CIBSE Technical Symposium, 2024

Abstract Reference: 123

Submission Title: Fit for 2050: System-parameters for a low-energy built
environment as if ‘carbon’ matters.
Fit for 2050: System-parameters for a low-energy
built environment as if ‘carbon’ matters.
Dr. MARTIN MURRAY1, Dr. SHANE COLCLOUGH1, Prof. PHILIP GRIFFITHS1
1 Department of Computing, Engineering, and the Built Environment, Ulster

University, 2-24 York Street, Belfast, Co Antrim, BT15 1 AP

Corresponding author: [email protected] & [email protected]

Abstract
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the built environment, necessitates an
integrated approach to development, which moves beyond nZEB to zero-emission
buildings (ZEB), maximising return on embodied-carbon utilised and facilitating low
operational-carbon patterns-of-use. A key insight and call-to-action emerges from the
understanding that the life-cycle expectancy of services is a third of that of fabric,
resulting in M&E being a significant repeat ‘embodied-carbon-cost’ across the lifetime
of any development, thus making a reduction in carbon emissions, commensurable,
with our carbon-budget, particularly difficult. The conclusion of the research is the
recommendation of a virtuous circle incorporating (i) improved building performance,
facilitating (ii) reduced embodied-carbon of M&E services, which when matched with
(iii) maximum on-site renewables, leads to (iii) significant support for local electrical-
grids to reduce peak demand.
Keywords Carbon-budget, Embodied-carbon, Operational-carbon, nZEB, ZEB.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 An overview
The Ukraine war and the Covid-19 Pandemic have profoundly altered the energy
economy, and our patterns of social engagement (1). Home working has increased
threefold, with a resulting greater awareness of ventilation in both home and work
areas, combined with an increasing concern for reducing energy use. The EU have
recognised this need in progressing in March 2023, a revised Energy Performance
Building Directive, (EPBD), which will progress the existing nZEB standard through to
a new Zero Emission Building (ZEB) iteration by 2030. This will transform our design
methodologies, and our perception and use of buildings. A ZEB building will need to
be robust in performance, optimising the generation and use of onsite low carbon
energy. These will be authentic low energy buildings, in-operation. This paper is
concerned with profiling such a multivalent response, by investigating the system-
parameters which might support an optimal standards policy, beyond nZEB. The
research has concentrated on three key integrated areas (a) Fabric and airtightness,
which (b) promotes a maximised return on the embodied-carbon utilised in the
construction and supporting an optimised level of (c) onsite renewable energy
systems (RES) Together they constitute the potential for a virtuous circle and a
cohesive building energy policy, Figure 1.
1.2 Creating a cohesive building energy policy.
Condensed urban living, (the 15-minute city concept), can reduce energy demand
and carbon emissions, (2). This is important as individual energy use in western
Europe needs to reduce by c. 60% before 2050, (3).
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

This is not currently incentivised within environmental policy, as buildings are treated
as self-contained elements independent of their energy, and sometimes, their
physical context. Their individual cost-optimality-defined energy performance is
siloed, and the benefits are not considered within a broader urban canvas. The new
EU ‘ZEB standard’ will change this as energy-plus developments will be recognised
and promoted (4).

1.3 The case study methodology -

imagining an integrated energy realm.
The research emanates from a proposed
mixed-use, low-rise project of three individual
buildings, (424m2) located on a case study
site, (660m2), within the back lands of an Irish
midlands country town along the line of
latitude of 53.5o. Each building consists of two
units and all units are intended to achieve a
‘long life’, ‘loose-fit’ configuration, allowing for
either domestic or commercial use. To this
end the units have been analysed through
four predictive energy methodologies, the
nZEB legislative methodologies, DEAP and
NEAP, and the two independent software
programmes of Passive House, (PH) which are
Figure 1. A carbon virtuous circle.
the Passive House Planning Package-
residential: (PHPP) (res) and PHPP (non-res).

Figure 2: South Elevation of Case Study Development.

1.4 The energy challenge of urban sites.

The case study site experiences vastly different seasonal variations of sunshine due
to adjacent developments which have been constructed beyond the mean heights of
the surrounding streetscape and contrary to conservation principles. This creates
dominant and imposing winter shadows between the autumn and spring equinoxes,
which, in low energy buildings and energy plus buildings of a passive nature are
important considerations and influences.
Predictive annual solar array (225m2) output: (30,816 kWh/yr)
J. F. M. A. M. J. J. A. S. O. N. D.
844 1251 2417 3476 4406 4242 4197 3763 2812 1814 1007 590

Table 1: The case study PV: 225m2 of PV array output, across the year
reflecting optimum orientation and inclination resulting in an output of 13
kWh/yr/m2.
2
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Figure 3. Site layout (ground floor).

Figure 4. Overview of case study from south-west

3
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

The heat demand of one of the case study buildings, changed 31% from 14.7kWh/m2
(unshaded), to 19.2kWh/m2 (shaded), due to the construction, adjacent to the site, of
a new six storey building. Windows which can support one particular energy balance
prior to an adjacent site being developed, can change in their energy profile, if
shadowing removes the benefit of a south facing orientation, or ironically allows
increased potential for overheating to occur, if a previously shaded window becomes
unprotected and exposed to yearlong sunshine. Significant building heights are
therefore not just a planning issue for the applicant site, but a notable energy
consideration for an urban area as a whole.

Figure 5: Seasonal shadowing of case study site.

In Irish towns and villages there is a predominance of two and three-storey buildings
with predictive widths and heights. When buildings of greater volume and height are
given planning permission, the microclimate of adjacent buildings and sites can
suffer. Size inflation, driven by speculative development criteria, is a recurrent
pressure which the planning system must deal with continually, and such pressures
increasingly thwart the creation of urban design that respects the grain and tenure of
a site, and the design and energy challenges that lie within. In particular, planning
has become an increasingly important energy domain, carrying the responsibility for
protecting the potential energy of sites, and the only renewable energy systems
(RES) which are totally zero carbon in generation, are site-derived sunlight and wind.

1.5. The Planning Domain is an energy domain.

The high carbon lifestyle which we currently enjoy must decrease by up to 90% to
achieve a compatibility with future carbon-emission reductions (5). An increased level
of urban living reduces casual resource use, unnecessary car journeys and promotes
greater use of public transportation. To achieve change, the planning process must
align with, and facilitate the building regulatory domain, to achieve optimal energy
performance on sites.
4
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Currently planning and building regulatory control are operated across different
platforms and legislative controls. In Ireland the local authorities who administer
planning have been advised by ministerial circular to stay well away from setting
energy standards (6). In such a way the simple engagement of planning with the
creation of low energy communities has become an unnecessarily contentious policy
area. In planning terms the central theme of the case study is one of ‘loose fit
buildings’ reflecting both planning and energy flexibility. ‘Loose-fit, long-life’ is an
established concept in architectural terms, to this we add ‘low-energy’, as it
recognises buildings whose layout and configuration allow for multiple future uses,
thus guaranteeing long life utility of the embodied carbon.

2.0 Loose-fit and cost optimality.

2.1 The current dilemma of nZEB.
The nZEB statutory standard categorises buildings as either dwellings, or non-
dwellings and uses two proprietary softwares to predict their energy use. These are
the ‘Domestic Energy Assessment Procedure’ (DEAP) and the ‘Non-Domestic
Energy Assessment Procedure’ (NEAP). These software methodologies have no
commonality of approach, nor are they intended to act as design tools, but rather as
compliance portals to ensure basic energy and carbon-emissions reduction and act
predominantly as a statistically robust asset-rating model for the national building
stock (7). Their implementation is focused on cost optimality as opposed to carbon or
energy optimality; cost optimality being “that performance level which leads to the
lowest cost during the estimated economic lifecycle” (8).
This approach favours market-friendly solutions which are readily implementable, are
not labour intensive and tend to be technologically mature. They therefore do not
encourage innovation and change and cannot be the optimal way to design buildings
now within the self-declared climate and biodiversity emergency as pronounced
within both the Irish Dáil, (parliament) and the English House of Commons.
Cost optimality criteria are also prone to recalibration due to both social and financial
variables. In times of low energy costs, and stable interest rates, cost optimality
calculations will favour mechanical solutions to achieving an energy efficiency,
offering immediate and relatively short-term financial returns (9). When energy costs
increase or financial interest rates become accentuated, the improved fabric solution
to energy reduction in temperate environments, becomes cost optimal (10).
Cost optimal calibrations work adequately in the context of mono-use buildings but
represent a limited aspiration when applied within urban areas where buildings can,
revert through many different uses from residential to retail to commercial depending
on market dynamics. Such flexibility is difficult to achieve with nZEB, particularly in
regard to fabric, where commercial buildings are generally poorly insulated. As we
look to repurpose our towns and cities within an energy strapped environment, it has
become increasingly obvious that the buildings designed and renovated to have a
loose-fit profile would serve our future needs well. This however requires an accuracy
of predictive energy use, which nZEB has in the past failed to deliver (11). The
research therefore is focused on understanding the policy-changes necessary to
ensure that the zero-carbon emissions future which we must create, can be met
through a recalibration of the nearly Zero Energy Building low energy strategy
(nZEB). The extent to which policy is determined by monetary concerns as
expressed de facto through cost-optimality must now be challenged.
5
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

2.2 Science-led optimality.

By 2050, we must achieve a real net-zero carbon society. This is particularly
achievable within urban areas where citizens can live a low carbon lifestyle, however
urban areas also have significant numbers of older structures which will never
achieve low carbon emissions status and so therefore any new buildings inserted into
such energy environments will need to support them to create a robust energy
context.
The recent emergence of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria
within EU legislation, points to an investment world which also demands these very
same outcomes. The concept of stranded assets, first muted about fossil fuel
company assets, has now become a real concern for property portfolio managers
everywhere. We have therefore reached a critical point of co-incidence, which
presents an opportunity to align endeavour with a necessary clarity of result.

3.0 The opportunity of co-incidence.

3.1 The current dilemma.
The built environment is responsible for over 40% of carbon emissions. We replace
1.5% of our buildings per year and we face a post-2050 future with over 60% of our
existing buildings still in use and requiring deep renovation. Problematically many of
the refurbishments which are currently completed are shallow in nature and will be
utterly dependent on the
carbon neutrality of the
power grid if they are to
perform as demanded in a
future zero-carbon
emissions environment
(12). Recent initiatives
such as 'Fabric-first',
reflect a realisation that
the first efficiency in
temperate climates is a
reduction in energy use
facilitated by good fabric.
(13). Additionally, the
belief that ‘the greenest
building is the one that
already exists’ is a further
iteration of understanding
that our existing buildings,
reflect a carbon debt Table 2 Elemental U values across current
already paid (14). In this standards
context many built-
environment practitioners have recognised the need to progress our fabric standards
beyond those defined by nZEB legislation. The 'RoyaI Institute of British Architects
(RIBA) Climate Challenge', the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, (RIAI)
Climate Challenge', the 'Architect’s Declare' initiatives, the ‘London Energy
Transformation Initiative’, (LETI), and the UK ‘Net Zero Carbon Building Standard’
have all come to the fore, and the passive house standard of fabric has been critical
to these endeavours, Table 2.
6
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

3.2 Addressing the shortfalls in the nZEB standard.

The intention of EU energy policy is to protect (i) energy supply, (ii) economic
development, and (iii) competitiveness. The EU development of the nearly Zero
Energy Building (nZEB) standard was intended to support these principles in a cost
optimal way, commensurable with the optimal technologies of the building industry
local to the member state. The research question is whether this approach is now fit
for purpose within the stated urgency of meeting our 2030 and 2050 carbon reduction
targets.
The case study explores a variety of step changes to the nZEB predictive software
methodologies, DEAP and NEAP, to understand what benefits might accrue from
recalibration. The PH specification has been used to understand the variation of
performance possible, along with utilising the PH planning package, PHPP (res), and
PHPP (non-res), to establish a parallel set of predictive data and understand the
potential benefits of such step-changes.
PH as expressed through PHPP is intended as a design tool and is more demanding
in regard to the particularities of site, fabric performance, airtightness and ventilation
than is the cost optimal nZEB standard. As a result of different software proclivities
the energy profiles have profoundly different outcomes. The benefit of the closed
boundary case study is to establish both the veracity and implications of these. The
step changes identified are: -
(a) Site Specific Data: Local climate data and solar irradiance is material to energy
use and overheating; currently there are twenty-five synoptic weather stations across
Ireland and yet the nZEB software uses only one (Dublin airport) to determine
predictive energy use.
(b) Building Occupancy: The emerging pattern of home working which became
established during Covid, in not reflected in the nZEB software methodologies. DEAP
in particular, defaults to a total of only 56 hours of occupancy per week to calculate
energy use, resulting in significant performance gaps, where home-working occurs.
(c) Indoor Air Quality: Increased work-from-home norms, brings focus onto indoor air
quality, (IAQ). Both DEAP and NEAP default to natural ventilation. As airtightness
and thermal fabric performance develop in the context of low embodied carbon
materials, such as timber framing and wood fibre insulation, the quality of controlled
ventilation and airtightness will become paramount.
(d) Renewable Energy Systems: Both the DEAP and NEAP standards fail to reward
optimum integration of RES into an overall operational strategy. As heat pumps and
electric vehicles (EV), emerge into our everyday existence, then the minimisation and
accuracy of our predictive energy use and the optimal generation and storage of
such energy will become paramount considerations.
(e) Embodied Carbon: New buildings constructed now will need to be zero-carbon
ready to operate in 2050, this reflects both operational and embodied carbon. The
embodied carbon of both fabric and services therefore takes on an increased
importance. The return on carbon used needs to be maximised through long-life
utility.
Such a transformation to nZEB requires a step change in the operation of nZEB and
its ambitions. The RIAI and RIBA Climate Challenge have together endeavoured to
set out the metrics necessary to meet our 2030 targets for both fabric and water use,
Table 3.

7
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Table 3: Summary of RIAI and RIBA metrics, (Domestic / Offices / Schools),

(Ref climate change challenge RIBA & RIAI documents).
RIAI and RIBA (V.2) Performance Metrics 2021 noted within brackets, [ ].

Metric Part L / [Regs] 2025 2030 Notes

Operational 90 kWh/m2/y 60 kWh/m2/y 35 kWh/m2/y Regulated
Energy and
Domestic [120 kWh/m2/y] [<35 kWh/m2/y] unregulated
kWh/m2/y [<60 kWh/m2/y] (to be achieved energy
UK good practice 100% by on site related to
60 kWh/m2/y renewables for gross
No gas boilers buildings up to 3 internal
storey)
area.
Embodied 1,200 kgCO2-eq/m2 <800kgCO2-eq/m2 <625 to <450 if LETI and
Carbon [1,200kgCO2-eq/m2] [<800kgCO2-eq/m2] possible RIBA set
guidelines
kgCO2-eq/m2 [<625kgCO2-eq/m2] (A1 to C4)
Potable <125 l/p/day <95 l/p/day <75 l/p/day CIBSE
water [125 l/p/day] [<95 l/p/day] [<75 l/p/day] Guide G
Operational <150 kWh/m2/y 75 kWh/m2/y 55 kWh/m2/y Regulated
Energy [130 kWh/m2/y] [<75 kWh/m2/y] [<55 kWh/m2/y] and
Non- unregulated
Domestic: UK good practice energy
Offices 90 kWh/m2/y related to
gross
internal
area.
Embodied <1,400 kgCO2-eq/m2 <970 kgCO2-eq/m2 <750 kgCO2-eq/m2 EN 15978.
Carbon [1,400 kgCO2-eq/m2] [<970kgCO2-eq/m2] [<750kgCO2-eq/m2] LCA across
kgCO2-eq/m2 95% of cost
(A1 to C4)
Potable <16 l/p/day <13 l/p/day <10 l/p/day CIBSE
water [16 l/p/day] [<13 l/p/day] [<10 l/p/day] Guide G
Operational <60 kWh/m2/y <50 kWh/m2/y <40 kWh/m2/y [UK: PE is
Energy [130 kgCO2-eq/m2] [<70 kgCO2-eq/m2] [<60 kgCO2-eq/m2] 2025:<55
Non- 2030:<45]
Domestic: UK good practice
Schools 75 kWh/m2/y

Embodied 1,000 kgCO2-eq/m2 <675 kgCO2-eq/m2 <540 kgCO2-eq/m2 EN 15978.

Carbon [1,000 kgCO2-eq/m2] [<675kgCO2-eq/m2] A1-A5 < 400 LCA across
kgCO2-eq/m2 kgCO2-eq/m2 95% of cost
[<540kgCO2-eq/m2] (A1 to C4)
Potable <4.5 l/p/day <1.5 l/p/day <0.5 l/p/day CIBSE
water [4.5 l/pupil/day] [<1.5 l/pupil/day] [<0.5 l/pupil/day] Guide G
Note 1 2025: would be a minimum standard for projects under design now
Note 2 Overheating: 25 to 28C max for 1% of occupied hours
Note 3 Daylighting: > 2% av. Daylight factor, 0.4 uniformity
Note 4 CO2 levels: 900 ppm & (RIAI: Radon<50bq/m3)
Note 5 Total VOC’s: <0.3mg/m2
Note 6 Formaldehyde: <0.1mg/m2
Note 7 Refurb 2030: <750 kgCO2-eq/m2 (non-domestic) &< 625 kgCO2-eq/m2 (dom.)
Note 8 CIBSE Guide G: Public health and plumbing engineering (2014)

8
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

3.3 The challenge of too-many standards against too-low ambition.

The shortfall in the ambition of the nZEB standards is clearly shown also in the recent
Irish Green Building Council (IGBC), report on whole life carbon within the
construction and the built environment (15). The report is set within the context of
the Irish Climate Action Plan indicating that our trajectory at present reflects a
probable failure to meet 2030 targets, not least being due to the fact that the
embodied carbon, inherent to the implementation of the plan, is not accounted for.
Table 4: IGBC Table: (Ref O’Hegarty, R., Wall, S., Kinnane, O., (2022). Whole
Life Carbon in Construction and the Built Environment in Ireland. Today, 2030,
2050. (Draft v4), IGBC).
IGBC: Report on Whole Life Carbon in Construction and Built
Environment (BE). V0.1. (2021).
V3 outcomes, (2022) are added in square brackets [ ]
Year O/A (National) O/A (Built Operational Construction/
Environment (BE)) (BE) embodied
(BE)
2018 65.14 MtCO2-eq 22.6 MtCO2-eq 15.7 MtCO2-eq 6.9 MtCO2-eq
(Included (35% of o/a (22% of o/a (11% of o/a
residential at 10.3 National) National) National)
MtCO2-eq
regulated load & [23.0MtCO2-eq]* [14.0MtCO2- [9.0MtCO2-eq]*
1.04 MtCO2-eq (37% of o/a eq]*
embodied) also
National)
(2.7 MtCO2-eq for
overall non-
residential)
2030 31.92 MtCO2-eq 11.52 MtCO2-eq 7.69 MtCO2-eq 3.83 MtCO2-eq
TARGET
(51% reduction)
2030 Not referenced 15.9 MtCO2-eq 8.95 MtCO2-eq 6.9 MtCO2-eq
(ESTIMATED) (OVERSHOOT) (OVERSHOOT) (OVERSHOOT)
Key Challenges
Note 1 The report (V0.1) issued 2021 notes that by current metrics and trajectory
the climate plan will miss its target by 4.38 MtCO2-eq due primarily to
embodied carbon unaccounted for within the CAP.
Note 2 The report (V3) issued 2022, suggests that embodied emissions from the
National Development Plan will overwhelm savings in operational
emissions and result in GHG emissions from the BE being three times
above the 2030 target.
Note 3 Estimates in V0.1 were made with low level of confidence, V3 is more
rigorous. BE emissions for construction relate mainly to concrete (50%)
steel and aluminium.
Note 4 While operational carbon will decrease due to the decarbonisation of
electricity, embodied carbon will increase. Works within the National
Development Plan will increase embodied carbon by 10% per year
Note 5 The target figure is based on all sectors reaching their 51% reduction
figure.
Note 6 >50% of housing stock to be B rated or better (>50kWh/m2/yr) by 2030,
with operational carbon reduced by 30%. Currently 75% of the stock is C
rated
Note 7 Embodied carbon to reach a maximum of 3.7MtCO2/yr at height of
construction. All new homes are assumed A rated; 32,500 per year until
2027 with 25,000 per year to 2030 as per NDP

9
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Notwithstanding all of this, the marketplace has a wide variety of performance

standards to determine the environmental quality of a development. These have
included broad and inclusive metrics such as LEED and BREEAM, down to the
detailed and focused energy criteria established by the Passive House (Passivhaus)
standard.
The carbon context within which all of these energy-centred initiatives operate is
defined by the Paris Agreement of 2015. We have a finite budget of carbon left to us
if we are to stay below the 1.5oC warming threshold, beyond which all difficulties lie.
Currently we have overspent this budget two-fold suggesting that we only have eight
years of current emissions left prior to 2050, twenty-eight years away.

4.0 The case study data.

4.1 The energy use profile
Utilising PH standards of fabric within the DEAP and NEAP software programmes
indicates the significant reduction in energy use which ensues, Table 5 and Table 6
below. The DEAP step-change review, commenced with all units achieving minimum
compliance within the DEAP software methodology, expressed as building energy
ratings (BERs) of A3 and A2.
The DEAP specifications were subsequently altered in the first instance to reflect a
PH standard of fabric, which gave rise to a 27% reduction in space heat demand.
Improved airtightness in DEAP, (to the PH standard), gave rise to an additional 3%
improvement in performance, (not indicated), while the third iteration allowed for
MVHR (92% efficiency), which reduced the heat demand by another 31%, all as per
Table 5, (1), (2) and (3).
This is a notable benefit and iterates the research literature which establishes also
that MVHR systems are beneficial in energy (and monetary) terms. The improved
space heat performance represents a notable saving and contribution to addressing
fuel poverty were it to be extrapolated across a broader range of housing.
While this energy saving alone is not particularly surprising, the key insight, as to its
benefit, lies is regard to loose-fit, the resulting RES optimisation, and the embodied
carbon return on investment and M&E services.
Table 6 indicates the NEAP analysis. Like the DEAP analysis all units were initially
specified to achieve minimum compliance with the NEAP software methodology,
achieving building energy ratings (BERs) of A3 and A2. The underlying software
used to verify the calculations was DesignBuilder.
The detailed step-changes reflect in the first instance, the introduction of a PH
standard of fabric, which gives rise to a significant 63% reduction in heat demand
confirming the fact that the original fabric standard within the NEAP methodology is
not particularly demanding, (16).
Airtightness and ventilation were further step-changed to achieve the PH standard,
which gives rise to only an additional 13% improvement in performance, compared to
the 31% for DEAP noted in Table 5.

10
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Table 5. Predicted annual heating demand: kWh/m2/yr across units in DEAP.

(DEAP step-changed in iterative steps to reflect improved fabric to PH standard,
airtightness, and ventilation, from top to bottom. (Note that the application of PV
raises all buildings to an A1 BER standard).
[Annual heating Blk. 1 Blk. 1 Blk. 2 Blk. 2 Blk. 3 Blk. 3 [% heat
demand] demand vs
kWh/m2/yr U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 DEAP,
backstop]
1. DEAP 3.392 4611 1,672 1730 5144 5144 21,693
(Backstop)
A3 A3 A3 A3 A2 A2 [100%]
2. DEAP + PH 2,400 2,409 1,263 1,173 4,011 4,011 15,267
Fabric (F) +AT
A3 A2 A3 A3 A2 A2 [70%]
3. DEAP + 1,337 1,324 762 799 2,087 2,087 8,396
F+AT+Vent
A2 A2 A3 A2 A2 A2 [39%]
Resulting in: Improvement noted at 13,297 kWh or 61% from backstop,
(Indicated in yellow below).
1. DEAP 3,392 4,611 1,672 1,730 5,144 5,144 21,693
(Backstop)
3. DEAP (Min) 1,337 1,324 762 799 2,087 2,087 8,396

Table 6. Predicted heating demand annual: kWh across units in NEAP.

(NEAP step-changed in iterative steps to reflect improved fabric to PH standard,
ventilation, and airtightness, from top to bottom.).
[Predicted Blk. 1 Blk. 1 Blk. 2 Blk. 2 Blk. 3 Blk. 3 [with %
heating demand heat
annually] U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 demand
kWh/m2/yr vs
NEAP,
backstop]
a. NEAP (backstop) 5,878 7,185 2,136 2,136 6,033 6,033 29,401

A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 [100%]
b. NEAP + 4,232 5,173 574 574 1810 1810 10,773

PH Fabric (F) A3 A3 A2 A2 A2 A2 [37%]

c. NEAP ++ 1,450 1,772 569 569 1283 1283 6,926

F + Vent A3 A3 A2 A2 A2 A2 [24%]
d. NEAP +++ 999 1,221 569 569 1283 1283 5,924

F + Vent +AT A3 A3 A2 A2 A2 A2 [20%]

Resulting in: Improvement noted at 23,477 kWh or 80% from backstop,
(Indicated in yellow below).
a. NEAP (Backstop) 5,878 7,185 1,672 1,730 5,144 5,144 29,401
d. NEAP (Min) 999 1,221 762 799 2,087 2,087 5,924

11
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Figure 6 indicates a summary of the DEAP and NEAP step-changes by way of a

graphic representation, indicating the heating demand reduction achieved within the
software methodologies if step changed to PH standards. The heating demand
reduction to DEAP and NEAP are significant, constituting a reduction of 71% for
DEAP and 80% for NEAP, the biggest step, for the latter, being the fabric.

Figure 6. Step change performance metrics to DEAP and NEAP as set

out across unit two utilising PH standards. (Vertical units in kWh/m2/yr).

Table 7 below indicates the use of DEAP and NEAP specifications within the PHPP
software compared to PH specifications. It is notable how significant the energy use
deviates, when the DEAP and NEAP specifications are required to support 24-hour /
7-day comfort levels common to PH, confirming the performance gap inherent to the
DEAP and NEAP predictive software programs which emanates from the restrictive
thermal and temporal definitions contained within DEAP and NEAP software
programmes.
The table also establishes how PHPP (res) and PHPP (non-res) could bridge the
current energy gap between a building designed in NEAP for commercial use and
one designed for residential use in DEAP.

Table 7. PHPP Heat demand across the campus site using PH

specification (b) and (d); PH using nZEB fabric specification (a) and (c)
[Predicted heating Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Totals
demand annually]
kWh/m2/yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 [ reduct]
a PH (DEAP SPEC) 6,502 6,254 1961 1961 8092 8092 32,862

(Backstop) [ 100%]
b PH (res) 1,976 1,220 493 493 1533 1533 7,248

[22%]
c PH (NEAP SPEC) 9,469 6,582 2458 2458 7713 7713 36,393

(Backstop) [100%]
d PH (Non-res) 1,886 1,017 501 501 1236 1236 6,377

[18%]

12
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

While combining commercial use with residential use requires significant upfront
design initiatives and fire engineering, nevertheless the benefit of long-life utility, and
real urban alternatives to suburban greenfield sites is worthy of support. Such
greenfield developments leave town centres derelict and fail to reduce the
unrelenting sprawl which accompanies this type of urban growth, creating disparate
communities, dependent on individual car ownership, lacking population densities
capable of supporting good public transportation and local businesses.
As the research indicates, improved fabric performance creates a reduced variability
of energy use within all the buildings and combined with an accuracy of predictive
software, would allow an increased accuracy of understanding of the overall energy
use on the site. This then allows for an optimal consideration of the PV to be
installed, allied with consideration of the surplus resulting from improved fabric.

4.2 The RES profile

The subject site is well located within the upper levels of solar irradiation and would,
with 225m2 of unshaded PV, generate c. 30,816 kWh of power per year, or enough
dedicated power to charge 4 cars daily to 14.8 kWh reflecting a range of 60 to 80 km.
This would meet the needs of most short journeys and creates a replacement value
for a kWh of electricity, (say in lieu of a diesel car running at 50 miles to a gallon), at
close to 50 cents, substantially more than the default values of between 12 cents to
21 cents being touted as the buyback value to the grid currently.

The green line reflects PV output and its overlap to the consumption lines demarcates
where energy from the grid is required. NEAP requires this between the end of August
and mid-May. In contrast PH (res) only needs supplementary consumption from the grid
between October and March., (blue lines notation).
Figure 7. DEAP, NEAP, PH (res) and PH (non res) in context of PV, profiled
thru PHPP. (NEAP: yellow), (DEAP: red), (PH non res: grey), (PH res: blue).
Figure 7 reflects how the energy performance of the buildings have a significant
influence on the energy demand profile across the shoulder seasons and therefore
the level of PV generated electricity available for use onsite to support EV use or
seasonal water storage. This is further detailed in Table 8 which indicates how an
annual surplus of PV generation is available when the development has been
designed to PH standards while the nZEB standard allows no annual surplus.
13
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Table 8. Total estimated energy demand in kWh across entire site

(calculated through PHPP), DEAP and NEAP using nZEB specifications, but
patterns of use determined within PH.
(The yellow boxes indicate periods of surplus PV generation vs building need, for each energy
standard).
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
DEAP 8587 7669 7018 5506 3629 2262 1619 1547 2205 4709 7108 8883 60,742
PH 3363 2941 2327 1730 1293 1186 1167 1166 1185 1609 2704 3584 24,257
(res)
PV 844 1251 2417 3476 4406 4242 4197 3763 2812 1814 1007 590 30,816
NEAP 9624 8752 8279 6813 4833 3248 2463 2350 3076 5705 8092 9855 73,089
PH. 3830 3422 2821 2255 1830 1728 1712 1711 1726 2089 3155 4051 30,328
(non
res)

Energy-plus building design strategies, such as these, grafted unto urban areas,
including our existing towns and villages, allow these buildings to take on the added
potentiality of being an urban energy leader and battery, compensating for older
buildings which may never achieve a viable energy standard.
In this respect it is notable in Table 8 above that the nZEB profiles, allow for only five
months and three months respectively, when there is surplus energy available on the
site. Table 8 also clearly indicates the extent to which the residential nZEB energy
standard for dwellings (DEAP) significantly outperforms that of the non-dwelling
buildings, (NEAP) creating significant energy issues related to future re-utilisation of
such buildings from commercial to residential use.
With the nZEB strategy in Ireland focused on individual buildings achieving energy
labels in a cost optimal way, (with accompanying performance gaps), then our towns
and cities will become submerged in power hungry heat pumps, an exponential
growth in EV charging, and an increasing internet driven plug load; all matters not yet
extrapolated through to their impending effect on our power grid environment and the
cash strapped occupants of these nZEB buildings.

4.3 The embodied carbon profile

All of the campus buildings have been designed to reflect DEAP, NEAP, PH (res)
and PH (non-res) standards of performance, based on minimum fabric and
airtightness standards and specifications. The varied metrics of the different fabrics
are also of interest in ascertaining if the additional embodied carbon of the improved
fabrics necessary, to achieve the PH standards of performance, are justified by the
reduction in operational energy achieved, and the RES benefits to be gleaned.
The embodied carbon analysis is based on both an nZEB standard of performance
and a PH standard, across both residential use and simple office use, to explore the
principle of loose-fit. Two deliberately different specifications of construction are set
out, one is of traditional materials, (i) PIR insulation onto standard concrete block with
concrete floors and foundations and a contrasting low-carbon (ii) biomass
construction format consisting of timber frame and cellulose insulation, both analysed
through the Association for Environment Conscious Building, (AECB) CO2 calculator;
life cycle assessment stages A1 to A5, B1 to B5 and C1 to C5, all in accordance with
I.S. EN 15978:2011, (17)
The results are as indicated in Figure 8.
14
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Figure 8. Embodied carbon (equivalent) across nZEB and PH fabric

standards, using traditional concrete block construction and low embodied
carbon timber frame construction methodologies across entire site.
While the units generally have slightly different fabric u-values, a representative
amalgam of these is used to formulate the fabric specifications. There are eight
different scenarios, four reflecting residential and four reflecting non-residential use
respectively, specified to comply with both the PHPP and nZEB requirements, using
high and low embodied carbon fabric solutions for each.
The embodied carbon calculated is focused on the external elements of the structure
only, floors, walls, and roofs, with a view to establishing estimates of sufficient detail
to reflect both the disparity of embodied carbon between BAU and timber
construction, and to reflect the additional embodied carbon required to achieve the
step changes in the fabric to achieve the PH standard of performance, over the nZEB
standard. A full embodied carbon calculation was not believed to be necessary to
indicate the trajectory of the research and would have constituted a detail of material
specification which was both premature and outside the aim and objectives of the
paper.

Table 9. Additional embodied carbon within fabric based on Figure 7.6 set
against the reduced heat demand indicating resultant carbon payback times.
DEAP vs PH Total heat demand use Embodied Carbon (Kg CO2-eq) of
Standard (kWh) (Ref table 5. Fabric (across two construction
methods)
DEAP 21,693 per year 139.9 40.0
PH (Domestic) 7,248 per year 164.3 44.8
Savings / Extras 14,445 kWh 24,400 Kg CO2-eq 4,800 Kg CO2-eq

(Saved per year) (Extra) (Extra)

Payback period 14,445 kWh 7.54 years 1.48 years
(yrs.) for
embodied carbon (@ 0.224kgCO2-eq /kWh) Payback period Payback
used based period
= 3,235 kg CO2-eq

15
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Table 10. NEAP Carbon payback times for additional embodied carbon
within fabric.

NEAP vs PH Total heat demand use Embodied Carbon

kWh
Standard of Fabric (across two construction
methods)
NEAP 29,401 137.4 40.1
PH (non-res) 6,377 159.4 47.6
Savings /Extras 23,024 kWh 22,000 Kg CO2-eq 7,500 Kg CO2-eq

Saved Extra Extra

Payback period 23,024 kWh 4.3 years 1.45 years
for embodied
carbon (@ 0.224 kg/kWh) Payback period Payback
period
= 5,157 kg CO2-eq

The PV panel array output of 30,816kWh was also investigated as to its embodied
carbon, which was estimated at 61,875Kg CO2-eq, (225m2 by 275 KgCO2-eq).
Depending on the PEF of the electricity displaced this reflected a ‘payback period’ of
either 9 or 5 years, (reflecting a PEF of either 0.224 kg/kWh, or 0.409 kg/kWh).
Of greater benefit and insight was consideration of the embodied carbon across the
life cycle of the PV array, and the reducing PEF for the on-site generated electricity,
as the life expectancy expanded, Table 11.
A PEF of less than 0.100kg/kWh begins to reflect a zero-carbon power source. The
second significant RES on site consisted of the heat pump (HP) technologies. The
embodied carbon is directly related to the number of units installed as Figure 9
indicates.

Table 11. Embodied carbon of PV installation reflecting various life

expectancy.
(PV generation (kWh) per year: 20 years 25 years 30 years
30,816)
Entire generational output 616,320 kWh 770,400 kWh 924,480 kWh
Carbon intensity of PV array at 0.1004kg/kWh 0.0803kg/kWh 0.0669 kg/kWh
61,875 kgCO2-eq across various
life expectancies. (Baseline 100%) (80%) (67%)

From the point of view of the embodied carbon of the M&E services, a crucial design
decision is whether the development is considered as a campus of buildings or a
group of individual structures, each one being serviced by its own individual
heatpump and services. The embodied carbon implications are significant if a
collective approach to M&E services is established at design stage, Figure 9.

16
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Six 6kW heat pumps (one per unit) each One ground source heat pump containing 3.2
containing 1.75 tonnes of embodied carbon tonnes of embodied carbon replaced three
(equivalent) replaced three times over 60- times over 60-year life (every 20 years) (Total
year life (every 20 years). (Total 24 across 4 over 60 years). Equals 12.8 tonnes of
60 years). Equals 42.0 tonnes of embodied carbon (e)
embodied carbon (e)
Individual vs Communal: ( Finnegan, Jones, Sharples, (2018))
Figure 9. Comparison of potential embodied carbon (equivalent)contained
within heating design. (LNS reflects individual units, while RHS reflects
communal unit).
The perception of the case study site as a campus of buildings, requires
consideration of the hierarchy of boundaries. The only statutory body in Ireland
allowed to carry electrical energy across a legal boundary is the Electricity Supply
Board (ESB) Networks. Thermal energy is under no such restriction and so the case
study reflects the potential for a shared communal heatpump which significantly
reduces the hardware on the site and the resultant embodied carbon.
There are no significant literatures dealing with these matters in Ireland and yet these
are significant considerations within our overall understanding of how the urban sites
of our Irish towns and villages might develop and support optimal ‘loose-fit, long-life,
low-energy developments, Figure 9.

5.0 Conclusions.
5.1. Findings
The purpose of this paper has been to understand what the design parameters of a
low-energy built environment might look like, if ‘carbon’ really mattered. Deciding to
prioritise the optimal ‘use of carbon’ suggests the need for a step change from the
underlying optimal ‘lowest cost’ parameters of the nZEB standard.

17
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

These are difficult topics in a period of high inflation, and high energy costs, however
they point toward the need to increase financial aid for energy-plus buildings. and PH
constitutes a beneficial set of principles by which to structure this. In this respect
suggesting that PH is not a valid methodology for achieving building regulatory
compliance within the Republic of Ireland is unreasonable. Indeed as of December
2022, the Scottish Parliament has set its endeavours in exactly this direction (18).
Improving fabric performance allows for a reduction in the size of mechanical
equipment which allows for significant reduction in the embodied carbon of
mechanical services. This is important as the primary parameter relevant to
controlling GHG emissions in buildings is not the operational energy per se, but
rather the use of resources to achieve that standard across the entire life of the
building.
Additionally for small urban infill developments, the better the overall energy
performance of a building, the greater will be its flexibility of use and long-life utility. In
commercial buildings improved fabric allows for reduced heating demand in winter,
with greater cooling demand in the summer at a time when on-site RES such as PV
are at their maximum output, and the overall annual peak load is reduced.
This re-focus on resources suggests a need for circularity of use and reuse. The
case study reflects how the additional embodied carbon necessary to achieve PH
standards of fabric have a carbon return of anything from two to seven years only.
Additionally when the development is considered as an energy campus of buildings,
there is the wider potential to combine an optimality of operational use, with reduced
resource use, reducing embodied carbon and thus also allowing time for supply
circularity to emerge (19).
The principle therefore that urban development of our towns and villages would be
well-served by creating a step change in our nZEB policy software, to facilitate a
flexibility of end use, is valid. That such structures might become energy plus
developments is also a valid objective and optimised photovoltaic arrays (PV) and
electric vehicles (EV) will play a pivotal role in these matters, (20).

5.2. Ongoing research.

Inevitably as primary energy factors (PEFs) reduce, the integration of Renewable
Energy Systems (RES) can become difficult to justify on carbon optimality grounds
alone. Worldwide the installation of PV from 2000 to 2011 has increased by almost
5000%, and HPs and EVs have been a significant impetus to this expansion
providing an opportunity for energy storage and power grid support on the demand
side of the grid, minimising and supporting the reduction of grid peak load.
Bridging the performance gap between nZEB and PH to achieve ZEB, is therefore
not just important in creating heathier and more comfortable internal environments,
but also as a direct support to the optimisation of the PV installation to render its use
optimal, which is important as the carbon intensity of the power grid itself reduces.
This scenario is necessary if the real benefits of Demand Side Flexibility (DSF) are to
be integrated into the evolution of the power grid, and PH has begun to recognise
this through its renewable Primary Energy Metric (PER) which differentiates between
onsite renewable electricity and grid electricity (21).
Further research investigations are also possible regarding selection of the optimal
RES scenarios for the site: - (a) Individual heat pumps, with PV installed and
dedicated to EV use only, or, (b) a centralised geo-thermal heat pump system with
PV operation spanning across site, and EV usage.
18
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

Analysis of these scenarios would broaden our insight into the energy and carbon
gap between the three buildings, if built to the current nZEB standard, or to a better
standard such as PH/ZEB, or if designed to a campus format in lieu of individually
performing buildings.

5.3. The practical application of the research.

The research identifies and gives direction to the need for our building regulatory
system and our planning system to align, to facilitate the optimal low energy design
of buildings within our dilapidated towns and villages.
Understanding the need for improved fabric performance, which facilitates loose fit
design, and supports the complex interplay of localised RES (PV), orientation and
site overshadowing, is integral to improving our planning systems, meeting our
carbon reduction obligations, and creating urban areas fit for a 2050 lifestyle.
Ireland along with every western European Country, has an increased proportion of
older citizens. Both NEAP and DEAP fail to adequately calibrate the comfort
temperatures and indoor environmental quality conducive to optimum health benefits
for such a population, all as set out within EN 16798-1 – 2019, (22). Therefore as
energy security has become the crisis of our time, the encouragement of photovoltaic
(PV) use and its strategic integration into a step-changed nZEB software, effectively
ZEB, to reflect smart metering and prosumer integration within our future low carbon
power grids has now become critical, if for no other reason than to achieve the
emission reductions necessary through to 2030, (51%), and to 2050, (100%). We
must have ambition now, and this ambition must be science and carbon-optimality
led.

References
(1). Central Statistics Office, (Frontier Series Output): Pulse Survey-our lives online-
remote work, November 2021.
(2). Barrett, J., Pye, S., Betts-Davies, S., Broad, O., Price, J., Eyre, N., Anable, J.,
Brand, C., Bennett, G., Carr-Whitworth, R., Garvey, A., Giesekam, J., Marsden, G.,
Norman, J., Oreszczyn, T., Ruyssevelt, P., and Scott, K. Energy demand reduction
options for meeting national zero-emission targets in the United Kingdom. Nature
Energy, Volume 7, August 2022, Pages 726-735.
(3) Implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU), EPRS Review
579.327, April 2016.
(4) EU Directive, (proposal) (2023). Energy performance of buildings (recast)
Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 14 March, on the proposal for
a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance
of buildings (recast) (COM (2021)0802 – C9-0469/2021 – 2021/0426(COD))1
(Ordinary legislative procedure – recast) P9_TA (2023)0068.
(5) M. Berners-Lee. How Bad are Bananas. Profile Books, (2010)
(6) The Irish Times, (June 15th., 2015), and noted internationally within the Guardian
newspaper (June 17th., 2015).
(7) Central Statistics Office, (Frontier Series Output): Pulse Survey-our lives online-
remote work, November 2021.
(8) EU Directive, (2009). 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 April. On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and
amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.

19
 CIBSE Technical Symposium, UK April 2024

(9) O Riain, M., Harrison, J., (2015) Zero 2020, the low energy retrofit and renovation
of a precast concrete building in Ireland exploring site nZEB Energy Retrofit in
Precast Grid Optimized Low Rise ‘60s Buildings. Journal of Engineering and
Architecture 3 (1). DOI:10.15640/jea.v3n1a15.
(10) Moran, Paul & Goggins, Jamie & Hajdukiewicz, Magdalena. (2017). Super-
Insulate or use Renewable Technology? Life Cycle Cost, Energy and Global
Warming Potential Analysis of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) in a Temperate
Oceanic Climate. Energy and Buildings. 139. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.029.gins
(11). Colclough, S., O Hegarty, R., Murray, M., Lennon, D., Rieux, E., Colclough, M.,
Kinnane O., (2021). Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 Retrofit nZEB dwellings.
Results from the Irish nZEB101 project. (2021).
(12) Moran, P., O Connell, J., Goggins, J. (2020). Sustainable energy efficiency
retrofits as residential buildings move towards nearly zero energy building (NZEB)
standards. Energy & Buildings 211 (2020) 1098 16.
(13) Fabric-first theme is central also to the ‘RetroFirst’ principle, championed by the
Architect’s Journal (AJ), (2021).
(14) Berners-Lee, M. (2019). There is no Plan B, (Pg.164, & Pg. 172). Cambridge
University Press.
(15) O’Hegarty, R., Wall, S., Kinnane, O., (2022). Whole Life Carbon in Construction
and the Built Environment in Ireland. Today, 2030, 2050. (Draft v4). On behalf of the
IGBC.
(16) Croly C., (2017). Will changes to Part L help us achieve ‘nearly zero energy
building standards’. Engineers Ireland, August 1st. (News and Insights).
https://www.engineersireland.ie/listings/search?wide=1&filter=croly.
(17) BS EN 15978:2011: Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of
environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method
(18) Scotland PH: (2022) Rowley, A., Draft Proposal: Bill to introduce new minimum
environmental design standards for all newbuild housing to meet the Passivhaus
standard, or a Scottish equivalent, in order to improve energy efficiency and thermal
performance. Domestic Building Environmental Standards (Scotland) Bill, (2022)
https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/articles/government-agrees-to-progress-
legislation-for-mandatory-new-build-passivhaus-standard.
(19) Rovers R, People vs Resources. (Eburon, Utrecht 2019).
(20) Murray M., NZEB RECONSIDERED: Optimality step-changes understood
through an urban loose-fit development, within a temperate oceanic climate, as
though ’carbon matters’, PhD Thesis, Ulster University, Faculty of Computing,
Engineering, and the Built Environment, 2023.
(21) International Passive House Association. https://passivehouse international.org./
(22). BS EN 16798-1:2019: Energy performance of buildings. Ventilation for
buildings, Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of
energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment,
lighting, and acoustics.

Acknowledgements
This paper has arisen through research in support of Ph D Study at Ulster University,
2-24 York Street, Belfast, Co Antrim. I wish to thank the University for their
sponsorship of these studies and their support in the development of this paper along
with the advice and guidance of my supervisors Dr Shane Colclough, and Professor
Philip Griffiths.
20