1. 16469- Low Energy Building Design Presentation 2- Supply Options Edmund Tsang Graham Dow Marc Smeed

2. Goals for our Power Supply Environmental Financial Operational

3. Environmental Low Co 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions Low embodied energy Sustainable

4. Operational Operable by non-technical personnel or autonomous operation Maintenance commitments must not be time consuming or expensive Demand/comfort conditions must be met at all times Should be efficient Must be reliable

5. Initial Rationalisations Infeasible designs: –Large Scale Wind –Biomass –Hydro Power

6. Available Technology B+Q sell a windsave turbine £1500 Rated Power Output: 1kW @ rated wind speed Rated Wind Speed: 12.5m/s Cut-in Wind Speed: 3.5 to 5 m/s @ hub height Cut-out Wind Speed: 14 m/s@ hub height

7. Available Technology Proven Stewarton based company Wind Turbine SystemBasic cost (Excludes foundation work) WT 600£8,000 WT 2500£10,900 WT 6000£18,200 WT 15000£39,000

8. Wind Data Glasgow Wind at 10 m Month[knots][m/s] Jan6.93.55 Feb6.93.55 Mar6.83.50 Apr63.09 May5.42.78 Jun5.52.83 Jul5.22.68 Aug5.12.62 Sep6.13.14 Oct6.23.19 Year6.13.14 From Paisley weather station 32m above sea level 1971-2000 averages.

9. Solar Potential? Solar Collector facing SW @ 60°

10. Assessment Methodology Assessment Element Solar ThermalCHP (Gas)BiogasMicro-WindPVGSHP GHG Emissions No emissions at point of use Relatively High Levels of emissions Zero No emissions at point of use Sustainable As long as the sun shines! Can't run when the NG runs out As long as there are plants and people As long as the wind blows! As long as the sun shines! As long as there is a force to run the motor Capital Costs600 1 £/kWth 2272 3 £/kWe (1000 £/kWth) More than CHP gas. 1500 1 £/kWe3000 2 £/kWe 800-1400 4 £/kWth p/kWhzero5.06 8 N/Azero 4.2 Meeting Demand Cannot be predicted or relied upon Can be ramped up to provide all energy needs Limited by the amount of 'Night Soil' that is available Cannot be predicted or relied upon Can be ramped up and down to meet demand Efficiency Energy Factor 2- 3 9 85% 3 30-60% 4-20% (Typical 12%) COP 2.5-4 Compatibility w Fuel Cell CHP Good because it produces thermal energy Good- it produces higher levels of thermal than electrical Not so good, because produces electricity- which is less useful than heat. Good- it can use electricity for heating and cooling. Contextual Feasibility Good Reasonably good Poor FairFairly

11. Assessment Methodology Assessment ElementWeighting Solar Thermal CHP (Gas) Biogas Micro- Wind PVGSHP GHG Emissions5+D0+++ Sustainable4+A++++ Capital Costs4+T ---0 p/kWh5+U0++ + Meeting Demand4- M 0--+ Efficiency2-0--+ Compatibility w CHP4- 0--+ Contextual Feasibility7+ --+- SUM Σ 150-7 717

12. Conclusions Based on the criteria we established DiscountedPossibleDefinite Micro WindGSHP PV Solar Thermal Hydrogen CHP

13. List of References 1www.diy.com (B&Q Website) 2Presentation- ‘Photovoltaics’ Dr N J Kelly 3Dow’s CHP thing 4www.saveenergy.org 5www.theenergyguy.com/lifecyclecost.html 6 www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/00-01/fuel_cells/chp.htm l l 7www.actionrenewables.org 8www.hydro.co.uk 9www.est.org.uk/myhome/generating/types/solarwater/ 10 11 12 13 14 15