SHOULD ZERO CARBON HOUSING BE ADOPTED AS COMMON PRACTICE IN THE FUTURE?
Introduction
The title of this essay is: “Should zero carbon housing be adopted as common practice in the future?”, where I intend to find out whether the pros of zero carbon housing outweigh the negatives such as cost and the lack of a skillset to build zero carbon in today’s builders. From what I understood before the essay, I knew that as a population we were rapidly over-using our natural supplies of gas and energy and that there are simple solutions in place to reduce our domestic carbon emissions such as solar panels. I wanted to learn more about what we could do in our homes and as I am looking at domestic situations it’s something we can all relate to.
To start with, a zero carbon house is defined as counteracting the amount of carbon it uses in a year by generating more electricity than it uses. In the UK, nearly 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels used to heat our homes. Not only that, but our homes are poorly insulated and inefficient meaning we’re wasting money and creating more greenhouse gas emissions than we need to. To this day, a large majority of houses still rely on fossil fuel powered gas boilers (Carbon Plan, 2011).
I wanted to write about zero carbon housing and the environment as it is a very topical issue. Currently, we are using “2 to 3 times more of the Earth’s natural resources than what is sustainable” (The World Counts, 2014) and I wanted to investigate whether zero carbon housing and the technology that comes with it is an effective way to improve and reduce our consumption of natural resources. The element of housing ties in with my pursuits at university where I intend to study architecture. The initial idea for this essay came from seeing the Zero Carbon House in Birmingham which first of all caught my eye as a beautiful piece of architecture and when I read about the house I found it really inspiring how the architect not only designed the house with the intention of zero carbon, but to make a great piece of architecture as well.
Across the essay, I intend to look at good and bad examples of zero carbon living, and why they were successful/unsuccessful. I also want to look at whether we should become zero carbon in terms of money, the environment, societies attitudes and the sustainability of our future. By the end of the essay, I hope to come to a justifiable conclusion on whether we should become zero carbon.
WHY DO WE NEED ZERO CARBON?
To be able to understand why we needed zero carbon it is necessary to look into the current state of the planet’s carbon dioxide levels. It is important to understand where this carbon dioxide is coming from in order to make a justifiable decision on whether going zero carbon would have an impact. The greenhouse effect happens first of all when the sun’s rays hit the earth, where they are absorbed and then bounced back into the atmosphere as heat. ‘Greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere absorb some of this heat while the rest is reflected back into space. This naturally occurring process is what keeps the Earth at a habitable temperature as discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1842. The problem is that, as Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius found out, humans can increase the amount of greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere by producing more carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat that will be trapped and therefore the warmer the Earth will become (Nationalgeographic.com, n.d.).
This is looked upon as a serious problem, especially when we consider that there is almost 40% more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was before the industrial revolution (Adam, 2008). The burning of fossil fuels and activities such as deforestation is causing an increased greenhouse gas effect, something which has seen weather and climate adapting quicker than some species, and perhaps not so far into the future: quicker than humans can. Current levels (Dec. 2017) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at 407.62ppm (Climate.nasa.gov, n.d.). To put this into perspective, pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were measured at 280ppm and scientists have suggested a safe level of 350ppm to stabilise the global temperature at 1 degree celsius above pre-industrial levels (see figure one) (Willard, 2014).
Not only are we producing alarming rates of carbon dioxide, we’re also rapidly running out of the fossil fuels we burn to produce these. Oil will be the first natural resource to run out and when it does, the coal resources we will have to use in replacement are slated to run out by the year 2088 (see figure two). Although new reserves will be found, they will not last forever and there will come a time where we can burn no more fossil fuels. This is clearly a positive thing in terms of carbon dioxide emissions: the looming eventuality of a lack of fossil fuels has forced innovation and investment into the renewable energy sector.
Renewable sources will not only provide with energy for many generations to come: its lack of CO2 emissions are clearly something that will positively impact the greenhouse gas effect. Will it be too late to reverse the effect of years of burning fossil fuels by the time we rely on purely renewable sources? Hopefully not. But zero carbon housing could play a massive part in the normalisation of eco-living as well as hopefully benefitting our planet for the good.
In the UK, the initial concept of zero carbon housing was first introduced into the mainstream by the Labour government in 2006, where they announced their intentions for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016. This was then supported by the Carbon Plan, a document produced in 2011 that set out the coalition government’s approach to reduce carbon emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050.17 This announcement was initially met with a lot of support as everyone saw it as a step forward to a more sustainable future. The issues came when people realised the disparities in what was actually considered zero carbon by the government. The definition that the Labour government had used in 2006 meant that a home had to achieve level six of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The original version of the code that the Labour government had referred to included “emissions of both regulated energy (space heating, hot water, lighting and ventilation) as well as unregulated energy (such as appliances and cooking)” (Designingbuildings.co.uk, n.d.). The Code for Sustainable Homes is a set of guidelines laid out by the government which measures 9 features of sustainable design (energy/CO2 emissions, water, materials, flooding and flood prevention, waste, pollution, health and well-being, management, and ecology) and then ranks them on a 1 to 6 star system to give a home an overall level of sustainability (Gov.uk, n.d.). However, even though in 2011 the coalition government backed up the initial plan for all homes to be zero carbon by 2016, they changed the definition for a level six home meaning it only took into account regulated energy, ignoring unregulated energy. Even though this was seen as a step in the wrong direction, it was still aiming higher than the building regulations at that time. One of the criticisms of the government’s decision was that each year, new builds only account for 1% of the overall housing stock, meaning it would take a long time for the changes to be effective. Also, the government’s definition only took into account the emissions that were produced from living and operating in the house and not including the emissions from constructing the house. In the altered definition of a zero carbon home, builders have the opportunity to pay into a fund called ‘allowable solutions’ if their new build doesn’t meet level six standards. This was a step in the wrong direction because if the builders knew all they had to do was pay into a fund, they wouldn’t bother trying to make the house zero carbon which was the initial point of Labour’s plan in 2006.17
Throughout this essay, any time zero carbon is referred to in terms of making a house zero carbon or becoming zero carbon, it will be referring to the original level six of the Code for Sustainable Homes (version including unregulated energy).
EXAMPLES OF ZERO CARBON LIVING
Zero Carbon House, Balsall Heath, Birmingham
The Zero Carbon House (ZCH) in Birmingham is a success story of zero carbon housing. It is a two-bed, 1840’s victorian terrace that has been retrofitted: a solution used to reduce even more carbon emissions as it normally uses more carbon to demolish the existing building and then create a brand new home from scratch. The carbon emissions of the original 1840 house were 21,000 kg CO2 a year and these have since been reduced to -660 kg CO2 meaning that the Zero Carbon House is actually carbon negative (produces more electricity than it uses).10 It is also classed as a level 6 house on the original Code for Sustainable Homes.
The ZCH relies heavily on the sun as the main source of its energy and power. The most obvious way it does this is through solar power which comes in the form of evacuated tube solar hot water collectors and photovoltaic roof panels.11 The sun also works in lighting and heating the house: tall ceilings and roof windows ensure that the majority of the time the house is lit entirely by sunlight, along with the sun’s heat passively warming the house up so theres no need for radiators and central heating; once again reducing consumption of electricity and fossil fuels. Once the house has been heated by the sun, the floor (made of compacted earth) will retain the heat in order to keep the house a warm temperature (passive solar building design) (BBC, 2014). The insulation used on the walls of the ZCH is 16 times better than the original insulation value of the two-bedroom victorian terrace. Clearly if it gets too warm, you can simply open a window, but the architect of the ZCH even thought about not letting too much sun into the building: “An existing mature ash tree is an important feature of the site. The south/west glazing is designed so that the ash tree seasonally shades this glass: in winter the bare tree allows low angle sun to penetrate deep into the house. Ash trees come into leaf relatively late, allowing useful heat gains in the spring; but in summer the pinnate leaves shade the glazing from the high angle summer sun to prevent overheating, avoiding the need for motorised or manual external blinds.”11 Not only is the Zero Carbon House saving the environment, it has saved the occupants money as they don’t have to pay any fuel bills at all, with the architect John Christophers saying “This whole house will pay for itself in eight years.”12
Zero Carbon House has clearly been a massive success in terms of its carbon emissions, and its annual outgoing for the residents. It is currently being monitored by Lubo Jankovic who is the professor of zero carbon design at Birmingham school of architecture and design who has used the Zero Carbon House as a successful example to base the ‘Retrofit Plus” project on. The techniques that have been used in turning the original house zero carbon are not difficult or expensive to replicate on existing homes or new-builds. Obviously building work was done upon the house to extend it for the purpose of the occupants but it wasn’t something that was necessary to the zero carbon emissions of the house. This shows that going zero carbon is a very viable option for the majority of new builds in the UK because the house has shown it can be done, and the figure of -660 kg CO2 a year speaks for itself. As previously discussed, it was very simple to turn the old house zero carbon, so surely it would be even easier for new builds.
Masdar, United Arab Emirates
10 years ago, Masdar in the UAE was predicted to become the world’s first zero carbon city. Solar electricity generated locally was supposedly going to be the main source of power, which would work in collaboration with a light rail system and driverless “pods” on magnetic tracks to transport people. The city will be able to recycle its own used water, with every surface of Masdar collecting energy (Vidal, 2008). An important factor due to the climate of the UAE was that homes will be able to adapt to the weather conditions with opening or closing roofs. Light switches or taps have been replaced by motion sensors that the Masdar authorities say have cut electricity consumption by 51 percent, and water usage by 55 percent (Kingsley, 2013).
It was predicted that the first 1,000,000 m2 would be completed by 2015, with the city designed to hold up to 40,000 residents in two square miles. 50,000 were predicted to be working and studying there during the day. But as of 2016, the only people living in Masdar were the students and staff at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, a university campus (Varinsky, 2016). Many could argue the point of a car free city, if all of its daytime occupants drive in from elsewhere.2
If you view Masdar as a failure, you would be likely to place the blame on the global financial crisis of 2007. Dubai World, the state-owned investment company found itself owing debts of £39 billion and its sister city, Abu Dhabi, had no choice but to bail out Dubai. As a result, Abu Dhabi had to cut spending for its own investments which meant losses for Masdar . Any hopes of finishing the site by 2015 were dashed. Out went the dream of 50,000 residents and a zero-carbon settlement.1 “When Dubai collapsed, the plug was more or less quietly pulled on six million square metres at Masdar City.” (Geiger, 2013).
It is difficult to compare the efficiency of the few buildings already built in Masdar with zero carbon buildings around the world as the UAE uses its own ratings system which is difficult to correlate with more common green building standards such as the previously discussed Code for Sustainable Homes. The transport system of driverless pods detailed in original plans to have 100 stations was scrapped after the first two stops3 as planners decided there was no point in continuing as the system no longer made sense in an age where there was rapid development of zero-emission electric cars.
Masdar should have been a leading example in technology and efficiency but this was not the case. You can argue it was due to a lack of funding from the UAE government but perhaps a completely zero carbon settlement this large is not possible. Even at current levels of development, “it’s not a net zero future, it’s about 50%” (Wan, 2016). The original plans were ambitious, but all the technology was readily available even if their ideas did become obsolete such as with the development of automotive technology. It would be nice to think that Masdar could still be a success but the statistics just aren’t there to support a 100% zero carbon future. Unfortunately, the current evidence shows that Masdar will end up abandoned and empty due to the fact it simply hasn’t stuck to deadlines and has not fulfilled it’s promises of where it intended to be by now, meaning it hasn’t received the business or the commuters to make it a success. Is this due to the fact it failed at being a zero carbon settlement? Yes and no. Initial plans were too ambitious for the short time frame and everyone underestimated how difficult it actually is to build a city from scratch, especially one that has the added extra of being zero carbon. Also, the added impact of the UAE being an emerging and developing country with little social development and huge disparities meant that the original plans probably didn’t focus on what the country actually needed at the time: affordable, comfortable housing for lower income residents. Agreed, the whole idea of Masdar was that it was supposed to be at the forefront of innovation in zero carbon and therefore was based around technology and education, but this project would have worked better if there was involvement of all groups of people from all backgrounds and was based around housing, schools and actually building a zero carbon community. The quote from the Gaurdian: “It is not for us. Why can’t they build mass housing for the poor? It is attractive only for the elite, the business people. Who else will live there? Who are they building Masdar for?”2 comes from a resident of the UAE who will not reap the benefits of Masdar. This links in with the social problems that surround zero carbon: there is a stigma that the only people who can live in zero-carbon homes are wealthy due to the way zero carbon is often portrayed as quite architectural and stylised, whereas it can be as simple as insulation as we see in the Zero Carbon House.
SHOULD WE BECOME ZERO CARBON?
Money
The Zero Carbon plan introduced by then chancellor Gordon Brown and the Labour government in 2006, aimed for all new houses from 2016 to generate as much electricity on site as they use by taking advantage of renewable sources such as wind and solar power (Weaver, 2006). The policy was scrapped in 2015 by David Cameron’s conservative government; a move widely criticised by environmentalists and house builders (Oldfield, 2015). It has been predicted by the government that “Unless significant measures are put in place to reduce emissions from the housing sector from their current level of around 40MtC a year they could constitute over 55% of the UK’s target for carbon emissions in 2050, nearly doubling the current 30% contribution.”7 So why was the policy scrapped by the government if they’re so concerned about and intent on lowering carbon emissions from the domestic sector? As is typical with politics, the answer is often money, but the government have never spoken about why they decided to scrap the policy. A shortage of affordable housing could be an influencing factor, as the policy would have limited the building of cheap accommodation due to many planning and building regulations and lots of red tape in order to ensure the new build met government standards for a zero carbon house.
There is no set solution for making a house zero carbon, as each house comes with its own unique advantages and disadvantages. Different types of housing would require different solutions to make them zero carbon. For example, a rural farmhouse may only require roof insulation or a ground source heat pump, whereas a modern high rise consisting of hundreds of residents could be connected entirely to a local biomass boiler.9 This means that clearly, the government cannot enforce a ‘one size fits all’ solution which makes it difficult to regulate the UK becoming zero carbon.
The environment
Building a zero carbon house in the UK has its own challenges in comparison with some areas of the world. For example, in Masdar, the only issue there was keeping the buildings cool and in other areas of the globe the problem would be the opposite (keeping the buildings warm). Due to the mixed weather we get year-round in the UK, it’s difficult to create one solution for all. Another issue the UK faces is the lack of land as well as the constraints that come with building a zero carbon house. If you wanted to build in an urban location such as London, you could rule out any hopes of wind turbines due to the lack of outdoor space we often find in built up areas. It has also been pointed out that certain types of electricity generation such as hydroelectric generation is simply not possible due to lack of resources and space.
Obviously, building a zero carbon house in this country can be done as sometimes ZCH in warm countries need to be heated up and ZCH in more chilled countries need to be cooled down. The UK simply faces these challenges more extremely and more regularly. The ZCH in Birmingham obviously does this quite successfully as previously discussed, by using the natural environment to limit the amount of heat getting into the house, but also encouraging it through the use of high ceilings and passive solar building design. Not everyone is lucky enough to be in the position where they have the perfect set of circumstances to build a zero carbon house, and that is one of the problems that needs to be ironed out before we can become zero carbon.
As examined at the beginning of the essay, we are facing direct consequences as a result of our actions upon the planet. Not only would going zero carbon mean no more fossil fuels would have to be burnt, it would also force the science and technology industry to be able to produce zero carbon houses and technologies that can be implemented over and over on a mass scale, for minimum cost. This could lead to developments in new technology as so much money would be invested into the area if it became a policy once again. An example of this was the ‘free’ solar panels scheme that gained popularity around 2014/2015. At that time, the government would reward homeowners with money for every kWh of energy they generated (also known as the Feed-in-Tariff). As solar panels were so expensive, companies would come and install solar panels on your roof for free but in return they would receive your FIT payments for any energy you export to the national grid. You would receive reduced energy bills when the solar panels were working but the company would essentially own your roof for however long the lease was (usually about 25 years). In 2015, the government announced they were reducing the FIT by 87% with it finally coming to an end in 2019 because of the fact solar panels had plummeted in price due to the increase in popularity, thanks to the government’s scheme. This shows that investment from the government causing an increase in popularity would set the ball rolling for zero carbon houses.
Going zero carbon is not only about the house, but also about an entire lifestyle. Perhaps if our houses were zero carbon, we’d be inspired to grow more of our own food in our back gardens, and stop buying produce that’s been flown in from across the world; limiting and reducing our carbon footprints yet again. The idea of community in an eco-town is something that has been implemented in North West Bicester, the beginnings of an eco development that couples zero carbon living with a sense of community. Some of the things that feature in the first phase of the development (which includes over 300 level five homes) include a community orchard, BBQ pits and herb gardens; as well as a community car club (NWBicester, n.d.). This is the approach they tried to take in Masdar but it wasn’t executed very well. By involving people from all backgrounds (30% of the homes are affordable housing, allocated on a needs basis) they have the groundings for successful project, even though the first phase is not yet completed.
Zero carbon housing is obviously a good thing in terms of the environment so it would help improve the sustainability of our future environment. Whether it’s sustainable for our future to build many houses that will cost a lot more than a normal house with the added extra of it being increasingly difficult to alter or adjust these houses in any way without having to go through lots of red tape is another question.
Societies Attitudes
The builders, engineers and designers of homes in this country are currently lacking in the skill shortage needed to be able to design and build zero carbon homes. For example, a common misunderstanding about how a zero carbon house works is by heating some air and keeping the same stale air in so the house stays warm but these misconceptions are causing increasing issues, as one of the most important parts of a zero carbon house is ventilation, otherwise the house will quickly become mouldy (Sustainable Homes, 2015). It is clear to the public that there is a lack of understanding of the very basics, and therefore there is lack of trust and support from the public about zero carbon. The absence of a definite, clear plan from the government about what they intend to do with zero carbon housing and classification of what makes a zero carbon house zero carbon makes certain groups not want to get involved as they don’t know what support they’re going to receive from the government.
As previously mentioned, there are some negative views towards going zero carbon. Many have the idea that going zero carbon is only for the wealthy and socially advanced whereas there are simple, cost-effective changes that can be made to your home to make it zero carbon. One of the possible reasons that the public are against going zero carbon is how it is portrayed in the media. To start with, people are often unsure of what going zero carbon actually means and this means that they have false ideas of grand, architectural and technologically advanced houses, like something crossed between grand designs and ‘Star-Trek’. One of the main selling points of going zero carbon is the reduced or non-existent fuel bills, and being able to pay for the technology you have installed with the money you’re saving and these should be emphasised.
The general opinion is that we should be doing everything we can in order to support and sustain our planet and hopefully slow down the effects of years of damage. This can be seen in the success of campaigns such as recycling, the 5p carrier bag charge, becoming more aware of what we’re throwing away and wasting etc. This is why going zero carbon should be very popular but the uncertainty surrounding it is what is throwing people off.
Conclusion
Clearly going zero carbon has so many advantages for the environment and future of our planet. Even though the success of the Zero Carbon House speaks for itself (with it’s emissions of -660 kg CO2), turning all current houses in the UK zero carbon is something that isn’t feasible or worth it as it’s just not a solution that’s easily transferable to millions of homes across the UK due to the fact it would cost ridiculous amounts of money for the Government and completely outweigh the lack of fuel bills which is one of the main benefits. Obviously there are ideas and technologies we can take from the ZCH though and we can try and implement them in our own homes. For the public to want to do this though, there needs to be some sort of funding initiative from the government as there is not enough power behind the movement for people to think it is important enough that they should spend their own money on these improvements. The success of Feed-in-Tariffs in relation to the solar panel boom is evidence for this, as after the government announced cuts to the funding of FIT there was a 74% drop in capacity deployed in comparison to the same time the year previous (Vaughan, 2016) (see figure three).
The evidence discussed suggests that a general rule for a successful zero carbon housing project is: smaller works better than larger and MEDCs > LEDCs. As we saw with Masdar, even though there was huge amounts of money thrown at the project in the beginning, it has still struggled to reach it’s targets and the reason for this is the scale of the project. They aimed too high and too large for too small a target market; as I have mentioned before Masdar was aimed at the rich by the rich, and it was unable to gain the clientele it needed from that small target market. As it was out of reach for anybody else to live, work or study there it failed as a zero carbon settlement. Even though ZCH and Masdar are very different projects, it makes sense for a project to be more successful in a more economically developed country as those types of countries often have governments with the money and infrastructure to be able to support such a large and demanding project such as Masdar.
Making all new homes zero carbon though is an idea that could be very easily achievable as it would be phased in over a number of years-the whole country isn’t going to turn zero carbon over night. This is in part due to the fact new builds only account for 1% of the overall housing stock each year and also the fact that it will probably take a few years for it to become legislation in parliament. This is a positive though, as giving people longer to adjust to it will work better, such as working in phases in North West Bicester; rather than trying to force it for the sake of development, such as in Masdar.