Social housing retrofit is often seen as a way to contribute to carbon reductions as it typically encompasses large-scale interventions managed by one landlord. This work investigates the carbon savings potential of a deep retrofit in a local authority owned 107-flat tower block, taking into account the tenants' pre-retrofit heating strategies. Prior to the retrofit, temperature and relative humidity monitoring were undertaken in 18 flats for 35 days. The measurements were then used to develop occupant heating profiles in the 18 homes. Dynamic thermal simulation of the flats pre- and post-retrofit using the identified user heating profiles highlights that for these fuel poverty-constrained flats, the estimated carbon savings of retrofit will be typically half those predicted using standard rules for temperatures in living spaces.
Practical application: The findings presented in this paper demonstrate the impact of fuel poverty on the expected benefits from social housing retrofit schemes, providing information relevant to multiple stakeholders: (1) building industry: The study highlights the need to use empirical data in building energy modelling, as typical conditions could be far from representative in social homes (2) Policy makers and social landlords: Targets for CO2 reduction may not be achieved through retrofitting, but the social impact could be much greater and more critical than assumed. The findings under this work help to direct incentives for retrofit schemes towards the social and health benefits achieved.
UK Parliament. Climate Change Act, chap. 27. London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2008.
2.
Department of Energy & Climate Change. Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics 2013, London: DECC, 2013.
3.
Smith L and Swan W. Delivery of retrofit at scale: Developing a viable delivery model in social housing. Retrofit 2012; 24–26 January 2012. University of Salford, Salford, UK, 2012.
4.
Boardman B, Darby S, Killip G, et al. ‘40% House’ Report. Oxford: Environmental Change Institute, 2005.
5.
EST (Energy Saving Trust). Towards a long-term strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from our housing stock. London: EST, 2008.
6.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. The green deal and energy company obligation impact assessment, London: DECC, 2011.
7.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. Extra help where it is needed: a new Energy Company Obligation, London: DECC, 2011.
8.
OFGEM. The final report of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) 2008--2012. London: Ofgem, 2013.
9.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. Evaluation of the community energy saving programme, London: DECC, 2011.
10.
Chahal S, Swan W and Brown P. Tenant perceptions and experiences of retrofit. Retrofit 2012; 24–26th January 2012. Salford, UK: University of Salford, 2012.
11.
ReevesATaylorSFlemingP. Modelling the potential to achieve deep carbon emission cuts in existing UK social housing: The case of Peabody. Energy Policy2010; 38: 4241–4251.
12.
DowsonMPooleAHarrisonD. Domestic UK retrofit challenge: Barriers, incentives and current performance leading into the Green Deal. Energy Policy2012; 50: 294–305.
13.
LoweryDMTheobaldKWaggottA. Barriers to retrofit of domestic housing stock with low and zero carbon dioxide technologies. Proc Inst Civil Eng-Eng Sustain2012; 165: 191–199.
14.
Sunikka-BlankMChenJBritnellJ. Improving energy efficiency of social housing areas: a case study of a retrofit achieving an “A” energy performance rating in the UK. Eur Plan Studies2012; 20: 131–145.
15.
Baker W. Fuel Poverty and Ill Health: A review. Bristol: Centre for Sustainable Energy, 2001.
16.
Hills J. Getting the measure of fuel poverty. Final Report of the Fuel Poverty Review (CASE report 72). London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2012.
17.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report 2015, London: HM Government, 2015.
18.
LiddellCMorrisC. Fuel poverty and human health: A review of recent evidence. Energy Policy2010; 38: 2987–2997.
19.
Henderson J and Hart J. BREDEM 2012. A technical description of the BRE Domestic Energy Model. Version 1.1. Watford: BRE, 2015.
20.
World Health Organization (WHO). Housing, Energy and Thermal Comfort. A review of 10 countries within the WHO European Region. Copenhagen, 2007.
21.
NicolFHumphreysMRoafS. Adaptive thermal comfort: Principles and practice, London: Routledge, 2012.
22.
Marmot Review Team. The health impacts of cold homes and fuel poverty, London: Friends of the Earth & the Marmot Review Team, 2011.
23.
Public Health England. The Cold Weather Plan for England 2013: Protecting health and reducing harm from cold weather. London: Department of Health, 2013.
24.
Public Health England. Minimum home temperature thresholds for health in winter – A systematic literature review, London: Department of Health, 2014.
25.
Public Health England. The Cold Weather Plan for England 2014. Protecting health and reducing harm from cold weather. London: Department of Health, 2014.
26.
FangerPO. Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering, New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1970.
27.
HM Government. Warm Homes, Greener Homes: A Strategy for Household Energy Management. London: DECC, 2010.
28.
SwanWRuddockLSmithLFittonR. Adoption of sustainable retrofit in UK social housing. Structural Survey2013; 31(3): 181–93.
29.
Thumim J, White V, Bridgeman T, Searby G, Hinton T, Tiffin R, et al. Research on fuel poverty-The implications of meeting the fourth carbon budget (Report to the Committee on Climate Change). Bristol: Centre for Sustainable Energy, 2014.
30.
HM Government. Cutting the cost of keeping warm – a fuel poverty strategy for England, London: DECC, 2015.
31.
Stafford A, Gorse C, Shao L. The Retrofit Challenge: Delivering Low Carbon Buildings. The Centre for Low Carbon Futures, 2011.
32.
HaasRBiermayrP. The rebound effect for space heating Empirical evidence from Austria. Energy Policy2000; 28(6–7): 403–10.
33.
MenezesACCrippsABouchlaghemDBuswellR. Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap. Applied Energy2012; 97: 355–64.
34.
ReevesA. Making it viable: exploring the influence of organisational context on efforts to achieve deep carbon emission cuts in existing UK social housing. Energy Efficiency2011; 4: 75–92.
35.
ECD Architects. Wilmcote house external cladding & refurbishment. Feasibility report – Rev A. 2012.
CIBSE. Guide A – Environmental design, London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 2006.
40.
SorrellSDimitropoulosJSommervilleM. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: A review. Energy Policy2009; 37: 1356–1371.
41.
HirstEWhiteDGoeltzR. Indoor temperature changes in retrofit homes. Energy1985; 10: 861–870.
42.
HamiltonIDaviesMRidleyI. The impact of housing energy efficiency improvements on reduced exposure to cold – the ‘temperature take back factor’. Build Service Eng Res Technol2011; 32: 85–98.
43.
HongSHGilbertsonJOreszczynT. A field study of thermal comfort in low-income dwellings in England before and after energy efficient refurbishment. Build Environ2009; 44: 1228–1236.
44.
Sunikka-BlankMGalvinR. Introducing the prebound effect: the gap between performance and actual energy consumption. Build Res Informat2012; 40: 260–273.
45.
RosenowJGalvinR. Evaluating the evaluations: Evidence from energy efficiency programmes in Germany and the UK. Energy Build2013; 62: 450–408.
46.
Liddell C. Estimating the health impacts of Northern Ireland’s Warm Homes Scheme 2000--2008. Coleraine: University of Ulster, 2008.
47.
Department of Health. 2009 Annual report of the chief medical officer. London: DH, 2010.
48.
Washan P, Stenning J and Goodman M. Building the Future: The economic and fiscal impacts of making homes energy efficient. Energy Bill Revolution, 2014.
