Tag: decarbonisation

The wooden buildings of the future

Wooden building with blue sky background

When we think of modern cities and the buildings within them, we often think of the materials they’re constructed from – we think of the concrete jungle.

Since the 19th century, steel, glass and concrete enabled the building of bigger and more elaborate buildings in rapidly-growing cities, and those materials quickly came to define the structures themselves. But today that could be changing.

New technologies and building techniques mean wood, a material humans have used in construction for millennia, is making a comeback and reducing the carbon footprint of our buildings too.

Return of the treehouse

Civilisation has been building structures from wood for longer than you may realise.

Horyu-ji Temple in Nara, Japan

The 32-metre tall Pagoda of Horyu-Ji temple in Japan, was built using wood felled in 594 and still stands today. The Sakyumuni Pagoda of Fogong Temple in China is nearly twice as tall with a height of 67 metres. It was built in 1056.

Today, wood is once again finding favour.

The 30-metre tall Wood Innovation and Design Centre of the University of British Columbia (UNBC) in Canada was completed in October 2014 and is among the first of this new generation of wooden buildings. And they’re only getting bigger.

This year, the completion of the 84-metre, 24-storey HoHo Tower in Vienna will make it the tallest wooden building in the world. But this will be far surpassed if plans for the Oakwood Tower in London are approved. Designed by a private architecture firm and researchers from the University of Cambridge, the proposed building will be 300-metres tall if construction goes ahead, making it London’s second tallest structure after The Shard. And it would be made of wood.

Falling back in love with wood

Wood construction fell out of favour in the 19th century when materials like steel and concrete, became more readily available. But new developments in timber manufacturing are changing this.

Researchers in Graz, Austria, discovered that by gluing strips of wood with their grains at right angles to each other the relative weakness of each piece of wood is compensated. The result is a wood product known as cross-laminated timber (CLT), which is tougher than steel for its weight but is much lighter and can be machined into extremely precise shapes. Think of it as the plywood of the future, allowing construction workers to build bigger, quicker and lighter.

Glued laminated timber, commonly known as glulam, is another technology technique enabling greater use of wood in more complex construction. Manufactured by bonding high-strength timbers with waterproof adhesives, glulam can also be shaped into curves and arches, pushing wood’s usage beyond straight planks and beam.

These dense timbers don’t ignite easily either. They are designed to act more like logs than kindling, and feature an outer layer that is purposefully designed to char when exposed to flame, which in turn insulates the inner wood.

Susceptibility to mould, insect and water damage is indeed a concern of anyone building with wood, but as the centuries-old Pagodas in Japan and China demonstrate, care for wood properly and there’s no real limit to how long you can make it last.

So, wood is sturdy. But so is steel – why change?

Green giant

Construction with concrete and steel produces an enormous carbon footprint. Concrete production on its own accounts for 5% of all our carbon emissions. But building with wood can change that. UNBC’s Innovation and Design centre saved 400 tonnes of carbon by using wood instead of concrete and steel.

On top of that, building with wood ‘freezes’ the carbon captured by the trees as they grow. When trees die naturally in the forest they decompose and release the carbon they have absorbed during growth back in the atmosphere. But wood felled and used to construct a building has captured that carbon for as long as it stands in place. A city of wooden buildings could be a considerable carbon sink.

This can have further ripple effects. The more timber is required for construction, the more it increases the market for wood and the responsibly-managed forests that material comes from. And the more forests that are planted, and managed with proper governance, the more carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere.

According to research from Yale university, a worldwide switch to timber construction would, on its own, cut the building industry’s carbon emissions by 31%.

Granted, that will be a difficult task. But if even a fraction of that can be achieved, it could mean a future of timber buildings and greener cities.

3 ways decarbonisation could change the world

Mitigating climate change is a difficult challenge. But it’s one well within the grasp of governments, companies and individuals around the world if we can start thinking strategically.

On the behalf of the German government, The Internal Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) have jointly published a report outlining the long-term targets of a worldwide decarbonisation process, and how those targets can be achieved through long-term investment and policy strategies.

At the heart of the report is a commitment to the ‘66% two degrees Celsius scenario’, which the report defines as, ‘limiting the rise in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius by 2100 with a probability of 66%’. This is in line with the Paris Agreement, which agreed on limiting global average temperature increase to below two degrees Celsius.

Here are three of the findings from the report that highlight how decarbonisation could change the world.

The energy landscape will change – and that’s a good thing

Decarbonisation will by definition mean reducing the use of carbon-intensive fossil fuels. Today, 81% of the world’s power is generated by fossil fuels. But by 2050, that will need to come down to 39% to meet the 66% two degrees Celsius scenario, according to the report. But, this doesn’t mean all fossil fuels will be treated equally.

Coal will be the most extensively reduced, while other fossil fuels will be less affected. Oil use in 2050 is expected to stand at 45% of today’s levels, but will likely still feature in the energy landscape due its use in industries like petrochemicals.

Gas will likely also remain a key part of the energy makeup, thanks to its ability to provide auxiliary grid functions like frequency response and black-starting in the event of grid failure.

Renewables like biomass will likely play an increasing role here as well, particularly when combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

Overall, renewable energy sources will need to increase substantially. In the report’s global roadmap for the future, renewables make up two thirds of the primary energy supply. Reaching this figure will be no mean feat – it will mean renewable growth rates doubling compared with today.

Everyday electricity use will become more efficient 

The report highlights the need for ‘end-use’ behaviour to change. This can mean everyday energy users choosing to use a bit less heat, power and fuel for transport in our day-to-day activities, but a bigger driver of change will be by investment in better, more efficient end-use technology – the technology, devices and household appliances we use every day.

In fact, the study argues that net investment in energy supply doesn’t need to increase beyond today’s level – what needs to increase is investment in these technologies. For instance, by 2050, 70% of new cars must be electric cars to meet decarbonisation targets.

Infrastructure design could also be improved for energy efficiency – smart grids, battery storage and buildings retrofitted with energy efficient features such as LED lighting will be essential. There’s also the possibility of increased use of cleaner building materials and processes – for example, constructing large scale buildings out of wood rather than carbon-intensive materials such as concrete and steel.

Decarbonisation will cost, but not decarbonising will cost more

The upfront costs of meeting temperature targets will be substantial. A case study used in the report estimates that $119 trillion would need to be spent on low-carbon technologies between 2015 and 2050. But it also suggests another $29 trillion may be needed to meet targets.

However, failure to act could mean the world will pay out an even higher figure in healthcare costs, or in other economic costs associated with climate change, such as flood damage or drought. Therefore, the sum for decarbonisation could end up costing between two and six times less than what failing to decarbonise could cost.

On top of this, the new jobs (including those in renewable fuel industries that will replace those lost in fossil fuels) and opportunities that will be created between 2015 and 2050 could add $19 trillion to the global economy. More than that, global GDP could be increased by 0.8% in 2050, thanks to added stimulus from the low carbon economy.

Achieving a cleaner future won’t be easy – it requires planning, effort, and the will to see beyond short-term goals and think about the long-term benefits. But as the report demonstrates, get it right and the results could be considerable.

The biomass carbon story

There is an important difference between carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from coal (and other fossil fuels) and CO2 emitted from renewable sources. Both do emit CO2 when burnt, but in climate change terms the impact of that CO2 is very different.

To understand this difference, it helps to think small and scale up. It helps to think of your own back garden.

One tree, every year for 30 years

Imagine you are lucky enough to have a garden with space for 30 trees. Three decades ago you decided to plant one tree per year, every year. In this example, each tree grows to maturity over thirty years so today you find yourself with a thriving copse with 30 trees at different stages of growth, ranging from one year to 30 years old.

At 30 years of age, the oldest has now reached maturity and you cut it down – in the spring, of course, before the sap rises – and leave the logs to dry over the summer. You plant a new seedling in its place. Through the summer and autumn the 29 established trees and the new seedling you planted continue to grow, absorbing carbon from the atmosphere to do so.

Winter comes and when it turns cold and dark you burn the seasoned wood to keep warm. Burning it will indeed emit carbon to the atmosphere. However, by end of the winter, the other 29 trees, plus the sapling you planted, will be at exactly the same stage of growth as the previous spring; contain the same amount of wood and hence the same amount of carbon.

As long as you fell and replant one tree every year on a 30-year cycle the atmosphere will see no extra CO2 and you’ll have used the energy captured by their growth to warm your home. Harvesting only what is grown is the essence of sustainable forest management.

If you didn’t have your seasoned, self-supplied wood to burn you might have been forced to burn coal or use more gas to heat your home. Over the course of the same winter these fuels would have emitted carbon to the atmosphere which endlessly accumulates – causing climate change.

Not only does your tree husbandry provide you with an endlessly renewable supply of fuel but you also might enjoy other benefits such as the shelter your trees provide and the diversity of wildlife they attract.

Mushroom - Brown cap boletus in autumn

No added carbon

This is a simplified example, but the principles hold true whether your forest contains 30 trees or 300 million – the important point is that with these renewable carbon emissions, provided you take out less wood than is growing and you at least replace the trees you take out, you do not add new carbon to the atmosphere. That is not true with fossil fuels.

It is true that you could have chosen not to have trees. You could instead build a wind turbine or install solar panels on your land. That would be a perfectly reasonable choice but you’ll still need to use the coal at night when the sun doesn’t shine or when the wind isn’t blowing. Worst of all you don’t get all the other benefits of a thriving forest – its seasonal beauty and the habitat that’s maintained for wildlife.

Of course, the wood Drax needs doesn’t grow in our ‘garden’. We bring it many miles from areas where there are large sustainably managed forests and we carefully account for the carbon emissions in the harvesting, processing and transporting the fuel to Drax. That’s why we ‘only’ achieve more than 80% carbon savings compared to coal.