2025 © James Tyas, Helston , Cornwall, UK, TR13 0RY

We provide Energy Reports

RdSAP and SBEM should be combined

RdSAP - Problems

RdSAP should be replaced with enhanced SBEM

The Context:

The planet is in trouble with Global Warming. Many worthy bodies blame this on the way we produce and use energy and thus increase Greenhouse Gas emissions. A high proportion of energy use takes place in buildings. It is therefore desirable to promote energy efficiently both by using less and by installing more efficient energy consuming devices.

This leads to having a measure of this efficiency – the Energy  Performing Certificate (EPC). Two suites of software (RdSAP and SBEM) software were developed in order to create EPCs for both domestic and non-domestic properties.

Politics and economics aside the ultimate goal is to save the planet by economizing on energy use and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers naturally want to reduce their costs. It is a consequence that by reducing energy use costs will be reduced. Emissions will be reduced simultaneously. Emissions and costs are each a function of energy use.

The Problems:

These two sets of software should be working together but pull in different directions. For a start the score scales work in different directions. A high number for RdSAP is good. A high number for SBEM is bad. One scale shows costs the other shows contribution to atmospheric pollution. There must be a way to present results in a manner that portrays both variables.

The mechanics of using the two different sets of software are a bit confusing. The level of detail is not consistent between RdSAP and SBEM. And the level of detail within each system is also inconsistent.

It is as if the level of detail available in different building details was selected at random. Fine detail is available in some areas but not in all areas. This varies across different areas of construction and varies between RdSAP and SBEM.

There is no consistency within the software specification. It is as if different sections of the programming were specified by different departments and the actual programming was not managed centrally across the whole suite of modules nor across time.

This is typical of government committees where the personalities are not intimately knowledgeable of the subject matter and the personalities change over time. So, there has been no consistent overall strategy.