Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability 159 December 2006 Issue ES4 Pages 155–168 Paper 14646 Received 10/02/2006 Accepted 03/10/2006
Dexter V. L. Hunt Research Fellow, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK
Lubo Jankovic Senior Lecturer, Institute of Art and Design, University of Central England, Birmingham, UK
Ian Jefferson Senior Lecturer in Geotechnical Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK
Kevin Hunot Research Fellow, Institute of Art and Design, University of Central England, Birmingham, UK
Keywords: urban regeneration
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK D. V. L. Hunt
MEng, PhD,
I. Jefferson
DIS, PhD, FGS,
L. Jankovic
Eastside, a 130 ha brownfield site located to the eastern side of Birmingham’s city centre, is undergoing social, economic and environmental changes, driven mainly through public and private investment estimated to be worth £6 billion. The regeneration programme is well under way and it aims to turn a once deprived inner-city area into the regions first ‘sustainability quarter’. Achieving a sustainable quarter, in terms of energy, will require reductions to be made in energy demands compared to typical practice, for example through more thermally efficient buildings and utilisation of low-energy technologies. In addition it will require these demands to be met through renewable technologies rather than fossil fuels. This paper presents estimates for the total energy demands from the various developments planned within Eastside assuming typical and good-practice scenarios. The paper then assesses the feasibility of introducing various renewable energy supply technologies and combined heat and power (CHP) technologies in order to meet these demands. Finally the paper presents a simplified costing scheme for assessing the potential of renewable technologies to secure energy supplies while limiting carbon emissions. The renewable technologies are compared directly, aiming at providing an independent viewpoint for decision makers when considering which technologies to adopt. While the study focuses on Eastside, the lessons learned from this study are vitally important for redevelopment programmes being undertaken elsewhere.
1. INTRODUCTION Over the last 150 years, the seemingly abundant supplies of energy, derived mainly from coal, oil and natural gas, have helped shape today’s economy, society and environment. At the beginning of the 21st century the ‘quality of life’ for UK residents is very much underpinned by complex arrangements made for balancing energy supply with energy demand. As the effects of climate change through global warming are already evident globally, steps to ameliorate further negative environmental effects of energy consumption from non-renewable sources are being undertaken by the UK Government (e.g. The Kyoto Protocol,1 The Carbon Abatement Technologies Strategy2 and the
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
PhD
and K. Hunot MPhil, MIEEM,
MRTPI
Energy White Paper3). Current agreements will see the UK striving towards a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 and a 60% reduction by 2050.1 Global industrialisation and urbanisation (e.g. China and India) are constantly increasing the international demand for energy, while the earth’s natural reserves are being depleted, making ‘security of supply’ uncertain. This is particularly true in the UK, where the ‘dash for gas’ strategy of the 1990s marginalised the potential for efficient development of other energy sources (e.g. coal, nuclear power and ‘renewables’) in favour of a fuel that, if some theorists are correct, may not be able to meet global demands soon after 2010.4 The ability of the current generation to sustain a ‘quality of life’ for future generations in relation to energy will, therefore, require strategic shifts to be made in terms of energy supply through: renewable technologies rather than fossil fuels; demand-side technology and more thermally efficient buildings that utilise low-energy technologies; and public behaviour/lifestyle changes, within all four main sectors shown below (a) (b) (c) (d)
housing stock5 commerce industry transport.
Undoubtedly, the transitional route to renewable energy supplies will face many barriers within the urban environment, especially when considering a retrofit scenario for existing buildings. Large-scale regeneration schemes can, however, provide the opportunity for overcoming such barriers and therefore can be an enabler for implementing new approaches to energy supply in sectors (a) and (b) shown above.6 This is, however, provided that communication is made, at the earliest stages, between stakeholders, landowners, local authorities and regional development agencies.7 The present paper assesses the feasibility of implementing photovoltaic (PV), micro-hydro, wind, biomass, gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) and fuel cells driving a micro-CHP unit within one such urban regeneration scheme. The 130 ha (1 300 000 m2) site commonly referred to as ‘Eastside’ is situated near the city centre of Birmingham in the West Midlands, UK (see Fig. 1). The paper presents typical and good-practice energy demands for gas and electric from the various developments. These include domestic properties,
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
155
i
ii
Aston Triangle Bullring Canal Castle Cement City centre City Park Gate Custard factory Curzon Gateway Curzon station Learning and leisure quarter Library site Martineau galleries Masshouse Millennium Point ‘Concrete Moor Street station collar’ New Street station Park Rea Village River Rea St Stephens Church Railway track Technology Park Typhoo Wharf Warwick Bar
ii
ad
ns
Ro
e nn
Je
i
X
Digbeth
Y
N
0
1000 m
Fig. 1. Sites for redevelopment in Birmingham Eastside8
apartments, hotels, offices, library, college, university, supermarket and retail outlets, which will be part of Eastside when it is finally completed in 2010.8 Various criteria are presented for comparing the true costs of the energy supply technologies (i.e. potential for supply, economic costs and payback, durability, CO2 saved, embodied energy and payback) in order to help decision makers adopt technologies that will reduce carbon emissions, while being reliable, durable and easy to adopt at a reasonable price. While the energy demands from industry (c) and transport (d) within Eastside are likely to be large, they are beyond the scope of this paper. The current paper is not written with a particular bias towards any specific technology and, therefore, aims to provide an independent simplified view of the potential for domestic and commercial energy generation in the urban regeneration project that is currently under way.
2. ESTIMATING ENERGY DEMANDS FOR EASTSIDE This section considers the annual energy demands within the built environment of Eastside, specifically those from domestic 156
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
properties (i.e. apartments and houses), offices, hotels, retail outlets and a university. The energy demands for these building types are shown in Table 1 with further details outlined in sections 2.1 to 2.4. Throughout this paper the annual delivered energy demands are presented in terms of kWh/year for total energy, kWhe/year for electricity, and kWhg/year for natural gas (buildings are primarily new build within an urban city setting therefore the use of coal and oil are not considered here). Table 2 shows the value of total thermal energy demand for Eastside in terms of kWhg/year: this value considers boiler efficiencies. Both typical and good-practice demands are given where possible.
2.1. Residential: domestic properties, apartments and hotels The average annual domestic demand per household for electricity was estimated to be approximately 4600 kWhe/year or 12 kWhe/day within the UK in 2005,9 while for Birmingham, the area within which Eastside is located, the value is slightly lower at 4521 kWhe/year. The annual gas consumption per household in Birmingham (20 221 kWhg/year) was slightly
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
Building use Domestic [11] Hotel [15]
Type 1. Apartments 2. Houses 1. Luxury 2. Business or holiday 3. Small
Offices [17]
Academic [18, 19]
Shopping [21, 22]
1. Naturally ventilated office (cellular) 2. Naturally ventilated office (open plan) 3. Air-conditioned office (standard) 4. Air-conditioned office (prestige) 1. Libraries (naturally ventilated) 1. University (nonresidential) 2. University (residential) 1. Supermarket 1. Retail
Typical range of floor areas: m2 — ,200 70–90 (per room) 40–60 (per room) 60–70 (per room) 100–3000
No. rooms
Gas demand: kWhg/m2
Electricity demand: kWhe/m2
1–2 3 100–500
163 [107]
68 [44]
,460 [300]
,150 [90]
50–150
,400 [260]
,140 [80]
60–70
,360 [240]
,120 [80]
—
151 [79]
54 [33]
500–4000
—
151 [79]
85 [54]
2000–8000
—
178 [97]
226 [128]
4000–20 000
—
210 [114]
358 [234]
—
—
192 [133]
45 [24]
—
—
142 [103]
39 [29]
—
—
201 [164]
60 [50]
— —
— —
334 74
Gas demand: kWhg
Electricity demand: kWhe
20 111
4521
930 76
Table 1. Typical and [good-practice] annual energy demands for various building types in January 2005
higher than the UK average of 20 111 kWhg/year or 55 kWhg/day.9 Unfortunately, these consumption values are averages only, hence they do not give an indication of the range of values that could be expected for different property types. However, researchers have shown that annual energy demands for domestic properties in the UK typically lie within 2455 to 7627 kWhe/year for electricity and 5137 to 24 539 kWhg/year for gas, when considering small to large properties.10 This shows that the ratio of electric to gas consumption ranges from 1 : 4 to 1 : 7. Unfortunately, it does not reveal data for occupancy, floor area or daily and seasonal peak values, which can vary considerably according to the requirements of a household.11 Research has shown that typical domestic properties (including apartments) could use 150–230 kWh/m2/year split according to: (a) heating: 61%; (b) domestic hot water: 10%; (c) cooking: 13%; (d) refrigeration: 5%; (e) lighting: 3%; ( f ) cooling: 3%; and (g) others: 6%. (Note: The data presented in Table 1 assume that (a) and (b) are provided for by gas, the others being provided for by electricity).12,13 It can be seen that the largest demand for energy in households is for heating and this is very dependent on building design—that is, size and construction materials. In the UK, the energy efficiency of a dwelling, such as a house, can be measured according to the standard assessment procedure (SAP). SAP 2001 ratings considered thermal insulation and ventilation and solar gain of the building, in addition to the efficiency and controls of the heating and price of fuels for heating spaces and water.14 Part L of the Building Regulations deals with fuel and power referring to energy efficiency in new and existing dwellings (parts 1A, 1B) and non-dwellings (parts 2A and 2B)15 Several amendments were made to Part L, approved April 2006, not least the inclusion of SAP 2005,16 which incorporates a Target Emission Rate (TER).15 The SAP 2005 rating can range between 0 and 100: the higher the rating the better the performance. The average SAP 2001 rating for Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
domestic properties in the UK in 2004 was 40–50, 120 being the maximum achievable value at the time; domestic properties in Birmingham achieved 48.8.17 In 2004 a score of 80 or more was considered to represent energy-efficient housing. Under SAP 2005, however, a value in excess of 100 is adopted; this can be awarded where a net export of energy is achieved. Houses within the Bedzed development, Sutton, UK, were designed for high energy efficiency and would score a rating near to 100 according to SAP 2001.18 This was achieved through incorporation of high-quality building materials with low U-values (e.g. argon-filled triple-glazed timber-framed windows, 300 mm cavities filled with Rockwool insulation, 300 mm expanded polystyrene in the floors and passive stack ventilation). The effects of a changing SAP rating and TER, while being vitally important for Eastside, are beyond the scope of this current research. The typical electric and gas demands for a range of hotels can vary according to building type (i.e. luxury, business and small), number of rooms and floor area as shown in Table 1.19 It can be seen that the ratio of electricity use to gas use for hotels (1 : 3) is broadly similar to that for offices (see section 2.2); however, the energy demands for naturally ventilated offices are almost three times more. These demands are also very dependent on occupancy—something not considered for offices. 2.2. Public sector: offices, university, colleges and library buildings Energy demands for offices are typically estimated based on the floor area and building type.20 Table 1 shows both typical and good-practice energy demands which can be expected from Eastside’s offices. The breakdown of the energy demands consists of heating, cooling, fans, pumps, controls, office equipment, catering, computers and other miscellaneous items (the
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
157
158
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
16.0 16.0
40.4
37.4
18.0 48.5 240.0 89.0 — 40.0 26.3
Library (or similar) Curzon Gateway
Parcel Force
Typhoo Wharf
Mathew Bolton College Millennium Point Aston University Aston Science Park New Technology Institute Rea Village Warwick Bar — — — 555.0
91.2 14.9 10.0 1.9 11.0 37.0 — 9.2 3.6 — —
38.5 26.4 39.0 23.0 2.8 40.0 12.0 11.0 30.0 37.5 23.6 92.9 18-storey block — — — — — — .2500 m2 floorplates — 8 and 6 storey — — — — — 6-storey blocks — — 500-person capacity — — —
14-storey block
Building details
— — — 194.6 83.6
28.8
6.9 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.4 8.1 83.0 3.3 0.1 5.5 —
13.7 4.0 2.6 8.2 1.0 2.7 4.3 10.2 1.4 2.5 1.5 33.3
Electricity: GWhe
— — — 151.6 (136.1 GWhth)
6.7 2.4 1.6 0.3 1.6 0.6† 31.4‡ 1.95 0.5 24.5 —
8.1 12.1 6.4 4.8 0.6† 6.5 2.5 3.7 5.8 6.1 3.9 19.5
Gas: GWhg
Typical-practice demand
New build except where marked. 95% efficient boilers assumed unless stated otherwise: †80% efficient boiler, ‡70% efficient boiler, §total number of houses.
— — —
— 230 112 7 — — — — — 1220§ —
— 330 550 — — 523 — — — 750 236 —
No. rooms
Table 2. Details of the annual energy demand for typical buildings in Eastside in January 2005
Total emissions (106 kg CO2)
— — —
Retail and leisure Apartments (1 bed) Apartments (2 bed) Live, work units Education Mixed use Education Offices Education Domestic properties Mixed use
— 58.0
Mclaren Tower City Park Gate
45.0 100.0 90.0 682.8 (excluding Aston University)
Offices Hotel Apartments Law court Offices Apartments Offices Supermarket Library Apartment (student) Apartments (prestige) Offices
58.0
Masshouse
Technology Park Learning and Leisure Quarter Park Totals Total thermal energy
Building type
Site area: 1000 m2
Development site
Total floor area: 1000 m2
22.7
— — — 119.9 (106.0 GWhth)
6.7 1.6 1.1 0.2 1.1 0.6† 31.4‡ 1.1 0.4 2.5 —
4.4 7.9 4.2 2.6 0.3† 4.3 1.4 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 10.6
Gas: GWhg
71.7
— — — 166.9
6.9 0.7 0.4 0.08 0.3 8.1 83.0 2.1 0.1 5.5 —
9.0 2.4 1.7 5.4 0.6 1.8 2.8 10.2 0.7 1.7 1.5 21.7
Electricity: GWhe
Good-practice demand
respective percentage breakdown varies significantly with building type). In a naturally ventilated office the annual ratio of electricity demand to gas is approximately 1 : 3, whereas for an air-conditioned prestige office it can be as low as 10 : 6. The electricity demands for computing facilities in larger offices can far exceed the combined demands from cooling, heating, lighting and pumps.20 The cooling may also be directly linked to high energy demands for computing. Heating and cooling demands within offices can typically be decreased considerably through good design (e.g. natural ventilation and solar gain) and these are primary considerations for the Masshouse development within Eastside (Fig. 2). The typical and good-practice energy demands for 39 universities in Northern Ireland are shown in Table 1.21 These are in broad agreement with the energy demands of 114 kWhg/m2/year gas and 43 kWhe/m2/year electric reported for De Monfort University, UK.22 The gas consumption for heating within the Aston University campus, situated within Eastside, has been reported to be in excess of 31 GWhg/year.23 The floor area is approximately 240 000 m2. This total consumption value for Aston campus is used in Table 2. A more detailed analysis could be achieved by considering demands for individual academic buildings (lecture rooms, theatres, catering, residential),24 although this is beyond the scope of this current research. Relevant benchmarks relating to universities and colleges are available through Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) Guide F, Part C, 2004.25 Energy demands from new air-conditioned libraries within the UK in 2004 were 182 kWhg/m2/year gas and 307 kWhe/m2/year
electric, while those for naturally ventilated were 121 kWhg/m2/ year gas and 48 kWhe/m2/year electric.25 These are in broad agreement with typical and good-practice energy demand data reported for 40 libraries in Northern Ireland, as shown in Table 1.21
2.3. Shopping: supermarkets and retail It has been reported that a newly constructed supermarket with a floor area of 5000 m2 would have a total energy demand of 1265 kWh/m2/year (930 kWhe/m2/year electric and 334 kWhg/m2/year gas).26 This figure is in broad agreement with the total energy demand values of 1172 kWh/m2/year reported by Sainsbury (UK)27 for the 1994/95 period; 1115 kWh/m2/year (900 kWhe/m2/year electric and 200 kWhg/m2/year gas) reported in The London Renewables toolkit;28 1211 kWh/m2/year reported by Tesco in the 2005 period;29 and 1254 kWh/m2/year reported for supermarkets in Northern Ireland.21 It is possible that the size of the supermarket could influence energy demands, although relevant data were not found during this research. The average consumption of energy within retail buildings in the UK in 1999 was reported to be 150 kWh/m2/year (74 kWhg/year gas and 76 kWhe/year electric).30 This was based on a straight line drawn through consumption data collected from 74 retail outlets in the UK. The highest demands were for heating (47%) and lighting (42%). A detailed breakdown of energy end-use for retail and other non-domestic buildings can be found in the national database of energy use in non-domestic building stock.31
2.4. Estimated total energy demand for Eastside Based on the information given in sections 2.1 to 2.3 it is possible to estimate the likely typical and good-practice demands for gas and electricity within the Eastside development scheme (Table 2). The data have been compiled based on information in Table 1 using the following assumptions for annual energy use: offices are type 4, hotels are type 1, law courts have the same demands as offices, libraries are type 1, demands from colleges and the New Technology Institute are the same as a type 1 university. Table 2 shows the resulting total estimated energy demands from gas and electricity for typical practice. These are 151 GWhg/year and 194 GWhe/year respectively. If, however, good-practice standards are adhered to, these can be reduced to 119.9 GWhg/year and 166.9 GWhg/year, saving 20.9% gas and 14.2% electric.
Fig. 2. Masshouse under construction Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
Labels similar to those in operation currently for electrical appliances (A–G) have been proposed for buildings.32 A ‘class G’ building would demand more than 200 kWh/m2/year (present regulation) for primary energy consumption (i.e. heating, domestic hot water, ventilation and lighting) whereas a ‘class A’ building would demand 32 kWh/m2/year.32 It is evident that if all buildings in Eastside were built to ‘class A’ standards, considerably more energy savings could be made. Energy rating labels have not been integrated currently into Part L of the Building Regulations, although it is worth noting that the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (Article 7) would like to see it become mandatory for buildings to display an energy certification. Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
159
3. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CHP SUPPLY OPTIONS FOR EASTSIDE Within Eastside there are undoubtedly vast opportunities for the implementation of renewable technologies for supplying energy. In furthering this agenda, Groundwork Birmingham (a nongovernment organisation) commissioned feasibility studies for wind, solar PV and hydroelectric under the guidance of the Eastside Advisory Group (ESAG), Birmingham City Council (BCC) and the sustainability advisors (seconded to BCC). A separate CHP study was also commissioned by the Carbon Trust under the direction of BCC. The present paper brings together the findings of these studies and includes two additional technologies: fuel cells and biomass. A brief introduction to each technology and a critical evaluation of its technical feasibility within Eastside are given in sections 3.1 to 3.6. 3.1. Wind Wind turbines are manufactured with various output capacities ranging from micro-scale 1 kW domestic turbine (e.g. Swift and Windsave) to large-scale 2.5 MWe turbines (offshore or onshore). Larger-scale supplies can be achieved by co-locating the 2.5 MWe turbines in wind farms. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) provides a database,33 including location and output capacities, of existing and planned wind turbines in the UK. This information is vital for informing decision makers in Eastside of the opportunities that exist for wind supply. The production of electricity within Eastside depends on the wind speed, which is governed by geographical location. Typically wind speeds for the UK range from .7.5 m/s in Scotland and Northern and Southern Ireland down to 5.5 m/s in the Midlands region and electricity can be produced from wind speeds of 4 m/s up to 25 m/s, although the wind power output can vary erratically as the wind changes.34 In addition the effect of obstructing buildings and turbulence will affect turbine performance in an urban area such as Eastside. Met Office data for Coleshill, near Birmingham (rural area, clean air) show average windspeeds of 3.35 and 3.51 m/s for 2003 and 2004 respectively.35 At these speeds the wind turbines in Eastside could not produce electricity. If a 1 kWe capacity wind turbine produced 1 kWhe for 24 h per day, 365 days per year it would have a load factor of 100% and produce 8760 kWhe/year; however, even the best on-shore sites in the UK only have a load factor of 25% or 2190 kWhe/year per kWe installed.36 Load factors of 5 and 10% have been assumed for Eastside. There are no onshore wind farms situated in Birmingham currently33 and construction within Eastside would be difficult to envisage because of planning regulations, interference with communications and the ten diameter spacing requirement between turbines. Even so, the development team for the Warwick Bar site (consisting of ISIS—a waterside regeneration specialist, British Waterways and Made—a non-profit-making organisation funded by CABE and Arts Council England) are seeking to implement 11 wind turbines (ten along the canal shown in Fig. 1) for electrical supply, in an aim to make the site carbon neutral.37 While this is a bold step within a city landscape it may be less obtrusive to implement 2 m diameter 1.5 kW micro wind turbines on rooftops.35,38 Turbines situated on high rooftops, such as the 14-storey Masshouse development (Fig. 2) 160
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
would have less visual impact—one of the major barriers to wind supply in Eastside currently. 3.2. Solar-photovoltaic (PV) There are currently several types of PV panel on the market, which could be utilised in Eastside, each with different output efficiencies (analogous to load factor) for converting light to electricity (e.g. mono-crystalline: 15%; poly-crystalline: 8–12%; amorphous silicon: 4–6%; and cadmium telluride and copper indium diselenide: 7–9%).39 PV is modular, therefore in theory could be used to output electricity at any scale within Eastside, although output depends on angle of placement and hours of sunshine, which are related to seasonal trends. Over a 30-year period (1970–2000), according to Met Office data,35 Birmingham received an average of 1.6 h/day of bright sunshine (1 kWh/m2 solar irradiation) in the winter and 5.5 h/day in the summer. Assuming this is indicative of Eastside, a 15% efficient PV module in near-ideal conditions oriented between SW and SE at an elevation of between 30 and 408 will produce approximately 135 kWhe/m2/year.40 Flat-mounted PV would receive 90% of this power output. Bedzed has 777 m2 of this type of PV array built into building fac¸ades.18 Alexander stadium, situated in close proximity to Eastside, produces 80 MWhe/year or 53 kWhe/m2/year of electricity only from 1500 m2 (102 kWe) of amorphous silicon PV array located on the roof.40 PV is an attractive option for Eastside as it can be bolted on to rooftops of both existing and new buildings, or integrated into the fabric of new buildings.40 While for many developments in the planning stages integration of PV into the fac¸ades would be straightforward (Fig. 2), the adoption for others, such as Millennium Point (Fig. 3), would be on a retrofit basis and therefore more expensive.40 In addition there is the problem of choosing which technology to invest in, in so as to maximise electrical output. Losses owing to normal operation and inverters, used to change d.c. output supply into a.c. for direct use within the home or for supply to the grid, are ignored. Inverters need to be set properly for grid voltages also. Too high a voltage will cause the inverter to drop out, with possible loss of supply for Eastside.40 3.3. Hydroelectric There are various types of hydroelectric system available currently for producing mechanical power or electricity from
Fig. 3. South-facing fac¸ades at Millennium Point
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
running water which could be used in Eastside (e.g. water wheels, Kaplan turbines, cross-flow turbines and variable-speed siphon propeller turbines41). Electricity production from hydro relies on a sufficient flow rate and height drop (i.e. head of water). Eastside has three possible sites for hydroelectric power: two on the River Rea (flow rate measured as 1.1 m3/s at Calthorpe Park) and one where the Grand Union Canal (Fig. 4) passes over the River Rea (Fig. 5) with a head of 5 m.42 The last of these options would cause water losses within the canal. This could be overcome if the canal were fed by a water source, although this is not the case currently. Cross-flow turbines and variable-speed siphon turbines could be included for low-head applications in all three areas.42
3.4. Biomass For the purpose of the present paper, biomass is assumed to be fast-growing trees such as willow (Salix viminalis) planted at a density of one tree per square metre, which can be harvested every three years by coppicing.43 Based on the assumption that biomass is grown using fertilisers, pesticides and frequent harvesting, it is reported that yields can range from 10 to 12 t/ha/year (i.e. 30–36 t/ha on a three-year harvesting cycle43). This planting density equates to approximately 7.5 kWhth/m2 of thermal output per year.44 In reality is difficult to envisage how biomass could be grown within a city landscape such as Eastside. It is, therefore, likely that such a fuel source would be grown outside of Eastside and transported into the development. It could be burned within a CHP plant (see section 3.5) as opposed to using gas.
3.5. Combined heat and power (conventional) A CHP system converts fuel energy (e.g. fossil, biomass or geothermal) to electricity and useful heat.45 The systems are well known within the UK; there are over 1500 CHP sites in operation currently and some are in close proximity to Eastside.46 Conventional gas-fired ‘micro-CHP’ systems (e.g. 1 kWe WhisperTech47) can be used in domestic homes. They have a high heat to electrical output capacity ranging between 6 : 1 to 4 : 1, with total efficiencies of between 85% and 95% respectively. In comparison, a large CHP systems (e.g. 49 MWe geothermal plant at Millbrook, Southampton48) can supply heat and power to
Fig. 4. The Grand Union Canal looking NW at point X on Fig. 1 (showing narrowed bridge section over River Rea) Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
Fig. 5. The River Rea flowing beneath the Grand Union Canal bridge (at point X on Fig. 1)
towns. The ratio is lower, typically 2 : 1 although efficiencies are broadly similar. The proposed Eastside CHP scheme seeks to implement two 1.5 MWe reciprocating engines, as opposed to a steam turbine, with an overall efficiency of 73%; 35% electrical and 38% thermal.23 The system will provide heat and electricity to six public sector buildings within the city centre, two within Eastside (Aston University, Millennium Point) and four in close proximity (Victoria Law Courts, Crown Courts, Childrens Hospital and 1 Lancaster Circus). The CHP system will be located within an energy centre located in close proximity to Millennium Point (Fig. 1) and will have space capacity to introduce a further 3 MWe for delivery of CHP to other new buildings within Eastside.23 The output capacity of the CHP system for Eastside can be matched to individual building requirements. While it is technically possible to use the system 24 h per day, seven days per week for 365 days per year, it is very unlikely. Existing data taken from several buildings within Eastside showed that heating was used for a maximum of 2068 h/year23 (i.e. 32% of the year), this value has been used as an upper limit for the heating supplied through the CHP system in Eastside. However, rule of thumb suggests that it is most economic to run a CHP plant for 4000 h/year. It is important to note that the heating requirements will change seasonally and therefore electricity outputs will vary accordingly. If the plant were to run at 4000 h/year or if electrical output were required in summer months when heating was not, it may be necessary for the Eastside development to use thermal storage for the excess heat or to use it in absorption chillers for cooling developments. In theory there is potential for Eastside to utilise waste heat from the Tyseley incineration plant, situated 4.1 miles from Eastside, in a similar manner to the CHP plant in Sheffield.49 The Tyseley plant has a 30 MWe electrical capacity and runs for 24 h per day, 365 days per year currently, producing 262.8 GWhe/year. Unfortunately, while high-grade heat could be exported using economisers and steam removal, it would be expensive and would reduce electrical output. The downtime required for implementation of these modifications in addition to the infrastructure costs make it unviable currently for Eastside.23
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
161
162
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
Hunt et al.
Table 3. Assessing the costs of renewable energy for Eastside in January 2005
CHP SOFC (gas) Biomass
Hydro CHP (gas)
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
power capacity, †100 m height and 80 m diameter blades, ‡price for 2.5 MW turbines, §power to heat ratio of 1 : 6 (WhisperTech Micro-CHP), }power to heat ratio of 35 : 38 (typical of Eastside), power ratio to heat ratio of 1 : 1.3.
6.7–33 m2
LF ¼ 5% LF ¼ 10% LF ¼ 5% LF ¼ 10% 6.7–33 m2 6.7–33 m2 6.7–33 m2 LF ¼ 50% PV
Output capacity: kWe
1 1 5000† 5000† 1 (5%) 1 (10%) 1 (15%) 20 1 5000 1 Wind
This section assesses the sustainable cost for the various technologies outlined in section 3. The quantitative costs are shown in Table 3 and described in further detail below.
Technology
4. ASSESSING THE COSTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CHP IN EASTSIDE
Details
While the present paper has, by necessity, limited itself to five different ‘supply-side’ technologies, it is important to note that many others exist (e.g. solar thermal and ground source heat pumps). While they are beyond the scope of this paper, the possible contribution they could give to energy supply in Eastside should not be ignored. In addition there is huge potential for energy supplies to be sourced from outside the Eastside region and in achieving sustainable credentials these should be from sustainable sources.
Specific details
3.7. Other technologies
Installed ††
— — 4.7 2.3 0.6 1.2 1.7 — — — — — — — 2720 2720 192 740 1600 — — — — — 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.19 — — 20 20 — — 25–40 .20 .20 .20 5–10 20–30 56 [38] 23 [16] 32 [22] 13 [9] 121 [84] 93 [64] 81 [56] 10 [15] 23 [15] 4.5 [3.1] 33 [22] — 1000 1000 568‡ 568‡ 1500 2300 3000 5000 1600 1363 3000 —
CO2 saved: kg/kWh Durability: years E: electricity: MWhe/year
Th: thermal: MWhth/year
EC: equipment cost: £/kW
Domestic and [non domestic] payback of EC: years
Costs Potential energy supply
A fuel cell briefly consists of an anode and cathode with an electrolyte between each. By using hydrogen as a fuel, electricity can be produced through an electrochemical process with water as a by-product.50 There are many types of fuel cell available (solid oxide fuel cell system (SOFC), proton exchange membrane, phosphoric acid fuel cell9) with output capacities ranging from 1 We up to 250 kWe (e.g. Westinghouse). Larger 30 MWe capacities can be achieved through a combination of fuel cell stacks (e.g. Dows Freeport, Texas, USA). Potentially, owing to their high efficiency, fuel cells could be used at domestic scale in Eastside as an alternative to conventional micro-CHP boilers. The heat and power output ratio of micro-CHP fuel cells, 1 kWe to 1.3 kWth respectively, is typically much higher than conventional micro-CHP units, with an efficiency of around 80% for an SOFC.45 SOFC is a particularly attractive fuel cell because it can produce large amounts of high-grade heat (.10008C); it can also be run on natural gas, as opposed to hydrogen, avoiding the complications of generating hydrogen within Eastside. Hydrogen has an energy content of 1.2 MJ/kg, compared with 0.5 MJ/kg for natural gas,51 and can be used as a fuel for powering these fuel cells. Unfortunately, conventional hydrogen production, by reforming natural gas, releases CO2 and therefore this has a negative effect on climate change. It may not therefore be the best route for Eastside to take at this time. (This mirrors the problems with traditional electricity production; steam-driven turbines do not produce CO2. In this case it is the combustion of fossil fuels for steam generation that does.) While low-voltage electricity production from renewable supplies could be used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis in Eastside, intermittency will reduce life expectancy of a system. In addition alternative hydrogen-producing technologies including photo-biological methods are in their infancy, making them less robust. Hence they are a less attractive option for Eastside at this time. Unfortunately fuel cells currently are expensive and lack reliability, therefore they are less likely to be adopted in Eastside.
EE: embodied energy: kWhe/kWe
3.6. Future technologies: using fuel cells to drive a micro-CHP unit
0.44 0.0 0.88 0.0 2190 0.0 4380 0.0 0.3–1.5 0.0 0.6–3.0 0.0 0.9–4.5 0.0 240 0.0 2.1 12.4§ 10 340 11 226} 2.1 2.6‡‡ – 0.05–0.2
Payback of EE: years
In addition there are likely to be significant losses in heat during transfer over such a distance.
4.1. Potential for supply It is assumed that energy production for Eastside comes from within the confines of an equivalent total site area of 682 768 m2—that is, footprint. Based on this assumption it would be possible to place 1764 micro wind turbines with a blade diameter of 2 m (i.e. 20 m spacing requirement) on this area. If each turbine had an output capacity of 1.5 kWe and load factor 5%, a total of 1.2 GWhe/year could be generated (i.e. 0.6% of total estimated electrical demand). Doubling the load factor would double the output capacity as shown in Table 3, although a load factor of 10% is unlikely for Eastside. If 15% efficient PV panels, elevated at 358 and orientated west were used, this could generate 91.7 GWhe/year for Eastside (i.e. 47.4% of total estimated typical-practice electrical demands). This would decrease significantly if less efficient PV were adopted in Eastside as shown in Table 3. At a head of 2.0 m with a flow rate of 1.1 m3/s (and assuming a load factor of 50%), the maximum possible capacity that could be installed at each location within Eastside would be 15–20 kWe; this would correspond to a combined annual power production of 210–240 MWhe/year from all three plants.42 This corresponds to 0.1% of the total estimated typical-practice electrical demand for Eastside. In comparison, the Eastside CHP system will provide 41.23 GWhe of electricity (i.e. 21.2% of total estimated typical-practice electrical demand) and 44.77 GWhth of heat (32.8% of total estimated typical-practice thermal demand). If an equivalent area were used to grow biomass, it would be possible to produce 2046 t, equivalent to 5.1 GWhth/year (i.e. 3.7% of total estimated typical-practice thermal demands).
4.1.1. Economic costs and payback. The payback periods for the various technologies outlined in section 3 are shown in Table 3. The payback periods for wind, hydro and PV are based on the equipment cost (EC) divided by the yearly cost savings provided by the equipment. The yearly cost savings are calculated by multiplying the potential energy supply, E, by the cost of mains electricity. At domestic scale the costs for supply of mains electric at 2005 rates are assumed to be 4.12 p/kWhe.52 Non-domestic costs are assumed to be 5.93 p/kWhe.52 It has also been assumed that individuals or local councils would buy systems without loans and would self-operate (hence maintenance costs are not included). This allows for a direct cost comparison to be made between technologies without including complications such as internal rate of return (IRR), whole-life costs and subsidies (cost compensators, see section 4.2). If loans and energy savings companies (ESCO) were used it would then be necessary to introduce the complexities of IRR, etc. Micro-wind turbines cost approximately £1000/kWe 33 and if a load factor of 10% could be achieved a payback period of 23 years (domestic) to 16 years (non-domestic) could be expected. This payback period would increase if the load factor decreased as shown in Table 3. A 15% efficient mono-crystalline PV cells costs around £3000/kWe 39 and therefore payback periods of 81 years (domestic) to 56 years (non-domestic) could be expected for Eastside. These payback periods would increase dramatically with decreased efficiency as shown in Table 3. Typically, the cost for hydro is estimated to be around £2500/kWe. For the Eastside project the cost for the turbines (including erection and commissioning) is estimated to be £5000/kWe, 42 leading to a payback period of ten years Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
(non-domestic) and 14.6 years (non-domestic) respectively. Unfortunately, large amounts of civil engineering works are needed for adoption of these technologies within an urban setting such as Eastside (e.g. sluice gates on the River Rea), pushing costs nearer to £9000/kWe, thereby increasing the payback period to 18.5 years (domestic).42 Any decrease in load factor below 50% would increase the payback time significantly. In 2005 the 3 MWe CHP system was estimated to cost £4.1 million (£1363/kWe for comparison).23 It is assumed that CHP would replace existing large-scale boilers in Aston University and Millennium Point. The payback for such a CHP system consists of many variables including price of fuel (gas), price at which electricity can be sold, the efficiency of the system and the ratio of heat/electric output. The 73% efficient (CHP) reciprocating engine outlined in section 3.5 has a thermal output of 44.77 GWhth/year and has a gas input requirement of 117.80 GWhth/year. The electrical output is 41.23 GWhe/year. The CHP engine is used to replace an existing 80% efficient boiler with thermal output of 44.77 GWhth/year that requires 55.96 GWhg/year from a gas input. Therefore an additional 61.8 GWhg/year of gas input are required. If bought at 1.83 p/kWhg, the non-domestic rate for 2005, this would cost £1.1 million/year.52 The electricity produced by the CHP plant could be sold locally at the non-domestic rate, netting £2.4 million/year. This would result in a net profit of £1.3 million/year leading to a 3.1-year payback period for replacing a conventional boiler with a CHP plant. Maintenance and operating costs can be significant for CHP plants and these would increase payback periods significantly. A more detailed analysis of the real cost implications for a CHP plant in Eastside, including maintenance and operating costs, can be found in the report to Birmingham City Council.23 Based on stack prices for the period 2003–2007 it is estimated that fuel cells would cost £3000/kWe,50 leading to a payback period of 33 years (domestic rates) for Eastside (Table 1), although this should reduce significantly as the technology improves and stack prices decrease.50 Biomass is estimated to cost £16/t,44 therefore the cost from an equivalent footprint area would be £32 736. Based on the output capacity of 5.1 GWhth/year, this leads to a figure of 0.6 p/kWhth. This is considerably cheaper than the cost of mains gas and hence these savings could be used to pay back the cost of investing in a specialised biomass CHP system for Eastside. However, there are additional costs such as sourcing, transporting and storing of these materials, which can push costs up significantly. Therefore a payback period has not been included in Table 3. In conclusion, for Eastside, the quickest payback is for CHP and the longest payback period is for PV, although this could be reduced considerably by including subsidies (see section 4.2).
4.1.2. Durability. Typically, PV is estimated to last around 25–45 years40 although the life of balance-of-system (BOS) components and invertors may be considerably less than this. Wind turbines are expected to last 20 years.33 Large-scale hydro and CHP (conventional) systems are expected to last more than 20 years based on case history data. The durability of micro-CHP (conventional) is assumed to be broadly similar to conventional boilers, although long-term data to support this are not available currently. Monitoring over the lifetime of newly installed systems
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
163
would, therefore, be required. Micro and large-scale fuel cells are reported to last for five to ten years currently53 and the region required for growing biomass is estimated to remain productive for 20–30 years.43
4.1.3. CO2 saved. It is assumed that wind, PV and hydro would be used as alternatives to conventional (mains) electricity supplies and therefore would save 0.43 kg CO2 for every kWhe produced by each technology. Biomass is assumed carbon neutral—that is, the plant uptakes CO2 during its lifetime which exactly matches that released during combustion; therefore for every kWhg of gas that is replaced, 0.19 kg CO2 will be saved.54 It is assumed that a CHP system would replace an existing 80% efficient boiler, similar to those found at Millennium Point, and therefore must meet the same thermal output capacity (kWhth). CHP systems replace electricity supplied through the grid and therefore for every kWhe produced they save 0.43 kg CO2. Conventional and fuel cell CHP systems, however, require a supply of gas. Any CO2 savings that are made by replacing an existing boiler with a CHP system need, therefore, to be calculated by considering the whole process from gas input to energy output for each system. This has been done for Eastside’s 73% efficient CHP reciprocating engine system and an 80% efficient CHP solid oxide fuel cell system (see Fig. 6). Based on these calculations, the net CO2 output of a traditional engine is
0.19 kg/kWhg of gas used; for the CHP reciprocating engine it is 0.08 kg; and for the SOFC it is 0.07 kg. The savings in CO2 for the reciprocating engine and SOFC fuel cell respectively are 0.052 kg/kWhg and 0.067 kg/kWhg. Based on this assumption the Eastside scheme will have a net output of 4 653 000 kg CO2 (saving 5 977 000 kg). On a localised level, however, it will double gas consumption and therefore other associated emissions. The CO2 savings are dependent on the efficiencies of both the new system and that being replaced in addition to the ratio of heat to electrical power produced. If the CHP system were to be used instead of a 95% for condensing boilers,55 the CO2 savings would be far less than that illustrated here. According to Table 3 it is possible to see that the best savings in CO2 can be achieved through wind, PV and hydro and the least is from implementing CHP.
4.1.4. Embodied energy and payback. Also referred to as the
energy balance, this is the amount of energy used to manufacture, operate, maintain, repair and ultimately deconstruct a technology, divided by the energy supplied by the technology throughout its lifetime. According to the Danish Wind Industry Association (DWIA),56 wind turbines have embodied energy of 2720 kWhe per kWe capacity manufactured. Each 2.5 MWe capacity turbine running at a load factor of 5% can produce 1095 MWhe/year, resulting in a payback period of 4.7 years. This can be shortened as the load factor increases as shown in Table 3, and payback periods Losses = 0.2 kWh of three to four months have been reported for the most Boiler Gas = 1.00 kWhg . 0 80 kWhth 80% heat energy-efficient turbines.57 Released CO2 = 0.19 kg (i) The total energy required to produce a PV panel is depen(a) dent on type.58–62 Typically it . is estimated that it would Losses = 0 56 kWh require up to 1600 kWhe/m2, . 38% heat 0 80 kWhth 740 kWhe/m2 and Gas = 2.10 kWhg (A) CHP 192 kWhe/m2 respectively to Released CO2 = 0.40 kg (ii) produce poly-crystalline, 0.74 kWhe 35% electric mono-crystalline and Saved CO2 = 0.32 kg (iii) amorphous silicon panels.63 Total CO2 released = ii – iii = 0.08 kg (iv) Based on these assumptions it CO2 saved compared with (a) = i – iv = 0.11 kg (v) would take 1.7, 1.2 or 0.6 years CO2 saved = v/A = 0.11/2.10 = 0.052 kg CO2/kWhg to pay back the embodied (b) energy respectively. The BOS for PV systems have been estimated to take Losses = 0.36 kWh 0.21–0.37 years for payback.63 .80 kWhth 0 45% heat The embodied energy of CHP and fuel cell systems is not CHP Gas = 1.78 kWhg well reported and therefore Released CO2 = 0.34 kg . 0 62 kWhe 35% electric merely emphasises the need for Saved CO2 = 0.27 kg transparency in providing Total CO2 released = 0.07 kg data from manufacturing . CO2 saved compared with (a) = 0 12 kg processes. CO2 saved = 0.12/1.78 = 0.067 kg CO2/kWhg
(c)
4.2. Costs compensators Fig. 6. Energy balance for comparing conventional boilers with CHP technologies: (a) conventional boiler system at Millennium point (80% efficient); (b) CHP: Eastside’s reciprocating engine system (73% efficient); and (c) CHP: the solid oxide fuel cell system (80% efficient) 164
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
The cost compensators can make renewable technologies appear less expensive, and this
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
is the primary reason for omitting these subsidised costs from Table 3. However, these are important considerations for Eastside and the UK, therefore a brief description of them is given here. On 1 April 2001 the climate change levy (CCL), a tax on the use of energy used in industry, commerce and the public sector, was introduced for non-domestic customers at a rate of 0.43 p/kWhe for electric and 0.15 p/kWhth for gas.64 Renewable energy is exempt from the CCL. Even with the tax in place, however, PVgenerated electricity still remains significantly more expensive than conventional electricity. The renewables obligation (RO),65 introduced on 1 April 2002, aimed to encourage UK energy suppliers to generate 5% of their energy from renewable sources by 2003 and 10% by 2010. Those failing to do so incurred costs of 3.05 p/kWhe. The Clear Skies programme66 (funded by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and managed through the British Research Establishment (BRE)), now replaced by the low carbon building programme,67 will award grants of up to 50% for PV and ground-source heat pumps in objective 2 (i.e. those facing structural difficulties) areas such as Eastside. These grants would halve payback times for PV shown in Table 3. These savings are significant and therefore are being sort for Eastside. The Energy Savings Trust awards grants to get community energy projects up and running: the feasibility study for Eastside was funded through such a scheme.68 In addition, on 28 June 2005 the Eastside project secured £1.3 million from the DTI towards its proposed CHP scheme.
5. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION This paper has presented baseline data for typical and goodpractice energy demands within Eastside and an evaluation of the costs relating to well-publicised technologies being used currently to meet reductions in CO2 emissions. The information is important for key decision makers in Eastside and provides unbiased insight into the barriers, enablers, trade-offs and synergies (e.g. economic gain and risk management). The presentation of data makes it easier to assess how many wind turbines, PV panels or hydro power systems would be needed to meet energy demands and CO2 reduction targets on a localised scale for Eastside. A summary of the potential generating capacities from renewable energy technologies for Eastside is shown in Table 4. It can be seen that PV, wind and hydro could potentially provide 48.1% of the total typical demand for electricity, while CHP could meet 21.2% or more (depending on the capacity chosen). PV could reduce CO2 emissions by 35.1%, but at a cost of £305 million, whereas the current CHP scheme, although cheaper at £4.1 million will reduce emissions by 5.3% only. When used in combination, these technologies could reduce
Technology Wind PV Hydro CHP Biomass Total
Capacity: MWe
Capacity: MWth
Output: GWhe/year
% of total electrical demand—typical and [good practice]
2.6 102.0 0.06 3.0 N/A 107.66
N/A N/A N/A 3.3 — 3.3
1.2 91.7 0.24 41.2 N/A 134.34
0.6 [0.7] 47.4 [57] 0.1 [0.12] 21.2 [25.4] N/A 69.3 [83.22]
CO2 emissions by 43.5% only. While this is over the 20% target for 2020, it is somewhere behind the 60% target from within the sector and this is within the 50-year design lifetime for buildings. Therefore, based on this research, no individual technology has the potential currently to be self-sustaining (i.e. meet typical demands) for the various building types, or to reduce CO2 emissions in line with 2050 targets if typical demands, as presented in this paper, were adhered to. By introducing goodpractice measures, however, it can be seen that a further 16% CO2 can be saved, taking the total to around 60%. Therefore the target could be reached for Eastside. It should be noted that wind and PV electricity generation will be affected by obstruction of buildings and vegetation. In addition it may be out of phase with local occupancy or energy requirements due to the intermittency of energy production from such technologies. Future research could look at matching Eastside’s energy demands by time of day (week/month) with potential generation and transmission in order to find the correct energy mix for all technologies presented here. The efficiency of these supply-side technologies will be improved over time, increasing their energy supply potential for an area such as Eastside. Large savings in energy can, however, be made immediately in Eastside through reductions in the demand-side through improved energy efficiency of buildings (particularly reduction in heating demand) and energy-using technologies (fridges, computers, TVs, cookers, showers, heaters, etc.). This then simply emphasises the case for organisations and individuals to focus on minimising energy and resource use in existing buildings before new developments are approved and communicating the benefits of ‘environmental buildings’ to homebuyers and developers as a priority.69 While it is possible currently to deliver a newly constructed 40% efficient house (achieving 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050), it would require radical changes in current policy.70 Nevertheless, many see the replacement of older, energy-inefficient buildings as a part of the solution for Eastside. Currently, development schemes such as Eastside will struggle to utilise and apply these findings in application of national targets, translated to the local level. They provide, however, the potential to form the basis of an energy strategy for the area. With this scenario set, the energy demands for Eastside will be satisfied only if energy supplies continue to be sourced from outside the Eastside development; and if CO2 reduction targets are to be met these will have to be from renewable sources. While there are uncertainties over which technologies will ultimately be adopted, both within and outside Eastside, an open-ended approach to energy supply will be needed (i.e. that which facilitates ease of technology renewal, replacement and expansion), and this can be achieved by
Output: GWhth/year
% of total thermal demand—typical and [good practice]
Cost: £m
CO2 savings compared with normal demand: %
N/A N/A N/A 44.7 5.1 49.8
N/A N/A N/A 32.8 [42.0] 3.7 [4.8] 36.5 [46.8]
2.6 305.0 0.54 4.1 0.032736 313
2.2 35.1 0.1 5.3 0.9 43.6
Table 4. Possible energy supply for Eastside in January 2005 Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
165
introducing multi-utility tunnels (MUTs).71 Moreover, while transport and emissions issues are, generally, outside the remit of these studies, it is clear that an integrative approach to costing energy needs to be taken. The findings of this research underline the importance of taking into account all aspects of energy sourcing, supply, use, yield and outputs, yet it merely scratches the surface of energy’s interrelationships with the environmental and economic aspects. Engineering a sustainable built environment with respect to energy is a social issue also and it is crucial that such an approach be set within a multi-agency, multi-professional and multi-utility context. Ideally, this context will include sustainability strategies, at an area level, of which energy issues form a pivotal role, and where methods for wholecost assessment can be utilised to assist planning, policy and strategy objectives. There are, however, many imponderables in costing energy, although this paper provides an insight into this area.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Eastside Sustainable Development Project is a joint venture between the University of Birmingham and the University of Central England in Birmingham. The authors wish to thank the referees for their very useful comments, which have been used to amend the paper during the review process, and to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for their financial support for this research project under grants GR/S 20482 and EP/C 513177.
REFERENCES 1. UNITED NATIONS . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. See: www.unfccc.int 2. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . A Strategy for Developing Carbon Abatement Technologies for Fossil Fuel Use Carbon Abatement Technologies Programme. DTI, London, 2005, p. 80. 3. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . The Energy White Paper. DTI, London, 2003. 4. COGHLAN A. ‘Too little’ oil for global warming. New Scientist, 2003, 5 October, No. 2415, p. 18. 5. JOHNSTON D., LOWE R. and BELL M. An exploration of the technical feasibility of achieving CO2 emission reductions in excess of 60% within the UK housing stock by the year 2050. Energy Policy, 2005, 33, No. 13, 1643–1659. 6. WEST MIDLANDS REGIONAL ASSEMBLY . West Midlands Energy Strategy—Public Consultation Document. WMRA, Birmingham, 2004. 7. HUNT D. V. L. and ROGERS C. D. F. Barriers to sustainable infrastructure in urban regeneration. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 2005, 158, No. 2, 67–81. 8. JEFFERSON I., ROGERS C. D. F. and HUNT D. V. L. Achieving sustainable underground construction in Birmingham Eastside? Proceedings of IAEG 2006, Nottingham, 2006, p. 12. 9. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . Gas consumption data at local authority level. Energy Trends, DTI, London, 2005. 10. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . Experimental electricity consumption data at local authority level. Energy Trends, DTI, London, 2003.
166
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
11. HAWKES A. and LEACH M. Solid oxide fuel cell systems for residential micro-combined heat and power in the UK: key economic drivers. Journal of Power Sources, 2005, 149, 72–83. 12. YAO R. and STEEMERS K. A method of formulating energy load profile for domestic buildings in the UK. Energy and Buildings, 2005, 37, No. 6, 663–671. 13. BALARUS C. A., DROUTSA K., ARGIRIOU A. A. and ASIMAKOPOULOS D. N. Potential for energy conservation in apartment buildings. Energy and Buildings, 2000, 31, No. 2, 143–154. 14. BRITISH RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT . SAP: The Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. Published on behalf of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) by BRE, Watford, 2001, p. 31. 15. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER . The Building Regulations 2000: Conservation of Fuel and Power in New Dwellings, Part L1A. ODPM, London, 2006, p. 39. 16. BRITISH RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT . SAP: The Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. Published on behalf of Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) by BRE, Watford, 2005. p. 74. 17. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . DTI Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES). DTI, London, 2004. 18. LAZARUS N. Beddington Zero (Fossil) Energy Development. Toolkit for Carbon Neutral Developments. Parts 1 and 2. Bioregional Development Group, Sutton, 2001. 19. CARBON TRUST . Energy Efficiency in Hotels: A Guide for Owners and Managers (ECG036). Carbon Trust, London, 1997, p. 30. 20. DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT , TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS . ECON19: Energy Efficiency in Offices: A Technical Guide for Owners and Single Tenants. DETR, London, 2003. 21. JONES P. G., TURNER R. N., BROWNE D. W. J. and ILLINGWORTH P. J. Energy Benchmarks for Public Sector Buildings in Northern Ireland. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), London, 1991, p. 8. See: www.cibse.org/pdfs/energy_benchmarks.pdf (accessed 4/07/05). 22. BRITISH RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT . Good Practice Guide 207: Cost Effective Low Energy Buildings in Further and Higher Education. BRE, Watford, 1997, p. 8. 23. L’INDUSTRIELLE DE CHAUFFAGE ENTERPRISE . Report on the Feasibility of Developing a Large-scale CHP/Community Energy Scheme in Eastside. Crawley, 2004. 24. DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT , TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS . ECG054 Energy Efficiency in Further and Higher Education. Energy Consumption Guide 54. DETR Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, DETR, London, 1997. 25. CHARTERED INSTITUTION OF BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERS . CIBSE Guide F: Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Part C: Benchmarks. CIBSE, London, 2004, p. 204. 26. MAIDMENT G. G. and TOZER R. M. Combined cooling heat and power in supermarkets. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2002, 22, No. 6, 653–665. 27. JONES P. G., BOND M. and GRIGG P. F. Energy benchmarks for retail buildings. Proceedings of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) National Conference, Harrogate, 1999, pp. 50–58.
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
28. FABER MAUNSELL . Integrating renewable energy into new developments: toolkit for planners, developers and consultants. Greater London Authority, London, 2004, p. 203. See www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/ energy/renew_resources.jsp 29. TESCO . Tesco Corporate Responsibility Review 2005, Energy and Water. See www.tesco.com/csr/g/g1.html 30. MORTIMER N. D., ASHLEY A., ELSAYED M., KELLY M. D. and RIX J. H. R. Developing a database of energy use in the UK non-domestic building stock. Energy Policy, 1999, 27, No. 8, 451–468. 31. MORTIMER N. D., ASHLEY A. and RIX J. H. Detailed energy surveys of non-domestic buildings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 2000, 27, No. 1, 25–32. 32. POUSSARD E. Promoting bioclimatic and solar conservation: guide for a building energy label, 2005. See http:// www.cler.org/predac/IMG/pdf/WP4_guide_interior.pdf (accessed 15/09/05). 33. BRITISH WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION . BWEA, London, 2005. See www.bwea.com/map/ (accessed 04/07/05). 34. SHARMAN H. Why wind power works for Denmark. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 2005, 158, Special Edition 1, 66–72. 35. UK MET OFFICE . See www.metoffice.gov.uk 36. PHILLIPS M., TREVELYAN C. and LEANEY V. Wind Power Feasibility Study for Eastside—Final Report. Dulas Ltd, Machynllyth, 2004. 37. GRIMLEY T. Now a wind farm in Digbeth. The Birmingham Post, 24 November 2005. 38. RAVINDRANATH P. Small wind turbines—the unsung heroes of the wind industry. Refocus, 2002, 3, No. 2, March–April, 30–36. 39. BAHAJ A. Solar photovoltaic energy: generation in the built environment. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 2005, 158, Special Edition 2, 45–51. 40. BONHAM -CARTER C. and CHESIRE D. Solar Power Feasibility Study for Eastside—Final Report. Faber Maunsell, London, 2004. 41. MILLER G. and KAUPPERT K. Old watermills—Britain’s new source of energy? Civil Engineering, 2002, 150, No. 4, 178–186. 42. DOAKE R. M. and TURNBULL K. W. Hydro Power Feasibility Study for Eastside—Final Report. Faber Maunsell, London, 2004. 43. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT . Farm Diversification New Business Ideas—Specialist Crops and Livestock: Biomass. DARDNI, Co. Armagh, Northern Ireland, 2002, p. 2. 44. NONHEBEL S. Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2005, 9, No. 2, 191–201. 45. COMBINED HEAD AND POWER ASSOCIATION . 2005. See www.chpa.co.uk (accessed 21/06/05). 46. OFFICE OF GAS AND ELECTRICITY MARKETS . CHP Database: Public Data. OFGEM, London, 2005. Downloaded from www.ofgem.gov.uk (accessed 21/06/05). 47. CROZIER -COLE T. and JONES G. The Potential Market for Micro CHP in the UK. Report presented to the Energy Saving Trust by Energy for Sustainable Development Limited, Ref: P00548, Wiltshire, 2002, p. 44.
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
48. BATCHELOR T. Geothermal energy: a major renewable energy source. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 2005, 158, Special Edition 2, 40–44. 49. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT . GPCS 81 Good Practice Case Study 81: Community Heating in Sheffield. BRECSU. BRE, Watford, 1994. 50. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . A Fuel Cell Vision for the Future—The First Steps, Taking the White Paper Forward. DTI, London, 2003, p. 13. 51. BOEKER E. and VAN GRONDELLE R. Environmental Physics, 2nd edn. Wiley, London, 1999, p. 99. 52. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER . Regulatory Impact Assessment, Part L and Approved Document F. ODPM, London, 2006, p. 105. 53. LOKURLU A., GRUBE T., HOHLEIN B. and STOLTEN D. Fuel cells for mobile and stationary applications—cost analysis for combined heat and power stations on the basis of fuel cells. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2003, 28, 703–711. 54. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT , FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS . Environmental Reporting Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Defra, London, 2005. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/ gas/index.htm 55. SEASONAL EFFICIENCY OF DOMESTIC BOILERS IN THE UK. Boiler Efficiency Database. SEDBUK, London, 2005. See www.sedbuk.com 56. DANISH WIND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION . Operation and Maintenance Costs for Wind Turbines. DWIA, 2005. See www.windpower.org 57. PALZ W. and ZIBETTA H. Energy pay-back time of photovoltaic modules. International Journal of Solar Energy, 1991, 10, 211–216. 58. BLAKERS A. and WEBER K. The Energy Intensity of Photovoltaic Systems. Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems, Engineering Department, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 2000. 59. LEE T., OPPENHEIM D. and WILLIAMSON T. Australian Solar Radiation Data Handbook. Energy Research and Development Corporation, 249, 1995. 60. DONES R. and FRISCHKNECHT R. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic systems: results of Swiss studies on energy chains. Progress in Photovoltaics Research Applications, 1998, 6, No. 2, 117–125. 61. FRANKL P., MASINI A., GAMBERALE M. and TOCCACELI D. Simplified life cycle analysis of PV systems in buildings: present situation and future trends. Progress in Photovoltaics Research Applications, 1998, 6, No. 2, 137–146. 62. KATO K., MURATA A. and SAKUTA K. Energy payback time and life cycle CO2 emission of residential PV power system with silicon PV module. Progress in Photovoltaics Research Applications, 1998, 6, No. 2, 105–115. 63. ALSEMA E. E. Energy pay-back time of CO2 emissions of PV systems. Progress in Photovoltaics Research Applications, 2000, 8, 17–25. 64. HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE . The Climate Change Levy (General) Regulations 2002 SI No. 838. HMSO, London, 2002. See www.hmso.gov.uk 65. OFFICE OF GAS AND ELECTRICITY MAKERS . List of Accredited Generating Stations (RO and CCL). See www.ofgem.gov.uk
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
167
66. BRITISH RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT . Clear Skies. BRE, Watford, 2005. See www.clear-skies.org 67. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY . Low Carbon Buildings Programme, Department of Trade and Industry. DTI, London, 2006. See www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk 68. ENERGY SAVINGS TRUST . 2005. See www.est.org.uk 69. See www.sd-commission.org.uk
70. BOARDMAN B., DERBY S., HINNELS M., JARDINE C., PALMER J. and SINDEN G. 40% House Report. A project funded by the Tyndall Centre, 2005, p. 127. 71. ROGERS C. D. F and HUNT D. V. L. Sustainable utility infrastructure via multi-utility tunnels. Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering 2006 Conference, Towards a Sustainable Future, paper CT-001, 2006, p. 11.
What do you think? To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at
[email protected] Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author guidelines and further details.
168
Engineering Sustainability 159 Issue ES4
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK
Hunt et al.
![ACT Sustainable Energy Policy: Energy for a sustainable [PDF]](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/act-sustainable-energy-policy-energy-for-a-sustain_64da7ab0098a9ee9528b45d9.jpg)
