We have the power

If there’s one thing that sets building services engineers apart, it is our understanding of energy. We know what it is for; we know how to use it, about its different forms, and how to generate it. Until recently, this skill wasn’t particularly valued. We were just asked to design systems, preferably invisible, to keep customers comfortable at the minimum cost.

This changed with the realisation that energy is not free and needs managing. It is now widely acknowledged we need to reduce the emission of CO2 from fossil fuels. The security of fuel supplies is also of increasing concern.

We are generally the only people in the building industry with the skills to interpret the regulations written by academics that come down from government. We use these skills to command respect from clients and design teams – albeit that our brief is usually to get around the regulations with the minimum of capital spend or, occasionally, to justify some conspicuous bit of “low energy” architecture.

The result of this activity is not very effective. We are told that buildings are responsible for 50% of the energy consumption in the UK, yet there is little evidence that this consumption is reducing significantly. And painfully low expectations are expressed in discussions about renewable sources of energy. I find this depressing. The problem is not lack of knowledge or lack of money, but lack of ambition.

Engineering should be about generating coherent solutions to complex problems, a view missing from the national debate on energy. Decision-makers are only influenced by big energy suppliers who don’t like innovation or new energy strategies. Greens can go on about renewables and energy efficiency but, ultimately, a government needs to ensure the electorate is warm and has lights. Is it surprising politicians see a warm glow in the nuclear industry?

Yet a zero-carbon UK is not an impossible prospect. Buildings, which use 50% of the UK’s energy, are an important part of the discussion. This is where building services engineers come in. What do we think the energy supply should be to meet the future loads? Is heating needed if insulation is good? Do we need cooling?

Engineering should be about generating coherent solutions to complex problems, a view missing from the debate on energy

With many renewable technologies, storage is needed as generation often doesn’t match demand. Services engineers understand building-based storage such as thermal mass, and battery backup systems. The supply industry finds energy storage difficult and costly to provide centrally. We could design it into buildings, and with tariff incentives make it financially viable.

Buildings have a slow turnover of stock, but the consumer products in them do not. To integrate them into the country’s energy strategy, we need to drive the specification of these products in terms of the loads they draw and how they can alter the time of use or store energy. Cars, which are generally parked near buildings, are a vast standby energy resource. Five million small 10 kW hybrid cars could be used to produce the entire 50GW of power needed to meet the UK’s electrical load when wind is not available.

We need to consider what the primary energy supplies will be like in 20 years and factor it in to the buildings we design now. We know about the cheapest options, and how to implement them to make systems work.

This must not be a sector-based discussion, but must take into account other issues, such as transport energy needs and land use for food. The laissez faire government attitude of a “mixture of energy supplies” will lead to a rabble of competing renewable technologies that will remain cottage industries, playing into the hands of existing large energy suppliers who will not serve our interests well.

As professionals who understand energy, we can help design an ambitious strategy for a zero-carbon UK. We should be leading this discussion as honest brokers between the vested interests of the big energy suppliers, land users, and the waste and transport sectors. It is a bit beyond our normal remit but within our expertise as consulting engineers – if we have the ambition.