Fashion Not Function

The ridiculous fashion for urban wind turbines is still showing no sign of abating with the erection of BSkyB’s new turbine at its West London studio complex. Perhaps the continuing political insistence for ineffective on-site renewable generation is to blame. It is not just successive national governments and fashion-following local planning regulations, but all too often we find that corporates are now playing to the populism of green. This collective disregard for engineering reality forces building owners and developers to pay for sub-optimal solutions and forces architects and engineers to try and justify the essentially unjustifiable in defence of what has been forced on them. AJ Footprint 25th April

If you ask a primary school class where we should build wind turbines, the answers usually range from “on top of hills” to “out at sea”, anywhere it is windy. By the time those children arrive at the final year of their architectural degrees the answer has often become “attached to my building as an icon”.

Unfortunately the very nature of buildings is to disrupt the smooth flow of wind which is essential for efficient energy generation. The increased friction due to surface roughness in urban areas reduces the potential power in the wind dramatically. At the height of BSkyB’s turbine, it is only half that of rural areas. In city centres the power available may be just 15% of the open country equivalent (full explanation here).

This location effect is generally accounted for by applying a capacity factor to the theoretical maximum generation of a turbine. The rule of thumb for UK wind power is to assume a capacity factor of 30%-35% for good onshore installations. The generation figures quoted for BSkyB indicate a capacity factor of just less than 15%. Thus the same turbine, at the same cost, could generate more than twice as much electricity if it was not shackled to a building. This doubling in output would more than offset the grid distribution losses (around 6%) to deliver the electricity back to BSkyB in West London.

Two identical Enercon E70 Turbines. The one on the left produces 3.5GWh whilst the one on the right produces 5.7GWh.

Two identical Enercon E70 Turbines. The one on the left produces 3.5GWh pa whilst the one on the right produces 5.7GWh pa. The difference is due to surface friction.

Apart from the very obvious branding potential, urban wind turbines have little going for them. It is time that politicians, national, local and corporate, stopped interfering and let engineers and architects make the best technical systems decisions for genuinely sustainable development.

Energy Incoherence

This has been an interesting month for revealing the effects of the lack of a coherent UK energy policy.

Three fossil fuel power stations have closed; Cockenzie in Scotland (1GW Coal), Didcot A (2GW coal) and Fawley (1GW oil). These recent closures bring the total closures since December 2012 to 7.5GW accounting for about 10% of UK generating capacity.

Didcot A Power StationThese stations were built at a time when we didn’t recognise the damage that carbon dioxide does to our ecosystem, but we did recognise the importance of domestic industry. The UK had, and still has, extensive coal reserves and our power stations were built to exploit this and create growth in UK industrial capacity at a time of optimism.

The closures occurred not because the stations were failing, but due to European legislation on air pollution and a hike in UK carbon taxation. These stations could have continued in operation if pollution control had been installed, or until 2015 in any case under the European Large Combustion Plant Directive. However it appears that the majority of operators have chosen instead to run them flat out during the profitable winter period and shut them down on the eve of a new tax on fossil fuel. The ‘Carbon Floor Price’, to be introduced on 1st April, has a stated purpose of making fossil fuel generation uncompetitive. Congratulations Mr Osborne, you’ve succeeded!

In the same month, the UK’s largest remaining coal mine, Daw Mill Colliery was pushed over the edge of financial viability by an underground fire and closed. The price of coal on the international market has collapsed, pushed down by a glut of american coal caused by their rush to shale gas. Private electricity generators will of course buy coal at the lowest cost available, making the UK coal industry ultimately unviable.

A total of 1000 energy industry jobs have been lost in March.

It is estimated that despite the closure of the majority of coal power stations by 2015, our reliance on imported coal to generate electricity will rise by 70% as the UK coal industry collapses. Of course these power station closures will also increase our reliance on gas to generate electricity. We already import half of gas consumed in the UK and this is expected to rise to 70% by 2019.

We saw an example this month, coincidentally on the day that Didcot A closed, of our sensitivity to gas imports. The UK-Belgian gas pipeline suffered a fault in a dewatering pump and had to be shut down for half a day. During that period the price of gas jumped 50% to an all time high, as it became temporarily scarce. During one of the coldest weeks we’ve experienced for a while, our national reserve of gas was reduced to just 36 hours.

Surely a national energy policy should address energy security and jobs as well as carbon.

Government seems to be banking on new gas generation coming along to fill the gap until the new nuclear power stations come on line. However its policies are focused on renewable energy and its rhetoric is all about beating up energy companies to keep bills low. It has taken its eye off the ball with regard to energy security, jobs and UK industry.

We have a privatised, fragmented energy system whose individual players won’t make necessary investments in new capacity unless they are confident of a return. If Government will not give them that confidence through coherent policy then they won’t invest until market forces drive energy prices sufficiently high. Once electricity becomes a scarce commodity the price will increase, that is the way of the market. If the lights start going out then maybe Government will be happier to discuss the subsidies energy companies are asking for in the absence of policy, but of course, by then, subsidies will be unnecessary.

Right to Low Carbon

This week all attention seems on rights to light. A proposal has been made that the historic right to occupy your home without needing to turn the lights on during the hours of daylight could be brushed away in order to permit more dense urban development.

Surely this is another example of legislators failing to consider the consequences of their actions. We are driving forward with national legislation to force all new buildings to become zero carbon in an attempt to meet our carbon budgets. Meanwhile, work by the Green Construction Board indicates that we will need to work just as hard, if not harder, to cut carbon emissions from the existing building stock. Now we have a proposal that will force an increase in energy consumption on the neighbours of new development that is deemed desirable. I have no doubt that the desirability of the new developments will be based on their energy efficiency credentials, so who actually stands to win from this situation?

However, in the sustainable urban future, we will find that other rights become just as important as rights to light. Our plan to decarbonise the UK presently relies on the pervasive use of PV in the urban environment to supposedly offset carbon emissions at other times of the year. As taxation falls more heavily on carbon emissions I believe that we will see more and more legal disputes over someone interfering with neighbours attempts to cut energy consumption. This will not be just over rights to daylight, but I predict disputes over rights to unpolluted fresh air for natural ventilation and access to renewable energy sources such as the wind and sunshine.

Photo of PV shaded by taller building

This PV installation was an exemplar when installed, until the neighbours built higher.

Since Government is presently considering changes to legislation on rights to light, now is the time to look to the future that we want to build for ourselves and implement broader and better informed legislation that protects building owners rights to comply with carbon emissions legislation in the manner that suits them best.

FiT for Investors

Aviva, on of the UK’s largest financial investment operations has bought up 23MW of domestic PV installations from Homesun, one of the UK’s largest installers of “free” solar panels.

How does Homesun provide people with free solar panels? It allows homeowners to benefit from the electricity generated (if they are at home during the day to use it) but keeps the Feed in Tariff (FiT) payments. Obviously Homesun will have done their homework to ensure that all their installations are on optimally sited roofs (they don’t do installations in Scotland) and as a business I’d guess that they are knocking out installations for little more than £5,000 each with a return of £1,000 PA from the FiT. Of course Homesun don’t use their own money for the installations, they borrow money and now pay a hansom return on those loans, keeping a healthy profit for themselves into the bargain.

Does this sound familiar? In March 2010 I wrote in this blog that FiTs were a public subsidy for the rich and I have gone into print predicting that they would become a means of funneling tax payer’s money to the bankers.

So why would Aviva be interested in Homesun? When the financial markets are in turmoil investors run for low risk investments, typically gilts, but with concerns about sovereign debt even those are not guaranteed anymore. So imagine the attractiveness of a government guaranteed annual payment well in excess of the rate on gilts. That is what Aviva bought when it bought Homesun’s 23MW portfolio, a guaranteed annual income of around £9M. No wonder they were happy to pay some £100M for it.

As I’ve said before: everybody wins, the homeowner with free electricity, Homesun’s shareholders and Aviva’s investors. The only people who lose are those who Homesun judged to have unsuitable roofs, who will fund the FiT payments through increased electricity bills.

Since the recent cut in FiTs, Homesun no longer offers “free” PV installations.

A Shot in the Foot

I have often bemoaned multi-headed government and its total inability to communicate between the left-hand and the right-hand, but this takes the biscuit.

In a valiant attempt to increase the uptake of small-scale renewable energy Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greg Clark, signed into legislation on 30th August an order to extend permitted development rights for the installation of solar panels on properties in Conservation Areas and World Heritage sites. This meant that, for the first time, millions of homeowners could consider the option of installing PV from 1st December 2011.

Then, on 31st October, Greg Barker, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, without warning, announced a dramatic cut in the feed in tariff support for domestic PV effective from 12th December 2011.

At a time when solar installers’ order books are full until spring next year, government has given a large proportion of the population just 12 days to install PV and benefit from the feed in tariffs that many others have enjoyed for the last couple of years. I wonder how many cases will end up in the European Court of human rights over this issue?