Thermoseal Group is the manufacturer of the original Perma Lead adhesive strip.
Window Energy Ratings? / Exchangeability?
Any comments about the Window Energy Rating Scheme and its impact on the industry?
How do you feel about exchangeability of products deemed as 'similar' being permitted in the Window Energy Rating Scheme as they are within EN1279 standards so that window companies and sealed unit manufacturers are not bound to specific brands of a product?
http://www.nfrc.org/documents/IGCertFactSheetFINAL.pdf
The url above is for the US NFRC, it is worth a look at some of their documents.
Below is my take on what I've seen.
In the US the Window Energy Rating scheme is regulated by the NFRC and has been adopted by the Australian fenestration industry, it has the same goals as the BFRC but differs slightly in achieving a good system.
As of 1st July 2010 all IGU (sealed unit) manufacturers will be required by the NFRC to have their product certified for use in the US energy rating scheme and recertified every 4 years thereafter. (this certification is nearly identical to our EN1279, but our IGU's are tested (certified) every year)
Although the rating labels supplied by the NFRC refer to the whole window including glazing, the scheme allows for substitution of already certified technically similar products, a list of which is available on their website.
There is no need to certify the same configuration over and over again as the data is then available on the list and can be used in simulations.
This stops the frame manufacturer saying "If you want my frame WER, you have to have my sealed unit"
The NFRC have been around since 1989 and was formed by the big manufacturers, but now the board consists of scientists, government bodies and a lot of associated trades.
The BFRC seem to have taken the reasonably simple US system and corrupted it with needless barriers to competition (Vertical Tying) and in doing so have lost what credibility that they could have had.
Although the working group tasked with formulating the application of our system, has been 'working' for a couple of years now I have seen nothing published and nobody seems to know what constitutes an acceptable sealed unit within this system. Whatever is decided it is long past the time we should have known about it to be ready for October.
I remember the early months of FENSA so this is going to be a fiasco.
Also, I have noted with interest how Pilkington are really touting their 'Energycare' scheme even though they can't tell you what a A,B or C rated unit officially will be, I suspect after all the confusion at the eleventh hour Mr Pilkington is going to step in as the saviour of the sealed unit industry and say " We have a cunning scheme in place that you could use "(Mr Pilkington is always there for us!) Remember...
We didn't have Solar Gain in 2004 so we could buy K, We now have Solar Gain so we can still buy K. Yippee
On a more serious note, I have been making sealed units for 35 years, so being able to make a quality product and be obstructed in its sale smacks of something illegal,which warrants a fight.
If you value your own business your views are not only welcomed but are vital.
Alan
Frankly the scheme that is being proposed is almost unworkable. If you read the comments left by various experienced people who are arguing over the technicality of the scheme, how at the end of the day is the consumer to make a judgement on a windows thermal performance.
We have already seen some companies offering an A rated window, that we know do not have the correct certification and they certainly do not issue certificates. From what I can see the WER scheme is trying to mimic the electrical industries scheme that works very well. If you go to buy a fridge it is easily recognizable that an A rated fridge is better than a lower rated Fridge and that the power consumption is what the rating is given on.
When document L was introduced in April 2002 the playing field was levelled and there was a clear objective to increase the thermal performance, ensure the correct glass was used, and that there was a good means of escape. Everybody installing windows and doors had to comply with the new regulations. Now document L will allow the installation of different grade windows and ask the consumer to make the choice. If it is so important that we reduce carbon emissions why are we not insisting that everybody installs a window and sealed unit that have a reduced u value? The current Document L requires that we install windows and doors with a u value of 2, so for me its quite simple just reduce the u value to an agreed level and let us all get on with running our companies and helping to save the planet.
Also there is a Low E product on the market with a good performance and better than some others which seem to be appearing on simulations which has much reduced toughening time. This save even more energy and once again contributes to reducing the industry's carbon foot print.
The whole scheme as it stands is an absolute joke and fundamentaly floored which in my view amounts to restrictive trade parctice and I will be one of the people in queue to question its legality.
Finally I have muted the idea of organising an independant IGU manufacturers association to one or two other reputable companies. If anyone is interested please email me.
Paul Williams
With regard your closing comments, the part L consultation, yes I did put my comments in . One further point that may be of interest is that the Building Regulation Advisory Committee is subject to the governments Freedom of Information act . You can continually bombard them with questions about the the implentation of the scheme, I may have made one or two enquiries ;) and they have to respond :) , get stuck in.