, called Blue Planet Chatterley Valley, is to be developed by Gazeley UK, which is owned by Asda Walmart, on 31 acres of former colliery land in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It will be a truly carbon positive development; the complex will have its own biofuel micro power station (using oilseed rape) and it will produce sufficient power and heat for the on-site buildings and a surplus which is enough energy for up to 650 local homes.

A new definition to savour here – ‘truly carbon positive‘ – brilliant

Add to Technorati Favorites


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

collaborative city design and prequal requirements …

Leave a reply

Worldchanging suggested in a recent post a collaborative institute with classes for every city (US) to

… offer education and examples about urban design fundamentals – what makes a public (space) work, what makes a street pedestrian-friendly, what makes a neighborhood livable – to those who are actually zoning, approving, building, and planning our cities … Not only would it breed better design, but since these classes would be collaborative, it could help to reduce the ‘silo’ mentality that is still pervasive in local governments.

The proposal also suggests that only the members of the ‘institutes’ and the ‘classes’ run are shortlisted to tender for city infrastructure or facilities work.

An excellent idea, but perhaps better approached by addressing hearts and minds so that we work collaboratively anyway by nature (rather than the opposite at the moment) . This needs the principles of integration to be a key part of built environment education.

The notion of making this a prequal issue is again excellent – understanding how a particular city, town or region works is essential in delivering requirements, and would move to a more local supply base for design, construction and fm. A benefit aligned to Community Based FM (CBfM) and the Transition Towns approaches. (raised on isite before)

An approach our (UK) local authorities and councils should consider perhaps. Add in the merton rule to the equation – ie understanding the local specific onsite renewable energy requirements and opportunites – and this could be a powerful way forward.

Add to Technorati Favorites AddThis Social Bookmark Button

more on coal – old king …

Leave a reply

Good to see Philip Sellwood, Chief Exec at Engery Saving Trust blogging on the Medway coal power station at Old King Coal

Philps blog is one to blogroll, bookmark or RSS or just read !

Interestingly Philip makes the connection with a certain lady who closed down the coal industry some 20 years ago – this fact  has apparently been the main contribution to the UK’s reduction in CO2 over the last decade !

New coal fired power station gets go ahead

1 Reply

The news that Medway Council have given the green light to a coal fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent seems at complete odds with the current informed thinking on energy, on coal and on the current ‘mood’ or zeitgeist towards sustainability. It also appears as a developing country decision – not one taken by a nation attempting to be a leader in sustainability and carbon targets.  Building Guardian

The decision can be seen in many ways as a damning comment on the built industry in not moving fast enough to address the energy issue within buildings and facilities.

76 % of the energy from this new power plant will be consumed by buildings. By reducing building energy use of new and renovated buildings by a minimum of 50%, we negate the need for new coal plants. (source)

How can the government and local authorities push forward with zero carbon homes to Code 6, zero carbon schools, zero carbon non-domestic buildings, insist on reductions through Merton Rule approaches, and demand organisations reduce their carbon emissions … when in one action we turn the carbon emissions clock back 30 years ( This will be the first plant to be built in 30 years)

And many of these targets come in to place before the new plant comes on stream.

Perhaps the Kent council and others should read the work from the excellent and influential Architecture 2030, who, in the USA are directly and indirectly influencing cities and states to cancel or shelve coal fire plants in favour of a green build approach .

Emissions from the new plant will blow the UK’s targets and commitments for carbon reductions out of the water.  The notion of cleaned coal is an oxymoron, with environmentalists and scientists diasgreeing over the viability of any capture / claeaning / sequestration technology. It will take years and seems a high gamble to rely on a technology in the future.

In a time when we need positive actions and messages to prevent green fatigue – this will send a dangerous message – that it is ok to invest in traditional planet threatening energy sources whilst playing lip service to renewables and alternatives investment.

A very ominous start to 2008.

Is code level 6 enough?

1 Reply

Am I missing something here.

I was encouraged by the inclusion of what I took to be a stretch target – level 6 in the Sustainability Code. Yes a stretch target for 2016, one that would drive innovation and improvement in construction, design, micro generation, energy suppliers and all the other necessary components. And one that would drive the real collaboration of all these sectors. To deliver by 2016.
And yet here, some 8 years away from that date, we are already letting contracts for level 6 (Hanham Hall) saying we can deliver (Barratts). Even failed newspaper baron Eddie Shah is reportedly building low cost homes that meet level 5.

So maybe we need something more stretching that will make us rethink our approach to sustainability.

We also have a fair amount of doomsaying – that it is not feasible, not practical, not necessary or will cost far to much.  Isn’t this to be proven or dis-proven by working towards level 6?

I see a similar reaction to the Code as we did to Egan’s Rethinking Construction – we didn’t need it, we couldn’t do it – it will cost too much and then suddenly with a great coat of whitewash everyone was Egan compliant. (Strangely linked to funding!) And now looking back nearly 10 years after Egan we see what a significant catalyst that was.

So, a thought for the holiday period – Standing in the future of 2016, in a carbon zero built environment, what message would you send back to todays industry leaders, influencer’s and politicians. (A nice seasonal Dr Who link). Would it be strive for level 6, do something beyond level 6 – or give up on it all together?

Zero carbon schools

3 Replies

Ed Balls,  Education Secretary wants all new school buildings to be zero-carbon by 2016, at a cost of about £110m over the next three years.  (Guardian)

How this sits with Building Schools for the Future (which arguable should include carbon zero approaches, which after all will be the schools of the future) and what happens after three years, remains to be seen.

Good to see another target being set.  Lets hope that the Strategy for Sustainable Construction will bring clarity and some sense of joined up thinking to all initaitives, codes, targets etc.

Merton Rule ‘plus’ in new planning policy statement

Leave a reply

The Guardian reports today that the Merton rule has now been embedded into a new planning policy statement.

The government will today publish a new planning policy designed to boost the use of renewable energy and community heating schemes in new buildings as it gears up for the introduction of carbon-free homes from 2016 … requiring new commercial buildings to produce at least 10% of their energy from on-site renewables.

So another target milestone for the industry looms.  However in the (rising) scale of things only 10% from renewables by 2016 seems paltry.