Imagine the Solutions

I’ve been thinking a lot about the benefit of design & imagination in construction education recently.

In my opinion the role of an engineering education is not only to teach graduates to think, but to inspire them with the endless possibilities of design. There are many sources of inspiration and whilst students usually reference cultural precedent in their design, resource efficiency is a key issue that can also inspire the imagination. If we equip students with knowledge of the issues and some basic techniques for resource efficient design we can leave it to their imagination to come up with designs that will enable society to solve the problems it faces.

We must however, teach sustainable design in an interdisciplinary manner as no single construction discipline has all the skills necessary to solve all the problems. Designing the buildings of the future will involve all the disciplines from the outset and we need to reflect this in education. I believe that it will become essential for architectural schools to build close relationships with engineering departments. Interdisciplinary teaching with experiential and peer promoted learning will raise the performance of architectural and engineering students alike.

Sustainable design is a philosophy, not a set of rules to stifle individual expression. Sustainability has to be integrated at every level of society from simple changes in individual behaviour to the large scale re-planning of our urban centres to cope with fuel depletion. I am confident that if we inspire future generations of students to think creatively about the problems that confront society, the solutions that they come up with will surprise us all.

Not enough wind for the Olympics

It is somewhat surprising to read the comment in The Times from Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, that the Olympic Park wind turbine is to be scrapped because there is not enough wind on the site.

The Olympic wind turbine was announced in March 2008 in a blaze of glory. Since then has no-one bothered to check the Government’s Wind Energy Database now maintained by the Department of Energy and Climate Change? This clearly indicates that the location for the Olympic turbine is marginal for economic wind generation.

Generating electricity from the wind is critically dependent on the wind speed which is affected by location. Wind speed is dramatically reduced over cities due to friction with buildings dissipating much of the energy as turbulence. It would be unreasonable to expect the Stratford turbine to generate much more than about half that of an identical machine in open country.

Large wind turbines are a significant investment and if the generation potential of a site is poor then wind energy developers will look elsewhere. This may explain why the ODA has failed to find a new developer prepared to step into the breach after the preferred bidder for the turbine withdrew.

There are few other renewable technologies that can match wind power economically. One must hope therefore that the ODA rigorously enforces energy efficiency standards for the new buildings in order to reduce demand. This would be far preferable to wasting public money on expensive renewable technologies to offset 20% of unnecessarily high demand.