Reducing Oriel's Carbon Footprint
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE INSTITUTE
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint Przemyslaw Zelazowski* Adam Gibbon** Jean Christophe Amado** Max Edkins** Ewan Macdonald** Igraine Rhodes*** * Oriel MCR; Environmental Change Institute; DPhil student ** Oriel MCR; MSc Environmental Change and Management *** JCR Environment Rep; PPE student
Acknowledgements This report could not have been possible without the generous assistance and encouragement of the members and staff of Oriel College. Firstly, many thanks to the Provost - Sir Derek Morris, and college fellows Professor Yadvinder Malhi and Dr Nick Eyre for their enthusiasm and for the knowledge they imparted. Thanks also to Wilf Stephenson, Gerald Inns and Helen Kay for their time, patience and questions. We are grateful to Martin Berry and Giles Hobson at the Carbon Trust for their rigorous examination of the college. The subsequent information and proposals they provided were vital to our work. Finally, we would like to thank ECI’s Lower Carbon Futures Team: Catherine Bottrill, Daniel Curtis, Gavin Killip and Dr Russell Layberry, for the invaluable support they lent to our endeavour.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Executive Summary Oriel College has sought to quantify its climate impact, and to investigate ways to reduce it, by commissioning a study into its ‘carbon footprint’. The study was carried out by the Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team made up of students, fellows, specialists in the field, and in conjunction with the Carbon Trust. The study found that Oriel’s carbon footprint is approximately 300 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum; this figure is comprised solely from the use of gas, because all Oriel’s electricity is produced from a carbon neutral hydroelectricity scheme. Whilst electricity use in Oriel does not contribute to the carbon footprint, it was still deemed pertinent to include electricity within broader plans to lower energy use in college, due to the high and increasing cost of providing electricity. A range of solutions from immediate quick fixes such as adjusting thermostats to more visionary, long term, plans such as the use of solar power, were considered. In addition, we explored the potential benefits of behavioural change, both on the part of the students and the college. A road map with priority ordered steps for action is presented at the end of this document. It is hoped this document serves as the first step along the way to significant reductions in energy, emissions, and fuel bills, and puts Oriel College on a path to becoming one of Oxford’s most sustainable colleges.
ii
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
INTRODUCTION
1
DEFINING CARBON FOOTPRINT
2
General remarks Oriel’s specifics
FIRST FOOTPRINT ESTIMATES
6
Summary Critical analysis 1. Accuracy 2. Lack of long term vision 3. Easy opportunities for mitigation 4. Poor guidance on behavioural change
BEHAVIOUR – AN OBSTACLE OR OPPORTUNITY?
9
Students’ role Energy management
GOING THE EXTRA MILE
12
Energy efficiency 1. Improved Glazing and Insulation 2. IT management 3. mCHP Gaining energy from renewable sources 1. Solar Water Heating 2. Photo Voltaics (PV) – generating the college’s own electricity Beyond direct emission reductions 1. Waste management and recycling 2. Travel Related Emissions 3. Supporting carbon sinks Summary of direct investment opportunities Carbon Offsetting
ROAD MAP
22
RESOURCES
24
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Introduction We live in a time when global green house gas emissions grow beyond previously ‘pessimistic’ scenarios. Unfortunately, Governments’ measures for mitigation are still far from matching the needs. As global climate change is known to be accelerated by carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation and gas consumption, virtually everybody can play a role in its prevention. Oriel College has recognised its chance to act to reduce its ‘carbon footprint’ by curbing energy use. As gas and electricity prices continue to rise, reducing energy use is also prudent for economic reasons. Here, we finalise the discussions around Oriel’s carbon footprint, which started around Trinity term of 2007. A group of students, supported by a number of professionals, has formed during these exchanges and we are now called “Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team”. We aim for this document to be a mile stone, marking Oriel’s transition from the state of “willingness to do something” to a state in which clear strategy for action is shaped. This report should be read in conjunction with the document prepared by the Carbon Trust titled “Assessment of Energy Saving Opportunities for Oriel College”, which provided us with the first carbon footprint estimates, as well as some initial ideas on how to reduce college’s emissions. It is hoped the co-operation between Oriel and the Carbon Trust will continue into the future. In the ‘Introduction’ to this report we explain the process of estimating, and then tackling, the carbon footprint. Special attention is
given to the specifics for Oriel College case. In the following chapter ‘First footprint estimates’, the initial results from the Carbon Trust, as well as their critique, are presented. Next chapter is then devoted to obstacles and opportunities related to behaviour. After that follows ‘Going the extra mile’ forming the main bulk of this document, in which we deal with potential additional actions aimed at reduction of Oriel’s carbon footprint (along the lines of emerging energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies), thus extending the list of actions with appropriate justification. Moreover, we draw a rationale for an ‘extra-mile’ approach by the College that would embrace the carbon abatement potential of indirect GHG emissions, carbon sequestration, and offsetting. The last chapter summarises previous ideas into a simple roadmap for Oriel.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Defining carbon footprint General remarks Carbon footprint, “the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly” , is a measure of climate impact most often expressed in units of carbon dioxide, e.g. tonnes. Climate change policy discourse often uses units of carbon dioxide tonnes equivalent (CO2e), to stress the inclusion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG), other than carbon dioxide. Expressing climate impact as an amount of carbon dioxide is very useful for considering the physics of climate change, and allows for direct relating of operations to atmospheric and ecosystem science. However, from the point of view of any organisation functioning on the energy market, including Oriel College, another useful way of expressing the operations affecting climate is in monetary terms. The full footprint of an organisation encompasses a wide range of emission sources, from use of fuels in-place, to employee travel or emissions from other organisations up and down the supply chain. Three levels of emission accounting can be identified: 1. Direct emissions that result form activities the organisation controls. These include emissions that result from direct combustion of fuels, for example, burning gas for heating or fuel for vehicle owned by Oriel. Resulting emissions are directly related to the amount of fuel used. 2. Emissions from the use of electricity. Electricity generation comes form
a range of sources including nuclear and renewable. Depending on type of generation, emissions per kWh range from near zero (hydro) to 0.915 kg (coal), and there are always some extra emissions resulting from electricity generation and/ or transport. In the UK 75% of electricity is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels. 3. Indirect emissions from products and services. In the case of Oriel College this category would include purchased and disposal of food and beverages, office equipment and stationary (including paper), as well as travel services used by students and employees. Broadly speaking there are three ways of reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change: direct emission reductions, indirect emission reductions and offsetting: 1. Direct emission reduction measures, which include: • Implementing all cost effective energy efficiency measures, such as heating and lighting upgrades, using new process technologies and delivering staff training and awareness programmes • Developing low-carbon energy sources such as on-site heat and electricity generation. 1. Indirect emission reduction measures, including looking for opportunities for emissions reduction across the supply chain, which would include resources required and wastes produced.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
2. Carbon offsetting, i.e. buying carbon credits from environmental projects that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, mainly in developing countries. For practicality, we decided to narrow Oriel’s carbon footprint analysis down in a number of ways. Firstly, we consider only direct emissions resulting from gas use, as well as indirect emissions resulting from electricity consumption. The third category of indirect emissions from other products and services will be mentioned in the study, as they often are not trivial, but will not be dealt with in detail. Secondly, we limit the analysis to Oriel’s main quads, the Island complex, and the Rectory Road complex. We therefore exclude the couple of small terraced houses used for student accommodation near the main site. For the case of Oriel College we present an example pathway of change, which is visualised by a simple schematic shown in Figure 1. The schematic comprises of three main stages differing in terms of cost, energy use, and related GHG emissions. The pathway leads to carbon neutrality – the netting off of carbon emissions within a defined boundary. Carbon neutrality is usually achieved through a combination of emissions reduction and offsetting. Currently Oriel is in the transition period between the first and the second of depicted stages. This transition is characterised by an extra expenditure related to building better capacity for energy management
Figure 1: Theoretical timeline of oriel’s way to carbon neutrality.
and investment in measures enhancing energy efficiency. As a consequence, the second stage, “After emission reduction”, is characterised not only by a lower carbon footprint, but also by lower overall costs of running the college. The third depicted stage, “Carbon neutrality”, is characterised by the same energy use as before, although the carbon footprint is equal to zero. However, because of the purchase of carbon offsets, the overall costs have gone up. In practice, the reduction in Oriel’s energy use may be extended over a longer period of time, and offsetting may start earlier, which does not undermine the general idea of steps required, and their order of precedence.
This above may be a useful generalisation of the path leading to a lower, or zero, carbon footprint. In practice, however, diminishing of climate impact is an on-going and nonlinear process. Table 1 summarises its stages including future actions described below.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Table 1. Stages of limiting carbon footprint and energy use No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stage of action Bringing College’s attention Gathering a group of students and specialists Application to the Carbon Trust Historical energy data collation Current energy data logging Site visits from professionals Carbon Trust report Tracking carbon footprint (and savings) Progress reports (including this one) Implementation support
Oriel’s specifics Oriel comprises mostly residential accommodation for approximately 420 students and fellows. The main site comprises three quads, which includes the dining hall and chapel plus an adjacent island site which also houses the Harris Lecture Theatre, and some lecture rooms. A remote site on Rectory Road comprises four principal buildings – Larmenier, Goldie Wing, James Mellon Hall and David Patterson Hall. The latter two buildings are less than 10 years old, while the other buildings are more than 100 years old. The building floor areas are thought to be: Main Quads: 10,381 m2, Island Complex: 6,612 m2, Rectory Road: 2,380 m2. Energy use patterns of Oriel are strongly coupled to the University’s academic annual cycle, and to weather seasonality. This can
Type one-off one-off one-off one-off continuous periodic one-off recurrent periodic recurrent
Time summer 2007 autumn 2007 autumn 2007 autumn-spring 2007 from 2009 from winter 2007 spring 2008 from autumn 2008 from autumn 2008 from autumn 2008
be observed in figure 2, which plots readings from a set of electricity meters. Oriel’s main site is historic, with some parts dating back to the 17th Century. In lieu of this, the main college site is a Grade I listed building, the highest level of statutory protection that can be awarded to a building. When carrying out energy efficiency measures in listed buildings works must be compatible with the fabric of a traditional building and conserve the historical interest of the building. Guidelines for works in such buildings are contained in the English Heritage ‘Energy Conservation in Traditional Buildings’ publication . Whilst extra considerations around planning permission and the compatibility with the traditional building are required, the listing of the building need not be a barrier to action, rather another consideration in the assessment of options. Some works would have little impact on
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
occupied areas of the college, others such as room or kitchen renovations may do. It is therefore necessary that the occupancy and use of rooms is considered in planning works. With a longer term perspective energy efficiency improvements can be timed to coincide with planned renovations thus minimising disruption.
As it can be seen, the main function of Oriel’s buildings is accommodation. Therefore Oriel is in the unique position of being able to change people’s lives into more environmentally sound, with just a handful of decisions and investments. Moreover, it can inspire thousands of young and skilled people regarding their future dwellings.
Figure 2. Annual cycle of electricity use. A: Trinity high; B: summer low; C: Michaelmas high; D: Christmas low; E: Hillary high; F: Easter break. Lines correspond to major electricity meters.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
First footprint estimates Summary According to the Carbon Trust’s estimates, which were Oriel’s carbon based on data prepared by footprint is 1,106 us, Oriel’s carbon footprint tonnes CO2e pa., is 1,106 tonne CO2e per equivalent to annum, equivalent to 57.1 57.1 kg/m2. kg/m2. The annual amount of emitted carbon can be CARBON TRUST compared to above ground REPORT biomass in 1-2 ha of tropical forest. Contrary to our expectations of energy efficiency limitations in listed buildings, these estimates reveal that Oriel’s performance is generally above national benchmarks for University Colleges . As a member of the Oxford University and College group, Oriel is on an all-renewable electricity scheme, under the Oxford Colleges and University Group Electricity Contract secured by Purchasing Associates Limited . The contract is secured until 2012, under which all the electricity consumed in the college comes from a large-scale hydro and is 100% carbon-free. As a result, the 808.8 tonne CO2e per annum the Carbon trust report recorded for electricity used by the college is in fact zero. Hence the real calculated carbon footprint of the college is ~300 tonne CO2e per annum, which is almost exclusively based on gas consumption, with only 0.6 tonne CO2e per annum being from fuel used by the college vehicle. We would like to stress that consistency in carbon footprint measuring is as important as accuracy. As it stands the simplest carbon
footprint measure is actually a record of the gas bills. However, it should be noted that we are not satisfied with the summary information regarding gas use, and so this information should be treated as a preliminary estimate.
Critical analysis The original full breakdown of the Carbon Trust’s recommendations can be found in the Carbon Trust report that accompanies this document “Assessment of Energy Saving Opportunities for Oriel College”. The aim of this section is to summarise the Oriel’s carbon recommendations footprint and provide a critical is actually analysis of them. only~300
tonnes CO2e p.a.
Although, as we have shown, the carbon footprint of the college is small, it remains useful to assess what energy saving steps Oriel College can take. If the college only aimed to reduce its carbon footprint a logical approach may be to remain on the renewable electricity supply scheme beyond 2012 and switch all its gas using appliances to electricity, as well as switch the College vehicle to an electric one. The premise for doing this however can be seen as flawed. There are criticisms levelled at renewable electricity schemes such as the one Oriel is on due to the fact that electricity suppliers are legally obliged to provide a certain percentage of renewable energy to the grid. Hence Oriel is paying extra for something that would
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
have happen anyway. From “The most obvious an economics comment relates perspective, to some of the being on the gas consumption renewable figures, in particular tariff sends a the island site.” market signal that more NICK EYRE renewable energy is needed. However, practically, in the short term if everyone in the country were to switch suppliers could not meet demand. It is still advised that the renewable energy contract is a good thing because it sends the right signal. It must be remembered that using less is always better and from a monetary perspective, carbon free electricity is expensive and reducing use saves money. The Master of Works Gerald Inns also expressed that for energy security reasons, having Oriel dependant solely on electricity would leave the college vulnerable to outages.
1. Accuracy As the Carbon Trust and us already pointed out, reported energy use estimates are preliminary. Yet it needs to be stressed out that some of the figures should be verified immediately, since they are very suspicious. Especially the Island site power consumption is high, but not sufficiently high to indicate that full electric heating is likely, as the gathered data suggests. It seems that in our analysis of bills we may have missed some gas meters, or we didn’t receive all recent energy bills. If there is an error in these data, then the overall college results are significantly affected, which
makes this issue a priority to resolve.
2. Lack of long term vision
“The statement on page 11 that ‘full replacement of the electric heating systems cannot be recommended on financial grounds’ is not justified.”
All the recommendations in the report have a pay back on investment time of less than three years. The report explicitly states NICK EYRE that a potential change from inefficient electric space heaters to gas that would be 50% more efficient would not be recommended because the payback time would be around ten years. Oriel college has an advantage over more transient and dynamic organisations such as businesses, in that it can be sure that it will still occupy the same premises over the coming decades if not centuries. Thus, longer time scale payback investments should be considered. If access to capital to carry out the work is an issue a novel approach of approaching benefactors for loans, to be repaid from energy savings could be considered. Political and economic trends are leading to increases in fuel prices that are unlikely to reverse in the future. Thus, investments in efficiency will reap even greater saving than those calculated at today’s prices. It is expected that fuel bills ay rise up to 40% in this year alone. With Oriel spending in excess of £164,000 per annum, these rises will be significant.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
“As it stands, there is an implication that oriel can only reduce its footprint by 9%, which I don’t think any of us believes.”
3. Easy opportunities for mitigation
The report clearly puts forward some easy opportunities for mitigating GHG, through 17 priority ordered recommendations (Figure 3). If all recommendations were enacted the savings in CO2e were estimated to be 91.8 tonnes per annum (8.2% of the NICK EYRE 1,100 tonnes footprint). Seven recommendations required no capital expenditure and in total would generate annual savings of £2,000. Examples include ensuring the larder door is kept shut in the kitchen, thus reducing unnecessary overworking of the cooling system and saving £175 per annum. Another is ensuring the boilers are set to their optimal thermal efficiency, saving £810 per annum. The remaining ten recommendations required capital expenditure totalling £14,770, generating annual savings of £15,100. An
Figure 3. Energy saving measures proposed by the Carbon Trust
example is locking thermostats in public areas to reduce the maximum temperature setting, preventing unnecessarily high use. At a cost of £450, this is expected to generate £265 of savings per annum per annum. The main critique of the above recommendations is that they simply reflect a lack of long term vision. In writing this critique, the expert opinions of members of Oxford University’s Lower Carbon Futures team and Oriel’s Master of Works, Gerald Inns has been sought. The consensus opinion was that the recommendations were too conservative and Oriel has the potential to achieve much more than the reductions outlined in the report.
4. Poor guidance on behavioural change The Lower Carbon Futures team believe behavioural changes to have the potential to reduce energy use significantly. The recommendations only include 4% reductions due to behavioural change. It is hoped the actions outlined in the behavioural change section will lead to more significant savings. In particular high electricity use can be reduced through greater energy awareness, such as an ambitious student awareness programme. This can be encouraged through a stringent energy management policy established at the college governing body level.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Behaviour: obstacle or opportunity? Students’ Role Behavioural changes are often believed to have a high potential to decrease carbon emissions. By coincidence both the group of specialists from the Lower Carbon Futures, and the Carbon Trust, suggested that the share of behavioural changes in emissions decrease could be as much as 50%. Students’ role Oriel students are generally concerned about the environment: a survey of graduates and undergraduates taken in 2007 found 79% of people rate their concern high or very high, and that they regard the environmental credentials of the college important (69% rated the environmental credentials of their college high or very high). However, their enthusiasm is not always translated into action; thus there are several areas in which student behaviour could be improved. Surveying can be an important source of information. For example, students have mentioned problems with insulation - 37% of people find their room cold (43% were comfortable). Based on the comments made, it appears that heat energy is being lost unnecessarily. Many people mentioned problems with windows being single glazed, unable to shut fully, or having ‘gaps’. Suggestions for making the rooms more comfortable include double glazed windows, thick interlined curtains, and properly insulated door-frames. Several students on the island site find their heaters irritating due to being unable to control thermostats.
Some think they come on for a few minutes and others think an hour at a time, but as one person commented “nobody seems to know how they work”. People have said they would prefer to be able to switch off the heating if it is getting too hot instead of having to open windows and “cycle between being too hot and too cold in an attempt to get a balance”; the heaters on st.33 have however been highlighted as being very effective. Common rooms were reported as variable, but the JCR has been singled out as often being too hot. 81% of students have between 4 and 10 electrical appliances, thus unplugging them instead of leaving them on standby is important to encourage; currently 59% of people leave appliances on sometimes, often or always. 17% of people leave lights on in their bedroom. More pressingly, lights are nearly always found on in public areas (the library, the JCR, the laundry room). Students are not apathetic about the environment; indeed the role of student behaviour towards the environment can certainly be made positive if we account for two facts. Firstly, people are lazy. Secondly, people respond to incentives. In terms of financial incentives, students tend to be particularly responsive due to the constraints associated with tuition fees, augmented by the lack of opportunity for most Oxford students to work during term-time. Students will behave in an environmentallyconscious manner only if it is made it easy and habitual, so that it does not feel like an extra effort. The high student turnover at
10
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Oriel and the fact that no student stays in a room longer than a year is beneficial because an environmental drive at the start of the academic year targets people moving into their new rooms, encouraging good behaviour as part of the routine that each student is creating as they settle in. This is particularly important for freshers, because once habits are formed they are more difficult to change, as it seems like an effort to turn lights off, turn the heating down or unplug appliances. If these things are introduced as part of the transition to living independently they will be much more effectively implemented. Close cooperation between college and students will be the most effective method of improving energy efficiency in college rooms, which may constitute the majority of Oriel’s space. Friendly reminders about “I agree with saving energy, combined with the report advice on how to do this, will that an energy benefit students who are management policy enthusiastic about playing a is top priority.” positive role towards energy management but unsure how GAVIN KILLIP to contribute. Students living in college rooms are in an excellent position to notice and want to improve problems with energy efficiency in them, because their own interest is concerned. The fact that the college faces a much higher increase in energy costs this year than was anticipated acts as an easy to comprehend extra rationale and motivation for students to reduce their energy consumption.
However, if the cooperation with students is to be successful, there needs to be a clear communication about progress. Any information presented should stem from clever (e.g. accounting for weather changes), and transparent energy use monitoring. Moreover, students’ good behaviour will be reinforced by feeling like part of a team working towards a solution to energy inefficiency instead of as if they are battling against external forces to improve their rooms and comfort around college (if they are told to reduce their energy consumption but not consulted on how college could help). Therefore, signs of dedication from Oriel’s management will reassure about the fairness of the game. Next chapter is devoted this subject.
Energy management As it was stressed in the critique of the preliminary results, energy management for Oriel is a top priority. Literally all experts involved agree on that. The fundamental issue is monitoring, which provides with reliable information upon which all decisions are based. Although this sounds very serious, in practice a well – designed spreadsheet and responsibility to fill it in with energy bills data could provide most of the necessary insight. Energy management could vastly benefit from creating energy strategy and policy, ideally in an official written form approved by the college’s board. This would not only help with internal affairs, by setting clear rules, but also could help Oriel earn a few extra points in
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
dealing with other colleges, potential donors, and other institutions. According to the Carbon Trust (page 24), the typical content of such a policy might be: •
•
• •
•
•
•
Monitoring energy on a regular basis to establish energy consumption trends which may adversely impact on the environmentally and financially on the college Set targets to reduce its energy consumption and carbon footprint by a combination of management and technical solutions Purchase green energy. Develop new buildings and refurbish buildings to a defined energy performance. Make use of, where appropriate, renewable energy resources, e.g. wind, solar, biomass or ground source heat to minimise carbon emissions. Set a minimum standard for the provision and control of heating, hot water services and lighting. Typical examples might include fluorescent or LED lighting, occupancy controls, on-demand heating, background heating (e.g. under-floor) with local boost heating etc. Maintain the active involvement of all staff and students to promote good housekeeping practices and minimise each person’s carbon impact on the college.
It’s clear that in relation to a number of above points Oriel has either already engage itself or is on a path to engagement.
In terms of financial side of management, creation of “Note that the cost a specific fund for energy and disruption are efficiency would greatly drastically reduced enhance fund rising and if you build the accounting in regards to energy-efficiency energy efficiency measures. measures into As pointed out by senior other things that alumni Ralph Cobham, are being carried there is a great potential out anyway.” in encouraging alumnus to sponsor specific measures, GAVIN KILLIP which could also be seen as a form of education. Ringfencing of savings was revoked a number of times whilst Oriel’s case was reviewed by experts. Making sure that savings from energy-efficiency measures are used for further investments (or even carbon offsets) would ensure progress and create a very positive image among all Oriel members and beyond. There’s no risk of overspending in relation to climate change. Oriel College could even be the first entity in the world offsetting China’s carbon footprint.
11
12
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Going the extra mile Beyond the Carbon Trust’s report recommendations, there are a number of additional measures the college can take. These are generally more ambitious, but must be seen viewed with a long term perspective. Long-term planning is the key, which for an institution that has been around for almost 700 years should be self-evident. This section outlines the opportunities and challenges presented by longer term energy saving projects.
Energy efficiency 1. Improved Glazing and Insulation The Carbon Trust report shows that ~26% of the total electricity consumption comes from space heating. By reducing heat loss through walls and windows with improved glazing and improved insulation significant energy savings could be achieved. Improvements that can be made to glazing in order to improve insulation can be divided into two broad areas: the installation of secondary glazing behind the original glazing or the replacement of original windows with new double glazing. Oriel College has a variety of glazing styles associated with the different ages and styles of the buildings. Single glazed windows predominate at the main site, with the new rectory road buildings having double glazing. Secondary glazing has been installed previously at the main site with the aim of reducing noise, not specifically for energy saving. Much of this was subsequently removed for practical purposes, but the re-evaluation of this approach from
an energy saving perspective could be considered by the college. Insulation is probably the most commonly advised way of increasing energy efficiency. In the case of a listed buildings certain types of insulation seems to be only available options, namely loft insulation, internal wall insulation, draught proofing, tanks and pipes insulation. The last two types are very easy and/or cheap to implement. A number of draughty doors on main site’s quads are probably the first to be addressed. Working with listed buildings excludes the option of external wall insulation at the main site, and most likely also the cavity wall insulation. Oriel’s tall narrow buildings and thick walls are well designed have in built insulation. However, Gerald Inns is aware of some areas of the college such as staircase 34 that would benefit from improved roof insulation. With a longer term perspective energy efficiency improvements can be timed to coincide with planned renovations thus minimising disruption.
2. IT management It is noted that at least some of the desktop computer machines in Oriel College are left on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and for 52 weeks a year. In those cases, Wake-onLAN and Power Management package to desktop machines could save an average of 480 kWh per year per machine. In terms of carbon dioxide this is 250 kg pa (at average UK mains electricity emissions factor of 0.523 kg CO2 per kWh). Given that there are approx 40 admin staff PCs and 15 computer
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
suite PCs, and assuming that half of them are continuously on, there is a potential of annual saving of ~£1000.
3. CHP Combined Heat and Power (CHP) involves the co-generation of both electricity and usable heat. Conventionally, when power plants generate electricity, huge amounts of heat are produced as a by-product. This heat is typically treated as a waste and cooling towers such as those of nearby Didcot power station transfer this heat to the atmosphere. CHP systems seek to utilise this energy to provide heating for nearby buildings including domestic housing. The scale of CHP systems varies hugely, and includes some large scale community heating projects, such as in Manhattan where over 100,000 buildings are heated. In addition to its large scale applicability CHP can also be used at the small scale to provide heat and energy to individual buildings (MicroCHP) in which case the fuel (usually natural gas) normally used to provide warmth is also used to generate electricity which can either be used locally or sold back to the grid. In 2005, 5,792MW of CHP was installed in the UK. Government’s target is to have 10,000MW CHP installed on the Grid by 2010. In general electric resistance heating is neither cost effective nor environmentally sound. The statement on page 11 of the Carbon Trust’s report that “full replacement of the electric heating systems cannot be recommended on financial grounds” is not
justified. If resistance heating is a significant contributor to the college’s total electricity bill (~£135k annually), then a great deal of capital expenditure could be justified to reduce it. Recently Green College invited an energy consultancy to evaluate the potential for CHP. The lessons learnt at Green College are an interesting guide for Oriel; however it must be remembered that there are important differences between the two colleges, the most obvious of which is that Oriel is around 50% larger (in terms of numbers of students) than Green. Furthermore, the buildings at Green are substantially more modern. Green College has an annual gas consumption of 1,116,000kWh and an electricity consumption of 204,000kWh. At Green it was estimated that installing a 160kW system would cost around £32,000 and would reduce the carbon dioxide emissions by 33%, and the annual fuel bill by 30% compared to the current system. The notional payback time of such a system was estimated at 10 years. Oriel’s Carbon footprint assessment team contacted the energy consultancy, Gastec, who are the Carbon Trust’s official approved CHP auditors, and have already delivered presentations to Green, Linacre and a consortium of Masters of Works from various colleges. Two options for engaging with the company emerged.
13
14
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
The first option is a meeting session devoted solely to CHP, which the company considers the best option for energy/carbon saving in Oxford colleges. Because there are significant economies of scale to be achieved from a cooperative of colleges (for example, from avoiding installing separate machines in colleges’ boiler houses), such meeting falls into current efforts of Oriel’s Provost to organise the members of the “Merton Street Gang” around opportunities for cooperation. Moreover, since there is a charge for such meeting (£400 for one afternoon), having other colleges by the table could reduce the cost per participant. The second option presented was to have a full audit done (as Green college did), which would be an extended version of the assessment done by the Carbon Trust (it takes 3 days). Because of the significant overlap with what already has been done, we feel that at this stage it’s better to engage with professionals with regards to specific solutions, even though the general assessment could be heavily subsidised by the Carbon Trust. CHP has been proven to be an efficient and cost effective method of reducing carbon emissions and fuel costs, however there are some key considerations which need to be taken account of: • The fact that gas is used to generate heat and electricity will result in an increase in college gas usage however this will be offset by a reduction in the amount of electricity used. The relative prices
•
•
of fuels are therefore critical to the economic viability of CHP CHP is mutually exclusive of some of the other options detailed in this report (such as solar thermal heating) As part of a long term plan there is the potential for the colleges along Merton Street to combine resources and take advantage of economies of scale by jointly investing in a community CHP system to that would supply heat and electricity to all of the participants.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Gaining energy from renewable sources 1. Solar Water Heating Solar water heating systems use heat from the sun to work alongside a conventional water heater. The technology is well developed with a large choice of equipment to suit many applications. There are three main components, including solar panels or collectors, which are fitted onto the roof of buildings, the heat transfer system, which heats water, and the third component is the hot water cylinder. According to the Energy Savings Trust, solar water heating can provide about a third of a buildings hot water needs, though some estimate this to be as high as 60%. A rough estimate is that 1-2 m2 of roof space is required per person using the hot water per year, which would be difficult for Oriel to achieve, though the college does have some obvious suitable south-facing roof space (figure x). Because Oriel’s boilers use gas, which is the main constituent of the college’s carbon footprint, this may be one of the most useful measures to undertake. Since the 6th of April 2008 development rights for micro-generation technologies in England, under which solar water heating falls, have been lifted and most houses can install them without planning permission. Unfortunately, Listed Buildings, including Oriel’s main site, do not fall under this rule. Hence this matter would have to be further investigated. The cost of installing solar water heaters is thought to be about £3,000 – £5,000 for a domestic installation, which is said to pay
itself off in about 4 years, and under the BERR funded low carbon program grants can be obtained for installing micro-generation. Figure 4. Solar water heater installed on a roof.
15
16
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
figure 5. red = useful roof, yellow = potentially useful, purple = non-existent but future useful roof, especially for PV roof tiling
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
2. Photo Voltaics (PV) – generating the college’s own electricity Photovoltaics are made out of materials called semiconductors, which absorb the energy of light to generate an electric current. Solar energy use is on the rise internationally and the solar photovoltaic (PV) industry is seeing great investments in the last decade, growing at an annual rate of more than 35% . The UK is lagging behind in the industry’s expansion, though the solar radiation reaching the country is almost as much as that in the Mediterranean and on cloudy days the energy received is only reduced to a third of that on a clear day. PV system deployment is being encouraged in Germany, Spain, Italy, France, South Korea, and the USA amongst others. Amongst the most attractive PV designs for integration into building is the multi-crystalline silicon modular setup (Figure 6, left), which is mounted with a frame onto rooftops or freestanding. Alternatively PV modules can be used as the building fabric, as in the case of PV roof tiles (Figure 6, right), where the costs of conventional building materials can be offset. To make solar PV installations effective they need to be directed towards the light intensity hotspot, which in the UK is rather large, from Southeast to Southwest at a tilt of 20º to 50º. Oriel College would certainly have some obviously suitable roof space (Figure 5), with more potential at the island side and on the James Mellon Hall buildings. Additionally the new building under construction at the James Mellon hall site could incorporate solar roof tiles.
Figure 6. Multi-crystalline silicon PV arrays (left) and solar roof tiles (right).
The PV could generate revenue in two ways. First, any electricity produced will result in smaller bills from the conventional electricity supplier, thereby saving money. At current prices this is taken as 8p/kWh. Given the comparatively small fraction of annual electricity supplied by the PV to each building, it is assumed that all electricity generated is used on site. Second, most electricity companies are offering payments for solar generated electricity. For example Good Energy offer 4.5p per kWh of solar electricity generated, even if used on site, and Scottish and Southern are offering 18p per kWh of electricity exported back to the grid. Since the recent announcement of the Government (16th of October 2008), feedin tarrifs are a real option to be considered. According to JOJU, a company promoting solar energy, PV systems would be able to pay themselves off in 25 years at current electricity prices, and if these are to raise the payback time would be less .
17
18
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Beyond direct emission reductions 1. Waste management and recycling Waste can be a significant source of green house gases (GHG), especially methane, and should be considered in a wider reaching carbon footprint management plan. GHG emissions from waste generated by Oriel College have not been included in the calculation of the Carbon trust. Yet, waste avoidance and recycling could contribute towards carbon savings and deserve consideration in this report. Waste contributes to indirect emissions through production of greenhouse gases through decomposition. Also, sending waste to landfills, especially energy intensive materials like glass and aluminium, can be seen as loosing carbon invested in the material initially. By contrast, recycling can displace GHG emissions, as it is generally less energy intensive than producing from new raw materials. For example, in the case of paper, which is the prominent category of waste in College, recycling uses about 28% less energy than to produce virgin paper according to the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges . Composting offers the same benefits. Quantifying the College GHG emissions from waste is possible based on some commonly accepted facts: • recycling and composting can reduce up to 40% of the carbon emitted due to waste disposal . • energy used to produce typical garbage
•
•
plus the methane given off in the landfill site is equivalent to about 20kg of CO2 per “large rubbish bag”. For every kilogram of waste thrown out, 1 kg of CO2 is produced (Quaker Green Action, 2006) In 2006/2007, in the U.K, 57,9% of municipal waste went to landfills, 30.6% was recycled or composted and 11.1% is incinerated in an energy from waste plant – with heat recovery or electricity generation (Defra, 2007).
If one considers the U.K. national average for domestic waste production and the number of residents in College, Oriel College produces around 215 tonnes of waste per annum. This corresponds to around 8 large bins of garbage per week that the City Council collects. All waste does not go to landfill, as the College is under a City Council recycling scheme for paper, glass, plastics and cans. Cardboard is not yet recycled in Oriel. The first step towards a reduction of Oriel carbon emissions from waste should be to promote waste avoidance in college. This objective should reflect on the college procurement policy. Moreover, the rate of recycling in college might not be efficient as: • paper recycling is only available through specific bins in the porter’s lodge and in the computer rooms (staircase 34 and JCR); • kitchen bins for recycling glass, plastic and cans are only available in the MCR
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
kitchen and in the kitchens of Rectory Road buildings; there is none in the kitchens of the college main site. Various actions could spur an improvement of recycling in college: • placing free individual recyclable, cardboard desktop containers for dry waste in each room, especially paper. These would be flat packed and would need to be assembled by the user. Individuals will then be responsible for emptying the contents into the larger recycling bins; • providing for each kitchen in college recycling bins for glass, plastic and cans, and organic waste; • offering new collective recycling containers at the two college sites for batteries, cardboard, and plastics and cans. Further reduction in Oriel’s waste emissions could be achieved through an internal recycling scheme to encourage the re-use of plastic bags and the default setting of printers to print recto/verso. Last but not least, the survey conducted among Oriel students leaving in college accommodation highlighted a certain lack of knowledge of the benefits of recycling and of the existing recycling facilities. A campaign of information could certainly participate to improving students’ behaviour.
2. Travel Related Emissions This concerns the carbon emissions produced through travel by students and employees of College. The Carbon Trust report did not look into personal travel as part of the college’s carbon footprint, though under the extended definition of a carbon footprint, where indirect emissions are also incorporated, personal travel often becomes a part of the footprint analysis. Voluntary registers could record students travel to and from work. Student and fellow travel when at college could be monitored, in particular if they are to apply for a studies-related travel grant. The grant could include a carbon off-setting component, whereby the students would have to calculate how much carbon their travels would produce and factor this into their grant proposal. As for the employees at the college, these could be given yearly carbon travel allowances, which would be off-set through the college.
3. Supporting carbon sinks The college owned land near Iffley could one day be used to grow trees such as willow wic could contribute to carbon sequestration. An estimation of the carbon storage capacity of the land could be commissioned so as to offset some of the College GHG emissions.
19
20
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Table 2: Summary of direct investment opportunities * because Oriel’s electricity is (nearly) carbon neutral. ** only indirect energy saving ACTION IT Management
CARBON SAVING No *
Insulation: • draught proofing Yes tank and pipe Yes • wall, loft Yes Double glazing
ENERGY PAYBACK SAVING Yes Short (around £1,000 per annum) Yes
CAPITAL INVESTMENT Low
Yes Yes
Short/Medium Low Short/Medium Medium/high Short/Medium High
Solar water heating
Yes
Yes
Medium
Medium
CHP
Yes, if Yes combined with a more efficient boiler
Medium
High
PV
No*
Maybe
High
Waste management
Yes
No**
Long (above 20 years) Short
Low
BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION Minor (behaviour)
None Occupancy Occupancy, listed building Occupancy, listed building Large-scale construction depending on other colleges Occupancy, Listed building Behaviour
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Carbon Offsetting In contrast to what was said before, carbon offsetting can be seen as indirect investment opportunity. Carbon offsetting is the practice of paying a private company or charity to carry out a project that reduces carbon dioxide in the carbon dioxide equal to the amount emitted by the purchaser. Thus, the net carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is zero and ‘carbon neutrality’ has been achieved. The practice works because carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and the impact non global climate is the same no matter where reductions as made. Projects that sequester carbon can take several forms. A popular project type involves planting trees, which sequester carbon in their biomass as they grow, thus removing it from the atmosphere. Preventing the deforestation of trees that were going to be cut down also prevents the release of carbon dioxide from burning of the trees and subsequent decomposition of dead wood. Another example of a project is the distribution of equipment that allows rural communities to switch from inefficient burning of carbon intensive fuels to more efficient cleaner burning fuels. The price of carbon offsets varies according to the company they are purchased from and the project type that was used to generate the reductions. This is due to differing administration and transaction costs associated with differing levels of verification and monitoring that are employed by different companies. To offset Oriel’s carbon footprint would require an annual investment of between
£2,600 with Climate Care to £6,000 by purchasing credits from the ‘regulated’ market which is governed by the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). It is recommended that due to the large sums of money involved in their purchase, a debate on whether or not offsets are a good idea for Oriel should be conducted. Below are some points that should be considered. Retailers of offsets agree that offsets should be purchased, only once all efforts to make actual reductions to emissions have been exhausted. If this advice is not followed, there can be criticisms on ethical grounds that the purchaser is trying to buy their way out of trouble, rather than making changes. Financially, purchasing offsets may not be advisable. Once purchased, offsets do not pay anything back and only provide ‘carbon neutrality’ for a year. If however the same amount was invested in energy efficiency in Oriel, then financial rewards in terms of reduced energy bills would be achieved every year. The same accounting argument can be applied to the carbon dioxide emissions reduced. A net off payment every year, makes a one off reduction in emissions, however, investments in efficiency will educe emissions every year going forward. Finally, the selection of offset company used must be carefully considered. With the exception of the ‘regulated’ credits of the UNFCC mentioned above the voluntary carbon offsetting market is unregulated. Recently, practices of some vendors have been called into question, a review of the voluntary carbon market can be found in the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 2007 report.
21
22
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Road map Through our study we came to the realisation that Oriel College should focus its climate impact actions on reducing energy use on top of reducing its carbon footprint. We identify a number of decisions and actions that college management need to consider and act upon. These are outlined below in order of necessity, but do interlink, as is seen in the table 3.
• •
5. Establish monitoring methodology • •
1. Write a vision statement •
Consider officially binding Oriel to reducing its energy use annually and its carbon footprint to neutrality. In line with EU and UK targets we recommend targets of 20% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 and 80% cuts by 2050, compared with the 2008 benchmark figures.
2. Promote continuity of the Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team •
•
•
Ensure the continued involvement of environmentally-minded Oriel College fellows. Encourage successive Oriel students including ECI students, JCR and MCR environmental officers, Sir Walter Raleigh scholar, and other dedicated environmentally. Contact the 2008 recruits now.
3. Create reliable benchmarks •
•
• •
Add quantitative value to the vision statement through carbon and energy savings targets.
Ensure that methodology is consistent in time, clear to understand and use. Consider working with SMEasure (Catherine Bottrill and Russell Layberry), as it may cut on work, and/or Build spreadsheets and incorporate weather standardisation (degree days). Assign responsibility for regular monitoring and recording of the college’s energy use.
6. Engage Oriel students in energy saving activities through an awareness campaign •
•
Assign a liaison function to the JCR and MCR environmental representative and consider appointing an SCR environmental representative. Promote energy saving behaviour through posters, internet (emails and websites) and awareness talks.
7. Implement the Carbon Trust recommendations •
Produce reliable energy use figures, especially for gas.
4. Energy policy with energy savings targets
Consider ring-fencing the monetary savings generated from energy reducing actions. Specify budget for the costs of a college energy policy.
Put into place the technological fixes recommended by the Carbon Trust so as to achieve 8% reduction in energy use.
8. Assess barriers of listed building status to further action •
Investigate the restrictions imposed by Oriel’s listed building status – this may have to be commissioned into a report.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
9. Address further low hanging fruit actions •
•
These include implementation of IT energy saving software (contact: Daniel Curtis), and draft proofing of doors and windows.
11. Decide how to use carbon offsets
10. Decide on long-term investments •
•
Meet representatives from companies specialising in those technologies. Contrast benefits of mCHP versus solar thermal technology and chose which to pursue.
Review available options regarding emerging energy technologies, including CHP, photovoltaics and solar thermal.
• •
Assess which type of carbon offsets to purchase. Offset the reminder of carbon footprint.
table 3: gantt chart for the proposed road map actions . no.
2008 task
1
Mission Statement
2
New OCCFA team
3
New benchmark
4
Policy
5
Monitoring
6
Engage community
7 8
Implement CT recom. Listed buildings info
9
Low hanging fruit
10
Long-term investment 10.1 Meet experts 10.2 Contractors in 11
Carbon offsets
Oct
Nov
2009 Dec
Jan
Feb Mar
Apr May Jun Jul
Aug Sep
23
24
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Resources •
•
•
Defra (2007). E-Digest Environment Statistics, Waste and recycling, available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ statistics/index.htm [last visited 21/09/2008. Fawcett, T., Hurst, A., Boardman, B. (2002) Carbon U.K., Oxford: Environmental Change Institute. Combined Heat and Power Association, www.chpa.co.uk/
•
Low Government Carbon Building, www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/home/
•
McKinsey Report “Climate Change: Everyone’s Business”: www.mckinsey. com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Climate_ Change_Business_final_report.pdf
•
Sustainability Northwest for RenewablesNorthwest, www.claren.org. uk/downloads/CHPBrief2.pdf
•
The Carbon Trust, www.carbontrust. co.uk/energy/startsaving/tech_chp_ introduction.htm
•
The Stern Review Report: http://62.164.176.164/stern_review_ climate_change.htm
•
Energy Saving Trust, www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ Generate-your-own-energy/Types-ofrenewables/Solar-water-heating
•
In addition, the report from the Carbon Trust refers to a number of technical documents. See bottoms of tables describing proposed 15 actions.
•
English Heritage, www.englishheritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/ign_partl_ buildingregs.pdf; www.english-heritage. org.uk/upload/pdf/Conservation_ Principles_Policies_and_Guidance_ April08_Web.pdf; www.english-heritage. org.uk/server/show/category.1378; and www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/ pdf/Climate_Change_and_the_Historic_ Environment_2008.pdf
•
Gastec at CRE (2006). Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint Reduction. A Presentation delivered to Green College by Mark Crowther of Gastec at CRE Ltd. (Available from The Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team on request).
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint Przemyslaw Zelazowski* Adam Gibbon** Jean Christophe Amado** Max Edkins** Ewan Macdonald** Igraine Rhodes*** * Oriel MCR; Environmental Change Institute; DPhil student ** Oriel MCR; MSc Environmental Change and Management *** JCR Environment Rep; PPE student
Acknowledgements This report could not have been possible without the generous assistance and encouragement of the members and staff of Oriel College. Firstly, many thanks to the Provost - Sir Derek Morris, and college fellows Professor Yadvinder Malhi and Dr Nick Eyre for their enthusiasm and for the knowledge they imparted. Thanks also to Wilf Stephenson, Gerald Inns and Helen Kay for their time, patience and questions. We are grateful to Martin Berry and Giles Hobson at the Carbon Trust for their rigorous examination of the college. The subsequent information and proposals they provided were vital to our work. Finally, we would like to thank ECI’s Lower Carbon Futures Team: Catherine Bottrill, Daniel Curtis, Gavin Killip and Dr Russell Layberry, for the invaluable support they lent to our endeavour.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Executive Summary Oriel College has sought to quantify its climate impact, and to investigate ways to reduce it, by commissioning a study into its ‘carbon footprint’. The study was carried out by the Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team made up of students, fellows, specialists in the field, and in conjunction with the Carbon Trust. The study found that Oriel’s carbon footprint is approximately 300 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum; this figure is comprised solely from the use of gas, because all Oriel’s electricity is produced from a carbon neutral hydroelectricity scheme. Whilst electricity use in Oriel does not contribute to the carbon footprint, it was still deemed pertinent to include electricity within broader plans to lower energy use in college, due to the high and increasing cost of providing electricity. A range of solutions from immediate quick fixes such as adjusting thermostats to more visionary, long term, plans such as the use of solar power, were considered. In addition, we explored the potential benefits of behavioural change, both on the part of the students and the college. A road map with priority ordered steps for action is presented at the end of this document. It is hoped this document serves as the first step along the way to significant reductions in energy, emissions, and fuel bills, and puts Oriel College on a path to becoming one of Oxford’s most sustainable colleges.
ii
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
INTRODUCTION
1
DEFINING CARBON FOOTPRINT
2
General remarks Oriel’s specifics
FIRST FOOTPRINT ESTIMATES
6
Summary Critical analysis 1. Accuracy 2. Lack of long term vision 3. Easy opportunities for mitigation 4. Poor guidance on behavioural change
BEHAVIOUR – AN OBSTACLE OR OPPORTUNITY?
9
Students’ role Energy management
GOING THE EXTRA MILE
12
Energy efficiency 1. Improved Glazing and Insulation 2. IT management 3. mCHP Gaining energy from renewable sources 1. Solar Water Heating 2. Photo Voltaics (PV) – generating the college’s own electricity Beyond direct emission reductions 1. Waste management and recycling 2. Travel Related Emissions 3. Supporting carbon sinks Summary of direct investment opportunities Carbon Offsetting
ROAD MAP
22
RESOURCES
24
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Introduction We live in a time when global green house gas emissions grow beyond previously ‘pessimistic’ scenarios. Unfortunately, Governments’ measures for mitigation are still far from matching the needs. As global climate change is known to be accelerated by carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation and gas consumption, virtually everybody can play a role in its prevention. Oriel College has recognised its chance to act to reduce its ‘carbon footprint’ by curbing energy use. As gas and electricity prices continue to rise, reducing energy use is also prudent for economic reasons. Here, we finalise the discussions around Oriel’s carbon footprint, which started around Trinity term of 2007. A group of students, supported by a number of professionals, has formed during these exchanges and we are now called “Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team”. We aim for this document to be a mile stone, marking Oriel’s transition from the state of “willingness to do something” to a state in which clear strategy for action is shaped. This report should be read in conjunction with the document prepared by the Carbon Trust titled “Assessment of Energy Saving Opportunities for Oriel College”, which provided us with the first carbon footprint estimates, as well as some initial ideas on how to reduce college’s emissions. It is hoped the co-operation between Oriel and the Carbon Trust will continue into the future. In the ‘Introduction’ to this report we explain the process of estimating, and then tackling, the carbon footprint. Special attention is
given to the specifics for Oriel College case. In the following chapter ‘First footprint estimates’, the initial results from the Carbon Trust, as well as their critique, are presented. Next chapter is then devoted to obstacles and opportunities related to behaviour. After that follows ‘Going the extra mile’ forming the main bulk of this document, in which we deal with potential additional actions aimed at reduction of Oriel’s carbon footprint (along the lines of emerging energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies), thus extending the list of actions with appropriate justification. Moreover, we draw a rationale for an ‘extra-mile’ approach by the College that would embrace the carbon abatement potential of indirect GHG emissions, carbon sequestration, and offsetting. The last chapter summarises previous ideas into a simple roadmap for Oriel.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Defining carbon footprint General remarks Carbon footprint, “the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly” , is a measure of climate impact most often expressed in units of carbon dioxide, e.g. tonnes. Climate change policy discourse often uses units of carbon dioxide tonnes equivalent (CO2e), to stress the inclusion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG), other than carbon dioxide. Expressing climate impact as an amount of carbon dioxide is very useful for considering the physics of climate change, and allows for direct relating of operations to atmospheric and ecosystem science. However, from the point of view of any organisation functioning on the energy market, including Oriel College, another useful way of expressing the operations affecting climate is in monetary terms. The full footprint of an organisation encompasses a wide range of emission sources, from use of fuels in-place, to employee travel or emissions from other organisations up and down the supply chain. Three levels of emission accounting can be identified: 1. Direct emissions that result form activities the organisation controls. These include emissions that result from direct combustion of fuels, for example, burning gas for heating or fuel for vehicle owned by Oriel. Resulting emissions are directly related to the amount of fuel used. 2. Emissions from the use of electricity. Electricity generation comes form
a range of sources including nuclear and renewable. Depending on type of generation, emissions per kWh range from near zero (hydro) to 0.915 kg (coal), and there are always some extra emissions resulting from electricity generation and/ or transport. In the UK 75% of electricity is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels. 3. Indirect emissions from products and services. In the case of Oriel College this category would include purchased and disposal of food and beverages, office equipment and stationary (including paper), as well as travel services used by students and employees. Broadly speaking there are three ways of reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change: direct emission reductions, indirect emission reductions and offsetting: 1. Direct emission reduction measures, which include: • Implementing all cost effective energy efficiency measures, such as heating and lighting upgrades, using new process technologies and delivering staff training and awareness programmes • Developing low-carbon energy sources such as on-site heat and electricity generation. 1. Indirect emission reduction measures, including looking for opportunities for emissions reduction across the supply chain, which would include resources required and wastes produced.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
2. Carbon offsetting, i.e. buying carbon credits from environmental projects that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, mainly in developing countries. For practicality, we decided to narrow Oriel’s carbon footprint analysis down in a number of ways. Firstly, we consider only direct emissions resulting from gas use, as well as indirect emissions resulting from electricity consumption. The third category of indirect emissions from other products and services will be mentioned in the study, as they often are not trivial, but will not be dealt with in detail. Secondly, we limit the analysis to Oriel’s main quads, the Island complex, and the Rectory Road complex. We therefore exclude the couple of small terraced houses used for student accommodation near the main site. For the case of Oriel College we present an example pathway of change, which is visualised by a simple schematic shown in Figure 1. The schematic comprises of three main stages differing in terms of cost, energy use, and related GHG emissions. The pathway leads to carbon neutrality – the netting off of carbon emissions within a defined boundary. Carbon neutrality is usually achieved through a combination of emissions reduction and offsetting. Currently Oriel is in the transition period between the first and the second of depicted stages. This transition is characterised by an extra expenditure related to building better capacity for energy management
Figure 1: Theoretical timeline of oriel’s way to carbon neutrality.
and investment in measures enhancing energy efficiency. As a consequence, the second stage, “After emission reduction”, is characterised not only by a lower carbon footprint, but also by lower overall costs of running the college. The third depicted stage, “Carbon neutrality”, is characterised by the same energy use as before, although the carbon footprint is equal to zero. However, because of the purchase of carbon offsets, the overall costs have gone up. In practice, the reduction in Oriel’s energy use may be extended over a longer period of time, and offsetting may start earlier, which does not undermine the general idea of steps required, and their order of precedence.
This above may be a useful generalisation of the path leading to a lower, or zero, carbon footprint. In practice, however, diminishing of climate impact is an on-going and nonlinear process. Table 1 summarises its stages including future actions described below.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Table 1. Stages of limiting carbon footprint and energy use No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stage of action Bringing College’s attention Gathering a group of students and specialists Application to the Carbon Trust Historical energy data collation Current energy data logging Site visits from professionals Carbon Trust report Tracking carbon footprint (and savings) Progress reports (including this one) Implementation support
Oriel’s specifics Oriel comprises mostly residential accommodation for approximately 420 students and fellows. The main site comprises three quads, which includes the dining hall and chapel plus an adjacent island site which also houses the Harris Lecture Theatre, and some lecture rooms. A remote site on Rectory Road comprises four principal buildings – Larmenier, Goldie Wing, James Mellon Hall and David Patterson Hall. The latter two buildings are less than 10 years old, while the other buildings are more than 100 years old. The building floor areas are thought to be: Main Quads: 10,381 m2, Island Complex: 6,612 m2, Rectory Road: 2,380 m2. Energy use patterns of Oriel are strongly coupled to the University’s academic annual cycle, and to weather seasonality. This can
Type one-off one-off one-off one-off continuous periodic one-off recurrent periodic recurrent
Time summer 2007 autumn 2007 autumn 2007 autumn-spring 2007 from 2009 from winter 2007 spring 2008 from autumn 2008 from autumn 2008 from autumn 2008
be observed in figure 2, which plots readings from a set of electricity meters. Oriel’s main site is historic, with some parts dating back to the 17th Century. In lieu of this, the main college site is a Grade I listed building, the highest level of statutory protection that can be awarded to a building. When carrying out energy efficiency measures in listed buildings works must be compatible with the fabric of a traditional building and conserve the historical interest of the building. Guidelines for works in such buildings are contained in the English Heritage ‘Energy Conservation in Traditional Buildings’ publication . Whilst extra considerations around planning permission and the compatibility with the traditional building are required, the listing of the building need not be a barrier to action, rather another consideration in the assessment of options. Some works would have little impact on
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
occupied areas of the college, others such as room or kitchen renovations may do. It is therefore necessary that the occupancy and use of rooms is considered in planning works. With a longer term perspective energy efficiency improvements can be timed to coincide with planned renovations thus minimising disruption.
As it can be seen, the main function of Oriel’s buildings is accommodation. Therefore Oriel is in the unique position of being able to change people’s lives into more environmentally sound, with just a handful of decisions and investments. Moreover, it can inspire thousands of young and skilled people regarding their future dwellings.
Figure 2. Annual cycle of electricity use. A: Trinity high; B: summer low; C: Michaelmas high; D: Christmas low; E: Hillary high; F: Easter break. Lines correspond to major electricity meters.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
First footprint estimates Summary According to the Carbon Trust’s estimates, which were Oriel’s carbon based on data prepared by footprint is 1,106 us, Oriel’s carbon footprint tonnes CO2e pa., is 1,106 tonne CO2e per equivalent to annum, equivalent to 57.1 57.1 kg/m2. kg/m2. The annual amount of emitted carbon can be CARBON TRUST compared to above ground REPORT biomass in 1-2 ha of tropical forest. Contrary to our expectations of energy efficiency limitations in listed buildings, these estimates reveal that Oriel’s performance is generally above national benchmarks for University Colleges . As a member of the Oxford University and College group, Oriel is on an all-renewable electricity scheme, under the Oxford Colleges and University Group Electricity Contract secured by Purchasing Associates Limited . The contract is secured until 2012, under which all the electricity consumed in the college comes from a large-scale hydro and is 100% carbon-free. As a result, the 808.8 tonne CO2e per annum the Carbon trust report recorded for electricity used by the college is in fact zero. Hence the real calculated carbon footprint of the college is ~300 tonne CO2e per annum, which is almost exclusively based on gas consumption, with only 0.6 tonne CO2e per annum being from fuel used by the college vehicle. We would like to stress that consistency in carbon footprint measuring is as important as accuracy. As it stands the simplest carbon
footprint measure is actually a record of the gas bills. However, it should be noted that we are not satisfied with the summary information regarding gas use, and so this information should be treated as a preliminary estimate.
Critical analysis The original full breakdown of the Carbon Trust’s recommendations can be found in the Carbon Trust report that accompanies this document “Assessment of Energy Saving Opportunities for Oriel College”. The aim of this section is to summarise the Oriel’s carbon recommendations footprint and provide a critical is actually analysis of them. only~300
tonnes CO2e p.a.
Although, as we have shown, the carbon footprint of the college is small, it remains useful to assess what energy saving steps Oriel College can take. If the college only aimed to reduce its carbon footprint a logical approach may be to remain on the renewable electricity supply scheme beyond 2012 and switch all its gas using appliances to electricity, as well as switch the College vehicle to an electric one. The premise for doing this however can be seen as flawed. There are criticisms levelled at renewable electricity schemes such as the one Oriel is on due to the fact that electricity suppliers are legally obliged to provide a certain percentage of renewable energy to the grid. Hence Oriel is paying extra for something that would
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
have happen anyway. From “The most obvious an economics comment relates perspective, to some of the being on the gas consumption renewable figures, in particular tariff sends a the island site.” market signal that more NICK EYRE renewable energy is needed. However, practically, in the short term if everyone in the country were to switch suppliers could not meet demand. It is still advised that the renewable energy contract is a good thing because it sends the right signal. It must be remembered that using less is always better and from a monetary perspective, carbon free electricity is expensive and reducing use saves money. The Master of Works Gerald Inns also expressed that for energy security reasons, having Oriel dependant solely on electricity would leave the college vulnerable to outages.
1. Accuracy As the Carbon Trust and us already pointed out, reported energy use estimates are preliminary. Yet it needs to be stressed out that some of the figures should be verified immediately, since they are very suspicious. Especially the Island site power consumption is high, but not sufficiently high to indicate that full electric heating is likely, as the gathered data suggests. It seems that in our analysis of bills we may have missed some gas meters, or we didn’t receive all recent energy bills. If there is an error in these data, then the overall college results are significantly affected, which
makes this issue a priority to resolve.
2. Lack of long term vision
“The statement on page 11 that ‘full replacement of the electric heating systems cannot be recommended on financial grounds’ is not justified.”
All the recommendations in the report have a pay back on investment time of less than three years. The report explicitly states NICK EYRE that a potential change from inefficient electric space heaters to gas that would be 50% more efficient would not be recommended because the payback time would be around ten years. Oriel college has an advantage over more transient and dynamic organisations such as businesses, in that it can be sure that it will still occupy the same premises over the coming decades if not centuries. Thus, longer time scale payback investments should be considered. If access to capital to carry out the work is an issue a novel approach of approaching benefactors for loans, to be repaid from energy savings could be considered. Political and economic trends are leading to increases in fuel prices that are unlikely to reverse in the future. Thus, investments in efficiency will reap even greater saving than those calculated at today’s prices. It is expected that fuel bills ay rise up to 40% in this year alone. With Oriel spending in excess of £164,000 per annum, these rises will be significant.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
“As it stands, there is an implication that oriel can only reduce its footprint by 9%, which I don’t think any of us believes.”
3. Easy opportunities for mitigation
The report clearly puts forward some easy opportunities for mitigating GHG, through 17 priority ordered recommendations (Figure 3). If all recommendations were enacted the savings in CO2e were estimated to be 91.8 tonnes per annum (8.2% of the NICK EYRE 1,100 tonnes footprint). Seven recommendations required no capital expenditure and in total would generate annual savings of £2,000. Examples include ensuring the larder door is kept shut in the kitchen, thus reducing unnecessary overworking of the cooling system and saving £175 per annum. Another is ensuring the boilers are set to their optimal thermal efficiency, saving £810 per annum. The remaining ten recommendations required capital expenditure totalling £14,770, generating annual savings of £15,100. An
Figure 3. Energy saving measures proposed by the Carbon Trust
example is locking thermostats in public areas to reduce the maximum temperature setting, preventing unnecessarily high use. At a cost of £450, this is expected to generate £265 of savings per annum per annum. The main critique of the above recommendations is that they simply reflect a lack of long term vision. In writing this critique, the expert opinions of members of Oxford University’s Lower Carbon Futures team and Oriel’s Master of Works, Gerald Inns has been sought. The consensus opinion was that the recommendations were too conservative and Oriel has the potential to achieve much more than the reductions outlined in the report.
4. Poor guidance on behavioural change The Lower Carbon Futures team believe behavioural changes to have the potential to reduce energy use significantly. The recommendations only include 4% reductions due to behavioural change. It is hoped the actions outlined in the behavioural change section will lead to more significant savings. In particular high electricity use can be reduced through greater energy awareness, such as an ambitious student awareness programme. This can be encouraged through a stringent energy management policy established at the college governing body level.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Behaviour: obstacle or opportunity? Students’ Role Behavioural changes are often believed to have a high potential to decrease carbon emissions. By coincidence both the group of specialists from the Lower Carbon Futures, and the Carbon Trust, suggested that the share of behavioural changes in emissions decrease could be as much as 50%. Students’ role Oriel students are generally concerned about the environment: a survey of graduates and undergraduates taken in 2007 found 79% of people rate their concern high or very high, and that they regard the environmental credentials of the college important (69% rated the environmental credentials of their college high or very high). However, their enthusiasm is not always translated into action; thus there are several areas in which student behaviour could be improved. Surveying can be an important source of information. For example, students have mentioned problems with insulation - 37% of people find their room cold (43% were comfortable). Based on the comments made, it appears that heat energy is being lost unnecessarily. Many people mentioned problems with windows being single glazed, unable to shut fully, or having ‘gaps’. Suggestions for making the rooms more comfortable include double glazed windows, thick interlined curtains, and properly insulated door-frames. Several students on the island site find their heaters irritating due to being unable to control thermostats.
Some think they come on for a few minutes and others think an hour at a time, but as one person commented “nobody seems to know how they work”. People have said they would prefer to be able to switch off the heating if it is getting too hot instead of having to open windows and “cycle between being too hot and too cold in an attempt to get a balance”; the heaters on st.33 have however been highlighted as being very effective. Common rooms were reported as variable, but the JCR has been singled out as often being too hot. 81% of students have between 4 and 10 electrical appliances, thus unplugging them instead of leaving them on standby is important to encourage; currently 59% of people leave appliances on sometimes, often or always. 17% of people leave lights on in their bedroom. More pressingly, lights are nearly always found on in public areas (the library, the JCR, the laundry room). Students are not apathetic about the environment; indeed the role of student behaviour towards the environment can certainly be made positive if we account for two facts. Firstly, people are lazy. Secondly, people respond to incentives. In terms of financial incentives, students tend to be particularly responsive due to the constraints associated with tuition fees, augmented by the lack of opportunity for most Oxford students to work during term-time. Students will behave in an environmentallyconscious manner only if it is made it easy and habitual, so that it does not feel like an extra effort. The high student turnover at
10
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Oriel and the fact that no student stays in a room longer than a year is beneficial because an environmental drive at the start of the academic year targets people moving into their new rooms, encouraging good behaviour as part of the routine that each student is creating as they settle in. This is particularly important for freshers, because once habits are formed they are more difficult to change, as it seems like an effort to turn lights off, turn the heating down or unplug appliances. If these things are introduced as part of the transition to living independently they will be much more effectively implemented. Close cooperation between college and students will be the most effective method of improving energy efficiency in college rooms, which may constitute the majority of Oriel’s space. Friendly reminders about “I agree with saving energy, combined with the report advice on how to do this, will that an energy benefit students who are management policy enthusiastic about playing a is top priority.” positive role towards energy management but unsure how GAVIN KILLIP to contribute. Students living in college rooms are in an excellent position to notice and want to improve problems with energy efficiency in them, because their own interest is concerned. The fact that the college faces a much higher increase in energy costs this year than was anticipated acts as an easy to comprehend extra rationale and motivation for students to reduce their energy consumption.
However, if the cooperation with students is to be successful, there needs to be a clear communication about progress. Any information presented should stem from clever (e.g. accounting for weather changes), and transparent energy use monitoring. Moreover, students’ good behaviour will be reinforced by feeling like part of a team working towards a solution to energy inefficiency instead of as if they are battling against external forces to improve their rooms and comfort around college (if they are told to reduce their energy consumption but not consulted on how college could help). Therefore, signs of dedication from Oriel’s management will reassure about the fairness of the game. Next chapter is devoted this subject.
Energy management As it was stressed in the critique of the preliminary results, energy management for Oriel is a top priority. Literally all experts involved agree on that. The fundamental issue is monitoring, which provides with reliable information upon which all decisions are based. Although this sounds very serious, in practice a well – designed spreadsheet and responsibility to fill it in with energy bills data could provide most of the necessary insight. Energy management could vastly benefit from creating energy strategy and policy, ideally in an official written form approved by the college’s board. This would not only help with internal affairs, by setting clear rules, but also could help Oriel earn a few extra points in
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
dealing with other colleges, potential donors, and other institutions. According to the Carbon Trust (page 24), the typical content of such a policy might be: •
•
• •
•
•
•
Monitoring energy on a regular basis to establish energy consumption trends which may adversely impact on the environmentally and financially on the college Set targets to reduce its energy consumption and carbon footprint by a combination of management and technical solutions Purchase green energy. Develop new buildings and refurbish buildings to a defined energy performance. Make use of, where appropriate, renewable energy resources, e.g. wind, solar, biomass or ground source heat to minimise carbon emissions. Set a minimum standard for the provision and control of heating, hot water services and lighting. Typical examples might include fluorescent or LED lighting, occupancy controls, on-demand heating, background heating (e.g. under-floor) with local boost heating etc. Maintain the active involvement of all staff and students to promote good housekeeping practices and minimise each person’s carbon impact on the college.
It’s clear that in relation to a number of above points Oriel has either already engage itself or is on a path to engagement.
In terms of financial side of management, creation of “Note that the cost a specific fund for energy and disruption are efficiency would greatly drastically reduced enhance fund rising and if you build the accounting in regards to energy-efficiency energy efficiency measures. measures into As pointed out by senior other things that alumni Ralph Cobham, are being carried there is a great potential out anyway.” in encouraging alumnus to sponsor specific measures, GAVIN KILLIP which could also be seen as a form of education. Ringfencing of savings was revoked a number of times whilst Oriel’s case was reviewed by experts. Making sure that savings from energy-efficiency measures are used for further investments (or even carbon offsets) would ensure progress and create a very positive image among all Oriel members and beyond. There’s no risk of overspending in relation to climate change. Oriel College could even be the first entity in the world offsetting China’s carbon footprint.
11
12
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Going the extra mile Beyond the Carbon Trust’s report recommendations, there are a number of additional measures the college can take. These are generally more ambitious, but must be seen viewed with a long term perspective. Long-term planning is the key, which for an institution that has been around for almost 700 years should be self-evident. This section outlines the opportunities and challenges presented by longer term energy saving projects.
Energy efficiency 1. Improved Glazing and Insulation The Carbon Trust report shows that ~26% of the total electricity consumption comes from space heating. By reducing heat loss through walls and windows with improved glazing and improved insulation significant energy savings could be achieved. Improvements that can be made to glazing in order to improve insulation can be divided into two broad areas: the installation of secondary glazing behind the original glazing or the replacement of original windows with new double glazing. Oriel College has a variety of glazing styles associated with the different ages and styles of the buildings. Single glazed windows predominate at the main site, with the new rectory road buildings having double glazing. Secondary glazing has been installed previously at the main site with the aim of reducing noise, not specifically for energy saving. Much of this was subsequently removed for practical purposes, but the re-evaluation of this approach from
an energy saving perspective could be considered by the college. Insulation is probably the most commonly advised way of increasing energy efficiency. In the case of a listed buildings certain types of insulation seems to be only available options, namely loft insulation, internal wall insulation, draught proofing, tanks and pipes insulation. The last two types are very easy and/or cheap to implement. A number of draughty doors on main site’s quads are probably the first to be addressed. Working with listed buildings excludes the option of external wall insulation at the main site, and most likely also the cavity wall insulation. Oriel’s tall narrow buildings and thick walls are well designed have in built insulation. However, Gerald Inns is aware of some areas of the college such as staircase 34 that would benefit from improved roof insulation. With a longer term perspective energy efficiency improvements can be timed to coincide with planned renovations thus minimising disruption.
2. IT management It is noted that at least some of the desktop computer machines in Oriel College are left on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and for 52 weeks a year. In those cases, Wake-onLAN and Power Management package to desktop machines could save an average of 480 kWh per year per machine. In terms of carbon dioxide this is 250 kg pa (at average UK mains electricity emissions factor of 0.523 kg CO2 per kWh). Given that there are approx 40 admin staff PCs and 15 computer
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
suite PCs, and assuming that half of them are continuously on, there is a potential of annual saving of ~£1000.
3. CHP Combined Heat and Power (CHP) involves the co-generation of both electricity and usable heat. Conventionally, when power plants generate electricity, huge amounts of heat are produced as a by-product. This heat is typically treated as a waste and cooling towers such as those of nearby Didcot power station transfer this heat to the atmosphere. CHP systems seek to utilise this energy to provide heating for nearby buildings including domestic housing. The scale of CHP systems varies hugely, and includes some large scale community heating projects, such as in Manhattan where over 100,000 buildings are heated. In addition to its large scale applicability CHP can also be used at the small scale to provide heat and energy to individual buildings (MicroCHP) in which case the fuel (usually natural gas) normally used to provide warmth is also used to generate electricity which can either be used locally or sold back to the grid. In 2005, 5,792MW of CHP was installed in the UK. Government’s target is to have 10,000MW CHP installed on the Grid by 2010. In general electric resistance heating is neither cost effective nor environmentally sound. The statement on page 11 of the Carbon Trust’s report that “full replacement of the electric heating systems cannot be recommended on financial grounds” is not
justified. If resistance heating is a significant contributor to the college’s total electricity bill (~£135k annually), then a great deal of capital expenditure could be justified to reduce it. Recently Green College invited an energy consultancy to evaluate the potential for CHP. The lessons learnt at Green College are an interesting guide for Oriel; however it must be remembered that there are important differences between the two colleges, the most obvious of which is that Oriel is around 50% larger (in terms of numbers of students) than Green. Furthermore, the buildings at Green are substantially more modern. Green College has an annual gas consumption of 1,116,000kWh and an electricity consumption of 204,000kWh. At Green it was estimated that installing a 160kW system would cost around £32,000 and would reduce the carbon dioxide emissions by 33%, and the annual fuel bill by 30% compared to the current system. The notional payback time of such a system was estimated at 10 years. Oriel’s Carbon footprint assessment team contacted the energy consultancy, Gastec, who are the Carbon Trust’s official approved CHP auditors, and have already delivered presentations to Green, Linacre and a consortium of Masters of Works from various colleges. Two options for engaging with the company emerged.
13
14
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
The first option is a meeting session devoted solely to CHP, which the company considers the best option for energy/carbon saving in Oxford colleges. Because there are significant economies of scale to be achieved from a cooperative of colleges (for example, from avoiding installing separate machines in colleges’ boiler houses), such meeting falls into current efforts of Oriel’s Provost to organise the members of the “Merton Street Gang” around opportunities for cooperation. Moreover, since there is a charge for such meeting (£400 for one afternoon), having other colleges by the table could reduce the cost per participant. The second option presented was to have a full audit done (as Green college did), which would be an extended version of the assessment done by the Carbon Trust (it takes 3 days). Because of the significant overlap with what already has been done, we feel that at this stage it’s better to engage with professionals with regards to specific solutions, even though the general assessment could be heavily subsidised by the Carbon Trust. CHP has been proven to be an efficient and cost effective method of reducing carbon emissions and fuel costs, however there are some key considerations which need to be taken account of: • The fact that gas is used to generate heat and electricity will result in an increase in college gas usage however this will be offset by a reduction in the amount of electricity used. The relative prices
•
•
of fuels are therefore critical to the economic viability of CHP CHP is mutually exclusive of some of the other options detailed in this report (such as solar thermal heating) As part of a long term plan there is the potential for the colleges along Merton Street to combine resources and take advantage of economies of scale by jointly investing in a community CHP system to that would supply heat and electricity to all of the participants.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Gaining energy from renewable sources 1. Solar Water Heating Solar water heating systems use heat from the sun to work alongside a conventional water heater. The technology is well developed with a large choice of equipment to suit many applications. There are three main components, including solar panels or collectors, which are fitted onto the roof of buildings, the heat transfer system, which heats water, and the third component is the hot water cylinder. According to the Energy Savings Trust, solar water heating can provide about a third of a buildings hot water needs, though some estimate this to be as high as 60%. A rough estimate is that 1-2 m2 of roof space is required per person using the hot water per year, which would be difficult for Oriel to achieve, though the college does have some obvious suitable south-facing roof space (figure x). Because Oriel’s boilers use gas, which is the main constituent of the college’s carbon footprint, this may be one of the most useful measures to undertake. Since the 6th of April 2008 development rights for micro-generation technologies in England, under which solar water heating falls, have been lifted and most houses can install them without planning permission. Unfortunately, Listed Buildings, including Oriel’s main site, do not fall under this rule. Hence this matter would have to be further investigated. The cost of installing solar water heaters is thought to be about £3,000 – £5,000 for a domestic installation, which is said to pay
itself off in about 4 years, and under the BERR funded low carbon program grants can be obtained for installing micro-generation. Figure 4. Solar water heater installed on a roof.
15
16
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
figure 5. red = useful roof, yellow = potentially useful, purple = non-existent but future useful roof, especially for PV roof tiling
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
2. Photo Voltaics (PV) – generating the college’s own electricity Photovoltaics are made out of materials called semiconductors, which absorb the energy of light to generate an electric current. Solar energy use is on the rise internationally and the solar photovoltaic (PV) industry is seeing great investments in the last decade, growing at an annual rate of more than 35% . The UK is lagging behind in the industry’s expansion, though the solar radiation reaching the country is almost as much as that in the Mediterranean and on cloudy days the energy received is only reduced to a third of that on a clear day. PV system deployment is being encouraged in Germany, Spain, Italy, France, South Korea, and the USA amongst others. Amongst the most attractive PV designs for integration into building is the multi-crystalline silicon modular setup (Figure 6, left), which is mounted with a frame onto rooftops or freestanding. Alternatively PV modules can be used as the building fabric, as in the case of PV roof tiles (Figure 6, right), where the costs of conventional building materials can be offset. To make solar PV installations effective they need to be directed towards the light intensity hotspot, which in the UK is rather large, from Southeast to Southwest at a tilt of 20º to 50º. Oriel College would certainly have some obviously suitable roof space (Figure 5), with more potential at the island side and on the James Mellon Hall buildings. Additionally the new building under construction at the James Mellon hall site could incorporate solar roof tiles.
Figure 6. Multi-crystalline silicon PV arrays (left) and solar roof tiles (right).
The PV could generate revenue in two ways. First, any electricity produced will result in smaller bills from the conventional electricity supplier, thereby saving money. At current prices this is taken as 8p/kWh. Given the comparatively small fraction of annual electricity supplied by the PV to each building, it is assumed that all electricity generated is used on site. Second, most electricity companies are offering payments for solar generated electricity. For example Good Energy offer 4.5p per kWh of solar electricity generated, even if used on site, and Scottish and Southern are offering 18p per kWh of electricity exported back to the grid. Since the recent announcement of the Government (16th of October 2008), feedin tarrifs are a real option to be considered. According to JOJU, a company promoting solar energy, PV systems would be able to pay themselves off in 25 years at current electricity prices, and if these are to raise the payback time would be less .
17
18
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Beyond direct emission reductions 1. Waste management and recycling Waste can be a significant source of green house gases (GHG), especially methane, and should be considered in a wider reaching carbon footprint management plan. GHG emissions from waste generated by Oriel College have not been included in the calculation of the Carbon trust. Yet, waste avoidance and recycling could contribute towards carbon savings and deserve consideration in this report. Waste contributes to indirect emissions through production of greenhouse gases through decomposition. Also, sending waste to landfills, especially energy intensive materials like glass and aluminium, can be seen as loosing carbon invested in the material initially. By contrast, recycling can displace GHG emissions, as it is generally less energy intensive than producing from new raw materials. For example, in the case of paper, which is the prominent category of waste in College, recycling uses about 28% less energy than to produce virgin paper according to the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges . Composting offers the same benefits. Quantifying the College GHG emissions from waste is possible based on some commonly accepted facts: • recycling and composting can reduce up to 40% of the carbon emitted due to waste disposal . • energy used to produce typical garbage
•
•
plus the methane given off in the landfill site is equivalent to about 20kg of CO2 per “large rubbish bag”. For every kilogram of waste thrown out, 1 kg of CO2 is produced (Quaker Green Action, 2006) In 2006/2007, in the U.K, 57,9% of municipal waste went to landfills, 30.6% was recycled or composted and 11.1% is incinerated in an energy from waste plant – with heat recovery or electricity generation (Defra, 2007).
If one considers the U.K. national average for domestic waste production and the number of residents in College, Oriel College produces around 215 tonnes of waste per annum. This corresponds to around 8 large bins of garbage per week that the City Council collects. All waste does not go to landfill, as the College is under a City Council recycling scheme for paper, glass, plastics and cans. Cardboard is not yet recycled in Oriel. The first step towards a reduction of Oriel carbon emissions from waste should be to promote waste avoidance in college. This objective should reflect on the college procurement policy. Moreover, the rate of recycling in college might not be efficient as: • paper recycling is only available through specific bins in the porter’s lodge and in the computer rooms (staircase 34 and JCR); • kitchen bins for recycling glass, plastic and cans are only available in the MCR
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
kitchen and in the kitchens of Rectory Road buildings; there is none in the kitchens of the college main site. Various actions could spur an improvement of recycling in college: • placing free individual recyclable, cardboard desktop containers for dry waste in each room, especially paper. These would be flat packed and would need to be assembled by the user. Individuals will then be responsible for emptying the contents into the larger recycling bins; • providing for each kitchen in college recycling bins for glass, plastic and cans, and organic waste; • offering new collective recycling containers at the two college sites for batteries, cardboard, and plastics and cans. Further reduction in Oriel’s waste emissions could be achieved through an internal recycling scheme to encourage the re-use of plastic bags and the default setting of printers to print recto/verso. Last but not least, the survey conducted among Oriel students leaving in college accommodation highlighted a certain lack of knowledge of the benefits of recycling and of the existing recycling facilities. A campaign of information could certainly participate to improving students’ behaviour.
2. Travel Related Emissions This concerns the carbon emissions produced through travel by students and employees of College. The Carbon Trust report did not look into personal travel as part of the college’s carbon footprint, though under the extended definition of a carbon footprint, where indirect emissions are also incorporated, personal travel often becomes a part of the footprint analysis. Voluntary registers could record students travel to and from work. Student and fellow travel when at college could be monitored, in particular if they are to apply for a studies-related travel grant. The grant could include a carbon off-setting component, whereby the students would have to calculate how much carbon their travels would produce and factor this into their grant proposal. As for the employees at the college, these could be given yearly carbon travel allowances, which would be off-set through the college.
3. Supporting carbon sinks The college owned land near Iffley could one day be used to grow trees such as willow wic could contribute to carbon sequestration. An estimation of the carbon storage capacity of the land could be commissioned so as to offset some of the College GHG emissions.
19
20
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Table 2: Summary of direct investment opportunities * because Oriel’s electricity is (nearly) carbon neutral. ** only indirect energy saving ACTION IT Management
CARBON SAVING No *
Insulation: • draught proofing Yes tank and pipe Yes • wall, loft Yes Double glazing
ENERGY PAYBACK SAVING Yes Short (around £1,000 per annum) Yes
CAPITAL INVESTMENT Low
Yes Yes
Short/Medium Low Short/Medium Medium/high Short/Medium High
Solar water heating
Yes
Yes
Medium
Medium
CHP
Yes, if Yes combined with a more efficient boiler
Medium
High
PV
No*
Maybe
High
Waste management
Yes
No**
Long (above 20 years) Short
Low
BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION Minor (behaviour)
None Occupancy Occupancy, listed building Occupancy, listed building Large-scale construction depending on other colleges Occupancy, Listed building Behaviour
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Carbon Offsetting In contrast to what was said before, carbon offsetting can be seen as indirect investment opportunity. Carbon offsetting is the practice of paying a private company or charity to carry out a project that reduces carbon dioxide in the carbon dioxide equal to the amount emitted by the purchaser. Thus, the net carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is zero and ‘carbon neutrality’ has been achieved. The practice works because carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and the impact non global climate is the same no matter where reductions as made. Projects that sequester carbon can take several forms. A popular project type involves planting trees, which sequester carbon in their biomass as they grow, thus removing it from the atmosphere. Preventing the deforestation of trees that were going to be cut down also prevents the release of carbon dioxide from burning of the trees and subsequent decomposition of dead wood. Another example of a project is the distribution of equipment that allows rural communities to switch from inefficient burning of carbon intensive fuels to more efficient cleaner burning fuels. The price of carbon offsets varies according to the company they are purchased from and the project type that was used to generate the reductions. This is due to differing administration and transaction costs associated with differing levels of verification and monitoring that are employed by different companies. To offset Oriel’s carbon footprint would require an annual investment of between
£2,600 with Climate Care to £6,000 by purchasing credits from the ‘regulated’ market which is governed by the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). It is recommended that due to the large sums of money involved in their purchase, a debate on whether or not offsets are a good idea for Oriel should be conducted. Below are some points that should be considered. Retailers of offsets agree that offsets should be purchased, only once all efforts to make actual reductions to emissions have been exhausted. If this advice is not followed, there can be criticisms on ethical grounds that the purchaser is trying to buy their way out of trouble, rather than making changes. Financially, purchasing offsets may not be advisable. Once purchased, offsets do not pay anything back and only provide ‘carbon neutrality’ for a year. If however the same amount was invested in energy efficiency in Oriel, then financial rewards in terms of reduced energy bills would be achieved every year. The same accounting argument can be applied to the carbon dioxide emissions reduced. A net off payment every year, makes a one off reduction in emissions, however, investments in efficiency will educe emissions every year going forward. Finally, the selection of offset company used must be carefully considered. With the exception of the ‘regulated’ credits of the UNFCC mentioned above the voluntary carbon offsetting market is unregulated. Recently, practices of some vendors have been called into question, a review of the voluntary carbon market can be found in the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 2007 report.
21
22
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Road map Through our study we came to the realisation that Oriel College should focus its climate impact actions on reducing energy use on top of reducing its carbon footprint. We identify a number of decisions and actions that college management need to consider and act upon. These are outlined below in order of necessity, but do interlink, as is seen in the table 3.
• •
5. Establish monitoring methodology • •
1. Write a vision statement •
Consider officially binding Oriel to reducing its energy use annually and its carbon footprint to neutrality. In line with EU and UK targets we recommend targets of 20% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 and 80% cuts by 2050, compared with the 2008 benchmark figures.
2. Promote continuity of the Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team •
•
•
Ensure the continued involvement of environmentally-minded Oriel College fellows. Encourage successive Oriel students including ECI students, JCR and MCR environmental officers, Sir Walter Raleigh scholar, and other dedicated environmentally. Contact the 2008 recruits now.
3. Create reliable benchmarks •
•
• •
Add quantitative value to the vision statement through carbon and energy savings targets.
Ensure that methodology is consistent in time, clear to understand and use. Consider working with SMEasure (Catherine Bottrill and Russell Layberry), as it may cut on work, and/or Build spreadsheets and incorporate weather standardisation (degree days). Assign responsibility for regular monitoring and recording of the college’s energy use.
6. Engage Oriel students in energy saving activities through an awareness campaign •
•
Assign a liaison function to the JCR and MCR environmental representative and consider appointing an SCR environmental representative. Promote energy saving behaviour through posters, internet (emails and websites) and awareness talks.
7. Implement the Carbon Trust recommendations •
Produce reliable energy use figures, especially for gas.
4. Energy policy with energy savings targets
Consider ring-fencing the monetary savings generated from energy reducing actions. Specify budget for the costs of a college energy policy.
Put into place the technological fixes recommended by the Carbon Trust so as to achieve 8% reduction in energy use.
8. Assess barriers of listed building status to further action •
Investigate the restrictions imposed by Oriel’s listed building status – this may have to be commissioned into a report.
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
9. Address further low hanging fruit actions •
•
These include implementation of IT energy saving software (contact: Daniel Curtis), and draft proofing of doors and windows.
11. Decide how to use carbon offsets
10. Decide on long-term investments •
•
Meet representatives from companies specialising in those technologies. Contrast benefits of mCHP versus solar thermal technology and chose which to pursue.
Review available options regarding emerging energy technologies, including CHP, photovoltaics and solar thermal.
• •
Assess which type of carbon offsets to purchase. Offset the reminder of carbon footprint.
table 3: gantt chart for the proposed road map actions . no.
2008 task
1
Mission Statement
2
New OCCFA team
3
New benchmark
4
Policy
5
Monitoring
6
Engage community
7 8
Implement CT recom. Listed buildings info
9
Low hanging fruit
10
Long-term investment 10.1 Meet experts 10.2 Contractors in 11
Carbon offsets
Oct
Nov
2009 Dec
Jan
Feb Mar
Apr May Jun Jul
Aug Sep
23
24
Reducing Oriel’s Carbon Footprint
Resources •
•
•
Defra (2007). E-Digest Environment Statistics, Waste and recycling, available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ statistics/index.htm [last visited 21/09/2008. Fawcett, T., Hurst, A., Boardman, B. (2002) Carbon U.K., Oxford: Environmental Change Institute. Combined Heat and Power Association, www.chpa.co.uk/
•
Low Government Carbon Building, www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/home/
•
McKinsey Report “Climate Change: Everyone’s Business”: www.mckinsey. com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Climate_ Change_Business_final_report.pdf
•
Sustainability Northwest for RenewablesNorthwest, www.claren.org. uk/downloads/CHPBrief2.pdf
•
The Carbon Trust, www.carbontrust. co.uk/energy/startsaving/tech_chp_ introduction.htm
•
The Stern Review Report: http://62.164.176.164/stern_review_ climate_change.htm
•
Energy Saving Trust, www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ Generate-your-own-energy/Types-ofrenewables/Solar-water-heating
•
In addition, the report from the Carbon Trust refers to a number of technical documents. See bottoms of tables describing proposed 15 actions.
•
English Heritage, www.englishheritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/ign_partl_ buildingregs.pdf; www.english-heritage. org.uk/upload/pdf/Conservation_ Principles_Policies_and_Guidance_ April08_Web.pdf; www.english-heritage. org.uk/server/show/category.1378; and www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/ pdf/Climate_Change_and_the_Historic_ Environment_2008.pdf
•
Gastec at CRE (2006). Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint Reduction. A Presentation delivered to Green College by Mark Crowther of Gastec at CRE Ltd. (Available from The Oriel Carbon Footprint Action Team on request).
