What we have learnt about working with housebuilders

Since I  wrote that infamous article in The Independent in 2000 and coined the phrase "The Wimpeyfication and...

ZeroChampion Blog

View my blog at  http://www.zerochampion.com

I'm going to use this blog to share interesting things I've seen and done in my role as Thames Gateway Chief Executive and as a resident...

Have a read through the text below we have an innovative Patented system to remove Heavy Metals and Hydrocarbons from soils, ideal for both small and large site set ups. 

We believe that this patented system will, based on its results make a major benefit to clients trying to remediate sites across the UK and Ireland.

One thing to keep in mind is that our process is just as fast as disposing of the material, with the process only taking 2 days and process productions on bigger jobs of up to 1,000 m3 per day.

Also the process has the added benefit of getting free suitable material which can be used as an imported stone substitute. There are files showing the actual initial results that were given to us by Amec / Costain from a site at Belvedere East London. The results are for the actual material placed in the heap prior to treatment, we can also provide the initial SI's if required but they are very large files. Also there are results for our processed materials. These results are then summarised and compared against the initial results. Also, we are recovering 20% stone from the process, so the results should could have been 20% greater.

You can see that the PAH and TPH are reduced to below detection limits as per the previous table shown to yourselves. This is the area in which this process really excel's with dramatic results.

Below are test results that we are achieving at Belvedere. What is worth noting is what we are showing you here is not the WAC results, which are easy for our process to achieve, but the air dried test results (soil concentration results). You can see that we have made an actual physical change in the soil results being achieved in the process. Compound Mean before treatment Mean after treatment Unit Chromium 59 28 mg/kg Copper 6500 47 mg/kg Lead 2900 180 mg/kg Mercury 9.4 0.3 mg/kg Nickel 110 24 mg/kg Selenium <3 <0.05 mg/kg Zinc 4700 340 mg/kg Water Soluble Boron 550 100 mg/kg Arsenic 7400 85 mg/kg PAH 120 <10 mg/kg TPH 360 <10 mg/kg Now below is the WAC results for the same material which is what is used for classification if the material is to stay on site. These used to be used for tip acceptance classification, however all the tips are now required by the EA to now use the air dried results initially followed by WAC as a cross reference. Compound Mean WAC result after treatment Unit Chromium <0.05 mg/kg Copper <2.0 mg/kg Lead <0.5 mg/kg Mercury <0.01 mg/kg Nickel <0.4 mg/kg Selenium <0.1 mg/kg Zinc <4.0 mg/kg Water Soluble Boron - mg/kg Arsenic <0.5 mg/kg Chloride <800 mg/kg Sulphate <1000 mg/kg

As you can see the process in some instances has reduced the concentrations by 99%, which we are very impressed about. This process has all occurred over a 2 day period whilst also allowing us to strip out 20% product from the process.

I have a slide, within the presentation, of hydrocarbon results that show a similar dramatic change in the materials. In that example it literally removed all trace of the contamination, so that again the material was rendered as inert. I would be very keen to work more closely with you to obviously promote our values to clients and of course it would possibly be a benefit and marketing tool for your company i don't believe there are another company in the market that can offer these types of results.

Reorb (www.reorb.com) is the professional networking website dedicated to commercial real estate.

Deep inside the rainforest in northern Guatemala lies a lost Mayan world. Hiking through rough jungle for 5 days to get there is the kind of thing you do to celebrate being out of the concrete jungle. I love archaeology and the serenity of these sites of fallen civilizations reminds me that all fades away... and also that great wisdom has come before us... and also that mankind continues to make the same fatal mistakes. We can learn a lot from the past, and a little less cultural arrogance and a lot more humility could do us all good.

El Mirador was the first great Mayan civilization (500BC-150AD) and reflects a highly organised society with advanced urban planning skills. La Danta, the largest pyramid in the world is there as well as sacred spaces and major buildings which are in alignment with the trajectory of the sun and moon. There are water reservoirs with a purification system, terraced farms within the city which were filled with the rich soil from the surrounding swamps and giant causeways which linked El Mirador with a network of cities up to 60 km away. The 26 sqkm site is extraordinarily well preserved, largely due to its remoteness. The temples were carved from limestone and then covered in white stucco plaster, which was painted scarlet, black, ochre and azure blue when the city was occupied. Huge white jaguar heads and the faces of long-dead rulers jut out of the facades of temples and smooth steps rise seemingly endlessly, brilliant again the dark green of the forest which still engulfs most of the structures. They are stunning - like nothing else I have ever seen - and their scale makes them utterly jaw-dropping.

Watching the sun rise from the top of La Danta temple was a profound moment. Rainbow billed toucans and turquoise mackaws flew above the tree-tops far below me, spider monkeys swung from branch to branch, the jungle far beneath me stretched off towards the horizon where it disappeared into the morning mist and Mexico. I have never been so far from away from 'civilization'. The beauty and tranquility of the jungle took a part of my heart forever.

I tried to imagine what this place must have looked like - tremendous red temples towering above the rainforest, white causeways connecting the numerous cities of this forgotten state, temples which reflected and predicted celestial movement. The Mayans who built this must have thought that they had truly conquered nature. But nature has its way of fighting back.

The precise reasons for the fall of many empires are not known. However El Mirador was a victim of unsustainable design. It was its construction techniques that caused its downfall - and notably that beautiful stucco. For each building more than 400 hectares of forest were felled for fuel to produce the limestone stucco, leading to mass deforestation. The process also produced a clay by-product which rendered the soil in the surrounding swamps less fertile. Combined with the pressures of intensive farming for a growing population, this unsustainable construction technique proved fatal. The city had destroyed its environment and was abandoned in 150AD, left for the jungle to reclaim.

Dr Richard Hansen, renowned archaeologist and anthropologist and director of the Mirador Basin project is determined to make the development of the area sustainable - indeed to make it a blueprint for such developments worldwide. Equal importance is being given to preserving and excavating the site and others in the basin, protecting the last stretch of virgin rainforest in Central America, and ensuring that the surrounding communities participate in decision-making and are the key beneficiaries of economic initiatives such as eco-tourism and traditional forest harvesting.

Hansen firmly believes that we have much to learn from the past when we learn about the past. And likewise, we have a lot to learn from sustainability initiatives in other disciplines.

For more info go here www.authenticmaya.com/mirador_basin.htm and there  www.miradorbasin.com

This is my first ever blog - therefore be gentle in your responses assuming anyone responds!

The Environment Agency has launched its new carbon calculator designed to work out the carbon output of any construction project. Designed to make the contractors focus upon sustainability and working practices the idea is laudable.

More construction clients are stating their green objectives, with several indicating their desire to achieve a relatively high percentages of recycled material content within their builds - yet the manufacturers of recycled materials still cannot gain acceptance for their materials!

The ODA has committed to a sustainable build but small manufaturers will find it virtually impossible to supply to the major companies that will inevitably win the majority of the projects.

Are we really seeing a move towards using recycled and sustainable materials or are we witnessing a greenwash? 

I have tried to gain acceptance for our manufactured products and to be fair we have now attracted a few major potential users but if we are to achieve the legislative aims and other environmental targets, these materials must find more uses and greater acceptance within the construction industry. How are we to heighten the profile of these innovative materials that offer significant environmental benefits, divert plastic waste from landfill and reduce the carbon footprint of any build projects - if anyone can advise I would be very happy to listen and learn.

regards

Doug Anderson

 

I see from the news last night that the wholesale price of gas is up 15% or more. Well what a surprise.

Slowly the population is coming to see that energy is a valuable resource and that its price effects so many services that we have taken for granted for so long.Cost of heating and of food and food production is probably where we are going to notice this most.

My central heating tank takes 2400litres and costs over £1000 fill This is a large single bill. For this to rise by 15% makes a noticeable impact on my expendable income.

I-think the nation will start to be concerned when petrol hits £5per litre because that too will become a large single bill but by increasing it a penny or two at a time doesnt have the right impact on serious decision making on transport habits. In the UK we drive over 100 billion miles a year going to work and over 40 billion miles driving to supermarkets.I-thinkthe price of fuel should be increased dramatically to make people re-think their behaviour.Electric cars and motor cycles will become more common.

This latest round of gas and oil price increases whilst still not high enough will make people think about double glazing, draught excluders and possibly turning the room thermostat down a degree but this is just the beginning. We will be held to ransome if we rely on imported energy.

The French are now way ahead in the provision of nuclear power and we must regain our independence.

Burning fossil fuel is in my mind, madness. It certainly isnt helping us to reduce CO2 emmissions and as prices rise I suppose we will resort to coal again. Can this be a realistic solution. I think not.

I-think all buildings will need to be designed for electric heating and cooling in future. The waste of oil and gas for heating is madness. Most forms of renewable energy create electricity, city centre buildings cannot rely on natural ventilation year round for comfort and will need filtration with electrically driven fans. Bio mass fuel is great but needs to be harvested using diesel fuelled tractors, shipped to final destination in large diesel driven ships so letscut back on unnecessary use of oil and gas ASAP for heating and car transport.

I-think BREAM needs to give more consideration to this and the governments in future must be allowed to take a longer term view on policy than the current 3 or 4 years of their electoral term. In this regard China has a tremendous lead over other nations.

I-think Nuclear power is inevitable. I just dont think it is happening fast enough.

As population increases the demand for space for agriculture to feed the population will increase. Urban sprawl must be controlled. As population increases city centres will become larger and buildings will inevitably grow taller as we see in Hong Kong and Shanghai. Taller buildings will demand greater reliance on electrical support systems.Wemust therefore attend to the issue of design to make these as efficient as possible. You may have seen my earlier comments on reducing the overaqll height of tall buildings without reducing the headroom. For anyone interested you can see two videos on you tube under the title "Flexiblespace" or you might like to visit my website www.flexiblespace.com

 

Rob Blyth said...
Glan, I agree with your sentiments entirely.

It came home to me in the early 1970's that Oil is a finite resource when they said it will run out in 20 years.
Well it didn't because we managed to open wells in more inhospitable places around the globe. Sure as eggs is eggs though it WILL RUN OUT and quicker now that India and China are growing at such a rate.
Re-useable energy will help but can never fully supply our needs so we must go nuclear.
It is a pity that UK is no longer a leader in nuclear technology with people with the necessary skills.
C'est la vie... we will have to look to the French to help us. Time is fast running out if we are to build and commission the necessary reactors.
Nuclear power is inevitable

 

Last month the North Sea coast was battered by waves of more than 20 feet, constituting the highest tidal surge since the Great North Sea Flood of 1953 and just last weekend Ireland witnessed waves over 50 feet high.

Yet although climate change experts are quick to point the finger, claiming that such natural disasters are portents of a rapidly changing weather system, surely we should be taking into account other factors before forecasting doom and gloom on an unprecedented scale?

Certainly experts believe that storm surges will become more frequent with the increase in global warming, but scientists are careful not to attribute climate change as the sole cause of any single weather condition.

Although experts agree that floods that happened once every 100 years could now happen more frequently, perhaps we should be focusing as much on preventative measures in terms of infrastructure and development as we should be on combating climate change at a wider, global level.

Last year 13 major housing developments were granted planning consent, despite the fact they were situated in areas that were significantly at risk of flooding.

This was against the advice of the Environment Agency, yet with British weather conditions looking set to become increasingly volatile, surely this goes against common sense? 

We can do everything in our power to combat the worsening effects of global warming, yet we can’t ignore the facts. Adverse weather conditions are becoming more frequent, so surely we need to ensure that that is factored in to development proposals?

The Association of British Insurers is lobbying the Government to increase spending on flood defences from £600 million this year, to £800 million in 2008.

Similarly, there are calls to build a new Thames barrier to deal with the worsening effects of climate change, despite the fact that it’s current effectiveness (i.e. if there are no changes to our existing global weather systems) has been estimated to last for another 30 years.

So although our industry can, and certainly should, sign up to worldwide treaties and implement any number of measures to reduce carbon emissions, is there not just as much validity in accepting the fact of global warming and instead changing the way in which we build and develop so that we can meet head-on the demands of climate change?

Hi All, 

I would like to introduce you each to sustainability weblog Inhabitat.com. On behalf of the team and its managing editors I have set up a small group on i-Think for discussions surrounding featured articles on the website. As the UK Editor and Researcher I would love to hear from you - if you are interested in promoting any recent sustainability projects, please do get in touch.

http://www.inhabitat.com

This week’s news that greenhouse gas emissions are heading for record levels comes as something of a disappointment, particularly when more and more of us are signing up, both corporately and personally, to the wider sustainability agenda. Yet the fact that new UN figures are showing emission levels not seen since the 1990s is proof that we still have a long way to go.

It seems that the blame can be laid firmly at the door of some of the world’s richest industrial nations, where emission figures are just 2.8% below the high of 18.7 billion tonnes recorded in 1990. Yet if industrial strength, and hence damaging carbon emissions, equates to economic prosperity, is it any wonder that we are finding it so hard to make the necessary cutbacks?

In contrast, Robert Rubin, former US Treasury Secretary and Chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee, last week stated that slashing greenhouse gas emissions could actually boost the US economy by creating new industries and encouraging the sale of carbon-control technologies.

Clearly we are being given a number of mixed messages here.

Perhaps it is precisely this lack of clarity, and hence direction, that is holding us back. We could argue that the Kyoto protocol at least had some clearly defined targets and helped to impose a sense of order in terms of our response to climate change. But where do we go now?

Any post-Kyoto agreement must encompass China, where the economy is rapidly increasing by 11% year on year, as well as the US, which refused to sign the original treaty. So although we can start to look towards the renewal of the Kyoto protocol, which is expected to take place at a UN meeting in Bali next month, some of the most fundamental flaws will still need to be ironed out.

With claims that carbon trading, a system originally set up under the Kyoto Protocol, will be worth £30 billion next year, any future agreements need to take economics and climate change into equal consideration. It is an undeniable fact that cuts will not be implemented unless they make sound financial sense, and a country’s economic strength will always take predominance over the broader, more immeasurable fact of climate change.

On the positive side, the UK’s emissions still remain within the limits set by Kyoto more than 10 years ago, so how can we now ensure that the rest of the world follows suit?

Has anyone yet considered just how much energy can be saved by reducing the height of buildings by 10%.

First of all how can we reduce the height?

Well, normal airconditioning takes up about 600mm(2 feet) in the false ceiling.
Thanks to Bill at the big M, most intelligent offices now use raised access floor for cable management to network the PC's together and that has increased the height not reduced it by about 150mm(6 inches).

So why don't we consider increasing the floor void by say 150mm(6 inches) and using this void as a plenum to distribute conditioned air to the office space aswell as the cables and other services?

Now suddenly we dont need 600mm (2 feet) in the ceiling for ductwork and we can save about 450mm (18 inches) in height floor by floor.

Most buildings are less than 4m(12 feet) floor to floor and so this approach could save more than 10%, and in some cases 15%, in overall height. I saved a developer 35 m on the height of a building using this approach. Thats the equivalent of a 10 floor office block. I actually saved him about $7 000 000 US into the bargain just on curtain wall costs!

I was in Shanghai last week and am in Delhi this week and construction is continuing relentlessly.

With the above solution we could reduce the amount of all vertical elements of a building (Curtain Wall, lift shafts,stairwells,Columns, service risers etc) and every 10 buildings we would save enough material to build an identical building "Free of Charge" . What will that do to reduce demand for world resources?!

Now because the buildings are 10% lower they receive 10% less solar gain and thus the chillers and air handling plant will be less than a normal height building.

As a result the power supply to the building will be less.

The power station at the end of the road will work less and the pollution will be lower.

The energy required to mine and produce the materials will be less - the number of trucks to deliver the materials to the construction site will be less - the congestion in the streets will be reduced minimising waste of fuel from all the poor souls struggling to drive through the jams to work and then to sit in poorly air conditioned tall buildings.

I have been developing this idea for nearly 20 years and it seems that the world has started to sit up and listen to the harsh facts of Human impact on Global warming.

They ain't making any more oil. In fact they are beginning to struggle to find enough even to meet current needs.

The world population is increasing at about 1 billion every 10 years.

There were 9 million bicycles in Beijing (thanks Katie) but now there are probably 9 million motor cars and there seems no let up to this growth.

Oil is needed for much more than heating and motor cars. Oil is used to produce pesticides, for example. As the world population increase the available surface for agriculture is steadily reducing (Roads,houses,schools,hospitals etc) so the need for pesticides to maximise food production increases. Fertilser is made from Ammonia which is developed out of Natural Gas which will probably run out about 10 years after oil.

Plastic products that we all come to rely on are also made from oil.

So when (not if) the oil runs out, are we all prepared to take a drop in our standards of living. I think not easily- so lets get started now. Lets start saving the stuff.

Confuscious he say many hands make light work. I say many hands switch off 60watt light bulb.
6 billion people times 60 watt light bulbs = 360 million kilowatt hours every hour. That is one hell of a lot of fuel.

Whilst I was in Shanghai I got to thinking about how big the problem is becoming and how small each of us is.

Go to work on an egg they used to say. Well now 30 million eggs are consumed daily in the UK.
In China it is probably nearer to 700 million eggs daily.

Now if an egg weighs about 2 oz you will need about 4800 forty ton trucks to deliver these eggs to your breakfast plate. Each truck uses about a gallon of diesel for each 8 miles . In the USA the average distance travelled by a piece of food from production place to place of consumption is about 1500 miles in Canada it rises to 5000 miles. so to deliver 700 million eggs every day in China will consume about 4 million litres of Diesel - just to put an egg on your plate. So what can each person do. Pass the message around that every small effort made individually can become a huge force for change when adopted by all.

I am concerned that there seems far to little action for such an important situation. Rio Summit, Kyoto, but what is actually happening.

I work in the construction sector - we consume 40% of world energy making and operating buildings. We might be small but together we can achieve huge savings.

Anyone interested please take a look at my website www.flexiblespace.com
and my paper the "real and hidden cost benefits" ........


do we care? DO WE CARE ENOUGH?