The Future of Biomass

Looked at holistically it could be argued that there is no such thing as a zero carbon technology, let alone a zero carbon building. Even those technologies, such as photovoltaics and wind turbines, that convert natural sources of energy into heat or electricity directly require fuel and power for manufacture, transport etc. (embedded carbon).

Biomass however suffers because there are not only carbon emissions associated with the manufacture and transportation of the hardware, but also from the processing and delivery of the fuel itself. Furthermore its definition as a renewable fuel is contingent on the carbon released during combustion being balanced against that absorbed during growth. However as these occur over different periods and in different locations the processes involved are complex. For example the plants that are used as fuel may have taken years to grow, during which time they are both absorbing and emitting CO2 from and to the immediate atmosphere. Whilst the total quantity of CO2 sequestered by the biomass during its lifetime is emitted in perhaps minutes when used as a fuel. The 2009 version of SAP takes account of the process and transport CO2 but assumes a balance between CO2 absorbed and emitted over the life of the biomass, giving emission factors for woodchip of 0.015 kgCO2/kWh and for wood pellets of 0.037, compared with 0.206 for natural gas and 0.591 for electricity.

Some consider burning biomass as a return to the ‘bad old days’ of coal fires and wood burners, with the potential for deterioration in air quality that implies. Indeed the concentration of such pollutants as NOx and fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) is worryingly high. A study in 2007 for the London Councils by the AEA concluded that: “...potentially increasing the contribution from small-scale wood fuelled biomass combustion to meet energy requirements in London under the London Energy Partnership scenarios may lead to a potentially substantial increase in nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter concentrations.” The study predicted that this could result in Air Quality Objectives (AQO) required of Local Authorities under the 2007 Air Quality Standards Regulations being exceeded. London

In the US a more militant stance is being taken by the Biomass Accountability Project, which is lobbying to outlaw the burning of biomass altogether. US

For the UK the problem is one of scale. The historic situation of a relatively low number of small scale installations spread out across mainly rural locations had little impact. However a recent survey by the Forestry Commission has reported an increase in the use of biomass boilers by 25% in the last two years and 86% of schools under the now truncated Building Schools for the Future programme are reported to be proposing biomass plant. Many of these new installations have been proposed to meet Local Authority requirements for a percentage of energy/carbon to be offset using on-site renewable technologies. The marginal capital cost of a biomass installation compared with other technologies can be low, hence many schemes have gone through on the basis of the economic case.

However the availability of biomass in the UK has become a major concern. Building operators procuring fuel for biomass firing have been competing with the likes of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire, which has been co-firing coal and biomass for some time. Drax was planning to increase the proportion of power generated from biomass initially to 500 MW, with new plants at Immingham, Hull and another site, yet to be announced, potentially contributing a further 900 MW. Drax. Note that industry estimates that there is a potential 5 GW of biomass generating capacity in the pipeline.

However, despite investing £80 million in co-firing in recent years and the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) awarded, in February 2010 Drax claimed that it was no longer cost effective for it to use Biomass. It complained that the low subsidy for biomass compared with wind power, along with the low cost of carbon under the Emissions Trading Scheme had forced this decision upon them. Indeed it was even considering selling 2 million tonnes of biomass it had stockpiled. Drax2

Furthermore with biomass generated electricity not benefitting from the Government’s new feed-in tariff the whole life cost of biomass is no longer looking so attractive for smaller schemes.
On the other hand the use of wood as a fuel is also being attacked, perhaps not surprisingly, by the Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF). Despite contrary evidence from Drax it claims that ROCs are encouraging power companies to use wood for electricity generation, since, as of June 24 2010, co-firing was eligible for 0.5 ROC and CHP could earn 2 ROCs, with the value of a ROC at that time being £49 per MWh. A study commissioned by WPIF estimated that, on average, electricity generators could pay more than double the price paid by the UK wood panel industry for its primary raw material. Woodpanel

Two reports commissioned by WPIF conclude that this is a major threat to jobs in the manufacture of wood panels, whilst the embodied carbon that would otherwise be trapped in the wood panels would be released as CO2 through combustion, potentially increasing carbon emissions by 1%, or around 6 million tonnes annually. Of course it could be argued that this carbon will eventually be released following demolition and disposal of the wood panels.

With regard to the future of biomass in the UK the Coalition Government's first Energy Statement, published in July of this year stated that it is “....taking immediate action to exploit the potential of bio-electricity and energy from waste, by grandfathering support under the Renewables Obligation (RO) for electricity from dedicated biomass, energy from waste, anaerobic digestion and advanced conversion technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification.” A separate report on a consultation of proposals for grandfathering was published at the same time as the Energy Statement published. Grandfathering. Grandfathering is defined as “...the policy intention to maintain a fixed level of support for the full lifetime of a generating station’s eligibility for the RO (typically 20 years), from the point of accreditation.” However the support will only apply to dedicated biomass plant and not to the fuel.

In their response to the above consultation the anti-biomass lobby group Biofuelwatch expressed the view that “in the medium to longer term, we expect UK subsidies for biomass to accelerate the development of a new global trade in woodchips and wood pellets, leading to more destructive logging in many parts of the world and to more conversion of forests, grasslands and farmlands to monoculture tree plantations.” Biofuelwatch

Active Design

41 Cooper Square, New York

According to official statistics just under a third of the US adult population is obese, that is having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/square metre. The figure for the UK for 2008 was 24.5% of those over 16 years of age. The proportion of the adult population of the US that is obese has more than doubled since the early 1960’s. Although this is in part due to diet, activity levels also make a significant contribution. There is incontrovertible evidence that active people are less prone to a whole range of illnesses. Regular physical activity contributes to the prevention and management of over 20 conditions including coronary heart disease, diabetes, certain types of cancer and obesity. For example, strokes cost the NHS £2.8 billion a year. Studies indicate that physical activity reduces the risk of having a stroke by a third.

With this in mind a federal programme has been launched in the US called the National Physical Activity Plan, whilst in New York City a inter-departmental initiative fronted by the Department of Design and Construction has introduced the Active Design Guidelines (see Reference 1).

In the UK Sport England, supported by the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), published Active Design guidance in 2007 (see Reference 2).

As one might expect the New York Guidelines are tailored for high density inner city development and cover neighbourhood issues, urban design and architecture including:

• Develop and maintain mixed land use in city neighbourhoods;
• Improve access to transit and transit facilities;
• Improve access to plazas, parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, and design these spaces to maximize their active use where appropriate;
• Improve access to full-service grocery stores and fresh produce;
• Design accessible, pedestrian-friendly streets with high connectivity, traffic calming features, landscaping, lighting, benches, and water fountains;
• Facilitate bicycling for recreation and transportation by developing continuous bicycle networks and incorporating infrastructure like safe indoor and outdoor bicycle parking.
• Increase stair use among the able-bodied by providing a conveniently located stair for everyday use, posting motivational signage to encourage stair use, and designing visible, appealing and comfortable stairs;
• Locate building functions to encourage brief bouts of walking to shared spaces such as mail and lunch rooms, provide appealing, supportive walking routes within buildings;
• Provide facilities that support exercise such as centrally visible physical activity spaces, showers, locker rooms, secure bicycle storage, and drinking fountains;
• Design building exteriors and massing that contribute to a pedestrian friendly urban environment and that include maximum variety and transparency, multiple entries, stoops, and canopies.

Most of these issues figure in LEED and perhaps it is no surprise that 41 Cooper Square, an exemplar Active Design development, is targeting a Platinum award under the Scheme
(http://morphopedia.com/projects/cooper-union). One of the iconic features of this stunning building is a four storey staircase that dominates the entrance area (see image above). The lifts are deliberately made inconspicuous to encourage all able bodied occupants to use the stairs.

The Sport England guidance is based on a similar agenda but orientated to masterplanning of sustainable communities, covering many of the transport issues in BREEAM, as well as those that figure in current proposals for Planning Policy Guidance and Department for Transport long term strategy. Guidance is provided under three headings:

• Improving accessibility
• Enhancing amenity
• Increasing awareness

The emphasis is on creating access routes for pedestrians and cyclists between “Everyday Activity Destinations”, such as homes, workplaces, schools, shops and community facilities. A reasonable walking distance is defined as between 400 and 800m, or a 5 to 10 minute trip one way, whilst for cycling a maximum distance of 5 km is suggested.

One innovative scheme, developed by the Smarter Travel Unit at Transport for London and Intelligent Health Ltd and known as Step2Get, encourages children to walk to school by offering incentives (http://www.intelligenthealth.co.uk/step2get/). School pupils are issued with personal cards which they swipe at touch points along a designated walking route. They accumulate points for each walk and are rewarded with Topshop or Odeon cinema vouchers when they have reached a set target.

Intelligent Health uses Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to monitor the walking route. The ‘receivers’ which act as the swipe points are designed and manufactured by the company. The scheme can also be used to direct children along specific routes for safety reasons or to reduce overcrowding on local public transport services.

This system is at the heart of the Wimbledon Schools Walking project, which was also designed to reduce congestion and dwell times of buses, and involved some 300 pupils at Wimbledon schools.

A review of current good practice in the planning and design of sustainable transportation schemes is provided in my book Integrated Sustainable Design of Buildings, details of which can be found elsewhere on this blog.

References

1 New York City Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health in Design (2010). Produced by NYC Department of Design and Construction. http://ddcftp.nyc.gov/adg/downloads/adguidelines.pdf

2 Active Design. Sport England (2007) http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/planning_tools_and_guidance/active_design.aspx

The Zero Carbon Challenge

The Building Regulations for England and Wales are on a trajectory to achieve ‘zero carbon’ for new homes and schools by 2016 and for other buildings by 2019. This is all part of the UK Government’s strategy to meet its commitment to achieve a reduction in overall carbon emissions of 80% by 2050.

In the meantime the 2010 amendments to Parts L, F and J will be coming into force on 1 October, comprising revisions to regulations covering respectively:

• Conservation of fuel and power;
• Ventilation; and:
• Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems.

These represent the next step on the road to zero carbon and include CO2 emission targets 25% below those required by the 2006 Part L and 40% below the notional 2002 value, once corrected for changes in fuel carbon intensity.

The Labour Government established the Zero Carbon Hub (ZCH) in June 2008, following recommendations arising from the Calcutt Review of House Building Delivery http://www.callcuttreview.co.uk/default.jsp, under the auspices of the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) with the remit to both come up with a definition for ‘zero carbon’ and support the regulatory process. The definition for zero carbon has yet to be agreed and Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister in the Coalition Government, has told ZCH to review the level of on-site renewables required within the definition.

ZCH are in the process of publishing the results of a number of studies, setting out the key areas that need resolving before the 2016 amendments can be made. They have recently published documents covering future climate change; closing the gap between design and built performance; and how performance standards should be expressed; as well as an overview report http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/. They are still to produce the reports promised on carbon compliance tools and the carbon intensity of fuels.

The work already carried out on the definition of zero carbon has rowed back from the compliance requirements originally set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes to achieve Level 6 under Category 1: Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission. This required the dwelling to achieve zero carbon for regulated and unregulated emissions (i.e. including household appliances and cooking) using some combination of passive design and renewable technology. The requirement currently under consideration will typically allow up to 53% of emissions to be achieved through “Allowable Solutions”, based on a reduction of at least 70% of regulated emissions compared with 2006 Part L targets (TER) to be achieved by energy efficiencies and on-site low carbon and renewable technologies. For an average dwelling meeting a 2006 TER regulated emissions represent around 67% of the total CO2 emissions. Allowable Solutions have not yet been agreed but are likely to include importing locally generated renewable electricity; exporting low or zero carbon (LZC) energy; financial contributions to providing LZC infrastructure and/or improving the energy efficiency of buildings in the neighbouring community. Of course in most cases some combination of these could be employed, along with going beyond the 70% criterion for passive design and on-site LZC measures.

In July 2009 ZCH published the results of a consultation defining a fabric energy efficiency standard for zero carbon homes. Similar in concept to Passivhaus and Energy Saving Trust standards this provides energy targets in kWh/m2/yr and limiting U values and air tightness standards, although it sets its sights a lot lower, with a recommended target of 39 kWh/m2/yr for an apartment or mid-terraced house compared with the Passivhaus target of 15 kWh/m2/yr, for example. U values are commensurately weaker, particularly for windows which are 1.4 W/m2K compared with 0.8 W/m2K for a Passivhaus window. ZCH recommends an air permeability of 3, compared with 1 for a Passivhaus dwelling. The reasons for not setting more challenging criteria are not clear, but appear to relate to cost and currently available construction techniques. However designers and house builders may decide it is more economically feasible to use a specification closer to the Passivhaus level rather than investing in an array of “Allowable Solutions”.

Designers may be interested in recent UK experience reported in BRE’s Autumn 2010 Constructing the Future newsletter: “Experience in Europe indicates that while a 6% extra overall cost is likely, the quality assurance procedure can actually help to reduce costs.... (Whilst) a housing project in London, which BRE is advising on, has achieved PassivHaus for the same cost as a delivering a typical social housing project.”

In the recently published ZCH studies overheating was a key focus, resulting in 14 recommendations for urgent action, including the development of an improved technique for predicting overheating for integration into the SAP calculation. The problem is that well-insulated airtight dwellings are prone to over-heating, particularly when window opening is problematic due to the close proximity of noise sources, such as roads, and/or site shape and orientation drives the design towards west facing bedrooms and/or living rooms. Potential temperature rise from global warming will of course exacerbate this problem. Any technique developed within SAP for predicting overheating must take into account predictions for temperature rise associated with global warming, such as those developed by CIBSE which publishes Future Test Reference Year and Design Summer Year (TRY/DSR) data for 14 sites across the UK for the years 2011-2040, 2041-2070 and 2071-2100. These take into account the four UKCIP02 climate change scenarios between Low to High CO2 emission rates. (www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=161&option=com_content&task=view).

ZCH is also recommending a change to the method used in SAP for determining the carbon emissions factors for electricity. These are currently based on historical data, whilst ZCH recommend using predictions for 15 year rolling averages, updated annually. The modelling carried out by ZCH indicates that decarbonisation of the electricity grid will have a major impact on the energy balance for a typical new home, and hence the most efficient methods for meeting energy demand. ZCH envisages that as electricity generation decarbonises targets will have to be set in terms of primary energy demand rather than CO2 emissions.

SAP 2005 did not include allowance for a comprehensive menu of upstream CO2 equivalent emissions associated with energy generation. BRE are currently developing a consistent approach to ensuring such factors as fuel extraction, processing and delivery are accurately estimated in SAP, particularly for biomass and liquid biofuels.

ZCH also considers more work is required to establish consistent and reliable information and guidance to determine the CO2 emissions associated with community energy schemes. Currently Building Regulations require this to be undertaken by a competent person, but provide no standard methodology.

In 2007 Calcutt reported on the disparity between predicted and actual heat losses from homes as an example of the poor standards prevailing in house construction. This has subsequently been confirmed in a study of 16 dwellings by Leeds Metropolitan University, which found that some experienced a heat loss more than double that predicted by SAP. Ideally the heat loss for each new dwelling should be measured after construction and compared with calculated value. However this is unlikely to be practicable since current methodologies, such as the co-heating test, take at least a week to carry out and have to be done in winter, and hence are not commercially viable.

ZCH have recommended that a carbon compliance accreditation scheme be developed for designers, suppliers, manufacturers and builders that could include accredited details such as have been developed for Part E under the Robust Details scheme. This would include post-construction whole house audits of a sample of whole dwellings and services as part of the accreditation process. They are considering the incorporation of confidence factors (i.e. margins) to the calculation for dwelling emission rate (DER) that would be reduced for accredited organisations and hence provide an incentive for accreditation.

It seems that the whole process leading to zero carbon by 2016, with an interim stage in 2013, has been thrown into turmoil by the new Building Regulations Minister Andrew Stunell at a meeting of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes in July, revealing that he has instructed civil servants to examine the feasibility of bringing forward the 2013 Part L revision to 2012. This has not gone down well with the construction industry, not least because of the uncertainties that it has introduced to an already challenging economic time for the industry.

Climate Change: the scientist, the journalist and the politician

The frustrating situation that climate change science finds itself in reminds me of one of those disaster movies – you know the one – where a flawed hero is trying to save the planet, or whatever, but is being distracted at every turn by either his own problems, or noises off. In our case the flawed hero is represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the climate change scientific community; and the flaws have received enough publicity in recent months for me not to dwell on them here. A small but vocal minority of so-called climate change sceptics and deniers have provided the noises off. It could be argued that the ‘hero’ needs these distractions to overcome his flaws and go on to save the day!

This might describe the process that followed the exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melting rates quoted in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, resulting in publication of the “Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC” by the Inter-Academy Council on 29 August (IAC Report). There have also been two inquiries into the circumstances behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, colloquially known as “Climategate”, chaired by Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell that reported in April and July 2010 respectively.

Put simply all this has revealed that some scientists working in the climate change sector have been both slipshod in their practices and overly protective of the information they hold. On the other hand some of the tactics of the more extreme ends of the climate sceptic community have been aggressive, bizarre and ignorant. See Skepticalscience for a useful review of these tactics. Sometimes lost in this melee however are some perfectly reasonable questions concerning some of the more dramatic certainties coming from the climate change protagonists.

The main problem here is just how much is riding on climate change predictions. You have only got to read the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change to get a feel for the sums involved and the potential impacts of the decisions with which Governments are faced. As we saw at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 some Governments are not yet in a position to sign up to significant cuts in carbon emissions when faced with the prospect of curtailing the rate of economic growth at home. On the other hand, although the energy sector makes much of its involvement in renewable energy, there have been reports from the US that companies involved in oil exploration, such as Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, have funded climate sceptic groups to the tune of millions of dollars.

Although many politicians and journalists involved in making decisions and reporting on and around climate change have a background in science, mostly they rely on the information provided to them by scientists. But of course climate science is incredibly complex and the prediction of climate change far from certain. Politicians and journalists on the other hand like to deal in certainties. In his excellent online book “Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air” (free to download from MacKay) David MacKay provides an example of how journalists can get it so badly wrong. The following is a quote from Dominic Lawson writing in the 8 June 2007 edition of the Independent and paraphrased by Professor MacKay :

“The burning of fossil fuels sends about seven gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which sounds like a lot. Yet the biosphere and the oceans send about 1,900 gigatons and 36,000 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere – . . . one reason why some of us are sceptical about the emphasis put on the role of human fuel-burning in the greenhouse gas effect. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions is megalomania, exaggerating man’s significance. Politicians can’t change the weather.”

Unfortunately Mr Lawson makes some fundamental errors in this article. Apart from getting all the numbers wrong, the emissions from the biosphere and oceans into the atmosphere are balanced by almost exactly the same quantity of CO2 flowing in the opposite direction and being absorbed by the biosphere and oceans. As the IPCC and others can testify, getting the numbers right is also important. In Mr Lawson’s case he makes the common error of mixing up carbon and CO2. In fact the figure he quotes for CO2 emissions from anthropogenic activities is actually that for carbon and should read 26 Gt CO2/annum. Worse still the 36,000 gigatons quoted represents the amount of carbon held in the oceans, the estimated flow rate given by MacKay is 90 gigatonnes of carbon/annum (330 Gt CO2/annum), whilst the flow to and from the biosphere has been estimated at 440 Gt CO2/annum. This cyclical flow of gases between the earth and its atmosphere has been occurring since the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere evolved and is an intrinsic part of the earth’s ‘metabolism’.

The challenges of reporting on climate change science are being presented by the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Roger Harrabin in his essay “Uncertain Climate”, the first half of which was aired on Radio 4 on Monday 30 August. In this he recognizes that the nuances of climate change science have been lost in the mix, whilst some scientists have expressed an exaggerated degree of certainty about the prospects for global calamity. In contrasting interviews with Al Gore and Tony Blair, he demonstrates both the potential for evangelism driving out rationality, in the case of Gore, and an acceptance that politicians must apply the precautionary principle whilst communicating uncertainties (Blair).

Coincidentally a well-known ‘sceptic’ and author of the “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg was reported on the same day as having gone through a Damascene conversion in his most recent book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change”. In fact Lomborg is only the editor of this volume, which has a number of contributors. A closer reading of his cannon however reveals a more nuanced picture than the headlines might portray. Lomborg has never denied the science, he has only questioned priorities, although based originally on what some have claimed is a simplistic comparison of the cost of mitigating climate change with tackling malaria, HIV/AIDS and inadequate sanitation and water supply. This latest book focuses specifically on the priorities to mitigate climate change, analysing the likely costs and benefits of a very wide range of policy options, including geo-engineering, mitigation of CO2, methane and 'black carbon' (soot) emissions, expanding forestation, research and development of low-carbon energy technologies and encouraging green technology transfer. In an interview for the Guardian Lomborg is reported as saying that "the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project (of which he is Director), in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS. But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking. Lomborg said he then decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, 'so it wouldn't end up at the bottom'." Which sounds a bit like altering the parameters in order to give the result you are after.

The metaphorical hero in our disaster movie may be the IPCC, but the villain of the COP 15 conference proved to be China. As can be seen from the Figure at the start of this post, copied from the MacKay book referred to above, the total CO2 equivalent emissions in 2000, as indicated by the area of each block, were similar for China to that for the USA, although the per capita emissions in the US were about 6 times those for China. However China is going through its very own industrial and economic revolution leading to massive growth in all those criteria that result in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

China is reported to be commissioning new coal fired power stations at the rate of 2 or 3 per week, with a long term programme to construct more than 500. They are in the middle of a major airport construction and improvement programme, with 42 new airports in the pipeline and 70 being improved. Car ownership increased 5 fold between 2003 and 2008, whilst China’s urbanisation continues unabated, with the percentage of urban residents increasing from 18% in 1978 to 44% in 2006 according to an article in the Economist online.

The latest International Energy Agency statistics (ref IEA energy statistics 2010) indicate that China’s CO2 emissions doubled between 2000 and 2008, coincident with a doubling of coal production.

These same statistics predict an increase in total primary energy supply (TPES) globally of 65% by 2030 from 1990 figures based on ‘policies under consideration’. No predictions are given for the corresponding change in CO2 emissions.

These are scary statistics, and there are plenty more where they came from! One conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the failure of COP 15 and the ‘noises off’ from climate sceptics must not be allowed to get in the way of future global agreements to mitigate global warming. What we all need is a clear and consistent message from the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this complex subject.

Battersea Power Station Redevelopment

The proposed development of the site currently occupied by the iconic Battersea Power Station is on an under-utilized brownfield site that has lain dormant since the early 1980s.

In June the Guardian produced a useful pictorial history of the site which can be found at: Battersea gallery.

Being located within the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area (OA), the site has been recognized as an area in need of redevelopment and renewal.
The developer is proposing a new riverside community with thousands of homes, shopping, a hotel, cafés, and office floor space. It will be a new urban quarter with a balance between homes and offices, so people can live within walking distance of their workplace. The Power Station building will provide culture and entertainment amenities, and will be a destination for Londoners and tourists to visit.
The developer is working with Transport for London and London Underground to deliver a new extension of the Northern Line from Kennington station, to link the site to the underground network.
The site is dominated by the Power Station building, one of the world’s largest brick buildings. It forms the cornerstone of the development proposals. The developer has established an aspiration to achieve a ‘Zero Carbon’ Power Station in use.
The primary energy for the building will be derived from a biofuel-fired combined cooling heat and power (CCHP) plant located in the Energy Centre beneath the Power Station Park. ‘Zero Carbon’ status will be achieved by:

• generating low carbon electricity, heating and cooling serving site-wide district heating, cooling and power networks on a phased basis;
• the export of low carbon electricity to offset high carbon grid supplied electricity;
• district heating connected to the proposed OA district heating network.
  

The CCHP installation will initially utilise a mix of biofuels and natural gas but with the flexibility to incorporate waste-derived fuel (e.g. methane from bio-digestion) should this become available and viable for the latter phases of the development.
The development will offer the following general sustainability features:

• a high density mix of uses on a brownfield site;a high quality, inclusive design and enhanced public realm;
• respect for the natural environment, with enhanced biodiversity and open space;
• minimum possible carbon emissions from both operation and materials to mitigate against climate change;
• accessible, usable and permeable for all users;sustainable, durable and adaptable in terms of design, construction and use;
• secure, safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, including terrorism, and fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion;
• practical and legible.

As well as the extension of the Northern Line from Kennington station to link the Site to the underground network, the following transport initiatives are currently envisaged:

• improvements to bus services;
• high quality pedestrian and cycle networks, including improvements to the Thames Path to improve connectivity to the river and the strengthening of east–west links to Battersea Park and Queenstown Road Station;
• potential extension of the river bus service.
  

Site-wide grey water recycling and the use of borehole abstraction will meet part of the potable water demand, landscape irrigation and fire hydrant services for the development. The construction will conform to current best practice standards for both site operation and waste management. Reused, recycled and prefabricated construction materials will be used, where practicable.
The development will form a new sustainable and creative district in Wandsworth, and will act as ‘a catalyst for [the] social and economic growth’ of the wider OA. The area surrounding the Site is a historically deprived area where environmental exclusion has brought down aspirations and achievements of the local populations for decades. The two Wards closest to the development, Queenstown and Latchmere, have some of the highest unemployment rates and lowest qualifications in the Borough. The Index of Multiple Deprivation classifies these neighbourhoods as severely deprived in the dimensions of employment, education, training and skills development.
It is estimated that the development will generate in the region of 25,000 net direct construction related jobs during the anticipated 14-year construction programme. Once the development is complete and operational, the opportunities for on-site inward investment through offices, retail, food and beverage, cultural and arts business represent an overall uplift of the OA area. These new businesses should create new employment for some 17,000 people in a diverse range of sectors, including services, catering, public services, with opportunities in sport, arts and cultural facilities.
A key aspect of building a sustainable community will be to ensure that the on-site public services are accessible and integrated to provide the best service for the local population. The development will include space for new social infrastructure, culture and community facilities, which is likely to include a health clinic, to expand and improve healthcare provision for all OA residents.
The development is likely to cater for all children requiring nursery school spaces through the provision of conveniently located nursery facilities. Play spaces across the development will be located close to residential areas with enhanced facilities closest to the larger family dwellings.
The Power Station Park to the north of the Power Station will link to the open space/public realm provided on the jetty. This will create a new ‘local park’, which will help to mitigate the known existing deficiency in this area.

Wandsworth Borough Council approved the scheme on 11 November 2010 and London Mayor Boris Johnson approved the scheme in mid-December. The next stage of the process will see the application considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This represents the largest ever planning application in Central London. REO were reported in June to be planning to demerge the £4.5b Power Station redevelopment from their main business and are looking for a partner to take on 50% of the project.

Construction of Phase 1 is scheduled to commence in early 2012 with completion in 2016. The remaining phases, including the new underground station will follow, with the entire development scheduled for completion in 2024.

For a 'fly-through' of the latest scheme click on:

Integrated Sustainable Design of Buildings

POST UPDATED 12 JUNE 2011

My new book was published by Earthscan in December 2010. It is a major new work covering all of the stages of the design of sustainable buildings and communities, from concept through the masterplanning, design, construction and commissioning processes.

The book is intended as a guide for all involved in the masterplanning, design and construction of sustainable buildings, and is written with a global perspective. As well as by practising construction professionals it can be used as background reading for those undertaking relevant academic studies at all levels.

As can be seen from the Contents list below it includes a chapter on policy, legislation and planning which examines the history of sustainable design globally through to recent developments in statutory drivers. The chapter on assessment methodologies provides a survey of the protocols that have been developed globally, such as the UK-based Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and the US-based Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) schemes.

All aspects of sustainability are covered, including social, economic and environmental sustainability. Part 2 covers everything from the components of a sustainable community through transportation planning, to development of an energy strategy and massing of the buildings. Whilst Part 3 covers all aspects of the detailed sustainable design of individual buildings, using a sustainability strategy based around such assessment methodologies as LEED, BREEAM and the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH).

Although headed Sustainable Construction Part 4 deals in part with the relationship between the design and construction teams, covering as it does the tendering process, sustainable procurement, construction waste management, construction impacts, value management, commissioning and handover, all of which require collaboration between the designers and contractors.

Contents:

Part 1 Background
1.1 Introduction and Scope
1.2 Policy, Legislation and Planning
1.3 Assessment Methodologies
1.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

Part 2 Sustainability and Masterplanning
2.1 Sustainable Communities
2.2 Land Use and Density
2.3 Massing and Microclimate
2.4 Social Sustainability
2.5 Economic Sustainability
2.6 Energy Strategy and Infrastructure
2.7 Integrated Sustainable Transportation Planning

Part 3 Sustainability and Building Design
3.1 Sustainability Strategy
3.2 Operational Energy and Carbon
3.3 Thermal Comfort
3.4 Design for Natural Ventilation
3.5 Air Quality, Hygiene and Ventilation
3.6 Light and Lighting
3.7 Computer Simulation of Building Environments
3.8 Noise and Vibration
3.9 Water Conservation
3.10 Design to Reduce Vehicle Impacts
3.11 Waste Management and Recycling
3.12 Materials Specification
3.13 Pollution
3.14 Landscaping, Ecology and Flood Risk
3.15 Security and Flexibility

Part 4 Sustainable Construction
4.1 Tendering Process
4.2 Sustainable Procurement
4.3 Construction Waste Management
4.4 Considerate Contracting and Construction Impacts
4.5 Value Engineering and Management
4.6 Commissioning and Handover

In May 2011 the book was including in the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainable Leadership Top 40 Sustainability Books of 2010 http://www.cpsl.cam.ac.uk/Resources/State-of-Sustainability-Leadership.aspx. At No 19 it is the only book in the list that has 'buildings' in its title. Other titles by the likes of Al Gore, Sara Parkin, Fred Pearce, Lord Stern and Prince Charles primarily cover economics, politics, business, CSR and philisophy of sustainability.

For more information, latest reviews and to order a copy see http://www.earthscan.co.uk/Portals/0/pdfs/Integrated_Sustainable_Design_of_Buildings.pdf

UK Coalition Government Energy Policy

Like most governments worldwide the new UK Government has a massive dilemma: i.e. how to meet published commitments for carbon reduction without the money to pay for it? The Coalition published its first Annual Energy Statement on 27 July. Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne introduced a Statement comprising 32 Actions that build on the previous Government's Climate Change and Energy Acts and associated Regulations and initiatives, including extending the Carbon Emission Reduction Target (CERT), bringing forward the introduction of smart metering and allowing Local Authorities to sell zero carbon electricity to the grid from 18 August 2010. http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/What%20we%20do/UK%20energy%20supply/237-annual-energy-statement-2010.pdf

The Coalition's 'big idea' is the Green Deal which, as outlined by Mr Huhne, will require Energy Companies to offer households the facility to improve thermal insulation, paid for by a loan which will be repaid from the reduction in energy bills derived from the resultant lower heating running costs. Currently there is no mention of this scheme being extended to cover investment in renewable energy equipment, although the Government is 'consulting on a micro generation study' and developing a renewables delivery plan. Detailed proposals for the Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/rhi/rhi.aspx that formed part of the 2008 Energy Act, and on which consultation closed on 26 April, will be published in the Government's Spending Review, due on 20 October 2010.

The Government wishes to encourage community renewable energy schemes and will be launching Community Energy Online this coming autumn. The bottleneck that currently slows down grid connection of renewable energy installations is being dealt with by the introduction of a key component of the Energy Act under the 'Connect and Manage' regime on 11 August.

The elements of the Government's statement that require new legislation will be enshrined in the proposed Energy Security and Green Economy Bill http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/energy_bill/energy_bill.aspx. As well as providing a framework for the Green Deal this is also likely to include provisions for regulating carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations; reforming energy markets to deliver security of supply and ensure fair competition; establishing a framework for the development of a 'smart grid'; requiring energy companies to provide more information on bills; easing exploitation of difficult to access oil and gas reserves in the North Sea; and establishing a green investment bank.

The July Energy Statement also commits the Government to reviewing Climate Change Levy in the autumn; as well supporting the development of marine energy; urgently exploiting the potential of bio-electricity, energy from waste, biomass etc.; and confirming their commitment to launching a demonstration project for carbon capture and storage as established in the 2010 Energy Act.

The Statement maintains the previous Governments support for a nuclear energy programme based on regulatory justification of new reactor designs and generic design assessment. The Statement confirms the 2008 Energy Act's requirement for operators to budget for waste management and decommissioning.

Carbon Emission Reduction Targets, Carbon Reduction Commitments and Climate Change Agreements are all under review. The Coalition is committed to extending the CERT from the current 2011 to the end of 2012, with lifetime CO2 savings being increased from 185 million tonnes to 293 million tonnes, covering 3.5 million homes. A new Super Priority Group of low income homes will be identified, representing 15% of the spend.

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme grew out of the 2008 Climate Change Act and is a mandatory scheme requiring all organisations consuming more than 6,000 MWh energy per annum to report their consumption and henceforth purchase carbon allowances. On top of this all organisations that use 'half hour meters', which applies to businesses having a peak electrical load of 100 kWh or more, are required to report their energy consumption. The first reporting date was April 2010 and allowances will be sold at a fixed rate of £12/tonne CO2 from April 2011 and auctioned from April 2013 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/crc/crc.aspx. Revenues from the sales will be ploughed back into energy saving measures.

CRC does not apply to the energy-intensive industries already involved in Climate Change Agreements, which was introduced in 2001 and which the previous Government wanted to extend until 2017. It also doesn't apply to the installations of 20 MW or more that are signed up to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Ofgem and the Government published a Prospectus for smart meters alongside the July Energy Statement, launching a consultation process that will run through to the end of October. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/smart_mtr_imp/smart_mtr_imp.aspx.

This foresees a comprehensive roll out of smart meters across both domestic and small non-domestic sectors with a net saving of some £7.2 billion over a 20 year period.

The Statement also includes an assessment of the likely impact of Coalition policies on average energy bills in 2010, 2015 and 2020 depending on the price of oil (currently at $77 per barrel). For a marginal increase in oil prices an increase of 1% in energy prices is predicted for 2020, whereas if oil prices double a saving of 5% is estimated, compared to what energy bills would be in the absence of the proposed policies.

In parallel with his first Energy Statement Huhne also published his Government's 2050 Pathways Analysis and Calculation Tool http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/2050/2050.aspx. This visionary project enables interested parties to establish scenarios for achieving the UK commitment to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I will be reviewing this project in a later blog.

Strata Tower Integrated Wind Turbines

Strata is the first building in the world to incorporate wind turbines into the body of the building. It is a stunning residential building forming the nucleus of a major redevelopment of the Elephant & Castle. Although like Marmite, as many people hate it as love it!

In my role with URS as Sustainability Advisor to the design team I worked with the architects Hamiltons (now BFLS) and engineers WSP on the original concept and feasibility study.

Paul King, head of the UK Green Building Council is reported in a Guardian G2 article of 19th July as saying that: "You've got to take your hat off to the design team for delivering a building that captures the imagination. I doubt wind turbines will become a common feature in high-rise inner city projects, but without this type of bold innovation, how would we ever know? Developments like this show that sustainability is increasingly becoming mainstream. That's something everyone should celebrate."

The 43 storey, 147 metre high building contains 408 flats, including 25% affordable units, with a separate block provided for council tenants displaced from a nearby estate.

It is anticipated that the wind turbines will generate only around 8% of building's energy needs, although in the long term it is likely to be connected to the Elephant & Castle biomass district heating scheme. Their maximum rotational speed has been restricted to limit noise and vibration transmission to flats below. Although of fixed orientation the turbines have been designed to utilise a wide angle of wind incidence through the use of chamfered nacels. Jonathan Glancey writing in the Guardian says that "It reminds me of the super-modern city drawn by Antonio Sant'Elia, the Italian futurist architect, shortly before the first world war". His Citta Nuova inspiring such film makers as Ridley Scott for his landmark 1982 film Blade Runner. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jul/18/strata-tower-london-green-architecture .

Integrated Sustainable Design of Buildings

13 July 2010

I would like to welcome you to my new blog site. This is my first posting and is just to ask anyone who reads it to 'watch this space'. I will be posting material to this site over the coming days and weeks, based on the content of my book of the above title, complete with photos, text and links to websites that I have used for the development of the book.