Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Green (nature-based) versus Gray (man-made)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Green (nature-based) versus Gray (man-made)"— Presentation transcript:

0 Green Infrastructure (GI) Duska Disselhoff

1 Green (nature-based) versus Gray (man-made)
Definition Green (nature-based) versus Gray (man-made)

2 RAI-GI member companies: RAI-GI collaborating partners:
Hypothesis GI phase 1 - hypothesis Green Infrastructure can provide more categories of benefits - economic, environmental, socio-political - , than traditional gray infrastructure Therefore the hypothesis is that: “Working together with natural systems can enable organizations to better manage disruptive events, such as mechanical failure, power interruption, raw material price increases, and floods, that often impair gray solutions. In other words, GI solutions can increase business resilience”. RAI-GI member companies: Royal Dutch Shell The Dow Chemical Company Swiss Re Unilever RAI-GI collaborating partners: The Nature Conservancy The global economy is a tightly wound system, extremely interconnected and efficient, with increasing risks to organizations due to the rapid propagation of disruptive events. Ecosystem services, the goods and services humans receive from nature, underpin the global economy and provide tremendous value to people and organizations. Receiving services from nature is often more cost effective and sustainable than generating them with man-made materials like steel and concrete. The hypothesis is that working together with natural systems, and hence Green Infrastructure, offers benefits by being resistant to disruptive events, such as power interruption, raw material price increases, mechanical failure and financial crisis, which can impair traditional gray solutions. Resilience Action Initiative (RAI)

3 Green Infrastructure went public on 11th June 2013!
GI phase 1 case studies Green Infrastructure went public on 11th June 2013!

4 Can GI solutions increase business resilience?
Green versus Gray infrastructure Trade-offs !!! Evaluation criteria Green infrastructure Gray infrastructure Stakeholder involvement Extended stakeholders are often required to support the project and may have an active and ongoing role in the project design and operation Stakeholders are often engaged with the aim to create local support for the project, but without active involvement in the project design and operation Engineering approach GI solutions require a custom-made, location-specific design and do not lend themselves to standardization and replication Traditional engineering solutions enable a standardize-and-replicate approach which can significantly reduce project costs and delivery times Physical footprint A large physical footprint is often required due to low energy density Usually, only a small physical footprint is required due to the high energy density Environmental footprint Often reduced environmental footprint due to GI solutions being nature-based and self-regenerating Often increased environmental footprint due to material and energy intensive processes (manufacturing, distribution, operation) Speed of delivering the functionality GI solutions may take time (years) to grow to provide a certain service and capacity Traditional engineering solutions provide functionality from day 1 of operation Susceptibility to external factors GI solutions are susceptible to extreme weather conditions, seasonal changes in temperature or rainfall and disease. Gray infrastructure is susceptible to power loss, mechanical failure of industrial equipment and price volatility. Operational and maintenance costs Operating and maintenance costs are often significantly lower (only monitoring and feedback is required) Operating costs are often significantly higher due to power consumption, operational and maintenance requirements Risk of price volatility GI solutions are relatively insensitive to fluctuations in the cost of raw materials, oil, gas and power Traditional engineering solutions are sensitive to fluctuations in the cost of raw materials, oil, gas and power Approach to system monitoring and control GI solutions are living and complex systems that can be monitored and effectively managed by a deep understanding of the key control variables Traditional engineering solutions are man-made systems that are typically designed with established monitoring techniques to effectively manage and control system performance Required operating personnel No need for 24/7 operational supervision because of the slower response times of GI solutions compared to gray solutions Complex control and safeguarding systems typically require 24/7 operational supervision Expenses for increasing capacity of system Relatively inexpensive to extend the capacity of the GI solution, provided there is physical footprint available Extension of capacity could be relatively inexpensive as long as significant modification or redesign is not required The key differences between green and gray infrastructure are summarized in Table 1 and serve to enhance the understanding of the trade-offs involved when evaluating green versus gray solutions. These trade-offs assist in identifying the specific areas of opportunity for optimum resilient solutions which, in practice, are often combinations of new GI solutions integrated into existing facilities, creating so-called hybrid solutions. GI solutions often leverage existing natural resources. Their regenerative processes consume less energy and are thus less sensitive to fluctuations in the cost of raw materials, cost of power, energy loss and mechanical failure compared to gray infrastructure Both green and gray infrastructure resist shocks, but in different ways. Hybrid approaches, utilizing a combination of green and gray infrastructure, may provide an optimum solution to shocks and improve the overall resilience of an organization

5 Hybrid approaches as optimum solutions
Hybrid engineering Hybrid approaches, utilizing a combination of green and gray infrastructure, may provide an optimum solution to shocks and improve the overall resilience of an organization. Synergies occur from combining both engineering schemes, each building upon their respective strengths Nature-based Man-made Synergies The table above communicates that both green solutions and gray solutions have benefits and challenges. Both green and gray infrastructure resist shocks, but in different ways. For example, gray components may support the “growth” of a green solution GI solutions offer a fit-for-purpose approach to reduce the system redundancy of the hybrid solution due to its ability to be implemented in a modular way, slowly increasing the capacity of the GI solution based on operational feedback from the field. Hybrid solutions allow effective risk management against different types of shocks and stressors in the goal to transition to more resilient facilities.

6 Reed beds for water treatment
Example in Shell Reed beds for water treatment Nimr water treatment plant (NWTP), Oman Value Drivers Reduce high energy costs Reduce GHG emissions (power gen) Key enablers Environmental climate Political climate Critical success factors Collaboration with external party Step-wise increasing the capacity of the wetlands (hybrid solutions) Internal champion to drive the project Key risks / barriers Large land area required Time required to find solution Co-benefits Increased biodiversity Wetland functions as CO2 sink Options for saline agriculture PDO (Petroleum Development Oman); Gov. of Oman, Royal Dutch Shell: Produced Water Treatment Plant, Oman Project description: 235 ha Reed-bed water treatment plant treating produced water from Shell oilfields in Oman The world’s largest Reed-bed water treatment plant treats 15 vol% (45,000 m3/d) of the total produced water from the Shell oilfields in Oman. The huge volumes of water produced from the reservoir required an extensive water treatment infrastructure to process and re-inject the water into subsurface reservoirs, leading to high operational costs of equipment. The team was seeking an alternative, low cost solution to treat the water to the required discharge specification. The gravity-based wetland design offered the following advantages and disadvantages: Capital expense savings: in the order of 50% equipment cost savings compared to the water re-injection alternative Operating expense savings: energy consumption reduced by 80% due to elimination of (electric powered) water treatment and injection equipment and the operation thereof Eliminated the carbon footprint: associated with the operation of water treatment and injection equipment Other benefits: potential for by-product optimization with the local environment Large required land footprint: 235 ha to treat 45,000 m3/d of produced water Long pilot period (>5 years): required to de-risk the GI technology and find the optimum Reed-bed design Operational risk of the wetland: risk of not delivering the desired functionality and not meeting the performance requirements due to external factors (climate change, floods, biotic stresses, etc) Liability issues: related to toxic metals in wastewater leading to the limited use of Reed-beds (i.e. facility is fenced in) Disposal Option Power required CO2 emissions Deep well disposal Up to 5.5 kWh/m3 1,960,000 t Reed bed 0.1 kWh/m3 35,700 t

7 GI phase 2 (2013-2014) GI knowledge projects
Develop a comprehensive techno-economic & environmental model to better evaluate green versus gray solutions Develop and calibrate the model using the PDO reed bed project Shell, Dow (share approach) GI knowledge projects 2. Design and develop a GI catalogue to help implement GI into our businesses Waste categories: GHG, water, solids, noise, chemicals etc Climate categories: tropical, polar / arctic, temperate, desert etc Shell, Dow (share approach) GI application projects 3. Share knowledge on small scale, easy to replicate, hybrid GI projects Option 3.1-A: GI for coastal pipeline infrastructure erosion control Option 3.1-B: GI for onshore pipeline infrastructure erosion control Option 3.2: GI for China retail station water mgt and effluent treatment Shell, TNC (TBC), Bauer (TBC) 4. Explore GI opportunities for Dow & Shell co-located assets Option 4.1-A: Shell downstream assets: Deer Park refinery Option 4.1-B: Shell upstream assets: unconventionals Option 4.2: Development by Design of Colorado land reclamation Shell, Dow (TBC), TNC (TBC) GI exploratory projects 5. Explore mutually beneficial GI related water technology solutions Option 5.1: develop nature-based progressive salt water treatment options Option 5.2: Saline agriculture related developments Shell, Dow (joint programs) 6. RAI design competition to link smart cities to GI via industrial ecology solutions Leverage GI phase 1 work for the Houston smart city pilot Link with the Gamechanger social innovation initiative Shell, Dow (TBC), RAI (TBC)

Download ppt "Green (nature-based) versus Gray (man-made)"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google