"do it once, do it right" - presentation to the fuel poverty conference, croke park,...

Post on 24-May-2015

384 Views

Category:

Education

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

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

top related