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, Wednesday 20 January 2010 00.05 GMT
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."