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.

HMRC in Meltdown

For once I’m not writing about the environment or the construction industry, but an issue that will affect virtually everyone. I had a long conversation with my accountant yesterday about the implications of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) new requirement for real time reporting of payroll taxation.

From April all businesses must report to HMRC the payroll deductions and payments made to all employees on the day that the payments are made! This is to be known as Real Time Information or RTI.
Back in 2010, HMRC told Channel 4 News that over 40 million UK employees pay tax through PAYE. That means that presently UK employers will submit 40 million annual returns during the 6 weeks following the end of the tax year. From April, UK employers will submit 40 million RTI returns on the last Friday of the month every month!
HMRC is of course introducing a new IT system to allow all the RTI to be submitted online. But remember back in 2008 when HMRC mandated online filing for personal tax returns? On the filing deadline day HMRC’s servers crashed with just 104,000 people accessing the system, leaving 10,000s unable to do so. Do we really believe that just 5 years on HMRC have developed a system which will be able to handle a 400 fold increase in submissions and do it every month reliably?
Also woe betide any employer who makes a mistake in either the calculation or the payment amount. Penalties will apply immediately for any inaccuracy in the RTI reporting. Businesses previously had the opportunity to correct any mistake at the next month provided that the end of year returns were correct. Back to the 2010 Chanel 4 News piece and HMRC also reported that the were 5.7 million mistakes in PAYE calculations and payments. This would be an average of 475,000 mistakes per month, clearly a nice little earner if penalties were applied to each one under the new system.
However, note also that last year HMRC left 1 million letters unanswered. If actions on payroll errors are going to be piling up at a rate of around 1 million every two months, I wonder how long it will take the RTI system to collapse under the backlog? Does anyone want to take a bet with me? I give it six months.

Low Carbon People

MP Don Foster announced at Ecobuild this week, funding for a programme by the Zero Carbon Hub to investigate why energy consumption in low carbon dwellings is higher than expected. The answer is apparent in evidence also available at Ecobuild pointing to the obvious, which the industry and policy makers continue to fail to recognise.

On Tuesday, Ed Davey defended the Green Deal in the face of poor take up and a recent YouGov survey which revealed that the majority of householders have little interest in energy conservation and believe instead that the energy companies should be forced to lower their charges.

In the Edge Debate on Politics of Carbon Measurement, on Wednesday, Lynne Sullivan showed that actual energy consumption in Passivhaus dwellings is 90% below the average and substantially below the best of the rest.

So the reason for the performance gap between prediction and actual outcomes in low carbon homes should be obvious to all:

Passivhaus homes are voluntary. They are built or commissioned by individuals who are already concerned about their carbon footprint and are therefore pre-disposed to a low energy lifestyle.

The Code for Sustainable Homes, Building Regulations Part L et al are well meaning in intent, but the people who will buy the homes are no more interested in energy conservation than the average Briton. They will happily leave the heating on and open all the windows.

Studies of low carbon refurbishments by social housing landlords have already shown the vast variation in energy consumption in identically refurbished flats that occurs simply as a result of lifestyle. In some cases this variation is so great that it actually masks the improvement in efficiency achieved in the refurbishment.

The message is clear. Personal preference and individual behaviour is what drives energy consumption or conservation, not fantastic building fabric energy efficiency standards, nor regulation or checklists and not energy bills (at least yet).

When are politicians going to finally wake up and admit that the climate change and energy crisis is down to the way in which we all behave, not the buildings we behave in. If we want to make any substantial progress on sustainability it is time to start apportioning blame where it really belongs: the workmen (and workwomen) not the tools. Then we need to get on with changing people’s attitudes towards energy.

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.