Author: Alice Moncaster
Trondheim is just outside the Arctic Circle, and late November means limited daylight and plenty of snow and treacherous ice. Winters are not as cold as they used to be however according to our host. This is an increasingly common refrain. And while you might not mind milder winters, the excessively hot summers and increasing disasters around the world are making it absolutely crystal clear that we all need to do whatever we can to limit carbon emissions and climate change.
Nidaros Cathedral and Trondheim by night
I was in Trondheim at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) for two events trying to address the 40% or so of our carbon emissions which are from the construction and operation of our buildings. The first event was a conference, part of the long-established Sustainable Built Environment (SBE) series. I first attended an SBE conference in Helsinki in 2011, and over the years they have led to the development of a shared community of practice around the world. I particularly enjoyed Trondheim’s SBE25 Cities and Climate Change. Organised by Rolf Andre Bohne and colleagues, and Scientific Committee led by Freja Rasmussen, it had a distinctively friendly and open atmosphere, which had a noticeable impact both for early career researchers (who were less nervous), and for more senior researchers (who were less combative!). Of the research shared, I’d pick out the ARV project presented by Niki Gaitani (NTNU) and others, and the INDICATE-LIFE project presented by Giovanna Cassavia (TU Graz) and others, for special interest.
I was also proud to present (CABER Visiting Prof) Morwenna Slade’s beautifully illustrated paper (Blenheim Palace! Medieval churches!) explaining how understanding the vulnerabilities of individual heritage buildings, combined with projected localised climate change, can help develop maintenance plans towards future resilience – and how this ‘conservation philosophy’ can also be applied to improve resilience across all buildings. On the second day I then presented my former student Jon Andrew’s paper based on his MSc dissertation, which explored the motivations and actions for the new student accommodation at UWE – why Passivhaus was supported, while aspirations for net zero whole life carbon were dropped.
Conference dinner at E.C.Dahls brewery with new colleagues and old
The conference illustrated again for me how important direct and personal communication is. We are bombarded with webpages and reports and social media notifications (yes, I see myself 🙂 ) every day, and yet nothing works as well as talking to each other. This is a problem, as only a few have the opportunity; there is a very real financial limitation on who can attend conferences, and often, on top of that, personal limitations due to disability and caring responsibilities. So, while attending conferences is amazing, those of us lucky enough to be there need to remain conscious of the voices which aren’t heard. There were important lessons in all the papers presented, but how many will read them or even hear of them outside Trondheim, I wondered?
Alexander Passer, Operating Agent for Annex 89, presents to the group
The second half of the week was spent in a scientific meeting of the IEA EBC Annex 89, ‘Ways to implement net-zero whole life carbon buildings’. Colleagues from around the world came together to develop and discuss our emerging results and the variations in what is happening in the 30+ countries we represent. As a subtask 4 co-lead, I am particularly interested in gathering case studies which help us understand how the transition to low carbon buildings happens in practice – in projects, through industry initiatives, and in policy. How do we make it happen more widely?
A tour of the plant room in the ZEB Lab at NTNU
It was super interesting to hold the meeting in the Zero Emission Building Laboratory at NTNU, and to have a tour of the plant room. In sub-zero temperatures it clearly worked – and the mass timber construction, including the stairwell, made an attractive and comfortable environment. As a living laboratory, the building is also used as a demonstrator, and the plant room is huge just so that visiting groups can enter and see everything working.
But is this the future of the built environment? I think not. ‘Net zero’ means that the carbon is paid back over the years, but the construction still costs carbon upfront, even in timber. We don’t have the carbon budget remaining to rebuild our cities. In Europe we already have the building stock we need. Our dual focus now needs to be on retrofit and adaptation for future climates, and on social change to ensure everyone has a roof over their head.
Annex 89 participants braving the ice for a group photo
