Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

The Scale & Value of Uniting Utilities

Dr. Sarah Ward University of Exeter

& Dr. Sandip Deshmukh

University of Surrey

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

• What do we mean by Uniting Utilities?- Integration of services by:

- technology (complementary options)- delivery (innovative business models)- administration (required skills)

• Opportunities for Uniting Utilities in Ashford- Scale of development - Technical feasibility- Valuing attributes of integrated systems

Introduction

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

Water Supply Options

Ashford Integrated Water Management Study

Energy Supply Options

Sustainable Energy Feasibility Study

Technology Choices

So far, choices have been made individually without investigating integration avenues…

Water-Energy Integration (WEI) Options?

WEI Study/Strategy?

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

Options for Uniting Utilities in Ashford

• 25% of domestic energy use is associated with hot water provision• High performance water efficient appliances may use more energy• Trade-off between water and energy efficiency

Scales investigated: Sub-household (microcomponents) Household (PV & RWH)

Semi-centralised (wastewater CHP)

Sub-household Scale: Microcomponents

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

Household Scale: PV and RWH

• Dwelling-specific PV & RWH potential estimated• PV could meet 42 to 78% of domestic electricity

requirement for all dwelling types in Ashford• Based on present FIT income calculations, the

payback period for these systems could be 9 to 10 years and may reduce further due to escalation in fuel prices

• RWH could meet 26% of the non-potable demand, but at huge expense – no FIT-equivalent incentive for decentralised water supply technologies

• PV could meet energy requirements of RWH system

DetachedSemi-Detached Terraced

Dwellings 11184 15075 14103Average Dwelling Size (Floor Space), m2 147.9 94.9 88.3Average Roof Area (30° Roof Pitch), m2 85 55 51

150 Wp 180Wp 250WpOutput/Panel (kWh) 126 151 209Total Potential, GWh 62.48 74.87 67.62

Solar Panel Specifications & Outputs

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

Semi-centralised Scale: Wastewater CHP• UWOT? is used to estimate wastewater generation for stages of Chilmington Green’s delivery

• Anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludge in CHP could meet 1.2% and 0.44% of annual domestic electricity and heat demand

• Highlights the need for supplementing with decentralised options (such as waste to energy or PV)

• Use of domestic solid waste to energy generation option would result in meeting 15-20% of annual electricity and heat demand• If used only for meeting heat demand, planned development would need to have provision for deploying additional Ground Source Heat Pumps or Gas Boilers

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

Water Flows & Responsibilities

Energy Flows & Responsibilities

• Responsibilities are managed separately

• Energy supplier could be a generator or infrastructure provider

• Customer can choose or become an energy supplier

• So, uniting utilities is feasible from a technical perspective, however:

• Water/sewerage undertakers may not interact

• Strict regulation limits non-standard approaches

• Customer cannot choose

Ashford’s Integrated AlternativesPESTER Analysis – factors hindering technical

integrationPlanning Phase

– Interpretations of the term ‘integrated’– Timing– Knowledge– Conflicts of interest

Design Phase RiskScaleProcedure/Practice

Delivery phase − Scepticism− End-user Consultation

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

What attributes make uniting utilities a valuable option?

• Technical feasibility Vs Economic viability

• Accepted within the community?

• Complex role/interactions between stakeholders

• Effective resource use/reuse

• Use waste products as resources

• Reduce waste exports from areaWhat attributes decrease its value?

• Help achieve environmental obligations

• Provide efficiency savings/economies of scale

• Unfamiliar delivery mechanisms

• New skills/services required

Ashford’s Integrated Alternatives

Conclusions: • Utility services need to be investigated individually, then in conjunction to

identify avenues for integration• There are trade-offs/supplementary measures required at different scales• ….the major challenge:

Achieving value through uniting utilities and valuing the attributes of integrated systems in the planning phase

Recommendations:• Integration of utilities needs to be valued at the pre-planning and planning

stages• Innovative integrated utility options need to be demonstrated to develop

confidence in planners and developers• Inter and intra-utility partnership needs to be encouraged to facilitate

integration• Incentives and new operational models are required at the regulatory level

Conclusions and Recommendations