Energy Efficiency/New Building Regulations

About 10 years too late . Pity with such a large ( not sure of % ) fraction of our housing stock so recently built .
Not looking forward to the usual initial incredulous response from clients , builders and materials suppliers … but in time these teething problems do abate and it is all for the best .

agreed brian….. better late than never….
and air tightness test will be mandotory…. it think a lot of contractors out there are going to be shocked as to how draughty their builds are….. and i also hope this means the end of the blight of ‘direct labour’……

@brianrochford wrote:

Not looking forward to the usual initial incredulous response from clients , builders and materials suppliers … but in time these teething problems do abate and it is all for the best .

Agreed – hopefully this will see the end of builders putting 50mm of expanded polystyrene into the cavity which I still see, alrmingly, going on around the country.

Builders should be made go to Building Regulation School – its shocking how little most builders know or want to know about building regulations – I often say to people that they are not architect regulations!

For all the hoohah over energy conservation through heat retention in recent times, almost zero effort or regulation has gone into the same regarding domestic lighting: it remains as much in the dark ages as it was in the 1950s. It has been often noted that CFLs will remain the cumbersome, ugly, and impractical units they always have been until such a time as their ballasts (electrical base) is incorporated into light fittings themselves, and yet absolutely nothing has happened on the ground regarding mandatory inclusion on suitable fittings. And if anything, the CFL bulb as a concept is now more redundant than it was ten years ago thanks to the fashion for discreet downlighters, sparkling halogen bulbs and streamlined miniature luminares – the idea of a clunky pendent with frilly all-concealing lampshade is almost dead and buried.

And yet go into any electrical retailer and all you will see is ranks of E-rated traditional incandescent bulbs designed for the further ranks of traditional baynot and screw-in lamps arranged alongside, and a handful of ridiculously over-priced CFLs, the only half-decently shaped ones of which cost the best part of a tenner – they can be bought much more cheaply, and with much greater choice, outside of Ireland. And the fashion for halogen lighting is little better in energy conservation – indeed the move from 20w to 50w downlighters in the space of a few years is truly extraordinary. Clearly the inital allure of cost-savings with halogen has very quickly worn off. The average scattering of say nine of these fittings in the average kitchen or living room amounts to a whopping 315w at 35w a piece, or 450w at 50w each, the latter now more common. This is a massive increase on perceived ‘inefficient’ incadescent bulbs where perhaps a 100w central pendant or fluorescent tube once was. The same with bathroom lighting, outdoor lighting, and many other uses. Similarly these fancy chromed multi-arm living room pedents with minature halogens can consume up to 200w a pop.

If anything, domestic lighting has been digging itself into an even bigger hole in recent years that will prove even harder to emerge from in coming years. The more an unsuitable infrastructure is put in place, the more difficult it is to adapt from. LED technologies meanwhile have barely registered on the domestic radar thus far, in spite of inroads in the commercial sector. Big improvements have to be made.

Very interesting article here on the energy consumption of household gadgets too. Even where they are more efficient than before, the sheer volume of them and amount of usage they receive simply wipes savings out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6266082.stm

Graham H qoute – If anything, domestic lighting has been digging itself into an even bigger hole in recent years that will prove even harder to emerge from in coming years. The more an unsuitable infrastructure is put in place, the more difficult it is to adapt from. LED technologies meanwhile have barely registered on the domestic radar thus far, in spite of inroads in the commercial sector. Big improvements have to be made. end qoute

There are some LED “spot” lights included here …

http://www.avocalite.ie/?gclid=CP-L3…FQwsOAodDx04Rg

What puzzling me is that all lamps here are “replacement” lamps – remove the old in efficient lamp and use one of these … what I mean is that The Draft L 2007 document is requiring fittings “that take only” energy efficient lamps , presumably to take ( efficient ) lamps that will only fit these fittings . Anybody familiar with products out there ?

@GrahamH wrote:

. LED technologies meanwhile have barely registered on the domestic radar thus far, in spite of inroads in the commercial sector. Big improvements have to be made.

Picked up some LED GU10’s today in B+Q – € 14.00 for box of 2 . They give off an eerie blueish light ( they are labeled “warm-white” ) . They don’t work with dimmers . Could have got twice as many halogens for half the price .
I won’t hold my breath for the consumer stampede 🙁

Says it all really doesn’t it? And yes I don’t understand this efficient-only regulation either – most energy efficient bulbs available use the same connections anyway. In any event, I’d rather not have a bulbous CFL poking out of a miniature lamp that once had a golf-ball incandscent thanks very much, or in a glass pendent designed for a clear candle bulb, or a blue-emitting LED in what’s supposed to be a warm table lamp. The list goes on – where are the realistic alternatives?

@GrahamH wrote:

I’m curious as to the Government’s intention to replace all inefficient incandescent light bulbs in state buildings with CFL equivalents over the next year or two. Now obviously florurescent tubes and the like will be retained in offices and departmental buildings, but what about the thousands of sparkling candle bulbs in chandeliers, and period lamps and lumineres across the state’s collection of ceremonial buildings?

Many of these are burning non-stop for 18+ hours a day, 365 days a year, and are woefully inefficient, in spite of their elegance.

Do they intend replacing them all with, eh, these?

Or how about a nice set of spirals and sticks encircling the Waterford droplets of the Seanad Chamber.

Has this matter even been considered? At least LEDs are developing at such a rate that there’s probably a number of sympathetic solutions out there by now. This is a problem internationally after all.

Just to pick up on this post from a previous thread, while state and commercial office buildings across the nation burn tens of thousands of watts every evening on illuminating floorplates completely devoid of human life, I am delighted to report that the State Reception Room of the Áras has had plastic CFL candle bulbs installed in all of its French crystal and ormolu chandeliers, wall sconces, and candelabras on the pier tables. I kid you not. I’ll leave the look to Archiseek’s active imaginations. They’ve also been put in the Waterford chandeliers of the State Corridor, while LEDs have been fitted into Raymond McGrath’s (bizzare) spotlights along same.

Diplomacy on my part is kicking in here for various reasons, so I’d kindly ask that someone takes a trip out to d’Áras and returns to give us a vividly ‘descriptive’ account as to the effect created. Be sure to use a thesaurus.

they should not ban non efficient globes…

they add ambience and emotion…

it would be like making every one use plastic knives and forks because metal ones have to much embodied energy

@henno wrote:

agreed brian….. better late than never….
and air tightness test will be mandotory…. it think a lot of contractors out there are going to be shocked as to how draughty their builds are….. and i also hope this means the end of the blight of ‘direct labour’……

personally I think direct labour works quite well as long as you hire a good foreman and tradesmen who actually have a trade

what is your definition of air tightness? Building regs call up a minimum amount of trickle ventilation – otherwise we’d all suffocate. Has anyone actually recalculated the figures to check whether, under the new Part L requirements, the min trickle vent amounts are sufficient to sustain life??? I can tell you one thing – the air tightness requirements cause air pressure levels that result in the standard chain door closers being unable to close the inner doors in apartments – this is a small, minor issue of life and death, that directly contravenes part B.

Air tighteness

Draft Part L 2007 states

“Air permeability can be measured by means of pressure testing of a
building prior to completion. The procedure for testing is specified in IS EN
13829:2000 “Thermal performance of buildings: determination of air
permeability of buildings: fan pressurization method”, and performance is
quantified in terms of cubic metres per square metre of external surface area
per hour (m3/(hr.m2) at 50 Pascals pressure difference. Guidance on
appropriate extent of testing is given in Paragraph 5.4.3.
19
3.4.4. When tested in accordance with the procedure referred to in
Paragraph 3.4.3, a performance level of 10m3/(hr.m2) represents a
reasonable upper limit for air permeability.”

Henno’s or anyone else ” definition” is neither here nor there .

Though maybe you could ask your middle aged pal ……………..

@sinnerboy wrote:

Air tighteness

Draft Part L 2007 states

“Air permeability can be measured by means of pressure testing of a
building prior to completion. The procedure for testing is specified in IS EN
13829:2000 “Thermal performance of buildings: determination of air
permeability of buildings: fan pressurization method”, and performance is
quantified in terms of cubic metres per square metre of external surface area
per hour (m3/(hr.m2) at 50 Pascals pressure difference. Guidance on
appropriate extent of testing is given in Paragraph 5.4.3.
19
3.4.4. When tested in accordance with the procedure referred to in
Paragraph 3.4.3, a performance level of 10m3/(hr.m2) represents a
reasonable upper limit for air permeability.”

Henno’s or anyone else ” definition” is neither here nor there .

Though maybe you could ask your middle aged pal ……………..

tighteness??

You share a similar interest in irony with Henno – if you must cross threads (never a good idea) – in that my point of asking about the definition of “tightness” is that “tightness” is the complete opposite of “permeability”. Permeability allows us to breathe. And, like Henno in your other thread, you’ve neatly proved my point by quoting a 2007regulation that considers its previous 2000 ISEN code to still be applicable despite the fact that all other construction methods are supposedly better than they were then

I’m sorry, but it is “here or there”. we jump on bandwagons without sufficient thought to the implications. Middle aged people tend to speak from experience rather than quoting scripture

Apologies to WNH and anyone else who has read my last post . I look to this forum primarily to share experiences with follow professionals and am often dismayed at the prettiness I sometimes find here . And yet I have transgressed myself . ( Must not log on at end of hard day again ) .

@wearnicehats wrote:

tighteness??

You share a similar interest in irony with Henno – if you must cross threads (never a good idea) – in that my point of asking about the definition of “tightness” is that “tightness” is the complete opposite of “permeability”. Permeability allows us to breathe. And, like Henno in your other thread, you’ve neatly proved my point by quoting a 2007regulation that considers its previous 2000 ISEN code to still be applicable despite the fact that all other construction methods are supposedly better than they were then

I’m sorry, but it is “here or there”. we jump on bandwagons without sufficient thought to the implications. Middle aged people tend to speak from experience rather than quoting scripture

Not an expert (or middle aged!) but…..

Is it not the case that a significant portion of heat loss through a building comes from air losses; both designed (trickle vents) and accidental (poor workmanship around doors and windows etc.), and that airtightness would seek to eliminate these losses in order to improve the thermal performance of a building? Of course if you make a building airtight there is the obvious problem of complying with the ventilation requirements of the Building Regulations; but does that not lead us down the road towards the increasing installation of mechanical ventilation systems (including in dwellings) ? Maybe we have to consider specification of home ventilation systems with an element of heat recovery so that in winter the incoming air for ventilation won’t freeze the bejaysus off you?! ! I’m sure everyone has come across the sight of wall vents being blocked up in winter because of the cold drafts. Maybe the new regs will push people into a more considered approach to ventilation rather than the old ‘hole in the wall’ technique.

Edit: Oh yeah, I think it’s ventilation thats specified in the building regs as allowing us to breath. There’s no requirement for permeability in buildings as far as i know.

@wearnicehats wrote:

what is your definition of air tightness? Building regs call up a minimum amount of trickle ventilation – otherwise we’d all suffocate. Has anyone actually recalculated the figures to check whether, under the new Part L requirements, the min trickle vent amounts are sufficient to sustain life??? I can tell you one thing – the air tightness requirements cause air pressure levels that result in the standard chain door closers being unable to close the inner doors in apartments – this is a small, minor issue of life and death, that directly contravenes part B.

air tightness as defined by Part L have nothing to do with passive ventilation, or anything at all to do with Part F ‘Ventilation’. Anyone who has done an air tightness test knows that all passive vents are sealed. The test is to calculate the air permeability of the construction method. In this calculation, the rate of ‘tightness’ and ‘permeability’ are essentially the same thing… the measurement is a rate, and therefore can be examined directly against ‘tightness’ or ‘permeability’. It is used simply as a factor in calculation the energy efficiency of buildings.

Permeability of a construction method does not allow us to breathe, as defined by the building regs. Engineered ventilation allows an adequate supply for fresh air to buildings in order to ventilate pollutants and exhausted gases and prevent excessive condensation.

munsterman, you are correct in that a building looses heat through both passive ventilation and building permeability. However, for the purposes of calculating energy efficiency of a building method, the passive ventilation factor is not included.

@henno wrote:

air tightness as defined by Part L have nothing to do with passive ventilation, or anything at all to do with Part F ‘Ventilation’. Anyone who has done an air tightness test knows that all passive vents are sealed. The test is to calculate the air permeability of the construction method. In this calculation, the rate of ‘tightness’ and ‘permeability’ are essentially the same thing… the measurement is a rate, and therefore can be examined directly against ‘tightness’ or ‘permeability’. It is used simply as a factor in calculation the energy efficiency of buildings.

Permeability of a construction method does not allow us to breathe, as defined by the building regs. Engineered ventilation allows an adequate supply for fresh air to buildings in order to ventilate pollutants and exhausted gases and prevent excessive condensation.

munsterman, you are correct in that a building looses heat through both passive ventilation and building permeability. However, for the purposes of calculating energy efficiency of a building method, the passive ventilation factor is not included.

and if the passive vents aren’t reopened?

why wouldn’t they be reopened?

Munsterman quote … “does that not lead us down the road towards the increasing installation of mechanical ventilation systems (including in dwellings) ? Maybe we have to consider specification of home ventilation systems with an element of heat recovery so that in winter the incoming air for ventilation won’t freeze the bejaysus off you?! … end quote

munsterman that is indeed the way the wind is blowing …..:D

Seriously , the next upgrade planned for Part L ( past the one being processed now ) to look for a 60% reduction in energy / CO2 will require such ventilation installations . ( Sick building syndrome here we come ) 🙁

Air tightness refers to the uncontrolled infiltration of air into or out of a building when it is positivly or negativly pressurised. Air infiltration can be by channel flow through cracks or diffuse flow through permiable materials such as blockwork. Air leakage can be defined as:
“The uncontrolled movement of air in to and out of a building which is not for the specific and planned purpose of exhausting stale air or bringing in fresh air.”
Air leakage is measured as…
The rate of leakage per square metre of external envelope per hour at an artificial pressure differential through the envelope of 50Pa(m3/hr/m2 @ 50Pa). All wall, roof and floor areas that are exposed to the external environment are included within the calculated area. Floor slabs in direct contact with the ground are not included, on the basis that they will not allow any significant levels of leakage to occur.

Naturally ventilated Houses generally perform at about 9m3(h.m2) @50 pascals with of course ventilation openings sealed for the purpose of the test, best practice is 3m3hm2@50 pascals.

A leakage rate of 10(m3/hr/m2) @50 pa for a 2000m2 building would be the upper threshold of the UK part L regs, I will equate this to an air changes per hour rate, I think it is about 1.2, where 0.3 is desirable, 0.1 has been achieved in some low energy houses in north dublin.

more details to follow, I have a problem that the draft part L regs dont seem to set any benchmarks, need to read up on it more thoroughly, PM me if you need air testing info, i have a presentation i can email.

Did anyone else see the Leinster House maintenance/services manager on the news the other night? She was being interviewed in this room in Leinster House…

…with that exact Waterford chandelier glittering loftily above her.

She proudly proclaimed that Leinster House now has 80% of its lighting comprised of energy saving light bulbs, “such as this example above me here” *points awkwardly above while smirking broadly*. This of course was one of the very few chandeliers left in any State building in the capital that hasn’t as yet been desecrated by preposterous plastic CFL bulbs, but rather still fitted with elegant crystal-like clear incandescent candle bulbs. One must of course fully accept that it was an entirely innocent mistake to chose this chandelier as demonstrative of a successful conversion, while the fact that it showed the State in such an aesthetically considerate light was naturally entirely coincidental, and the taking of the public for such mugs was a completely unfortunate and unintended error.

It is most curious we didn’t get to see some nice close-ups of the delicate brass chandeliers of the corridors of Leinster House fitted up with garish white lumps of plastic emitting a delightfully pleasant pink glow, or the glittering French crystal chandeliers of the Áras decked out in Presidential splendour with their eye-catching array of PVC ballasts and infantile frosted domed forms.

The Shelbourne, a Victorian hotel of modest proportions, can invest in an architecturally sensitive LED design solution for its multiple glass fittings, as can countless other institutions internationally, and yet the Irish State cannot invest in a bale of energy efficient LED candle bulbs for its flagship historic buildings.

They may cost €20 a pop retail, but they also last at least five times longer than CFLs and consume the grand total of 1.2w.

The mind boggles.

Good to see a decent LED alternative … what kind of wattage are they capable of ? from what i’ve seen, LED’s emit nothing like their ‘equivalent watt rating’ suggests.

I think that the case for energy efficient lighting is a bit more subtle than many think.

The law of conservation of energy means that energy doesn’t just “disappear”; in the case of incandescent bulbs, the “lost” energy is emitted as heat. Therefore for indoor lighting in colder climates (such as ours), it is only during the summer that the energy is wasted. At other times, believe it or not the energy “wasted” on the bulbs is “saved” from your heating bill.

Given the high cost of construction and disposal of CFL lighting, I’m not at all convinced that replacing simple cheap relatively clean dimmer-friendly devices like incandescent bulbs with compact CFLs yields an environmental dividend under these circumstances. Remember fluorescents contain nasty stuff like mercury and require a support electronics and don’t take kindly to being switched on and off regularly.

The case for low energy alternatives for outdoor applications and generally in warmer climates is clear.

LED is great but current manufacturing techniques make them impractical for domestic applications although there are promising developments in this area.

I think it’s a bit early to think of banning incandescent bulbs outright.

Well what is proposed is actually quite unambitious insofar as it’s only phase one. Only bulbs 75w and over will have to be energy efficient from March next year – this enables the vast majority of domestic light bulbs to continue to be sold unaffected until March 2010. Everything from the classic candle bulb, to the standard 60w table lamp bulb, to halogen spots to Sacred Heart bulbs (;)) will remain untouched until then. The Department estimates “perhaps 50%” of the market will be affected – I think it’s more like 30% at best. Essentially all that is being encouraged over the next 18 months is for people to change the standard 100w pendant in the centre of bedrooms and hallways to a 20w CFL.

The proposed legislation discussion document isn’t very clear on translating the required efficiencies into actual products, so what exactly will vanish off the shelves post-2010 has yet to be confirmed. From what I can make out though traditional halogen bulbs (below) – which never really took off in Ireland – do not appear to be affected provding they comply with the requirements. I think they just about scrape it in. They’re 20-30% more efficient than traditional bulbs as they burn brighter for less energy, therefore you typically chose a 25w instead of a non-halogen 40w.

Again the Shelbourne also uses the above candle bulb encasing a halogen capsule to elegant effect on some exterior lanterns. Admittedly they’re not quite as good as those above, featuring a plastic ring around the base, but still the only instance I’ve ever encountered of them in Ireland. They also last over twice as long as traditional incandescents. Why in the name of all that’s sane the State isn’t investing in even this basic technology that’s been around since the 1960s is beyond me. As we can see, there’s a host of krypton and halogen solutions on the market that are more energy efficient and aesthetically pleasing.

Furthermore, now is the ideal opportunity for that State to properly invest in its array of historic chandeliers, all of which received economising 1950s and 1960s electrifying solutions whereby bulb sockets were simply shoved directly into the candleholders, with no attempt made to recreate the lofty elegance of candles these chandeliers were designed to hold. This is done across Europe and can even lead to efficiencies with the use of miniature halogen capsules at a meagre 10-20w each. No excuses.

(traditional candle bulbs are used here but ya get the idea!)

I understand what you mean jimg about the heat of incandescents being useful but the reality is the vast majority of people do not have individual room thermostat controlled heating – the heat blasts on regardless. Even controls on radiators are useless in that respect. The same applies for this nonsense about replacement windows; absolutely nothing changes in efficiency unless heating and insulation controls also change.

Not sure what the output of the earlier LED bulbs are Peter, other than they ‘replace 12w bubs’. I suspect that refers to halogen capsules in which case that’s a pretty decent output.

13/10/2009

I was at a launch in the main conference room of the Custom House one evening last week, located at first floor level centred on the rear portico overlooking Beresford Place. A 1920s neo-Georgian room with oddly old-fashioned detailing for the period of the building, it was painted a somewhat lurid shade of early ’90s yellow.

What grabbed one though immediately upon entering the room was the utter hideousness of the lighting – a central Waterford chandelier fitted out with about 20 white, plastic CFL orbs hovering above the gathered crowd. Not only did the chandelier look preposterous in all its mutilated glory (allbeit, admittedly, not the most attractive of light fittings going in the first instance), the intense dull fluorescent glow emitted from a central source made it one of the most uncomfortable rooms I’ve ever been in. It was nothing short of an embarrassment to the dignity of the surroundings, like a someone who almost knows how to dress smartly, but gives the game away with the brand tag on the cuff of their suit.

What is this obsession with manky CFL bulbs in State ceremonial buildings?! Who is pushing this, above myriad other sensitive alternatives, to the detriment of the aesthetics of some of the most significant interiors in the country?

A simple alternative to this lunacy is fitting the same chandelier with sparkling halogen candle bulbs at a 28w rating instead of the typical 40w and fitting on a dimmer. This compares favourably with a typical 12w CFL ‘candle’ bulb typically used as replacement. A halogen bulb works out at about €2 to buy with 2000 hours of life, versus €6 for a CFL at 10,000 hours. Not a ringing endorsement for halogen, but still a considerable saving.

What also struck me about the above event is how much more pleasant the room would have been dimly lit with a warm halogen glow – arguably more energy could have been saved by the use of a dimmer rather than nasty CFLs. There’s just no joined up thinking on this, with a crude blanket solution applied to every situation. Otherwise, there was a very nice use of warm tungsten spots around the perimeter of the above room which negated some of the CFL aura.

Almost every State building I know has now been wrecked with CFL candle bulbs. One of the very last bastions is the State Drawing Room in Dublin Castle, where it’s only a matter of time before Waterford’s most accomplished State commission is about to be mauled.

lost in modernism join the club…
I was actually considering comparing prices in all markets across the world of CFL but didnt