RENEWABLE

ENERGY ARC6840
JULIO YAMIL JIMNEZ CASTILLO
REG. NUMBER. 001646146
CONTENT
1. Intruduction and context
2. Different tools to estimate the energy needs and to evaluate suitable energy technologies
3. Predicted energy use and carbon emissions in the project
Design pPH and PHPP
Total energy demand
Total carbon emissions
4. Renewable Energy aplication
What can be suitable for the project?
PV pannels
PV-T pannels
5. Conclusion
6. References
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
The Brentford towers are located in Hounslow, West London. Built in the 1960s and late 70s, the complex has
6 towers with a total of 528 flats (88 flats each tower) and provides social housing to 792 people. Nowadays,
the towers need retrofit; according to a report made by the London Borough of Hounslow Major works are
required to address current health and safety issues relating to the exterior of the building and ensure the long-
term future of the Towers. The existing external wall panels cladding the towers are progressively deteriorating
resulting in several areas of exposed reinforcement where concrete from the cladding panels has fallen off.
(Curran S, 2015).

Each floor of the towers contains four flats, two different types:

Single flat: Kitchen, living room, bedroom, and bathroom.

Double flat: Kitchen, living room, 2 bedrooms, and bathroom.

The towers are 55m tall (23 floors) and the tallest building in the
context is Hyperion Towers with 15 stories tall (45m) to the south. BEDROOM

Apart from it, most of the buildings are small houses and have an LIVING
ROOM KITCHEN LIVING
ROOM
average height of 2 to 3 stories tall. The Towers sits between the KITCHEN
BATHROOM

train rails and the Carville Hall Park (approximately 100 meters to BEDROOM

the north) and the Thames River (400 meters to the south). Due to
BATHROOM

the fact that the elevation over the sea level is 4 meter, the climate HALL BEDROOM
BATHROOM

of the zone is humid. (Jimnez J, 2016)

BATHROOM BEDROOM
LIFT LIFT
STAIR CASE

The sunrise, according to the Met Office, goes from 70.6 hours in BATHROOM
KITCHEN BEDROOM
winter and 218 hours during summer. The temperature of the site BATHROOM

changes according to the season too, during winter, the lowest LIVING
ROOM
LIVING
BEDROOM KITCHEN
temperature recorded between 1981 and 2010 was -1.7C in ROOM

February and the maximum would be in July: 23.5C. In addition,

October is the month with more rain recorded, the average of 1.1 Proposal of the project. Image taken from the ARC 6841
Design report of Sustainable Studio by Julio Jimnez
water is 69.7 mm however, and March presents a reduction of rain
with 42.8 mm.

According to the design report of ARC 6841 by Julio Jimnez, the BEDROOM
LIVING
concrete objectives of this retrofit project were: ROOM

BATHROOM

-To improve the daylight solar factor between 2 and 5 percent in KITCHEN

the main areas of the apartment

-Energy consumption under 100 kWh/m2/y (70% energy saving
compared to existing building) HALL

-Access to daylight in most of the living spaces.

-Provide several public spaces for residents. STAIR CASE
LIFT LIFT

Due to the fact that the building structure is held by concrete

walls and to the height between each floor (2.3 meters), it was
KITCHEN BATHROOM
proposed to rearrange the actual flats by respecting the structure.
The proposal retrofits an existing flat facing north, the solution BEDROOM
LIVING
was to re-accommodate the floor plans as shown in image 1.1. ROOM

In addition, insulation was added to provide the building with a

1.2 Illuminance study. Image taken from the ARC 6841 Design
better performance and thermal envelope. The energy study wasreport of Sustainable Studio by Julio Jimnez
made only in a flat facing north because it was the only one the team had access. The primary energy dropped
down from the original performance a 52.7% having as a result 260 kWh/(m2a). In addition, the space heating
demand had a reduction of the 73.3% (71 kWh/(m2a)). The illumination also had a noticeable increase to 3%
of daylight factor in the areas of the living room and kitchen (Jimnez J, 20161) (shown in image 1.2)

2. DIFFERENT TOOLS TO ESTIMATE THE ENERGY

NEEDS AND TO EVALUATE SUITABLE ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES
DESIGN PH AND PHPP ( PASSIVHAUS PLANNING PACKAGE)

Design PH is a plugin for Sketch Up, developed by the Passive House Institute to work as a 3d modeling
interface that works together with PHPP. The plugin provides an automatic analysis algorithm which can infer
element types and area groups. Surfaces are given a color-code so that it is possible to visually verify in the 3D
model that all the heat-loss surfaces have been correctly taken into account. (Design PH, 2016) In addition,
this plugin provides a simplified energy balance in Sketch Up to allow the users to make changes in the model
before exporting.

The PHPP is easy to use planning tool for energy efficiency for the use of architects and planning
experts.(Design PH, 2016) The interface works with Excel and provides results in heating and cooling demand,
summer comfort (frequency of overheating), demand for renewable energy demand and assessment of the
annual renewable energy gains.

BENCHMARKING

In the design process benchmarks are goals that are trying to be achieved. The environmental pocket book
by Dr. Sofie Pelsmakers gives manual calculation and matrixes to help to decide what kind of renewable is
suitable for the project, this, by using ICE database, CIBSE TM 46, BRE and PHPP data from the project. This
method is a very simple and comprehensive tool that mixes different information, as a result, it provides useful
information to make decisions in the future development of the design.

The tools shown above can estimate and provide information to make a decision on what renewable should
be used in the project. However, there are many other utensils to do this. The reasons why it was decided to
work with the chosen tools are:

PHPP and Design PH due to all the information, calculations and familiarity provided along this course.
Benchmarks were also chosen to do this analysis because of the easy and comprehensive way that it
works.
3. PREDICTED ENERGY USE AND CARBON
EMISSIONS IN THE PROJECT
DESIGN PH AND PHPP ( PASSIVHAUS PLANNING PACKAGE)

To understand the way the wall works and its insulation it was
important to use Design PH and PHPP to make predictions
on how the energy performance and carbon emissions of
the project would be. As the building structure was made by
concrete panels and due to the low amount of space inside
the apartment it was decided to create exterior insulation. In
order to know the type of insulation, the Environmental Design
pocketbook was referred. In chapter 7 of the book, a table with
different lambda values is shown; because of the height of the
building, the thickness and high performance of the material
phenolic foam was selected.

After getting the u-value result in Design PH it is observed that

the total is lower than the Nationa fabric specification; model
design specification Part L in Englan given in Dr. Pelsmakers
3.1 Material performance information. Image taken from the
book. Environmental Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers

3.2 Design PH u-value study

3.3 Building Regulations England 2013. Image taken from the

Environmental Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers
3.4 Design PH u-value study

When the file was exported to PHPP and the

settings changed to the correct location,
altitude, etc., the heating demand gave as a
result 67kWh(m2/a).
As shown in the table, the quantity of heating
demand is a little higher than the Part L New
Dwellings,

In the images below, the graphic shows the

energy balance heating in the project and
specify the amounts of kWh/(m2*a) where gains
and loses happens. In the comparison, is shown
that most of the energy gains happen due to
Solar reasons and Heating reasons.

Also, the next chart shows that the highest heat

demand in the project is during December while
3.5 Existing housing stock legacy and CO2 savings. Image taken from the in summer there is no need for heating, it has to
Environmental Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers
take into consideration the risk of overheating.

3.6 Specific Annual heating demand. Taken from PHPP

3.7 Energy balance heating . Taken from PHPP

TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND

PHPP also gives you the result of the Energy consumption that in this case, using 10% of the electricity
demand without heatpump and 90 % with a boiler. The result, as shown in table 3.4 is 238 kWh/(m2a). The
treated floor area is 47.7 m2.
To solve the total per flat the areaa needs to be multiplyied by the total energy demand:

238 kWh/(m2a)*47.7m2= 11,352.6 kWh

Now, taking in consideration that the towers have 88 flats:

11352.6 kWh * 88 = 999,028.8 kWh

TOTAL CARBON EMISSIONS

To calculate the total carbon emissions it is needed

to multipliciation of factors taken from SAP 2012
that are shown in the Environmental design pocket
book. This factors have to be multiply by the results
given in the PHPP.

143.2 kWh/ (m2a) *0.519 kgCOce/kWh6 + 94.4kWh/

(m2a) * 0.216 kgCOce/kWh6 = 20.40 kgCO2e/
kWhm2 3.8 CO2 conversion factors from SAP 2012. Image taken from the Environmental
Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers

then, that has to be multiplyed by the area: 2 0 . 4 0

kgCO2e/kWh * 47.7 m2 = 973.08 kgCO2e/kWh

The total emission for one tower will be: 973.08 kgCO2e/kWh *88 = 85,631.04 kgCO2e/kWh

3.9 Primary energy value . Taken from PHPP

4. RENEWABLE ENERGY APLICATION
WHAT CAN BE SUITABLE FOR THE PROJECT?

To have a starting point on this chapter matrixes in chapter 12 of the Environmental design pocketbook
were used to get an idea in the use of Renewables, as results biogas, macro CHP, PV and PV-T. Due to the
outstanding height of the towers on the site, a solar radiation study was made during the design process to
understand the impact of the context. As shown in the images below, the west and south facade could be

4.1 South west and North east solar radiation study taken in the Towers. Image taken from ARC 6841 Design report for sustainable studio 1 by Julio Jimnez

used to put some solar renewable technology as some area on the ground too. However, it could be better
to apply the technologies to the ground due to the required and that that could give a better performance.
To validate this technology, another matrix was used and as a result, it gave that the project is likely suitable
for solar thermal PV-T panels and PVs.

4.2 CO2 conversion factors from SAP 2012. Image taken from the Environmental 4.3 CO2 conversion factors from SAP 2012. Image taken from the Environmental
Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers
 PV PANELS

In the next image, it is illustrated the importance of having

a good angle in the solar system to maximize the use and
production of the panels an angle between 30 and 40 is
required facing south. In addition, it was mapped out in a
solar study made for the design report the area where the
most amount of direct sunlight is getting.

In the left image, the diagram shows that during summer

the west area has a lot of potentials to put some solar
panels. However, during winter some shading is caused
in the same space as a result of the lower position of the
sun. This could reduce the performance of the PV but4.4 CO2 conversion factors from SAP 2012. Image taken from the Environmental
that is one of the potentials risks of having a solar system.Design pocket book by Dr. Pelsmakers

4.5 Summer and winter shadow study in a single day. Image taken from ARC 6841 Design report for sustainable studio 1 by Julio Jimnez

PVs convert solar energy into electricity. Moreover, it

is important to mention that one of the disadvantages
of this renewable is that domestic electricity usually
peaks in winter and in the evenings - when solar
energy is least available. (Pelsmakers, 2015) In the
next chart, a comparison of different PV panels is

4.4 PV panel diagram. Image taken from the Environmental Design pocket book 4.5 Types of PV panels. Image taken from the Environmental Design pocket book
by Dr. Pelsmakers by Dr. Pelsmakers

shown, as it can be observed, the monocrystalline PV is the most efficient but also the most expensive.
Each square meter of this technology produces 100 kWh/m2 per year (Feilden Clegg Bradley, 2006)
So, the total energy trying to cover is 999,028.8 kWh (for a single tower).

By using the roof of the tower (324 m2) and while reducing the space needed for circulation and management
the PV panels area is reduced o 108 m2, this will produce 10,800 kWh, which is the 1.08% of the total
Total area 324 energy consumption. The cost of putting solar
Total number of panels with space 54 panels in the roof area will be 102,600 pounds
reduction
PV area 108 and the embodied carbon of using this number
Energy produced 10800 of PV panels will be 108 m2*242KgCO2= 26,136
Total energy produced of the 1.08% KgCo2. Taking five years to have a payback.
project
4.6 PVs only in the roof calculation sheet. Julio Jimnez
If the dotted area in the image 4.5 (20,617.95 m2)
were used to put some solar panels, that one
Total area 20941.94 could produce 69.87% (206179500 kWh) of the
Total number of panels with space 3490.323333 energy needed for a tower, this means that with
reduction that space we can have energy for not even one
PV area 6980.646667
Energy produced 698064.6667 tower! This area will not give enough energy for
Total energy produced of the 69.87431463 all the complex but could potentially reduce the
project energy consumption from the grid.
4.7 PVs on the green areas calculation sheet. Julio Jimnez

PV-T

PV-Ts are a relatively new technology and remain

largely untested. Their potential to produce more
energy from a given roof area compared to other
technologies is very promising (Pelsmakers, 2015)
The way the system works is by using a PV overheating
by drawing heat away from the PV panel usually with
an air source heat pump.

The energy produced by this technology (again,

only using the roof) will be 108m2 * 120 kWh/m2 =
12,960 kWh (1.30% of the whole use). The carbon
reductions of PV-Ts 70 kgCO2 * 108m2 = 7,560
KgCO2 and finally, the cost of improving this system
would be 108,000 pounds.

Now, as in the PVs. if the area shown in the image

4.5 was filled with PV-Ts for the whole six towers, the
4.8 PV-T panel diagram. Image taken from the Environmental Design pocket book by
energy produced would be: Dr. Pelsmakers

Total area 324

6,980.6 m2 x 120 kWh/m2= 837,677.6 kWh thatTotal number of panels with space 54
represents the 83.8% of the energy needed for areduction
PV area 108
Tower. This means that filling this area with PV-Energy produced 12960
Ts would give the energy to provide electricityTotal energy produced of the project 1.297259639
and heating for almost 1 tower. In addition, the4.9 PVs only in the roof calculation sheet. Julio Jimnez
CO2 reductions would be 70KgCo2 * 6980.6 m2 =
488645.267 KgCO2 .
Total area 20941.94
After showing the 2 selected systems it can beTotal number of panels with space 3490.323333
observed that PV-Ts have a better performance inreduction
PV area 6980.646667
energy and CO2 emissions, a good reflection onEnergy produced 837677.6
the decision to take for this project is necessary toTotal energy produced of the project 83.84917755
say: Perhaps the idea to fill a land with all this PV-Ts4.10 PVs only in the roof calculation sheet. Julio Jimnez
sounds attractive the landscape mark (trees needed
to be chopped down and visual landscape) would have a very large impact in the way the community looks
at this moment. In addition, it is not needed to achieve a 100% the energy of the project however it could
be helpful for the habitats and people in the site.

Moreover, the longevity of the panels would be 20 to 25 years and cost of maintenance will include replacing
refrigerants every year. Some of the maintenance issues are the snow cleaning and leaves, birds dropping
and dust removal has to be considered if this is not done a 10% on the system performance can be lost. The
way these panels are monitored is a simple display that identifies failures but issues should be rectified
swiftly.

Also, with this type of system storing generated electricity might mean issue using the national grid to
export (sell electricity will be problematic on a large scale since supply (daytime) and demand (evening) do
not match (Pelsmakers, 2015).

5. CONCLUSION
THE BRENTFORD TOWERS SHOULD BE... A comprehensive
project that involves the people in comunity and renewable
energy to reduce the CO2 impact and use of energy. After
doing this report, PV-Ts were selected as the renewable
technology to marry with the project. The placecment of
this tools would be on the roof of each tower and in the
selected area shown in image 5.1.

As said in chapter 4, a lo of considerations has to be taken

in order to achieve a good performance and life of the4.5 Summer and winter shadow study in a single day. Image taken from
system . However, in the process to get here some designARC 6841 Design report for sustainable studio 1 by Julio Jimnez
considerations could have been improved to give a better
and lower energy performance. It was tried to reduce the thermal performance of the building but due to the
fact that the best lamda value was being using and we had a very low u value, the result of energy was the
one given in the building. In addition, the asthetic considerations on how this project is going to look after
the implementation of the renewable energy is very important. We know that the future of the cities is energy
reduction, but, greenery is something we need to have a better quality of life, air, view, and recreation spaces.
5. REFERENCES
Pelsmaker, S. (2011) The environmental design pocketbook. 2ND EDITION edn. London: RIBA
Enterprises.

Jimnez, J. (2017) ARC 6841 BIM Design report for sustainable studio 1. Sheffield, U.K.: University
of Sheffield.

Curran, S. (2015) Brentford Towers: Ensuring the towers long-term future. Available at: http://
democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1 (Accessed: 20 April 2017).

Passivhays Institute (2017). Passivhaus Institut. [online] Passiv.de. Available at: http://www.passiv.
de/en/04_phpp/04_phpp.htm [Accessed 5 May 2017].