This Blog has moved to Arkitrek.com

This Blog has moved.

All past and future posts can be found at Arkitrek.com

Carbon Neutral Office Tower?

I was asked recently by a friend of a friend to comment on the practicality of building a carbon neutral office tower.

Without knowing any better, I bravely suggested that a carbon neutral office tower was not yet possible. The root problem I surmised is that we can’t control the source of energy delivered by the grid. Thus any would-be carbon neutral building needs to generate all of its power on site using renewables to be certain that its energy use is not causing carbon emissions.

Assuming that power generation of any kind is likely to take up a lot of space, it seems highly unlikely that a tall energy intensive building on a tight urban would be able to generate all of its power on site. The only viable way to be carbon neutral is therefore to generate as much as possible on site using renewables and use carbon offsetting or carbon capture to neutralise the remaining carbon emissions. Obviously having an energy efficient building will make emissions targets easier to achieve.

Having made these comments I thought it prudent to do a little post-verification just in case I had got it wrong. Luckily my old colleague and friend Mark Weintraub was able to confirm most of what I had surmised. Being something of a high rise guru Mark was able to point me in the direction of current best practice in sustainable design of tall buildings.

Apparently the best we can do at the moment is achieving 20% of a building's ongoing energy requirement generated on-site using renewables. This figure is included in a BREEAM 'excellent' rating or LEED 'platinum' rating. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmentally Design) are the sustainable design standards for the UK and USA respectively.

Mark suggested several approaches to on site generation. The favourite seems to be space efficient hydrogen fuel cells which can provide a large proportion of electrical energy and also cooling through absorption chillers. From what I can gather, absorption chillers use the heat output from the fuel cells’ electricity generation to dehumidify air prior to cooling by evaporation, but I’m not very clear on this at the moment.

Another option is a combined heat and power (CHP) plant run on biofuels but this takes up much more space than fuel cells.

In considering these options it is obvious to me that neither fuel cells nor CHP are automatically carbon neutral. We still need to get the fuel from somewhere. If you have read other pages of my blog you will see that I am very sceptical about carbon neutral biofuel. Similarly hydrogen does not simply occur; it must be produced by separating water molecules, a process which uses energy. Only if this energy comes from a truly carbon neutral source (such as geothermal, hydro or nuclear) can the resulting hydrogen claim to also be carbon neutral. These fuels also need to be transported to the building, a process which presumably will use a diesel engine truck. Everything is interconnected which makes it all very complicated.

Purists might argue that we should therefore rely on our building sheathed in photo-voltaics and bristling with wind turbines. This might avoid the pitfalls of certified carbon neutral fuel, but the fact that we haven’t done this yet suggests that either the technology is inadequate or that there is just not enough solar or wind energy acting on a single high density building to provide all of it’s energy requirements.

One advantage that is clear to me is that efforts to be carbon neutral are pushing for better designed and more energy efficient buildings. In rural and lower density suburban sites, carbon neutral and/or off grid buildings are already a reality, but in high density urban centres we are still waiting for either sustainable design technology to improve or our grid electricity to be carbon neutral.

In the Shit - A Septic Tank Guide

A few people have asked me recently ‘what do I know about septic tanks?’, which made me realise that I know very little. To date my contribution to sustainable wastewater management has been a note on my drawing saying ‘pipe connected to new septic tank designed by contractor’ or even better ‘pipe connected to existing septic tank’.

Realising that I need to be a little more responsible than this, I have been googling all sorts of interesting subjects and this is a summary of what I have come up with.

Most septic tanks in Sabah look something like this. They are made of either plastic or concrete and usually discharge straight into a river or open drain. The effluent (discharge) pipe takes water from well below the scum layer and well above the sludge layer. Each time a new delivery arrives at the influent (inflow) pipe it will displace an equal volume of effluent.

There are two very important considerations:

1. Time is needed for bacteria to digest the waste. The tank needs to be large enough that fresh influent can sit for a while before being displaced as effluent. Obviously a higher volume of water flushing through the tank will need a larger tank.
2. Sludge will get deeper and eventually need to be removed. This is usually done by a ‘honey dipper’ as the Americans euphemistically call it. In reality it’s a tanker truck with a big dirty vacuum cleaner. In Sabah I have discovered that they don’t have this kind of truck so the sludge has to be removed by hand. Often immigrant labour will be used for this job which makes it more acceptable, apparently. On many of the sites I am working with there is no vehicular access anyway. In which case when the tank fills with sludge the only viable option is to seal it up and build another one.

This is what happens if sludge is not cleaned out, but instead allowed to reach the outflow level of the effluent pipe. Any new delivery will cause sludge to be displaced as effluent. Clearly this is not good. In some cases the effluent pipe will become blocked and scum followed by sludge will come out through the inspection hatch or back up into the building. Clearly this is not good either. It is usually fairly obvious when this starts to happen because of the smell.

When correctly maintained this septic tank system works well. Plastic tanks are available cheaply off the shelf and concrete ones are easily built insitu. This system is apparently favoured by the Malaysian Ministry of Health.

A better system is to use dual tanks (or one tank with two compartments) which allows more control of the digestion process. The first tank has a mix of undigested and partially digested waste, whereas the second tank contains only partially digested and completely digested waste. Turbulence caused by fresh influent does not stir up the waste in the second tank.

Dual tanks will also give a better chance that wastewater will stay in the system long enough for waste to be fully digested. Dual tanks still need to be de-sludged, although perhaps at reduced frequency in the second tank.

In Sabah it seems acceptable to discharge effluent straight into the environment, even from a single tank system. In Western countries the standard practice is to use a ‘Leach Field’ or 'Soakaway'. This is usually a series of perforated pipes connected to the effluent and buried in the soil. The wastewater is then slowly filtered and any remaining pathogens have time to be digested by bacteria in the soil. This probably makes more sense in a temperate climate where cold temperatures can inhibit bacteria growth.

My feeling is that in the humid tropics we probably get away without a leach field because as soon as the treated effluent is in the open, the bacteria have everything they need (oxygen, heat, water) to very quickly demolish any remaining pathogens. In the context of a rainforest camp I cautiously suggest that I am happy with this approach, as long as the effluent is downstream from the camp. The rainforest is very good at decomposing organic waste.

Where I am not comfortable with this approach is in slightly higher density projects such as a field station or jungle lodge. Although the environment may not be bothered by treated effluent, I have to consider the possibility of it coming into contact with people. In this case a good alternative is to use a reed bed or maturation pond for the final stage of effluent treatment. In extreme cases of a lot of people on a very small site – an island resort for example – I was interested to read that a hydroponicum can be used for this purpose.

After researching all of this I am still left with one very significant question. How do you deal with the sludge? Clearly I do not consider it acceptable to send someone down to dig it out.

One idea I have been thinking of is to try to using alternating septic tanks. Once one tank is full the influent is re-plumbed to an empty adjacent tank. Extra organic matter (rice husks, oil palm fibres etc) is then added to the full tank to soak up any remaining liquid and then it is sealed off and left for a year or more. By the time the second tank is full perhaps the first tank would have digested to something relatively harmless which could be more safely dug out?

The problem I have with this idea is that unlike a composting toilet, the sealed off tank would not be able to be dried out thoroughly. Unless it could be dried out I am not sure that the sludge could be composted to something non-hazardous.

Another idea I’m thinking of follows the ‘seal it up and forget about it’ philosophy. The catch with this is that plastic and concrete do not just go away. I am wondering therefore whether it is possible to make a septic tank out of a biodegradable material? Obviously it would need to last long enough for the tank to fill up (say 2-5 years) but then after that it could be allowed to degrade, say over a period of 10 years.

There are two other unfinished leads in this story. The first is how a composting toilet works and the second is what happens to the sludge once it has been ‘honey dipped’? Those stories are for another day. Meanwhile if anyone has any helpful advice on the above I’d be very happy to hear it.

Environmentalism Schism

As a sometime environmentalist I often find myself joining email campaigns of the ‘save the whales’ variety, targeting careless corporations and evil industrialists. The Ecological Internet petition that I signed this morning was different though. It included in its many targets, household eco-warrior names such as WWF, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and Friends of the Earth.

Although I moderated the tone of the pre-composed text, I still felt slightly uncomfortable hitting the ‘send’ button. This is not the first email alert of this kind that I have received from Ecological Internet, but it is the first one that I have acted upon. In pondering my motivation for this mutinous act, it will help to look at the background of a couple of key issues.

Many of you will know about Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. For those who don’t; it is a mechanism designed to reduce the environmental impact of an extractive industry, in this case logging. It works by creating a brand by which consumers can recognise timber products which originated from sustainably managed forests. The key to its success is independent auditing and enforcement of approved forest management procedures and chain of custody of the subsequent product.

FSC certification can apply to plantations, secondary forest and primary forest.

The gist of Ecological Internet’s campaign is that the Earth’s climate is in such dire straights that we cannot afford to loose any more primary / old growth forest, and yet the above mentioned household names are all condoning and even encouraging FSC certified logging of primary forests.

I am sympathetic to this cause because the claimed environmental benefits of FSC seem to be in danger of exceeding their true value. There is even a suggestion that FSC certified logging of primary forest should be eligible for carbon credits. I do not need scientific research to prove to me that extracting the large valuable trees from primary forest will result in a net increase in carbon emissions – the opposite of a carbon credit.

The Schism is equally evident in the debate on biofuels. Biofuel consumption is increasing, predicated on the belief that it can help reduce our carbon emissions by replacing traditional fossil fuels. In this case there is scientific evidence which proves that biofuel can actually result in greater carbon emissions than fossil fuels. This occurs when the biofuel feedstock is grown on land which was previously rainforest. The rub being that rainforest and the soil that it grew from stored more carbon than subsequent oil palms, soy beans etc.

Thus, on the one hand, organisations like Biofuelwatch are arguing that many of the claimed environmental benefits of biofuel are unfounded and we should not rush to embrace them. On the other hand WWF maintains that the use of biofuels should be increased and the sustainability claims made more accountable by the use of assessment and enforcement mechanisms similar to FSC. In this case known as the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

Given that palm oil plantations are a fact (and a very economically compelling fact) it makes perfect sense to me to try to influence the behaviour of the industry by working with it rather than against it. FSC started from a similar understanding; that if logging is going to happen anyway, why not try to create an incentive to do it more sustainably. The incentive being that FSC certified timber can access more markets and possibly at premium price.

The demand for FSC and RSPO certified products is generated in part by campaigning organisations and I am encouraged that these campaigns seem to be influencing behaviour for the better. Of course there will be those who say that too little is being done too late but the risk that environmentalists face, is if they are too self-righteous and aggressive in their campaigns then the target industry will close their ears and minds and we will achieve nothing.

When I consulted a close friend on my conundrum she said that the best we can do is to encourage engagement between all parties. She used the metaphor that a lack of engagement between environmentalists and industrialists in certain parts of Sabah had resulted not only in fragmented points of view, but in a fragmented landscape.

If I dig deep into my motivation for hitting that send button, I come upon a dialogue to which I was privy between Biofuelwatch and WWF. Biofuelwatch had attempted to engage with WWF on the subject of WWF policy on bio-fuels. The tone of the Biofuelwatch correspondence was in my opinion well reasoned. It was not confrontational or sensational as is often the case with Ecological Internet. The response from WWF was I thought, rather haughty and refused to acknowledge that there was an issue which needed to be addressed at that time. End of dialogue. I still do not know whether they are addressing it. Clearly, Ecological Internet believes that they are not addressing the FSC issue either.

The root of the schism appear to be that, while certification can help to reduce the environmental impact of some sectors of the industry, it does little to restrain the continued logging of primary forest or the expansion of biofuel feedstock cultivation. So, we have moderate environmentalists taking a cooperative tone while more radical activists are pointing out that this diverts attention from the continuing destruction taking place on the front line.

Although I am not always aligned with the style of presentation of Ecological Internet’s arguments, their email campaigns appear to be effective. They also seem to be able to identify campaign targets which are unpalatable to many and yet essential if environmentalism is to continue provoke debate and change on the most relevant issues.

I worry that the Grand Daddies of environmentalism might be focusing too closely on their damage limitation campaigns – such as reducing the impact of logging – that they are loosing sight of the fundamental principles upon which their organisations were founded – such as the prevention of logging.

I am troubled by the fact that environmentalists are turning against each other to point this out and also feel slightly guilty that I have joined in this attack. I present this article in the hope that it can explain if not excuse my actions and perhaps even help to facilitate engagement. I’d prefer our campaigns and environment intact, not fragmented.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO)

Despite evidence of the harmful effects of biofuel expansion, the British and European Governments are pushing ahead with legislation to increase biofuel use particularly in transport. I was sufficiently agitated by this development to instigate discussion with my MP and MEP.

The correspondence began with a standard letter produced by the biofuelwatch 'take action' page. I was impressed that my MEP wrote back and so took the opportunity to engage in more personal dialogs in the form of the following text:

* * * * *

Dear Richard Corbett, many thanks for taking the time to reply to me on the subject of biofuels and the RTFO.

Despite your assurances I am concerned that the British and European Parliaments are mistaken in promoting biofuels as a measure to reduce CO2 emissions. Legislation designed to increase biofuel use in transport seems designed to ease our conscience whilst allowing us to continue with business as usual.

I am working on conservation related projects in Malaysia at the moment and am seeing first hand the effect that rising demand for biofuel feedstock is having on land use policies here. We know that growing biofuels is less effective at reducing CO2 than conserving or replanting rainforest Science 17th August 2007) so why is Britain and Europe promoting CO2 reduction policies that create an economic incentive to clear more rainforest?

These policies are also having a negative effect on the environment at home in Europe, where our set-aside land has been an early casualty. If as Peter Kendall (president of the National Farmers' Union) has suggested, we plant all Britain's set-aside with Oil See Rape for biofuels, we risk compromising land that is a last refuge for biodiversity and provides valuable eco-system services such as flood mitigation.

I hope that you can see how obvious this policy mistake is and help to argue for meaningful reductions in transport emissions through policies which will reduce the overall volume of transport. Examples which I support are congestion charging and high fuel efficiency targets.

Doubtless detractors will point at the economic cost of these measures but we need to face up to the fact that tackling climate change is going to cost us. However as The Stern Report has convincingly concluded; the cost of tackling it will not be nearly as high as the cost of not tackling it.

Yours Sincerely

Ian Hall

* * * * *

Dear Ian Hall,

thank you for your well-put arguments. In my view, it reinforces the case for being very careful with biofuel but not for ruling it out entirely.

Best wishes,

Richard Corbett MEP
Labour Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humber

* * * * *

Sustainable Forest Management

My story of the Wild Cuckoo Chase is a case study into how seemingly elusive is the concept of sustainable forest management. At the Sabah Society talk in May 2007 entitled ‘Forestry in Sabah’ the State Director of Forestry admitted to an ‘environmental disaster’ in Ulu Segama Malua Forest Reserve.

Now 6 months on, the logging in this area is drawing to a close and the Forestry Department and NGO’s are poised to begin an ambitious reforestation program. This is a tough call for the NGO’s to make because although rehabilitation is desperately needed, to do so excuses the logging company from their obligation to avoid doing the damage in the first place. It sends the message that it’s OK to log unsustainably because someone else will pay to clear up the mess. The logging licensee (in this case Yayasan Sabah) is left to go on making unsustainable profits by extracting timber from other forest reserves.

In the area surrounding Imbak Canyon Conservation Area, Yayasan Sabah is about to start logging the Sungai Pinangah Forest Reserve, otherwise known as Forest Management Units (FMU) 15 and 16. Together these FMU's total 190,000ha and include large tracts of High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF).

The extent of this gearing-up to logging is clearly illustrated by the rate at which the State Government has been approving Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for timber extraction. These approvals have risen from 16,000ha of forest in 2005 to 29,000ha in 2006 and 67,000ha so far in 2007. Source: Sabah State Government

The fact that logging contractors must get EIA approval may sound encouraging but in fact this is largely a formality, serving only to delay rather than mitigate environmental damage. If logging is to go ahead, then the only widely accepted standard for environmental damage limitation is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification.

Full FSC certification is a rigorous process and may take several years to complete but it would ensure that wildlife corridors, HCVF, steep areas and riparian reserves area all identified and protected. It is encouraging therefore that Yayasan Sabah are apparently intending to gain FSC certification for FMU’s 15 and 16. Souce: Tropical Forest Trust

The big question then is; why have EIA’s already been granted to log over 112,400ha of this forest when the FSC certification process has not got beyond the ‘pre-assessment’ phase?

It will be interesting to find out whether Yayasan Sabah are serious about FSC certification and if not, what alternative method of environmental protection is being used. It would be inexcusable to see a repeat of the Ulu Segama Malua disaster in Sungai Pinangah Forest Reserve.

Wild Cuckoo Chase Pt.III

Read Part I and II first


Department Admits Logging Disaster’. That was the headline in the Sabah Daily Express the morning after the Sabah Society talk. It seems that the question and answer session at the end of the talk was dominated by discussion of an environmental crisis which had been unfolding for some time in the Ulu Segama Forest Reserve. It is uncharacteristically frank for a politician to admit to a ‘disaster’ and to give him credit the gist of the message appeared to be; ‘it’s a fair cop Guv, please go easy on us and we’ll promise not to do it again’.

The Ulu Segama Forest Reserve is managed by Yayasan Sabah for commercial timber harvesting. It almost completely encircles the Danum Valley Conservation Area and includes much of the catchment of the Segama River. Unsustainable logging practices have been prevalent in this reserve since the 1960’s but had intensified as the deadline to phase out all logging by the end of 2007 approached. The hardest hit area is known as North Ulu Segama and comprises 12,000ha of virtually clear-cut forest. Environmental refugees, famously orang-utans, have been unable to escape their decimated habitat due to being hemmed in by Oil Palm plantations to the north and the Segama River to the south.

Notwithstanding the environmental tragedy, the public interest of this case is that the Ulu Segama region is subject to a Sustainable Forest Management License Agreement (SFMLA). In other words Yayasan Sabah are contractually bound to manage this forest sustainably. The admission of an ‘Environmental Disaster’ by Sabah Forestry Department suggests that the SFMLA had been broken. Technically Yayasan Sabah can be sued for mismanagement and although this is unlikely to happen, at least the public now have evidence that their forest reserves are not managed as sustainably as it is claimed.

The other ‘successful’ outcome of the Sabah Society talk was that my 'press release' style email was mistakenly read out as a question to the Director of Forestry. In this email I had focused on the fact that proposed logging coupes near Imbak did not respect either the Imbak buffer zone or the presence of the Research Station and proposed Studies Centre. The Director’s response was to deny all knowledge of research activities near Imbak Canyon and in doing so suggest that the Conservation Division were not being transparent.

This of course was the incident to which my client referred in our meeting. As awkward as it was I knew that I had to explain myself immediately. My confession was taken curiously and on leaving the meeting I had the feeling that a re-appraisal had occurred, both of me and of the situation. Now that the dust has settled it looks as though the Imbak Studies Centre site and adjacent research plots will be spared the chainsaw, although how this will affect the viability of the proposed Studies Centre remains to be seen.