Zero Carbon Homes by 2016

Quote from CIOB (2008):

Climate change is one of the most serious challenges
facing the world in the 21st century. With 50% of
emissions being apportioned directly to the buildings we
live and work in, the built environment is in the front line
of the battle to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

The challenge of reducing emissions is not just limited to
new building stock but to existing buildings as well. The
majority of the 2025 building stock has already been built,
and improving the performance of the existing building
stock is the most important and potentially effective area
where carbon emissions can be significantly reduced.

Rightly or wrongly, the focus so far, has been on delivering
zero carbon new buildings. The UK Government has
set a goal for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016.
Ministers have also set out an ambition to require all
new schools to be zero carbon by 2016; all public sector
buildings by 2018; and potentially all new buildings by 2019.

To achieve these targets a clear and pragmatic
definition of zero carbon must be agreed by industry
and government, and consistently applied across different
building types. The definition, which is outlined in industry
standards and codes of best practice, must allow sufficient
levels of flexibility to be achievable in the vast majority of
situations, without reducing the level of ambition in terms
of carbon emission reductions overall. It must also be
applicable across domestic and non-domestic buildings
to facilitate the delivery of mixed-use developments.

end quote

New quote:

Zero Carbon Definition Announced

The Minister of State John Healey MP has this month (Aug 2009) written a statement covering important housing policy issues.

His announcements covered the further definition of zero carbon, affirming the zero carbon targets, announcing Eco Town sites and a consultation on the climate change and renewable energy planning policy statements.

In his statement, he confirmed that all new homes will be zero carbon as of 2016. He also outlined the official definition of a zero carbon home as "one whose carbon dioxide emission is zero or negative across the year. This includes energy regulated by Building Regulations and other energy used in the home."

(i.e., A zero carbon home is one that generates as much power as it uses over the course of a year and therefore has net zero carbon dioxide emissions.)

The statement also announced a regulatory minimum "carbon compliance" standard. This will be 70 per cent of regulated energy use. He also outlined new support for small scale renewable heat and electricity generation through the Renewable Heat Incentive and Clean Energy Cash Back. This will be available for zero carbon homes.
Any carbon not mitigated on site will be dealt with through a range of good quality "allowable solutions" including:
* further carbon reductions on site beyond the regulatory standard
* energy efficient appliances meeting a high standard which are installed as fittings within the home
* advanced forms of building control system which reduce the level of energy use in the home
* exports of low carbon or renewable heat from the development to other developments

end quote

My conclusion for Zero Carbon Homes by 2016 is:

The zero carbon home has more to do with creative carbon accounting and nothing to do with the amount of carbon embedded in:

(a) transportation of low carbon or carbon neutral (biomass) fuels to the home

(b) the initial construction of the house, so one could theoretically build it out of insulated concrete forms, one of the most carbon and fossil fuel intensive forms of construction

(c) Any carbon not mitigated on site will be dealt with through a range of good quality "allowable solutions"

Any of the above will still qualify. Therefore, by creative carbon accounting, it is definitely possible to achieve the zero carbon home target by 2016.

This carbon-thing has been well thrashed in this thread.

It is our responsibility to inform elected representatives of the lunacy of the lack of Because it does sound so logical, it has taken a life of its own.

Very difficult is debunking the carbon neutral concept as eloquently as the proponents advance it.