UK Rainwater Harvesting Systems For Communal Buildings - Bradford University

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University
7.0
Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Communal Buildings
7.1
Introduction
This chapter investigates the water saving reliability and financial performance of a potential RWH system for a proposed school building. This building type was selected as it has significantly different characteristics from those in the domestic studies in terms of occupancy, water usage patterns and roof area. The previous chapter demonstrated that domestic rainwater systems are not cost effective. It was considered possible that installations in larger buildings may perform better financially but this required further investigation.
The building in question was a proposed mixed junior and infants school with an estimated population of 680 pupils and staff (340 male, 340 female). The facility was been designed by a Local Authority (LA) who provided details of the building upon request. Discussion with the LA revealed that, although no RWH system was planned in this instance, they were not opposed in principal to the installation of such water saving technology. However, it was stated that the health and safety of the pupils was paramount and that if such a system was to be installed then uses would be limited to low-risk applications such as toilet flushing and that the inclusion of a UV unit would be preferred. For these reasons the selected applications were limited to WC and urinal flushing and the use of a UV unit was assumed.
A RWH system supplier was contacted1 and asked for information and advice on a suitable approach. The use of an indirect system with an in-building header
350
Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com
tank was recommended (see chapter two, section 2.4.1). Other relevant information is shown in tables 7.1-7.3. All prices are for the 2007 period and include VAT. Note that the water demand figures shown in table 7.1 were based on the system suppliers own estimation methods.
Table 7.1
Estimation of term time daily water demand

Item Number of males Number of females Volume per flush (litres) % of males who visit W.C. per day Number of visits per day for above % of females who visit W.C. per day Number of visits per day for above Volume per flush (litres) Number of urinal ranges Operating time (hrs/day) Number of hours between flushes Value 340 340 6.0 30% 1 100% 3 7.5 10 8.0 0.5
Parameter Occupancy details
W.C. flushing
Urinal flushing
This gave an estimated total daily water demand for WC and urinal flushing of 7.9m3/day. This figure was used for the term-time period, Mondays to Fridays. It was assumed that no water use occurred during weekends or school holidays. This gave an annual water demand of 1,547m3.
351
Table 7.2
Component Rainfall
Key RWH system and building components

Value(s) Daily rainfall data for Emley Moor weather station Roof plan area: 1,845m2 Runoff coefficient: 0.90 Comments Adapted for UKCIP (2000b) mediumhigh emissions climate change scenario Roof material: pitched roof tiles See table 3.2. High value used because initial losses also taken into account See table 3.3 and also Fewkes (1999a) Use of first flush devices is limited in the UK Commonly applied value. See table 3.5 During commissioning and testing the tank is filled to capacity Assumes indirect RWH system used, see chapter 2, section 2.4.1 See table 3.6
Catchment surface
First flush device Coarse filter Storage tank
Initial losses: 0.25mm No first flush device Coarse filter coefficient: 0.90 Initial degree of filling: 100% Top-up location: inbuilding header tank Power rating: 1.0kW Pumping capacity: 55 l/min Power rating: 55W
Pump
UV unit
Water and sewerage charges
Supply charges: 1.09/m3 for 2007-08 period, increasing yearly
KMC required UV unit in order to minimise perceived health and safety risks. See chapter 2, sections 2.5.6 and 2.6 Annual increase estimated using regression analysis of historic Yorkshire Water price data, see chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two See chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two Annual increase estimated using regression analysis of average historic data, see chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two System assumed to be decommissioned at same time as rest of building. Associated costs likely to small part of total decommissioning expenses
Electricity charges
Sewerage charges: 1.17/m3 for 2007-08 period, increasing yearly Unit charge: 8.7p/kWhr for 2007, increasing yearly Assumed zero
Decom. costs
352
Table 7.3
Maintenance Item Annual maintenance contract offered by system supplier
Maintenance activities and costs for school RWH system

Value (inc. VAT) 250/year for contract UV unit: supply and install replacement bulb once per year, 60 UV unit: supply and install cartridge filters every 6 months, 60 Storage tank: assumed will remain functional for selected analysis time horizon Coarse filter: replace every 15 years, 2,450 + 50 installation fee = 2,500 Electronic controls, replace every 15 years, 140 + 50 installation fee = 190 Plastic pipes (internal), replace every 35 years, total cost (parts + labour) = 500 Replace mains top-up solenoid valve every 7.5 years, 175 + 50 installation fee = 225 Replace mains top-up level switch in header tank every 12.5 years, 20 + 50 installation fee = 70 UV unit replacement every 10 years, 840 + 50 installation fee = 890 KMC QS estimate Comments Annual site visit by engineer who will: check and clean filters, check pump and repair/replace as required at no extra charge, replace other components at no extra charge if made available
Component replacement
For all items in this section: see chapter 4, section 4.7.4 and appendix two. Note that complete component replacement was assumed, not repair, as cannot be sure repair will be possible (e.g. specific components may not be manufactured in the future)
Component purchase and delivery to site cost data for fifteen different tank sizes were obtained from a number of RWH system suppliers. Installation costs were estimated by the LA. Further information on how these were derived is available in appendix four. Estimated total capital costs for each tank size are presented in table 7.4.
353
Table 7.4
Capital cost estimates for school RWH systems

Capital cost ()
9,792 10,285 10,074 10,544 10,873 11,213 10,967 11,601
Tank size (m3)

3.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 12.0 13.0
Tank size (m3)

15.0 18.0 22.5 27.5 36.0 45.0 54.0
Capital cost ()
12,048 11,695 12,388 13,046 14,362 15,678 16,971
The LA predicted that the operational life of the building would be at least 50 years and so this was used as the discount period. Discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% were investigated. LAs would normally employ discounts rates towards the lower end of this spectrum, however the higher rates were included in order to maintain consistency with the domestic RWH system studies from the previous chapter.
7.2
Analysis stage 1: determine optimum tank size
Analysis of the system was conducted using the thesis model described in chapter five and was conducted in two stages. First, the coarse hydrological and financial performance of each of the fifteen tanks shown in table 7.4 was assessed. The results from this were used to select the most appropriate tank size which was then taken forward for a more detailed study. Results from the preliminary analysis are shown in figures 7.1 and 7.2.
354
Figure 7.1
100
Predicted hydrological performance of various tank sizes
= tank sizes included in school case study
75
% demand met
50
25
0 0.01
0.1
10
3
100
1000
Tank size (m )
Figure 7.2
Predicted financial performance of school RWH systems over 50 year period
30,000 25,000
3.5% 5%
r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
RWH system savings ()
20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 -5,000 -10,000 -15,000 -20,000 0 10 20
10%
15%
30 Tank size (m )
3
40
50
60
355
The hydrological results showed that the maximum percentage of demand that could be met was approximately 71% although this would have required a very large tank size. For the capacities assessed the volumetric reliability ranged between 12% (3m3) and 57% (54m3). The discount rate was found to significantly influence the financial savings achievable. For higher rates (10% and 15%) most systems showed a financial loss with a limited number showing a small financial gain. For the lower discount rates (3.5% and 5%) the smaller systems (3-11m3) showed a loss whilst the larger ones (12-54m3) showed net benefits. At the lower discount rates, increasing system capacity was correlated with increasing savings, although the rate of improvement showed diminishing returns as tank size increased.
A decision had to be made as to which tank size to take forward for the more detailed analysis. The 54m3 tank was selected for the following reasons: It showed the best water saving reliability in terms of the percentage of non-potable demand met (57%). With the lower discount rates (3.5% and 5%) it was the best financially performing tank of those for which data was available. Larger tank sizes may have benefits in terms of peak flow reduction in the downstream drainage network. Although this is not explicitly considered here it is a possible benefit.
Further, institutions such as LAs are likely to use lower discount rates since they are required to consider the wider impacts of their actions both spatially and temporally, e.g. due to policies such as Local Agenda 21 initiatives. For
356
public sector works Central Government recommends a declining discount rate of 3.5% (HM Treasury, 2003). When society is the stakeholder then discount rates in the range of 2-4% are commonly used (Ashley et al, 2004; Herrington, 2006). On this basis the selection of the 54m3 tank was the logical choice since it showed the best overall performance when lower discount rates were employed.
7.3
Analysis stage 2: detailed analysis of selected tank
Details of the 54m3 tank were input into the detailed analysis module of the thesis model. The simulation was run using discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15%. WLC, AIC and financial savings results are shown in tables 7.5-7.6 and figure 7.3. Note that in figure 7.3 the RWH system savings at n = 5, 10 and 25 years have been also been marked on the graph.
Table 7.5
WLC results for school case study (n=50 years)
Discount rate (%) RWH WLC () Mains-only WLC () RWH savings () 3.5 80,606 104,621 24,015 5.0 65,095 79,535 14,440 10.0 42,142 42,438 296 15.0 33,639 28,776 -4,917
Table 7.6
AIC results for school case study (n=50 years)
Discount rate RWH AICs (/m3) Mains AICs (/m3) Ratio RWH/Mains1 3.5% 1.04 1.35 0.77 5% 0.84 1.03 0.82 10% 0.54 0.55 0.99 15% 0.44 0.37 1.17 1 Ratios < 1 show that the RWH system was more cost effective than the equivalent mains-only system
357
Figure 7.3
RWH system savings for school case study (n=50 years)
25,000 20,000
3.5%
-9,004 -9,235 -9,916 -10,485
24,015
15,000 10,000 5,000 0 -5,000 -10,000 -15,000 -20,000 0 5
14,440 5%
10%
9,889 6,245 -1,374 -5,314 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
296 -4,917
15%
-3,998 -4,674 -6,532 -7,932 10 15
Year
r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
Figure 7.3 shows a general trend of increasing year-by-year savings although this pattern was occasionally reversed due to maintenance requirements. However, the overall magnitude of the savings was greater than the associated operating/maintenance costs. Despite this, for the high discount rate of 15% the system still incurred a loss because the present value of future savings were relatively quickly attenuated to very low values. For a rate of 10% the system just reached the breakeven point before the gradient of the graph effectively became zero. For the lower rates of 3.5% and 5% the attenuation effect was much less pronounced and in these instances payback was achieved in 15 and 16 years respectively. These results emphasise that in this particular instance the choice of discount rate was of paramount importance in terms of the perceived financial performance.
358
From the information presented it can be seen that, for the school system: The selected discount period had a large influence on the perceived RWH system savings. Shorter periods would have resulted in diminished savings or even net losses for potentially profitable systems. The variation in predicted savings between different discount rates increased as the discount period increased. Lower discount rates resulted in greater system savings. At lower discount rates the system is profitable, unlike the domestic systems in chapter six which all showed a financial loss.
7.4
Detailed breakdown of costs
The relative contribution of a number of key cost items to RWH system WLCs were determined. The cost elements consisted of capital, maintenance, UV operation, pump operation and mains top-up costs. Discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% were assessed. All other parameters were as shown in tables 7.1-7.3. Figures 7.4 and 7.5 show the comparative results from the four simulations. Table 7.7 presents the same data as figure 7.5 in numerical form.
359
Figure 7.4
Percentage contribution to school RWH system WLCs of various key cost elements
100%
Capital Maintenance UV op. Pump op. Mains top-up
% contribution to RWH WLC
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

3.5% 1 5% 2 10% 3 15% 4
Discount rate (%)
Figure 7.5
Percentage contribution to total maintenance costs of individual maintenance items
% contribution to maintenance costs
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

3.5% 1 5% 2 10% 3 15% 4
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9
Discount rate (%)
360
Table 7.7
Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tabulated maintenance data from figure 7.5

Low cost (@NPV) 1,915 460 919 402 31 4 132 16 336 High cost (@NPV) 6,124 1,470 2,939 3,055 232 158 623 111 1,868 Low cost (%) 36.9 8.9 17.7 9.5 0.7 0.1 3.1 0.4 8.0 High cost (%) 45.4 10.9 21.8 18.4 1.4 1.0 3.8 0.7 11.3
Description Annual maintenance contract Replace UV unit bulb Replace UV unit cartridge filters Replace coarse filter unit Replace electronic control unit Replace internal plastic pipes Replace mains top-up solenoid valve Replace mains top-up level switch Replace UV unit
Figure 7.4 shows that the capital, maintenance and mains top-up costs accounted for the majority of the WLCs in all cases. The proportional contribution of each varied as the discount rate was changed. Higher discount rates placed more emphasis on the capital costs, which was not unexpected since higher rates have the effect of increasing the relative contribution of nearterm expenditures. Capital costs accounted for between 21-50% of the WLCs. Maintenance, UV operating, pump operating and mains top-up costs displayed the opposite trend and had greater effect on system WLCs with lower discount rates. This was also not unexpected since lower rates increase the relative contribution of expenditures that occur in the future. Maintenance activities accounted for between 13-21% of the WLCs and mains top-up for between 3555%. UV operating and pump operating (electricity) costs accounted for only a minor proportion at between 1.2-2.1% and 0.7-1.2% of the WLCs respectively.
Figure 7.5 and table 7.7 show the relative contribution of each maintenance activity to the total maintenance cost. The annual maintenance contract was the most expensive single item at between 37-45% of total costs. Replacement of the UV unit cartridge filters was second highest with a cost contribution in the
361
range of 18-22%. Replacement of the coarse filter unit was next at between 1018%, then UV bulb (9-11%) and UV unit itself (8-11%). The remaining items accounted for a relatively minor proportion of the costs. These consisted of the replacement of the mains top-up solenoid valve (3-4%), electronic control unit (0.7-1.4%), internal plastic pipes (0.1-1.0%) and mains top-up level switch (0.40.7%).
Variations in the discount rate had some degree of influence on the relative contribution of each maintenance item but in most cases this was not particularly large. It was noticed that higher rates tended to give more weight to maintenance items that occurred on a regular basis (e.g. yearly maintenance contract, replacement of UV bulb and filters) and less weight to those that occurred irregularly, for instance replacement of the coarse filter and UV units.
7.5
Sensitivity analysis of financial results
A sensitivity analysis of the proposed RWH system was conducted. Sensitivity to changes in eight key parameters were investigated. The selected parameters were daily rainfall depth, capital cost, maintenance costs, mains water supply and sewerage charges, roof area, discount period, water demand and the storage operating parameter . Variations in each batch of key parameters were analysed in conjunction with discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15%. Percentage changes to RWH system savings (the difference between mainsonly WLCs and RWH WLCs) were selected as the method for assessing sensitivity as this was deemed to be the key parameter in judging the financial success (or otherwise) of the modelled system.
362
Changes to parameter values in the range of 100% were investigated where possible. Exceptions were changes to the storage operating parameter , which was varied between 0-1 in 0.1 increments, and changes to the discount period which for obvious reasons could not be reduced by as much as 100%. To enable the percentage changes in RWH system savings to be placed in context, the original savings associated with each discount rate were as follows (from section 7.3): r = 3.5%, savings = 24,015. r = 5%, savings = 14,440. r = 10%, savings = 296. r = 15%, savings = -4,917.
Figures 7.6-7.10 show the sensitivity analysis results for the four discount rate scenarios. Note that on the graphs the label SupSew Charges refers to mains supply and sewage volumetric charges, not mains standing charges.
363
Figure 7.6
300%
School sensitivity analysis results, r = 3.5%
SupSew Charges 200% CapCosts RoofArea
Rainfall CapCosts Maintenance SupSew Charges RoofArea
% change in savings ()
100%
Maintenance
0%
-100% Rainfall Discount Period -300% -100%
Water Demand Discount Period Water Demand 0% 50% 100%
-200%
-50%
% change in parameter
Figure 7.7
400%
School sensitivity analysis results, r = 5%
SupSew Charges 300% CapCosts 200% RoofArea
Maintenance 100% 0% -100% Water Demand -200% Rainfall -300% -400% -100% Discount Period
Discount Period Water Demand 0% 50% 100%
-50%
364
Figure 7.8
10000% 8000% 6000%
CapCosts Maintenance
SupSew Charges
RoofArea
4000% 2000% 0% -2000% -4000% -6000% -8000% -10000% -100% Rainfall Discount Period -50% 0% 50% 100% Water Demand
Discount Period Water Demand
Figure 7.9
400%
CapCosts 300%
SupSew Charges RoofArea
200%
Maintenance 100% 0% -100% -200% Rainfall -300% -400% -100% Discount Period Water Demand
Discount Period Water Demand
-50%
0%
50%
100%
365
Figure 7.10 School sensitivity analysis results for changes in storage operating parameter (YAS/YBS algorithm)
9% 15% 250% r = 15%
% change in savings () from = 0
5% 10%
r = 5% 200% r = 3.5% r = 10% 150%

= 0, YAS = 1, YBS
6% 3.5%
100% 3% 50%
Note: secondary y-axis (right hand side) refers to r = 10%. Primary y-axis (left hand side) refers to r = 3.5%, 5% and 15%
0% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 value 0.8 1.0
0%
In figure 7.8 the percentage changes in RWH system savings were much larger than for the other discount rates. This was due to the fact that the savings were relatively small at 296 over 50 years. Therefore even small absolute changes in this figure resulted in large percentage changes. This needs to be borne in mind when comparing the results from this graph to those in figures 7.6, 7.7 and 7.9.
Examination of sensitivity analysis results Investigation of the results showed that not all of the relationships were linear in nature. The sensitivity of RWH system savings to changes in rainfall depth, roof area, discount period, water demand and value displayed an exponential
366
% change in savings () from = 0
decay type relationship (increasing form). For the discount rate and water demand the rate of change was relatively small for variations in the range of -50% to +100%, suggesting relative insensitivity to these two parameters for all but large negative changes. Variation in RWH system savings showed a linear relationship with changes in capital and maintenance costs. The slope of the corresponding lines was negative, showing that as capital and maintenance costs decreased the RWH system savings increased. Sensitivity to changes in mains supply and sewerage charges was also linear although in this instance the gradient of the line was positive, indicating that the RWH system became more cost effective relative to the mains-only system as the cost of mains water increased.
With one exception, in figures 7.6-7.9 the slopes of the lines were similar between the different discount rate scenarios. This indicated that the relative sensitivity of RWH system savings to changes in the selected parameters was generally similar despite variations in the discount rate.
The exception to this general trend was the capital costs, which displayed an increasingly negative gradient the more the discount rate increased. This indicated an increasing sensitivity (in terms of RWH system savings) to changes in capital costs at higher discount rates. This can be explained by the fact that, since they occurred in financial year zero, the capital costs had the same present value regardless of the selected discount rate. By comparison, the other parameters all had financial impacts that occurred at various stages during the operational phase. Increasing the discount rate led to a reduction in the present
367
value of these parameters, or reduced their financial impacts in the case of the hydrological variants. This in turn led to reduced sensitivity in RWH system savings to changes in these parameters. This manifested itself in the results as increased sensitivity to capital costs, the only parameter not affected by changing the discount rate.
Table 7.8 shows the gradients associated with each of the key parameters, except for which is discussed in the following subsection. Note that for the non-linear curves these results represent the average gradients. The steeper the gradient the more sensitive RWH systems savings were to changes in that particular parameter. Positive values show that the system savings increased as the value of the corresponding parameter increased, whilst negative values showed the opposite relationship (savings decreased as parameter value increased). The maximum gradients (most sensitive) have been highlighted in red.
Table 7.8
Sensitivity analysis results: parameter gradients

Discount rates and corresponding gradients 5% 10% 15%
2.28 -3.44 -0.86 3.45 2.21 0.45 1.59
Parameter 3.5% Rainfall depth 1.66 2.11 55.52 Capital cost -0.71 -1.18 -57.42 Maint. costs -0.69 -0.87 -21.98 Mains charges1 2.51 3.18 83.71 Roof area 1.61 2.05 53.87 Discount period 0.97 0.93 14.99 Water demand 1.15 1.46 38.58 1 Mains supply and sewerage unit charges, not standing charges
The data shows that the RWH system savings were most sensitive to changes in mains water supply and sewerage charges. The slope of the results was
368
constant and positive, i.e. as mains charges increased there was a corresponding linear increase in system savings. The results here are in sharp contrast to those for domestic systems. For these, system savings were typically very sensitive to changes in capital costs and relatively insensitive to changes in the other parameters (with the exception of the LA/Government stakeholder perspective). The results for the school case study show a higher sensitivity to more parameters and there was no parameter to which system savings were not sensitive (m0). Sensitivity to changes in capital costs were still apparent, particularly at higher discount rates, but were less important than in the domestic studies.
Increasing the discount period beyond 50 years made little difference in most cases (slightly more for lower discount rates than for higher ones). Compare this to the results from section 7.3 in which it was apparent that system savings were highly sensitive to discount period variations in the range of 1-50 years, especially at lower discount rates. With regards to the sensitivity analysis results, the relative insensitivity for discount periods greater than 50 years indicated that system savings were approaching the maximum that could be achieved, particularly for the higher discount rates.
Given the high sensitivity of the system savings it can stated that accurately predicting the long-term financial performance of RWH systems such as the one modelled for the school case study is difficult. Even at low discount rates, such as might be employed by public institutions, variations were large. For example, at a discount rate of 3.5% changes in capital and maintenance costs of 50%
369
resulted in variations in system savings of about 30%, or approximately 7,000. Changes in mains water costs resulted in even bigger swings. For instance, with a 20% reduction in expected future mains prices the system savings reduced from 24,015 to 11,963, a decrease of about 12,000. Conversely, increasing future mains charges by 20% resulted in an increase in the predicted savings of about 12,000. From data presented in chapter three it can be seen that the price of mains water, although generally becoming more expensive since privatisation of the industry in 1989, has tended to fluctuate in price. The results presented here have shown that even relatively small fluctuations can make significant differences to the perceived financial performance of systems such as the one modelled for the school case study. This needs to be borne in mind when using the predicted results to aid the decision making process (i.e. whether or not to install the system).
Justification for using the YAS algorithm From examination of figure 7.10 it can be seen that the percentage difference in system savings predicted by the YAS and YBS algorithms were moderately small for three of the selected discount rates and large for one. The smaller differences corresponded to discount rates of 3.5%, 5% and 15%, which showed percentage variations between YAS/YBS of 6.3%, 7.9% and 8.4% respectively. The large difference corresponded to the use of a 10% discount rate and the variation in system savings between the YAS/YBS algorithms was 204%. This latter result was primarily due to the fact that the predicted savings were small. YAS predicted 296 over 50 years whilst YBS predicted 897 over 50 years, 601 more than in the former case.
370
It is concluded that, whilst the school case study showed more variation between YAS/YBS algorithms than did the domestic studies, the use of YAS was still justified since the variations between the two approaches was moderately small in monetary terms. This was especially true considering the discount period employed. The noted differences in savings would be small on an average per-year basis when distributed across 50 years.
7.6
Comparison of thesis results with RWH system suppliers method
Regarding the private sector company who supplied the water demand estimation given previously in table 7.1, details were obtained of their in-house design and assessment method for commercial systems such as that proposed for the school building. A comparative study was then conducted between the predicted RWH system performance using the suppliers method and the thesis model.
The suppliers method was similar to that described in chapter six and appendix two for the approach labelled Company 1 methodology. Hydrological components explicitly considered consisted of the roof (plan) area, runoff coefficient, coarse filter coefficient, average monthly rainfall for the region in question and average monthly water demand (assumed same for all months). Financial aspects consisted of savings on mains water bills and an assumption that each cubic metre of harvested water supplied incurred an operating cost of 0.03/m3. No maintenance costs were included and no discounting techniques were used (discount rate effectively zero).
371
In order to maintain consistency between the system supplier and thesis methods, the data for the hydrological elements was based on the information collected for the thesis. Where necessary, the data was scaled and adjusted so that it matched the characteristics of that required for the suppliers method, e.g. daily data scaled to monthly data.
A spreadsheet was created that mimicked the suppliers method as outlined previously. Further information and a statement of the assumptions used are given in appendix four. The suppliers tank sizing method was based on providing 6 days of average daily demand and this gave a recommended capacity of 25.4m3. No tank size of this specific size was available on the market and so the next largest was selected for which data was available. This was a tank with a capacity of 27.5m 3 and capital cost of 13,046. The performance of this tank was then simulated using both the suppliers method and the thesis model, using a zero discount rate in the former case and rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% in the latter. Further, the suppliers approach assumed no maintenance requirements. For the thesis simulations the maintenance requirements where as given in table 7.3. Comparative results from the modelling exercise are shown in figure 7.11 and table 7.9.
372
Figure 7.11 Comparison of performance predicted by system suppliers assessment method and thesis model
20,000 15,000 Savings = 119,304
17,652 3.5%
10,000 5,000 0 -5,000 -10,000 -15,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 0% (supplier method)
10,515 5%
10% 15%
1 -3,866
Capital expenditure = 13,046
Year
r = 0% r = 15% r = 10% r = 5% r = 3.5% CapCost
Table 7.9
Summary of results produced by system suppliers assessment method and thesis model
Tank size % demand Annual Payback Total savings Methodology (m3) met savings ()1 (years) over 50yrs2 System supplier 27.5 77.6 2,647 5 119,304 Thesis, r = 3.5% 27.5 47.4 353 14 17,652 Thesis, r = 5% 27.5 47.4 210 17 10,515 Thesis, r = 10% 27.5 47.4 0.02 50 1 Thesis, r = 15% 27.5 47.4 -77.31 Never -3,866 1 Annual savings do not take into account repayment of capital cost expenditure, i.e. they are simply the difference between the annual running costs of the mains-only system and the proposed RWH system 2 Calculation of total savings over 50 years included repayment of capital expenditure
From figure 7.11 it can be seen that the comparative financial results displayed large differences. The suppliers method calculated the annual savings based
373
on the volume of mains water substituted (minus 0.03/m 3 for assumed operating expenses) multiplied by the discount period of 50 years, then subtracted the initial capital expenditure. Since no discount rate was applied, the present value of the 2,647 annual savings were the same for all years. Application of discounting techniques in situations such as this is correct since consideration must be given to the opportunity cost of capital and it is a shortcoming of the suppliers method that this was not done. Using the same basic methodology but applying discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% to the cumulative 2,647/yr savings was found to give NPVs of 65,361, 50,970, 28,892 and 20,277. All of these are considerably lower than the result obtained when no discount rate was applied (119,304).
For the thesis predictions, the predicted total savings over 50 years were also significantly different. For discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% the predicted savings were 17,652, 10,515, 1 and -3,866. Payback periods were given as 14, 17 and 50 years for discount rates of 3.5%, 5% and 10% respectively, and no payback at all was achievable for the 15% rate. This highlights the sensitivity of the results to the selected discount rate and the importance in selecting an appropriate value.
The effect of assuming no maintenance requirements is also evident in figure 7.11. The lines corresponding to the thesis results display a general increasing trend punctuated by irregular dips in system savings. These dips were due to the cost of maintenance, a consideration that was excluded entirely from the suppliers methodology.
374
Table 7.9 shows that the suppliers assessment produced very different hydrological results compared to the thesis model, predicting a volumetric reliability of 77.6%. However, this was based on the implicit assumption that all of the collected water could be used, i.e. that the tank capacity was effectively infinite with no overflows. The more realistic finite storage method employed by the thesis model predicted a lower volumetric reliability of 47.4%.
It is acknowledged that these results were based on the consideration of only one case study, and that an investigation into a wider range of circumstances would be beneficial, e.g. a larger range of tank sizes, different schools and other commercial/institutional buildings. However, from this brief study it can be concluded that the RWH system suppliers method: Did not realistically model tank behaviour and overestimated the volume of harvested rainwater that could theoretically be supplied. Did not adequately account for likely operation and maintenance costs. Significantly overestimated the magnitude of financial savings that were ultimately achievable because no discounting techniques were applied.
Based on these limitations it is advised that predictions of water saving reliability and financial performance be treated with caution if they have been generated using similar methods to the one investigated here. It is strongly recommended that a more thorough and realistic approach be used whenever possible.
375
7.7
Summary and discussion of results
7.7.1 Overview The aims of this chapter were to investigate the water saving reliability and financial performance of an indirect RWH system for a proposed school building with 680 pupils and staff. Water uses were to be WC and urinal flushing with a combined yearly demand of 1,547m3. The system was to include a UV unit in order to minimise any health risks. The predicted operational life of the school building was fifty years and so this was used as the discount period when assessing the RWH system. Discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% were used. A maintenance schedule was created that included regular activities (yearly maintenance contract and replacement of UV filters and bulb) and irregular activities (component replacement).
Analysis stage 1: determine optimum tank size Capital costs were obtained for commercial rainwater tanks in the range of 3-54m3. The first stage of the analysis involved using the assess savings module of the thesis model. The aim here was to determine the most cost effective tank size from the range available, and then to take the selected tank forward for a more detailed analysis. Out of the fifteen commercial tanks for which data was available, it was deemed that the 54m 3 capacity was the best selection (also the largest tank of those assessed). This tank was selected primarily because it a) showed the best hydrological performance with a predicted volumetric reliability of 71%, and b) was the best performing financial
376
tank under discount rates of 3.5% and 5%, saving an estimated 24,015 and 14,440 respectively.
Analysis stage 2: detailed analysis of selected tank Details of the selected 54m3 tank were input into the detailed analysis module of the thesis model. For discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% RWH systems savings were predicted to be 24,015, 14,440, 296 and -4,917 respectively. AICs and AIC ratios were also calculated for the same discount rates. For the same discount rates listed previously, the AICs in /m 3 were 1.04, 0.84, 0.54 and 0.44. AIC ratios were 0.77, 0.82, 0.99 and 1.17. This showed that the RWH system was more cost effective than the equivalent mains-only system for all discount rates except 15%. AIC ratios were more favourable towards the RWH system at lower discount rates. The range of figures also demonstrated the sensitivity of the results to the selected discount rate.
The discount period was found to strongly influence the perceived system savings. The results at n = 50 years were compared to those at n = 5, 10 and 25 years. It was concluded that: The selected discount period had a large influence on the perceived RWH system savings. Shorter periods resulted in diminished savings or even net losses for potentially profitable systems. The variation in predicted savings between different discount rates increased as the discount period increased. Lower discount rates resulted in greater system savings.
377
Stakeholders that take a shorter term view are likely to perceive less financial benefit than those who take a longer term view.
7.7.2 Detailed breakdown of costs The relative contribution to system WLCs of the capital, maintenance, UV unit operating, pump operating and mains top-up costs were determined. It was found that, for the discount rates assessed the capital, maintenance and mains top-costs accounted for the majority of the WLCs. Capital costs account for between 21-50%, maintenance 13-21% and mains top-up 35-55%. UV unit and pump operating costs were only a minor proportion of the total costs at between 1.2-2.1% and 0.7-1.2% respectively. The relative contribution of each cost element was found to vary with different discount rates. Higher rates placed more emphasis on the capital costs whilst lower rates gave more emphasis to the other cost components. This result was not unexpected since higher discount rates had the effect of reducing the present value of future expenditures, thus increasing the percentage contribution to system WLCs of the capital costs borne in financial year zero. Lower discount rates had the opposite effect, that of increasing the present value of future expenditures and thus increasing their percentage share of the WLCs.
The percentage contribution of each maintenance item to the total maintenance cost was determined. The annual maintenance contract was found to form the largest fraction at between 37-45%. Replacement of the UV filters was next highest at between 18-22%, followed by the coarse filter unit (10-18%). Next highest were the UV bulb (9-11%) and UV unit itself (8-11%). The remaining
378
items accounted for a relatively minor proportion of the costs. These consisted of the replacement of the mains top-up solenoid valve (3-4%), electronic control unit (0.7-1.4%), internal plastic pipes (0.1-1.0%) and mains top-up level switch (0.4-0.7%). It was also observed that higher discount rates tended to give more weight to maintenance items that occurred on a regular basis, e.g. yearly maintenance contract, replacement of UV filters and bulb.
7.7.3 Sensitivity analysis of results A sensitivity analysis of the financial model was conducted in order to determine the robustness of the school case study results. Percentage changes in RWH systems savings were selected as the metric for judging model sensitivity. Variations of up to 100% in a number of key parameters were assessed. These were daily rainfall depth, capital cost, maintenance costs, mains water supply and sewerage charges, roof area, discount period and water demand. The effect of varying the storage operating parameter between 0 (YAS) and 1 (YBS) was also investigated. Variations in each batch of key parameters were analysed in conjunction with discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15%.
Not all relationships were linear. Sensitivity of RWH systems to changes in rainfall depth, roof area, discount period, water demand and displayed an exponential decay type relationship (increasing form). For the discount rate and period, results were relatively insensitive to changes in the region of -50% and +100%. Linear relationships were apparent in changes to capital costs, maintenance costs and mains supply and sewerage charges. Increasing capital and maintenance costs was found to decrease RWH system savings, and visa
379
versa. Increasing mains supply and sewerage charges was found to also increase RWH system savings, and visa versa.
RWH system savings were most sensitive to changes in mains supply and sewerage charges. Contrast this to the domestic studies in which the sensitivity analysis results were dominated by the capital costs. Results for the other parameters varied but system savings showed moderate to high sensitivity in most cases. Exceptions were the water demand and discount period to which system savings were relatively insensitive for changes in the 0 to +100% range (but was still nevertheless sensitive to changes in the 0 to -100% range). Sensitivity to the storage operating parameter was also relatively low in relation to variations in monetary savings.
Capital costs showed greater sensitivity at higher discount rates. This occurred because higher discount rates reduced the present value of other ongoing costs but did not affect the present value of the capital costs borne in financial year zero. Therefore, at the higher discount rates the capital costs constituted a greater proportion of RWH system WLCs and it follows that the savings (difference between RWH WLCs and mains-only WLCs) would be more sensitive to any change in capital cost value.
Given these results it can be stated that accurately predicting the long-term financial performance of RWH systems such as the one used in the school case study example is problematic. However, as will be discussed in the next subsection, existing alternative assessment methods, such as those commonly
380
employed by private sector systems suppliers, would appear to be even less useful than the thesis model for predicting future financial performance. Therefore it is argued that, whilst the approach taken in the thesis may be sensitive to assumptions regarding future conditions, the thesis model is still more realistic and more useful as a decision support tool than many of the existing methodologies.
7.7.4 Comparison of thesis model results with RHW system suppliers method Details were obtained of a RWH system suppliers in-house method for assessing RWH systems such as the one considered for the school case study. The hydrological and financial performance predicted by the suppliers methodology was then compared to that predicted by the thesis model.
Hydrological components explicitly considered by the supplier consisted of the roof (plan) area, runoff coefficient, coarse filter coefficient, average monthly rainfall and average monthly demand (assumed same for all months). Financial aspects consisted of savings on mains water bills and an assumption that each cubic metre of harvested water supplied incurred an operating cost of 0.03. No maintenance costs were included and no discounting techniques were applied (discount rate effectively zero).
A spreadsheet was created that mimicked the system suppliers approach. The recommended tank size was based on providing 6 days of average daily demand which in this case was 25.4m3. The nearest actual tank size was
381
27.5m3 (capital cost = 13,046) and so this was selected. The performance of this tank was then simulated using both the system suppliers method and the thesis model, using a zero discount rate in the former case and rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% in the latter. No maintenance requirements were assumed for the supplier approach whilst the thesis simulations used the maintenance schedule given previously in table 7.3
There was a marked difference between the two approaches in the predicted water saving reliability. Supplier methodology estimated a reliability of 77.6% whilst the thesis model estimated 47.4%. The difference was primarily due to the different ways in which storage tank behaviour was taken into account. In the suppliers approach it was simply assumed that all harvested rainwater would be available for use, essentially an infinite reservoir approach. The thesis model employed a finite storage algorithm in which overflow occurred if the capacity of the tank was exceeded. This more realistic approach explains why the thesis model predicted a lower volumetric reliability.
The predicted ultimate financial savings were significantly different. Over a 50 years period the suppliers methodology predicted constant savings of 2,647 per year, or 119,304 over 50 years including repayment of the capital costs. The thesis model predicted savings of 17,652, 10,515 and 1 for discount rates of 3.5%, 5% and 10% respectively. For the 15% discount rate an overall loss of 3,866 was predicted. It was apparent that the differences in predicted savings between the two approaches was large. The closest result from the thesis simulations was for the 3.5% discount rate with a saving of 17,652. The
382
system suppliers results were nearly eight times this amount. A primary reason for this disparity was found to be due to the exclusion of any discounting methodology. The yearly savings of 2,647 forecast by the supplier were simply multiplied unadjusted by the analysis time period to arrive at savings figure of 119,304. Using the same assessment method but applying discounting rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% resulted in savings of 65,361, 50,970, 28,892 and 20,277 at NPV. All of these were considerably less than the original estimation.
It was acknowledged that this comparative investigation was based on the consideration of only one RWH system, and that an investigation into a wider range of circumstances would have been beneficial. For example other school facilities and other types of buildings such as offices. However, from this brief study it was concluded that the method used by the system supplier: Did not realistically model tank behaviour and overestimated the volume of harvested rainwater that could theoretically be supplied. Did not adequately account for likely operation and maintenance costs. Significantly overestimated the magnitude of financial savings that were ultimately achievable because no discounting techniques were applied.
Based on these limitations it was advised that the water saving reliability and financial performance results generated by such methods should be treated with caution. It was strongly recommended that a more thorough and realistic approach be used whenever possible.
383

UK Rainwater Harvesting Systems For Communal Buildings - Bradford University

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UK Rainwater Harvesting Systems For Communal Buildings - Bradford University

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University

Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Communal Buildings

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Estimation of term time daily water demand

Parameter Occupancy details

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Key RWH system and building components

First flush device Coarse filter Storage tank

Water and sewerage charges

Supply charges: 1.09/m3 for 2007-08 period, increasing yearly

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Maintenance activities and costs for school RWH system

Capital cost estimates for school RWH systems

Tank size (m3)

Tank size (m3)

Analysis stage 1: determine optimum tank size

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Predicted hydrological performance of various tank sizes

= tank sizes included in school case study

Predicted financial performance of school RWH systems over 50 year period

r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%

RWH system savings ()

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 -5,000 -10,000 -15,000 -20,000 0 10 20

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Analysis stage 2: detailed analysis of selected tank

WLC results for school case study (n=50 years)

AIC results for school case study (n=50 years)

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

RWH system savings for school case study (n=50 years)

RWH system savings ()

15,000 10,000 5,000 0 -5,000 -10,000 -15,000 -20,000 0 5

-3,998 -4,674 -6,532 -7,932 10 15

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Detailed breakdown of costs

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Capital Maintenance UV op. Pump op. Mains top-up

% contribution to RWH WLC

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Discount rate (%)

Percentage contribution to total maintenance costs of individual maintenance items

% contribution to maintenance costs

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9

Discount rate (%)

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Tabulated maintenance data from figure 7.5

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Sensitivity analysis of financial results

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

School sensitivity analysis results, r = 3.5%

SupSew Charges 200% CapCosts RoofArea

Rainfall CapCosts Maintenance SupSew Charges RoofArea

-100% Rainfall Discount Period -300% -100%

Water Demand Discount Period Water Demand 0% 50% 100%

School sensitivity analysis results, r = 5%

SupSew Charges 300% CapCosts 200% RoofArea

Rainfall CapCosts Maintenance SupSew Charges RoofArea

Discount Period Water Demand 0% 50% 100%

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

School sensitivity analysis results, r = 10%

Rainfall CapCosts Maintenance SupSew Charges RoofArea