fuel for thought - zero carbon hub · timeline5 assumptions 6 fuel for thought introduction 8 the...
TRANSCRIPT
FuelForThoughtDean Crosley
Exploring a model for eradicating UK fuel poverty
| 3
Table of Contents
Definitions 4
Timeline 5
Assumptions 6
Fuel For Thought Introduction 8The Scenarios 9Process & Limitations 9
Typology 13Facilitating social cohesion and high performance
Factors 14Underheating Projected fuel price rises Projected Feed-In-Tariff rates Photovoltaics as an income generator Government committal to carbon reduction
Findings of the study 15General Observations
Fuel Poverty and the Affordable Homes Programme 17
‘Fabric First’ or Microgeneration? 17
Microgeneration - The Variable Month 19The social implications of a highly variable fuel bill
Passivhaus 20Ultra high performance building fabric - is it enough?
Addressing the existing housing stock 21
Summary 22
Bibliography 23
4 | | 5
DefinitionsFuel Poverty Fuel poverty can be defined as a household that needs to spend more than 10% of their income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime as well as meeting their other fuel needs.1 The Government have set a legally binding target to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. Rising fuel prices will continue to exasperate the issue, with almost a quarter of homes currently classified as ‘Fuel Poor’.2 The government advisory body FPAG (Fuel Poverty
Advisory Group) has suggested that newly developed, high performance yet affordable housing stock will be key to ending fuel poverty.3
Carbon Price FloorThe EU Emissions Trading System and Carbon Price floor will see the cost of carbon steadily rise in GB to £30/tonne by 2020, compared to circa £6.50/tonne at present. This will see an average income of £4bn/year, lifting the market price for energy. This will add £63bn to consumers’ bills over the next
15 years, with no current plans to recycle these carbon revenues back to fuel poor households.4
2016 Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)The Government’s stringent legislation which will govern the requirement for all new homes to be ‘net zero carbon’ by 2016. Whilst developers will now be able to offset any carbon generated by the ‘Allowable Solutions’, this could end up costing the developer more than a considered, affordable, truly zero carbon development. It has already been identified that the Allowable Solutions could undermine the credibility of achieving zero carbon homes
and it is therefore expected that opting for Allowable Solutions will penalise a developer financially.
Affordable Homes Programme (2011-2015)£4.5bn invested along with existing commitments from the previous ‘National Affordable Housing Programme’. Majority of the new programme for ‘Affordable Rent’, for a total delivery of 80,000 new ‘affordable homes’. The programme is also allowing £10bn of debt to Providers through the Affordable Homes Guarantees Programme, using the Government’s fiscal credibility to reduce the cost of borrowing for Providers. The Housing Association has
stipulated that all homes built for the programme must meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
Over half of the homes are currently programmed to be built in the final year of the programme, meaning that the target is unlikely to be achieved. 5
The Green Deal Intended to help to improve the current housing stock through improvements with no up-front costs to the consumer, but it is questionable whether or not the improvements will be enough to reduce energy consumption by a factor enough to end fuel poverty. In lower income households it will be difficult to achieve a cost saving as they often cannot afford to keep the heating on for long enough to properly heat their homes. Whilst they may enjoy warmer homes, they may not enjoy a cost saving on their bills. In addition to this, the high 7% interest rate on the loan will dissuade many consumers from opting for the Deal .Since much social housing is ‘affordable rent’, use of the Green Deal will ultimately be in the hands of private landlords.Participating companies must also offer a ‘full range’ of Green Deal services, meaning that smaller companies are essentially excluded from any
benefits of the deal.
Feed-In-Tariff By using renewable energy generation such as wind and photovoltaic, the homeowner gets paid a notional amount of money for each unit of energy they produce (Generation Tariff), even if they consume that energy. Any surplus energy can be sold back to the grid (Export Tariff) at a lower rate. The feed-in-tariff will be explored as a viable financial model to help reduce or eradicate fuel poverty.
PassivhausA high performance building standard originally developed in Germany in the 1990’s. The standard pertains to a ‘Passive House’, one that is primarily heated through solar gain and mechanical heat exchange meaning that orientation, amount of glazing, insulation, air tightness and an elimination of thermal bridging become of prime importance. The important criteria which is interesting in the subject of fuel poverty is that the heating demand of a
certified Passivhaus must be below 15kWh/m2A, far below the CHS Level 6 of 36kWh/m2A for a mid terrace.
Kilowatt Hour (kWh)A unit of energy equivalent to a 1000W appliance operating for one hour, used to determine energy consumption.
MacroMicro StudioAn energy autonomous Passivhaus standard studio designed and built by the MacroMicro Studio Masters unit. Whilst initially exploring the notion of an ‘off-grid’ passivhaus, the large scale energy generation systems and high performance building fabric presented a strong economic model to offset the substantial initial capital cost of the studio. By producing all of its own energy and selling excess back to the grid, the cumulative savings and income across the design life make the studio a test bed for an ‘affordable’ high performance building which may form some solution to the fuel poverty crisis.
1 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/business-energy/energy/fuel-poverty 2 Annual Report of Fuel Poverty Statistics 2012 (2012)3 Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (2012): Tenth Annual Report4 Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (2012): Tenth Annual Report5 HCCPA (2012-13): Financial viability of the social housing sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme
Building Regs set minimum u-value1
Oil Crisis2
Building Regs tighten u-values3
Building Regs tighten u-values4
First Passivhaus5
Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) Introduced6
BEDZED' Completed7
SAP becomes standard for checking compliance with Building Regs8
First US Passivhaus9
Energy Performance Certificates Introduced10
Climate Change Act11
First UK Passivhaus12
Electricity Market Reform' White Paper published13
All new homes to be 'zero carbon'14
19651966
19671968
19691970
19711972
19731974
19751976
19771978
19791980
19811982
19831984
19851986
19871988
19891990
19911992
19931994
19951996
19971998
19992000
20012002
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
20152016
20172018
20192019
2020Private
Level 3Level 4
Level 6Code for Sustainable H
omes
PublicLevel 3
Level 4Level 6
Carbon Price FloorFeed In TariffN
ational Affordable H
ousing Programm
eA
ffordable Hom
es Programm
eThe G
reen Deal
Timeline
6 | | 7
Assumptions
SIZE - 80m2
‘English House Condition Survey 2007’ - Average size across mid-terrace typology, social sector and lower income decile (2 AHC).
TYPOLOGY - Mid Terrace Townhouse‘Friedman, A, Town and Terraced Housing: For Affordability and Sustainability (2012), Routledge’
RENT - £79/week medianNational Housing Survey Headline Report 2011https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6735/2084179.pdf
HEATING -15,146kWh (required) 9,264 (actual)1
POWER -2500kWh Note: Ofgem stats show average UK power to be 3300kWh/annum, suggesting that the income
bracket identified for the study also under consume in terms of electricity.Hirch, D et al. Understanding Fuel Expenditure : Fuel Poverty and Spending on Fuel
HOUSEHOLD INCOME - Lower Decile (2 AHC) £150/week - This represents a median selection of the fuel poor category with 83% of households earning £100-£199 a week considered fuel poor.2
Scottish House Condition Survey - Key Findings 2010http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/11/23172215/0
NOTIONAL ENERGY COST - £60/month minimum ACTUAL ENERGY COST - £35.51/month gas + £31.52/month electricity = £67.03 totalPercentage of household income - 11.17%
BENEFITS - 63% of social renters receive housing benefits National Housing Survey Headline Report 2011https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6735/2084179.pdf
LOCATION - Dundee Allows for direct comparison to MacroMicro autonomous Passivhaus
www.pvgis.com
PROFILESingle adult (w/children) - This represents the highest proportion of fuel poor households with 35% of households classed as ‘fuel poor’ and 10% of households classed as ‘extremely fuel poor’Scottish House Condition Survey - Key Findings 2010
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/11/23172215/0
1 For the lower income brackets, the annual heating demand to maintain a comfortable 21oC is often not met. For a household which will require 25,000kWh/annum to maintain this temperature, users will typically under-consume to approximately 14,000kWh/annum - less than half. What is interesting is that this under-consumption trend remains constant proportionally, regardless of dwelling size, type, tenure etc. Users are generally more willing to inhabit a cold property than heat adequately and reduce expenditure elsewhere. Is predicted annual heat demand an
accurate measure of actual heat demand?http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2011/10/Understanding-fuel-expenditure.pdf2 To be classified ‘fuel poor’, this would represent a minimum fuel expenditure of £60/month or £720/annum. Ofgem’s statistics show that the median expenditure on gas is £608/annum and £424/annum on electricity respectively, totalling £1032/annum.http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/domestic%20energy%20consump%20fig%20FS.pdf
The Observer 20th January, 2012
BBC Online17th December, 2012
Guardian21st January, 2013
The Observer28th January, 2013
BBC Online1st December, 2011
The Times1st April, 2013
The Telegraph17th May, 2012
[fig 1.] Headlines from around the UK highlight the extent of the problem
8 | | 9
Fuel For Thought
Introduction
Fuel poverty is now rife throughout the UK, with almost a quarter of homes currently being bracketed under the definition of ‘fuel poor’, increasing to almost a third of homes in Scotland.1 Unable to heat their homes sufficiently due to the current poor performance housing stock and escalating energy prices, households are often faced with the dilemma of rationing the rest of their essential expenditure or fuelling their home insufficiently. With energy prices continuing to soar and the government’s committal to both the Carbon Price Floor and the EU Emissions Trading System, an additional £63bn will be added to consumers’ energy bills over the next 15 years. The Hill’s Report (2012) predicts that an additional 700,000 households will slip into fuel poverty by 2016. The problem is set to continue to escalate.
Thermal comfort is an essential commodity towards living a good quality life. Whilst people in hotter climates often struggle to seek this comfort in shaded spots and air conditioned homes, the often harsh UK winters and temperate climate mean that space heating often becomes the only method of obtaining comfort within our homes. Whilst comfort is certainly an important facet to justify living in an adequately heated property, there are a number of studies which have identified the serious health implications of living within a cold property, namely respiratory infections, arthritis,
rheurnatisms, mental health, asthma and even excess winter mortality.2
“The annual cost to the NHS of treating winter related disease due to cold private housing is £859 million. This does not include additional spending by social services, or economic losses through missed work. The total costs to the NHS and the country are unknown. A recent study showed that investing £1 in keeping homes warm saved the NHS 42 pence in health costs...” -Chief Medical Officer Report, 2009
Electricity consumption also makes a major contribution towards consumers bills, costing almost 3 times the amount of gas energy per kilowatt hour. Lighting, cooking, white goods and increasingly, laptops and televisions all contribute to this energy consumption. For many fuel poor households, the poverty trap reinforces itself through the inability to afford energy efficient appliances or lightbulbs, resulting in a higher energy consumption even if living a similar lifestyle to a higher income household. Despite this, fuel poor households are often frugal with their energy consumption, with the typical fuel poor household using 25% less electricity than the UK average3.
The basis of this thesis stems from the potentially enticing economic model developed and researched through the MacroMicro studio project. For the MacroMicro project, a high specification ‘autonomous Passivhaus’, buying energy from the grid is eliminated completely through high performance building fabric and renewable energy systems and the occupants are paid for producing their own energy through the Feed In Tariff. This does, however, come at a substantial initial capital cost4. Whilst the MacroMicro studio currently achieves a large repayment of this through the Feed-In-Tariff and savings on energy which would usually be purchased from the grid, an overall lower cost mechanism for those households on lower income brackets is worth exploration as a means to reducing or eliminating fuel poverty.
Using the MacroMicro research as a starting block as a built construction and developed economic model, the thesis will attempt to ratify the zero energy model, beyond the 2016 legislation as a valid solution to the fuel poverty crisis.
Controversial legislation, the Code for Sustainable Homes, has governed the energy efficiency of homes up to the 2016 ‘zero carbon’ target. Whilst the code has strived to stage the road to zero carbon homes in order to allow the construction industry to prime themselves for delivery of increasingly high performance buildings, the scenarios have shown that even if a typical5 fuel poor household was to inhabit a CSH Level 4 home, of which the ‘Affordable Homes Programme’ intends to build 80,000 homes, the typical fuel poor household would still be considered to be fuel poor even at current market fuel prices. [fig. 7] Whilst the Affordable Homes Programme is set to provide a large quantity of housing stock to
1 Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (2012): Tenth Annual Report
2 The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty: Marmot Review Team 2011 3 Ofgem: Typical domestic energy consumption (2011), comparison with Hirch, D et al. Understanding Fuel Expenditure : Fuel Poverty and Spending on Fuel4 It should be noted that whilst the MacroMicro studio project had a significant capital cost, the project is a demonstrator research project funded entirely by the industry. Inevitably, companies involved opt to use their highest performance and usually most expensive products as both a showcase and testing ground. See Appendix A for further details.5 See ‘Assumptions’
the affordable market, it conveniently establishes itself for completion before the stringent 2016 legislation for net zero carbon housing comes into effect, with many households living in new homes potentially remaining fuel poor.
Whilst the government recently introduced the Green Deal in order to put consumers at ease, allowing homeowners to upgrade the efficiency of their homes through a variety of measures, it has not been without criticism even before it’s launch. Fuel poverty of course affects those on the lowest of the income brackets, where 7% interest rates, 25 year repayment plans, initial assessment costs and annual operating charges will turn off all of the worst affected households. Exasperating the problem is the issue of rented tenancies where the decision to upgrade a property will ultimately be under the control of the landlord.
“It is essential that we improve the energy efficiency of the whole housing stock. But those on low incomes and in the worst housing can neither afford the immediate investment needed nor afford later repayments without additional help.”
-Professor John Hills, Fuel Poverty Review 2012
The Scenarios
In order to establish a means for testing each of the potential models for eradicating fuel poverty it was important to first develop a detailed profile which would establish the effect of the proposals on a notional fuel poor household. This data is extrapolated from a variety of sources including various government surveys and third party consultancies to provide a realistic insight into the income, spending, energy use and current housing condition of a household bracketed under the definition of ‘fuel poor’, spending more than 10% of their income on energy bills.
Note that the data was chosen not to reflect a household which would be considered to be ‘extremely fuel poor’, spending more than 20% of their income on energy bills as these households form a smaller proportion of households and are usually situated in the lowest of income brackets. It was important to take an approach and identify a typical fuel poor household to assess what effect projected future energy prices and housing models would have on their expenditure, with the possibility that more households on higher incomes and in higher performance housing would be pushed into the same definition.
Process & Limitations
The scenarios will focus on a number of options and as stated previously a number of assumptions have been made in order to provide a constant scenario for the household’s internal floor area, typology and profile. For the purposes of the scenarios, it will also be assumed that the building is grid connected and the primary heating source is a gas fired boiler. This represents the most common method of heating for homes throughout the UK.6 The limitations of this is that beyond 2016 developers may be required to install district heating or distributed CHP which would help to reduce costs as a part of the ‘Allowable Solutions’ within the Code for Sustainable Homes.7
From the existing housing stock identified in the English House Conditions Survey for a ‘fuel poor’ household, typically be a period property, the heating demand of which has been calculated from dwelling size and actual recorded energy input. The heating demand for these properties are particularly high however due to the cost of electricity there is an even split in terms of expenditure on both gas and electricity. Following on from the MacroMicro model discussed above, the most effective way out of fuel poverty may be to invest in photovoltaics; reducing fuel costs whilst providing a small income via the feed-in-tariff.
Due to the criticisms of the Affordable Homes Programme discussed in the introduction, the scenarios will test the CSH Level 4 against the profiled household to determine if this standard of home will bring a family out of fuel poverty through it’s increased building fabric performance. Whilst CSH Level 4 does not stipulate that a certain heat demand is met, various studies8 have indicated that a typical performance gain over a solid wall period property can be expected to be 11-15%, the higher of which has been used for modelling.6 Communities and Local Government (2007): English House Condition Survey 2007 London: EHCS 7 Zero Carbon Hub (2012): Allowable Solutions for Tomorrow’s New Homes London, Ofgem8 Energy Savings Trust (2008): Energy Efficiency and the Code for Sustainable Homes: Level 4 Energy Savings Trust, London
10 | | 11
PV Area : 37.7m2 constant
Rel
ativ
e Ex
tern
al A
reas
Floor Area : 50m2 constant
Autonomous Studio 175.82sqm external surface
area
Volume179.4m3
Volume186.0m3
Volume158.7m3
Volume158.7m3
Mid TerraceMatched Void Area
74.7sqm external surface area57.52% less
fabric than Autonomous Studio
80.5sqm external surface area54.22% less
fabric than Autonomous Studio
53.2sqmexternal surface area
69.8% lessfabric than Autonomous Studio
Mid TerraceMatched GIFA
30% reduction in footprint
FlatMatched GIFA
41% reduction in footprint
28% reduction in footprint
[fig 2.] Typology - A major contributor to build cost, Authors Own
[fig 3.] Suburbia, Chris Wiewiora (2012)
“The pseudo country house sits uneasily in its shrunken countryside, neither quite cheek by jowl with its neighbour nor decently remote, its flanks unprotected from prying eyes and penetrating sounds. It is a ridiculous anachronism. (...) The bare unused islands of grass serve only the myth of independence. This unordered space is neither town nor country; behind its romantic facade, suburbia contains neither the natural order of a great estate nor the man-made order of the historic city. (...) The suburb fails to be countryside because it is too dense. It fails to be city because it is not dense enough. Countless scattered houses dropped like stones on neat rows of development lots do not create an order, or generate community. Neighbour remains stranger and the real friends are most often quite far away, as are school, shopping and other facilities. (...) In spite of growing decentralisation, and the fact that more and more people with more and more cars live in the never-never land of Suburbia, most of the money continues to be earned and spent in the city proper.”
Serge Chermayeff, Christopher Alexander, Community and Privacy. Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. (New York: Anchor Books, Boubleday, 1963), pp.62
0.98form factor form factor form factor form factor
0.43 0.36 0.33
[fig 4.] Typology established - The Mid Terrace, Author’s Own Key parameters to test : Reducing heat demand through enhanced fabric performance Reducing electricity consumption through microgeneration
12 | | 13
[fig 5.] High performance townhouses designed for maximum solar generation and minimal heat loss, based on MacroMicro studio principles, Authors Own, Isover Mannheim Competition, UK First Prize
J F M A M J J A S O N D
10
,948
kWh
16,9
92kW
h
27,1
68kW
h
37,3
76kW
h
37,4
38kW
h
38,5
16kW
h
37,0
98kW
h
35,6
18kW
h
29,4
20kW
h
21,0
32kW
h
11,9
66kW
h
9,46
8kW
h
177,000kWh / annum€42,072.90
savings per year
€208.49savings per year
€11,219.44savings over 40 years
€1,682,916savings over 40 years
€ 0.
249
/ kW
h
North block
South block
percentage of energy demand met
5.2kWh / day
2340 kWh / day avg 3 persons per dwelling
Based on BEDZED post occupancy survey for people living in an energy aware community.
43.7sqm - 6.1kW(p) - 30 arrays
30.8sqm - 4.4kW(p) - 32 arrays
Solar data from PVGIS calculator - location at Mannheim, Germany, optimised at 36 degree pitch.
Cur
rent
ene
rgy
pric
e in
Ger
man
y
15.6
%
24.2
%
38.7
%
53.3
%
53.2
%
54.9
%
52.8
%
50.7
%
41.9
%
30.0
%
17.1
%
13.5
%
Energy BalanceBy taking into account photovoltaics within the overarching conceptual design in terms of orientation and massing, the infographic above demonstrates the reduction in overall energy demand of the proposal, providing over 50% of the electricity demand during summer and a huge saving across a 40 year period.
Shared Systems | Energy Tariff Rather than the photovoltaic panel energy being earmarked for the top level apartments a more holistic approach is to take the roofscape as being shared amongst the entire community. By sharing the capital cost of the PV across all apartments, the whole community can benefit from halving their energy bills.
Super insulatedTo achieve Passivhaus standard a u-value of 0.1W/m2K is required in order to minimise heat loss and capitalise on the benefits of using an MVHR system. The use of cross laminated timber as the structural frame and deep panels of insulation board achieve beyond this, as low as 0.08 W/m2K for the walls and roof.
Apartment types and percentage of overall massingA distributed range of 1-4 bedroom apartments, many with private external terraces.
Specific Heat DemandAchieves below 15 kWh/(m2a)Calculation performed for a full terraced block of five apartments to the South.
Section A
Modelling and calculations using THERM software
Achieving high quality architectural expression and finishes whilst mitigating fabric heat losses. Designed to achieve full height floor-to-ceiling glazing whilst eliminating thermal bridging.
As above, with 2016 fast approaching the scenarios will test the short and long term implications for a fuel poor household inhabiting a CSH Level 6 property which stipulates a low heat demand of just 39kWh/m2A for a mid terrace property. The stipulated heat demands for CSH Level 6 have been unique from any other building standard in that a sliding scale is used to specify differing specific heat demands for different typologies of buildings, for example in a detached or end terrace property where it would be difficult to achieve 39kWh/m2A, only 46kWh/m2A is required to be met.
The MacroMicro project is built to Passivhaus standard which is quickly gaining popularity in the UK as an optional high performance building standard, requiring that a heat demand of just 15kWh/m2A is met. Bere Architect’s have already displayed that an ‘affordable’ Passivhaus is within scope of the UK market and the scenarios will therefore test this standard as another solution by greatly reducing required gas heating.9
Typology Facilitating social cohesion and high performance
Typology becomes an important factor when developing a model for efficient and low cost, high performance building fabric as a means to achieving a high form factor or surface area to volume ratio. The townhouse or terrace typology fits into this model perfectly, greatly reducing the external surface area of each dwelling when compared to a semi detached or detached property of the same volume.
Friedman (2011) speaks in depth about the social, economic, environmental, architectural and future proofing advantages of the townhouse typology against others in ‘Town and Terraced Housing’. As well as being the most efficient form factor outwith high-rise flats, for multiple units the townhouse typology capitalises on the advantages of shared infrastructure costs and efficient land use. For repetitive identical units, standard components can be designed and utilised, drawing upon the economies of scale. Whilst the scenarios detailed in this thesis analyse an isolated mid-terrace unit, the savings and advantages of building in multiple adjoining units are vast, especially when localised energy production forms a holistic part of the design. [fig. 5]
As an urban planning strategy the townhouse or terrace is much more economically and socially sustainable than detached properties in their faux-isolation of suburbia [fig. 3]. From an affordable homes and fuel poverty perspective, achieving a high performance building at low cost becomes much more viable as a solution when adopting a terrace typology, and it is no coincidence that the vast numbers of period social housing schemes conform to this system. It achieves a high enough density to properly justify land use and create local communities, without the social problems inherent in very high densities of high rise flatted developments where many lessons in the 1940-70’s were learnt with a number of schemes recognised as some of the worst social housing schemes in British history.10
Bere Architects have produced a Passivhaus accredited building, the Larch House, at just £1482.35/m2, just 13.5% more than the equivalent Part L building. This was for a detached property, and the following page illustrates just what savings can be achieved solely through adopting the townhouse typology. It is worth noting that for both the Part L and Passivhaus standard buildings described in the study, the external wall buildup contributed majorly to the overall costs, 45.1% and 47.7% respectively and therefore reducing the requirement for fabric will help to achieve an ‘affordable’ model. Reducing fabric costs by a factor demonstrated by transforming the isolated MacroMicro studio to a mid terrace typology (57%) in the Bere study would reduce overall costs significantly, reducing the overall build cost to £1361.41/m2, just 5.8% more than the detached Part L example.
Whilst these costs may still appear initially fairly substantial in comparison to other recently completed social housing schemes such as the Angell Town Estate (Brixton, 2006) at a mere £850/m2 11, the Larch House cannot be directly compared. As a private, detached house, the construction does not capitalise upon the potential savings through form, typology, economies of scale and procurement route which could begin to flatten the price gap between high performance buildings and the current Part L regulations further.
9 Newman. N (2012): Passivhaus cost comparison in the context of the UK Regulation and prospective market incentives London, Bere Architects10 Jephcott. P (1971): Homes in high flats : some of the human problems involved in multi-storey housing Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd11 Waltham Forest Council (2009): High Density Housing : Qualitative Study Urban Initiatives
14 | | 15
Underheating
It is perhaps somewhat obvious that fuel poor households would, on average, underheat their homes in order to cut back on fuel expenditure. Hirch (2011) concludes that even across all home types and income levels, users are generally quite frugal when it comes to heating their properties, with most users in the study underheating by approximately 40% of the total required energy to reach the notional optimum of 21 degrees Celsius. For the purposes of the thesis, the data for the required and actual heating will be taken from Hirch’s research, whilst the scenarios themselves will assume that the property is being heated to 21 degrees Celsius, disregarding this trend for underheating in order to model an adequately heated dwelling.
Projected fuel price rises
The scenarios will initially assess the effect of potential savings at current market energy prices at the time of writing. Energy prices have more than trebled in the last eight years, having an enormous effect on consumers fuel bills and pushing more and more households into fuel poverty. The inconvenient truth however, is that energy prices are predicted to continue to rise and therefore the scenarios will also take into account a 10 year strategy to project the potential of slipping back into fuel poverty as energy prices rise further. The National Grid paper ‘UK Future Energy Scenarios’ (2011) takes into account potential market, political and environmental influences and contains detailed predicted data for the next 10 years. The paper projects towards 2040 and beyond however states that the data beyond the next 10 years is difficult to accurately forecast and will therefore be omitted from this study.
Projected Feed-In-Tariff rates
For models which include renewable sources of energy, income at generation and export rates are correct as per tables published by the Energy Saving Trust. The Trust also provide rates over the next 10 years which shows a gradual reduction in the feed-in-tariff as more consumers begin to install these system, which are reflected in the 10 year forecasts.
Photovoltaics as an income generator
Research through the MacroMicro economic model showed that over the life of the building, the feed in tariff income from renewables generation could amount to a substantial cumulative sum. Whilst the government strive to achieve carbon reduction targets, electricity energy use can usually only be reduced through energy efficient appliances which are often outwith the scope of the expendable income of fuel poor households. It was therefore prudent to explore renewable energy sources as a valid cure to the fuel poverty issue. If electricity, a major component of household bills, is reduced or eliminated and the capital cost offset by the feed in tariff, there may be scope to safeguard against the projected huge increase in electricity prices over the forecasted 10 year period.
Dependant upon the payback period detailed within each scenario, households may quickly reach a stage where the capital cost of their renewable energy has been offset and the energy system then becomes a net generator of income for the household, offsetting any other expenditure required for space heating.
Government committal to carbon reduction
The UK government is the first to set a legally binding carbon reduction target of 80% from 1990 baseline levels by 2050 through the Climate Change Act of 2008. The Code for Sustainable Homes will hope to contribute towards this goal through the 2016 target for ‘zero carbon homes’, though the integrity of the standard has arguably already been compromised through the use of ‘Allowable Solutions’ whereby developers can meet their net zero carbon target in a number of ways, including investing in off-site renewable energy development.
The CSH Level 6 guidelines at present are to achieve a maximum carbon output of 11kg/m2A of CO2 per dwelling and each of the scenarios has been benchmarked against this to see how they fare against the 2016 levels. This will help to determine whether or not the scenarios represent realistic solutions against the CSH criteria in the case of new build homes, which will form a regulatory requirement from 2016.
£20.00
£40.00
£60.00
£80.00
£100.00
£120.00
£0.00
������
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
2013
2020
Gas
Electricity
Fuel Poverty Threshold
Fuel Expenditure
Carbon Emissions
2016 Carbon Threshold - 11kg/m2A
Comparison of current and future fuel bills for each scenario against carbon output
40.0kg/m2A
36.5kg/m2A
33.7kg/m2A
30.2kg/m2A
27.0kg/m2A
23.8kg/m2A
25.1kg/m2A
21.5kg/m2A
20.7kg/m2A
21.1kg/m2A
17.5kg/m2A
Affordable Homes Programme
[fig 6.] Authors Own
16 | | 17
7,874kWh
98kWh/m2A2500kWh
5.0% of expenditure
5.2% of expenditure
£30.19/month
£31.52/month
£600
/mon
th5.0% of expenditure£30.19/month
£31.52/month 5.2% of expenditure2020
£47.92/month 7.9% of expenditure
7.6% of expenditure£45.58/monthincrease of £15.39/month
increase of £16.40/month
extreme fuel poverty
fuel poverty line
FUEL POOR?
YESFUEL POOR?
YES
80m
2Energy Requirements
Expenditure
total heating requirements
total power requirements
Scenario 3CSH Level 4
per annum
per annum
7,874kWh
98kWh/m2A2500kWh
5.0% of expenditure£30.19/month
£600
/mon
th
5.0% of expenditure£30.19/month£9.96/month 1.1% of expenditure
2020£15.40/month 2.5% of expenditure
7.4% of expenditure£45.58/month
extreme fuel poverty
fuel poverty line
FUEL POOR?
NOFUEL POOR?
NO
1710kWh offset by PV
790kWh shortfall£9.96/month 1.1% of expenditure
PV Income - £22.00/month
£22.00/month income
PV Income - £14.86/month
80m
2
Energy Requirements
Expenditure
total heating requirements
total power requirements
Scenario 3.3CSH Level 4 + 1.8kWp PV
per annum
per annum
[fig 7.] Affordable Homes Programme - Fuel Poor even at current fuel prices,Authors Own
[fig 8.] Affordable Homes Programme - Microgeneration as solution?Authors Own
Findings of the study
Fuel Poverty and the Affordable Homes Programme
As discussed in the introduction, the Affordable Homes Programme will aim to build 85,000 new affordable homes before the 2016 zero carbon legislation comes into effect. Whilst nationally the Level 4 does not need to be achieved by developers of private lettings, the Homes and Communities Agency will require all housing under the programme to meet Level 4.
As Scenario 3 demonstrates, the Level 4 home does not bring the household out of fuel poverty even within the first year of occupation, with only a 15% reduction in heating demand from the equivalent period property with solid walls. This should be seen as worrying from the perspective of potential tenants and local authorities, as once future potential fuel price rises are factored in for 2020, the homeowners approach 16% of their income being on fuel bills, quickly approaching the definition of ‘extremely fuel poor’, spending 20% of their income on bills.
What quickly became apparent at this stage is that a substantial improvement in heating demand does not necessarily equate to vastly lower fuel bills. The fact that per kWh, electricity is almost three times more expensive than gas means that a saving on electricity is worth three times that of a saving on gas consumption. Whilst the government may not necessarily subscribe to this view as the largest carbon savings can be made through reducing heat demand, it is important to view the issue from the initial problem of ‘eradicating fuel poverty’.
A photovoltaic system was added to the CSH Level 4 scenario in order to gauge the effect that renewables generation may have on a household’s bills. Whilst this may result in a significant initial capital cost, the benefits are that as stated previously. Each kWh saved through on site electricity generation equates to 3 kWh saved through fabric means and since the energy is generated through renewables, forms a carbon offset. In addition to this, the feed-in-tariff would begin to add to the household’s overall income, allowing the fuel poverty threshold to increase slightly if required.
The photovoltaic system was increased in power incrementally, beginning at 0.5kWp until the scenario displayed that the household would not be fuel poor in 2020. Identified was that a minimum 1.8kWp system would need to be deployed in order to reap the necessary savings required. Whilst this brought the household out of fuel poverty over the next 10 years, providing cumulative savings and FITs income of £5227.47, after 10 years the household is back to being dangerously close to being ‘fuel’ poor, albeit with a small supplemental income from the Feed-In-Tariff.
‘Fabric First’ or Microgeneration?
The previous scenario suggests that a ‘fabric-first’ approach eventually becomes a prerequisite for eliminating fuel poverty, even with a substantial addition of PV.
To test this theory, the initial period property with an enormous heating demand of 189kWh/m2 was fitted with enough PV to completely eliminate the requirement for buying electricity. A 3kWp system was added to the model, resulting in a substantial monthly income of £38.19, reducing to £23.12 in 2020. Whilst this meant that the household was comfortably above the fuel poverty threshold, even in 2020, this was simply an extreme example of highlighting the benefits of adding renewables over increasing fabric performance.
Whilst the 3kWp system would pay for itself over 9 years with the cumulative income and savings, the initial capital cost of £7,500 would be an expensive addition to any affordable home development when factored into each household, though for those in the higher income brackets experiencing fuel poverty it could be seen to be a worthwhile investment. What is interesting is that of all the scenarios modelled, the carbon offset of producing all required electricity through microgeneration actually means that this scenario produced the lowest carbon emissions of any of the scenarios, even when coupled with a poor performance building fabric and therefore high heating demand.
To test this further, both the CSH Level 6, mandatory from 2016, and the Passivhaus standard were modelled in order to quantify the effects of greatly reducing heating demand, compared to using the microgeneration method as the sole means of reducing the household’s fuel bills.
18 | | 19
2,880kWh36kWh/m2A2500kWh1.84% of expenditure
5.2% of expenditure
£11.04/month
£31.52/month
£600
/mon
th
1.8% of expenditure£11.04/month
£31.52/month 5.2% of expenditure2020
£47.92/month 7.9% of expenditure
2.7% of expenditure£16.67/monthincrease of £5.63/month
increase of £16.40/month
extreme fuel poverty
fuel poverty line
FUEL POOR?
NOFUEL POOR?
YES
80m
Energy Requirements
Expenditure
total heating requirementstotal power requirements
Scenario 4CSH Level 62
per annumper annum
[fig 9.] CSH Level 6Authors Own
As shown below, although the CSH Level 6 [fig. 6] dwelling reduces the heating demand from Level 4 significantly, bringing the household below the fuel poverty threshold, by 2020 the household slips back into fuel poverty, the main culprit being the expense of electricity which represents a 7.8% expenditure of income by itself. The assumed household would have to increase it’s income by at least £1200 per annum in order to edge above the fuel poverty line.
In order to test this further, the Passivhaus standard is modelled in order to see if a non-fuel poor scenario can be achieved through reduced heating demand alone [fig. 7].
It is worth noting that as per the assumptions, the total electricity requirements for the identified income bracket is much lower than the UK average of 3,300kWh, which would represent a 10.5% expenditure on electricity alone for a household without any renewable offset source by 2020. Clearly, the predicted rise in electricity prices warrant that microgeneration should form at least some component of the on-site standard for the CSH, as the Allowable Solutions currently dictate that the ‘net zero carbon’ status can be achieved through off-site measures, which do not contribute directly to the development.
Whilst the Affordable Homes Programme is earmarked for project completion on all 85,000 homes by 2015, the government has already predicted that this is unlikely to be achieved due to over half of the projects set to be completed in the final year of the programme. From the initial findings of the scenarios, unless the CSH Level 4 is supplemented heavily by on-site renewable energy sources, the government can expect the majority of homes within the lower income deciles to be fuel poor, even from year one. What may be essential is to ensure projects which are not completed by 2016 actually adhere to the CSH Level 6 criteria in order that the vastly lower heating demand is capitalised upon in order to help those homes most likely to be affected.
The investment in a high performance building fabric becomes a worthwhile investment when the design life of these products are taken into account. Whilst most modern insulated wall systems are typically designed to a 60 year life, the relatively new influx of domestic based photovoltaic systems means that there is not yet a precedent for long term performance of these systems, though a 20-25 year design life can be typically expected with a 1% efficiency drop over each year.
Microgeneration - The Variable MonthThe social implications of a highly variable fuel bill
Using photovoltaics as both a source of energy and a small source of income, whilst eliminates fuel poverty in many of the scenarios over the course of each year, comes with an added responsibility from the point of an income-expenditure variable from month to month. Solar energy cannot be guaranteed and is output greatly affected by both the weather and the seasonal changes in the sun’s zenith.
From the adjacent graph [fig. 10] illustrating the monthly income-expenditure cycle for Scenario 4.2, we can see that whilst in the summer months the occupants would receive a net profit from the system, the winter months result in electricity bills in excess of £20. Balancing this from month to month will ultimately be the responsibility of the occupants and an awareness of the predicted bills for the winter months will help them to take advantage of the decreased expenditure in the summer to compensate.
For photovoltaics, the fluctuating changes of energy production throughout the seasons are somewhat of a peak and trough scenario. Whilst in the summer a household can expect to completely null their energy bills through high electricity offset and increased income, the opposite can be said of winter where both a decreased offset and overall lower FITs income provide two extremes which financially may be difficult to mange for a fuel poor household which may see their additional expendable income spent elsewhere during the summer months whilst continuing to behave as a ‘fuel poor’ household in winter. The danger with this model is that it may have a detrimental effect to the ambitions on the model by modifying user behaviour. Due to the presumption that if the household is heated adequately during winter the occupants may experience a series of high bills over these months, the users may opt to underheat their homes instead, effectively rendering the energy model put in place redundant.
£20.00 20kWh
£30.00 30kWh
£40.00 40kWh
£50.00 50kWh
£60.00 60kWh
£70.00 70kWh
Monthly Electricity Expenditure
Monthly Fuel Expenditure
���������
£0.00
£10.00 10kWh
������PV OutputkWh/month
Fuel Poor Month
Fuel Poor Month
Fuel Poor Month
Fuel Poverty Threshold
J F M A M J J A S O N D
[fig 10.] The variable month - monthly fuel expenditure plotted against varied photovoltaic production.Authors Own
20 | | 21
The graph below [fig. 11] describes these monthly cycles for Scenario 4.1 whereby a small PV system (0.5kWp) is incorporated. A smaller system exhibits the variation most notably and results in the winter months to be considered ‘fuel poor’ months, even though the net result over the year can be considered to be a non-fuel poor household.
Passivhaus Ultra high performance building fabric - is it enough?
Whilst Passivhaus manages to scrape under the fuel poverty threshold at 2020, it is questionable whether or not the increased performance and subsequent heating demand of Passivhaus is worth the additional capital expenditure. It is clear that Passivhaus helps to greatly reduce expenditure on gas fuel but the significance of electricity expenditure in 2020, forming more than 8% of the household’s total income, warrants that the additional capital cost could be well spent on attempting to reduce this. The scenario’s electricity consumption is some 25% lower than the national average12
and a typical energy consumption would exasperate the large cost of electricity even further. An electricity demand at the national average, plus the additional energy consumption of an MVHR unit would represent an 11.4% of expenditure for the household, resulting in a fuel poor situation at 2020 even without space heating. It should be noted that for the scenario modelled, the primary energy consumption for both electricity and heating still came in at a mere 3962kWh/year, far below the Passivhaus criteria of 9600kWh (120kWh/m2A).
Although the Passivhaus presents a clear long term investment for ultra-low energy homes, it seems evident that for the fuel poor market the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 will present stringent enough criteria for local authorities targeting fuel poor households.
Accreditation for Passivhaus is notoriously expensive and many projects in the UK now opt to build to the standard without seeking accreditation. From a standards perspective it will be interesting to see how Passivhaus fares once 2016 comes into effect. The Passivhaus standard does not meet the carbon limit for new homes by reducing heating demand alone and therefore renewables will form have to form at least part of any new Passivhaus development, providing a much more robust model for preventing fuel poverty; although perhaps obfuscating the need to achieve an ultra low heating demand.
12 Ofgem: Typical domestic energy consumption (2011)
-£10.00
-£5.00
£0.00
£5.00
£10.00
-£25.00
-£20.00
-£15.00
Net Monthly Income
+£
-£Net Monthly ExpenditureJ F M A M J J A S O N D
[fig 11.] Income-expenditure cycle for Scenario 4.1Authors Own
Addressing the existing housing stock
Clearly, the fact that a CSH Level 4 home is unable to bring the typical fuel poor household out of fuel poverty warrants that more than simple loft or cavity wall insulation is required. Whilst a short term solution would be to invest in small scale, on-site renewable electricity generation, the retrofit to a more stringent standard will become paramount to the vast existing housing stock in order to prevent thousands of more households falling into fuel poverty in light of the anticipated fuel price rises.
Of all the modelled scenarios, with exception to Passivhaus, those which did not exhibit fuel poverty by 2020 were supplemented by PV of various sizes dependent upon fabric performance. Therefore, a priority should be placed on reducing the amount of grid bought electricity within households whilst continuing to improve the thermal efficiency of both new and existing housing stock as a longer term solution.
Despite photovoltaics being a relatively expensive addition to any household, the 3:1 ratio described earlier whereby even pound spent on reducing electricity consumption is worth three times that spent on reducing gas expenditure makes the option of renewables a valid short term solution to the fuel poverty crisis, which on average paid for themselves within the first 8 years.
If homeowners and landlords are convinced, the Green Deal may be an option to achieve this, although there have already been a number of criticisms made in regards to why consumers may be turned off in regards to the high interest rate and initial assessment costs, especially for those within the lower income brackets.
The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group’s 2012 report suggests that a formidable way of funding these improvements is to recycle a proportion of the Carbon Tax Revenue back to fuel poor consumers through insulation measures, which France and Estonia have already agreed to implement.13 It also recognises that upgrading the full refurbishment of fuel poor properties could provide up to 71,000 semi-skilled construction jobs by 2015. Eradicating fuel poverty would help to alleviate strain on the NHS through illness brought on by underheated homes and would form a long term solution to those currently claiming either Winter Fuel, Warm Home or Cold Weather benefits. The Chief Medical Officer’s Report
13 Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (2012): Tenth Annual Report
15kWh/m2A2762kWh 0.8% of expenditure£4.60/month
£600
/mon
th
5.0% of expenditure£30.19/month
£34.82/month 5.8% of expenditure
2020£52.98/month 8.8% of expenditure
1.2% of expenditure£6.95/month
extreme fuel poverty
fuel poverty line
FUEL POOR?
NO
5.8% of expenditure£34.82/month 262kWh MVHR Consumption
1,200kWh
FUEL POOR?
NO
80m
Energy Requirements
Expenditure
total heating requirementstotal power requirements
Scenario 5Passivhaus2
per annumper annum
[fig 12.] Passivhaus
22 | | 23
from 2009 states that winter related illness due to cold private housing costs the NHS an estimated £859m and that investing £1 in keeping homes warm saved the NHS 42 pence in health costs.
Summary
It is evident that there is a shift in priorities required in order to achieve a correct balance between fabric and microgeneration led approaches to cater to the requirements of fuel poor households rather than the wider housing markets’. In cases of extreme fuel poverty and those living in minimally insulated period properties it may be prudent to invest in microgeneration immediately to prevent the household from rapidly falling back into fuel poverty as electricity prices rise; increasing fabric performance by a small factor is financially illogical. Achieving an air tightness and envelope performance to at least that of CSH Level 6 will be essential to ensure a long term solution as the heating demand achieved by CSH Level 4 does not represent a viable method of preventing fuel poverty, costing the occupants an enormous £45.58 per month at 2020 forecast rates.
For new build homes, it is clear that the CSH Level 4 criteria does not present a robust case for new homes hoping to tackle fuel poverty. The CSH Level 6 criteria however, do begin to tip the balance into the right direction. Whilst stipulating a specfic heating demand, increasing the capital cost by a small amount over an equivalent Level 4 home, the low level of heating demand achieved means that gas bills in 2020 represent just 2% of the household income (£16.67), allowing the savings on gas to be invested in providing solar energy once grid parity has been achieved or the price of solar energy greatly reduced. According to the Swanson effect, photovoltaics are both increasing in efficiency and decreasing in cost exponentially14. The cost of producing electricity is quickly approaching parity with grid produced electricity, with the EPIA predicting that grid parity may be achieved as near as 2020 in the UK.15
“Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015”16
-Shi Zhengrong
This may come as a long term reassurance and actually swing favour towards the ‘fabric first’ approach, with photovoltaics becoming a more desirable solution once prices drop further and efficiencies increase. However, the benefit to fuel poor households in the current economic climate is that the Feed In Tariff becomes an often significant net source of income relative to current income. Justification for a ‘fabric first’ led approach is that high performance building fabric and airtightness are generally difficult and more costly to retrofit, especially when compared to the plug and play nature of solar generation installations.
Both short term and long term, the installation of photovoltaics becomes a viable option and in the long term may actually be required to eradicate fuel poverty in the income group identified, regardless of heat demand, due to forecast electricity costs. What is clear is that whilst 2016 stipulates a stringent enough standard of fabric performance, the fuel market is difficult to predict and solutions will need to be tailored to current market conditions to provide a solid enough buffer against worst case scenario fuel prices; to both deal with the existing fuel poverty crisis and safeguard against other homes falling into the same poverty trap.
Ultimately, the funding of such improvements will determine the sucess or failure of the goal to eradicate fuel poverty. The recycling of the Carbon Tax revenue into subsidising such improvements will be paramount as current subsidised improvements are simply not enough to pull the worst affected households out of the poverty trap.
Whilst the forecast energy prices and current housing stock are usually discussed with an air of pessimism and gloom, the future of new housing and the potential for solar generation for all, with proper support, provide a very real solution to the fuel poverty crisis.
-14 The Economist Online: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/12/daily-chart-19 [Accessed 14/4/13]15 European Photovoltaic Industry Association (2012) - Solar Photovoltaics Competing in the Energy Sector
16 Mark Clifford (2012). “China’s visible solar power success”. MarketWatch
Scenarios
No Action
Scenario 1 - 3kWp PV 2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Not Fuel Poor
Scenario 2 - 1kWp PV2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Fuel Poor
Scenario 3 - CSH Level 42013: Fuel Poor2020: Fuel Poor
Scenario 3.1 - CSH Level 4 + 1kWp PV2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Fuel Poor
Scenario 3.2 - CSH Level 4 + 1.5kWp PV2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Fuel Poor
Scenario 3.3 - CSH Level 4 + 1.8kWp PV2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Not Fuel Poor
Scenario 4 - CSH Level 62013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Fuel Poor
Scenario 4.1 - CSH Level 6 + 0.5kWp PV2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Not Fuel Poor
Scenario 4.2 - CSH Level 6 + 1kWp PV2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Not Fuel Poor
Scenario 5 - Passivhaus2013: Not Fuel Poor2020: Not Fuel Poor
24 | | 25
No Action
15,1
46kW
h
9,26
4kW
h
actu
al h
eatin
g18
9kW
h/m
2A
tota
l pow
er re
quire
men
ts
2500
kWh
5.6%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
5.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
tota
l hea
ting
requ
irem
ents
to re
ach
21 d
egre
es C
elci
us
£35.
51/m
onth
£31.
52/m
onth
£58.
05/m
onth
9.67
% o
f exp
endi
ture
unde
rhea
ting
per a
nnum
per a
nnum
per a
nnum
FUE
L P
OO
R?
£600/month5.
6% o
f exp
endi
ture
£35.
51/m
onth
£31.
52/m
onth
5.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re20
20£4
7.92
/mon
th7.
9% o
f exp
endi
ture
8.94
% o
f exp
endi
ture
£53.
62/m
onth
incr
ease
of £
18.1
1/m
onth
incr
ease
of £
16.4
0/m
onth
extre
me
fuel
pov
erty
fuel
pov
erty
line
Ene
rgy
Req
uire
men
ts
No
Act
ion
Exp
endi
ture
YE
SFU
EL
PO
OR
?
YE
S
80m2
No
Act
ion
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hRe
nt£7
9.00
/wee
kEl
ectr
icity
0.15
13£/
kWh
Hea
ting
Req
15,1
46kW
h£6
96.7
2Pe
r A
nnum
Hea
ting
Act
ual
9,26
4kW
h£4
26.1
4Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Gas
0.06
946
£/kW
hPo
wer
2500
kWh
£378
.25
Per
Ann
um20
20El
ectr
icity
0.23
£/kW
hIn
com
e£1
50.0
0/w
eek
Curr
ent P
rice
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
kgkg
/m2 A
Gas
(Req
)£6
96.7
2pe
r an
num
£58.
06pe
r m
onth
Gas
9264
018
.818
8123
.512
5G
as (a
ctua
l)£4
26.1
4pe
r an
num
£35.
51pe
r m
onth
Elec
tric
ity25
000
13.2
1318
16.4
75El
ectr
icity
£378
.25
per
annu
m£3
1.52
per
mon
thTo
tal
32.0
39.9
875
Ref:h
ttp:
//w
ww
.car
boni
ndep
ende
nt.o
rg/
Fore
cast
(202
0)G
as (R
eq)
£1,0
52.0
4pe
r an
num
£87.
67pe
r m
onth
Gas
(act
ual)
643.
4774
4pe
r an
num
£53.
62pe
r m
onth
Elec
tric
ity£5
75.0
0pe
r an
num
£47.
92pe
r m
onth
Gas
(Req
)£2
9.61
incr
ease
G
as (a
ctua
l)£1
8.11
incr
ease
El
ectr
icity
£16.
40in
crea
se
Prev
ious
Fore
cast
Mon
thly
Inco
me
£600
.00
Mon
thly
Inco
me
£600
.00
Elec
tric
ity C
ost
£31.
525.
25%
Elec
tric
ity C
ost
£47.
927.
99%
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
5.51
5.92
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£53.
628.
94%
Bala
nce
£532
.97
Bala
nce
£498
.46
-11.
17%
-16.
92%
FUEL
PO
OR
FUEL
PO
OR
and
unde
rhea
ting
and
unde
rhea
ting
26 | | 27
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
043
per
kWh
Hea
ting
Act
ual
9,26
4kW
h£4
26.1
4Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Gas
0.06
946
£/kW
h20
20Ex
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hPo
wer
2500
kWh
£378
.25
Per
Ann
um20
20El
ectr
icity
0.23
£/kW
hIn
com
e£1
50.0
0/w
eek
Scen
ario
13k
Wp
PV S
yste
m in
stal
led
FITs
Inco
me
Savi
ngs
10 Y
ear
Carb
on O
utpu
tCo
2 (t
onne
s)kg
kg/m
2 APV
GIS
Dat
a fo
r D
unde
e st
ates
pro
duct
ion
at28
60kW
h£4
41.5
8Pe
r A
nnum
£378
.25
PAG
as92
640
18.8
118
8123
.512
5Ex
cess
360
kWh
£16.
70Pe
r A
nnum
Savi
ngs
plus
inco
me
Elec
tric
ity-3
600
-1.9
-190
-2.3
75 (a
ppro
x, h
ttp:
//w
ww
.the
ecoe
xper
ts.c
o.uk
/how
-muc
h-do
-sol
ar-p
anel
s-co
st-u
k) C
ost
£7,5
00.0
0£4
58.2
9Pe
r A
nnum
£836
.54
PATo
tal
16.9
121
.137
5Re
f:htt
p://
ww
w.c
arbo
nind
epen
dent
.org
/PV
Off
set
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
+ sa
ving
sCu
mul
ativ
e in
com
e on
ly28
6015
1018
.875
1£8
36.5
41
£458
.29
new
tota
l2.
2625
2£1
,673
.08
2£9
16.5
83
£2,5
09.6
13
£1,3
74.8
64
£3,3
46.1
54
£1,8
33.1
55
£4,1
82.6
95
£2,2
91.4
46
£5,0
19.2
36
£2,7
49.7
37
£5,8
55.7
77
£3,2
08.0
28
£6,6
92.3
08
£3,6
66.3
09
£7,5
28.8
4PV
PA
ID F
OR
9£4
,124
.59
PV P
AID
FO
R10
£8,3
65.3
810
£4,5
82.8
8
Prof
it ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(inco
me
+ sa
ving
s - P
V co
st)
£865
.38
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£6
,967
.16
(Req
)£4
,261
.44
(Act
ual)
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(+11
% r
ise
in p
rice
s)£7
,663
.88
(Req
)£6
96.7
2m
ore
£4,6
87.5
8(A
ctua
l)£4
26.1
4m
ore
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
23.1
2M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£0
.00
Elec
tric
ity C
ost
£31.
52G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
515.
92%
plus
fore
cast
£53.
628.
40%
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
5.51
Mon
thly
Inco
me
from
PV
£38.
196.
37%
plus
fore
cast
£23.
123.
85%
Mon
thly
Sav
ings
from
PV
£31.
52Ba
lanc
e£6
34.2
0in
clud
ing
savi
ngs
Bala
nce
£532
.97
5.70
%-1
1.17
%
Bala
nce
£602
.68
excl
udin
g sa
ving
sBa
lanc
e£5
69.5
00.
45%
-5.0
8%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0N
O
Scenario 13kWp PV
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
0pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g A
ctua
l9,
264
kWh
£426
.14
Per
Ann
um20
20G
as0.
0694
6£/
kWh
2020
Expo
rt T
ariff
£0.0
464
per
kWh
Pow
er25
00kW
h£3
78.2
5Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k
Scen
ario
20.
5kW
p PV
Sys
tem
inst
alle
dFI
Ts In
com
eSa
ving
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
kgkg
/m2 A
PVG
IS D
ata
for
Dun
dee
stat
es p
rodu
ctio
n at
476
kWh
£73.
49Pe
r A
nnum
£72.
02PA
Gas
9264
018
.81
1881
23.5
125
Shor
tfal
l20
24kW
h£0
.00
Per
Ann
umSa
ving
s pl
us in
com
eEl
ectr
icity
2024
010
.67
1067
13.3
375
(app
rox,
htt
p://
ww
w.t
heec
oexp
erts
.co.
uk/h
ow-m
uch-
do-s
olar
-pan
els-
cost
-uk)
Cos
t£1
,250
.00
£73.
49Pe
r A
nnum
£145
.51
PATo
tal
29.4
836
.85
Ref:
http
://w
ww
.car
boni
ndep
ende
nt.o
rg/
offs
et47
625
03.
125
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
+ sa
ving
sCu
mul
ativ
e in
com
e on
lyne
w to
tal
33.7
251
£145
.51
1£7
3.49
2£2
91.0
32
£146
.99
3£4
36.5
43
£220
.48
4£5
82.0
54
£293
.98
5£7
27.5
75
£367
.47
6£8
73.0
86
£440
.97
7£1
,018
.59
7£5
14.4
68
£1,1
64.1
18
£587
.96
9£1
,309
.62
PV P
AID
FO
R9
£661
.45
10£1
,455
.13
10£7
34.9
411
£808
.44
Prof
it ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(inco
me
+ sa
ving
s - P
V co
st)
£205
.13
12£8
81.9
3H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (a
t cur
rent
pri
ces)
£6,9
67.1
6(R
eq)
13£9
55.4
3£4
,261
.44
(Act
ual)
14£1
,028
.92
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(+11
% r
ise
in p
rice
s)£7
,663
.88
(Req
)£6
96.7
2m
ore
15£1
,102
.42
£4,6
87.5
8(A
ctua
l)£4
26.1
4m
ore
16£1
,175
.91
Shor
tfal
l Ele
ctri
city
Cos
ts£3
,062
.31
17£1
,249
.40
18£1
,322
.90
PV P
AID
FO
R
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
04.1
4M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0U
nuse
d Fi
eld
£0.0
0El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
5.51
5.92
%£5
3.62
8.88
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£6
.12
£4.1
4M
onth
ly S
avin
gs fr
om P
V£6
.00
Shor
tfal
l Ele
ctri
city
Cos
ts£2
5.52
4.25
%£3
8.79
6.42
%Ba
lanc
e£5
51.0
9in
clud
ing
savi
ngs
Bala
nce
£532
.97
-8.1
5%-1
1.17
%
Bala
nce
£545
.09
excl
udin
g sa
ving
s£5
11.7
2-9
.15%
-14.
71%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0YE
S
Scenario 1.10.5kWp PV
28 | | 29
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
0pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g A
ctua
l9,
264
kWh
£426
.14
Per
Ann
um20
20G
as0.
0694
6£/
kWh
2020
Expo
rt T
ariff
£0.0
464
per
kWh
Pow
er25
00kW
h£3
78.2
5Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k
Scen
ario
21k
Wp
PV S
yste
m in
stal
led
FITs
Inco
me
Savi
ngs
10 Y
ear
Carb
on O
utpu
tCo
2 (t
onne
s)kg
kg/m
2 APV
GIS
Dat
a fo
r D
unde
e st
ates
pro
duct
ion
at95
2kW
h£1
46.9
9Pe
r A
nnum
£378
.25
PAG
as92
640
18.8
118
8123
.512
5Sh
ortf
all
1548
kWh
£0.0
0Pe
r A
nnum
Savi
ngs
plus
inco
me
Elec
tric
ity15
480
8.16
816
10.2
(app
rox,
htt
p://
ww
w.t
heec
oexp
erts
.co.
uk/h
ow-m
uch-
do-s
olar
-pan
els-
cost
-uk)
Cos
t£2
,500
.00
£146
.99
Per
Ann
um£5
25.2
4PA
Tota
l26
.97
33.7
125
Ref:
http
://w
ww
.car
boni
ndep
ende
nt.o
rg/
offs
et50
06.
25Cu
mul
ativ
e in
com
e +
savi
ngs
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
only
952
new
tota
l27
.462
51
£525
.24
1£1
46.9
92
£1,0
50.4
82
£293
.98
3£1
,575
.72
3£4
40.9
74
£2,1
00.9
64
£587
.96
5£2
,626
.19
PV P
AID
FO
R5
£734
.94
6£3
,151
.43
6£8
81.9
37
£3,6
76.6
77
£1,0
28.9
28
£4,2
01.9
18
£1,1
75.9
19
£4,7
27.1
59
£1,3
22.9
010
£5,2
52.3
910
£1,4
69.8
911
£1,6
16.8
8Pr
ofit
over
10
year
s (in
com
e +
savi
ngs
- PV
cost
)£2
,752
.39
12£1
,763
.87
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£6
,967
.16
(Req
)13
£1,9
10.8
5£4
,261
.44
(Act
ual)
14£2
,057
.84
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(+11
% r
ise
in p
rice
s)£7
,663
.88
(Req
)£6
96.7
2m
ore
15£2
,204
.83
£4,6
87.5
8(A
ctua
l)£4
26.1
4m
ore
16£2
,351
.82
Shor
tfal
l Ele
ctri
city
Cos
ts£2
,342
.12
17£2
,498
.81
18£2
,645
.80
PV P
AID
FO
R
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
12.2
5£6
08.2
7M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0U
nuse
d Fi
eld
£0.0
0El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
5.51
5.80
%£5
3.62
8.82
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£1
2.25
£8.2
71.
36%
Mon
thly
Sav
ings
from
PV
£31.
52Sh
ortf
all E
lect
rici
ty C
osts
£19.
523.
19%
£29.
674.
88%
Bala
nce
£588
.74
incl
udin
g sa
ving
sBa
lanc
e£5
32.9
7-1
.88%
-11.
17%
Bala
nce
£557
.22
excl
udin
g sa
ving
s£5
24.9
8-7
.13%
-12.
50%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0YE
S
Scenario 21kWp PV
30 | | 31
Scenario 3 - CSH Level 4
7,87
4kW
h
98kW
h/m
2A25
00kW
h
5.0%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
5.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
£30.
19/m
onth
£31.
52/m
onth
£600/month5.
0% o
f exp
endi
ture
£30.
19/m
onth
£31.
52/m
onth
5.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re20
20£4
7.92
/mon
th7.
9% o
f exp
endi
ture
7.6%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£4
5.58
/mon
thin
crea
se o
f £15
.39/
mon
th
incr
ease
of £
16.4
0/m
onth
extre
me
fuel
pov
erty
fuel
pov
erty
line
FUE
L P
OO
R?
YE
SFU
EL
PO
OR
?
YE
S
80m2
Ene
rgy
Req
uire
men
ts
Exp
endi
ture
tota
l hea
ting
requ
irem
ents
tota
l pow
er re
quire
men
ts
Sce
nario
3C
SH
Lev
el 4
per a
nnum
per a
nnum
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hRe
nt£7
9.00
/wee
kEl
ectr
icity
0.15
13£/
kWh
Hea
ting
Req
15,1
46kW
h£6
96.7
2Pe
r A
nnum
Hea
ting
Act
ual
9,26
4kW
h£4
26.1
4Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Gas
0.06
946
£/kW
hPo
wer
2500
kWh
£378
.25
Per
Ann
um20
20El
ectr
icity
0.23
£/kW
hIn
com
e£1
50.0
0/w
eek
61.1
6%
Scen
ario
3ht
tp:/
/ww
w.s
usta
inab
leho
mes
.co.
uk/b
log/
bid/
1041
36/C
ode-
for-
Sust
aina
ble-
Hom
es-le
vel-4
-ene
rgy-
bill-
savi
ngs
Hea
ting
dem
and
redu
ced
to C
SH L
evel
4Co
sts
Savi
ngs
10 Y
ear
Carb
on O
utpu
tCo
2 (t
onne
s)1
Year
Car
bon
Out
put
kgkg
/m2 A
Requ
ired
hea
t dem
and
98.4
3kW
h/m
2A£3
62.2
2Pe
r A
nnum
£63.
92Pe
r A
nnum
Gas
7874
415
.99
7874
.41.
599
1599
19.9
875
Per
Year
7874
.4kW
h£3
0.19
Per
Mon
th£5
.33
Per
Mon
thEl
ectr
icity
2500
013
.18
2500
1.31
813
1816
.475
Tota
l29
.17
36.4
625
Ref:
http
://w
ww
.car
boni
ndep
ende
nt.o
rg/
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
1£6
3.92
2£1
27.8
43
£191
.76
4£2
55.6
95
£319
.61
6£3
83.5
3
7£4
47.4
58
£511
.37
9£5
75.2
910
£639
.22
Prof
it ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(inco
me
+ sa
ving
s - i
nsta
llatio
n co
st)
N/A
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£3
,622
.22
(Req
)(A
ctua
l)H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (+
fore
cast
ris
e)£5
,469
.56
(Req
)£1
,847
.33
mor
e£1
84.7
3m
ore
per
year
£0.0
0(A
ctua
l)£0
.00
mor
eEl
ectr
icty
Cos
ts (c
urre
nt)
£3,7
82.5
0El
ectr
icity
Cos
ts (r
ises
)£5
,750
.00
£1,9
67.5
0m
ore
£196
.75
mor
e pe
r ye
ar
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£3
1.52
5.25
%£4
7.92
7.99
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
0.19
5.03
%£4
5.58
7.60
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£0
.00
Mon
thly
Sav
ings
from
PV
£0.0
0
Bala
nce
£538
.29
Bala
nce
£506
.50
Bala
nce
£532
.97
-10.
28%
-15.
58%
-11.
17%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1YE
SFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0YE
S
32 | | 33
Scenario 3.1 CSH Level 4 + 1kWp PV
Scenario 3.2 CSH Level 4 + 1.5kWp PV
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
0pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g A
ctua
l9,
264
kWh
£426
.14
Per
Ann
um20
20G
as0.
0694
6£/
kWh
2020
Expo
rt T
ariff
£0.0
464
per
kWh
Pow
er25
00kW
h£3
78.2
5Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k61
.16%
Scen
ario
3.1
Hea
ting
dem
and
redu
ced
to C
SH L
evel
4 (A
ffor
dabl
e H
omes
Pro
gram
me)
Cost
sSa
ving
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
kgkg
/m2 A
Requ
ired
hea
t dem
and
98.4
3kW
h/m
2A£3
62.2
2Pe
r A
nnum
£63.
92Pe
r A
nnum
Gas
7874
415
.99
1599
19.9
875
Per
Year
7874
.4kW
h£3
0.19
Per
Mon
th£5
.33
Per
Mon
thEl
ectr
icity
1548
08.
1681
610
.2To
tal
24.1
530
.187
5Re
f:ht
tp:/
/ww
w.c
arbo
nind
epen
dent
.org
/of
fset
500
6.25
1kW
p PV
Sys
tem
inst
alle
dFI
Ts In
com
eSa
ving
s95
2ne
w to
tal
23.9
375
PVG
IS D
ata
for
Dun
dee
stat
es p
rodu
ctio
n at
952
kWh
£146
.99
Per
Ann
um£1
44.0
4PA
Shor
tfal
l15
48kW
hSa
ving
s pl
us in
com
e (a
ppro
x, h
ttp:
//w
ww
.the
ecoe
xper
ts.c
o.uk
/how
-muc
h-do
-sol
ar-p
anel
s-co
st-u
k) C
ost
£2,5
00.0
0£1
46.9
9Pe
r A
nnum
£291
.03
PA
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs+
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
Savi
ngs
+ In
com
e PV
Onl
y1
£207
.96
£354
.95
£146
.99
£291
.03
2£4
15.9
2£7
09.9
0£2
93.9
8£5
82.0
53
£623
.88
£1,0
64.8
4£4
40.9
7£8
73.0
84
£831
.84
£1,4
19.7
9£5
87.9
6£1
,164
.11
5£1
,039
.80
£1,7
74.7
4£7
34.9
4£1
,455
.13
6£1
,247
.76
£2,1
29.6
9£8
81.9
3£1
,746
.16
7£1
,455
.71
£2,4
84.6
4£1
,028
.92
£2,0
37.1
88
£1,6
63.6
7£2
,839
.58
£1,1
75.9
1£2
,328
.21
9£1
,871
.63
£3,1
94.5
3£1
,322
.90
£2,6
19.2
4PV
PA
ID F
OR
10£2
,079
.59
£3,5
49.4
8£1
,469
.89
£2,9
10.2
6
PV P
rofit
ove
r 10
yea
rs (i
ncom
e +
savi
ngs
- ins
talla
tion
cost
)£4
10.2
6H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (a
t cur
rent
pri
ces)
£3,6
22.2
2(R
eq)
(Act
ual)
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(+fo
reca
st r
ise)
£5,4
69.5
6(R
eq)
£1,8
47.3
3m
ore
£184
.73
mor
e pe
r ye
ar£0
.00
(Act
ual)
£0.0
0m
ore
Elec
tric
ty C
osts
(cur
rent
)£2
,342
.12
Elec
tric
ity C
osts
(ris
es)
£3,5
60.4
0£1
,218
.28
mor
e£1
21.8
3m
ore
per
year
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
12.2
5£6
08.2
7M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£1
9.52
3.19
%£2
9.67
4.88
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
0.19
4.93
%£4
5.58
7.49
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£1
2.25
£8.2
7M
onth
ly S
avin
gs fr
om P
V£1
2.00
£18.
25
Bala
nce
(incl
udin
g sa
ving
s)£5
74.5
5Ba
lanc
e £5
51.2
7Ba
lanc
e£5
32.9
7-4
.24%
-8.1
2%-1
1.17
%
Bala
nce
(exc
ludi
ng s
avin
gs)
£562
.55
Bala
nce
£533
.02
-6.2
4%-1
1.16
%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0YE
S
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
0pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g A
ctua
l9,
264
kWh
£426
.14
Per
Ann
um20
20G
as0.
0694
6£/
kWh
2020
Expo
rt T
ariff
£0.0
464
per
kWh
Pow
er25
00kW
h£3
78.2
5Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k61
.16%
Scen
ario
3.2
Hea
ting
dem
and
redu
ced
to C
SH L
evel
4 (A
ffor
dabl
e H
omes
Pro
gram
me)
Cost
sSa
ving
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
kgpe
r m
2 ARe
quir
ed h
eat d
eman
d98
.43
kWh/
m2A
£362
.22
Per
Ann
um£6
3.92
Per
Ann
umG
as78
744
15.9
915
9919
.987
5Pe
r Ye
ar78
74.4
kWh
£30.
19Pe
r M
onth
£5.3
3Pe
r M
onth
Elec
tric
ity10
700
5.64
564
7.05
Tota
l21
.63
27.0
375
Ref:
http
://w
ww
.car
boni
ndep
ende
nt.o
rg/
offs
et75
09.
375
1.5k
Wp
PV S
yste
m in
stal
led
FITs
Inco
me
Savi
ngs
1430
new
tota
l17
.662
5PV
GIS
Dat
a fo
r D
unde
e st
ates
pro
duct
ion
at14
30kW
h£2
20.7
9Pe
r A
nnum
£216
.36
PASh
ortf
all
1070
kWh
Savi
ngs
plus
inco
me
(app
rox,
htt
p://
ww
w.t
heec
oexp
erts
.co.
uk/h
ow-m
uch-
do-s
olar
-pan
els-
cost
-uk)
Cos
t£3
,750
.00
£220
.79
Per
Ann
um£4
37.1
5PA
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs+
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
Savi
ngs
+ In
com
e PV
Onl
y1
£280
.28
£501
.07
£220
.79
£437
.15
2£5
60.5
6£1
,002
.15
£441
.58
£874
.30
3£8
40.8
4£1
,503
.22
£662
.38
£1,3
11.4
54
£1,1
21.1
2£2
,004
.29
£883
.17
£1,7
48.6
05
£1,4
01.4
0£2
,505
.36
£1,1
03.9
6£2
,185
.76
6£1
,681
.68
£3,0
06.4
4£1
,324
.75
£2,6
22.9
17
£1,9
61.9
6£3
,507
.51
£1,5
45.5
4£3
,060
.06
8£2
,242
.24
£4,0
08.5
8£1
,766
.34
£3,4
97.2
19
£2,5
22.5
3£4
,509
.65
£1,9
87.1
3£3
,934
.36
PV P
AID
FO
R10
£2,8
02.8
1£5
,010
.73
£2,2
07.9
2£4
,371
.51
PV P
rofit
ove
r 10
yea
rs (i
ncom
e +
savi
ngs
- ins
talla
tion
cost
)£6
21.5
1H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (a
t cur
rent
pri
ces)
£3,6
22.2
2(R
eq)
(Act
ual)
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(+fo
reca
st r
ise)
£5,4
69.5
6(R
eq)
£1,8
47.3
3m
ore
£184
.73
mor
e pe
r ye
ar£0
.00
(Act
ual)
£0.0
0m
ore
Elec
tric
ty C
osts
(cur
rent
)£1
,618
.91
Elec
tric
ity C
osts
(ris
es)
£2,4
61.0
0£8
42.0
9m
ore
£84.
21m
ore
per
year
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
18.4
0£6
12.4
3M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£1
3.49
2.18
%£2
0.51
3.35
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
0.19
4.88
%£4
5.58
7.44
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£1
8.40
£12.
43M
onth
ly S
avin
gs fr
om P
V£1
8.03
£27.
41
Bala
nce
(incl
udin
g sa
ving
s)£5
92.7
5Ba
lanc
e £5
73.7
5Ba
lanc
e£5
32.9
7-1
.21%
-4.3
8%-1
1.17
%
Bala
nce
(exc
ludi
ng s
avin
gs)
£574
.72
Bala
nce
£546
.34
-4.2
1%89
.21%
10.7
9%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0YE
S
34 | | 35
Scenario 3.3 - CSH Level 4 + 1.8kWp PV
7,87
4kW
h
98kW
h/m
2A25
00kW
h
5.0%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£3
0.19
/mon
th
£600/month5.
0% o
f exp
endi
ture
£30.
19/m
onth
£9.9
6/m
onth
1.1%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
2020
£15.
40/m
onth
2.5%
of e
xpen
ditu
re7.
4% o
f exp
endi
ture
£45.
58/m
onth
extre
me
fuel
pov
erty
fuel
pov
erty
line
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO
1710
kWh
offs
et b
y P
V
790k
Wh
shor
tfall
£9.9
6/m
onth
1.1%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
PV
Inco
me
- £22
.00/
mon
th
£22.
00/m
onth
inco
me
PV
Inco
me
- £14
.86/
mon
th
80m2
Ene
rgy
Req
uire
men
ts
Exp
endi
ture
tota
l hea
ting
requ
irem
ents
tota
l pow
er re
quire
men
ts
Sce
nario
3.3
CS
H L
evel
4 +
1.8
kWp
PV
per a
nnum
per a
nnum
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
0pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g A
ctua
l9,
264
kWh
£426
.14
Per
Ann
um20
20G
as0.
0694
6£/
kWh
2020
Expo
rt T
ariff
£0.0
464
per
kWh
Pow
er25
00kW
h£3
78.2
5Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k61
.16%
Scen
ario
3.3
Hea
ting
dem
and
redu
ced
to C
SH L
evel
4 (A
ffor
dabl
e H
omes
Pro
gram
me)
Cost
sSa
ving
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
kgkg
/m2 A
Requ
ired
hea
t dem
and
98.4
3kW
h/m
2A£3
62.2
2Pe
r A
nnum
£63.
92Pe
r A
nnum
Gas
7874
415
.99
1599
19.9
875
Per
Year
7874
.4kW
h£3
0.19
Per
Mon
th£5
.33
Per
Mon
thEl
ectr
icity
7900
4.11
641
1.6
5.14
5To
tal
20.1
0625
.132
5Re
f:ht
tp:/
/ww
w.c
arbo
nind
epen
dent
.org
/1.
8kW
p PV
Sys
tem
inst
alle
dFI
Ts In
com
eSa
ving
sof
fset
900
11.2
5PV
GIS
Dat
a fo
r D
unde
e st
ates
pro
duct
ion
at17
10kW
h£2
64.0
2Pe
r A
nnum
£258
.72
PA17
10ne
w to
tal
13.8
825
Shor
tfal
l79
0kW
hSa
ving
s pl
us in
com
e (a
ppro
x, h
ttp:
//w
ww
.the
ecoe
xper
ts.c
o.uk
/how
-muc
h-do
-sol
ar-p
anel
s-co
st-u
k) C
ost
£4,5
00.0
0£2
64.0
2Pe
r A
nnum
£522
.75
PA
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs+
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
Savi
ngs
+ In
com
e PV
Onl
y1
£322
.64
£586
.67
£264
.02
£522
.75
2£6
45.2
9£1
,173
.34
£528
.05
£1,0
45.4
93
£967
.93
£1,7
60.0
1£7
92.0
7£1
,568
.24
4£1
,290
.58
£2,3
46.6
7£1
,056
.10
£2,0
90.9
95
£1,6
13.2
2£2
,933
.34
£1,3
20.1
2£2
,613
.74
6£1
,935
.87
£3,5
20.0
1£1
,584
.14
£3,1
36.4
87
£2,2
58.5
1£4
,106
.68
£1,8
48.1
7£3
,659
.23
8£2
,581
.16
£4,6
93.3
5£2
,112
.19
£4,1
81.9
89
£2,9
03.8
0£5
,280
.02
£2,3
76.2
2£4
,704
.72
PV P
AID
FO
R10
£3,2
26.4
5£5
,866
.69
£2,6
40.2
4£5
,227
.47
PV P
rofit
ove
r 10
yea
rs (i
ncom
e +
savi
ngs
- ins
talla
tion
cost
)£727
.47
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£3
,622
.22
(Req
)(A
ctua
l)H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (+
fore
cast
ris
e)£5
,469
.56
(Req
)£1
,847
.33
mor
e£1
84.7
3m
ore
per
year
£0.0
0(A
ctua
l)£0
.00
mor
eEl
ectr
icty
Cos
ts (c
urre
nt)
£1,1
95.2
7El
ectr
icity
Cos
ts (r
ises
)£1
,817
.00
£621
.73
mor
e£6
2.17
mor
e pe
r ye
ar
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
22.0
0£6
14.8
6M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£9
.96
1.60
%£1
5.14
2.46
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
0.19
4.85
%£4
5.58
7.41
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£2
2.00
£14.
86M
onth
ly S
avin
gs fr
om P
V£2
1.56
£32.
78
Bala
nce
(incl
udin
g sa
ving
s)£6
03.4
2Ba
lanc
e £5
86.9
2Ba
lanc
e£5
32.9
70.
57%
-2.1
8%-1
1.17
%
Bala
nce
(exc
ludi
ng s
avin
gs)
£581
.86
Bala
nce
£554
.14
-3.0
2%90
.12%
9.88
%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0N
O
36 | | 37
Scenario 4 - CSH Level 6
2,88
0kW
h36
kWh/
m2A
2500
kWh
1.84
% o
f exp
endi
ture
5.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
£11.
04/m
onth
£31.
52/m
onth
£600/month1.
8% o
f exp
endi
ture
£11.
04/m
onth
£31.
52/m
onth
5.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re20
20£4
7.92
/mon
th7.
9% o
f exp
endi
ture
2.7%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£1
6.67
/mon
thin
crea
se o
f £5.
63/m
onth
incr
ease
of £
16.4
0/m
onth
extre
me
fuel
pov
erty
fuel
pov
erty
line
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO
FUE
L P
OO
R?
YE
S
80mE
nerg
y R
equi
rem
ents
Exp
endi
ture
tota
l hea
ting
requ
irem
ents
tota
l pow
er re
quire
men
ts
Sce
nario
4C
SH
Lev
el 6
2pe
r ann
umpe
r ann
um
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hRe
nt£7
9.00
/wee
kEl
ectr
icity
0.15
13£/
kWh
Hea
ting
Req
15,1
46kW
h£6
96.7
2Pe
r A
nnum
Hea
ting
Act
ual
9,26
4kW
h£4
26.1
4Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Gas
0.06
946
£/kW
hPo
wer
2500
kWh
£378
.25
Per
Ann
um20
20El
ectr
icity
0.23
£/kW
hIn
com
e£1
50.0
0/w
eek
61.1
6%
Scen
ario
4H
eati
ng d
eman
d re
duce
d to
CSH
Lev
el 6
Cost
sSa
ving
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
1 ye
arkg
kg/m
2 ARe
quir
ed h
eat d
eman
d36
kWh/
m2A
£132
.48
Per
Ann
um£2
93.6
6Pe
r A
nnum
Gas
2880
05.
8528
8058
57.
3125
Per
Year
2880
kWh
£11.
04Pe
r M
onth
£24.
47Pe
r M
onth
Elec
tric
ity25
000
13.1
825
0013
1816
.475
Tota
l19
.03
23.7
875
Ref:h
ttp:
//w
ww
.car
boni
ndep
ende
nt.o
rg/
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
1£2
93.6
62
£587
.33
3£8
80.9
94
£1,1
74.6
65
£1,4
68.3
26
£1,7
61.9
87
£2,0
55.6
58
£2,3
49.3
19
£2,6
42.9
810
£2,9
36.6
4
Prof
it ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(inco
me
+ sa
ving
s - i
nsta
llatio
n co
st)
N/A
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£1
,324
.80
(Req
)(A
ctua
l)H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (+
fore
cast
ris
e)£2
,000
.45
(Req
)£6
75.6
5m
ore
£67.
56m
ore
per
year
£0.0
0(A
ctua
l)£0
.00
mor
eEl
ectr
icty
Cos
ts (c
urre
nt)
£3,7
82.5
0El
ectr
icity
Cos
ts (r
ises
)£5
,750
.00
£1,9
67.5
0m
ore
£196
.75
mor
e pe
r ye
ar
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£3
1.52
5.25
%£4
7.92
7.99
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£1
1.04
1.84
%£1
6.67
2.78
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£0
.00
Mon
thly
Sav
ings
from
PV
£0.0
0
Bala
nce
£557
.44
Bala
nce
£535
.41
Bala
nce
£532
.97
-7.0
9%-1
0.76
%-1
1.17
%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0YE
S
38 | | 39
Scenario 4.1 - CSH Level 6 + 0.5kWp PV
2500
kWh
476k
Wh
offs
et b
y P
V
£600/month20
20
extre
me
fuel
pov
erty
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO
PV
Inco
me
- £6.
12/m
onth
1.8%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£1
1.04
/mon
th
PV
Inco
me
- £4.
14/m
onth
2.8%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£1
6.67
/mon
th
2024
kWh
shor
tfall
£25.
52/m
onth
4.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
4.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£2
5.52
/mon
th£3
8.79
/mon
th6.
4% o
f exp
endi
ture
2,88
0kW
h1.
84%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£1
1.04
/mon
th
80mE
nerg
y R
equi
rem
ents
Exp
endi
ture
tota
l hea
ting
requ
irem
ents
tota
l pow
er re
quire
men
ts
Sce
nario
4.1
CS
H L
evel
6 +
0.5
kWp
PV
236
kWh/
m2A
per a
nnum
per a
nnum
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hG
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
544
per
kWh
Rent
£79.
00/w
eek
Elec
tric
ity0.
1513
£/kW
hEx
port
Tar
iff£0
.046
4pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g Re
q15
,146
kWh
£696
.72
Per
Ann
um20
20G
ener
atio
n Ta
riff
£0.1
0pe
r kW
hH
eatin
g A
ctua
l9,
264
kWh
£426
.14
Per
Ann
um20
20G
as0.
0694
6£/
kWh
2020
Expo
rt T
ariff
£0.0
464
per
kWh
Pow
er25
00kW
h£3
78.2
5Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k61
.16%
Scen
ario
4.1
Hea
ting
dem
and
redu
ced
to C
SH L
evel
6Co
sts
Savi
ngs
10 Y
ear
Carb
on O
utpu
tCo
2 (t
onne
s)kg
/ann
umkg
/m2 A
Requ
ired
hea
t dem
and
36kW
h/m
2A£1
32.4
8Pe
r A
nnum
£293
.66
Per
Ann
umG
as28
800
5.85
585
7.31
25Pe
r Ye
ar28
80kW
h£1
1.04
Per
Mon
th£2
4.47
Per
Mon
thEl
ectr
icity
2024
010
.67
1067
13.3
375
Tota
l16
.52
20.6
5Re
f:htt
p://
ww
w.c
arbo
nind
epen
dent
.org
/0.
5kW
p PV
Sys
tem
inst
alle
dFI
Ts In
com
eSa
ving
sof
fset
250
3.12
5PV
GIS
Dat
a fo
r D
unde
e st
ates
pro
duct
ion
at47
6kW
h£7
3.49
Per
Ann
um£7
2.02
PA47
617
.525
Shor
tfal
l20
24kW
hSa
ving
s pl
us in
com
e (a
ppro
x, h
ttp:
//w
ww
.the
ecoe
xper
ts.c
o.uk
/how
-muc
h-do
-sol
ar-p
anel
s-co
st-u
k) C
ost
£1,2
50.0
0£7
3.49
Per
Ann
um£1
45.5
1PA
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs+
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
inco
me
Cum
ulat
ive
Savi
ngs
+ In
com
e PV
Onl
y1
£365
.68
£439
.18
£73.
49£1
45.5
12
£731
.37
£878
.35
£146
.99
£291
.03
3£1
,097
.05
£1,3
17.5
3£2
20.4
8£4
36.5
44
£1,4
62.7
3£1
,756
.71
£293
.98
£582
.05
5£1
,828
.41
£2,1
95.8
9£3
67.4
7£7
27.5
76
£2,1
94.1
0£2
,635
.06
£440
.97
£873
.08
7£2
,559
.78
£3,0
74.2
4£5
14.4
6£1
,018
.59
8£2
,925
.46
£3,5
13.4
2£5
87.9
6£1
,164
.11
9£3
,291
.15
£3,9
52.5
9£6
61.4
5£1
,309
.62
PV P
AID
FO
R10
£3,6
56.8
3£4
,391
.77
£734
.94
£1,4
55.1
3
PV P
rofit
ove
r 10
yea
rs (i
ncom
e +
savi
ngs
- ins
talla
tion
cost
)£205
.13
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£1
,324
.80
(Req
)(A
ctua
l)H
eatin
g co
sts
over
10
year
s (+
fore
cast
ris
e)£2
,000
.45
(Req
)£6
75.6
5m
ore
£67.
56m
ore
per
year
£0.0
0(A
ctua
l)£0
.00
mor
eEl
ectr
icty
Cos
ts (c
urre
nt)
£3,0
62.3
1El
ectr
icity
Cos
ts (r
ises
)£4
,655
.20
£1,5
92.8
9m
ore
£159
.29
mor
e pe
r ye
ar
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0£6
06.1
2£6
04.1
4M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£2
5.52
4.21
%£3
8.79
6.42
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
1.52
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£1
1.04
1.82
%£1
6.67
2.76
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51M
onth
ly In
com
e fr
om P
V£6
.12
£4.1
4M
onth
ly S
avin
gs fr
om P
V£6
.00
£9.1
2
Bala
nce
(incl
udin
g sa
ving
s)£5
75.5
7Ba
lanc
e £5
57.8
0Ba
lanc
e£5
32.9
7-4
.07%
-7.0
3%-1
1.17
%
Bala
nce
(exc
ludi
ng s
avin
gs)
£569
.57
Bala
nce
£548
.67
-5.0
7%-8
.55%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0N
O
40 | | 41
Scenario 5 - Passivhaus
15kW
h/m
2A27
62kW
h0.
8% o
f exp
endi
ture
£4.6
0/m
onth
£600/month5.
0% o
f exp
endi
ture
£30.
19/m
onth
£34.
82/m
onth
5.8%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
2020
£52.
98/m
onth
8.8%
of e
xpen
ditu
re
1.2%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£6
.95/
mon
th
extre
me
fuel
pov
erty
fuel
pov
erty
line
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO
5.8%
of e
xpen
ditu
re£3
4.82
/mon
th
262k
Wh
MV
HR
Con
sum
ptio
n
1,20
0kW
h
FUE
L P
OO
R?
NO80m
Ene
rgy
Req
uire
men
ts
Exp
endi
ture
tota
l hea
ting
requ
irem
ents
tota
l pow
er re
quire
men
ts
Sce
nario
5P
assi
vhau
s
2pe
r ann
umpe
r ann
um
Ass
umpt
ions
Ener
gy P
rice
s
Size
80m
2G
as0.
046
£/kW
hRe
nt£7
9.00
/wee
kEl
ectr
icity
0.15
13£/
kWh
Hea
ting
Req
15,1
46kW
h£6
96.7
2Pe
r A
nnum
Hea
ting
Act
ual
9,26
4kW
h£4
26.1
4Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Gas
0.06
946
£/kW
hPo
wer
(Not
e: 2
62kW
h ad
ded
for
30W
MVH
R Ru
nnin
g co
nsta
ntly
)27
62kW
h£4
17.8
9Pe
r A
nnum
2020
Elec
tric
ity0.
23£/
kWh
Inco
me
£150
.00
/wee
k
Scen
ario
5H
eati
ng d
eman
d re
duce
d to
Pas
sivh
aus
Cost
sSa
ving
s10
Yea
r Ca
rbon
Out
put
Co2
(ton
nes)
kgkg
/m2 A
Requ
ired
hea
t dem
and
15kW
h/m
2A£5
5.20
Per
Ann
um£3
70.9
4Pe
r A
nnum
Gas
1200
02.
4424
43.
05Re
quir
ed h
eat d
eman
d15
kWh/
m2A
£55.
20Pe
r A
nnum
£370
.94
Per
Ann
umG
as12
000
2.44
244
3.05
Per
Year
1200
kWh
£4.6
0Pe
r M
onth
£30.
91Pe
r M
onth
Elec
tric
ity27
620
14.7
314
7318
.412
5To
tal
17.1
721
.462
5Re
f:ht
tp:/
/ww
w.c
arbo
nind
epen
dent
.org
/
Cum
ulat
ive
savi
ngs
1£3
70.9
42
£741
.89
3£1
,112
.83
4£1
,483
.78
5£1
,854
.72
6£2
,225
.66
7£2
,596
.61
8£2
,967
.55
9£3
,338
.50
9£3
,338
.50
10£3
,709
.44
Prof
it ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(inco
me
+ sa
ving
s - i
nsta
llatio
n co
st)
N/A
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(at c
urre
nt p
rice
s)£5
52.0
0(R
eq)
(Act
ual)
Hea
ting
cost
s ov
er 1
0 ye
ars
(+11
% r
ise
in p
rice
s)£6
07.2
0(R
eq)
£55.
20m
ore
£0.0
0(A
ctua
l)£0
.00
mor
eEl
ectr
icty
Cos
ts (c
urre
nt)
£4,1
78.9
1El
ectr
icity
Cos
ts (r
ises
)£6
,352
.60
£2,1
73.6
9m
ore
Econ
omic
s10
Yea
r Fo
reca
stPr
evio
usM
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0M
onth
ly In
com
e£6
00.0
0El
ectr
icty
Cos
ts£3
4.82
5.80
%£5
2.94
8.82
%El
ectr
icity
Cos
t£3
4.82
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£4
.60
0.77
%£6
.95
1.16
%G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£35.
51G
as C
ost (
Act
ual)
£4.6
00.
77%
£6.9
51.
16%
Gas
Cos
t (A
ctua
l)£3
5.51
Mon
thly
Inco
me
from
PV
£0.0
0M
onth
ly S
avin
gs fr
om P
V£0
.00
Bala
nce
£560
.58
Bala
nce
£540
.12
Bala
nce
£529
.66
-6.5
7%-9
.98%
-11.
72%
Fuel
poo
r af
ter
year
1N
OFu
el p
oor
afte
r ye
ar 1
0N
O
42 | | 43
Gen
erat
ion
Mon
thly
Con
sum
ptio
n20
8.33
Gen
erat
ion
Inco
me
Jan
58.1
150.
23£2
2.73
£8.9
7-£
13.7
6In
dica
tes
expe
nditu
reFe
b93
.711
4.63
£17.
34£1
4.47
-£2.
88In
dica
tes
inco
me
Mar
ch16
048
.33
£7.3
1£2
4.70
£32.
02A
pril
196
12.3
3£1
.87
£30.
26£3
2.13
May
229
-20.
67£0
.96
£35.
36£3
6.31
June
199
9.33
£1.4
1£3
0.73
£32.
14Ju
ly20
62.
33£0
.35
£31.
81£3
2.16
Aug
ust
188
20.3
3£3
.08
£29.
03£3
2.10
Sept
embe
r15
157
.33
£8.6
7£2
3.31
£31.
99O
ctob
er10
810
0.33
£15.
18£1
6.68
£1.4
9N
ovem
ber
75.1
133.
23£2
0.16
£11.
60-£
8.56
Dec
embe
r49
.715
8.63
£7.3
6£7
.67
£0.3
1£1
7.12
-£20
.00
-£10
.00
£0.0
0
£10.
00
£20.
00
£30.
00
£40.
00
JanFeb
MarchAprilMayJuneJuly
AugustSeptember
OctoberNovemberDecember
Seri
es1
Scenario 3.3 -
Income-Expenditure Cycle
Scenario 4.1 -
Income-Expenditure Cycle
Gen
erat
ion
Mon
thly
Con
sum
ptio
n20
8.33
Gen
erat
ion
Inco
me
com
bine
d to
tal
Jan
16.2
192.
13£2
9.07
£2.5
0-£
26.5
7£2
6.57
£62.
08Fe
b26
182.
33£2
7.59
£4.0
1-£
23.5
7£2
3.57
£59.
08In
dica
tes
expe
nditu
reM
arch
44.3
164.
03£2
4.82
£6.8
4-£
17.9
8£1
7.98
£53.
49In
dica
tes
inco
me
Apr
il54
.415
3.93
£23.
29£8
.40
-£14
.89
£14.
89£5
0.40
Indi
cate
s 'F
uel P
oor'
mon
ths
May
63.7
144.
63£2
1.88
£9.8
4-£
12.0
5£1
2.05
£47.
56Ju
ne55
.315
3.03
£23.
15£8
.54
-£14
.62
£14.
62£5
0.13
July
57.2
151.
13£2
2.87
£8.8
3-£
14.0
3£1
4.03
£49.
54A
ugus
t52
.115
6.23
£23.
64£8
.04
-£15
.59
£15.
59£5
1.10
Sept
embe
r41
.816
6.53
£25.
20£6
.45
-£18
.74
£18.
74£5
4.25
Oct
ober
30.1
178.
23£2
6.97
£4.6
5-£
22.3
2£2
2.32
£57.
83N
ovem
ber
20.9
187.
43£2
8.36
£3.2
3-£
25.1
3£2
5.13
£60.
64D
ecem
ber
13.8
194.
53£2
9.43
£2.1
3-£
27.3
0£2
7.30
£62.
81
44 | | 45
Gen
erat
ion
Mon
thly
Con
sum
ptio
n208
.333
333
Gen
erat
ion
Inco
me
Jan
32.3
176.
03£2
6.63
£4.9
9-£
21.6
5In
dica
tes
expe
nditu
reFe
b52
156.
33£2
3.65
£8.0
3-£
15.6
2In
dica
tes
inco
me
Mar
ch88
.711
9.63
£18.
10£1
3.70
-£4.
41A
pril
109
99.3
3£1
5.03
£16.
83£1
.80
May
127
81.3
3£1
2.31
£19.
61£7
.30
June
111
97.3
3£1
4.73
£17.
14£2
.41
July
114
94.3
3£1
4.27
£17.
60£3
.33
Aug
ust
104
104.
33£1
5.79
£16.
06£0
.27
Sept
embe
r83
.612
4.73
£18.
87£1
2.91
-£5.
96O
ctob
er60
.214
8.13
£22.
41£9
.29
-£13
.12
Nov
embe
r41
.716
6.63
£25.
21£6
.44
-£18
.77
Dec
embe
r27
.618
0.73
£8.3
9£4
.26
-£4.
12-£5.71
-£25
.00
-£20
.00
-£15
.00
-£10
.00
-£5.
00
£0.0
0
£5.0
0
£10.
00
Jan
March
May
July
September
November
Seri
es1
Poly
. (Se
ries
1)
Scenario 4.2 -
Income-Expenditure Cycle
Appendix AMacroMicro Economic Model
��������
Captial Cost~£140,000
Solar FIT£19,192.26
Turbine FIT£15,524.51
Energy Savings £30,498.60
Rentable Income £200,000
£65,215.37
£74,784.63
£0
£50,000
£100,000
£150,000
£200,000
The Macro Micro Studio, a 5th Year
M a r c h D e s i g n U n i t w i t h i n t h e
Department of Architecture at the
University of Dundee, together with
students from the Department of Physics
and Civil Engineering and in collaboration
with The Wood Studio at Edinburgh
Napier UniversityNapier University’ s Forest Products
Research Institute, are conducting
pioneering research into building an
energy autonomous live/work unit at the
University’s Botanical Gardens.
The project is designed to mainstream
solut ions for very low energy and
zero-carbon building design and will
demonstrate ways in which innovative
design integrating new and emerging
technologies can have relevance to the
wider Scottish construction sector. The
aim is to provide alternative solutionsaim is to provide alternative solutions
that address the future s t r ingent
environmental legislation that wil l
govern the energy efficiency of buildings
beyond 2016. As an applied research
p r o j e c t , t h e s t u d i o ’ s d e s i g n a n d
construction will be further enabled with
in-kind support and expertise fromin-kind support and expertise from
industry stakeholders.
ENERGY AUTONOMOUS LIVE WORK STUDIOSupervisors: Dr Neil Burford Joseph Thurrott (Architecture) Dr David RodleyDr Stephen Reynolds (Electronic Engineering, Physics Renewable Energy) Dr Ian Mackie (Civil Engineering)Dr Ian Mackie (Civil Engineering)
Architecture Students: Min ChenDean CrosleyMichael FindlaterCiaran GoldenRuaridh NicolJoanne PotterJoanne PotterRyan WatsonGabriella Da Cruz Welsh
Engineering & Physics Students:Michael HeilbronnSteven JeansKuan XingJulian TissotJulian Tissot
The building has been designed towards Passivhaus
standards in response to recent and forthcoming
changes to Scottish domestic building standards
46 | | 47
Photovoltaic Data - 0.5kWp
Source: PVGIS
Appendix BPhotovoltaic Data
Photovoltaic Data - 1kWp
Source: PVGIS
48 | | 49
Photovoltaic Data - 1.5kWp
Source: PVGIS
Photovoltaic Data - 1.8kWp
Source: PVGIS
50 | | 51
Photovoltaic Data - 3kWp
Source: PVGIS
Bibliography
Alexander. C, Chermayeff. S (1965): Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism
Buxton, P (2012): A Passivhaus for EveryoneBuilding Design March 2012 pp.9-11
Communities and Local Government (2007): English House Condition Survey 2007London: EHCS
Department of Energy & Climate Change (2013): The Green Deal: A summary of the Government’s proposalsLondon [online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47978/1010-green-deal-summary-proposals.pdf Accessed 2/2/13]
The Economist Online: The Swanson Effecthttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/12/daily-chart-19 [Accessed 14/4/13]
Energy Savings Trust (2008): Energy Efficiency and the Code for Sustainable Homes: Level 4Energy Savings Trust, London
Energy Saving Trust (2012): Refurbishment: House ComparisonLondon, Energy Saving Trust
EPIA (2013) - Solar Photovoltaics Competing in the Energy Sector Accessed Online 12/4/13 [http://www.epia.org/publications/photovoltaic-publications-global-market-outlook/solar-photovoltaics-competing-in-the-energy-sector.html]
Friedman. A, Cammalleri.V (1997): Cost reduction through prefabrication: A design approachHousing and Society, Volume 24, No.1, 1997
Friedman. A (2012): Town and Terraced Housing: For Affordability and Sustainability London, Routledge (2012)
Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (2012): Tenth Annual ReportLondon: Department of Energy & Climate Change
Hills. J (2012): Getting the Measure of Fuel Poverty: Final Report of the Fuel Poverty ReviewLondon, CASE (2012)
Hirch. D, Preston.I, White. V (2011): Understanding Fuel Expenditure: Fuel Poverty and Spending on FuelLoughborough University, Centre for Research in Social Policy
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts: Financial viability of the social housing sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme London, Thirteenth Report of Session 2012-13
HMRC (2007): Stamp Duty Land Tax Relief for New Zero Carbon HomesLondon: HMRC
Holmans. A, Monk. S,Whitehead. C (2008): Homes for the future - A new analysis of housing need and demandLondon, Shelter
Homes and Community Agency (2013): Affordable Homes Programme [online]Accessed 2/2/13 http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/affordable-homes
52 |
Jephcott. P (1971): Homes in high flats : some of the human problems involved in multi-storey housing Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd
Marmot Review Team (2011): The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel PovertyLondon, Marmot Review Team
National Grid (2011): UK Future Energy ScenariosLondon, National Grid
Mark Clifford (2012): China’s visible solar power successMarketWatch
Newman. N (2012): Passivhaus cost comparison in the context of the UK Regulation and prospective market incentivesLondon, Bere Architects
Ofgem (2011): Factsheet 96: Typical domestic energy consumption figuresLondon, Ofgem
Palmer. J, Cooper. I (2011): Great Britain’s Housing Energy Fact FileLondon: Department of Energy & Climate Change
Proskiw. G (2010): Identifying Affordable Net Zero Energy Housing SolutionsProskiw Engineering Ltd
Sassi, P (2013): A Natural Ventilation Alternative to the Passivhaus Standard for a Mild Maritime Climate [online]Oxford Brookes University, Accessed 13/3/13 www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/3/1/61/pdf
UKTFA (2009): Comfort and CostAlloa: The UK Timber Frame Association
Waltham Forest Council (2009): High Density Housing: Qualitative StudyUrban Initiatives
Zero Carbon Hub (2012): Allowable Solutions for Tomorrow’s New HomesLondon, Ofgem
Zero Carbon Hub (2012): Fabric Energy Efficiency for Zero Carbon HomesLondon: Zero Carbon Hub