ROUND TABLE: CARBON REDUCTION


change in the way we’re running our pumping station – that’s very much about people.” “At Welsh Water we’re also starting to see response, having given operations


greater


managers more data on their pumping station network,” added Wilson.


“Innovation is vital, particularly long term, but there’s enough to be getting on with now in terms of the capabilities we have within our people,”


said Pluke. “We have capabilities


within our suppliers as well, which we can pull on, so there are enough immediate opportunities to go and make energy and carbon savings now.”


It is well documented that most water companies have taken advantage of combination of real time control linked to SCADA systems into control centres. They also have experts who can review thermodynamic


the


“[Our suppliers] must innovate or


it’s the end of the relationship” Ben Roche


testing online, review CDN type information and plan preventative maintenance, which can be based on mechanical failure risk or on moving away from the optimum energy efficiency curve. “In terms of technology we are often guilty


of focusing solely on large equipment,” stated Bird. “If someone developed a ‘cheap as chips’ equivalent it would probably get introduced to every small pumping station without hesitation. Ultimately more can be done to increase the efficiency of the technology we have, to make it cheaper. We could then use real time control and SCADA/smart systems to sort the wheat from the chaff about which assets you ask your experts to look at in terms of energy efficiency.” Despite calls for increased innovation and


more enabling technology, Patten silenced the table with the claim that (as a technology supplier) he experiences very little ‘pull’ from water companies and that the onus is all on ABS to ‘push’ new products and press for trials. “That’s amazing, that fact – as a supplier


of energy efficient pumps to a sector where around 80% of the industry is pumping, there isn’t much pull,” said Roche, emphasising a general feeling of disappointment shared by the delegates.


28 Water & Wastewater Treatment April 2011


“Perhaps frameworks have something to do with it,” added Patten. “Sometimes water companies have a set


s f framework with a


current supplier and we come along with something we would like you to trial and it’s difficult to break in.”


o t


While the table reflected on the apparent lack of industry ‘pull’, Stephenson deemed the point had been adequately made and took the opportunity to advance the discussion. He drew a comparison with the automotive industry, and a case study some 15 years ago where a large auto OEM introduced a formal way to see if the whole supply chain was innovating. Does anyone here have this kind of procedure, he asked?


“It’s a good point and certainly a challenge for us all,” said Roche. “At Yorkshire Water we have no hard measures or contractual stipulations, but what we do have is belief. All of our suppliers must do more than simply hit their performance targets – they must innovate or it’s the end of the relationship.”


o h


“Previously it was about compliance or energy/carbon savings – and which mattered most. But now the ethos is changing, it’s about compliance and energy savings – you must do both, and this can only happen with innovation from supply chain partners,” said Pluke.


Stephenson pitched a theoretical question to the panel, asking what technology they would most like to see, if given a green field ‘canvas’? The viewpoints returned were varied, and while all are some way from becoming reality, none are distant pipe dreams.


ion


“We need to think about technologies that give us the benefits of good, old fashioned gravity,”


remarked Bird. “Things like the


deployment of permeable materials in urban infrastructure assets; if people are going to pave over their gardens then for goodness’ sake use permeable materials.”


at


“We’ve had some R&D schemes looking the potential


to use the inherent energy


in effluent discharges and in CSOs,” added McMath. “It’s small and I’m not sure there’s enough power behind that at the moment. From a technology perspective something smart that could take that inherent energy instead of shed loads of sewage going into a river would be very interesting.” “Asset condition is another area,” added


Bird. “It would be nice if technologies such as ground penetration radar advanced a little. This would be a massive boost compared to deploying endless CCTV down manholes to check asset condition.” Most supported the need for better, more


focused data, and perhaps this is the biggest stumbling block to genuine progress. “In terms of ICA [instrumentation, control and


automation], for me the ‘I’ is the really important thing – to know what instrumentation you need and what parameters need to be measured,” said Fisher. “Until we fully understand that, then we are tilting at windmills to be honest.” Stephenson cited the possible presence of


DRIP (data rich, information poor) syndrome in the industry, suggesting that a more formal link between water companies and manufacturers might help identify and drive innovation and energy solutions in this area. “At Anglian Water we’ve worked hard to develop our supply chain relationships,” said Pluke. “In the recent past we shared our top 10 ambitious goals with our supply chain, two of which were about carbon reduction, and invited manufacturers to help us develop joint business plans to solve the issues. We’ve been working with ABS since 2007, since when we’ve saved around £700,000 in energy costs.” There are clearly gains on offer from closer with


collaboration and


technology Stephenson son asked whether


providers anyoneon


had thought about a strategy shift on asset management – have they asked suppliers to provide lifetime asset maintenance rather than owning their assets outright?


“We’re still getting to grips with what the true life cost of ownership is,” said Fisher, “and I’m sure our key suppliers can help us do that. We certainly need more collaboration with suppliers; to really understand whether we should be refurbishing, whether we should be maintaining or replacing a particular pump at any one time.”


y n


Having listened to the viewpoints on offer, Stephenson invited each delegate to state what single thing could affect the biggest change for carbon reduction.


“The way forward for UK Plc is about strategic


partnering and new technologies to maximise the available capacity and assets that are already underground and have been doing us proud since the Victorians put them there,” stated Bird. “But before we’ve cracked that, I personally wouldn’t advocate pouring an awful lot more concrete or installing more online or offline storage tanks.” “Our 2050 view on waste infrastructure has to


be about ‘sewers for sewage’ and the benefits will be carbon. However, it’s going to be a long, progressive journey,” said Roche. “Yes, there’s going to be some quick wins,


but along the way there will also be some big ticket


items, especially concerning the


flooding agenda, which is very much in the public mindset.”


The full transcript and a short video of the event can be found at www.web4water.com/round_table


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48