Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This thesis looks at the financial and carbon case for insulation. It examines whether it is
worthwhile to continue lowering the elemental U-values demanded by Building
Regulations in light of the diminishing returns found when increasing insulation thickness.
Also examined are the relative effects that low and high embodied carbon (ECO2), and
lower and higher conductivity forms of insulation have on lifetime emissions.
An assessment is made of the value of different methods for encouraging greater levels of
insulation such as grants or carbon trading/taxation.
Life cycle emissions and financial costs of insulation are found from published data and a
building estimator. Sources of projected costs for gas and the social cost of carbon are
assessed and a central value for each is found. The energy use of a typical semi-detached
house is found by modelling in IES:VE. These data are then used as inputs for a computer
model.
Optimal points are found through the use of the purpose-built Insulation Savings Model
(ISM). This allows calculation of both optimal points and payback times. These points
are calculated for three different types of insulation; polyurethane foam, mineral wool
and cellulose fibre, representing a range of ECO2 and conductivity.
Parameters representing carbon pricing and grant schemes are varied in order to discover
the relationships between these factors and financially-optimal levels of insulation.
Key results are that the carbon-optimal point is far beyond the financial-optimal point for
all materials assessed. The carbon-optimal point is also beyond the requirements of
Building Regulations. However the financially-optimal point (before accounting for co-
benefits) is below Building Regulations. Therefore it is found that, at the margins, super-
insulation is an expensive way of reducing lifetime CO2 emissions.
Greater return on investment in insulation will be found by focusing on refurbishment of
existing, poorly-performing homes than on increases in new build regulation.
Lifetime emissions savings are greater for a given U-value when looking at lower ECO2
materials. However, they generally require a greater thickness of insulation.
Keywords: insulation, optimal points, return on investment, embodied carbon, carbon
pricing.
Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................3
Contents ......................................................................................................................4
Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................................................6
1.1 Parameters of the question .................................................................................6
1.2 Method and methodology...................................................................................6
1.3 Context ..............................................................................................................7
Chapter 2 Thermal comfort, fuel poverty and CO2 emissions .......................................8
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................8
2.2 Definitions .........................................................................................................8
2.3 Interdependence .................................................................................................8
2.4 Effects ...............................................................................................................9
2.5 The role of increased insulation........................................................................10
2.6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................11
Chapter 3 Domestic heating and global warming .......................................................12
3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................12
3.2 Space heating and CO2 emissions .....................................................................12
3.3 The effect of increased insulation.....................................................................13
Chapter 4 Optimal points ...........................................................................................14
4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................14
4.2 Explanation of optimal points ..........................................................................14
4.4 The model........................................................................................................17
Chapter 5 Costs of insulation .....................................................................................18
5.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................18
5.2 Types of insulation covered .............................................................................18
5.3 Financial costs .................................................................................................18
5.4 Environmental costs.........................................................................................19
Chapter 6 Cost of space heating energy .....................................................................23
6.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................23
6.2 Forms of space heating considered ...................................................................23
6.3 The consultancy’s view – short-long term: Fuel Prophet – UKACE .................23
6.4 Issues affecting gas prices ................................................................................24
6.5 Analysis of price scenarios...............................................................................27
6.6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................29
Chapter 7 Cost of carbon ...........................................................................................31
7.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................31
7.3 Assessments of projections ..............................................................................33
7.4 Analysis...........................................................................................................35
7.5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................36
Chapter 8 Modelling ..................................................................................................37
8.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................37
8.2 Uses of modelling ............................................................................................37
8.3 Limitations of modelling ..................................................................................37
8.4 Discussion of building modelling software.......................................................38
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 4
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
Chapter 1 Introduction
“It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency
improvement than in increasing energy supply to satisfy demand for energy
services”
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report,
Working Group III, May 2007
1
Where not otherwise specified here, ROI is used to mean financial return on investment.
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 6
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
1.3 Context
This question is of particular importance at present where a high importance is being
placed on insulation. It should be assessed whether the levels of insulation demanded by
the new Part-L of Building Regulations (elemental U-value of 0.16 W/m2 K for roofs) is
financially- or carbon-optimal. Also, many in the environmentally conscious building
world are proponents of super-insulation, insulation to very low U-values (<0.1W/m2 K
for roof insulation to AECB Gold Standard) (AECB, 2007), however it is useful to
question whether such high levels of insulation are providing sufficient additional benefit
to justify their use.
Also assessed is whether higher ECO2 and less conductive insulants are preferable in
terms of lifetime emissions, or whether low ECO2 but more conductive insulation should
be preferred.
2.1 Introduction
This chapter examines why insulation is important in the context of thermal comfort, fuel
poverty and CO2 emissions. They are briefly defined, the relationships between them are
examined and some of their consequences explored.
It is shown that insulation and other measures to directly affect thermal comfort and
improvements in the emissions factor of fuel are the best ways of improving the all-round
sustainability of a home’s thermal performance as opposed to financial measures such as
the winter heating allowance.
2.2 Definitions
Thermal comfort is a subjective measure of the fitness of a building to provide an
acceptable living environment. It is necessarily subjective as people take different
adaptive measures such as opening windows, or adding or removing layers of clothing in
response to changes in the environment (Fanger, 1973).
Fuel poverty is defined as a household which needs to spend more than 10% of its
combined disposable income on all fuel use necessary to maintain a satisfactory heating
regime (DTI, 2001). It can be expected to become more common if fuel prices rise
relative to income.
CO2 emissions in this context are a consequence of heating homes with fossil fuels and
of producing insulation products. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and responsible for a large
majority (around 70%) of direct radiative forcing due to long-lived greenhouse gases
(IPCC, 2007).
2.3 Interdependence
These three factors, thermal comfort, fuel poverty and CO2 emissions are the main
reasons for improving the thermal performance of a house through insulation and other
measures. They are grouped together in this way because they are interdependent.
It is interesting to note that these three areas fit well with the “three-legged stool”
approach to sustainability. This is a way of looking at the requirements for sustainability
of a community project on any scale from local to global (Kirby, Goodburn, Sinclair,
2000). If any of the three legs is not present the system becomes unstable. In this case,
thermal comfort provides the social leg, avoidance of fuel poverty the economic leg and
avoidance of CO2 emissions the environmental leg.
The effects they have on each other are laid out below.
Excluding outside influence such as changes in fuel price or adding insulation and also
assuming one cannot be too warm, where:
A = thermal comfort
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 8
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
B = fuel poverty
C = CO2 emissions
N+ = N gets better.
N– = N gets worse.
1) A+ Æ B– & C–
2) A– Æ B+ & C+
If we rearrange the equation, in all cases A has the opposite sign to B and C. This is
because when thermal comfort increases, that is seen as getting better whereas with the
other two factors an increase is seen as getting worse.
Essentially what this means if we are not worried about thermal comfort we can reduce
fuel poverty and emissions by not heating houses. And conversely, if we are not worried
about fuel poverty or emissions we can improve thermal comfort by increasing heating.
From this it follows that the only way to improve sustainability for all factors is to
introduce an outside force acting on one of the three factors, emissions, fuel poverty or
thermal comfort which decouples it from the others.
In practice only two of the options can work – A or C. On emissions (C) the force would
be something that improved the CO2 emissions factor of heating such as the use of
biofuels. On thermal comfort (A) an example would be insulation, whether of the
occupant (more layers of clothing), or of the building fabric. Both of these also depend on
cost, as if the measure was very expensive (greater than the savings) then it would fail the
economic sustainability test.
However, a force which acts on fuel poverty (B) would not have the desired effect, as
reducing fuel poverty directly (by reducing the cost of fuel or increasing income) would
most likely result in the same or higher use of fuel. However, actions which reduce CO2
emissions, either directly by improving the emissions factor of fuel (a switch from coal to
gas for example), or indirectly by increasing the thermal comfort derived from the same
fuel (insulation, draught proofing, etc) may have a positive effect on fuel poverty.
2.4 Effects
[and] lack of warmth and space… detracts from the acquisition of psycho-
social benefits from the home.” (Kearns et al, 2004)
2.5.1 Co-benefits
When assessing the value of insulation, not only the cost of saved energy should be
counted. There are also valuable effects for society to be had by improving thermal
comfort and reducing CO2 emissions (Jakob, 2006). These provide financial benefit for
which the value to society could be calculated. In this thesis only financial co-benefits
based on the social cost of carbon have been used. In this thesis, improvements to thermal
comfort and decrease in fuel poverty are seen as co-benefits. Another co-benefit touched
upon but not fully assessed is that of increased energy security due to a lower requirement
for imported gas.
2.6 Conclusions
This chapter has placed the issue of insulation in context. It has demonstrated the benefits
to occupants of increased thermal comfort and reduced risk of fuel poverty. The benefit
of reduced CO2 emissions is covered further in chapter 3.
2
On online tool which allows simple calculations of return on investment in insulation and other energy
saving measures in the domestic sector.
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 11
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
3.1 Introduction
It is necessary for homes to be kept warm in order that they are comfortable and healthy
places in which to live. In the UK this is generally achieved by heating the home with
fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil. This has implications in terms of CO2 emissions
which are the major forcing gas in global warming (IPCC, 2006). The issue is discussed
in this chapter in order to place the issue of insulation in its global context.
Greater insulation is a way of avoiding CO2 emissions associated with heating from fossil
fuels. Therefore higher levels of insulation can serve to reduce the emissions of a home
and to bring it closer to an equitable global average.
Water
23% Space heating
61%
UK. To put that in a global context, average per capita annual emissions are around 1.1
tCO2 (Marland et al, 2006). Therefore, the average person in the UK is emitting far more
than his or her equitable share of CO2 and, on average, 10-15% of those emissions are
from domestic space heating.
4.1 Introduction
Increasing levels of insulation to create homes with a very low heat loss also has the
effect of increasing the environmental impact of some of the materials in it. There is a
question to be answered about where the best trade-off comes between positive impacts
(avoidance of in use emissions, decrease in fuel poverty, etc) and negative impacts (ECO2,
etc).
Simply defined, the optimal point is that point where the marginal cost of investment is
equal to the saving it produces. In the case of insulation as assessed here, this is where an
additional 10mm added costs the same as it saves.
The optimal point, if calculated correctly, is the most efficient configuration for
insulation. It is important to know where the carbon-optimal point is in relation to the
financial-optimal point so that cost-effective measures can be designed to encourage
insulation to go nearer to the carbon-optimal point.
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
Embodied CO2
kg CO2
200.0
100.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Thickness of insulation
4.2.1 Lifetime
In order to calculate a return on investment the duration of the investment must be
specified. In this thesis the duration is set at 50 years. This is as it is a reasonable length
of time to assume before refurbishment may be carried out. This is at variance with Lowe
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 15
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
et al (1997) who used a lifetime of 100 years. This doubles the savings and therefore
results in a greater optimal thickness of insulation. It can certainly be argued that 100
years is a reasonable lifespan for the type of cavity wall insulation modelled by Lowe,
however roofs may be refurbished after less time.
4.2.2 Carbon-optimum
Sought in this thesis is the point at which carbon emissions avoided by insulating are
outweighed by carbon emissions embodied in the insulation. This is calculated for each
10mm layer. First the carbon return on carbon investment (CROCI) is calculated (Eq.1).
Where:
S = savings
C = costs
e = energy saved in that year
Pe = price of energy in that year
Pc = price of carbon in that year
Pi = price of insulation
EC02 = embodied CO2 of insulation
EFgas = emissions factor of fuel (gas)
L = lifetime of building
Equation 1
e x EFgas x L
ECO2
This means that the optimal point is where:
Equation 2
e x EFgas x L = ECO2
4.3.1 Financial optimum
The first formula required is the undiscounted ROI, the savings from insulation divided
by the cost of insulation.
Equation 3
L
∑ e x Pe
t=1
Pi
n
∑ Ct – C0
t=1
(1 + r)t
Where:
t = year of the cash flow
n = total duration of the project
r = rate of discount
Ct = net cash flow in that year
C0 = capital investment at the beginning of the investment
The discount rate chosen is 3.5% - the UK Government’s preferred rate for projects with
social benefits (HM Treasury, 2004, ch. 5.49).
L
S = ∑((e x Pe) + (e x EFgas x Pc x L))
1
C Pi + (ECO2 x Pc)
Here the optimal point is where:
Equation 6
L
∑((e x Pe) + (e x EFgas x Pc x L) = Pi + (ECO2 x Pc)
1
5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the types of insulation studied and examines their different costs,
both financial and environmental.
In the LCA commissioned by Rockwool (Schmidt et al, 2004) is a list of emissions to air
which are converted to kg CO2e/kg below. GWP figures are from IPCC (1996, p. 22).
Table 2, CO2e/kg of Rockwool and Warmcel (source, Schmidt et al, 2004)
Rockwool GHGs Cellulose GHGs
Gas g/kg GWP CO2e Gas g/kg GWP CO2e
CO2 1200 1 1200 CO2 629 1 629
CO 89 4 355.92 CO 0.88 4 3.52
N2O 0.02 310 6.2 N2O 0 310 0
CH4 0.88 21 18.48 CH4 0.44 21 9.24
total kg CO2e/kg 1.58 total kg CO2e/kg 0.64
Calculations are done differently for Kingspan as they have an LCA by BRE (Beedel,
2002). This assessment method gives a kg CO2e figure per functional unit, defined by
them as 1m2 of insulation with a resistance of 1.45 m2 K/W. This is equivalent to 32mm
of Kingspan Therma. The calculation for kg CO2e/kg is shown below.
volume of 1m2: 32mm x 1m2 = 0.032 m3
weight of 1m2: 0.032 m3 x 33 kg/m3 = 1.056 kg
kg CO2e/kg 7 kg/1.056 kg = 6.63 kg
Doing the same with the BRE LCA for Warmcel 500 (Beedel, 2003) gives a figure of
0.91 kg CO2e/kg. This is higher than the figure derived from Schmidt et al which could
be due to the higher density of sprayed Warmcel 500 when compared with loose-fill
insulation.
Rockwool
Warmcel 500
Kingspan TP10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
kg CO2/kg
350
300
250
200 Series1
150 Log. (Series1)
100
50
0
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
L am b d a
3
By a factor of 1.73. Normalised data are represented by lozenges on the graph, LCA data are triangles.
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 21
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
6.1 Introduction
Space heating energy costs are determined by the cost of fuel and the fuel type chosen.
Gas is generally more expensive per unit of energy than coal at present; however, gas is
normally used more efficiently when used directly for heating homes. Electric heaters are
very efficient at point of use, but once one takes into account the losses in generation and
transmission this apparent efficiency disappears.
Section 6.2 looks at forms of space heating and explains the reasoning behind focusing on
natural gas prices in this thesis. Sections 6.3 is an assessment of projections of fuel prices
into the future from a consultancy. In section 6.4 the issues which affect the price of fuels,
and particularly natural gas, are examined. In section 6.5 analyses of the projection
scenarios are undertaken and in 6.6 a conclusion is drawn as to which of these scenarios
is most reliable and useful in calculating financial savings on financial investment on
insulation.
6.4.1 Oil
Short term increases in production
This is agreed upon by the ACE research although they may be echoing the DTI.
Peak oil – long term slowing of production
Many oil industry analysts believe that we are at or approaching peak oil, the point where
half of oil resources have been extracted and the rate of recovery is predicted to slow
(Campbell, 2004, Heinberg, 2003). However, there are conflicting reports which predict
that peak is up to 30 years away and in any case will be followed by an “undulating
plateau” in which new capacity comes on stream but is balanced by old fields becoming
exhausted (CERA, Yergin et al, 2006).
As reserves of easily extractable oil are depleted, more expensive and harder to extract
forms become more viable. The cost of producing oil from these forms (tar sands, oil
shale, etc) is higher than conventional drilling. This will keep the supply of oil up but will
tend to increase the price.
On the other hand, if new oil supplies are brought online at the same time as substitution
away from oil occurs this will bring downward pressure on oil and gas prices. This means
that competition between suppliers leads to price cutting in an attempt to retain market
share meaning the price of fuel becomes much closer to the cost of production.
Oil prices – UK natural gas price linked to Continental contracts
One of the main reasons for this is that continental European gas contracts are fixed to the
market price of oil (EIUG, 2002, Smith, Wu, Pett, 2005). There is no real reason for this
as they are “distinct products sold to different customers in different markets” as stated
by the Energy Intensive Users Group in their response to a DTI consultation on gas prices
(2002, p.5) but no one, including the EIUG, expects this relationship to change.
In winter, gas from the continent is imported which means the UK pays the continental
oil-linked price plus a transport differential. In summer when the UK exports gas to the
continent the fact that gas suppliers can get a higher price for their gas there means that
prices in the UK stay higher too (Smith, Wu, Pett, 2005). This means that despite the
UK’s gas production capabilities the price of gas remains close to the continental oil-
linked price year-round.
Another impact of the link to oil prices is that wholesale gas prices exhibit a similar
volatility. When wholesale prices remain high for a long time retail gas prices may follow,
usually with a lag of around 6 – 12 months according to Ofgem, quoted in a BBC News
article (BBC, 2006c). This volatility means that projections made are necessarily an
average price with the actual price, particularly of wholesale gas varying greatly around
that figure. To some extent this volatility is expected to be smoothed out by the retail gas
suppliers.
6.4.2 Economy
Growth/demand.
In the past, recessions (periods of negative growth) have tended to be short lived – much
shorter than the 15 – 25 year scope of this model. In fact the trend is somewhere in the
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 25
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
region of 2% growth of gross domestic product (GDP) per annum (Budget Report, 2006).
Growth is something we can expect to continue at a greater or lesser rate.
World GDP is expected to continue to rise at 4½% of GDP each year in the short term
(Budget Report, 2006, table 2.1). Strong growth and hence surges in demand for oil in
China, the USA and India have led to recent oil and gas price rises (DTI, 2004).
6.4.4 Substitution
Fuel substitution in generation, renewables, etc
Demand elasticity will only increase if alternatives to oil and natural gas are found and
brought online. This may include a greater take-up of electrical and hybrid vehicles (and
renewable forms of charging them).
“[Conventional fuel costs are related to] the development and cost of
alternative production and generation technologies... The degree of cost
internalisation imposed (e.g. through carbon taxes or emissions trading) and
the degree of support granted to micro and renewable generation (e.g. via
the renewables obligation, EEC or building codes) will affect fuel prices.”
(Smith, Wu, Pett, 2005)
Coal price will stay high so long as gas and oil prices stay high as it will be required for
electricity generation. If gas is cheaper then it will be preferred to coal in generation.
6.4.5 Geopolitics
Issues of geopolitical instability have recently had some large effects on oil prices. These
have included war in the Middle East, particularly Iraq. Also kidnappings in Nigeria and
pipeline sabotage in Colombia have exerted upwards pressure on prices (Peterson, 2005).
Russia has a major role to play in current and future gas supply. Presently it supplies 25%
of European gas and oil and this is expected to rise (BBC, 2006b). However, Russia is a
state described in a recent Economist article as “chaotic, factional, corrupt and
criminalised.” (The Economist, Nov 25th, 2006) It is hardly surprising that the IEA says
there are “enormous uncertainties surrounding Russia’s energy future” (IEA, 2004).
Furthermore, climate change-linked effects such as hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico are
likely to disrupt supply and increase insurance premiums leading to higher oil prices
(Stern, 2006).
The relative likelihoods of these geopolitical influences on fuel prices coming to pass are
hard to quantify, however in the short-medium term it is considered likely that the main
pressure will be upwards unless peace comes to the Middle East.
6.5.3 Fuel Prophet very high prices (a) (2.8 p/kWh retail in 2020)
Moderate to high demand and growth: Possible/probable
Assertive energy conservation and cost internalisation: Possible
Demanding ETS quotas (see Ch. 7): Possible/probable
Personal carbon allowances (see Ch. 7): Possible
LZC technologies become cheaper: Probable
Microgeneration mandatory for refurbishments by 2017: Possible/probable
6.5.4 Fuel Prophet very high prices (b) (2.9 p/kWh retail in 2020)
Moderate ETS quotas: Possible/probable
Gas price remains oil-linked: Probable
High global oil demand: Possible/probable
Geopolitical instability: Possible/probable
Climate change-related disruption to offshore production: Possible
6.5.6 Fuel Prophet very low prices (1.2 p/kWh retail in 2020)
Plentiful new reserves found in Russia and North Africa: Possible
Asian economies decelerate: Possible
Developed economies remain steady state or growing: Possible
2.50
2.00
Price (p/kWh)
1.50 FP high
FP base
1.00 FP low
0.50
0.00
5
0
0
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
6.6 Conclusions
From the sources consulted it is considered unlikely that peak oil will have a major effect
on gas prices in the short-medium term (to 2020). Even if the peak is close or has already
been reached there is likely to be a period in which new discoveries enable the extraction
rate to be maintained in the medium term. Later in the period modelled, resource
depletion may begin to have a noticeable effect; however no reliable long-term projection
of by how much has been found.
From the categorisation of the main assumptions in both sets of scenarios, the most
probable is, unsurprisingly, Fuel Prophet’s base scenario. After this the two “high”
scenarios are seen as more likely than the “low” scenarios. Nevertheless, the low
scenarios do not contain any very unlikely assumptions and must still be considered as
possible outturns. The Fuel Prophet “very high (a)”, “very high (b)” and “very low”
scenarios contain some more unlikely assumptions and are therefore considered unlikely
to occur.
These projections are necessarily far from certain. As the DTI state in the accompanying
literature to their projections upon which Fuel Prophet draws,
“Econometric models are valuable in the medium to longer term but
projecting beyond 2020 to 2050 becomes difficult as for example,
technologies are expected to change, new processes and systems are
introduced and the detailed econometric relationships built on past
relationships are no longer valid in this time frame.”
(DTI, UK Energy and CO2 Emissions Projections, July 2006)
For this reason the central gas price projected by ACE is used for the first 20 years.
Thereafter the price is assumed to remain stable. The outlying projections are not used in
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 29
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
sensitivity analysis; rather, the central price is doubled and halved to allow for the wide
variation in possible outturn. This is a far greater range than any of the ACE projections.
The most likely outturn for retail prices is 1.4 – 2.2p/kWh in 2020, most likely around or
higher than 1.9p/kWh.
See appendix 2 for tables showing the prices used to 2057.
7.1 Introduction
In assessing a value for carbon to be used in modelling of financial incentives towards
insulation there were two options. Firstly, use the social cost of carbon as assessed by
many authors and analysed in Clarkson and Deyes (2002). Secondly, use the projected
trading cost of carbon in emissions trading markets such as the EU-ETS.
The features of these two options are explored below, followed by an assessment of the
arguments for and against using them in the thesis.
12.0
10.0
2.0
0.0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Abatement effort
The externalities in the case of GHGs are particularly hard to calculate. The main features
are laid out in the Stern Review (2006, Ch. 14.2) and paraphrased below:
• The damaging effect of GHG is roughly the same wherever it is emitted but the
impacts are likely to be felt unevenly around the world.
• Impacts are not immediately felt and will continue to have an effect into the
future.
• Uncertainty exists about when the effects will be felt and about how great the
effects will be.
• The effects could possibly be huge.
Taking these issues in turn they suggest that:
• The price should be equal across the world.
• The price should take account of future damage.
• The price is uncertain and hard to calculate.
• The price could be very high.
While A1T and B1 represent baseline scenarios where the world is gradually moving
towards sustainability, scenario B2 represents a more unfavourable world for climate
change minimisation policies. It has a “more cautious geopolitical, economic and
technologic outlook” than the other two scenarios (Nakicenovic, 2003, p. 17).
The basic assumptions of the analysis are that scenarios B1 and B2 assume a stabilisation
figure of 400 ppmv while A1T assumes 450 ppmv, all under a “very limited and
restricted number of mitigation measures and options” (Nakicenovic et al, 2003, p. 4).
Nakicenovic et al are careful to point out that two of the baseline scenarios chosen, A1T
and B1, already assume a fairly high level of climate change avoidance due to their
sustainable “storylines”. B2 has a more “dynamics as usual” approach (2003, p. 1). In the
study authors’ view the funder’s choice of primarily “sustainable development” scenarios
leads to “an optimistic baseline projection of availability and costs of environmentally
benign technology, easing subsequently the achievement of ambitious climate
stabilization targets.” (2003, p. 2) This would mean an underestimate of the total
additional social cost of carbon emissions.
Nevertheless, due to the “technological inertia” mentioned previously, these issues appear
to have little short – medium term effect on permit prices so are negligible as far as the
scope of this thesis is concerned.
It should be noted that the finding of the authors was that;
“The costs of meeting a particular climate stabilization target [are] more
dependent on the type of base scenario analyzed (high- versus low-emission
futures) and the range of mitigation technologies available (unconstrained versus
– as in this study – constrained) than on the absolute level of emission reduction
or the particular model of emission permit allocation chosen.” (Nakicenovic et al,
2003, p. 37)
This is the reason that the sustainable development baselines, A1T and B1, are seen to
arrive at lower-priced assessments of the costs of climate change minimization, even with
such challenging stabilization targets.
It is debatable whether this is a correct assessment. Stern for example claims that a target
of 550 ppmv is economically feasible whereas a lower target such as that assessed by
Nakicenovic et al is not feasible. This suggests that the stabilization scenario is a
significant factor. It would appear clear that this is the case in any cap and trade system as
scarcity acts to increase price of the commodity.
It is also more meaningful in that governments may act to impose a cap on carbon
whereas they have less control over which mitigation technologies come to market -
though still some through measures such as market priming for technologies which are
felt to be important such as streamed ROCs for offshore wind (Crown, 2006).
The price projected for 2030 is around USD(1990)140/tC (£80/tC4). In today’s money
this is around £134/tC5, close to the upper range in Clarkson and Deyes and equivalent to
4
Average 1990 exchange rate of USD 1 = GBP 0.57 (oanda.com)
5
Inflation figures from CPI, (ONS, 2007) available online at
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=867
Jamie Bull MSc Architecture 34
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
7.4 Analysis
enable this research to have more meaning when deciding policy, social cost may be
considered the better option in modelling.
7.5 Conclusions
The distinction between social costs and trading costs is perhaps a false one. This social
cost is an important factor in the EU’s attempt to set a price in the EU-ETS. This price is
driven by the level of allocations in each phase of the scheme. The fact that both are
projecting a value early on of around £70/tC suggests that similar assumptions are being
made.
The main use of the value of carbon in this thesis is to assess the impact of economic
measures on optimal levels of insulation. This means that the aim is to find the optimal
level in terms of climate change mitigation rather than in terms of financial benefit to the
owner. For this reason, the baseline in the model is taken with no cost of carbon.
Subsequently, in analysis of financial incentives to insulate, the social cost of carbon
from Clarkson and Deyes (2002) is used.
It bears repeating that if we are approaching the point where positive feedbacks start to
occur then the price of carbon should be much higher than has been modelled previously.
Nevertheless, no reliable projections have been made of these and so the only advice that
can be given is that the higher rather than lower figure used in sensitivity analysis should
certainly not be considered unlikely.
Chapter 8 Modelling
8.1 Introduction
Two computer models were used in this thesis. First, the purpose-built Excel-based ISM
which was used to predict the cost and savings of insulation. Secondly, IES:VE which
was used to provide energy use data for ISM.
The benefits and limitations of this are laid out below. 8.2 looks at the uses of computer
modelling. 8.3 examines the drawbacks which must be considered. 8.4 looks specifically
at the software chosen, IES:VE and Excel, and 8.5 draws conclusions about the use of
modelling in this thesis.
the projections of future gas and carbon prices. They are controlled for by means
of sensitivity analysis.
• In a very complex model it can be impossible for an inexperienced user to identify
erroneous results which can come from something as basic as poor data entry.
Every model needs to be compared with results in the real world if one is to have
confidence in its predictions.
8.5 Conclusions
Modelling opens up numerous possibilities for experimenting with things that are
impractical to test otherwise. It can provide the opportunity to see where something like
building performance may be improved, without the problem of having to change the
existing building to find out if the modification works. However, computer modelling
should be just the first step. Modelling should not be used as a replacement for physical
experimentation which is generally more reliable, and may uncover factors which were
judged irrelevant in the model. Post-occupancy evaluation is also of great value in
assessing whether a program is working as it should. This enables further development of
more accurate modelling tools.
In order to try and avoid some of the pitfalls of modelling, some checks should be applied.
Models should be checked carefully by using techniques such as sensitivity analysis –
systematically changing values to see the effect this has on results.
It is hard to get a sense of when a result is wrong as a number. Graphical output is useful
as a form of checking. This graphical output can be used in sensitivity analysis. By
changing values of inputs it can be seen which of the parameters are most sensitive to
data errors.
A spreadsheet model such as ISM must be carefully checked to ensure that every cell is
acting as it should and that all formulae and data have been entered correctly.
The results of a model are not usually interesting in themselves. It is important to look
back at what is being modelled and the effects that these results might have on the real
world. It is also important to consider any other factors in the real world such as comfort
taking which may affect the validity of results.
9.1 Introduction
In this chapter the principles of housing heat losses are briefly introduced. A model house
is described and the results of simulation in terms of annual saving on heating load are
presented.
A formula for calculating the savings from a known U-value (a coefficient of energy
saving - CoES) is derived for this model house.
A simple model is created to show how this method of finding a CoES can be applied to
any building element. A final model for the experiment is then created and tables of
predicted annual savings are presented for several types of roof insulation.
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
thickness mm
made for this, but nevertheless, varying moisture levels in a real world situation are likely
to affect the U-value as water is a good conductor of heat.
Another factor which can affect the U-value of insulation is compression. Loose-fill
insulation such as cellulose can be found to pack down over time which will reduce the
U-value, both by increasing the conductivity and by decreasing the thickness. This has
not been accounted for in this thesis.
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
thickness of insulation
600.0
Savings against u-value
500.0
KWh savings
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
u-value
Equation 7
y ≈ 280xins – 280x
Where:
x = original U-value.
xins = insulated U-value
y = annual savings
400.0
kWh savings
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
u-value
y ≈ axins – ax
Incidentally, the slight curve seen on the IES-simulated graph may be due to increasing
mass of insulation acting as a thermal store. The failure to take account of this effect is a
limitation of the CoES method and could perhaps be adjusted for in further development
of the model.
7000
6000
saving KWh
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
U-value W/m2 K
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
W/m2K
CIBSE u-value
0.8
Simple calculation
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
thickness of insulation
U-values of insulation
2.50
Kingspan TP10
2.00 Warmcel 500
U-value W/m2 K
Rockwool
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
20
40
60
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
thickness mm
10000
9000
8000
7000
kWh saving
3000
2000
1000
0
0
70
140
210
280
350
420
490
560
630
700
770
840
910
980
thickness mm
1400
1200
1000
kWh saving
400
200
0
0
70
140
210
280
350
420
490
560
630
700
770
840
910
980
thickness mm
Figure 18, graph showing extra saving above that of Rockwool by thickness
It can be seen that the difference in energy saving is greatest between around 10mm and
100mm in thickness. Before and after this the lines converge. By somewhere around
1000mm the difference is almost negligible – around 60 kWh/yr at most. The data are
presented in Appendix 3.
10.1 Introduction
The Insulation Savings Model (ISM) is the software created for calculation of optimal
points for this research. It is described below including a description of the interface and
a flow chart showing its operation.
Figure 19, Screenshot from ISM showing data entered on the front page.
On the second page, “CoES” the user inputs four pieces of data from the building element
being modelled. This is two U-values and the energy use associated with them. They then
vary the value in the “CoES” cell until the green line covers the red to find the coefficient
of energy saving of insulating their building element as described in section 9.5.2.
Eight pieces of data are entered by the user: four about a building element’s thermal
performance found either through modelling or from measurement; a selection of the
insulation type; the insulation area; the discount rate; and the level of grant funding
available.
Optimal points for insulat ion kg CO 2 saving at opt imal point for R OI of
2.0 layer and CRO CI of layer
2.0
ROI of layer
CROCI of layer
ROI/CROCI
ROI/CROCI
1.0 1.0
10
110
210
310
410
510
610
710
810
910
35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000
Savings at
financial trade-
off point
Savings at
carbon trade-off
point
0.0 0.0
Thickness mm Saving
100 insulation
100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
years
years
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
- -
10
50
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
50
90
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
thickness mm thickness mm
Figure 22, ISM sample results Figure 23, ISM sample results
What are the financial- and carbon-optimal points for return on investment in insulation?
Chapter 11 Results
11.1 Introduction
The results presented here are for 66 m2 of roof insulation on a medium-sized, semi-
detached house. Some of the findings may apply in other situations but this will not
always be the case. The base case does not include any grant towards the cost of
insulation or a price for carbon.
900
800
700
600
Thickness mm
Kingspan TP10
500
Warmcel
400
Rockwool
300
200
100
0
Financial optimal U-value = 0.16 Carbon optimal
point point
Figure 24, showing optimal depths of insulation and required level for Building
Regulations
Regulations are set closer to the financial-optimal point than carbon-optimal except in the
case of Kingspan.
Regulations could be set much higher for lower ECO2 materials and so avoid more
emissions. This would only apply where space is not critical. It may also not be the most
cost effective way of reducing emissions. This is further examined in the sensitivity
analysis.
50
40
30
20
10
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
thickness mm
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
years
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
thickness mm
11.3.2 Warmcel
50
40
30
20
10
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
thickness mm
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
years
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
thickness mm
11.3.3 Rockwool
Marginal financial payback time of
insulation
100
90
80
70
60
years
50
40
30
20
10
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
thickness mm
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
years
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
thickness mm
U-value = Carbon-optimal
0.16 point
Kingspan TP10 423 yrs 488 yrs
Warmcel 185 yrs 1,474 yrs
Rockwool 454 yrs 2,441 yrs
This shows that, in the case of marginal return of the final 10mm added, none of these
types of insulation starts to save money at Building Regulations levels within in the
lifespan used here. Even in the best case, going to the carbon-optimal point would take
almost 500 years to repay the financial investment. This is in the case of Kingspan, not
because it performs well, but because it is so high in ECO2. This skews the CO2 optimal
point downwards in comparison to the lower ECO2 materials.
Table 7, CO2 payback times of CO2 marginal 10mm.
Financial- U-value =
optimal point 0.16
Kingspan TP10 2.5 yrs 23.1 yrs
Warmcel 0.9 yrs 3.8 yrs
Rockwool 0.6 yrs 5.6 yrs
Warmcel provides the best financial investment when going to the required level of
insulation, paying back the investment twice as fast as the other two materials assessed.
The two low ECO2 insulation types, Rockwool and Warmcel, both have a shorter
payback at Building Regulations level in this configuration. All the insulation types pay
back their ECO2 very quickly at the financially optimal point. This shows that it is correct
in terms of CROCI to go beyond the financial-optimal point and therefore that, if this is
the priority, regulations should be employed to force this (as they are). The fact that the
carbon payback time is still very short at a U-value of 0.016 W/m2K, at least in the case
of the lower ECO2 materials, means that a lower U-value could be insisted upon.
However, this may not be the most cost-effective way of reducing emissions, particularly
as returns per mm added continue to fall.
Warmcel saves the most money at the financially optimal point while Rockwool and
Kingspan save less. Kingspan saves the most at the CO2 optimal point, Warmcel saves a
little less and Rockwool loses a lot of money.
When insulating using these materials, there is no marginal financial benefit to be had by
going over regulations to the CO2 optimal point. In fact even going to Building
Regulations level shows a sub-optimal financial return over 50 years for all materials.
This makes the point that if it is desired that carbon-optimal levels of insulation be
installed, either further lowering of legally required U-values, or some financial incentive
is necessary.
£3,000
£2,000
£1,000
Kingspan TP10
£ saving
£0 Warmcel
Financial U-value = 0.16 Carbon optimal Rockwool
optimal point point
-£1,000
-£2,000
-£3,000
83,000
81,000
79,000
kg CO2 saving
77,000
Kingspan TP10
75,000
Warmcel
73,000
Rockwool
71,000
69,000
67,000
65,000
Financial U-value = Carbon
optimal point 0.16 optimal point
Chapter 12 Analysis
12.1 Introduction
£3,000
£2,000
£1,000
£0
Saving
-£2,000
-£3,000
-£4,000
-£5,000
Thickness mm
80,000
70,000
60,000
Saving kg CO2
50,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
0 200 400 600
Thickness mm
150mm batts. Given that the two optimal thicknesses in this application are found to be
90mm and 560mm the optimum level of insulation using Rockwool is either 150mm for
financial optimum (although in a new build this alone would be insufficient to satisfy
Building Regulations) or 600mm for carbon optimum.
With loose-fill insulation like Warmcel this is not necessarily the case as the calculated
optimal thickness can often be installed. There may be restrictions placed by the size of
timbers used in constructing the roof. It is therefore still reasonable to add a small margin
to allow for error in the calculation.
In a situation of uncertainty over any of the parameters used, over-specification is the
better strategy.
This reveals the difficulty of achieving “zero-carbon homes” without coming up against
the carbon barrier (where more carbon is embodied than will be saved) when using high
specification materials such as Kingspan. Such materials will have greater heat losses at
the optimal points than low ECO2 materials. This will then require more renewable heat
input to offset those losses. On the other hand, the high ECO2, low conductivity materials
allow a much thinner layer of insulation to be applied. This smaller footprint (when
insulating walls) can be of significant financial benefit.
12.4.1 Conductivity
Change in conductivity affects the U-value so affects both optimal thicknesses.
• Doubling causes a 30% change in financial optimum.
• Halving causes a -30% change in financial optimum.
12.4.2 Density
Increase will decrease the carbon-optimal thickness. The insulation will save less carbon
at that optimal point. It would not affect the financial-optimal point in reality unless the
material is sold by weight. As ISM calculates financial cost by weight it is affected. With
this limitation, these are the results of sensitivity analysis.
• Doubling causes a -30% change in financial optimum.
• Halving causes a 50% change in financial optimum.
12.4.8 Area
• Doubling causes a -30% change in financial optimum.
• Halving causes a 50% change in financial optimum.
60%
50%
40%
30%
%age change
20%
Doubling
10%
Halving
0%
v el
y
e
e
ra te
ct or
a
2
S
s ity
t
tivit
Cos
p ric
pric
Are
O
CoE
-10%
nt le
EC
Den
s fa
d uc
nt
bo n
rgy
cou
-20% Gra
on
Con
Ene
Car
issi
D is
-30%
Em
-40%
Variable
unless the carbon price is equal to the energy price. This would be equivalent to a 100%
tax on energy – likely to be a difficult proposition politically.
This sensitivity underlines the importance of “fuel proofing”, particularly as fuel prices
are one of the more uncertain parameters used in this modelling.
130
125
120
Thickness mm
115
110 Carbon price
105 Grant level
100 Energy price
95
90
85
80
50% 100% 150% 200%
%age variation
50%
40%
30%
20%
%age change
10% Doubling
0% Halving
l
y
e
ra te
ct or
a
2
eve
S
s ity
t
tiv it
Cos
p ric
pric
Are
O
CoE
-10%
EC
Den
s fa
nt l
d uc
nt
bo n
rgy
cou
Gra
n
-20%
Con
Ene
iss io
Car
Dis
Em
-30%
-40%
Variable
Six of the eleven variables affect the carbon-optimal point with a -30% to 37% sensitivity
to doubling/halving. All have similar effects with conductivity producing slightly less
than the others. It should be pointed out that a 37% increase was the maximum allowed
for in ISM (giving 1000mm of insulation). As CROCI of layer was only 1.1 at this point,
the true optimal thickness would have been slightly greater.
These results show that any way of changing the lifespan carbon emissions per functional
unit of insulation will be almost equally sensitive.
In Lowe’s analysis of sensitivity in his 1997 paper found that “optimum insulation
thicknesses appear to vary more slowly than the square root of… CO2, and that predicted
thicknesses are therefore reasonably robust to changing assumptions.”
Since all of the parameters which have an impact on carbon-optimal points are similarly
sensitive, analysis is robust to changed assumptions about any one of them.
This conclusion is true for each parameter in isolation. Better sensitivity analysis could be
carried out by varying more than one parameter at a time to uncover the relationships
between them. A more precise analysis of sensitivity to parameters would use a finer
scale than 10mm increments.
13.1 Introduction
The main conclusions of this thesis are:
• Insulation thickness in UK domestic roof construction to Building Regulations
repays the carbon produced in its manufacture.
• Financially optimal insulation thicknesses are 40 – 90mm; carbon-optimal
thicknesses are 190 – 790mm using the materials and construction specified here.
• Carbon-optimal U-values for roof insulation here are between 0.12 W/m2 K
(Kingspan) and 0.05 W/m2 K (Warmcel and Rockwool).
• Low ECO2 materials in this situation save more CO2 than high ECO2 materials.
The difference at a given U-value is the difference between the two ECO2 values.
• Therefore, if space is not an issue, low ECO2 materials should be preferred as they
provide greater CROCI.
• Conversely there will be an issue with the larger footprint (or higher walls) of
buildings where lower spec, lower ECO2 materials are used.
• Marginal CO2 benefits of insulation to beyond the level required are higher for
lower embodied CO2 materials.
• CO2 prices are less of an incentive to insulate than grants.
• Carbon-optimal levels of insulation are a cost-ineffective way of reducing carbon
emissions.
• Lifetime penalties for non-optimality are higher for thicknesses less than optimal
than for thicknesses greater. Therefore in cases of uncertainty one ought to specify
a greater thickness. This is the case, no matter what the source of uncertainty.
• If fuel prices rise then a greater level of insulation will be financially optimal.
• Either domestic gas should be included in the next phase of EU-ETS or the EEC
(or similar measures) should be expanded. This is necessary to internalise the
social cost of a large percentage of UK emissions.
These conclusions and their implications are further examined below.
insulation could certainly be fitted than is provided for under WarmFront before hitting
the carbon-optimal point.
However, when approaching the margins, the return on investment will become very low
and therefore a better ROI (and CROCI/CROFI) may be had by focusing on air-tightness
improvements, fitting low-energy light bulbs and other measures. This is shown by the
fact that, even at Building Regulations-required levels, the marginal cost of a saved tonne
of CO2 is £100-£480.
£1,000
£800
£600
Kingspan
£/t CO2
Warmcel
£400
Rockwool
£200
£0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
-£200
U-value W/m2 K
13.3.2 Refurbishment
The Government’s recommended price for carbon emissions is £35-£140/tC. This is
equivalent to £9.50-£38/tCO2. This means that, if it were not for the co-benefits, the
optimal level of loft insulation would be 30-80mm of Rockwool. The financially optimal
point for the house-holder, with a 50% WarmFront grant, is 100mm. With a 50% grant
and a high cost of carbon the optimal level is 150mm. With all of the above plus a high
energy price (doubled) the optimal level is 190mm.
As all of the above are not unreasonable assumptions, and as in the case of uncertainty it
is optimal to over-specify, it is found that the level of insulation installed in WarmFront-
funded refurbishment is set in the right region at 10 inches (250mm). This also allows
room for co-benefits although it is important that they be quantified.
13.7 Limitations
Life-cycle analyses are generally paid for by the manufacturer. This means that they may
not be published until the company is happy with it. There are also many different
methodologies for calculating ECO2, which can and do return different results. This
makes precise comparison of products particularly difficult.
Fuel types are likely to change over the lifetime of the insulation so CO2 saving figures
are likely to be different as emissions factors change. This is most likely to lower the
carbon-optimal level of insulation as the emissions factor of heating decreases.
When modelling an uncertain future, lack of complete confidence about prices and other
projected inputs is to be expected. This is an inherent limitation of projection-based work.
More time could have been spent on finding results had the Lowe paper on calculating
optimal points been found earlier. This would perhaps have negated the need to build
such a complex model as ISM.
More could have been done to assess the impact of the comfort factor. It is not really a
factor in looking at increase over current Building Regulations, but may be more so when
applying the findings of this thesis to grant schemes for thermal refurbishment.
Other costs associated with increased insulation thickness including the requirement for
higher walls have not been taken into account. This is a limitation and could be addressed
in further work.
This model created for this thesis focused solely on roof insulation. Conclusions are
drawn for loft insulation and may not necessarily hold.
Criqui P, Kitous A, Berk M, den Elzen M, Eickhout B, Lucas P, van Vuuren D, Kouvaritakis N
and Vanregemorter D (2003) GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PATHWAYS IN THE
UNFCCC PROCESS UP TO 2025. TECHNICAL REPORT. Study Contract: B4-
3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for the DG Environment.
Crown, (2006) THE RENEWABLES OBLIGATION ORDER, The Stationery Office
Defra, (2003) GUIDELINES FOR THE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING OF EMISSIONS
BY DIRECT PARTICIPANTS IN THE UK EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, online at
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/resource/measuring_co2/Measuring_CO2_Methodologies.ht
m, accessed 11/7/07
DTI, (2001) UK FUEL POVERTY STRATEGY, online at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/fuel-
poverty/strategy/index.html accessed 21/6/07
DTI,(2006b) COMMUNICATION ON DTI FOSSIL FUEL PRICE ASSUMPTIONS AND
CALL FOR EVIDENCE, - online at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file34645.pdf accessed
3/1/07
DTI, (2006c) DIGEST OF UK ENERGY STATISTICS (DUKES) 2006, online at
http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes06.pdf accessed 8/3/07
DTI, (2005) DOMESTIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION TABLES, table 3.6 online at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statistics/publications/ecuk/domestic/page18071.html
DTI, (2002) ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY,
Department of Trade and Industry, London
DTI, (2007) ENERGY WHITE PAPER, online at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html accessed 11/7/07
DTI, (July 2006a) UK ENERGY AND CO2 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS, online at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files accessed 3/1/07
The Economist, (2006) “ABANDON HOPE”, November 25th, vol. 381, no. 8505, Peterborough
Energy Intensive Users Group, (2002) RESPONSE TO DTI GAS CONSULTATION online at
http://www.eiug.org.uk/publics/Consultation.PDF accessed 4/1/07
Fanger, P.O. (1973) THERMAL COMFORT, McGraw Hill, NY
Frank D.A., Skalicky A., Cook J., et al, (2003) HEAT OR EAT: LOW INCOME HOME
ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND NUTRITIONAL RISK AMONG
CHILDREN [ABSTRACT]. Pediatr Res. 2003;53:573A
Global Commons Institute, CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE, [computer model] (1997-
2003) Global Commons Institute
Gough, M. and Rees, C., (2004) TESTS PERFORMED ON APACHESIM IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ANSI/ASHRAE STANDARD 140-2001, ApacheSim Version 5.2, IES ltd, Glasgow
Hammond, G., Jones, C. (2006) INVENTORY OF CARBON AND ENERGY (ICE) V1.5 BETA,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath
HM Treasury, (2006) BUDGET 2006, March, The Stationery Office, Norwich
HM Treasury, (2004) THE GREEN BOOK: APPRAISAL AND EVALUATION IN CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT, 3RD ED, November, ISBN 10 0115601074, The Stationery Office
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. ISBN 0-
521-80493-0.
National Grid, (June 2007) WINTER 2007/8 CONSULTATION UPDATE DOCUMENT, online
at
http://www.energyquote.co.uk/marketing/pdf/national_grid_winter_07_08_outlook_june07.
pdf
National Home Energy Rating, BUILDER, (4.0) [computer program] (2005) online at
www.nher.co.uk/pages/software/product_sheets/A4%20Builder%20leaflet.pdf
Office of National Statistics, ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTS: ENERGY USE BY
ECONOMIC SECTOR, SOURCE AND FUEL (MILLION TONNES OF OIL
EQUIVALENT), available online at
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=4295 accessed 8/1/07
Peterson, L. (2005) BIG OIL WIELDS ULTRA BIG INFLUENCE, Centre for Public Integrity
Petsonk, A. and Cozijnsen, J., ((2007)) HARVESTING THE LOW-CARBON CORNUCOPIA:
HOW THE EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM (EU-ETS) IS
SPURRING INNOVATION AND SCORING RESULTS,
Point Carbon, (2007) EU ETS NEWS, online at
http://www.pointcarbon.com/Home/News/All%20news/EU%20ETS/category466.html?cat
egoryID=466&collapse=466&offset=125, accessed 17/7/07
PricewaterhouseCoopers, (2007) ENERGY AND EFFICIENCY: THE CHANGING POWER
CLIMATE, Available from http://www.pwc.com/uk/eng/ins-sol/publ/pwc-utilities-survey-
energy-june07.pdf [Accessed 28/6/07]
Schmidt, A.C., Jensen, A.A., Clausen, A.U., Kamstrup, O. and Postlethwaite, D., (2004) A
COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING INSULATION
PRODUCTS MADE OF STONE WOOL, PAPER WOOL AND FLAX, International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, no. 9, pp. 53-56 and 122-129
Smith, W., Wu, A., and Pett, J. (September 2005) RISING FUEL PRICES: THE CHALLENGE
FOR AFFORDABLE WARMTH IN HARD TO HEAT HOMES, Association for the
Conservation of Energy,
Stern, Sir N. (2006) STERN REVIEW ON THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, HM
Treasury
XCO2 Conisbee, (2002) INSULATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY: A GUIDE, BING
Yergin et al, (2006) WHY THE "PEAK OIL" THEORY FALLS DOWN -- MYTHS, LEGENDS,
AND THE FUTURE OF OIL RESOURCES, CERA
Glossary
ACE Association for Conservation of Energy
ach Air changes per hour, a unit of air change rate
AECB Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders
Air change rate Measure of ventilation rate (ach or l/s)
BRE Buildings Research Establishment
C Carbon
CHP Combined heat and power
CIBSE Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers
Consequential changes Efficiency measures which must be carried out when
refurbishing a property. Currently only applies to non-domestic
property
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CROCI Carbon return on carbon investment
CROFI Carbon return on financial investment
Defra Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DTI Department of Trade and Industry (now renamed BERR)
DUKES Digest of UK Energy Statistics
ECO2 Unit of embodied carbon dioxide (kg CO2/kg)
EEC Energy Efficiency Commitment, a scheme whereby energy
supply companies must spend a proportion of their turnover on
energy efficiency measures
EIUG Energy Intensive Users Group
EROEI Energy return on energy invested
EU-ETS European Union emissions trading scheme
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IES:VE Modelling software, Integrated Environmental Solutions:
Virtual Environment
ISM Insulation Savings Model
kWh Kilowatt hour, a unit of energy
Lambda (λ) Unit of conductivity (W/m K)
LCA Life cycle analysis
l/s Litres per second, a unit of air change rate
Marginal cost Defined here as the cost (financial or carbon) of adding 10mm
of insulation
MTOE Million tonnes of oil equivalent
NAP National Allocation Plan
NHER National Home Energy Rating
ONS Office of National Statistics
Part-L Section of UK Building Regulations which deals with thermal
performance of building fabric
42 0.02 42 0.13
43 0.02 43 0.13
44 0.02 44 0.14
45 0.02 45 0.14
46 0.02 46 0.14
47 0.02 47 0.14
48 0.02 48 0.15
49 0.02 49 0.15
50 0.02 50 0.15