While the renewables industry, and in particular the PV crowd, are still smarting over the governments’ decision to halve their subsides overnight, back in December, the wider global issues of what to do when Kyoto expires at the end of the year have hardly been talked about. But what that fiasco¹ did, to my mind, was to illustrate just how difficult any further agreement will be.

First, let’s look at what paying 130² times more for something than it is actually worth has achieved. For a start a massive growth in the rate of PV installations; anyone with a roof and/or a good credit record could look forward to a 6-8% return on investment, and 10-12% if they were a higher rate tax payer. It was a no brainer. Those on low incomes or living in flats needs not apply, but I don’t want to talk about the regressive nature of the scheme here. Beyond this there is the legitimate claim that the scheme has brought down installation costs, which was the aim all along, a laudable achievement and some justification to cut the FiT early. But before we all get too carried away with this success and the current ‘cheapness’ of PV’s I would like to take a step back and examine what has actually delivered these price reductions.

As far as I’m aware there was no significant PV manufacturing going on the UK in 2009 and there isn’t now. All the jobs created have been in sales, marketing and installation. Whilst not wishing to denigrate the work of these people (well maybe marketing) these are hardly leading edge technology jobs that are going to lift us out of recession. Because PV cells are imported, the PV FiT has served to worsen our balance of trade deficit unlike wind and hydro where there is home manufacturing.  A 50% reduction in the price of a green technology is still good news, but this reduction might not be quite as it seems. For a start, back in the days when PVs were funded by the Low Carbon Buildings Programme prices were inflated. The question ‘How much does a system cost? was often  answered by ‘How big is the grant?’. Prices have reduced quite dramatically, but is the 43p kWh subsidy responsible? I think not. Since 2009 global PV production has nearly tripled to 50GWp³ of which the UK accounted for 0.8 GWp⁴ (of consumption). It is the massive increase in the global production of PVs, and the economies of scale such an expansion delivers, that has brought about the price reductions seen, not the FiT.⁵

Interestingly, almost all of this expansion has been in the manufacture of crystalline cells. Yet five or so years ago all the interest was in thin film technology with its inherent low energy of manufacture and therefore low costs, so what happened? Well, in a word, China. One of the reasons why PV’s, especially the more efficient crystalline type, have always been so expensive is the large amount of energy (i.e. electric furnace use) required to heat Silicon to 1000ºC and hold it there long enough to grow suitable crystals. But China has cheap energy as well as cheap labour so it’s the ideal place to mass produce PV’s and that’s exactly what has happened. The problem here of course is where China is getting all this cheap energy from – for the most part brown coal or mega dams.

This brings me back to my point that PVs are a good example (not to mention an ironic one) why an inclusive binding Kyoto replacement will be almost impossible to achieve. A product that is championed in the UK as a cornerstone of our carbon reduction strategy is only possible at anything like a sensible cost so long as the Chinese don’t have to account for all the CO2 they emit on our behalf making the products we need to demonstrate our commitment to the environment.

Notes
1. What the government should have done was to remove the index linking and make any income taxable. Over the 25 year term that would have ‘saved’ as much money as the cut to 21p but preserved the easy to sell 43p rate. In fact a better scheme all round would have been a top-up subsidy whereby any electricity price below say 25p was topped up so as the price of electricity rises and the income from that increases the amount given out falls but that’s another story.
2. 43p paid per kWh of electricity generated means about 80p is spent to save each kg of CO2. The current internationally traded price of a kg of CO2 (i.e. under EU ETS is 0.6p). This is the price at which industry considers it is worth spending money to save carbon. True this figure is probably too low but……..
3. http://www.pv-tech.org/news/ims_research_pv_module_manufacturing_capacity_hits_50gw_in_2011
4. http://www.leeds-solar.co.uk/blog/entry/Analysis-of-solar-pv-installation-figures-vs-Feed-In-Tariff-Budget
5. After 30 years of waiting it has to be said.
6. http://www.solarbuzz.com/our-research/recent-findings/world-solar-photovoltaic-market-grew-274-gigawatts-2011-40-yy

Ecobuild this year has been compared to a nightclub – a fair comment with all the Eco-bling and show-boating on a scale previously seen only at Interbuild or MIPIM.  It is encouraging that Sustainability has
truly hit the mainstream with Saint Gobain, Lafarge, and VM ZINC as some of the biggest stands.  However, trekking around the mammoth air-conditioned halls of the Excel centre – I began to wonder –
where was sustainable design?  How would I ever see the sustainably sourced wood through the trees?

After some evasive action and sidestepping around the greenwash, I got my bearings and found a multitude of seminars and engaging briefings on practical subjects at stands within the main
hall – RIBA, BRE, UKGBC, Building Magazine, Practical Installer and the Passivhaus Trust all had excellent  seminars.  The talks were more focussed this year – my personal favourite being “how green is tall?” The panel of Ken Shuttleworth(MAKE), Ken Mawer(WSP), and Jane Wernick (JWA) agreed that the market would continue to demand tall buildings in urban areas for reasons including cost of land and maximising density around public transport hubs.  Jane Wernick argued the negative impacts of tall buildings including lack of permeability at ground level, increased operational and embodied carbon, overshadowing of neighbouring environment and the negative impact on the mental health of occupants.  In the debate section, we heard Ken Shuttleworth again admit that they should not have designed the Gherkin to have glass all the way round showing little thought to orientation, and that he thought the Shard was a greenhouse which will overheat in summer and require excessive heating in winter.  The
conclusion was that tall buildings needed to take into account maintenance and adaptability for future generations as well as solar orientation/shading in order to future proof the building for a longer lifespan.

Another bastion of strategical thinking was the RIBA “village” – it acted as a safe house for all lost
architects who felt vulnerable out in the wild of salesman suppliers.  The village offered regular bitesize sessions on sustainable design and free tea to weary visitors.  One of these talks was by Sofie Pelsmakers to launch her book The Environmental Design Pocketbook. Having briefly skim-read it, I got in line to buy PTEa several copies.  I can really recommend it as a comprehensive explanation with clear diagrams explaining the fundamentals of sustainability and its relevance to environmental building in the UK. There are excellent sections on environmental site planning, building fabric/detailing, water and flooding, and retrofit of existing housing stock.

http://www.ribabookshops.com/item/the-environmental-design-pocketbook/74334/

Also launched was the new RIBA guide to Sustainability in Practice – written by Lynne Sullivan with help from others including TGR’s Lucy Pedler.  This guide expands on the previously produced Green Overlay to the RIBA plan of work by Bill Gething.  The guide looks at the business case for sustainability, the benefit for clients and the 10 steps architects can take to help build sustainability in practice, and is available as a free download here:-

http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/RIBAGuidetoSustainabilityinPractice.pdf

Next on my list was a demonstration of the environmental modelling tool – Project Rapier – a new lifecycle analysis tool from BDSP, Architype, Sweett and greenspace.  It estimates capital and lifecycle cost, carbon and energy performance for a building design.

http://projectrapier.com/rapierserver/rapierserver/index

I trialled the software and was impressed by the simplicity and power of the tool. It combines a simple online interface that ties in with most 3D modelling software to produce headline figures of energy/carbon performance, capital and lifecycle costs.  It was noted that the next beta version would
also produce DER/TER, so that it could potentially be used for compliance with Part L.  The full version will be released at the end of the year, and like almost everything at Ecobuild this year, will of course be BIM compliant!

I ended my visit on a high note with a cold pint of Austrian Lager from the Austrian Pavilion (a timber clad passivhaus of course!) and an inspiring speech from Dr. Wolfgang Feist to launch the UK Passivhaus Trust awards for this year.  It could have been the beer, but with the passivhaus pavilion being the antithesis of ‘Eco-Bling’, I sensed that the sleek minimalist design would be a sign of things to come.

http://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/

Proposed changes to the building regulations, supporting guidance and tools are out for consultation.[i] Included in this review are parts A, B, C, K, L, M, N, Access Statements, Security, Changing Places Toilets, Regulation 7 and the building control structure and process. Not too much for us to read, think about and respond to in addition to our normal workload there then!

Part L changes are proposed to reduce predicted emissions through higher performance targets and by closing the “performance gap”[ii] for new buildings by stimulating improvements to existing buildings through “consequential improvements”.

For new buildings, the Government has committed to introduce a zero carbon standard[iii] from 2016 for new dwellings and 2019 for all other new buildings. The proposed 2013 changes take the next step towards those zero carbon standards, by tightening the carbon dioxide (CO₂) targets (DER vs TER) for all new buildings and introducing a specific energy efficiency target (FEES) for new dwellings.

I’ve always struggled with the concept of the TER vs DER. This methodology does not encourage inherently efficient design as it doesn’t assess the proposed building; rather it assesses the proposed building against the same building to a poorer standard with the same fuel. The TER vs DER methodology combined with SAP errors and the use of ‘fuel factors‘[iv], means we can, and do, end up with some quite perverse results. I’ve seen proposed dwellings have a fuel switch to achieve greater % improvement over TER that results in increases in CO₂ and running costs! (See example below)

There are various options on how the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES) for Building Regulation compliance will be adopted (it is already in SAP and can be used for CfSH credits). Hopefully, the option chosen will encourage both good form factor[v] and fabric first design.

I find it surprising and disappointing that it would seem to still be acceptable to submit a Building Notice for a new dwelling. This means that although there is a requirement to submit “as-designed” SAP calculations with supporting details and a commissioning report for whole house ventilation systems no later than the day before work on site commences, there is no requirement to submit the full scheme for consideration/approval prior to starting work.

With the drive to educate and close the performance gap it is also odd that insulation is not a statutory notification stage of work. Making it so would send a clear message to both builders and building control the importance of this area of work.

For existing buildings, the focus is on the proposal to extend ‘consequential improvements’ provisions to a wider range of buildings and work. This means that when carrying out certain works to a building (extensions, loft conversions and replacement boiler/windows etc) there would be a need to undertake additional work to improve the energy efficiency of the building at the same time.

The proposal is that these changes should be phased in from October 2012, so that they are aligned with the introduction of the ‘Green Deal’. This means that building owners would have a way to meet the new requirements at no upfront cost, if they chose to take up a Green Deal offer. Other proposed measures include minor tweaks to U values for thermal elements and windows and doors to bring them closer to new build values.

Conservatories and over-glazed extensions seem to be a major loop hole in the drive to deal with energy use in existing buildings. Conservatories are in effect a cheap extension avoiding the need to comply with building regulations. Whilst there are ‘safe guards’ in place (separating doors and windows and controls on heating) these are for the most part unenforceable and counter productive. How is it better to have an electric heater in the conservatory rather than extending the gas central heating system into the new space? (Of course neither should be there – it is a conservatory not a habitable room!). Over-glazed extensions are often justified by SAP calculations either showing no trade off works are necessary or by doing upgrades to the existing house which should be done anyway and therefore no net benefit. Hopefully the effect of ‘consequential improvements’ rules will be to remove this loophole by ensuring these works are done first then the additional improvements are carried out. If the “trade off” requirement was to show no increase in energy use rather than CO₂ emissions this would close the loophole where renewing an out-dated inefficient boiler (which needed replacing anyway) can be used to trade off against excessive glass.

Are we there yet with legislation, guidance and tools to ensure that new and existing buildings are low or zero carbon? Not yet. Is it a step in the right direction? Probably.

The interior design profession is coming around to the idea that refurbishment jobs need to take into account the environmental impact these projects have and to address this, The Green Register is holding a seminal one day conference in London on 9th February to address some of the more pressing issues interior designers have to face. But what are these issues?

Since interior finishes are removed and replaced frequently, the building-fabric-only needs to be competent or every refit would require building regulations applications, associated design and application fees and increasing energy performance requirements would make refit progressively more expensive. Issues that need to be addressed by the building include: G value/solar gains/thermal mass /U value/decrement delay/wind and airtightness/thermal breaks/weather tightness/vapour permeability/internal surface temperatures etc.

No tenant/purchaser would want to buy into inadequate property that needs them to complete it as part of the fit out and tenant agreement. The Tenant would quite rightly expect a competent building. If building running/heating/ventilating/cooling are part of their landlord agreement there is no incentive to reduce costs unless they see a financial return for a consumption reduction.  Carpets may be insulating but they will have an effect on the ground floor only and they also hide thermal mass that can have an effect on the overall energy demands. The same two points apply to suspended ceiling, not the ground floor, but the roof.

The interior finishes can have variable properties that help of hinder regulating internal conditions and comfort conditions hence affecting heat/vent/coolth requirements.  The same finishes with the wrong choice of materials can affect indoor air quality and the need for ventilation which drive up energy costs.  Issues of concern include: material ingredients/ binders/ adhesives/ VOCs/ off-gassing/ indoor air quality/ moisture mass/ thermal mass/ acoustic mass etc.

Increasing internal insulation of historic buildings by wall coverings can lead to condensation, mould, asthma, rot, toxic mould, frost damage. In my limited past experience the level of technical expertise in IDs (who often have to rely on manufacturers reps to tell them what they need to choose and specify) is below Architects who themselves can still be inadequate in these matters, so I would be worried about this too. Issues to be address here include vapour permeability/ capillary action/ continuity/ gap avoidance/ moisture transport.

The RICS ‘Ska rating’ assessment process addresses refit better than any of the BREEAM tools – it focuses on building fabric and the materials that both IDs and Architects specify.  But I think it follows the conventional approach (competent building, complimentary interiors)  More importantly it addresses reuse of existing interior materials and reuse of reclaimed rather than sending perfectly sound materials to landfill.

Re-education of the designers in all disciplines on environmental issues is paramount, coordinated design is essential and respect of each other and each other’s contribution would help a lot. The Green Register’s one day conference will help ID’s to arm themselves with the knowledge they want and need to inform themselves and their clients about the choices they can make with fit-out, refit and refurbishment projects.

http://www.greenregister.org.uk/events.php?p=1&id=219#event219
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78130374/The-Challenges-of-Eco-Interior-Refit-A03-130112-BRM

I was in Delft recently with my partner where, as usual, we ordered tap water with our evening meal. It was pleasant enough, no discernable chlorine taste, but it certainly wasn’t worth the three Euros sixty that appeared on the bill! This slightly surreal experience was closely followed by a visit to Bruges where the restaurants and cafes refused point blank to serve tap water at all. So I decided to investigate the bottled water industry in more detail, and to ask whether we, as construction professionals, can reduce the amount of bottled water consumed in the UK.

Value of the bottled water market

It is an industry that has grown rapidly in the past 25 years, with global consumption in 2010 at 225 billion litres and a worldwide market worth £52 billion pounds a year. [1] It is a staggering fact that the world spends over six times as much per year on bottled water than it does on water supply and sanitation.[2]  Despite a slight downturn in sales in the last few years in the US (due to pressure from both environmentalists and municipal water suppliers) it is still the world’s fastest growing consumer beverage, and likely to remain so as increasing sales in China more than make up for any decrease in the States. Whilst consumption of bottled water per head in the UK is low compared to many European countries at 38 litres per head, it has also risen rapidly since the 1980’s. In 2009, 2.1 billion litres of bottled water were bought and the bottled water market in the UK is estimated to be worth between £1.4-2 billion.[3]  

 The decline in drinking tap water 

So why is the number of people drinking tap water in the UK declining? As with most countries it is due to three main factors: a fear about the quality of tap water, preferences of taste, and convenience.

We don’t need to drink bottled water in the UK because our tap water is unsafe; in fact, the tests that tap water is subjected to before it reaches our taps are more stringent than those required for bottled water. The “Story of Bottled Water” (from the same people that produced the “Story of Stuff”) and available at http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/ explains how the bottled water industry in the US systematically set out to persuade consumers that tap water was essentially unsafe, and did so very successfully. In the UK the British Soft Drinks Association has been accused of doing the same thing, though they have denied it.

The taste issue is more subjective. Certainly there are areas in the UK where tap water is heavily chlorinated and unpalatable.   However, filtering the tap water or allowing it to stand before drinking solves that problem, both at a far lower monetary and environmental cost than drinking bottled water. Depending where in the UK you live, tap water costs between 0.2 and 0.5 p per litre directly from the tap. Filtering at point of use will double the price at worst.

The environmental impact of bottled water v tap water

There are several environmental issues that are of concern when bottled water replaces tap water. Excessive withdrawal of natural mineral or spring water to produce bottled water can threaten local streams and groundwater, transporting the water to the consumer results in a far higher carbon load than delivering to a tap; the manufacture and disposal of billions of plastic bottles causes pollution, litter and fills landfill sites.

The carbon load of mains water in the UK is, on average 0.35kg CO₂ for every m³ of tap water delivered to the tap. Compare that to the carbon load of trucking bottles of water around the UK, a heavy and bulky commodity. To exacerbate the situation, of the 2.1 billion litres of water we drink every year, only 1.6 billion are UK-produced, meaning that 24% of the bottled water we consume in the UK is imported.[4] Whilst most of our imported water is from France, bottled water from Turkey and Fiji and even bottled rainwater from Australia (Cloud Juice) is available in our shops.

To reduce bulk and weight most bottled water is now sold in plastic rather than glass bottles, which brings extra environmental problems. Most plastic water bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is recyclable but research in the US has shown that less than 20% are recycled, with the bulk of the remainder going to landfill. Whilst figures are not easily available for the UK, the figures are likely to be similar. In both Sweden and Germany there is a substantial deposit on plastic bottles at point of sale and therefore recycling rates are far higher, but there seems little political will to introduce such a system in the UK in the near future. Because so much bottled water is consumed outside of the home environment, many empty bottles are disposed of in street bins where recycling rates are far lower than from home bins. Even recycling does not completely solve the problem as only 4% of PET bottles are recycled back into new bottles; most are merely downcycled.

Design solutions 

At first sight this does not seem an issue that those of us who work in the building industry can affect. But when we design kitchens we can specify a separate filtered water tap outlet and in the commercial sector we can design in water fountains or space and water connections for chilled water units fed directly from the mains water supply.

The Green Register has run about 60 events in 2011 which is some feat considering the small number of staff we have and the extremely tight budget we work to but this would not have been possible without the rock solid support of The Green Register team – Birgit, Elaine and Viv – who work tirelessly to keep TGR on track, on budget and on people’s lips. Our Steering Group members – Jillian Mitchell, Nicola Thomas, Jim Allen, Brian Murphy, Cath Hassell, Rob Borruso, Jean Pierre Wack, Emma Storey, Brian Gerhardt and Tom Dollard – have continued to guide us through this tricky year and out the other side. We’ve had some excellent local events run by TGR’s Regional Coordinators, in particular Steve Bradshaw and Tom Dollard who bring our message to the regional level and the TGR team have worked in the Bristol area with the Genesis Project in Taunton, Bristol City Council Sustainable City team (particular thanks to Celia Beeson and Christine Davis), RICS South West and Catherine Gandon and Jon Watkins at RIBA South West. Thanks to the Environment Agency in Bristol for hosting our End of Year event in December.

Nationally, TGR has enjoyed a very positive (and ongoing) relationship with: the RIBA in London who are working hard to promote sustainable construction to their members; SusCon in Kent (hope you are enjoying your travels Stephen!) and internationally we ran a very successful event with the Canadians on their Super E system of house building. 

We have also had some very generous either low cost or pro bono support from: Greg Annadale who keeps our website sharp; Paul Liptrot whose graphic design skills can be appreciated every time you read a TGR flyer; Emmelie and Pete Brownlee who are working on some short videos for our website (watch this space); Mike Fawcett, Charlie Howes, Christina Robino, Nigel Locker and Lilly Storey who have graciously given their time to work on marketing and PR for TGR; Alex Gostelow whose IT skills have kept our computers going.

TGR is very grateful for occasional and ongoing assistance from Knauf insulation (thank you Craig) and one time sponsorship from Ecological Building Systems, Southern Solar and Steelcase – all these donations have been used to oil TGR’s joints as we get back into gear for 2012.

Last but certainly not least, we are hugely grateful for the continued support from all our members and everyone who attended a Green Register event in 2011. We have reason to celebrate this year with over 60 very well-received events taking place in 2011, but successful events can only be so when they are supported by attendees, so I will take this opportunity to thank you for your support throughout 2011 and for your continued positive feedback which keeps us looking forward into the New Year to new events to come.

I write this with trepidation as I may have missed someone off the list-if this is so, it is not because you are not appreciated, more that the old grey matter is a little tired as we approach Christmas time but thank you to each and every person who has supported TGR.

Happy New Year and roll on 2012!

Lucy Pedler,  TGR Director

And yet here we are rushing towards 2012 with alarming rapidity.  Remember the disastrous floods that overwhelmed parts of the South West in 2007, and Cumbria in 2009?  As I write the rain is lashing the north again, last month it was Mevagissey, bringing back memories of Boscastle, shrinking the distance of time.  Flooding is a direct cause of human misery, dislocation on a local and national scale, with a heavy cost directly to individuals, their insurers and the country as a whole.

The Pitt review in 2008 led directly to The Flood and Water Management Act 2010.  This seeks to make management of flood risk a pro-active, rather than a reactive mopping up exercise.  Local authorities are key to the brave new world it seeks to create, looking up towards the Environment Agency for a strategic framework, and outwards to drainage boards, water companies and the design community to create, implement and manage solutions on the ground.  Management of surface water is the issue, and the adoption of sustainable drainage systems the key component.

All well and good, but over 3 years on from Pitt almost none of this is in place, and the current framework for enactment will not complete until the very end of 2014, over 3 years hence.  So why the delay?

The Bill will impact on planning processes, with sustainable drainage solutions a requirement for all but the very smallest schemes.  This at a time when one of the coalition’s much vaunted strategies for recovery is the abolition of red tape and reform of the planning processes. 

Local authorities are the key to successful implementation, and while they have skilled engineers they are too few in number, and not always trained in the design of sustainable drainage schemes.  Yet they are charged with establishing Sustainable Drainage Boards to sanction development and management of schemes and other assets post construction.  They are not ready.

On the other side of the fence, sustainable drainage schemes, done well, use space that could be used to raise scheme density and payback for developers on their expensively acquired land-banks.  Compliance will generate upfront costs and potentially delays.  Government is desperately keen to raise new housing starts, and is looking at ways to incentivise rather than discourage development. 

Perhaps no surprise then that implementation is so slow, although so far no one seems to be admitting to any dragging of the feet. 

The design community must put the counter arguments as strongly as we can.  We have a golden opportunity to use good design to improve amenity and biodiversity to the benefit of the wider community.  Permeable paving has its place, but it’s not paving paradise.  The existing system is broken, and is full of inconsistencies and hard to reconcile interests.  Reform is essential if we are to move forward and make the right kind of investment, saving costs to the wider economy in future years. 

The politicians would do well to remember the misery flooding creates.  It’s twice this year residents in Mevagissey have mopped out their homes; they may not know much about the Water Bill 2010 but they will surely want to know why this is happening again.

Location:
Bristol

Greenheart sustainable Construction, members of The Green Register, are looking for an office administrator to help with general office work to include wages & VAT. They must be competent in Excel.

Working in an informal shared office space in Montpelier Bristol.

Hours
approx 8- 10 hours per week ( but could be more)

Pay negotiable

Job Start Date
late January 2012

Location
Greenheart Sustainable Construction, Montpelier, Bristol

Expressions of Interest to:
Malcolm McMahon, Greenheart Sustainable Construction
info@greenheartuk.com

I was discussing with my family tonight who we might put on the bonfire this Saturday 5th November if given the choice and I said I’d like to choose Climate Change Minister Gregory Barker. This is because of the spectacularly disappointing decision announced yesterday to cut the Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) for micro-generation by more than half, reducing the FiT from 43p to 21p as of next April.

We all knew that the basis upon which FiT’s were introduced was that the unit payment would drop off over time but today’s decision is really unacceptable – both in terms of the degree to which it has been cut and the date when it comes into effect. Installers have been left with an unreasonably short time to adjust to this and their customers will understandably be furious if they don’t get the technologies installed by 12th December.

What really bugs me is the fallout from this decision: all the jobs that will be lost and the loss of faith in renewables that the public, already highly sceptical of the technologies, will have.

Whatever one’s opinion of the FiT’s – and there are many detractors – there are several positive outcomes so to date. According to Ofgen, the scheme has increased the amount of solar power installed in the UK from 30 to 321 megawatts (from before the subsidy started in 2010 to October this year). FiT’s have also kick-started many small businesses, created jobs and generally raised awareness of the fact that we have to start to decarbonise the grid right now and one of the many ways (although not the most efficient cost to benefit option) is to generate power from the sun.

With such a good start, it seems madness to pull the rug out from under micro-generation so fast and so soon. As shadow energy and climate change minister Caroline Flint said in response to the news “With growth flat-lining everywhere else today’s announcement threatens to strangle at birth the solar industry.”

Having been wooed by the venue; the warm welcome at the reception and the very enjoyable refreshments on offer, the day got even better with some splendid and entertaining presentations. The speakers were excellent, up to the minute with info and very well presented. By the end of the morning session I thought that it couldn’t be bettered. How wrong I was. Anyone who doubts that we, that is the inhabitants of this planet, have to make substantial changes to the way we live and use the precious resources available, would need no further persuasion.  Professionals, those of us who have chosen careers in the shaping of the environment we live, have a responsibility to take on board as much information as possible and use it to ensure our clients make the correct decisions. Some options are not cheap but in the long term the rewards will manifest themselves in the sustainability of the planet and us!

The day’s event was a great success. Everybody was buzzing with enlightening info and enthused to go forth and multiply! The day was rounded off by more splendid nibbles and delicious Canadian beer. What more does one need? So, any new prospective members should get on board. This train is moving. Don’t miss it, all in all a day to remember.

The Super E^® House conference was held in partnership with the High Commission of Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Canada’s national housing agency.