Facebook | Double Glazing Jobs | Guest Contributions | Contact | Terms

Renegade Conservatory Guy

Join RenegadeClub and get FREE email updates from me...

Archive for the ‘Energy Rated Windows’ Category

How do I comply with the new regulations from 1 October?

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Following is a letter from Giles Willson sent to Nathan at the Glazine which I thought might be useful guidance (and another very easy post for me where I can copy and paste):

How do I comply with the new regulations from 1 October?

This is the question which we are still being asked; we have known and published the details of the new requirements since they were published at the end of April – ie replacement windows need to be WER B and C rated or better or whole window U-value 1.6. The centre pane U-value is not accepted as a method to show compliance for the majority of replacement windows.

The BFRC WER approach has been in existence for over 10 years, with the Authorised Retailer scheme and Licence of Addition; the route for covering your products is now very comprehensive. More details are available from www.bfrc.org

If you want to use the whole window U-value approach; the difficulty with this change in regulation compared with the existing 2.0 U-value is the window needs to be validated to achieve the 1.6 U-value. Currently to achieve a 2.0 if you use low emissivity glass, 16mm air gap you are deemed to be compliant. The magic specification to achieve a 1.6 U-value keeps on being requested.

The work which has been undertaken by BFRC with the detailed simulation of thousands of window combinations and the resulting whole window U-value and WER means we can look at which combinations achieve the 1.6 U-value. One solution is that if you have a timber or PVC-U frame (as long as it has five chambers) and you use an IGU comprising: soft coat low-e glass, 90% gas filled and warm edge spacer bar; you will achieve a 1.6 U-value.

We know there are many other combinations of component which can achieve the 1.6 U-value and this does not preclude the use of hard coat low-e glass or standard spacer bar, however, the above specification is a clear simple guide for FENSA registered window installers who need a quick guide solution to be prepared for 1 October 2010.

We would also like to remind readers that there are transitional arrangements applicable for the replacement window industry for the change to the 2010 regulations under Approved Document L1B. Any contract signed before 1 October 2010 can be installed using 2006 guidance as long as the installation starts before 6 April 2011; all contracts signed after 1 October must comply with the 2010 regulations.

FENSA inspections will be reflecting the transitional arrangements therefore, it is assumed that all installations registered during October and November will have contracts signed before 1 October therefore will be compliant via the 2006 regulations. From December FENSA will be checking against the 2010 regulations (if the contract was signed before 1 October 2010 and is inspected; any non compliance due to meeting the old thermal performance requirements, can be cleared by producing a copy of the signed and dated contract and still comply with the 2006 requirements).

Yours

Giles Willson
BFRC / FENSA

gwillson@ggf.org.uk
020 7645 3700
enquiries@fensa.org.uk

Government response to Window Scrappage Scheme

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

The Government has responded to the Window Scrappage Scheme petition as follows:

The Government agrees that energy efficiency has an important part to play if we are to achieve our carbon reduction targets. The benefits of energy efficiency for households are clear: saving money on energy bills, reducing reliance on imported energy and helping householders reduce their carbon emissions.

However given the high cost of replacement windows (typically £5,000 to £10,000 for a small home), the marginal improvement in performance, particularly when replacing like-for-like double glazed windows; and given that band C windows will be the minimum standard permitted by building regulations from October 2010, a window scrappage scheme is unlikely to be cost effective on energy efficiency and carbon savings grounds.

We believe everyone should have the opportunity to benefit from energy efficiency measures and the energy bill savings they can bring. However, we also recognise that the cost to retrofit homes can be substantial – our ‘Green Deal’ will allow consumers to fund the upfront cost out of energy bill savings. It is expected that double glazing will be one of the measures that can be installed under the Green Deal.

Mad World in the Glass World

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Courtesy of Alan Fielder at Edgetech

49 days to go to comply with new building regulations requirements

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

In an article from Richard Bate (Technical Director of Build Check) in the latest Glass & Glazing Products magazine he points out that:

There are currently 360 companies offering 1461 different windows to either ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ bands.  That is a 20% increase since March this year but at the current rate it will take over nine years for every fabricator to attain its ratings.  We have less than three months and there is no extra time in this fixture.

Indeed, I’ve calculated that there are now only 49 working days for all the fabricators and installers of windows and doors in the UK to be ready to comply with the new building regulations.

I had a chat with a supplier to the PVC window industry recently who contacted 46 fabricators to see how they were preparing for October 1st.  They were specifically talking to smaller fabricators who were making between 6 and 20 frames per week.  Of the 46 fabricators, not one of them intended to be complying with the new regulations in October.

Not one of them!

It seems to me that there is a small, yet significant uninformed section of our industry that is not interested in Window Energy Ratings and has no intention of getting involved.  They’re more interested in earning a living today, than worrying about the implications of the new regulations which are written into law.

As a fabricator who has made the investment in WERs I’m interested to know how this will be properly policed when clearly a significant portion of our industry has no intention of complying.

Queen to install double glazing at Buckingham Palace

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

According to the Energy Saving Trust website, Her Majesty is planning upgrading her 775 room central London residence with double glazing.

I’ve had a look at pictures of Buckingham Palace, and I feel Synseal uPVC vertical sliding sash windows will be ideal for this energy efficient home improvement:

So, I’m intending giving the Queen a ring next week to see if I can fix up an appointment to give her a free ‘no obligation’ quotation.  I would be willing to do a special deal if she’s happy for us to leave a sandwich board in the front drive for 6 months.

Random thoughts

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Forgive me readers for I have sinned.  It has been nearly a week since my last blog post.

So, as it’s 23.41 and I’m trying not to drink during an evening any more, I’m wide awake.  To be fair, today is the second day of this new regime, and I haven’t thought about alcohol at all (apart from mentioning it now).

Anyway, just thought I’d share a few thoughts…

Budget

I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t care one way or another about the budget and what the new Chancellor has to say.  He’s unlikely to help our industry in any significant way, and indeed is more likely to make doing business more difficult.

So, I’ll not be showing much interest and will be concentrating on my own little world and just getting on with it.  Over recent weeks I’ve heard from a few sources that things are getting tougher in the window industry.  Window factories have little volume going through them, and staff are being laid off.  I keep being told we’re ‘bucking the trend’ and we must be, as June will be close to a record month, and the majority of our dealers are hitting good numbers still.

What are your thoughts on this?

BFRC / WERs

I’ve had no response from Giles Willson or the BFRC to this post on June 11th:

http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/still-no-answer-about-the-solar-gain-in-the-wer-scheme/

You have to assume that nobody at the BFRC wishes to answer the question raised, and that will continue to create suspicion from the increasing number of sKeptics of the scheme.

Huddersfield Town box

I realise I’m opening myself up for sarcastic remarks here, but would anybody like to come to watch Huddersfield Town next season?

We share a hospitality box with West Yorkshire Windows, so in effect Conservatory Outlet has 5 places for every home game.  It’s not fancy - we have a couple of beers, and pie, chips and gravy.  If the football’s not good we tend to stay indoors and watch Sky Sports News and have a natter.  Occasionally it does get exciting, and we have seats outside if we wish to soak up the atmosphere.  Anyway, here’s next season’s fixtures:

Saturday, 14 August 2010
Huddersfield v Tranmere, 15:00

Saturday, 28 August 2010
Huddersfield v Charlton, 15:00

Saturday, 4 September 2010
Huddersfield v Bournemouth, 15:00

Saturday, 18 September 2010
Huddersfield v Yeovil, 15:00

Saturday, 2 October 2010
Huddersfield v Bristol Rovers, 15:00

Saturday, 16 October 2010
Huddersfield v Southampton, 15:00

Saturday, 30 October 2010
Huddersfield v Walsall, 15:00

Saturday, 20 November 2010
Huddersfield v Exeter, 15:00

Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Huddersfield v MK Dons, 19:45

Saturday, 11 December 2010
Huddersfield v Brighton, 15:00

Sunday, 26 December 2010
Huddersfield v Hartlepool, 15:00

Monday, 3 January 2011
Huddersfield v Sheff Wed, 15:00

Saturday, 8 January 2011
Huddersfield v Plymouth, 15:00

Saturday, 22 January 2011
Huddersfield v Colchester, 15:00

Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Huddersfield v Carlisle, 19:45

Saturday, 12 February 2011
Huddersfield v Oldham, 15:00

Saturday, 26 February 2011
Huddersfield v Leyton Orient, 15:00

Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Huddersfield v Rochdale, 19:45

Saturday, 19 March 2011
Huddersfield v Swindon, 15:00

Saturday, 26 March 2011
Huddersfield v Notts County, 15:00

Saturday, 9 April 2011
Huddersfield v Peterborough, 15:00

Monday, 25 April 2011
Huddersfield v Dag & Red, 15:00

Saturday, 7 May 2011
Huddersfield v Brentford, 15:00

If you’re interested in attending any of these games then please let me know.  I don’t even have to know you, although I would appreciate not being sold to, and in return I won’t try selling to you.  How does that sound?

Ripple Africa

Finally, I mentioned previously that I had started supporting a charity called Ripple Africa, and Conservatory Outlet is sponsoring 20 tree nurseries.  Well, next Tuesday I’m flying over to Malawi to check on the progress and see how the tree planting is getting on.  I’ll be out of action for about 10 days, but no doubt I’ll write about my experiences in case anyone’s interested.

Anyway, I’m off to bed.

(Or shall I have a night cap?)

Still no answer about the solar gain in the WER scheme

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Clearly, the vast majority of people in the window and door industry support the Window Energy Rating Scheme.  The feedback from the floor at GlassTalk certainly supported this with most installers suggesting they felt the scheme was an opportunity for the industry.

The WER ‘on the couch’ discussion tackled various questions people had, and Giles Willson put forward a very strong case for the scheme which was well supported from the floor.

One question remains unanswered though.  Kevin Ahern from Osprey Windows has been asking for months for the BFRC to supply the scientific evidence for which the solar gain element of the scheme has been derived.  I asked the question to Giles from the floor as to why he can’t give Kevin this information, but unfortunately there was no answer to this question.

After the event, Kevin and I chatted and we agreed that probably it was time to move on as the WER scheme is now written into law anyway.

However, it is clear that there is still a significant groundswell of people from the industry are suspicious of the solar gain element of the WER scheme.  Here’s some of the comments on the GlassTalk website:

Roy Vassie:

I believe the show of hands from the floor clearly showed the majority are in favor of a rating system as it would clearly benefit all, but I think if you had asked for a show of hands asking ‘do you trust the current method of arriving at the ratings’ the result would have been a resounding NO as they are plainly not backed by clearly provable measurement criteria.

I think if that problem was resolved the vast majority would be 100% behind the scheme. The reason many currently would not be is because they are unconvinced that the statistics are honestly provable and believe there is a hidden agenda behind the method of calculating it.

Resolve that and there is no moral dilemma.

Terry Leach:

If there is scepticism about the tachnical data that has been provided then of course we should challenge the whole credibility of the scheme prior to its insception in October, once the scheme has begun and the general public start to raise issues about the credibility then we really will be up shit creek without a paddle, do we think that the BFRC will be arsed about any flak thats fired our way?

Adrian Green:

Come on guys, get a grip. I am just a small time timber producer who has always argued that WERs are purely for box tickers and salespeople. There is no doubt that standards will and have risen as a result, but to include solar gain in the calculation is as crazy as making a hole in the top of your A++ window, covering it with aluminium, and calling it a tricklevent!

For all the criticism to go away then surely the most sensible solution is for someone at the BFRC to supply the required information about the science behind the solar gain calculation to Kevin Ahern and the wider industry.

I already sell energy rated windows, and I believe that the window energy rating scheme is a far simpler way of demonstrating to consumers the comparative performance of various window systems.  But as long as there is a major question mark over the science behind it, then it’s difficult for me to fully support the scheme.

I agree with Kev

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

I don’t know if you’ve been following the leaders debate reaction on Twitter, but there has been a campaign with followers of Nick Clegg (or people swayed by his arguments) using the hashtag #iagreewithnick:

iagreewithnick

Well, I’d like to propose a double glazing industry version:

#iagreewithkev

As you may have noticed Kevin has been a lone voice campaigning for answers on various forums and websites for the BFRC to come clean about the science behind solar gain in the WER calculations.

In a post on the GlassTalk blog, there was a dialogue between Giles Willson from the BFRC and Kevin Ahern as follows:

Kevin Ahern: I personally believe all this talk of european methodology is all very nice , but the fact remains that when this formula was derived by Dr Robin Kent the resultant index ALWAYS produced a negative value to the index No.  After the BFRC got hold of the formula it substantially changed. The solar gain factor increased by around 33% from the project you appear to describe. I have only had one question that I have been asking for quite some time. What is the climate reference source for the solar flux data that you use in your formula ? If you could kindly let me know then we can all evaluate the formula based on it’s scientific merits. If it is proved to be an accurate energy balance formula ,then we can all help to make it work if it is not then we would be entitled to know why the scheme exists.

After all it is the BFRC ‘limitations to use’ that tells us the formula is NOT an accurate energy balance formula. please refer to My GGP article in March edition. I believe that there are significant issues with the implementation of the scheme, but that they all boil down to the exagerrated solar gain in the formula.

One sentence from you may clear the whole thing up , the climate reference source for the solar flux data that you use in your formula .

Giles Willson: Kevin, I can assure you that the formula has NOT changed since BFRC Ltd was established in June 2006. The constants have remained the same which would impact on the solar gain factor. Hope this helps?

Kevin Ahern: In that case would you mind explaining who the custodian of the formula was in 2003, date of publication of the ‘derivation of the A and B constants’. Bearing in mind, of course, that the BFRC logo is all over the 2003 document. Or is the 2006 date your trump card and you will wash your hands of all that went before.

Giles Willson: Sorry I do not understand your comment Kevin. I have just looked at the BFRC report “Deriving A and B factors for the UK climate” dated 22 September 2003. The constants are A = 218.6 and B 68.5.
These are the constants the BFRC scheme use today. So nothing has changed.

Kevin Ahern: Put simply Giles , that report does NOT state the reference source for the climate data that it uses to create the 218.6 solar factor.

Question 1 can you identify that reference source please.

May I quote from Dr Robin Kent, which is likely the result of the government funded, academia and peer review process, that you eluded to in your original answer.

http://www.tangram.co.uk/TI-Glazing-Energy_Rating_for_Facades.html

Paper presented at ‘The whole life performance of facades’ conference at CWCT, Bath 18 April 2001.

From which I will quote ..

“The British Fenestration Rating Council (BFRC) has produced a Domestic Window Energy Rating Scheme (DWER) to produce a single rating number for window energy efficiency.
The rating number is calculated from the individual values of the major energy transfer mechanisms. These are:
1. The U-value, which measures the overall window U-value and not just the glass component.
2. Solar heat gain coefficient (g), which measures how well a product transmits solar radiation and is a number between 0 and 1. A lower g means less solar heat gain.
3. Air Infiltration (L50), which measures air leakage through the window when it is closed.
These values are applied via the formula:
DWER = (25.9g – 11U – 0.12L50) + 74 (1)
where the correction factor 74 is used to produce a rating number from 1 to 100 for ease of understanding by consumers.”

Now, we see that the BFRC has produced this formula, and while it is produced in a different scale, it is the ratio of gain to heat loss that interests us.
Formula ratios, original formula 25.9 / 11 = 2.35
2003 formula 218.6 / 68.5 = 3.2
So we can see that in 2003, the government funded, academia etc etc etc formula was re written and presented with 36% higher solar gain ratio.

Hence my question, can you identify that reference source of the climate data that was used to re write the formula please?
I have to say , I have just had a thought that you may not be familiar with this work, or the alterations I report , but from the lack of help from some at your organization I was presuming that you (BFRC) were just trying to ignore me and suppress the information. So please forgive me, if I have come across a little ‘forceful’.
I hope this helps to clarify my position and has not confused you further, but just to clarify.. can you identify that reference source of the climate data that was used to re write the formula in 2003 please?

———-

23 Days have elapsed since Kevin made the final request to Giles for the reference source of the climate data that was used to write the formula in 2003.

I have to admit I find the science a bit hard to understand, but the fact that the BFRC are unable to answer Kevin’s question is suspicious to say the least.

The vast majority of people in our industry want to support the WER scheme wholeheartedly but as long as there is a doubt about the fundamental science behind them, I will find it very difficult to get behind the scheme.

So, until this scientific evidence is put forward, I have to say #iagreewithkev.

Is it time for the BFRC to listen to the industry?

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

Guest Post by Bank Holiday Worker:

The following text I found on the GlassTalk blog and felt it deserved sharing here:

I have been reading with some interest the GlassTalk and the Thermoseal blogs and I feel it timely to try and summarise the contributions from these sites and the feelings within the industry. I would like to make the following observations:

Almost without exception everyone agrees that the Window Energy Rating system is an excellent way of differentiating between windows of all types and with the Government wanting to reduce our carbon footprint, it allows the industry to make a valuable contribution to this target. However, the complicated nature of the scheme and intransigence of the BFRC to embrace simple, logical and sensible suggestions has lead to at least five major “players” in the industry threatening to take legal action.
My perceived problems with the scheme – in no particular order:-

1.The majority of the Directors of the BFRC have admitted that they don’t really understand the principles of the simulation process and those who do, it could be argued, may have commercial reasons for not wanting changes to the scheme.

2.The BFRC do not understand how the window industry functions. One example that came to light well over a year ago was that they assumed that the fabricators always supply fully glazed windows – being totally unaware that most installers prefer to purchase sealed units from their local suppliers who provide the level of service they require. There are numerous other examples that confirm my opinion.

3.Their knee jerk responses to problems that have arisen confirm this ignorance.
a.The installers or Approved Retailers Scheme – Is expensive and virtually impossible to control (audit) properly with the scheme in its present form. Perhaps this is why there has been an extremely limited up take and is not recommended by consultants and some Independent Agencies (IA’s).  All an installer wishes to do is to be able to buy their compliant units from their preferred supplier and match them with the frame that they buy. This is relatively easy to accomplish and a simple “paper trail” could provide the necessary evidence for any auditor to confirm full compliance.
b.The Multiple Label Scheme. On the face of it, this is a good idea but auditors and IA’s have informed me that it is a time consuming process to audit (expensive) and the chance of windows going out incorrectly labelled increases exponentially with the increase in label numbers. The cost appears to be low but the sting in the tail is that simulations in the fabricators name (or cascaded from the profile supplier) have to be available for the IA’s to inspect and this leads to hidden expense!

4.These schemes have all been introduced without consulting the industry experts and representative bodies. They have not been and probably will not ever be embraced by the industry enthusiastically.

5.The BFRC scheme is claimed to be “very robust”. I would agree that the simulation process is certainly robust, perhaps to the point of being proscriptive and restrictive and maybe this is the reason for the recent threats of legal action. However, after this robust process the whole system breaks down because.
a.There is no rule book for the Independent Agencies (IA’s) to work to
b.The IA’s do not have the auditors with the necessary experience to adequately “police” the scheme.
c.The fabricators do not have to have the robust scheme the IGU Manufacturers are forced to comply with. Although the fabricators are cascading EN Test results down from their profile suppliers they are not required to have a quality system in place to ensure that the frames made conform to those tested. i.e They do not have to prove their frames are fit for purpose.
d.The whole scheme appears to be open to abuse and “cooking of the books” has been noted but not exposed officially.

6.It is a common misconception that A Rated windows relate to quality – this is not the case and the scheme only relates to the thermal efficiency of the product when it leaves the factory fully glazed – there lies another anomaly within the scheme!

7.The BFRC have ignored advice given relating to the thermal properties of sealant used in the construction of double glazed sealed units and other components. This is symptomatic of their arrogance and ignorance and will probably come back to bite them in a way that may well threaten their future as a force within the industry. However, it will probably leave the door open to alternative schemes!

8.The BFRC have apparently sought clarification of the thermal properties from certain component manufacturers but have not been so even handed with others.

9.Substitution of components of equivalent or better value is a principle that most quality standards embrace. Until recently the BFRC has been intransigent on allowing this. However, when pushed by major players, they have allowed a number of exceptions i.e. The substitution of beads of a better value and the substitution of a major glass suppliers new glass that has better values. That is good step to make but why only for these products and not for others?

10.In simulations there is an insistence to “name” products – surely the use of their values would enable a simple substitution system and encourage new products to come to market?

11.Manipulation of Simulations – Many suppliers to the industry have openly admitted that they manipulate simulations to provide the best rating possible. Although this is understandable it is in the following examples a recipe for a repeat of the wholesale unit failures experienced in the late 1980’s.
a.Depth of seal – The depth of seal over the back of the spacer bar has been reduced to a level that effectively brings the spacer further down in the glazing rebate – Improving the thermal efficiency of the window. However, this means that the IGU manufacturer is making units that are outside the sealant suppliers’ recommendations and is taking the risk that they will fail prematurely. Assuming it is possible to make units consistently to this specification, I doubt if the manufacturer has had units of this configuration tested to EN 1279 Parts 2 and 3. Modifying their System Description to include these low parameters as their minimum depth should result in IA’s rejecting any units found to have sealant depths above this minimum depth claimed. Incidentally it will be the company putting the product to market that will be the one liable – The Installer!
b.Clearance around the unit: It is common practice to deduct 5mm off the window size to provide adequate clearance around the IGU for glazing purposes. Some simulations have been “adjusted” to only deduct 3 mm from the tight size, again improving the BFRC WER Rating. It is obvious that glazing into a fixed opening using this configuration is perhaps possible but impossible to “toe & heel” a unit into an opener. Even if glazing was possible the 3mm clearance in the glazing channel would not allow adequate drainage as the surface tension of water would result in the water being trapped between the unit and the frame!
Effectively these manipulations will result in lower life expectancy of the IGU’s and this will be exacerbated by the units sitting in water. What effect on the “Carbon Footprint” will all these failures give?

12.FENSA – yet another body owned by the GGF. What (and how) will they be looking for when inspecting windows for compliance to the new regulations? Perhaps this subject can be debated on this site as at present there is, for one example, no way of ascertaining what type of glass (exact coating or glass type) has been used within the IGU!

13.EN 14351. There has been some debate within the industry as to whether this European Standard is mandatory or not. Perhaps it is an irrelevant question as the change of the CPD to the CPR, which will occur in the next few years, will once and for all answer the question. However, the frame manufacturers must have a quality system in place that proves they are making their frames exactly to the profile manufacturers’ recommendations. After all they are using (cascading) test data that has been conducted to a European Standard by a notified body test house and as such they need to prove they emulate the windows tested!

Might I be so bold to suggest to Giles Willson and his colleagues that, rather than just announce changes to their scheme that may be totally unworkable, they come up with some suggestions and then use the expertise within the industry to establish if they are viable.
To name but a few that are eminently qualified and almost certainly willing to assist are:-
Mark Hickox – Thermoseal. Component Supplier
Gaby Mendham – Ecoglass. IGU Manufacturer
Richard Bate – Build Check Ltd. Simulator and IA
Mike Gaillard – CENSolutions Ltd. Auditor and Consultant
Richard Sellman – HB Fuller. Sealant and GGF IGU Component Group Chairman
Andy Jones – Edgetech. Organic Spacer supplier.
And a glass expert representing all the glass suppliers.

Why I have removed my April Fools joke

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

Luckily the vast majority of people saw my previous post about WERs as an April Fools joke.

Unfortunately, I understand that my moment of levity was taken seriously by some fabricators and installers.  I have, therefore, decided to remove the post so that others can continue the far more sensible debate around WERs.

In the meantime, I’m going back to India for a while and keeping my head down…

  • Sponsors

  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
© 2010 Renegade Conservatory Guy