|
We all know the stereotypes when it comes to investment in energy infrastructure: investors want maximum return for no risk; businesses control the risk and minimise costs and maximise price; the planning system is slow; and locals and green groups object to every aspect of any project. However, the truth is that such stereotypes do not hold true.
ACE’s latest Energy Sector Interest Group meeting heard from Natural England, the Campaign Against Climate Change, English Heritage and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. At first glance such groups would not appear to be consultants’ greatest allies, but the meeting conveyed a clear message of early engagement, sustainable thinking, sensible solutions and continued co-operation.
It was clear from the group that there were genuine concerns with regards to climate change, with all members agreeing that it poses the most serious long term threat to the health of the natural environment. Whilst the scale and timing of the potential problem of climate change remain uncertain, the group heard that climate change is unlikely to be a slow process. It is more likely that we will reach a tipping point, beyond which there is a substantial change in the severity of the impacts of climate change. This could result in a significant change in living conditions.
It was felt that, without global agreement, governments’ reactions to climate change would only be likely to accelerate once this step change had taken place. In this respect action needs to be taken, but the emphasis was on ensuring that our actions now do not have unintended consequences later.
There was a clear view that, if done correctly, there is no reason why the UK could not deliver a low carbon economy in a manner compatible with key environmental goals. The key to delivering such goals is co-operation. If co-operation takes place from an early stage, concerns can be heard, designs and specification adapted, money saved and projects delivered that truly perform and add to the environment.
Co-operation may also yield better tools for assessing project viability. CPRE presented their tranquillity mapping exercise, which identified the key factors adding to or detracting from tranquillity and the relative significance of each factor. The maps produced from this model are freely available and relate to 500m by 500m cross sections of England. They clearly show where urban areas sit, where intrusion is taking place and what the public consider to be England’s most tranquil areas. While there will always be some debate as to the definition of tranquillity, when this model is put alongside data on roads and power lines there is a correlation to the tranquillity portrayed by individuals. Such a model would not be used as a single tool to guide investment, but does provide some guidance to developers as to areas where they are most likely to receive a significant amount of objection.
Regarding renewables, part of the controversy around developments is the land requirements. For example, per square meter of land a conventional power station will provide 1000W of electricity compared to just 2W for onshore wind. Given this, onshore wind developments are likely to impact upon more and more of the population, whereas traditional power generation has been confined to a small number of compact regions. This reinforces the importance of stakeholder engagement. For renewables to work the technology is going to have to be made more familiar and be implemented in a way that appeals to the public.
In other words, to overcome the barriers to wind development the planning system is more likely to need to be led from neighbourhoods up. Planning systems will therefore need to account for the cumulative impacts of projects, whilst anticipating infrastructure requirements, and link into the character of the landscape. Not a simple task by any means.
Further to this the group explored the implementation of renewables technologies in heritage buildings. ACE has previously outlined the important role retrofitting will play in the reducing of the UK’s carbon footprint. Heritage buildings are likely to present developers and homeowners with additional challenges in terms of the implementation of micro generation and retrofitting. The group discussed English Heritage’s views with regards to how projects could be implemented and the likely suitability of proposals. These included micro wind, solar thermal, photovoltaic, ground source heat pumps, biomass, CHP and micro hydro.
Issues that were raised as important included: the need for arrangements to record fabric made accessible through the proposed works; processes for agreeing the design; the routing and the technical issues in relation to routing and (reversible) fixing; decommissioning requirements and funding possibilities; and accessibility and frequency of maintenance both for the micro generation product and the existing building. The discussion again provided a clear case for early engagement, saving both time and money.
The discussions here demonstrate the need for stakeholder engagement across the lifecycle of a project. Through early engagement, planning issues can be avoided before costly legal battles, communities can feel more engaged and engineers can innovate to create the solutions that tomorrow’s challenges will continue to test.
 download full article.
Getting back to business
ACE Annual Conference 2011
Marriott St Pancras Renaissance Hotel, London
25 May 2011
Think tank – low carbon construction
Panel session with Q&A
Discuss how the industry can respond to the challenges of reducing carbon in construction.
Panellists:
• Alex Tosetti, URS Scott Wilson
• Paul Morrell OBE, chief construction adviser
• Bill Bordass, Usable Buildings Trust
• Hannah Collie, CIC and 2050 Group
|