MSc Group Project

William Irwin Jeremy Laycock

Andy Cheng Ewan Spence

Roger Carter

Group members:

Project Introduction◦Aim◦Deliverables◦Geographic area and statistics

Areas of Investigation CO2 Reduction Economics Conclusions

◦Transferability

AgendaAgenda

Investigate the potential for a net zero carbon urban community◦ Defined geographical inner city district

- Building interactions- Community energy use

◦ To look at the community as a whole Identify target sectors

◦ Look at different schemes that can reduce carbon emissions in these areas

Innovative use of resources and waste

AimsAims

Cost-benefit sensitivity exercise over the whole community◦ An assessment of the potential CO2 savings of

each scheme◦ A comparison of each scheme based on cost

per tonne of CO2 saved

A methodology that is transferable to other urban communities

AimsAims

MethodologyMethodology

Geographic AreaGeographic AreaDennistounPopulation: 7000

Households: 3300

Electricity consumption:

44GWh per year

Natural Gas consumption:

110GWh per year

CO2 emissions: 64000 tonnes

Project Introduction◦Aim◦Deliverables◦Geographic area and statistics

Areas of Investigation CO2 Reduction Economics Conclusions

◦Transferability

AgendaAgenda

Areas of investigationAreas of investigation

Insulation, double glazing and airtightness Boiler changes on private housing

Method◦ Carry out a housing survey

Create base case matching data acquired

◦ Analysis using EDEM Medium insulation (2002 reg.) Gas condensing boiler

Sensitivity assessment of best scheme◦ Required to be cost effective as well as reduce emissions

Domestic Demand Domestic Demand ReductionReduction

Large Wind Turbine◦ 800kW/2MW Rated Turbines◦ Placed on raised green space in area◦ Generates electricity for brewery◦ Analysis from Windpower and Merit

Photovoltaics◦ Placed on rooftops of tenement blocks◦ Used to meet electrical demand in blocks◦ 3960W system◦ Identified 440 sites◦ Analysis carried out on Merit

Renewable Energy Renewable Energy SystemsSystems

Biomass CHP plant◦ Use fuel derived from waste in industry

Spent grain from brewery◦ Microalgae used as biomass fuel◦ Meets base load of heat and electricity of brewery◦ Meets nearby heat for social housing

Anaerobic Digester◦ Utilises human waste to make biogas

Locate in existing sewage plant Part of a city scale development

◦ Biogas used as fuel

Energy from WasteEnergy from Waste

Microalgae◦ Captures emissions from biomass plant◦ Grown in flat panel photobioreactors◦ Harvested to use as biomass

Urban woodland◦ Plant trees in unused spaces in area◦ Simplest form of Carbon Capture

Carbon Capture and Carbon Capture and SequestrationSequestration

Project Introduction◦Aim◦Deliverables◦Geographic area and statistics

Areas of Investigation CO2 Reduction Economics Conclusions

◦Transferability

AgendaAgenda

Scheme

CO2 saved per year (tonnes)

Percentage of total community emissions saved (%)

Energy from waste 121 0.2

Tree planting 196 0.3

Photovoltaics 907 1.4

Wind turbine 2775 4.6

Demand reduction 5198 8.1

Biomass CHP Of which, microalgae

16857509

26.30.8

Total CO2 saving 26054 40.7

COCO22 Reduction Reduction

COCO22 Reduction Reduction

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000E

ne

rgy

fro

mw

ast

e

Tre

e p

lan

ting

Mic

roa

lga

e

Ph

oto

volta

ics

Win

d tu

rbin

e

De

ma

nd

red

uct

ion

Bio

ma

sso

the

r fu

elsC

arb

on

Dio

xid

e S

avi

ng

(T

on

ne

s)

COCO22 Reduction Reduction

Scheme Capital cost

(£s)

Capital cost per tonnes CO2 saved over 20 year lifecycle (£/tonnesCO2)

Tree planting 5,700 1.5

Biomass 8,840,000 26.2

Energy from waste 67,000 27.7

Wind turbine 2,500,000 45.0

Microalgae 547,000 53.8

Demand Reduction 25,098,000 241.4

Photovoltaics 9,240,000 509.2

Total Cost 46,298,000

EconomicsEconomics

Summary of ResultsSummary of Results

Emissions reduced by: ◦26000 tonnes◦41% of the community◦71% within industrial and domestic

Capital cost of £46million

Project Introduction◦Aim◦Deliverables◦Geographic area and statistics

Areas of Investigation CO2 Reduction Economics Conclusions

◦Transferability

AgendaAgenda

Method transferable to other urban communities◦ Evaluate requirements and resources of the

community

Best Schemes◦ Demand reduction and Biomass CHP best in terms

of Carbon Reduction◦ Biomass CHP is best value economically◦ Other schemes have potential in the future

Innovate use of resources ◦ Investigate waste and fuel sources within the

community

TransferabilityTransferability

Photobioreactor

CO2

AnaerobicDigester

CAFE

GRID

Community Energy FlowCommunity Energy Flow

Brewery

Biomass

Approach specific to urban communities

Carbon reduction most effective with schemes related to heat demand

Difficult to achieve net zero carbon

ConclusionsConclusions

An urban community cannot be thought of in isolation from the rest of the city or country

Transferable methodology

Significant reduction with potential future savings

ConclusionsConclusions

MSc Group Project