The developer's view: an insight into what will be demanded of designers and contractors

1,002 views

Published on

Sarah Cary, sustainable development executive, British Land

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,002
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The developer's view: an insight into what will be demanded of designers and contractors

  1. 1. The Developer‟s View Sarah Cary Sustainable Developments Executive The British Land Company PLC 1
  2. 2. Agenda  Why do we care – the drivers from a client perspective  A quick review of the Ropemaker studies  What we‟re doing now..  Our expectations as a client  Challenges for the industry 2
  3. 3. Who is British Land  Large UK REIT – Owned portfolio valued at £8.5 billion – Publicly listed FTSE 100 company  Prime Portfolio – London Office – Out of Town Retail – Minor other  Corporate Responsibility – partnership approach and customer focused 3
  4. 4. Why embodied carbon is important to British Land…. 4
  5. 5. Development Footprint 2009-2010 Development Carbon Footprint 100% 2,252 90% 80% 70% 60% 38,489 Site Activities 50% Materials 40% Transport 30% 20% 10% 4,505 0% 1 5
  6. 6. As a „gateway‟ to further understanding  Energy use  Materials procurement – responsible sourcing  Structural efficiency  Flexibility over time  Aligning building component lifetimes 6
  7. 7. Occupation - Landlord and Tenant 100% 90% 80% 42% 70% 60% 50% Tenant 40% Landlord 30% 58% 20% 10% 0% Ropemaker (BER) 7
  8. 8. Ropemaker Place  BREEAM rating of “Excellent”  30,000 sq foot green roof and gardens  Rainwater harvesting system  Design reduced the energy needed for cooling by up to 27% compared to a flat façade.  1,200 kW biomass boiler, solar thermal and photovoltaic generation.  32.7% Improvement on Building Regulations Part L2 2006 8
  9. 9. But what about the carbon footprint...  Assumes 60 year life, with refurbishments at 25 and 45.  Ropemaker: – 2.435 tCO2e/m2 of GIA – 196,873 tCO2e  Estimated Carbon Footprint of the London 2012 Olympics: – 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (3.4MtCO2e)  Running the Tube for 1 year: – 518,8157 tCO2e traction electricity  Ropemaker Compares: – Approx 98 years of energy consumption at British Land’s HQ York House – 1/12th of the 2012 Olympic Games. – Just over 1/3rd of the Tube ‘s annual footprint 9
  10. 10. 2 methods, 3 studies  Carbon Footprint  December 2006 - Arup Carbon Footprint Assessment – Design stage information  March 2010 - dCarbon8 (now Deloitte) Lifecycle Carbon Impact Assessment, – As built information  Carbon Profiling  January 2010 - Sturgis Carbon Profile 10
  11. 11. Embodied vs Operational… and Part L vs actual predicted? tCO2 e/m 2 of GIA 100% 4.000 3.733 90% 27% 3.500 42% 80% 1.018 3.000 70% 2.435 60% 2.500 Embodied Carbon 50% Embodied 2.000 1.018 Carbon 40% 73% 1.500 58% 2.716 Operational 30% Operational Carbon Carbon 1.000 20% 1.418 0.500 10% - 0% Ropemaker Place Ropemaker (predicted Ropemaker Place Ropemaker (predicted (BER) consumption) (BER) consumption) 11
  12. 12. Maintenance… tCO2 e/m 2 of GIA 1.200 100% 1% 1.018 90% 1.000 80% 39% 0.800 End of Life 70% End of Life 60% Maintenance 3% 0.600 6% Maintenance 50% Onsite Activities 40% Onsite Activities 0.400 Delivery 30% Delivery 51% Raw Materials 20% 0.200 Raw Materials 10% - 0% Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place 82,263 tCO2e or 1.018 tCO2e / m2 of GIA 12
  13. 13. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2008 2009 tCO2e 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Here‟s why…. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 Delivery End of Life Operations Maintenance Raw materials Onsite activities 13
  14. 14. If the grid decarbonises… 100% tCO2 e/m2 of GIA 3.000 90% 2.435 80% 2.500 42% 70% 2.000 -39% 68% 1.018 60% Embodied 1.489 Carbon Embodied 1.500 50% carbon 40% Operational 1.000 1.018 Operational carbon Carbon 30% 1.418 58% 0.500 20% 0.471 32% - 10% Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place (grid (baseline) decarbonisation) 0% Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place (standard electricity mix) (decarbonisation) 14
  15. 15. The materials… tCO2 e/m2 of tCO2 e/m2 of GIA GIA 0.600 0.600 0.516 0.516 0.500 0.500 Waste Other 0.400 Foundations 0.400 Waste Timber 0.300 Fit-out (Cat B) 0.300 Glass Fit-out (shell & Aluminium 0.200 core) 0.200 Substructure Concrete 0.100 0.100 Steel Superstructure - - Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place 15
  16. 16. Carbon Profile 16
  17. 17. Lessons we‟ve learned…  Embodied: It‟s bigger than we thought it was… and makes up 60% of what we „control‟ at a building level, 50% per year across our company.  Grid decarbonisation …. Will make it even more important.  Materials specification… and estimated lifetimes – Win/wins for planned refurbishment?  As an industry, go beyond SBEM?  Both landlords and tenants….. it‟s more or less a 50:50 influence on the total carbon footprint over its life 17
  18. 18. What we‟re doing now..  Prioritising steel and concrete  Requiring our architects and structural engineers to begin to think about embodied carbon in design – Back of envelope calculations and detailed models – Relation to whole life (building in-use) – Identifying carbon saving opportunities through hot spot studies – Options evaluation: Compare embodied impact alongside cost and programme implications  Requiring our contractors to measure, record, and report on steel and concrete – Discussions on the best way to do this  Continue to „estimate‟ our corporate carbon footprint 18
  19. 19. What we‟d like to see  From design teams - understanding and pressure on suppliers – Core calculations are fairly approachable and easy to do – Carbon in it’s own right and as proxy for responsible procurement – Where are your materials coming from? So you want to use anodised aluminium? – QS firms are well placed to do summaries and comparisons with other firms  Concrete mixes – Contractors, suppliers and structural engineers working together – Rules of thumb for weighing programme, cost and carbon implications  Components and individual products – Be easily labelled with information on carbon, source and production 19
  20. 20. Challenges for the Industry  Understanding the barriers to the big wins  Moving from LCA to a component level approach  99% accuracy or 75% accuracy  Transparency down the supply chain  Industry knowledge – Cost, carbon and product ‘books’  Is regulation the next step? 20
  21. 21. Appendix just in case
  22. 22. Carbon Footprint Definition:  Total Set of Greenhouse Gases Caused by an organisation, event or product.  Calculation approach: Lifecycle Assessment Standard (BS EN 1SO 14040).  Assumes 60 year life, with refurbs at 25 and 50.  Split into ‘Embodied’ and ‘Operational’ Estimated Carbon Footprint of the London 2012 Olympics: – 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (3.4MtCO2e) 22
  23. 23. Arup Study – December 2006  Based on information available at concept design.  Not just building operation: – includes an estimate of commuting and business travel by future tenants.  Assumes a 58 - 42 split for landlord–tenant control of electricity, total landlord control of gas.  The main findings:  725,005 tonnes CO2e for the natural gas baseline and 704,573 tonnes CO2e for the local biomass option  93% of footprint arises from operation of the building.  Landlord controls 40% of overall footprint and may influence a further 7%.  Commuting, business travel and consumables used by the tenant accounts for approximately 20% of the total footprint.  Electricity use comprises 68% of carbon footprint.  Use of locally sourced biomass results in a 3% reduction in the total footprint, compared to natural gas. 23
  24. 24. Embodied vs Operational
  25. 25. Dcarbon8 Study – March 2010  As-built information about the building design and construction process – Provided by MACE  Excluded business commuting, travel and consumables.  Ran 3 scenarios – Part L energy consumption predictions vs. design team predicted consumption – Biomass vs Gas for heating source. – Current grid electricity carbon factors vs proposed decarbonisation of the grid,  Investigated how „embodied‟ aspect of the footprint could be reduced through materials specification  Assumes a 39- 61 % landlord-tenant split of electricity consumption, full landlord control of gas or biomass. – based on the EP&T review of our existing portfolio. 25
  26. 26. Scenario 2: Biomass vs Gas Heating Baseline where approximately 85% of the heating load is provided by a biomass boiler, vs.100% of this energy is provided by gas, shows a 10% increase in operational carbon and 6% increase in total carbon under the BERb scenario. And a 4% in operational carbon and 3% in total carbon under the AApredb scenario. tCO2 e/m2 of 100% GIA 3.000 90% 2.583 2.435 6% 80% 39% 2.500 42% 70% 2.000 1.018 1.018 60% Embodied Embodied Carbon 50% Carbon 1.500 40% Operational 30% 61% Carbon 1.000 Operational 58% 1.566 Carbon 20% 1.418 0.500 10% 0% - Ropemaker baseline Ropemaker (0% Ropemaker baseline Ropemaker (0% biomass) (75% biomass) biomass) (75% biomass) 26
  27. 27. Tenant & Landlord Control 900000 800000 774,026 700000 600000 52% 500000 Tenant 400000 Landlord 311,439 300000 49% 208,844 200000 48% 42% 100000 51% 58% 0 Arup Initial Study dcarbon8 study (AApred) dcarbon8 study (BER) 27
  28. 28. 900,000 800,000 774,026 700,000 600,000 500,000 Operational 720,983 400,000 Other Embodied 311,439 300,000 Construction 208,844 200,000 229,176 126,581 100,000 40,509 40,509 66,334 41,754 41,754 - -13,291 Arup Initial Study dcarbon8 study dcarbon8 study (BER) -100,000 (AApred) 28
  29. 29. Arup dcarbon8: BER Dcarbon8: AApred Total (nat gas): 750,005 tonnes CO2e 208,850 tCO2e under 311,439 tCO2e under BER () AApred Total annualised: 156.5 kgCO2e/m2/y. 43.05 kgCO2e /m2 64.21 kgCO2e /m2 /year based on a 60- /year AApred year lifetime under BER () Operational (w/out 10914.1 tco2e/year 126,580 tCO2e or 229,176 tCO2e or travel): (nat gas) 26.1 kgCO2e /m2 47.24 kgCO2e /m2 /year under BER /year under AApred () Construction 1109.2 tco2/year (60 0.516 tCO2e/m2 year annualised) under BER (8.61 kgCO2e /m2 /year) Other embodied 126.1 (no fit out?) 501 tCO2e/m2 under BER (8.35 kgCO2e /m2 /year) 29

×