Whether it’s kids obsessed with owning the latest mobile, or governments shooting satellites out of the sky with super-accurate missiles, the world is captivated by technology. And when it comes to renewable energy, architects and specifiers are no exception.

The Building Research Establishment (BRE) Innovation Park in Watford is a temple to renewable gadgets and gizmos where one-off low-carbon houses dazzle the eye with their shiny PV roofs. But these flights of fancy come at a price and if the government is to reach its target of 100% zero carbon for all new builds by 2016, any large-scale development will have to consider alternatives.

This sentiment is confirmed by the latest research conducted by BRE and the National Housing Building Council, commissioned to help builders, developers and local councils meet the 2016 zero carbon homes target.

Evaluating the 11 types of technology most appropriate for new developments, including biomass and solar photovoltaic, the report found that most were still not cost effective. And as our article on page 18 demonstrates, attempting to calculate the whole life costs and environmental impacts of so-called ‘sustainable’ products and technologies raises more questions than it answers.

Although renewables will be very important in the future, the technology has a shorter life span than the building, so it should not be the primary focus for sustainability. The new BASF test home (page 14) shows that what is essential is that buildings are designed to be as thermally efficient as possible, and with the future in mind.

South-facing roofs, for example, would be suitable for future installation of photovoltaic panels – but is something that is typically neglected at present as there is no legislation or policy to drive it.

Source

Construction Manager

Postscript

Stephen Cousins, Deputy editor

scousins@cmpi.biz