This year, the National Passive Solar Conference, which is in its 38th year, will feature two broad themes that explore passive architecture and building technology – “Emerging Architecture & Passive Building Technology” and “Daylighting, Modeling & Building Automation.” Each track offers insight into state-of-the-art in solar and sustainable building research and practice.
The right light: a comparative field assessment of daylighting quality and visual comfort inside leed-rated elementary schools.
Evaluating the integration of passive solar & daylight performance: a study based on design modeling & post-occupancy monitoring results
Zoning for daylight availability: Effects of siting and form of a proposed office building on daylight harvesting potential of neighboring buildings
Metrics for buildings or building of metrics: a comparison of environmental footprint of the traditional vs. the renewable in medical offices
Author and Presenter: Ash Ragheb, Ph.D., Architecture, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI
The adaptive façade in architecture: Assessment of energy and lighting potential of movable insulation panels
Author and Presenter: Petra Liedl, Ph.D., School of Architecture, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
An investigation has been made of potential lighting electricity reductions and associated thermal impacts of replacing electric light with daylight admitted through rooftop glazing. Horizontal apertures on flat roof (skylights) and vertical apertures facing in two opposite directions (roof monitors) are examined in a prototype office building. A computer simulation tool that integrates lighting simulation and energy simulation called DIVA-for-Rhino has been used. Building operation costs are calculated as a function of aperture to floor area so that the optimum roof daylighting design could be identified. The results indicate that rooftop glazing contribute to savings in building operation if a modest amount of glazing is used in the roof. The design implications of the results are discussed and important parameters that influence the rooflit building operation costs will be outlined.
Abstract: Architects choose how to incorporate sunlight into their designs, often for day-lighting or renewable energy. However, future access to the sun is often controlled by the decisions of other architects building on neighboring sites. Solar access zoning, one method of protecting solar rights, ensures that a building does not shade its neighbors for a specified time period each day. A solar envelope represents the largest volume that satisfies the conditions of solar access for the building’s neighbors. This does not imply that a building within the envelope’s spatial limitations is an energy-efficient design. Rather, when applied to adjacent lots, solar access zoning guarantees that each lot receives enough sunlight to take advantage of passive and active solar design strategies. The geometry of the solar envelope is relatively difficult to calculate; it depends both on spatial relationships between the sites, and on the daily and seasonal path of the sun. Solar envelopes can be constructed as physical models with a heliodon or generated by various digital tools. Each tool reflected the current technology of the time, and the progression of modeling environments has made many obsolete. As CAD has evolved into building information modeling (BIM) in the architecture profession, it is useful to consider the advantages of solar envelope generation within a BIM program. A plug-in to revit architecture (written in c# for the revit api) was developed to generate solar envelopes; the integration with BIM facilitates the analysis and use of solar envelopes in design.
Affiliations: University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon; Ken Gates Construction, Eugene, Oregon; Barb Shaw Management, Eugene, Oregon
Mathematical modeling and experimental validation of naturally ventilated greenhouse for vegetable crop production in Indian climate
Affiliations: Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India, Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
ASU-UNM solar decathlon 2013 shade house: Combining passive and active solar designs with architecture
People + buildings: a dialogue – Assessing the application of occupants engagement in positive energy behaviors in buildings
The governments Zero Carbon Homes (ZCH) policy was launched in 2007 with the aim of reducing the carbon emissions from new homes built in the UK to 'near zero'. I've written in the past about how this policy has been successively watered down and why the argument put forward in support of 'easing the cost burden on house-builders' is fundamentally flawed.
Recently, however, I started to wonder about the way the proposed structure of the ZCH policy was presented. No government pronouncement on ZCH is complete without a pictorial representation of the ZCH Hierarchy.
This image, reproduced from the recent DCLG consultation on Allowable Solutions, is shown above. I have carefully scaled the triangle from this document for reasons that will become apparent when you read on...
The base of the triangle represents the carbon emissions from a dwelling built to 2006 Building Regulations, and the top of the triangle represents the 'pinnacle of achievement' that is a Zero Carbon Home. The layers of the triangle represent different parts of the proposed policy.
Starting at the bottom, we have the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES). The idea is that developers should 'build-in' efficiency gains to the property first through higher levels of insulation, lower draughtiness and installing an efficient heating system. Government plans to legislate a minimum standard the home must achieve with such measures. This concept was recently implemented into Building Regulations for the first time in the 2013 version.
The next layer up the triangle is called "Carbon Compliance". It represents the reduction of carbon emissions on-site through the use of low and zero carbon technologies such as solar panels. Government plans to set a minimum level of carbon reduction that must be achieved on site.
Finally, for that difficult to achieve 'last little bit' the developer can buy their way out of building the energy saving into the house and instead pay into a fund - details to be confirmed.
The shape of the triangle produces a reassuring impression that the heavy lifting is going to be done by measures actually on the property, and that only the last little bit will be simply 'bought'.
Hang on. Let's have a look at the actual figures. Government is favouring proposals from the Zero Carbon Hub. In their report, "Fabric Energy Efficiency for Zero Carbon Homes", the proportion of carbon reduction from each type of measure can be derived from the figure on the last page. I have tabulated the values below:
In every case, the bought-in Allowable Solutions represents the largest part of the savings. If the Zero Carbon Triangle were to be re-drawn so that the area of each section represented their relative contributions, it would look very different.
Of course, if developers use the Allowable Solutions mechanism then the energy bills for householders purchasing a so-called 'Zero Carbon' house will be much higher than if developers choose to meet the target wholly with fabric improvements and renewable energy on the building itself.
Let's at least not kid ourselves about how far away from delivering zero carbon on the ground we might be by accepting misleading graphics at face value.
3 of these houses were being built next to each other, but nobody had considered the need to ask the DNO about the potential for actually installing 30kWp of solar PV in 3 houses right next to each other, and 2 of them already had the panels installed, with the 3rd just about to go on when I did a survey prior to quoting for the PV (which we walked away from).
I suggested solar thermal to reduce the actual bills in the houses and stop the huge pellet boilers being run for water heating alone in summer, but apparently this would have made no difference at all to the Code assessment as burning wood is viewed as being as green as solar water heating under the code assessment.
The insulation levels were better than building regs, but nothing that special for supposedly the top level zero carbon homes - certainly nothing like passive house standards, and the insulation detailing was pretty poor..
I didn't even know anything about the offsetting payments you refer to, so thanks for this blog... something has gone seriously wrong with this scheme from what I can see.
I’m going to read this. I’ll be sure to come back. thanks for sharing. and also This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives indepth information. thanks for this nice article... carbon