Author Archives: martin brown

Construction Carbon Calculator

8 Replies

Update:  see latest post Construction Carbon Calculator – no more excuses for best yet calculator 

Zero Champion in a recent post poses the question ‘How the hell do we measure our carbon footprint‘?

Businesses need a single, unified standard for displaying the carbon impact of their activities to ensure companies can see a visible competitive advantage to sustainable development.

This made me think and look around for a construction process carbon calculator – and surprisingly did not find too many, and most linked to some carbon offsetting (carbon off-putting) scheme, which makes me doubt the formula being used.

If you want to take a look at a couple :

C Level has a calculator, but lacks many energy aspects (fuel on site, small tool and lighting, office energy and resources) and is linked to their off setting scheme. C Level lists constructing excellence as one of its customers.

Over in the states BuildCarbonNeutral has an interesting approach focusing on the embodied energy released through construction and the life of a building. It also contains the following comments

13-18% of the total embodied carbon footprint of any construction project (UNEP, 2007) and 100% of the total embodied carbon footprint of any landscape project is released the year the project is built or installed. The remainder of the carbon footprint is the operational carbon released and the landscape carbon sequestered over the life of the project.

and

Embodied construction carbon is a more significant factor than air travel, and has an equally immediate impact.

Gulp !

Does anybody out there know of any reliable, unbaised (ie not linked to carbon offsetting schemes) for the construction process?

Net Waste Method

Leave a reply

As reported on today’s Contract Journal website, WRAP has published plans for a new standard to measure waste neutrality.  Further details and a pdf brochure can be downloaded from the WRAP web site Net Waste Method page.

In simple terms, WRAP considers ‘waste neutral’ to be where the value of construction materials wasted is matched by the value of additional reused and recycled content employed on a project. Adoption of this approach promotes consideration of all aspects of materials efficiency: reducing waste, recycling waste that does arise and using materials with recycled content. This is to be achieved with a reduction in overall environmental impact. By focusing on the commercial as well as the environmental costs of waste, it should deliver real benefits for the construction sector.

In particular, it highlights where companies can reduce costs and increase profits through greater efficiency. It also supports the demonstration of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Don Ward, chief executive at Constructing Excellence reported in Contract Journal said:

“We hope that contractors will look carefully at the real opportunity that the Net Waste Method can unlock in terms of improved profitability and reducing the impact on the environment.”

Comment:  But are we still missing the point here – real effort need to be applied upstream in the construction process, in the design, specification, procurement and planning stages to eliminate waste in the first place.  With recent reports from Defra that 1/3 of all solid materials  going to a site are not used on the project, and the UK Green Building Council that construction accounts for 20%  of all waste, we really need to focus on the first stage of the waste planning – elimination, then the other stages of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Dispose are not as much an issue, and reduction in costs along with increased profits will be easier to achieve.  Take a look at the pre-construction sections of the WRAP construction web pages

The WRAP website contains a wealth of information and should be on all construction / facilities management managers bookmark or favourite lists. (there is a section on Asset Management – within the construction section !)

It is possible to sign up for a construction wrap newsletter, but unfortunately I cannot see any RSS feed on the site, even for the news items

Hidden Innovation

Leave a reply

NESTA (see below) have published their Hidden Innovation report which looks at innovation systems of six sectors that are seen as having low levels of innovation: oil production, retail banking, construction, legal aid services, education and the rehabilitation of offenders.

It examines whether these sectors are truly lacking in innovation, or whether traditional measures of innovation – such as investment in R&D – are failing to capture all of the innovation that takes place.

Collaboration vital

The NESTA report heralds Constructing Excellence, a scheme which brought together major companies, clients, different levels of government and the research community to identify, develop and diffuse innovation, as a good example of the way in which industry leaders and government can collaborate to the benefit of all. Government gets the right people together, while the sector leaders themselves drive change.

The construction industry patents few new inventions, (less than 1% of companies in the sector file for patents) but efforts to modernise construction methods across the sector have already saved more than £800 million in central government procurement alone.

Hmmm, it would be good to see the sectors investment on R and D in comparison to other industries.

NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, the largest single endowment devoted exclusively to supporting talent, innovation and creativity in the UK. Our mission is to transform the UK’s capacity for innovation. We invest in early stage companies, inform innovation policy and encourage a culture that helps innovation to flourish.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Free Innovation Event – be seen to be innovative

Leave a reply

Do you want to learn more about accessing innovation?

Attend the LBPC Innovation Event on 5th July at UClan

Do you want to tell the world about your innovative product or service?

Exhibit  at the LBPC Innovation Event on 5th July at UClan

Details and flyers on the Events Page. Be there and be seen to be innovative. Numbers will be limited so reserve your place now!

Rubble Trouble

Leave a reply

The following was noticed from UK Green Building Council

50%
Percentage of UK greenhouse gas emissions from running buildings…

30%
…of those emissions could be cut by cheap and simple measures

10%
Percentage of UK emissions coming from producing building materials…

20% …of those materials on every new building ends up in a skip…

88
…producing in a year enough waste to build 88 Great Pyramids of Giza.

Hence the need for the Lancashire Best Practice Club Innovation Event on 5th July ( have you reserved your place yet?)

The inconvenient truth about the carbon offset industry

Leave a reply

The Guardian on Saturday carried the concluding part of a major investigation, by Nick Davies showing how greenhouse gas credits do little or nothing to combat global warming. It is worrying how the offsetting industry has grown in this manner. Carbon offsetting has been referred to here and others as chocolate teapots, not at all addressing the carbon reduction. It has also been called carbon off-putting.

There is a growing trend in construction and property to address the required carbon reduction targets through offputting. This was illustrated within the recently published to internet construction (new housing) local plan from a local authority (down south!) which claims, and I guess this is typical:

Although carbon neutrality is possible by just using on-site measures, it is recognized that at least for the foreseeable future, it is challenging and expensive and therefore carbon offset is proposed as an alternative more cost effective option. On-site measures will be encouraged where possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which will of course reduce the carbon offset payment.

(ie likely to result in a do nothing business as usual approach)

A one-off contribution will be required to the carbon offset fund, at a rate of £200 (index-linked)  for each tonne carbon dioxide by means of a Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking. Coupled with existing best practice in energy efficiency, carbon offset could provide carbon neutrality for a few hundred pounds per house.

(so .. for a few hundred pounds? – no problem then ?)

However – if as the Guardian article suggests that even ‘immediate‘ carbon offputting schemes may take 100 years to ‘offset’ -will we miss the window of time to act that scientists say we must address, (the reason for the urgency in all this carbon management) and of course miss the targets for zero carbon housing in 2016.

Your thoughts?

Your comments?

Powered by ScribeFire.

“I don’t think we’re going to make it…”

Leave a reply

Dave over at the Carbon Coach brought my attention to an emotional shock response  video from TED.  Whilst you may not agree with all in the video, Venture Capitalist, John Doerr’s lucid presentation is indeed worth watching, it includes amongst other issues a view on what WalMart are planning for their stores globally, and the huge investments being made green innovation.

Comments I like from the video include  “There is a time when panic is the appropriate response!”

 

Correction – BSF schools contracts boost order books for local businesses

Leave a reply

The recent article on BSF schools and local business was incorrectly accredited to Miles Barter, when in fact it was written by Andrew Bond of Catalyst Lend Lease.  Thanks guys.

Future of construction transport – something that’s better for the planet

Leave a reply

A number of items in the news / other websites and blogs have given me cause for thought on construction transport.

  • Procurement for construction will evaluate construction transport miles and travel plans
  • Defra claim only two thirds of solid materials delivered are used on any site – so perhaps we only need one third of heavy construction transport on the road? (and I recall from somewhere that construction counts for nearly 40% of all transport on our roads, ie both materials and people)
  • Low emission zones will become common place in cities – increasing the cost of construction transport and deliveries
  • The Oil Depletion Protocol is driving countries to become free of oil dependence – with Sweden’s Minister for Sustainable Development announcing in 2006 that Sweden will be completely oil free by 2020. We could learn alot from watching Sweden’s construction industry address this objective.

And finally to do something positive, Change Your World is asking you to swap just one car trip from 1-7 July and choose something that’s better for the planet instead. Sign up and pledge at Change Your World. If we all give up just one car journey that week we’ll reduce car traffic by 10%, and importantly get an insight to the challenges construction travel and transport face.

And for a view of a future carbon free transport city – Dutch city Groningen. of 185,000 proves that bicycle transportation can reign supreme: people there make about 150,000 trips by bicycle every day.

Living Glass and River Glow

Leave a reply

Two small scale but fascinating innovations:

Living Glass involves a reactive, transparent surface with an infrared sensor and gills that open and shut as they detect the presence of humans and control air quality in a room.

River Glow uses pH sensors, LEDs and thin film photovoltaics in a device that hangs in a canal or other public body of water and senses the quality of the water, indicating the results with coloured lights.

Have you got 5th July in your diary for the Best Practice Club innovation event at UCLAN? – see the events page for more information