On a recent visit to Singapore where I spoke at the International Green Building conference on “Innovations in energy efficiency financing”, I learnt more about Singapore’s commendable policies to promote green buildings. The island state of Singapore, which will mark the 50th anniversary of independence next year, has made sustainable development a national priority and has made impressive progress in many areas. It has a vision of becoming “a global leader in green buildings with special expertise in the tropics and sub-tropics, enabling sustainable development and quality living”. The Building Construction Authority (BCA), my hosts for the trip, launched their green building standard Green Mark in 2005. Comprehensive measures to promote green buildings were included in the 1st and 2nd Green Building Master Plans and the 3rd Green Building Master Plan builds upon these earlier programmes and includes initiatives such as; a Green Buildings Innovation Cluster, an incentive scheme to encourage more owners to adopt Green Mark, mandatory periodic energy audits and mandatory energy reporting. There will also be more of an emphasis on behavioural change for tenants and occupants.

There are now more than 2,100 property developments that meet one of the Green Mark standards, which like LEED has different levels of certification – Certified, Gold, Gold Plus, Platinum. A Platinum building can achieve 30% better energy efficiency than a code-compliant building. The total gross floor area of Green Mark buildings is now 65 million square meters, which equates to 25% of the total built up area and the national target is to have 80% of all buildings qualified as Green Mark by 2030.

At the conference the BCA launched the inaugural Green Building Benchmarking report. The report covered more than 800 buildings covering offices, hotels, retail buildings and mixed developments. From 2008 to 2013 the total electricity use of commercial buildings increased by 14% but gross floor area went up by 20%. The Energy Utilization Index (EUI – measured in kWh/m2 year) of these buildings had increased by 5%. For each category of buildings in the benchmarking report a top 10 list was produced and the report highlighted some interesting results from 54 buildings that had been retrofitted. On average chiller plant efficiency had been increased by 38%, from 1.05 kW/RT to 0.65 kW/RT. The average total building electricity of retrofitted buildings was reduced by 16%, equivalent to S$30 million each year. In a separate study the BCA looked at the value of 40 retrofitted buildings and concluded that for retail buildings Operating Expenses of retrofitted buildings were reduced by 13.5% and capital value increased by 2.7% while for office buildings Operating Expenses were reduced by 11.6% and capital value increased by 2.3%. This is important evidence to support the business case for green retrofitting.

The conference was also an opportunity to stay in the Marina Bay Sands hotel. Marina Bay Sands is the largest single Green Mark certified building in Singapore and its green credentials include; regenerative drives on the lifts, LED lighting and intelligent lighting controls, water saving features, District Cooling and green roofs. Its most famous feature, however, is the amazing 150 m long infinity pool, on the 200 metre high cantilever platform which spans the three towers. I was pleased to experience the infinity pool even if going to the side was “interesting” given that I now seem to dislike being near the edge in high buildings. Being in the Marina Bay Sands hotel, the associated shopping mall and conference centre, really is like being in a science fiction movie – sort of like being in a benign “Blade Runner” or an arcology. The arcology concept – a large self-contained building that contains living, working and agricultural facilities and is sustainable – was pioneered by architect Paolo Soleri and although it never gained much traction it seems to have been almost implemented in buildings like the Marina Bay Sands. A great science fiction book involving an arcology, which I thought of often while in the Marina Bay Sands, is “Oath of Fealty” by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Written in 1981 it describes the technologies of an arcology but also examines some of the social issues we now live with every day such as the pros and cons of continuous CCTV surveillance: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oath-Fealty-Larry-Niven/dp/1416555161.

Back in the real world Singapore recognizes the barriers to meeting its ambitious green building and energy targets but continues to be a leader in designing and deploying policies to increase the uptake of green building techniques. Its policies and programmes are well worth studying and it is certainly well worth visiting.

The idea of outsourcing non-core activities is well accepted and its use is increasing in many aspects of business due to:

• increased competitive pressures
• reduced product cycle times
• investor demands for results
• achievement of significant improvements in operating and financial performance.

Despite the increase in outsourcing in areas such as Facilities Management, IT and Telecommunications many organizations still own and operate their own energy assets. At a time when energy and energy management is becoming more specialized, and we need to increase investment in upgrading energy infrastructure to make it more efficient, the idea of fully outsourcing energy services needs to be properly considered by senior management.

Some energy management functions – notably energy procurement – are outsourced but there has only been a slow growth in fully outsourced solutions. Third party financing of energy efficiency investment is a form of outsourcing and will usually involve some kind of kind of energy service company and performance guarantees. Organizations considering third party financed solutions should consider how far they want to go in energy outsourcing and in particular assess the total costs of energy and utility systems, not just operations and maintenance or energy costs but also compliance costs and future capital needs – and all of the risks around utility supply. A systems approach is needed.

In my career I have been involved in various energy outsourcing deals which have come in several forms. In 2007 I published my first book, “Outsourcing Energy Management”, which summarized the reasons why management would consider energy outsourcing and how to go about it. It drew heavily on my experience of developing and implementing innovative energy outsourcing projects for Diageo, Sainsbury’s and other corporates and was conceived as a “how to do it” guide for management. Although the market has moved on it is still a useful guide for anyone considering what to do about the long-term future of their energy system.

The book can be purchased at:

https://www.routledge.com/Outsourcing-Energy-Management-Saving-Energy-and-Carbon-through-Partnering/Fawkes/p/book/9781138256248

and

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Outsourcing-Energy-Management-Steven-Fawkes/dp/1138256242/

In my book “Energy Efficiency” (http://goo.gl/qxV1PR) I quoted examples of energy efficiency technologies in different applications across buildings, industry, transport and IT but of course it was only possible to have a small selection in the book. I am always interested to find examples of energy efficiency in sectors or applications that that don’t get much attention. On my recent travels to the USA for the Investor Confidence Project (http://www.eeperformance.org) I read of two aviation related examples courtesy of the American Airline inflight magazine.

The first concerned the new $50 million flight simulators for the American Airlines 787 Dreamliner. Of course flight simulators in themselves reduce fuel use enormously by training pilots on the ground rather than in the air. However, the interesting thing about the new 787 simulator, made by CAE, is that it is all electric. Previous generations of simulator used hydraulics to provide the multi-axis movement that helps to make simulators so realistic. The net result is a 75% reduction in average power use from 48kW to 12kW and a 50% reduction in peak power from 144kW to 72kW – impressive(1). The reduction in peak power will also reduce the cost of supply infrastructure (a co-benefit) in a new facility. Although the replacement of a simulator will never be driven by energy costs, rather by the lifecycle of simulators and aircraft, when the change is made there is a significant reduction in energy use and peak power. The point of this example is that there is huge potential to improve energy efficiency in all of our buildings, equipment and systems – energy efficiency potential is everywhere – we just have to look for it and apply good engineering and product development skills to exploit that potential.

The other example from American Airlines concerns the use of iPads for flight planning. Airline pilots use aeronautical charts and manuals and used to carry 35 to 40 lbs of paper into the cockpit (hence the need for the boxy black flight bags that every pilot and wannbe pilot had/has to have). The paper has now been replaced by iPads loaded with charts and manuals as well as pre-flight information, weather and apps for things like cross wind takeoff limits. The 35 to 40 lbs of paper has been replaced by 1.5 lbs of tablet. American Airlines estimate that the reduction in weight will save $1.2 million a year in jet fuel – a small drop compared to their total fuel spend and probably hard to measure but every little bit helps. Taking a systems view there will also be savings in paper (and energy used to make the paper), fuel savings in ground transportation used to deliver the paperwork and other significant co-benefits – possibly including reduced pilot downtime due to injuries caused by lifting those flight bags!

On a larger scale in aviation one of the main benefits of the 787 Dreamliner itself is of course its fuel efficiency. It has recorded a measured, in-service, 21% reduction in fuel usage per passenger compared to a Boeing 767. The need for greater fuel efficiency is driving aircraft fleet replacement and the retirement of older aircraft including the venerable Boeing 747 which revolutionized long-haul air travel and made it more accessible to all. The iconic 747 will be sadly missed by many – me included – when it finally leaves service but the pressures to improve fuel efficiency in aviation are inexorable.

The escalating tension around the Ukraine has once again highlighted UK energy security. With the EU dependent on Russia for one third of its gas there has been a lot of media attention on gas supplies. The UK has taken a rather superior attitude by pointing out that we don’t import Russian gas and although technically true this ignores the fact that the European gas system is integrated and any disruption to supplies further East is likely to affect the UK. However, more importantly the focus on gas means that an important UK energy security issue has been totally ignored until now – and that is the problem of the UK electricity system using Russian coal. For some time I have been pointing out that a significant proportion of UK electricity is generated by Russian coal and that we should be concerned about this. Now I am glad to read in the Times (1st August) that Greenpeace has issued a report highlighting this issue and referring to the UK propping up Russian “coaligarchs” (great title). I don’t often agree whole heartedly with Greenpeace but on this issue I do.
 
UK dependence on imported energy rose to 47% in 2013, up from 43% in 2012. Coal generated 36% of UK electricity and 41% of that coal came from Russia. That means 15% of our electricity is generated using Russian coal and we are shipping off £1 billion a year to the Russian coal companies.
 
Well done to Greenpeace for highlighting the issue.
 
Energy use per capita and per unit of GDP continues to decline, total energy use fell 14% between 2000 and 2012 while the economy grew 58%. The old linkage between energy use and the size of the economy is broken – but in order to improve energy security and not be dependent on Russia (and other countries) we need to massively scale up energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy. We know the potential is there, we have the technology, and we know that as well as improving energy security enhanced energy efficiency brings many co-benefits including improved productivity, job creation and environmental protection. Massively scaling up energy efficiency is the least cost, least regrets route forward irrespective of your preferences on energy supply options. As we head into the 2015 general election, improving energy efficiency should be the first item on the energy manifesto of all political parties.

As many of my readers know my other interest in life other than energy matters is space – and specifically human exploration of space. I believe that exploration is hard wired into humans – otherwise we would still be living in the trees – and space exploration (and ultimately development) is the next logical step in our drive to explore. Of course we should also continue exploring Earth, especially the oceans – the loss of MH370 reminded us how little we know about the oceans – but we need to step up our presence in space.

Forty five years ago the Apollo 11 mission landed the first men on the moon. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down on the Sea of Tranquility on 20th July 1969, carried out the first moon walk and then returned to their colleague Michael Collins orbiting the moon in the Command Module. They safely splashed down in the Pacific ocean on 24 July – thus fulfilling John F. Kennedy’s vision outlined in a speech to Congress on 25 May 1961: “this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth”.

I know that space exploration, and particularly now the emerging space tourism industry (which I believe will become a high-growth industry of the 2020s) can be controversial – especially amongst environmentalists but putting all that on one side, the 45th anniversary of Apollo 11 is a good time to remember just what an amazing achievement Apollo 11, and indeed the whole Apollo programme really was. It is also an excuse to remember some of the amazing facts about the Apollo technology – what NASA used to call “gee whiz data” because in the now archaic language of the 1960s it made you say “gee whiz”. I guess the modern equivalent would be “awesome” (although I am undoubtedly demonstrating that I am several generations of language behind in saying that).

The legacy of Apollo falls into several areas including technology, management and environmental consciousness.

Although the technology was (and still is) amazing the other incredible thing about Apollo was the management of such a complex, huge, high technology project. The programme employed 411,000 people at its peak (in 1965) and involved various government agencies as well as NASA, universities and the private sector. The management systems – mainly paper based in those days of course – worked well enough to bring all the people, resources, systems, components and money together and achieve the objective. In 1961 when President Kennedy set the objective (as clear and measurable an objective as there could be), many observers including many in the aerospace industry, considered that it was impossible. Even the methodology for going to the moon (Earth Orbit Rendezvous versus Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) was the subject of much debate and not finally settled until the middle of 1962. The Apollo programme truly demonstrates that humans can achieve anything we want to – if we have a clear objective and put the resources into it.

Another legacy from Apollo is its effect on the global environmental consciousness. There is little doubt that the photographs of Earth taken from the moon and enroute to the moon – particularly from Apollo 8 orbiting the moon in December 1968, gave us a new perspective on the Earth as a small, fragile “blue marble”.

American poet Archibald MacLeish wrote at the time: “To see the Earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves as riders on the Earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold, brothers who know now that they are truly brothers.”

Many astronauts and cosmonauts since then have commented on the significant impact of seeing Earth from space, albeit “only” from Earth orbit as we have not revisited the moon since 1972. Sigmund Jaehn, the first German astronaut said:

“Before I flew, I was already aware of how small and vulnerable our planet is; but only when I saw it from space, in all its ineffable beauty and fragility, did I realize that humankind’s most urgent task is to cherish and preserve it for future generations.”

Anousheh Ansari, the first female private space explorer, fourth private space participant and first astronaut of Iranian descent who flew to the International Space Station in 2006 said:

“Nothing could have prepared me for the beauty of the view. It was breathtaking – watching the Earth from above without seeing borders, wars and divisions and realising how fragile the planet is. Every world leader should make the trip. They’d start to see things differently.”

The even greater impact of seeing Earth in its entirety from the distance of the moon – and being able to cover the entire Earth with your thumb – can only be imagined.

Although people talk about the technological “spin off” of Apollo and often incorrectly cite examples such as Teflon (actually discovered in 1938). Velcro (invented 1948) and the “space pen” (developed privately and not for NASA). There have been many real spin-offs from Apollo (and the Shuttle) but probably the greatest spin-off from the cold war space programme that culminated in Apollo was the huge increase in science and engineering education and expenditure that started after the first satellite Sputnik 1 shocked America. The generation of scientists and engineers that delivered Apollo, and the generation after that which was inspired by Apollo, built the foundations for the incredible technologies we use today.

Whatever your views on space exploration it is worth taking a minute or two to remember the enormity of the achievement of Apollo and the acknowledge the incredible, almost super-human, efforts of the more than 400,000 people that worked on the programme and the 29 astronauts who flew in Apollo – 24 of whom went to the moon and 12 of whom walked on the moon.

To finish up by returning to the theme of exploration, my favourite Apollo quote of all is not the well known “that’s one small step….” from Neil Armstrong but rather a quote from Apollo 15 Commander, David R. Scott, while surveying the landing site soon after touch-down on what was the most spectacular Apollo landing site at Hadley-Apennine:

“Man must explore and this is exploration at its greatest”

Some gee whiz facts about Apollo.

You often see a quote to the effect that a digital watch has more computing power than a Saturn V or some equivalent. The Lunar Module Computer and the Apollo Guidance Computer (identical machines – one in the Lunar Module and one in the Command Module) each weighed about 70 lbs, measured about 29” x 12” x 6” and had a power usage of 70 watts. The read-only memories were made of woven wire ropes with an equivalent of 72kb memory. For a brief over-view of the Apollo computer rope memories see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P12r8DKHsak.

The heat leak from the Apollo cryogenic tanks, which contain hydrogen and oxygen, was so small that if one hydrogen tank containing ice were placed in a room heated to 70 degrees F, more than 8 years would be required to melt the ice to water at just one degree above freezing. It would take approximately 4 years more for the water to reach room temperature.

When the Apollo spacecraft re-entered the atmosphere it generated energy equivalent to approximately 86,000 kWh of electricity – quoted at the time as “enough to light the city of Los Angeles for about 104 seconds; or the energy generated would lift all the people in the USA 10-3/4” off the ground”.

The Saturn V rocket itself was amazing. This was a vehicle weighing 2,700 tonnes – equivalent to a navy destroyer and 18 metres (60 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. The five F-1 engines of the first stage of the Saturn V produced 160,000,000 horsepower, “about double the amount of potential hydroelectric power that would be available at any given moment if all the moving waters of North America were channeled through turbines”.

The 12-foot-high Apollo Command Module contained about fifteen miles of wire.

For the best summary of the whole Apollo programme read Andrew Chaikin’s “A Man on the Moon”.

Normal energy related service will be resumed soon.