"do it once, do it right" - presentation to the fuel poverty conference, croke park,...
DESCRIPTION
Implications of nZEB Retrofit on Fuel Poverty. Technical obstacles, governance issues. Need for a holistic approach to assessing cost optimality, need for thermal bridge calculation, sustainability measurement and a jaundiced view of the renewables requirement contained in the Irish national Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) for retrofit. Many RES decisions are not sustained under lifecycle cost assessment.TRANSCRIPT
From Gullwing to Flat Top
Simon McGuinness, MRIAI
Societal Needs
Minimum 80% carbon emissions reduction by 2050
40% of all emissions related to buildings
90% of all buildings standing will still be standing in 2050
90% of them need to be upgraded to a BER of A2 (nZEB)
Biggest construction project in human history
Who has the knowledge and skills to achieve this? – We do.
DIT Experience in Retrofit
4 years of level 9 (Masters) in Retrofit Technology Retrofit Residential, Commercial & Institutional to
nZEB 60 graduates in the marketplace 116 post-graduate professionals researching retrofit Hosted 3 national nZEB conferences Biggest database of nZEB research in Ireland Shortlisted for SEAI research awards 2014
Overall Findings
We can do nZEB, there are no technical barriers It is economic, it will pay for itself in time It will work, nZEB can reduce emissions by at least
85% It could eliminate fuel poverty permanently We have no shortage of skills (at present) Obstacle: Govt commitment to fund exemplars
obstacle
insurmountable
2012 student project work
Postgraduate Certificate in Digital Analysis and Energy Retrofit
2011 Gullwing project brief
Achieve a BER of A3 Achieve compliance
with Part L, 2011 (new build)
Condensation risk Surface
temperatures Calculated thermal
bridges
Digital Analysis of Existing Building
The apartments are:
Un-heatable (Part L)
Un-healthy (Parts L&F)
Un-visitable (Part M)
Un-comfortable Non-compliant (Part B)
Too small (DECLG standards)
Simplify thermal envelope
33% improvement in energy performance coefficient with no additionalinsulation
Source: Team D - DT774
Simplified thermal envelope geometry
Gullwing 2012 (Team A)
Gullwing 2012 (Team A)
Gullwing 2012 (Team B)
Team B
2013 student project work
Postgraduate Certificate in Digital Analysis and Energy Retrofit
Flat-Top Block
DCC Proposal 2010
DCC Proposal 2010
WARNING!Based on linear thermal bridge default of 0.15
Insulate without LTB assessment?
Default y-factors allowable are 0.15 and 0.08 depending on construction quality
Calculated y-factors in the Gullwing / Flat-Top blocks ranged 0.32 to 0.36
DEAP defaults are misleading!
Is DCC Proposal “Cost Optimal”?
The apartments are:
Un-heatable (Part L)
Un-healthy (Parts L&F)
Un-visitable (Part M)
Un-comfortable Non-compliant (Part B)
Too small (DoE standards)
PartlyNo
No
No
No
No
Solved?
Flat-Top Block - project brief
Building Regs as if new build DoE space standards 60-100 year lifecycle BER of A2 Calculated y-factor Hygrothermal analysis Surface temperature Condensation risk
Flat-Top Block
Results 95% Confidence Interval UncertaintyAir flow at 50 Pa, V50
[m3/h] 1085 1060 1105 +/-2.0%Air changes at 50 Pa, n50
[/h] 6.601 1.320 11.90 +/-80.0%Permeability at 50 Pa,
q50 [m3/h.m2] 5.255 1.050 9.461 +/-80.0%Specific leakage at 50
Pa, w50 [m3/h.m2] 29.259 5.844 52.674 +/-80.0%
OutlineSpace HeatingEnergy Use
nZEB
BIM model Embodied Carbon
Therm Surface Temperature, Psi- values
BuildDesk Condensation risk, U-values
DEAP Energy balance, carbon emissions
Digital energy analysis
BIM model Embodied Carbon
Therm Surface Temperature, Psi- values
BuildDesk Condensation risk, U-values
DEAP Energy balance, carbon emissions
Digital energy analysis
… I am competent …
… reasonable skill care and diligence …
I certify that … the design … is in compliance … with Building
Regulations
Solved?
DIT Proposal -“Cost Optimal”?
The buildings are:
Un-heatable (Part L)
Un-healthy (Parts L&F)
Un-visitable (Part M)
Un-comfortable Non-compliant (Part B)
Too small (DECLG)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Green Public Procurement
Flat-Top 2013 (David Ledwith)
Flat-Top 2013 (David Ledwith)
Flat-Top 2013
The Passive House Designer
The Technologist
DEAP focus on renewables adds costs
€4,500PV - Cost Optional over 10 years?
€14,000Heat Pump – Cost Optional over 50 years?
€14
Saving = €18,500
nZEB Retrofit Project Outcomes
BER of A2/A3
100% compliance as new build (Parts B, M, K & L)
Zero Surface Condensation
90% fuel cost reduction (€1,486 to €156)
100% Replicable
Co-Benefits
Social Economic
Fuel poverty
Employment
Skills
Health
Carbon saving/trading
Self-funding
Sustainable
Fuel imports
Why not?
Social Economic
Fuel poverty
Employment
Skills
Health
Carbon saving/trading
Self-funding
Sustainable
Fuel imports
Co-benefits need to be measured and added to the Retrofit budget. This can only be done by committing to fund a series of nZEB retrofit exemplars. And a Minister for Climate Change.
Follow me on twitter: @PassiveLogical
Simon McGuinness MRIAI, Dip.Arch., B.Arch.Sc., CEPHD