Building MPG

On 5th September 2008, I pitched my idea to encourage energy efficient buildings, I will not bore you with the speech, essentially it boils down to providing a metric, to assess, rate and compare building performance.  We need a simple concept, that encourages building energy efficiency, creates a certain competition between building owners, and last but not least a metric that is easily understandable by the general public, so created MPG for buildings.

EUI, or the other commonly used metrics for building efficiency are childs play to professionals, but the general public doesn’t get it. You need to spend your resources educating people what the metric means, but with MPG they get it!  Although the HKSAR hasnt taken up the challenge, opting for another EUI as part of the new building energy efficiency code (cap 611), the idea has taken hold in USA link from the Department of Energy Resources.

The USA State of Massachusetts has published a white paper ( link PDF white paper MPG for buildings).  Thanks for reading, here is my presentation slides on slideshare:

Building Energy Efficiency Seminar

 

So besides some bragging rights,  what is the point of this post you might ask,  if your looking for energy solutions engage right people or you’ll be taking a haircut too.

John Herbert, Consultant

Green Building Challenges

Charles D’HAUSSY from cleantuesday was kind enough to invite me talk about green building technologies, but instead of the traditional “where we are now” approach I wanted to look forward, to focus on the future, what is needed to help drive and build sustainable buildings.

Here is my top 5 green building challenges that need new solutions and green technology development.  Here is a link to the somewhat dark video on youtube:

http://youtu.be/kIq90BkdU0E

and the presentation in pdf format.

Any other suggestions?

— John Herbert, consultant

Carbon Intensity

BBC World Website (7 April 2011)

Hardly a day goes by without more news from the Japan’s stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, unlike past disasters, we have had more news, and media coverage that was inconceivable even ten years ago, and the unfolding tragedy in Japan and at the Fukushima Daiichi has impacted countries far from the leaking radiation.

Many countries including Germany, and China, have halted or postponed existing nuclear programmes for “safety checks” as the media report continues to report the countless attempts by the plant operators TEPCO to try and control the leakage from the wreckage. Japan like Hong Kong has few natural resources (coal, oil or gas) and relies heavily on its nuclear energy programme to provide 30% of its energy needs.

The elephant in the room is those pesky commitments to tackle climate change. China announced on the eve of COP16 (and reiterated at the recent NPCC 12th Five year plan [1] ) that it would reduce it’s Carbon Intensity by 40-45%   Hong Kong closely followed suit and also pledged to lowers its CI, but don’t mistake these Carbon Intensity reductions as energy efficiency improvements.

Carbon Intensity (CI) is defined as the quantity of carbon (CO2) emitted per unit of energy.  Therefore to lower your carbon intensity change from burning a high carbon fossil fuel like coal, to nuclear energy (or renewable energy) reduces the intensity, without any energy efficiency improvement, does that sound more like a Business As Usual approach than a real framework or strategy to tackle dwindling resources?

To achieve this impressive figures would be achieved by switching from power generation using fossil fuel to nuclear powered generation.  At Macau MIECF 2011 (31 March 2011) the Hong Kong Government’s EPD representative Mr Joe Fong [2] indicated that Hong Kong would increase the nuclear energy contribution imported from the mainland from 23% in 2009 to 50% by 2020.

Increasing Nuclear to 50% to lower Hong Kong's Carbon Intensity - Joe W.Y. Fong @ MICEF 2011

So, the obvious question needs to be raised,  if these promised CI reduction targets are to be achieved, and increasing nuclear energy production has been sidelined as a solution can will nations meet these ambitious targets? Is it even possible without increasing the contribution from nuclear powered facilities?  Fortunately, the answer to both questions is affirmative,  energy efficiency improvements can deliver real carbon reductions. It’s not sexy, and unlike building more power plants, it requires hard work on the ground, and political commitment but achievable.

Coupled with these unfolding events in Japan, unrest in the Middle East continues to cause jitters in the markets, dramatically increased crude oil prices adding salt to wound.  It seems that only major news reminds us that oil and other nature resources will not last forever.

Energy efficiency improvements are certain not a panacea for every problem a nation faces today, however developed nations have no excuses, I wonder how long it will take before politicians will truly embrace this opportunity.

— John Herbert, Kelcroft, consultant

1. China’s Carbon Intensity to be reduced by 40-45 % by 2020, based on 2005 baseline http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011npc/2011-03/07/content_12125740.htm

2. http://www.macaomiecf.com/miecf2011/brochure/Urban_Planning/Joe_Fong.pdf

LEED is not a standard

In a piece posted by Reuters [link/GreenBiz.com] the author fails to understand that USGBC’s LEED is a NOT a standard. Item number 9 in the piece says, I quote:

9. Meet LEED standards. Build, renovate, and operate your facilities according to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards…..

LEED is one of many [1] available methodologies that can be used to assess the environmental performance of buildings, it is a rating tool, not a standard.

[1]. Other international green building rating tools include BEAM, BREEAM, Green Star, Green Mark, and Green Globes

— John Herbert, consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited

Precious water

Buildings demand a significant use of our finite resources including fuel for energy usage, water consumption, and cause atmospheric and environmental impacts from waste. Our pace of consumption cannot be maintained if some natural resources are to be spared, we need to build smarter, its crucial for our sustainability if tomorrow’s child is to be left with some usable resources.

The Green Building concept aims to reduce the environmental impact of new and existing buildings, yet environmental impact of buildings is often underestimated, a recent survey show people though buildings had little or no impact on the environment! whereas the scary fact is that 63% of Hong Kong’s Carbon footprint results from its buildings.

Some green labelling systems such as BEAM address part of the problem, but its only voluntary system. However building labelling and sustainability requires more science, including the entire life cycle impacts being assessed.

Sadly, the availability of fresh water is a critical, life threatening issue for many regions, yet developed countries, including Hong Kong frequently waste water. The photograph above shows a typical Hong Kong “Irrigation system”, a diesel fuel water tanker truck and manual hose, water efficiency is clearly not important. In this system most the water is lost in the spray, evaporation to atmosphere, or wetting the adjacent paving. Hong Kong is not alone in this regard, it occurs elsewhere, but that is not an excuse. Its a practice that needs to be stopped to avert water security and shortfall nightmares.

Water efficient alternatives exist, sub-soil irrigation avoids the short-comings delivering water into the root systems without evapouration losses, and excess.

— John Herbert, consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited

Green Factories China and Asia

I was interviewed for an article regarding green factory facilities in China, it’s an extensive subject with few column inches and not limited to China. I listed more than 165 strategic methods for creating a green facilities, far too many to review in one article. Here is the link for the report your reference:

http://rightsite.asia/en/article/green-facilities-becoming-reality-china

Green Facilities Becoming Reality in China

Savings in costs making sustainable China factories economically viable

by Ben Paul on Tue, 2010-08-10 19:57

Green facilities may be good for the planet, but they’re not easy to achieve. Many businesses that need to emphasise near-term cashflow may want to go green but end up settling for cheap and dirty. However, there are a number of options that can help companies be both environmentally sustainable and economically viable – especially for companies that can afford to think long-term. “You’d be surprised at the low-cost or no-cost opportunities I find just walking around in a factory,” John Herbert, founder of environmental consultancy Kelcroft E&M Limited said.

 

Of course, the greatest savings often come from making investments in making investments in design or technology that cuts resource use. However, as Herbert points out, there are important opportunities – both in building design and in outfitting – that can result in long-term savings for manufacturers setting up their plants in China.

RightSite talks with green industry experts about how to make such eco-friendly facilities sustainable for even the most frugal investors.

Potential problems

Given the benefits of eco-friendly buildings, it can be surprising that those elements have not been integrated into every factory. The prospect of delays caused by cost premiums, underdeveloped technology, and conservative ownership, however, may forestall adoption of even the most promising design improvements.

A business-owner might decide against a more eco-friendly facility because of the higher base costs. For firms constructing an environmentally-sustainable factory, the costs are typically 100 percent higher than for a building without such environmental features, according to Bernd Reitmeier, shareholder of the Startup Factory Incubator Project.

 

Even more conservative estimates suggest companies should expect to make a sizable investment.

It depends on how much technology is used,” Yan Zhu, Vice General Manager of Jiaxing CECIC Environmental Protection Technology Co. said. “Compared to normal plants, generally it adds 18 to 19 percent to the construction costs.”

This can cause hesitation whether the building company is building for themselves or intends to lease it. In the case of the Kunshan facility Reitmeier is supervising, rental rates are around 40 RMB/sqm/month – nearly three times more than a typical workshop.

Controlling Conservation Costs

Sustainability will cost more initially, but with the right planning such investments can pay off. For one, saving energy is rarely about buying expensive new equipment, but rather building in savings from the beginning of a project.

Thus, for companies preparing to build a factory, savings can be built into the facility itself. Stefan Rau, Group Executive Director of planning firm Metropolitan Synergies, said decisions as routine as the building’s orientation can have a huge impact on energy usage during the plant’s lifetime.

“Most factories have one air conditioning system and another system for floor ventilation,” Rau said. “But by building with…an aerodynamic design, you can create a system of natural ventilation.”

 

He also pointed to elements like installing skylights to reduce the need for artificial lighting, as well as building insulation layers into walls.

Markus Diem, Director of the Energy Department at MUDI, agrees that a building’s structure is often the most important element in increasing energy savings. With this in mind, he designed a recent project’s building as a closed ‘enveloping’ system to strictly regulate the amount of hot or cold air passing though.

“The most efficient part is the building envelope,” Diem said, “a big part of most buildings’ energy loss is that it literally goes right out the window.”

Green Operations

Energy savings are not just for businesses that can afford to custom-build a factory – there are also plenty of opportunities to outfit an existing production center.

Herbert said that in many plants he visits, the planning has been focused on the manufacturing process itself, without taking into account energy factors.

According to Herbert, a common case is when foreign companies from areas like the U.S. or Japan bring equipment over from their home plants, but find that the voltage is inappropriate for Chinese powers systems. As a result, many simply plug the machinery into transformers.

While this may offer a quick way fix to the problem, Herbert notes that, “right there you lose one to two percent of the energy just going through that.”

Instead, he said companies could invest in purchasing and training their staff on a new, China-made version of the equipment and eliminate the recurring costs.

Another place for savings is in boilers that produce steam. Herbert said in factories that use steam, the condensation can be collected and reused.

“It’s already chemically treated and already hot, so you don’t have to go through those processes again,” Herbert said. “Just through that a business can save two to three hundred thousand [renminbi] a month, and there’s no running cost.”

Selling Sustainable

The benefits of energy-efficient production facilities extend beyond the factory itself: according to Diem, they can also be good for marketing.

“Green is fashionable right now to investors,” Diem said. “When I started this company five years ago it wasn’t so high in demand, but now everybody wants that as part of their building.” Products certified as made in sustainable settings are eligible to use certain advertising on their packaging that Herbert says attracts consumers and boosts the company’s image. “We get calls from companies whose buyers want a carbon label on the products,” Herbert said. “[businesses realize] they need to set a framework and market their product’s greenness.”

 

According to several surveys taken over the last few years, more than 40 percent of consumers in the U.S., UK, and EU said they would pay more for environmentally-friendly products. In line with this potential for growth in consumer goods, Herbert said he has seen an increasing demand among companies to become certified and expects that will only increase in the future.

How to Communicate Sustainability to Investors

Despite initial price concerns, shareholders can be convinced to approve sustainable plants. Herbert’s main suggestion to companies staff looking to pitch such an idea is to think like a customer. What will impress the customer will impress the manager. Customers will pay more for green-produced products…and will avoid buying products that aren’t made in a clean way,” Herbert said.

 

To resolve questions about costs, Reitmeier advises characterizing the project as an investment that will be fully recovered by the time the company’s time there ends.

“Most factories will be leased out for three to five years,” Reitmeier said, “So you have to explain that the payback comes in one to three.”

Rudy Tandjono, Director of Operations for architecture firm iHabitat, suggested a longer-term perspective, saying that even a 10 percent saving over the course of five to ten years of operation in a factory would be worthwhile. Vincent Cheng, Associate Director of consulting firm Arup, adds that features that reduce energy costs like an increased use of natural lighting also improve employee productivity, a notion echoed by Diem. “There’s research out there that shows an energy-efficient building is more comfortable,” Diem said, “so if the people working in such a building are more comfortable, they will also be more efficient.”

A More Sustainable Future

Between savings on utility costs, increased marketing potential, and more efficient employees, the outlook for eco-friendly factories seems bound to increase.

For Rau, an increase in the number of green facilities is not far away. “I think that’s understood on a political level right now,” Rau said, “but it needs to be communicated to independent factory owners that there are lots of opportunities out there for this kind of thing”

———–END

— John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft

Poorly Maintained AC is a Health Hazard

As the mercury hovers above 30 Deg C buzzing air conditioning units working overtime are commonplace in street and offices across the city.  And if you’re a facility operator or business owner you also need to ensure that the air conditioning system is properly maintained, not only to maintain energy efficiency but also to prevent spreading disease. If we had a Legionella threat level it would now be ORANGE!

Air conditioning systems are a documented source of Legionella [1], the system has all the necessary elements, the capacity to harbour, breed, and distribute Legionella into the air we breathe. Microscopic water droplets contaminated with Legionella can be easily inhaled, risking the potentially fatal Legionnaires disease infection.

Legionella comes from nature, its found at low concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater. Also one type thrives in compost and soil.  Legionella escapes conventional water treatment and low concentrations are piped into our buildings, given the right conditions Legionella can proliferate and then your problems begin.

Since the infection dose is small, and the incubation period is 7-10 days, you can see that just one contaminated cooling tower is a risk, and might expose thousands of people, before the first infected person seeks medical attention, that is how an outbreak occurs.

The EMSD Code of Practice for the control of Legionella [link] places the emphasis firmly on the business and owner to identify and assess any risk, and then act to minimise that risk, however many firms lack the expertise and need to contract this work to specialist consultant like Kelcroft [link]

Regular auditing of air conditioning systems lowers the risk of spreading disease than those left unattended. Thankfully, we now have simple tests that can detect the presence of bacteria, and they should be performed in addition to regular maintenance.

Buildings using WCAS (water cooled air conditioning systems) have devices called cooling towers used to reject the waste heat heat to atmosphere, using water, and these type of systems have been identified by government as a specific threat, and mandates that the owner must conduct an independent third party annual audit report and submit to EMSD every year.

Understand Legionella is important, I visited a industrial facility last year and found a heat recovery system with all the elements.  The system pre-heated fresh water, stored the warm water at the prefect temperature for Legionella breeding and growth then pumped the warm water across the factory to distant spray-heads –  a preventable outbreak waiting to happen!

— John A Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited

[1] Note also other misting devices have been documented to harbour and spread Legionella, including but not limited to, decorative fountains, machinery coolant, hot water systems, heat recovery systems, showers, misting cabinets, spa baths, and humidifiers.

inverted sustainability

The HKSAR Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) conducted a year long consultation exercise titled Building Design to Foster a Quality and Sustainable Built Environment. And now CSD has released the report [link].

One of the many issues raised in by the public was the coveted green features deal [BD Joint Practice Note 01],[BD Joint Practice Note PN2] essentially developers would be granted GFA concessions (READ more GFA) for providing gazetted green features. I don’t want to go into hideous detail on this decision, suffice to say that these “green” features included central facilities such as wider corridors, clubhouse, mail delivery room, etc. and also residential flat improvements such as balconies.

The consultation report noted the public views. However, for reasons best known to themselves, the CSD seems to believe its now expert, and includes a number of recommendations, including changes to the GFA concession arrangements.  If the Secretary for Development accepts implements the recommendations, some will impact the Hong Kong Green Building Rating System BEAM.

Green GFA

Don’t think for a moment that every CSD recommendation actually reflects the concept of sustainability, the report states:

The CSD recommends that the Government should reduce the level of GFA concessions for car parks in general and promote underground car parks where technically feasible through provisions of relatively higher level of GFA concession as compared with that for their above-ground counterparts.

Here CSD is promoting basement car-parking, compared to above ground parking, so the Life Cycle cost for basement parking must be superior right?  CSD have overlooked a few critical issues. Considering the construction work needed for top down excavation, and disposal of the created spoil.

Once created the basement car-park will require 24 hour 365 day mechanical ventilation systems and a higher level of illumination than an above-ground counterpart.  Also the actual construction area required to accommodate the same number of vehicles would require a larger footprint because:

1) Floor Area will sacrificed on every level for routing the necessary mechanical ventilation systems to grade level (consider the extra annual operating cost);
2) Floor Area will sacrificed accommodating the routing fire services =smoke control ventilation ducts back to to grade level;
3) basement car parking is inevitably below the water table, therefore requires a drainage system with drainage pumps to convey any waste water back up to grade level (consider the extra annual operating cost);

If you compare basement car parking with above-ground car parking, it doesn’t take a genesis to conclude that the latter is more energy efficient, and has a lower environmental impact.

Cap GFA Concession

The report noted there is no limit on the exempted area under the “green” features BD Joint Practice Note 1 and 2.  However, the CSD recommends limiting or capping the concession. It also suggests one way forward would be to provide a sliding scale for GFA concessions for buildings that achieve higher BEAM awards. The intention to encourage environmental best practice, the report states:

…….the Government may consider the feasibility of prescribing different levels of the overall cap corresponding to the overall environmental performance of the building by reference to certain benchmarks (e.g. BEAM Plus rating), i.e. the higher the rating, the higher the overall cap.

– John A. Herbert, consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited

Sustainability article in SCMP newspaper

Hong Kong sustainability consulting, John Herbert

I was recently interviewed by the leading English language newspaper (www.scmp.com) on the topic of sustainability, and greening business. just in case you missed the article (68OK PDF one page, published 8-03-2010)

– John Herbert,Consultant, Kelcroft
we help lower the cost of doing business in Asia

Water charge increase threatened – China

China is once again suffering with problems in the Water sector, although plentiful in some areas, other areas suffer drought conditions.  Here in Hong Kong it’s relativity cold now, barely 10 deg C outside, as our thoughts turn to hot humid summers, the cost of operating cooling towers and providing domestic water services could escalate if the threatened 24% increase becomes fact.

John Herbert leading green building consultant Hong Kong

John Herbert BEAM Faculty, a leading green building consultant Hong Kong

The above (extracts from the unlink-able South China Morning Post on 17-12-2009) gives an indication that the authorities will try to stave off water shortages, not by small changes, but dramatically increasing the cost of water.

Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency project managers will certainly need to be aware, and weigh the possible risk of increased water charges into the financial model and assessment for future projects.  Also operators of systems with Process or Comfort cooling Air conditioning systems that use cooling towers would be advised to look closely at the system design and operation for opportunities to reduce water, and energy consumption before the new charging regime is implemented.

Replacing blocked and damaged fill in cooling tower John Herbert BEAM Faculty, a leading green building consultant Hong Kong

Replacing blocked and damaged fill in cooling tower

In many jurisdictions a separate charge is levied for discharge of sewerage/waste, and it can be expense. Therefore while we are considering projects that provide water conservation benefits, let’s not forget to include the avoided sewerage charge in our financial model.

Hot Water Systems
It could be an appropriate time to review to the hot water system, to identify any existing energy losses or water wastage. How many tonnes of tepid water are discharge directly into to drain everyday while we wait for the hot water to actually reach the tap or process? too many I’d argue. Reducing the waiting time lowers bother energy and water consumption.

Industrial Process
Many industrial facilities often need to heat one product line, and at the same time cool another, this is particular common in the food and beverage industry. Many of these systems uses a different water system, often oversized for heating and one for cooling. However, if we consider the problem from a greening perspective, we could easily combine these systems, adding very little complexity, using heat transfer to drive all or part of the process, and replacing one thou water systems for cooling. Therefore, a smart green design would reduce water, sewerage and energy charges.

More than just energy saving
One key point that is often undersold in the rush for energy saving projects are those extra additional benefits, some might argue intangible benefit. But they are real and often overlooked. Many businesses are recovering from the financial crisis, with capital scarce for facilities upgrades. Energy efficiency projects not only save energy, minimising the use of a resource creates opportunities for generating spare capacity without upfront investment.

For example after an energy efficiency project, a switchboard that was fully loaded now has spare capacity. That newly created spare capacity could be used for any number of purposes, perhaps expansion, new machinery, etc. without investing in a new power supply.

Right-sized, and regularly maintained equipment that is not forced to strain unnecessarily all day long has extended operating life span, and avoids the inconvenience, and capital expense of early replacement.

– John Herbert, consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
lowering the cost of doing business in Asia

No CCS – COP15 Copenhagen

John Herbert at energy seminar Dec 2009

Energy Seminar 4 Dec 2009 (left to right) - Joe Ng, John Herbert, Lawrence Wong, Dominic Yin, Zhao Ring, Edward Hung

The COP15 summit in Copenhagen has recognised the real risk and costs of pursuing CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) and will exclude it from the UN approved list of carbon reduction strategies [link].

CCS does sound great in principle doesn’t it? A technical solution that the West could sell, and sell into Asia that would solve all our problems.  However, many years after the CCS idea was conceived nobody has yet managed to build and continuously operate a single CCS plant, that says a lot about this technology. Also generation efficiency is reduced by 30% that translates in to a need to build 1/3 additional capacity just to maintain the status quo.

COP15 denial of CCS can only be good news, energy efficiency improvements are certainly more viable options and very cost effective alternative.

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
lowering the cost of doing business in Asia

Climate Change COP15 – ADB advocating Transport sector?

The ADB (Asian Development Bank) issued a dire warning about climate change and the transportation sector, citing 23% of carbon emissions [link]. Without doubt transportation is important, however putting focus on transport and fuels overlooks a simpler long term solutions for commuters namely design sustainable environments from day one.

A classic example of a bad idea, and poor design is found here in Hong Kong. A new development was constructed, comprising concrete tower blocks with accommodation for some 3000 residents, it was named Tin Shui Wai (TSW) , and it was very poorly conceived idea from the start.

TSW has more in common with the now defunct 1960’s era concrete jungles built in the United Kingdom than modern 21st century design. It is a standalone estate, with hardly any local employment opportunities to speak about. It’s remote, so the workforce needs to use the public transport network to commute, on average one hour or more to get work. And if that image of a 60’s housing tenement was not enough, there are very few local amenities, so recreation and entertainment also requires transportation.

Lost Opportunity
The opportunity was lost when this area was designed. Instead of building endless blight the HKSAR government (owner of all land in Hong Kong) could have planned and built a sustainable environment, a self-sustaining city within a city.

We are told we live in a high-tech society, yet the majority still need to commute to work, the paperless office, and virtual commuting is still nearer to science fiction, than science fact.

A sustainable plan should have been comprehensive from the start and included local commercial buildings, shops, amenities, recreation, government buildings, etc. all providing local employment and thus eliminating the need and carbon footprint for transport.

In 2008 with rising unemployment the government finally realised its mistake, and has started to encourage employment, but it was too little too late. It did strong arm the HK Jockey Club and others, to hold job fairs in the TSW district to try absorb the excess unemployment.  However, had the government employed smart thinking at the beginning the social and economic problems could have been easily avoided, and also the related carbon emissions.

Sustainable Development
This is not rocket science, a sustainable planned environment named Masdar City [link] is under development in the Middle East, it follows this very principle putting home and work within reach and averting transportation and carbon headaches.

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
lowering the cost of doing business in Asia.

Here is the full ADB article, I am sure they will change the hyperlink in the future so here is the text:

13 December 2009
Asia Pacific Must Act Now to Tackle the Scourge of Climate Change – ADB

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK – The countries of Asia and the Pacific have a strong stake in a successful outcome to the current climate change talks in Copenhagen, senior officials of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said Sunday.

Most have already prepared action plans to address both the causes and consequences of climate change.

The People’s Republic of China and India, for example, have announced comprehensive strategies, including renewable energy and energy efficiency ambitions, and have committed to improve land and forestry management, the officials said.

The Asia and Pacific region is expected to suffer significantly from the detrimental effects of climate change such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events. This could seriously undermine the economic potential of the region and damage livelihoods.

ADB’s role is to work with its developing member countries to address climate change through financing and technical support for both adaptation and mitigation, the officials said at ADB Day, a day-long series of discussions organized by ADB and held in the Danish Capital.

Within the climate change agenda, a redirection of the transport sector’s development was highlighted as crucial.

ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda pointed to the urgent need for establishing a low-carbon, climate-resilient transport sector.

Transport is one of the largest and fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 23% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

“No global solution can be found to the climate change challenge without real progress in the transport sector – especially in Asia,” said Mr. Kuroda. “Annual transport-related carbon dioxide emissions in Asia are estimated to double between 2006 and 2030, from 1 billion to 2.3 billion tons.”

Seminar speakers noted that many countries have begun to adopt clean fuel technologies, but the sheer increase in demand for private motor vehicles and other forms of fossil-fuel burning transport are outweighing the gains at this point. The transport sector faces a major challenge to find alternatives to fossil fuels that can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which would also help to ensure the energy security of developing Asian countries.

“There is therefore an urgent need for the countries of developing Asia to elevate this need within their national development agendas. This workshop is one in a series of events that are helping to raise awareness on these issues and to promote suitable mechanisms to support the development of a low-carbon, climate resilient transport sector,” said Mr. Kuroda.

High-ranking officials from government, development agencies, and academia took part in ADB Day, including Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rae Kwon Chung, Ambassador for Climate Change from the Republic of Korea, and Tariq Banuri, director of the sustainable development division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

The workshop was held in conjunction with the UN-led negotiations on a new agreement to combat climate change, which have drawn more than 30,000 government leaders, policymakers, private sector and civil society experts and activists to Copenhagen.

Building Energy Label – Mandatory

Here in Hong Kong 89% of all electricity consumed, and 63% of Carbon emission are created from our buildings, and these rise every year. I had argued that mandatory building labelling is the future, and until customers can see an easy to read, third party verified, building energy label there is little incentive for building owners and operators to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions from buildings. The disconnect in speculative buildings (for leasing) is obvious, since the building operators profit from inefficiency [refer note 1].

Now Australia will likely become the next country to bite the bullet, realising the importance of energy usage in buildings, a mandatory label scheme is planned for mid of 2010. It seems the popular NABERS scheme will form part of the system.

Overseas, in the United Kingdom has a mandatory label scheme is in place for all government buildings, a certain forerunner for the private sector.

Mandatory building labels will create job, employment, and better buildings, REITs, fund managers, and consumers will have a choice, a choice I believe they will exercise. At the recent HKGBC conference, a building fund manager endorsed building labelling for this very reason, and early adopters and users of of the green building labels [refer note 2] would testify.

Notes:
[1] A building with numerous owners or tenants cannot be managed effectively, therefore a property management company is employed to operate and oversee all the building common area operations, for example the central chilled water equipment. For multi-owner buildings, it is common for a committee to drive the scope of the property services provided. However, many of these property management firms are compensated on a percentage fee basis or cost plus basis, therefore if more fuel used, the management charge is also higher.

Also all tenants typically pay a management fee based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the leased accommodation, irrespective of the actual energy usage, therefore we have a situation where there is no financial incentive to lower the use of central services such as central air conditioning because they don’t benefit from the saved costs or lower emissions.

[2] BEAM is the local green building label system. Buildings are assessed against various criteria, and can be awarded a green building label to distinguish them from other buildings. Once a valid scheme is established customers and facilities personnel have a choice and often use that label as a key criteria for choosing accommodation – that is exactly what happened in Australia, the voluntary NABERS scheme became a customer requirement.

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
lowering the cost of doing business in Asia.

Jakarta energy efficiency programme

Welcome energy news from Jakarta, Indonesia – in what appears to be another p2e2 initiative in Asia, having the banking sector involved, and apparently embracing the opportunities for improved building and industrial energy efficiency, with ESCO contracts, is worthy of reporting here.

It does seem that, yet again, one key point has perhaps been overlooked. Certainly invest US$420,000 in the project but ensure the outcome is independently checked – trust but verify – what is known in the trade as independent M&V (Measurement and Verification) to ensure that promised savings are delivered.

And just in case I loose it, or the URL changes, here is the entire announcement by ADB:

http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2009/13083-indonesian-clean-energies/

26 November 2009
ADB Conference Promotes Investments in Indonesia’s Energy Efficiency Sector

Investments in energy efficiency solutions in Indonesia offer a potential $4 billion market for commercial banks and the industrial sector, a Jakarta conference co-organized by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) heard today.

“Indonesia’s energy sector is a vast green field of investment opportunities that awaits the participation of the domestic and international banking as well as industrial sectors,” said Anthony Jude, Director of the Energy and Water Division in ADB’s Southeast Asia Department. “Energy efficiency investments, like low hanging fruits, reap significant returns.”

The $4 billion figure is ADB’s estimate of the potential market size for retrofits and other energy-saving improvements in commercial buildings and industrial facilities. Types of projects range from electrical system retrofits to improving efficiency of air conditioning systems (including chillers), lighting and waste heat recovery.

For example, a commercial bank might co-finance a $420,000 project to upgrade the air conditioning, pumps and lighting systems of a large office building. These upgrades will bring about huge electricity savings – in this scenario some $100,000 a year – therefore paying back the initial investment in just over four years.

The Jakarta conference, “Financing $4 billion Energy Efficiency Solutions in Indonesia,” brought together close to 200 representatives of commercial banks, government, and major industries. The event, which ADB is co-hosting with MKI, the Indonesian Electrical Power Society, and KADIN, the Indonesia Chamber of Commerce, was designed to create mutually beneficial partnerships between commercial banks, equipment suppliers and energy service companies that will in turn promote environmentally sustainable growth.

Agus Purnomo, Head of Secretariat at Indonesia’s National Council on Climate Change, noted the significance of the conference taking place just prior to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks that get underway in Copenhagen on 7 December.

“The energy sector is a key player in Indonesia’s drive to combat climate change,” Mr. Purnomo said in a keynote address. “Therefore we strongly welcome national and international commercial banks, as well as equipment suppliers and energy service companies, as critical partners in facilitating new financing opportunities in energy efficiency and renewable energies.”

Last year, ADB approved nearly $1.7 billion in clean energy investments, exceeding the bank’s target of $1 billion. Under a new Energy Policy passed by its Board of Directors earlier this year, ADB will double its targets for clean energy annually to $2 billion starting 2013.

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
helping lower the cost and impact of doing business in Asia

Energy and water conservation pilot test?

water and energy conservation?

Here is a photograph I took yesterday in Jardin House (Central, Hong Kong) this hand basin tap was obviously intended to save energy and water, in reality does neither. You will note that this particular model has the flat faced user sensor located very near the base of the stem, and that its downfall.

When using this tap water droplets adhere to the sensor plate. Therefore after you have finished, the sensor still detects “a user” and the tap continues to discharge water long after the user has left the room. Just because it says energy saving on the box doesn’t make it so.

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
helping lower the cost and impact of doing business in Asia

Presenting at IDT Conference 3-5th December 2009

It has been a busy recently, and I had completely forgotten about the Innovation Design Technology (IDT) conference next week, it will will be held on 3-5th December 2009 in Hong Kong.

I will be speaking at the conference, during the 2.30-4.30pm session on 4th December  2009 http://www.hktdc.com/John-herbert.

If you have spare moment you could also visit our energyLAB booth number 1B09 and say hi.

Related Links:

website: http://innodesigntechexpo.hktdc.com

seminar schedule: conference seminar

speaker link: http://www.hktdc.com/John-herbert

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
helping lower the cost and impact of doing business in Asia

BEAM Plus for green building

The Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method or BEAM launched the 2009 BEAM Plus version for assessment and certification of green buildings last Friday (20 Nov 2009).  One version BEAM Plus EB covers existing buildings, and the other BEAM Plus NB covers new buildings.  These rating tools, are not standards, and are intended to cover an entire building.

The documents are available to download FREE from the www.HK-BEAM.org.hk website, here are the links:

BEAM Plus EB (PDF) or BEAM PLus NB (PDF)

Until 31 March 2010 practitioners have the choice, to have building assessed under the new or old tool, after 31 March, green buildings will be assessed under 2009 BEAM Plus.

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
helping lower the cost and impact of doing business in Asia

Hong Kong Green Building Council (HKGBC) Launch

Hong Kong’s very own GBC (Green Building Council) will be launched this week on 20th Nov. 2009 at the Conrad hotel.   The one day event will feature some of the usual Hong Kong suspects and some international speakers from Australia, and Japan GBC’s.

HKGBC has four founding members, they are The BEAM society, Professional Green Building Council (PGBC), Business Environment Council (BEC) and Construction Industry Council (CIC), the latter a quasi-government body also taking the majority voting share, and chairmanship.

Although the HKGBC secretariat has been recently touting for event sponsorship, HKGBC has still not actually produced a web site, or documents of its doctrine, I guess we are expected to believe, blind faith you could call it.

As a member of BEAM executive committee, I can say that the sponsorship deal was issued late. It included free ticket or tickets to attend the event, and although no formal announcement has been made, within the sponsorship burb (provided by Ketchum) an annual HKGBC membership cost of HK$3,800 is revealed.

HKGBC’s role
So what will HKGBC do? what is its role in Hong Kong? Honestly, I think that at this stage nobody knows. I do know that GBC’s are not meant to be “commercial” and starting out with this type of mega-sponsorship deal is not a good start in my view.

Global Carbon
Interesting that this week, the worlds major GBC’s (including BRE-UK, Australia, and USGBC ) announced their call for a common carbon metric initiative [1] [2PDF] and yes details are as sketchy as HKGBC’s new mantra.

UPDATE (23 Nov 2009):

I stumbled upon the original USGBC document, USGBC Common Carbon language Press Release if that’s not available here is local PDF version

— John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
helping lower the cost and impact of doing business in Asia

India Boost for Renewable development

Following in the footsteps of international success, India has now joined the list of countries that has adopted an attractive feed-in tariff for renewable power generation. It is no coincidence, its the the very same mechanism that drove a sluggish German renewable sector from obscurity to world leader status.

Unlike China’s tariff policy supporting wind, the Indian feed-in tariff is inclusive covering small hydro, solar systems, biogas, cogeneration, and waste to energy technologies subject to approval by the regulatory commission.

CDM
During the first year of operation the developer enjoys 100% of the potential carbon credit under CDM. However every year thereafter, an additional 10% up to a maximum of fifty (50%), must be shared with the utility.

Click here to download the entire document (317K, PDF format)

– John Herbert, Consultant, Kelcroft E&M Limited
helping lower the cost and impact of doing business in Asia