building a sustainable future€¦ · to a low carbon future; developing new products and services,...

Registered charity number 210252 Charity registered in Scotland number SC038629

Strictly embargoed until 00.01 23 November 2011

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Bui ld ing a

Sustainable FutureGre

en e

con

om

y

ICE low carbon infrastructure trajectory - 2050

02 Building a Sustainable Future

Contents

01. Forewords 03

02. About ICE 04

03. About this report

Who should read this report and why? 04

What is the scope of the report? 04

What is low carbon infrastructure? 04

Updating the Trajectory 04

04. The Infrastructure Trajectory project group 04

05. Executive summary and ICE commitments 05

06. Introduction: drivers for low carbon infrastructure 09

(i) Stern Review 09

(ii) Climate Change Act and Carbon Budgets 09

(iii) Low Carbon Innovation and dfg Growth Team (IGT) 09

07. Five priority actions 11

08. Low Carbon Infrastructure Trajectory 21

Energy 21Transport 22Water supply and wastewater treatment 24Flood risk and water management 25Waste and resource management 25

09. Acknowledgements 27

10.Bibliography 29

Note on terminology:For ease of reading we use the term CO2 or carbon as shorthand for the basket of Green House Gases emissions that are monitored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Office for National Statistics. However where DECC/ONS data is being reported on directly we follow their terminology and use the term CO2 equivalent (CO2e).

Building a Sustainable Future 03

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


01 Forewords Paul Morrell and Peter Hansford

Peter HansfordICE President 2010-11

With a significant portion of carbon emissions coming from infrastructure and its use by society, engineers and the wider construction industry have a crucial role to play in tackling climate change – ensuring future infrastructure networks are sustainable and still fit for purpose.

However, the low carbon agenda has moved on from just reducing emissions at all costs. In today’s economically strained society we must think smarter about how

we can derive maximum value from the minimum resource – value for money, but at the same time, value for carbon. So, when I took up my Presidency I challenged Arup director Tim Chapman to build a trajectory for the profession and industry outlining how we can fully contribute to meeting the 2050 emissions target, to which the UK is legally bound. I am delighted that he, along with an expert team, has responded with a compelling vision setting out five priority actions that we believe provides the framework for change required to deliver low carbon infrastructure.ICE’s Infrastructure Trajectory argues that whole life carbon assessment must become standard practice, as it is with costs analysis of projects. This means we must balance the carbon embodied in constructing infrastructure assets with the carbon that will be emitted in the ‘in use’ phase.

However, we cannot simply build ourselves out of the problem, not least because much of the UK’s infrastructure already exists and has been in place for many decades. Therefore we must look for the ‘carbon pinchpoints’ in the current networks where relatively small programmes of work can alleviate major carbon congestion with a significant long-term reduction of emissions. Alongside large scale transformational programmes and a dedicated focus on managing demand, we have a real chance of meeting our goal.

I’d like to extend my gratitude to everyone who has worked on and contributed to this project. Although the challenge facing us is daunting, the UK has a world-class engineering skills base that, with the right support, can rise to it.

Paul MorrellChief Construction Advisor

In 2010 I led the Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team (IGT) team on a report looking into how the UK construction industry can rise to the challenge of the low carbon agenda.

The United Kingdom’s commitment to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions is now a matter of legal obligation. If we are to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050, a significant

part of the transition to a low carbon world depends upon the services of the construction industry in all its breadth and depth. The strategy by which this might be achieved will reach deep into every aspect of the built environment, and depends for its delivery upon the construction industry working at its best. Providing infrastructure which enables the supply of clean energy and sustainable practices in other areas of the economy will be key.In their report the Innovation and Growth Team identified challenges for Government, namely to set the framework for action, but also to industry. It is vital that industry plays its full part in allowing the transition to a low carbon future; developing new products and services, building skills and capacity, and making the transformation in its own structure and

practice that will deliver a transition to a low carbon built environment that is both affordable and assured.The ICE’s Infrastructure Trajectory is a direct response to this challenge. It encapsulates what needs to change at all levels to ensure infrastructure is fit for purpose for a low carbon world from Government policy, which can set the right framework for change, through to technical improvements that must be developed and adopted at the ‘coalface’, such as a standardised approach to carbon assessment methodology.

The onus is now on Government, industry and the engineering profession to make a united effort to address the recommendations outlined, ensuring the shift to a sustainable future for our society.

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


02. About ICE

The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is an international membership organisation that promotes and advances civil engineering around the world. ICE is a leading source of professional expertise in transport, water supply and treatment, flood and coastal erosion risk management, waste and energy. Established in 1818, it has over 80,000 members around the world, including over 60,000 in the UK. ICE’s vision is to place civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development through knowledge,skills and professional expertise.

03. About this report

(i) Who should read this report and why?

niThe civil engineering profession: For a better understanding of the profession’s future areas of work and how their role, skills and working practices will need to change to deal with the challenge of creating low carbon infrastructure

n Policy makers: For advice on creating a strategic policy framework that will encourage the delivery of low carbon infrastructure while continuing to promote better living standards, economic growth and shared prosperity

n Researchers, research funders and educationalists:For guidance on priorities for research and teaching programmes into more carbon efficient infrastructure

niBusiness leaders: For guidance in priorities for creating a culture of low carbon investment in new and existing infrastructure

(ii) What is the scope of the report?This report focuses on economic infrastructure which we define as the networks identified in the UK’s National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) 20101; energy, transport, water, flood defences, digital communications and waste management. The NIP identified that UK infrastructure requires £200B of investment in the period to 2015 and more thereafter if it is to meet the goals set out in the plan. At present around 60% of the circa £18B pa of infrastructure work in the UK is commissioned by the private sector (often overseen by public sector economic regulators) with the remainder from central and devolved nation governments, their agencies and local authorities2. This report does not purport to directly address reduced carbon in individual buildings, even infrastructure buildings such as terminals and stations, which are already addressed by many other guidelines3.

The report takes a whole life view of infrastructure, looking at how benefits can be maximised and carbon minimised over the cycle of conception, design, construction, operation and maintenance and eventually deconstruction or renewal. It also promotes a “systems engineering” approach, considering the interaction between different networks and between infrastructure assets and their users.

(iii) What is low carbon infrastructure?We suggest a simple definition, “low carbon infrastructure enables a similar level of service from existing networks but with greatly reduced carbon emissions over traditional approaches”.

01 Updating the trajectory We have identified five initial steps that we believe will launch the UK engineering industry on a trajectory

to delivering low carbon infrastructure. We have also used existing published evidence to suggest a plausible evolution of our infrastructure in the years to 2050. We acknowledge that as events unfold and knowledge develops, there will be a need to identify further priorities for government and the engineering industry. ICE is therefore committed to reviewing the trajectory at regular intervals. We hope that by making this commitment, this document will become a central reference point for infrastructure owners and the civil engineering industry.

04. The Infrastructure Trajectory project group

Tim Chapman – Director and Leader, Infrastructure London Group,Arup (Chair)Paul Buchanan – Director,Colin BuchananProfessor Stephen Glaister CBE – Director, RAC FoundationProfessor Peter Guthrie OBE – Professor in Engineering for Sustainable Development, University of CambridgeLynsay Hughes – PhD Student, University of CambridgeUrszula Kanturska – ICE President’s Apprentice and PhD student at Imperial CollegeDean Kerwick-Chrisp – Head of Sustainable Development & Climate Change, Highways AgencyIan McCulloch – Partner,Bircham Dyson Bell LLPProfessor David MacKay – Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Cambridge; and Chief Scientific Advisor, Department of Energy & Climate ChangeNeil Sandberg – Managing Partner, SandbergDr Scott Steedman CBE – Director of Products and Services, BRE GroupBill Thicknes – Project Director, SkanskaAnthony Walsh – Operations Director, Keltbray

1 HM Treasury/Infrastructure UK (2010) National Infrastructure Plan 20102 Cabinet Office (2011) Government Construction Strategy3 Royal Academy of Engineering (2010) Engineering a Low Carbon Built Environment – The Discipline of Building Physics


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

Priority 1:Establish a shared understanding of the purpose and performance requirements of UK infrastructure

Why: Infrastructure exists to meet the economic, social and environmental needs of the nation. In practice this means that minimising carbon emissions associated with infrastructure is likely to require trade offs between many potentially conflicting objectives.To make such decisions in a consistent and rational way will require a widely shared understanding of the purpose and performance requirements for our national infrastructure.

How: Government through the National Infrastructure Plan should set out the future requirements for each aspect of infrastructure expressed as output based performance requirements. This will need to include level of service to be provided, accessibility, reliability and resilience alongside carbon emission targets and other aspects of sustainability. These performance requirements should be reported on through a National Infrastructure Scorecard that also includes measures of the adequacy of investment plans and the health of the underpinning skills and research base.

Priority 2: Establish an effective, transparent and predictable carbon price as the centre piece of a package of incentives for developing low carbon infrastructure

Why: Carbon emissions are a classic example of negative externalities resulting from market failure. An effective and stable carbon price should be a potent mechanism for addressing this failure and will encourage asset owners to invest in low carbon technologies and other measures. It will also encourage users of infrastructure to make the necessary changes to their behaviour.

How: Government is right to commit to setting a carbon floor price.This should form the centre piece of a package of incentives to encourage investment in low carbon infrastructure and changed behaviour by its users.

Priority 3:Systematically apply the concepts of Capital Carbon and Operational Carbon to infrastructure decision making

Why: Carbon emissions are associated with each stage of the infrastructure lifecycle; design, construction, maintenance, usage, dismantling and/or refurbishment. Often options that are more carbon intensive in the construction phase allow for significantly reduced usage emissions during the operational phase. Engineers must be engaged in projects at the inception stage and contribute to the task of balancing this Capital and Operational Carbon to minimise whole life emissions, where Capital Carbon (CapCarb) is the carbon expended in creating an asset and Operational Carbon (OpCarb) is that from all aspects of its operation and usage. In a break from much current practice these assessments must include the carbon arising from use of infrastructure e.g. vehicles on road or rails and take a systems wide view of the impact of individual projects on the performance of networks.

How: A concerted research effort is needed to create usable inventories of carbon emissions for all stages of asset life in each network. Government should also identify the most effective way of ensuring that all public and regulated infrastructure owners consider the CapCarb and OpCarb of their assets in their strategic investment plans.


05. Executive summary Priority actions

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

Priority 4: Establish a high level evaluation methodology for use at the appraisal stage of infrastructure projects

Why: The greatest carbon savings in an infrastructure project can be made at appraisal stage by selecting the best strategic option before detailed design and construction even begin. This is therefore the crucial point for balancing capital and operational carbon whilst still meeting the fundamental objectives of the scheme. Prevalent industry practice tends to seek carbon savings at later stages in projects when the most radical options to reduce carbon are no longer possible.

How: An industry effort is required to develop a high level evaluation methodology for use at the appraisal stage of projects. This will enable investment decisions to be made in full knowledge of the whole life carbon impacts of options.

Priority 5: Make greater use of demand management

Why: A number of elements of UK infrastructure are under considerable stress from very high usage levels, leading to high levels of congestion at periods of peak demand. This creates additional carbon emissions in those networks and reduces the social and economic value of that infrastructure. “Predict and Provide” would lead to higher emissions through unnecessary new build, often just to cover isolated peaks of extreme demand, and may in itself create additional demand leading to further congestion.

How: If infrastructure is to meet performance requirements and deliver its full range of benefits to society, greater use must be made of a variety of measures to manage demand for infrastructure services.


Demandmanagement

Clear purposeand performancerequirements

Effective carbon price

Optimise CapCarb and OpCarb of infrastructure

Develop high level CO2 evaluation methodology

PRIORITIESFigure 1: Priorities

What would change if these priorities are delivered?

These priorities fit together to create a virtuous circle delivering reduced carbon emissions and improved infrastructure performance.Example: the road networkUnder Priority 1 the National Infrastructure Plan would set goals for connections between major urban centres. Travellers from London to Plymouth would know the capacity and journey time standards for the major roads linking the South East and South West of England. Ideally, when technology allows, they would be able to book their journey on the roads in the same way that we currently book a train trip – with lower prices at times of low demand and some level of recourse in the event of delays. Travellers might also be aware that the purpose of this level of connectivity is to improve the economic performance and quality of life of the nation by making the South West and its commerce more accessible. Priority 2, a price on carbon, will ensure that the price of a journey by car will incorporate the potential harm done, as well as the benefits, so that users consider the value they place on each trip and the time at which it is made.The same logic will also apply to decisions around the maintenance and upgrade of the road itself andPriority 3 will ensure that the civil engineering industry and infrastructure owners have the knowledge to make these decisions, whilst the methodology inPriority 4 will enable this knowledge to be used when making investment decisions about potential road improvements. Priority 5 will mean that the capacity for travel created by any road improvements isn’t swamped by random leisure journeys stimulated by the easy connections, ensuring the road is able to support journey time requirements set by Priority 1.


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


ICE commitments:

(i) Create and maintain a bank of low carbon infrastructure case studiesICE will create an authoritative bank of low carbon infrastructure case studies containing robust quantitative data across all infrastructure sectors in a consistent and accessible form. This material will provide the basis for the development of benchmarks and decarbonisation strategies by infrastructure asset owners and operators. by infrastructure asset owners and operators.(ii) Lead an industry effort to develop a high level evaluation methodology aimed at the concept proof stage of projectsICE will bring together infrastructure clients, their supply chain and academia to develop a high level methodology to drive the selection of the right infrastructure options at the concept stage. This will involve the same sorts of rules of thumb that are currently available for financial decisions at this early stage.

(iii) Codes and standardsICE will convene a programme between leading engineering designers and the main owners and producers of design codes, codes of practice and technical regulations to identify where current practice is leading to unnecessarily high levels of carbon emissions from designs that are too conservative.

(iv) Education and skillsICE will review its guidelines for accreditation of civil engineering degrees and requirements for professional membership to ensure they adequately cover knowledge of the science of carbon evaluation and of systems engineering. It will stimulate greater professional development for already qualified engineers to equip them with the intellectual tools necessary to advancelow carbon infrastructure.

(v) Research and innovationICE will engage with all stakeholders to address the adequacy of the UK research effort into low carbon infrastructure and identify and promote future needs to enable universities and research funding bodies to coordinate their efforts into a concerted programme to improve the carbon efficiency of infrastructure.

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

Building a Sustainable Future 09 08 Building a Sustainable Future

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


(i) Stern Review

In 2006 Sir Nicholas Stern famously described climate change as “the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”4.

Stern argued that existing markets were simply unable to ensure that emitters of greenhouse gases met the cost of dealing with their impact.

This logic of market failure has been the basis for intervention by the UK government, which has introduced a series of legislative and regulatory measures aimed at driving down emissions to 20% of 1990 levelsby 2050.

(ii) Climate Change Act and Carbon Budgets

The Climate Change Act 2008 established a long-term legislative framework to tackle the effects of climate change. The Act also aims to encourage the transition to a lowcarbon economy in the UK through unilateral legally binding emissions reduction targets. This means a reduction of at least 34% in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 2050.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) provides independent advice to government on emissions targets and reports to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The CCC also publishes periodic carbon budgets which in effect set a cap onthe total quantity of GHGs emittedin the UK.

(iii) Low carbon innovation and Growth Team (IGT)

In 2009 the government commissioned the Chief Construction Advisor (CCA) to review the UK construction industry to assess its ‘fitness for purpose’ for delivering a low carbon future.

The IGT5 examined the effectiveness and competitiveness of all aspects of construction – from design to commissioning and whole-life performance. This report fulfills a subsequent commitment to the Chief Construction Advisor to advise on the reduction of the use of carbon in construction and operation of the UK’s infrastructure and identify areas of the engineering industry that require change6.

06. Introduction - drivers for low carbon infrastructure The Stern Review, Climate Change Act, Carbon Budgets and the Low Carbon Innovation and Growth Team (IGT) are key drivers for low carbon infrastructure.

4 Stern, N (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HMSO, London5 HM Government (2010) Low Carbon Construction, Innovation and Growth Team – Final Report6 HM Government (2010) Low Carbon Construction Action Plan – Government Response to the Low Carbon IGT Report

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

10 Building a Sustainable Future Building a Sustainable Future 11

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


07. Priority actions

We have identified a set of priority actions to be delivered in the next 1-5 years which are needed to ensure the UK engineering profession launches itself on the right trajectory towards 2050.

Priority 1:Establish a shared understanding of the purpose and performance requirements of UK infrastructure.

To improve the carbon performance of UK infrastructure we must first be clear on what it is for.

The UK’s energy, transport, water and waste management networks have been developed to support the social, economic and environmental well being of the nation. In practice this means that minimising carbon emissions associated with infrastructure is likely to require trade offs between many potentially conflicting objectives. To do this in a consistent and rational manner requires a shared understanding between government, owners of infrastructure and the civil engineering supply chain of the purpose and performance requirements for our national infrastructure.

The National Infrastructure Plan is a starting point in establishing what the UK needs from its infrastructure

The first National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), published in October 2010, identified a range of strategic issues affecting the current performance of UK infrastructure. These included obsolescence of existing assets, growing demand from users and increasing (but unmanaged) interdependence between networks. The NIP also highlighted

strategic challenges facing the nation to which upgraded infrastructure will need to make a contribution, for example economic competitiveness and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The second version of the NIP is due for publication in autumn 2011 (around the same time as this report) and is an opportunity to elaborate on these long-term goals.

Translate strategic goals in the NIP into measurable performance requirements for each network.

To drive forward the NIP, a small number of high level performance measures should be set for each major infrastructure network. Key criteria will include:

n Network capacity n Minimum level of service n Reliability and resilience n Carbon emissions

As an example in the case of transport, this would lead to performance requirements for the road and rail network based around:

n Volume /frequency of vehicles andn passengers to be accommodated n Journey times between major urban n areasn Acceptable variance in journey time n or availabilityn Whole life carbon emissions

associated with the trunk road and inter urban rail network

Report on performance requirements through a National Infrastructure Scorecard.

Performance against these measures should be reported for each major infrastructure network via a National Infrastructure Scorecard (NIS). This would present decision makers with a “dashboard” of information to assess if current performance (and foreseeable future performance) meets expectations. In addition to network performance measures, the scorecard should include measures of the adequacy of investment plans and the health of “intellectual capital”, the term used in the NIP for the skills, research capability and other human factors required to deliver the plan’s objectives. A NIS would provide a high level of transparency as to whether the NIP is being delivered and providea basis for government, asset owners and regulators to take remedial actionto address any underperformance.The NIS should be owned by Infrastructure UK (IUK), the unit operating within HM Treasury responsible for producing the National Infrastructure Plan.

Establish a low carbon investment hierarchy and continue to develop programmes of targeted interventions.

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


Gre

en e

con

om

yIC

E t

ho

ug

ht

lea

de

rsh

ipG

reen

eco

no

my

The first edition of the NIP proposed a new hierarchy for infrastructure investment decisions:

n First: Maintenance and smarter use of assetsn Second: Targeted action to tackle network stress points and develop networks n Third: Transformational large scale capital projects

This same hierarchy should also be applied to low carbon infrastructure investments. Significant progress in carbon reduction can be made through compounded incremental improvements to existing networks. While some major transformational investment will be required, notably in the energy generation and rail sectors, elsewhere it will often be possible to optimise the performance of the existing network through targeted interventions, minimising costs and disruption and delivering significant changes in carbon efficiency at least cost.

A clear example is rail electrification where the current commitments to an electrification programme will need to be maintained over the coming decades. This must be based on identifying where the biggest carbon savings could be created, particularly for rail freight and avoiding the sporadic peaks of investment that have tended to characterise the UK’s rail electrification programme.

Priority 2:Establish an effective, transparent and predictable carbon price as the centre piece of a package of incentives for developing low carbon infrastructure.

The Stern Review7 concluded that a transparent and predictable carbon price is the most cost-effective way to encourage emitters to invest in alternative low carbon technologies and change consumer spending patterns.

Government have published evidence that the current carbon price floor and escalator appears consistent with a projected pathway to 2050.

For carbon pricing to be effective, it needs to make carbon sufficiently expensive to start changing behaviour in wider society and to make lower-carbon alternatives in design, construction and operation of infrastructure the best value option.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) currently recommends a carbon price underpin reaching at least £27/tCO2 (i.e. 30 euros per tonne) in 2020 and rising through the 2020s8. Between 2030 and 2050, the CCC use DECC’s recommended central values of £70/tCO2e in 2030, rising to £200/tCO2e in 2050. The government has initially set the carbon price floor at £13/tCO2 for introduction in 2013 and will rise to £30/tCO2 by 2020. Government has presented evidence that price regime is consistent with a pathway achieving the necessary reductions in 2050.

Government commitments to a floor price must be credible and international coordination is vital.

It is vital that infrastructure owners and investors believe that policy around the carbon floor price is stable and the floor price escalator is “locked in”.

If not markets will not direct funds towards the necessary investments.

In the long-term, coordinated international action on carbon price is necessary. A high UK carbon price relative to competitor nations will simply lead to the migration of higher carbon emitting activity to more permissive regimes, undermining the UK economy but doing little to reduce total global emissions.

An effective carbon price is necessary but may not be sufficient…

In normal economic appraisals a discount rate is applied to future costs/benefits to reflect the changing value of money over time. Applying this concept to carbon is highly problematic as unlike money, the “value” – or in this case the negative effects of a unit of carbon does not change in this way. In fact, impact is likely to increase over time as each new unit of emitted carbon adds to the cumulative stock in the atmosphere, potentially accelerating the phenomenon carbon pricing is seeking to avoid – catastrophic climate change.

Engineers must not lose sight of the ultimate goal – reducing emissions

In a similar way, other pitfalls may include:

n Practical difficulties in fully capturing and pricing all the carbon emissions associated with the operation of infrastructuren Designers and project sponsors losing sight of the imperative to address trade offs between minimising cost, reducing carbon and maximising socio-economic benefits if all factors are reduced to a single financial measure, particularly where priced carbon is a relatively small component

7 Stern, N (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HMSO, London8 Climate Change Committee (2010) The Fourth Carbon Budget: Reducing emissions through the 2020s. CCC: London



The use of a National Infrastructure Scorecard at the strategic level should, if well designed, identify any areas of infrastructure where market mechanisms are not reducing emissions and where further intervention is required. In the next chapter we discuss the introduction of the concepts of capital and operational carbon into options appraisal, which will also help ensure that the need to reduce carbon retains high visibility for designers and constructors.

Some other incentives may also be helpful.

Pricing carbon to the extent that it becomes a significant part of project costs may have the unintended consequence of encouraging under reporting or other negative behaviour. Providing additional incentives for example tax breaks or R&D creditscan help to reduce this risk,stimulate innovation and make behavioural change more palatable. Regulations and codes and standards must not form a barrier to low carbon infrastructure.

Engineering design is often heavily influenced by the need to adhere to regulation and codes & standards. I-UK’s recent Infrastructure Cost Review9 found evidence that in some circumstances existing arrangements encouraged over-specification and other behaviours that are costly in both financial as well as carbon terms. A progressive review of regulation and codes & standards should take place to ensure that the UK regime for technical standards does not become a barrier to low carbon infrastructure and ideally actively encourage low carbon solutions.

Priority 3:Systematically apply the concepts of Capital Carbon and Operational Carbon to infrastructure decision making.

The first two priorities focus on the role of government in creating supportive conditions for a transition to low carbon infrastructure. The next two priorities are closely linked and concern changes that will be required to industry practice.

Industry must ensure that its core practices lead to the systemic reductions in carbon from the construction and operation of the UK’s infrastructure networks.

Capital Carbon, Operational Carbon and Carbon Payback periods are useful concepts.

To embed this idea into industry practice, the principle of balancing Capital Expenditure and Operational Expenditure should be extended to carbon management. This would introduce two new concepts Capital Carbon (CapCarb) and Operational Carbon (OpCarb) into the options appraisal.

CapCarb would consist of Carbon expended in construction, consisting largely of embodied carbon in materials and emissions arising from energy used in the construction process. OpCarb would consist of carbon emitted during the operation, use and maintenance of an asset. OpCarb must include emissions associated with users of the infrastructure, for instance vehicles travelling on roads or trains on rail. We recognise this is a change from current practice where many asset owners only consider their own usage but is necessary if industry is to deliver projects that minimise whole life carbon emissions for the whole nation while meeting other performance requirements.

Table 1 on p18 is an indicative illustration of factors to be considered when making assessments of CapCarb and OpCarb in different infrastructure sectors.

The use of these terms also has the advantage of encouraging engineers to use the familiar concept of a payback period to optimise the return on their investment of CapCarb. The lengthy operational life of infrastructure assets opens up significant opportunities for engineering designers as demonstratedby case study A on p14.

CapCarb, OpCarb and Carbon payback periods must be integrated into decision making processes.

Minimising total CapCarb and OpCarb must become an integral part of the asset management and capital investment programmes of all public and private infrastructure asset owners.Greater engineering input will be needed in the appraisal phase leading up to decisions about asset investments to ensure decisions are made on a whole life basis with low carbon as one of the key drivers alongside capacity, reliability,system resilience and of course price.

This is a significant change and a phased approach will be required to build the necessary evidence base, develop new engineering methodologies, create robust tools and build industry confidence.In particular there will need to be a significant research effort to identify sources of OpCarb and CapCarb in each of major networks and on different types of projects. Engineers will also need to become more adept at systems thinking, requiring changes to education and professional development.

We do not underestimate the challenge of delivering this change across all asset owners and their supply chains. An effective carbon price will create an

9 HM Treasury/Infrastructure UK (2010) Infrastructure Cost Review

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


environment conducive to this type of decision making. Further debate is required as to whether this change could be driven through economic regulation, the planning system or even a government instruction that public and regulated asset owners should incorporate CapCarb and OpCarb into their decision making processes.

ICE should lead on developing a bank of project and programme level case studies – and subsequently a set of CapCarb/ OpCarb benchmarks for categories of infrastructure.

As a first step, a bank of project and programme level case studies should be created with data collected in a consistent format ideally drawing on experience from across the world. In the short-term this will help develop the collective knowledge of the sector and help identify new engineering techniques and design principles. In the medium-term it can form the basis for a collection of benchmarks for CapCarb/OpCarb for typical projects in different categories of infrastructure.

Priority 4:Establish a high level evaluation methodology for use at the concept proof stage of infrastructure projects.

A starting point for changes to industry practice is to acknowledge that the greatest carbon savings are available before detailed design and construction begins (see Figure 2 on p15).

To help engineers deliver this role, the information gathered to create benchmarks should form a platform for the creation of a new high level evaluation tool for use at the appraisal stage of a project.

Creating a Carbon Evaluation Methodology:

ICE is well placed to act as the catalyst for the creation of such a methodology. Research supported by the ICE R&D Fund has identified the following indicative criteria to ensure consistency of approach for such a methodology10:

n Focuses on the asset or assets to be provided/maintained/operated/decommissionedn Ensures assessment is independent of the procurement method and does not encourage game-playingn Builds on established approaches for assessing GHG emissions and lifecycle analysis (for example Forum for the Future’s Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure projects, British Standard Institute’s Publicly Available Standard 2050 for assessing product lifecycle Green House Gas emissions, UK WIR guidelines on carbon accounting in the water industry)n Is applicable to the various sectors of civil engineering n Sets boundaries that are consistent across projects of a similar typen Allows comparison of alternative options in terms of their whole life carbon emissionsn Allows comparison pre- and post- implementation n Takes proper account of secondary effects upstream or downstream of the project

Case study A

Assessment of proposed by-pass scheme. To estimate the carbon resulting from its construction and its resulting impact in the use phase.

Project description: A by-pass scheme

was proposed to relieve congestion on

an existing motorway, which was subject

to excess demand and in severe need of

maintenance.

The proposed by-pass was over 20km in

length and, therefore, significant carbon

emissions were anticipated through its

construction. However, as vehicles that

operate in congested conditions use more

fuel than vehicles that operate in free

flow conditions, it was highly likely that

the by-pass scheme would significantly

reduce overall carbon emissions in the use

phase. This would relieve the congestion

on the existing motorway and enable the

vehicles using the network to operate

in free flow conditions – resulting in less

fuel consumed and lower CO2 emissions,

despite the increase in vehicle km

anticipated due to the availability of the

new road.

The carbon emissions from the

construction of the earthworks, pavement

and structures were calculated to be

approximately 530,000 tonnes.

Detailed emission modelling techniques

were used to assess scenarios with and

without the relief road. Outcome of this

modelling showed that the relief road

would enable free-flow congestion and

reduce carbon emissions by around

12,000 tonnes in its opening year, with

the reduction increasing to 27,000 tonnes

annually in the forecast year 15 years after

opening.

Outcome: The construction of the relief

road was expected to have a positive

impact on the subsequent use phase.

Although a large amount of carbon

would be expended in its construction,

the resulting infrastructure would enable

vehicles to operate more efficiently

and result in an annual decrease in

vehicle emissions from the use phase.

The annual decrease in emissions could

potentially reduce the overall whole life

carbon; resulting in an ‘offsetting effect’

to payback the carbon expended in

construction. It would also significantly

improve national efficiency, even without

demand management.


10 Jowitt, Johnson, Moir & Grenfell (2012) A protocol for accounting for carbon in infrastructure decisions (Paper accepted for publication in ICE Proceedings in May 2012)

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

Case study B

Assessment of two proposed options to address an existing pumping station in need of replacement.

Project description: Two design options

were assessed at the planning stage

considering the construction, operation,

use and maintenance phases of the

lifecycle over a 40 year period.

Option One: Replace existing pumping

station with a new facility

Option Two: Abandon the existing

pumping station and construct a by-pass

culvert and raise river banks upstream

Outcome: Through consideration of the

construction phase alone, the replacement

of the existing pumping station (Option 1) is

favourable; mainly due to the large amount

embodied carbon in the materials required

to increase the height of the banks upstream

(Option 2). However the conclusion changes

when the maintenance, use and operation

phases are also considered. Option 1 would

require a constant energy supply and a more

intensive maintenance schedule over Option

2 – resulting in Option 2 proving more

favourable in carbon terms.

n Identifies sources of emission factors and how to deal with changes over timen Covers the aspects over which the civil engineer (whether client, consultant, contractor, or sub-contractor) has opportunity to manage or influence and assigns responsibility accordinglyn Follows similar principles to financial accounting, i.e. account for everything that is included in the financial budget for the asset, but ensures account is taken of non-costed aspects that are nevertheless affected by the project(e.g. land use change)n Encourages reporting of carbon intensity (i.e. CO2e per unit of capacity or throughput) to enable comparison between projects and to determine project performancen Informs the process of appraising public investment projects, through application of the price of carbon and appropriate discount rates within economic cost-benefit analysis and other meansn Recognises and promotes informed estimates of uncertainty

Case Study B, below, illustrates the benefits of applying whole life thinking to options appraisal.


CARBON EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Ab

ility

to

infl

uen

ce c

arb

on

Project advancement

Planning Design Construction

Is the plant/process/upgradenew build required at all?

Sustainability assessment

(CEEQUAL, carbon accountancy)

Figure 2: Carbon evaluation methodology

1,800

1,400

800

400

0

WHOLE LIFE CARBON ASSESSMENT FOR OPTION 1 AND 2

200

600

1,000

1,200

1,600

Construction Operation & use Maintenance Total

Option1

Option2

C0

(to

nn

es)

Whole life carbon assessment for options 1 and 2

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


Case study C

Anglian Water’s experiences show how an innovative and a holistic approach to measuring sustainability impacts can not only achieve local environmental benefits but can achieve global benefits from saved carbon emissions and raw materials and at the same time directly benefit businesses’ bottom line.

Since 2008, the company has been

measuring the embodied carbon impacts

of all its activities to refurbish and build

new assets. The company recognises

the importance of challenging embodied

carbon in the design process in delivering

both environmental and financial benefits.

Showing its full commitment to this,

Anglian Water has set itself a target to

halve its embodied carbon in new assets

it builds by 2015 from a 2010 baseline

and reduce operational carbon emissions

by 10%.

An example of the benefits to be gained

is the planned extension of a wastewater

treatment works in Bedfordshire,

to cope with a predicted 30,000

population growth.

The initial design followed standard

practice across the industry

involving nine new tanks, site

infrastructure and equipment.

The embodied carbon

impact from extracting,

fabricating and

transporting all

the raw materials to site would have

equated to 7,214 tonnes of carbon.

While the energy intensive installation

of additional pumps, compressors and

process equipment would have increased

operational carbon emissions by a further

3,936 t/CO2.

Challenging this standard approach,

design engineers followed a four stage

process to reduce the embodied carbon

impacts: challenging the need to build

any new structures, identifying which

structures/assets could be re-used,

identifying alternative lower embodied

carbon materials and finally using recycled

material and reducing the quantity of

virgin raw materials.

The result is a final design that uses

innovative technology to achieve:

n 67% reduction in embodied carbon

impacts (from 7,214 to 2,381 t/CO2)

n 135%* reduction in operational carbon

(from an expected increase of 3,936 to

a site reduction of £1,380 t/CO2)

n 25% reduction in capital costs (from a

starting point in excess of £20 million)

These savings are achieved through

using ground-breaking treatment

processes which can deal with higher

concentrations and volumes of

effluent within existing assets,

removing the need for new

structures and processes.

ICE should continue to promote changes to procurement and project delivery.

To add maximum value, engineers with suitable knowledge of CapCarb and OpCarb issues for that industry and facility type will need to be engaged by clients at the initial stage of a project’s life. This will enable them to to contribute to the project’s appraisal process where the form of the project is set. Unfortunately as Infrastructure UK’s October 2010 review into the cost of delivery of infrastructure in the UK showed11, conservative procurement practice and low levels of supply chain integration remain a barrier to releasing the expertise and innovation necessary to generate greater value for money from infrastructure investment. Having worked closely with IUK on the Costs Study, ICE subsequently became a signatory to an industry/government12 charter aimed at promoting procurement strategies and a range of client and supply chain behaviours that would help address these issues.

Case study C, opposite, shows how by embracing these type of behaviours, Anglian Water and its supply chain are making significant progress in both optimising carbon emissions and making financial savings.

11 Infrastructure UK/HM Treasury (2010) Infrastructure Cost Review 12 Infrastructure UK/HM Treasury (2011) Infrastructure Cost Review: Charter Commitments

Don’t build

Build less

Use materials with lower embodied carbon

Use fewer materials/reduce waste


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

11 Infrastructure UK/HM Treasury (2010) Infrastructure Cost Review 12 Infrastructure UK/HM Treasury (2011) Infrastructure Cost Review: Charter Commitments

Case study C

This example shows clearly how challenging current thinking and taking into account both local and global impactscan achieve sustainable growth, environmental improvement and financial savings.

Original design

Innovative design


2 No. PSTs

25 m dia 2 No. FSTs 25 m dia

Install IFAS technology in AS1

Install IFAS technology in AS2

2 No. PSTs 35 m dia

4 No. FSTs 32 m dia

New ASP3 11213 m3

Refurbish existing filters

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


Table 1: Indicative components of CapCarb and OpCarb for typical infrastructure projects

CapCarb OpCarb

Sector Project type Pre-design Design Construction Use Operation Maintenance Decommissioning/Reuse

Energy Improving efficiency of a coal power station

Site visits

Electricity used in operation of project offices

Site visits Production and transportation of all materials

Plant and equipment, utilities

Transport to and from the site

Coal-burning related emissions

Waste transport

Lighting

Control systems

Staff travels

Emissions from decommissioning process

Building a wind farm

Embodied energy in windmill manufacture

Transport to the site

Controlsystems

Embodiedcarbon of plant

Opportunities for reuse of part/whole of asset

Transport Motorway widening

Production and transportation of all materials incl. earthworks

Plant and equipmentutilities

Diverted traffic

Vehicle fuel consumption

Electricity consumption by electric vehicles

Induced traffic

Lighting

Controlsystems

Signallingequipment

Winter maintenance

Surface renewal

Accident repairs

Safety barrier replacement

Opportunities to expand/enhance existing assets v new build

Waste Landfill site Site clearance Methane emissions from decomposing waste

Transport of waste

Lighting

Staff offices

Staff travels

Waste and wastewater

Water treatment plant

Production and transportation of all materials

Plant and equipmentutilities

Transport to and from the site

Electricity consumption by equipment

Lighting

Staff offices

Staff travels

Flood defences New flood barrier Production and transportation of all materials

Renewal after flooding

Project lifecycle stage


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


Priority 5: Government and private infrastructure owners must make greater use of demand management.

Assets must work harder but UK infrastructure also needs to become more resilient.

Our proposed low carbon investment hierarchy requires that priority be given to better use of existing assets and ensuring that any new assets are made to deliver ever greater value.

However many parts of the UK infrastructure already operate at very high levels of utilisation. In these circumstances the impact of repairs are high for users and many networks struggle to cope with unplanned incidents, leading to congestion, breaks in continuous service andother costly failures13.

…and population growth will place additional pressure on infrastructure.

The UK population is projected to increase by 4.3 million by 2018 and if past trends continue, the population is projected to continue to grow, reaching 71.6 million by 203314. This growing population will have expectations of access to services, opening up the possibility that progress towards a lower carbon infrastructure will be stalled by emissions generated by rising demand.

We can’t build our way out of the problem.

In the long-term then the UK is in danger of demand for transport, water, waste management and energy service outstripping supply, particularly for short periods of peak demand. Attempting to build our way out of this problem will lead to unnecessary CapCarb producing infrastructure that is rarely used. In addition the creation

of spare capacity that is effectively free or very cheap to the user can generate additional demand, generating OpCarb, and in time a return to congestion.

Without demand management infrastructure will not fulfill its purpose.

If we are to derive maximum benefit from our infrastructure, whilst minimising emissions, demand management will therefore have to play an increasing role.

As an example of this problem and the role demand management might play in its solution, consider the case of the journey from London to Plymouth discussed earlier in this report. Major roads between South East and South West England regularly become congested by people making leisure journeys in the peak holiday month of August. Indeed the construction of the road has helped generate the demand for these trips. Congestion in effect means that the performance of the network is being managed by queuing which has negative carbon impacts due to its impact on the performance of vehicles. It also undermines the original goal of constructing the road, improving connectivity and the economic performance of the region. To address this, access to road space on heavily used roads may need to be priced and managed in a similar way to passenger capacity on railways. In this scenario, peak time summer journeys to Cornwall or rush hour access to city centres may need to be booked in advance (recognising this will require developments in technology),with the payback to users of much greater certainty on journey time, in line with the performance standards set down in the National Infrastructure Plan. It also gives users the simple choice of travelling when they want at increased cost, or delaying their journey to make it later at much lower cost.

This also means that in options appraisal, engineers should always consider, “do nothing and introduce demand management”.

Demand management is controversial but has already been successful.

Some forms of demand management such as road user charging are of course controversial and unpopular because they have become to be seen as a new tax, as users have yet to experience the benefits of improved journey time reliability or the offsetting of other costs.

The UK has however seen some notable successes; the combination of a rising Landfill Tax and changes to local authority collection regimes has significantly reduced the demand for waste disposal to landfill.This has been accompanied by increasing recycling rates, which in turn has driven behavioural change that enabled carbon savings across the lifecycle of products moving through the UK economy – many of which may find a use in the construction sector15.

13 Institution of Civil Engineers (2009) State of the Nation: Defending Critical Infrastructure14 Council for Science and Technology (2009) A national infrastructure for the 21st Century 15 WRAP (2010) Environmental benefits of recycling – 2010 update

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


The following pathways set out a plausible trajectory for infrastructure over the next 40 years in order to achieve the legally binding 2050 carbon reduction targets. Our findings are drawn largely from a select number of official pathways and scenarios documents, which have been based on detailed scientific and numerical analysis, principally the Committee on Climate Change’s ‘The Fourth Carbon Budget’ report and the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s ‘2050 (Energy) Pathways Analysis’ document. Before setting out this analysis, it is important to make a number ofgeneral points.

Energy and transport sectors are the greatest source of infrastructure related emissions.

Figure 3 above sets out the current sources of green house gas emissions and shows that the energy and transport sectors are the largest infrastructure-related contributors to emissions. However progress is needed in reducing carbon from all aspects of infrastructure for the UK’s challenging carbon reduction targets to be achieved. Carbon emissions of the water sector have not been captured as a separate sector in Figure 3. For an explanation of the carbon emissions produced by the water and wastewater treatment sector, and its sub-sectors, see Figure 6 and Figure 7 on p24.

Be aware of interdependencies.

The components of our national infrastructure do not operate in isolation and are closely intertwined across and within sectors. They are increasingly mutually supporting, for example they all draw on the energy network for power and increasingly depend on telecommunications for operational management. Improving low carbon performance will ultimately require treating UK Infrastructure as a single system of systems.

How does ICE see the path to 2050?

(i) EnergyThe UK’s energy generation and distribution networks are due for a major overhaul. With a quarter of the UK’s generating capacity shutting down over the next 10 years as older coal and nuclear power stations are decommissioned, more than £110bn in investment is needed to build the equivalent of 20 large power stations and upgrade the grid. In the longer term, DECC’s current pathways material suggests that by 2050, electricity demand is expected to double, as transport and heating are subject to progressive electrification.

The next 10 years and beyond are therefore set to be characterised by a new programme of nuclear plant construction, the delivery of new onshore and offshore wind capacity and the possible retrofit of existing and new fossil-fuel fired power stations with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.

Over time, and into the second and third decades, and finally up to 2050,

34% Energy supply total

Business total

Transport total

Public

Residential total

15%

22%

1%

9% Agriculture total

Industrial process total

Waste managment

2%

14%

3%

Figure 3: Sources of green house gas emissions 2009

16 DECC/Office for National Statistics (2011) UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009, final figures

08. Low carbon infrastructure 2010-50

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


with growing demands for low carbon electricity from other sectors, such as electric cars and more electrified rail lines, the creation of further low carbon electricity production would need to continue apace. Because of the increasing amounts of renewables in the energy mix of this trajectory, challenges exist to balance the electricity grid, for example in the event of a prolonged peak in heating demand during extremely cold periods caused by areas of high pressure, characterised by low wind and wave energy production. An increase in energy storage capacity together with some fossil fuel fired back-up generation, seems likely to be required to meet peak demands, although this is expected to be at low load factors and may be inactive for most of the year17. The “battery” to store renewable energy needs a creative solution, but may lead to a need for many more pumped storage plants or perhaps the storage of surplus energy from renewables as hydrogen. Longer term low carbon energy may be derived from solar plants in warmer climes with a European-wide energy grid for its transmission. Any additional fossil fuel capacity will only be acceptable if fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage technology, which is yet to be proven at scale in UK conditions.

(ii) TransportThe UK’s transport networks as are vital for delivering the government’s aims of supporting sustainable and balanced economic growth and competitiveness. Improved mobility also offers significant economic, social and cultural benefits. As Figure 4 on p23 demonstrates, in 2009 the overwhelming majority of the 122 million tonnes/CO2 equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions linked to domestic transport arose from use of the roads network. Figure 5, p23, shows that within this figure, the private car is the greatest source of emissions, followed by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs)18.

Case study D

M25 Widening, Skanska Balfour Beatty Atkins Joint Venture (JV)

The M25 JV comprises a 30 year Design, Build, Finance and Maintain £6bn concession with the Highways Agency. The 30 year time scale directly incentives delivering whole-life cost and in consequence whole-life carbon benefits. Note, this case study does not cover the emissions arising from vehicle use of the road.

Innovations have been identified and delivered through incremental improvements over current standard practice. The Highways Agency Carbon Capture Tool has been used to measure carbon and in the examples given below, both whole-life cost and whole-life carbon savings are achieved.

1. Pavement:The number of interventions required for re-paving over the 30 year time frame were reduced through a change to the pavement design. The existing reinforced concrete paving has been retained as a rigid rather than a broken-up base (i.e. less flexibility). As a result, 140mm paving depth has been saved and the number of maintenance interventions reduced from 3 to 2 over 30 years.

2. Recycled aggregate: Use of recycled rather than primary aggregate has led to a 35,000 tonnes Ce saving on the project. 2.4MT recycled aggregate has been used on the project as fill material. This represents 92% of the total and a 50% cost saving. Typical replacement product is pulverised fuel ash, incinerator bottom ash and recycled glass. In addition 20% aggregate replacement product has been used in the road surface construction.

3. Materials – Sheet piling: The project requires a very considerable volume of steel sheet piling.By re-designing the pile system (to an A2 king-pile), one third of the steel tonnage was removed or 32,000T steel. In addition, 100% recycled steel was used (compared with 59% European average), which overall represented a 75% saving in embodied carbon.

4. Materials – Other: Other examples of changes were the removal of sections of lighting, saving the equivalent of 588 tonnes Ce per year. In addition, in the early design, 4km of environmental barrier were to be replaced but have in fact been left in place until a later (maintenance) intervention. A 6km section of concrete central reservation has also been left in place because, despite not being to current standards, it is performing its role currently and can therefore be retained until life-expired.

5. Carbon footprint: Analysis of the carbon footprint of the M25 project indicates that material usage forms by far the largest component of CapCarb followed by transport of the materials to site and then energy usage on-site.

To reduce transport and energy costs (and thereby also reduce embodied carbon) a Process Improvement Team (PIT) became actively engaged in a number of initiatives to increase productivity and minimise waste during construction - ‘Lean Construction’. Vehicle movements were a major element of the works and 400,000 litres of diesel fuel were being consumed each month.

6. Overall performance: The cumulative CapCarb savings on the M25 are around 100,000 tonnes Ce.

17 Department for Energy and Climate Change (2010) 2050 (Energy) Pathways Analysis. DECC, London18 DECC/Office for National Statistics (2011) 2009 Greenhouse gas emissions – final figures

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


Modal shift to electrified rail, particularly for freight currently carried by HGVs, is expected to have a part to play but given the scale of the dominance of road transport, a dual strategy of improving the carbon performance of vehicles and of highways themselves is a priority.

The progressive electrification of the private car fleet fed from a decarbonised electricity grid will create a demand for electric vehicle-charging infrastructure. At present we are working on the assumption that it is not likely to be feasible to electrify or usefully decarbonise significant parts of the UK HGV fleet in the period to 2050.

In the short to medium-term greater use of alternative fuels and massively improved internal combustion engine technology is required.

There are also opportunities for civil engineers to reduce the impact of vehicles through improving the performance of roads themselves. Congestion increases emissions as vehicles are forced to repeatedly stop and start, whilst more energy is required to power a vehicle uphill than along a flat road. On those parts of the trunk road network with very high vehicle use, there are likely to be whole life carbon benefits from improving flow, for example by engineering grade

separation at junctions (replacing the use of traffic lights or roundabouts) or creating new road alignments with flatter gradients for the most trafficked routes. Identifying a targeted programme of engineering improvements to the major roads network to improve flows would also have economic benefits through time saved via reduced congestion, particularly if combined with a roll out of demand management measures for the more heavily used routes. Elsewhere electrification of a large proportion of the rail network should continue over the next 20 years with electric traction for trains likely to become more common-place for both passenger journeys and for freight. Electric rail is much more carbon efficient than diesel rail even based on current grid carbon intensity,with emissions of around 50gCO2e per passenger-km compared to 75gCO2e per passenger-km for diesel, and scope for deep emissions cuts with an increasing proportion of low carbon electricity generation. Electrification of more of the network combined with decarbonised electricity generation would significantly reduce emissions from rail while allowing freight to escape the less carbon efficient road network20. In practice this is likely to require rapid expansion beyond the main radial routes to include the chords that connect these arterial rail routes that freight journeys often follow. The construction of High Speed 2, as the foundation of a national High Speed Rail network can release capacity on the classic rail network for additional freight movements.

Figure 4 does not include emissions data for international aviation or shipping serving the UK, although these figures will be included in future CCC monitoring. Civil engineering

Figure 4: UK transport emissions 2009

93% Road

Railways

Domestic shipping

Other

Domestic aviation

2%

1%

2%

2%

19 DECC (2011) UK Climate Change Sustainable Development Indicator: 2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures20 Committee on Climate Change (2010) The Fourth Carbon Budget: Reducing Emissions Through the 2020s. CCC, London

62% Passenger cars

Light duty vehicles

Buses

HGVs

Other

13%

5%

19%

1%

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

Figure 5: Emissions from domestic road transport 2009


opportunities to improve the carbon performance of these areas are limited, though better rail access to ports and airports and improvements to the carbon performance of access roads of the type described above should be pursued. Broadly, demand-led growth of domestic and international shipping and aviation is likely to lead to damaging environmental effects but may stimulate some economic growth, presenting a series of difficult policy choices for government, especially in periods of weak economic performance.

(iii) Water supply and wastewater treatment

The UK water industry used almost 7,900 GWh of energy in its total operations during 2006/07 and emitted over 5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

Figure 6, above, maps the sources of these emissions across water and wastewater processes. This shows that in 2005/06 around 56% of the water industry’s emissions came from wastewater treatment, 39% fromclean water supply and treatment,and 5% from administrative and transport emissions.

Figure 7: Water sector greenhouse gas emissions (2005/6)

Wastewater pumping and collection (including urban runoff)0.2 MtCO2e

Clean water supply and treatment to potable standard1 MtCO2e

Rivers, lakes, reservoirs and groundwater

Direct abstraction

Water company admin& transport emissions0.2 MtCO2e

Leakage0.4 MtCO2e

Clean water distribution0.6 MtCO2e

Agriculture, industry,commerce, etc

Non-household water use? Household water use35 MtCO2e

Wastewater treatment2.1 MtCO2e

Sludge to land1-2 MtCO2e

15,3

53M

l/d

3,57

6M

I/d

8,72

6M

I/d

3,68

3M

I/d

?

?

Dis

char

ge

to

wat

er b

od

ies

20,8

00M

I/d

21 Environment Agency (2008) Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Water Supply and Demand Management Options

5.85.4% Household water use

Wastewater pumpingand collection(including urban run-off)

Wastewater treatment

Sludge to land

0.49%

5.1%

3.66%

0.49% Water company, admin and transport emission

Clean water supply and treatment to potable standard

Leakage

Clean water distribution

2.4%

1%

1.46%

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

Figure 6: Water processing carbon output (2005/6)MtC0


There is significant potential to reduce emissions associated with water supply through improved household device water efficiency and through the increased use of metering. Metering can sometimes reduce the need for other potentially higher CapCarb engineering solutions where water resources are stretched. Compulsory water metering introduced in areas of water stress could potentially reduce annual emissions by between 0.5 – 0.75 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. Moving to full metering across England and Wales could potentially reduce annual emissions by 1.1 – 1.6 million tonnes CO2e per year from current levels22.

Metering, however, is not expected to significantly reduce demand for household water unless the intervention is accompanied by a progressive tariff regime that puts a higher cost on discretionary use, such as garden watering and car washing.

In addition lower household water use would not on it own be sufficient to deliver the necessary reduction in water sector emissions. Wastewater treatment is still carbon intensive and subject to increasingly onerous discharge consentstandards that are driving the use of more energy intensive treatment technologies. We must question whether society and ecosystems are gaining enough benefit from this practice being imposed at all times. Energy recovery from wastewater sludge, which can be used to offset the use of external energy sources, or even be sold into the national grid, might be considered to reduce the carbon impact of wastewater treatment.

Improved operational efficiencies, reducing the reliance on end of pipe solutions and minimising pumping

and treatment of surface water runoff are part of a suite of strategies which might to be considered. For example widespread use of enhanced anaerobic digestion with combined heat and power (CHP), and of energy-optimised activated sludge, could result in savings23.

(iv) Flood risk and water management

The UK’s approach to flood risk management will need to continue to shift from a reliance on large CapCarb intensive physical defences to a broader management of risk, combining defence and measures to alleviate the impact of floods. Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs), which in most cases use less concrete, are replacing some traditional drainage systems on new developments and we envisage a retrofit of existing development and re-developments with SUDS where feasible. Alternative concepts such as decentralised water and sewerage, green roofs and green walls, water neutrality and rainwater harvestingand greater peak flow attenuation couldall have parts to play in a lower carbonflood risk management. Where traditional defences are deemed to be required, opportunities to use these structures for multiple purposes such as transport links or energy generation should be embraced.

(v) Waste and resource management

In the last decade and a half, the use of landfill, previously the overwhelmingly dominant form of waste disposal, had declined sharply under the weight of legislation and regulation aimed at reducing emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2. As a result CO2 emissions related to the operation of

new material recovery, reprocessing and energy from waste infrastructure are likely to grow in coming decades. However these increases will be offset by carbon savings derived from recycling and reprocessing and the reduced use of fossil fuels24.

In the period 2010-30 we expect to see a continued reduction in landfill and an expansion of open window and in-vessel composting, anaerobic digestion (for food waste) and incineration with energy recovery for other residual waste. Systems should be in place to reach 60% recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&I).

By 2030, a growth in community scale decentralised Energy from Waste (EfW) with associated provision of heat and power and small scale gasification and pyrolosis will emerge. There will also need to be an increasing integration of water and waste industry anaerobic digestion. Waste infrastructure should, by 2050, support an industry which has fully converted from a waste disposal into to material recycling and resupply sector. Significantly lower quantities of residual waste will lead to some waste disposal infrastructure being decommissioned. Gasification and pyrolosis should be fully developed and may also provide some transport fuel for those local vehicles not amenable to electrification25.

More broadly waste management will need to become increasingly focused towards security of our natural resources, i.e. retaining embedded carbon in resources through their reuse, recycling or recovery. This will mean that the operation of waste management infrastructure has a much wider implication for reduction of emissions across other parts of the economy.

22 The greenhouse gas implications of future water resources options, Environment Agency.23 Environment Agency (2009) Transforming Wastewater Treatment to Reduce Carbon Emissions - http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO1209BRNZ-E-E.pdf24 WRAP (2010) Environmental Benefits of Recycling 2010 update25 Institution of Civil Engineers (2011) State of the Nation – Waste and Resource Management

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

22 Building a Sustainable Future Building a Sustainable Future 27 26 Building a Sustainable Future

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y


09. Acknowledgements

Nick BeanEnvironment Agency

Pat BowenConstruction Skills

Professor Tim BroydHalcrow

Richard BuckinghamBDP

Phil ButlerEssex County Council

Charly ClarkeCostain

Professor Barry ClarkeICE Vice President

Jonathan DaviesSKM Enviros

Stefan EngstromCarillion

Steve FoxBAM Nuttall

Dr Stephanie GlendinningUniversity of Newcastle

Ben HamerHalcrow

William Hamilton

Peter HinsonEMP-2 Consultants

Lawrance HurstHurst, Peirce and Malcolm

Phil JacksonBentley Systems

Professor Paul Jowitt CBEHeriot-Watt University

Ed LaceyParsons Brinkerhoff

Elaine Lawford Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonaldJoint Venture (Area 4 MAC)

Ed McCannExpedition

Paul Morrell OBEGovernment Chief Construction Advisor

Michael Norton MBEHalcrow

Rob NodenCH2M Hill

Lorna PellyForum for the Future

David RileyAnglian Water Services

Gary RogersonSkanska Balfour Beatty JV

Professor Sarah StallabrassCity University London

Neil ThomasAtkins

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

24 Building a Sustainable Future Building a Sustainable Future 29 22 Building a Sustainable Future28 Building a Sustainable Future

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

UK Standards

British Standards Institution(Guide to) PAS 2050: how to assess the carbon footprint of goods and services. 2008

British Standards InstitutionPAS 2050: Specification for assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. 2008

British Standards InstitutionPAS 2060: Specification for the demonstration of carbon neutrality. 2010

British Standards Institution.BS ISO 14064 parts 1-3: Greenhouse gases. 2006

General

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)Carbon valuation in UK policy appraisal. 2009http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/a%20low%20carbon%20uk/carbon%20valuation/1_20090715105804_e_@@_car-bonvaluationinukpolicyappraisal.pdfhttp://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/a%20low%20carbon%20uk/carbon%20valuation/1_20090714193540_e_@@_re-sponseofgovernmenteconomiststopeerre-viewcomments.pdf

DECCCarbon plan. 2011.http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/What%20we%20do/A%20low%20carbon%20UK/1358-the-carbon-plan.pdf

Defra/DECCGuidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions.London: TSO, 2011.http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/26/ghg-guidance-pb13309/

Defra/DECCGuidance to GHG conversion factors for company reporting.London: Defra, 2009. http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/08/05/ghg-info/

Department for Business Innovation and SkillsLow Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team. Final reportLondon: IGT, 2010http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/l/10-1266-low-carbon-construction-igt-final-report.pdf

McKay, D.J.C.Sustainable energy without the hot air. http://www.withouthotair.com/

World Business Council for Sustainable

Development.Pathway toward a sustainable 2050. 2010.http://www.wbcsd.org/web/projects/BZrole/uc-PathwaysMuralWBCSD.pdf

Calculators

Environment AgencyCarbon calculator for construction activitieshttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37543.aspx

Government Operational Research Service (GORS)Local Authority Carbon Tool http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/policy/carbon-tool/

Hammond, G. and Jones, C. ICE: Inventory of Carbon and Energy.Bath: University, Sustainable Energy Research Team (check web address and version)

HR WallingfordHRCAT - Carbon accounting tool for hydraulic engineering schemes. http://www.hrwallingford.com/site/expertise/research/research-summaries/L4-R046_web.pdf?view=publicationpage1

Institution of Civil EngineersCESMM3 price book.London: ICE Publishing.

UKWIRCarbon Accounting in the UK water industry: Guidelines for dealing with embodied carbon and whole life carbon accounting (Ref 08/CL/01/6)

UKWIRCarbon Accounting in the UK water industry: methodology for estimating operational emissions(Ref 08/CL/01/6)

WRAPThe CO2 emissions estimator tool and case studiesBanbury:WRAP, 2006.http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/sustainability/try_a_sustainabilty_tool/co2_emissions.html

France

Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’EnergieBilan carbonehttp//www2.ademe.fr

Germany

KlimaktivCO2 rechnerHttp://www.klimaktiv.de

Building and construction

Building Research EstablishmentThe Government’s Standard Assessment procedure for energy rating of dwellings.Garston: BRE 2005 http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=66

British Constructional Steelwork AssociationGuidance on the design and construction of sustainable. Low carbon, mixed-use buildings. 2011www.targetzero.info

CEEQUALProjects manualhttp://www.ceequal.com/frm_manualdownload.php

Crown EstateCarbon footprint of marine aggregate extraction. Marine Estate Research Report, 2010.http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/mrf_aggregates

Forum for the FutureCarbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects, e21C Project Report, http://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/images/Forum/Projects/Carbon-Management/EC21-Carbon-Framework-FINAL.pdf

Forum for the FutureSustainability appraisal method for construction materials.http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/engineers-21st-century/more/sustainable-materials-appraisal-method

10. Bibliography


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my


Green Building Council (USA)LEED 2009 for new construction and major renovationsWashington DC: The Council, 2009.

Hughes, L. and othersCarbon dioxide from earthworks:Wa bottom up approach.ICE proceedings: civil engineering, 164, CE2, 2011, 66-72

Institution of Structural EngineersA short guide to embodied carbon in building structures.London, 2011.

Jowitt, P.W. and othersA protocol for carbon accounting in infrastructure decisions.ICE Proceedings: Civil engineering (in press)

Ries, R. and othersLife cycle assessment modelling of heavy construction activitiesConstruction Research Congress 2010, p 1467-1476

Scottish ParliamentConstruction procurement manual:section 7: sustainability.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/11/28100404/04108

Thomas, A. and othersEstimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability,162, 3, p 135-144, 2009

Wadams, G. and Jenkins, O.A Review of measurement approaches in project based carbon footprinting.CIRIA, 2011

Energy

Foxon, T J. and others Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UKTechnological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 8, p1203-1213, 2010

International Energy AgencyEnergy technology perspectives scenario& strategies to 2050.Paris: 2010

Rule, B M.and othersComparison of life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation technologies in New Zealand.Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 16, p6406-6413, 2009

Weisser, Daniel1 A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologiesEnergy, 32, 9, p1543-1559, 2007

Carbon capture

Davison, J. and Thambimuthu, KAn overview of technologies and costs of carbon dioxide capture in power generationProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 223, 3, p201-212, 2009

IEAGHGResearching technologies to control emissions of CO2 - the principal greenhouse gas. http://www.ieaghg.org/

Odeh, Naser A.and Cockerill, Timothy T Life cycle analysis of UK coal fired power plants. Energy Conversion and Management,49, 2, p 212-220, February 2008;

Electricity grid

Harrison, Gareth P and othersLife cycle assessment of the transmission network in Great Britain. Energy Policy, 38, 7, p3622-3631, 2010

Transport

Transport in a low carbon managed future: special themed issue ICE Proceedings, Transport, 164, TR3,August 2011

Bongart, D. and othersBeyond the fossil city: towards low carbon transport and green growth.Eschborn: GTZ, 2010.

Brand, Christian and othersThe UK transport carbon model: An integrated life cycle approach to explore low carbon futures. Energy Policy, 2011; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510006348

Bristow, Abigail, L. and others Developing pathways to low carbon land-based passenger transport in Great Britain by 2050.Energy Policy, v 36, n 9, p 3427-3435, 2008 Department for TransportCreating growth, cutting carbon: making sustainable transport happen.London: Dft, 2011.

GTZManual for Transportation demand management. Eschborn: GTZ, 2009.

Harwatt, H. and othersPublic response to personal carbon trading and fuel price increases in the transport sector: Empirical findings from the UK. European Transport, 47, 2011. p47-70.

Transport Scotland.Carbon management system.http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-reports/i10967-00.htm

Watters, H. and Tight, M.R. The role of trading in carbon emissions for the transport sector. Commission for Integrated Transport, London. 2007http://cfit.independent.gov.uk/pubs/2007/climatechange/index.htm).

Airports

*Transportation Research Board (USA)Sustainable airport construction practices. ACRP report 42.

Rail

Baker, C.J. and othersClimate change and the railway industry:A review.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 224, 3, p 519-528, 2010

RSSBWhole life carbon footprint of the rail industry, RSSB Research, 2010 http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/Research/T913_rb_final.pdf

Reseau Ferre de FranceBilan carbone des infrastructures ferroviaires: approches et outils.IFSTARR, 2011.Media.lcpc.fr/ext/pdf/sem/jtr2011/0902_5_brunet.pdf UICUIC CO2 reduction guidelines.Brussels:UIC, 2007.

Roads

Boriboonsomsin, K and Barth, M.Impacts of road grade on fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions evidenced by use of advanced navigation systems.Transportation Research Record, n 2139,p21-30, 2009;

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

Fox, J. and othersA Practical tool for low carbon road design and construction.ICE Proceedings, Transport, 164, TR3, 2011, p165-180

Highways AgencyCCT instruction manual.http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/documents/CCT-Instruction_Manual-MP-v5c.pdf

Santero, N.J. and othersLife cycle analysis of pavements. 2 parts. Resources conservation and recycling, (in press) 2011.

Shipping

Braathen, A. A.Environmental impacts of international shipping: the role of ports.Paris: OECD, 2011.

British Chamber of ShippingShipping’s carbon emissions: design and implementation of market-based measures; part 1: a cap and trade emissions trading policy; part 2: an international GHG contribution fund. 2011.

British Chamber of ShippingA global cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions from international shipping. 2011

World Ports Climate InitiativeCarbon footprinting for ports.http://www.wpci.nl/docs/presentations/PV_DRAFT_WPCI_Carbon_Footprinting_Guidance_Doc-June-30-2010_scg.pdf

Waste management

BSI and WRAPPAS 110: specification for whole digestate, separated liquor and separated fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion of source aggregated biodegradable materials

Browne, D and othersUse of carbon footprinting to explore alternative household waste policy scenarios in an Irish city-regionResources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 2, p113-122, 2009

El-Handeneh, A. and El Zein, A.Strategies for the municipal waste management system to take advantage of carbon trading under competing policies:the case of SydneyWaste Management 29, 7, 2009, p2188-2194

Gentil, E and othersGreenhouse gas accounting and waste management.Waste Management and Research, v 27, n 8, p696-706, November 2009

IFEUTool for calculating greenhouse gases in solid waste management.http://wwwgtz.de/de/dokumente/gtz2009-climate-calculator-manual.pdf

Mannall, C.Environmental benefits of new waste management faciliies in Manchester.ICE proceedings: municipal engineer, v. 164 ME2, 2011, p117-126

Mühle, S. and othersComparison of carbon emissions associated with municipal solid waste management in Germany and the UK.Resources, Conservation and Recycling,v 54, 11, p793-801, 2010;

Powrie, W. Valuation of treatment technologies for biodegradable municipal solid waste.ICE proceedings: waste and resource management, 164, WR3, 2011, p127-140:

Wastewater treatment

Ashley, R.and others.Making asset investment decisions for wastewater systems that include sustainability.ASCE journal of environmental engineering, 134, 3, 2009, p200-210

Sahely, Halla R. and others.Comparison of on-site and upstream greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian municipal wastewater treatment facilities Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 5, 5, p405-415, 2006

Water

Anglian WaterMitigating carbon emissions at the asset level.IPR, September 2011.

Association Scientifique et Technique pour l’Eau et l’Environnement.Guide methodologique d’evaluation des emissions de gaz a l’effet de serre des services de l’eau…http://www.astee.org/astee/presentation/accueil.php.

Broekens R and othersQuantifying the carbon footprint of coastal construction – a new tool HRCAT - paper accepted for presentation at the ICE Coastal Management Conference 2011, Nov 2011.

Environment AgencyEnergy and carbon implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling.Report SC090018, 2010.

Foxon, T.J and othersSustainability criteria for decision support in the UK water industryJournal of environmental planning and management, 45, 2, p285-301

Kerri K. D.Comparison of treatment processes: sustainability at water plants in the Sacramento region.AWWA Journal, Sept. 2011, p60-73.

Macleod,S.P. and Filio, Y.RIssues and implications of carbon-abatement discounting and pricing for drinking water system design in Canada.Water resources management DOI 10.1007/s11269-011-9900-4

Riley, D.Embodied carbon: the journey through measurement and reduction.http://www.waterinnovation.net/wp-content/uploads/110701-DavidRiley.pdf


ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

yG

reen

eco

no

my

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y

/Our visionCivil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development through knowledge, skills and professional expertise.

/Core purpose

▪To develop and qualify professionals engaged in civil engineering

▪To exchange knowledge and best practice for the creation of a sustainable natural and built environment

▪To promote our contribution to society worldwide

Institution of Civil EngineersOne Great George StreetWestminsterLondon SW1P 3AA

t +44 (0)20 7222 7722f +44 (0)20 7222 7500ice.org.uk

Registered charity number 210252. Charity registered in Scotland number SC038629.

Design by ICE Marketing November 2011. Printed on paper made from sustainable resources.

ICE

th

ou

gh

t le

ad

ers

hip

Gre

en e

con

om

y