Team:Westminster UK/Human Practices
Public Debut
Human practices - Analysing the effects of sustainable energy consumption
Aim: To justify the changes placed within the university to encourage and reduce energy consumption.
Introduction: In order to gain generalised information on public energy consumption and saving, a sustainability survey was made and the results were analysed. To address energy consumption In particular, a follow up study was conducted using raw data from the University of Westminster and the results were analysed.
Sustainability survey:
Methodology: A sustainability survey was created to gather information on the perception and progress of individuals on sustainability. A total of ten questions varying from multiple choice questions to tick box questions were created in the form of a google.doc survey. The variety and the number of questions were kept to ten in order to be user friendly. Some questions had an ‘other’ option for individual feedback which during analysis was either counted in the existing category if applicable or was given a separate category. Six of these questions are directly relevant to sustainable energy consumption. All responses were anonymous and results were analysed using figures either produced by the application or on excel. The responses of individuals which did not fully complete the survey were disregarded, leaving a total of 14 responses from 21.
Questions:
- On the scale of 1-5 how sustainable would you say you are?
- 1-Very
- 2-Moderately
- 3-Neither
- 4-Not very
- 5-Not
This was displayed as ranked tick box question with one possible option. The ranking system gave a scale to individuals with 1 being displayed as the ‘higher end’ of the scale i.e. Very sustainable and 5 as the ‘lower end’ i.e. Not sustainable. The question was posed to reflect individuals understanding of sustainability and serve as a baseline to relate responses to the other questions to, hence this came first in the order of questions.
- Which activities have you undertaken to save energy?
- Switched to LED lights
- Turning electrical appliances off when not in use
- Cutting down on energy usage as a whole
- Using renewable energy
- I have not attempted to save energy
- Other
This was displayed as a multiple choice question with individuals being allowed to choose more than one option if they applied. There were a variety of well known options given along with the other option if they did not apply or if the individual desired to mention more. The question was asked to directly obtain statistics on energy consumption which is one of the major categories of sustainability.
- Which activities have you undertaken to save water?
- The use of grey water
- Installing a water meter
- Turning off the water supply when not in use
- Cutting down on water usage as a whole
- I have not attempted to save water
- Other
This was displayed as a multiple choice question with individuals being allowed to choose more than one option if they applied. There were a variety of well known options given along with the other option if they did not apply or if the individual desired to mention more. The question was asked to directly obtain statistics on water consumption which is yet another major category of sustainability.
- On a scale of 1-5 how often do you practise reducing your plastic usage?
- 1- Never
- 2- Rarely
- 3- Occasionally
- 4- Often
- 5- Always
This was displayed as ranked tick box question with one possible option. The ranking system gave a scale to individuals with 5 being displayed as the ‘higher end’ of the scale i.e. Always practise reducing plastic usage and 1 as the ‘lower end’ i.e. Never practise reducing plastic usage. This was enquired to understand how important individuals perceived reducing plastic to be for sustainability and as a result how often they undertook the activity.
- How often do you reuse plastics?
- Daily
- Weekly
- Fortnightly
- Monthly
- Yearly
- I do not
- Other
This was displayed as a tick box question with one possible option. A good assortment of responses was given which were realistic and therefore relatable. Yet, the ‘other’ option was also available if this was not the case. The question was posed to understand how important individuals perceived reusing plastic to be for sustainability and as a result how often they undertook the activity.
- How often do you recycle plastics?
- Daily
- Weekly
- Fortnightly
- Monthly
- Yearly
- I do not
- Other
This was displayed as a tick box question with one possible option. A good assortment of responses was given which were realistic and therefore relatable. Yet, the ‘other’ option was also available if this was not the case. This question was posed to understand how important individuals perceived recycling plastic to be for sustainability and as a result how often they undertook the activity.
- Public places have facilities which promote sustainable living. Which of the following best describes your opinion on this statement?
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
This was displayed as a tick box question with one possible option. The options to this question could have been displayed as a ranking system, however in their presented order (strongly agree to strongly disagree) they resemble a ranking system. Moreover, displaying these options as such brings variety to the survey. The question was enquired to understand how outside influence and awareness impacts on individuals.
- The news readily promotes the issue of sustainability. Which of the following best describes your opinion on this statement?
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
This was displayed as a tick box question with one possible option. The options to this question could have been displayed as a ranking system, however in their presented order (strongly agree to strongly disagree) they resemble a ranking system. Moreover, displaying these options as such brings variety to the survey. The question was posed to understand how social media and general awareness on sustainability played a role on individual’s actions.
- What are the main factors preventing you from adopting a more environmentally friendly lifestyle?
- I do everything I can
- I don’t know enough about these things
- An environmentally friendly lifestyle is expensive
- An environmentally friendly lifestyle is time intensive
- I don’t think being environmentally friendly and sustainable is important
- I don’t think my actions will make an impact to the world
- Other
This was displayed as a multiple choice question with individuals being allowed to choose more than one option if they applied. There were a variety of well known options given along with the ‘other’ option if they did not apply or if the individual desired to mention more. The question was asked to gather possible reasons behind the answers to previous questions and obtain a pattern which can provide insight on what the public can do more to be sustainable.
- What does sustainability mean to you?
- Using current needs to predict the needs of future generations
- Being aware of current needs and the needs of future generations
- Meeting current needs without affecting future generations to meet their needs
- I don’t know what sustainability means
- Other
This was displayed as a tick box question with one possible option. The answer to this question was known previously and was enquired to be used as a known base line and to resonate back with the first question in order to see if individuals understood what sustainability really was. Therefore, individuals who answered correctly would essentially provide more realistic results for analysis.
- The majority of individuals answered in the category of moderately for this question (9 individuals) and only 1 individual answered in the category of not sustainable. No individuals said that they were very sustainable.
- Half of individuals switched to LED lights and practised turning off electrical appliances when not in use. All individuals who had answered that they were moderately sustainable in question 1 had chosen at least one option for saving energy consumption. The most popular options selected for reducing energy were cutting down on energy usage as a whole and turning off electrical appliances when not in use. Additionally, the 1 individual who did not attempt to save energy responded that they were not very sustainable in the first question. However another individual who had stated that they were moderately sustainable in question 1 said that they had not attempted to save energy.
- No individuals made use of grey water as a means of saving water. All those who had stated they were moderately sustainable in the first question had chosen a water saving option with the exception of one individual who had not attempted to save energy at all. The most popular water saving technique was turning off the water supply when not in use which was chosen 10 times in total, followed by cutting down on water usage as a whole which was chosen 6 times in comparison.
- Seven individuals responded that they reduced their plastic occasionally and one quarter of individuals responded that they often reduced their plastic waste. One individual stated that they always reduced their plastic with the same number stating that they either never reduced their plastic or rarely did so.
- Most people reused their plastic on a weekly basis. The second most popular category selected by individuals was that they did not reuse their plastic and the third most popular category chosen was that they did so on a daily basis. All other categories were chosen in equal quantities.
- Most people recycled their plastic on a weekly basis. The second most popular categories chosen by individuals were that they did not recycle their plastic and that they did so on a daily basis. With the exception of the later and that the fortnight category was not selected, interestingly, results for this question almost mimicked results obtained from the previous question.
- Five individuals stated that they neither agreed nor disagreed to the statement that public places have facilities which promote sustainable living. Whereas four individuals responded that they disagreed with the statement. However, no individuals responded that they strongly disagreed with the statement.
- Nearly half of the individuals agreed that the news readily promotes the issue of sustainability. Whilst an equal number of individuals disagreed and strongly agreed on this statement, suggesting mixed responses. A smaller percentage of individuals responded that they either strongly disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The response to this question coupled with the response from the previous question suggests that more must be done to implicate sustainability measures to the public.
- Individuals who said that they were moderately sustainable selected the I do everything I can option and that the environmentally friendly lifestyle is time intensive up to four times more than other categories. Additionally, the two individuals who said they were not sustainable chose to put down their individual opinion which was either displayed as a separate category of it is up to the government or was consider as being part of an existing category. One individual who selected the neither option stated that they do everything they can to be sustainable.
- The definition of sustainable is meeting current needs without affecting future generations to meet their needs which most individuals correctly answered. However, more individuals who stated that they were moderately sustainable in the first question did not chose this option. Yet, the other two options that were given closely resembled the actual definition, the main difference being that the other options do not imply action where the definition does. No individuals answered that they did not know what sustainability meant, suggesting that all answers can be analysed for trends.
Results:
Conclusions: The majority of individuals understood what it meant to be sustainable with half being those who answered that they were moderately sustainable at the beginning of the survey. Moreover, individuals who stated that they were not sustainable in the first question also selected the known option for the definition of sustainability, suggesting that their answers are reliable. The other 8 individuals who selected alternative answers for the last question, were 6 of which stated that they were moderately and 2 of which stated they were not very sustainable, did not select the known option for the definition of sustainability and thus the validity of their responses are questionable. Yet, when coupled together, these results conclude that more of the public must be educated on sustainability and its importance. This is supported by responses from question 7 whereby more individuals selected neither and disagree to the statement ‘public places have facilities which promote sustainable living’ than those who stated that they agreed and strongly agreed to the statement. Results from question 8 demonstrate that the news is to doing well to make the public aware of the importance of sustainability as more than half agreed and strongly agreed to the statement that ‘the news readily promotes sustainability’ Other possible methods of educating the public would include making it part of the mandatory syllabus in education institutes and having workshops, conferences and talks to engage the public in open discussion. Furthermore, responses for question 9 which directly addresses reasons why individuals are not as sustainable as they can be display that only 5 individuals selected that they are doing everything they can out of the 14 individuals who took part in the survey.
For the purpose of this report only 3 of several aspects of sustainability were addressed which included the reducing, reusing and recycling of plastics, saving energy and saving water. However, this is not to say that these are the most important categories under sustainability as others aspects which were not included in this report such as public transport, waste disposal and food surplus are equally as important to sustainability. Yet, for the public this would be dependent on which is more readily promoted and supported by organisations such as the government and/or education systems as this would result in more individuals being exposed to and being aware of sustainable and environmentally friendly strategies. Results from question 2 and 3 indicate that more individuals attempt to save energy than they do water with 27 individuals selecting options for saving energy compared to only 17 individuals selecting options for saving water. Additionally, one more individual stated that they did not attempt to save water than who selected that they did not attempt to save energy. Therefore, it would be reasonable to imply that this would be due to the above whereby there might be more versatile, less time and money intensive energy saving strategies available to the public than water saving strategies. Furthermore, supporting this would be results from question 9 where the most popular option selected for reasons why individuals were not as sustainable as they could be was that an environmentally friendly lifestyle is time intensive. In this report, three questions were designed to address the 3 major aspects governing plastic waste i.e. reducing, reusing and recycling. Results for question 4, 5 and 6 show more individuals recycled and reused their plastic waste readily (8 individuals in total reused daily and weekly and 9 individuals in total recycled daily and weekly) than those who reduced their plastic waste (5 individuals stated that they always and often reduce). This can be seen as a reinforcement of the above as, to name one example, governmental policies have resulted in recycling bins being available for every household as well as in public places such as shopping centres and schools.
University data
Methodology:
Table data: Data had been collected for each energy saving intervention, where possible, that were put into place at the various different sites within the university (there are a total of 5 campuses of which information from 3 were gathered- Marylebone, Cavendish and Harrow). The four energy saving interventions that were introduced into the University included Variable speed drive which is used to manage energy in accordance to demand, Combine Heat and Power which makes use of unutilised heat that is generated as a by produced whilst producing electricity that is otherwise wasted, LED lighting which uses Light Emitting Diodes to increase efficiency and acquire a longer life span than non LED lights, and Pipework insulation which results in thermal resistance that reduces undesirable heat flow during transmission. We were informed that other data on energy saving including LED lighting data for other campuses had not been collated and therefore was not available for use.
Elcomponent data: This software is used to store and display real time data on water, energy and heating usage at multiple sites. For the purpose of this report, raw data on energy consumption were obtained during fixtures of LED lighting for both Harrow and Cavendish sites of the University of Westminster as well as a sample of data from 15 days before and 15 days after intervention for comparison.
Results:
The largest investment and as a result the second largest payback period of 6.03 years was for the Combine Heat and Power project at the Marylebone campus. This project results in an annual saving of 840,000 kWh in energy and 368 tonnes of carbon which are the largest savings from all other projects displayed in the table. The second largest investment of £368.000 was the Variable Speed Drive which had the largest annual saving of £100,000 with a shorter payback time of 3.68 years. However, it saved less carbon and energy annually in comparison to the Combine Heat and Power project. The third largest investment was for LED lighting which for the Harrow and Cavendish sites cost £72,741 and £146,328 respectively. However despite this, they had larger payback times than for both Variable Speed Drive and Combine Heat and Power projects. The smallest investment and as a result the smallest payback period of 2.48 and 2.54 years was for the Pipework Insulation at the Marylebone campus.
Energy usage for the Harrow campus 15 days prior to LED lighting fixtures displayed low level fluctuations between 420kWh and 340 kWh. During the installation period of May and June energy usage for the Harrow campus exhibited a gradual decrease from 420kWh to 200kWh around the data of May 24 until June 24. From this point energy usage showed a gradual increase to approximately 350 kWh before levelling off to approximately 250kWh by the end of June. After the installation period, the Harrow campus displayed low level fluctuations, much like it did before the installation, but between 250kWh and 175kWh, therefore by installing LED lights energy usage decreased by nearly half.
Energy usage for the Cavendish campus 15 days prior to LED lighting fixtures displayed high level fluctuations with a sharp increase and decrease at 2 points between 4000kWh and 2200kWh approximately, the first being around April 21 and the second being around April 28. During the installation period of May and June energy usage for the Cavendish campus exhibited several sharp fluctuations or a high frequency in unison of between 4200kWh and 2200kWh, showing a very gradual increase. After the installation period, the Cavendish campus displayed less sharp fluctuations, again at 2 points between 4000kWh and 3000kWh, the first being around August 6 and the second being around August 11. Although, fluctuations in energy usage decreased after installing LED lights, no real change in whole energy usage was exhibited.
Conclusions: LED light fixtures in the Harrow campus resulted in a reduction in energy usage by nearly half whereas the same fixtures in the Cavendish campus posed no significant reduction in energy usage. This may be due to several factors, one being the demand for the Cavendish campus exceeding that for the Harrow campus. This is supported by the location of the LED lights being only in the halls of the Harrow campus whereas for Cavendish these are in an entire building (Copland building). Additionally, the investment made for Cavendish in comparison to Harrow is more than twice the amount which also supports this claim. Yet, another possible reason for this result would be that automatic sensor detector switches were not installed at the Cavendish campus but were done so at the Harrow campus. Automatic sensor detector switches reduce energy usage by only utilising light when needed using sensor which detect movement.
Discussion: LED lights were one of the most popular options selected for question 2 of the survey with more than half of the individuals who took part selecting this option. Switching to LED lights was also displayed significantly beneficial for reducing energy consumption in the Harrow site of the University of Westminster. Therefore, this implies that switching to LED lights have been promoted and encouraged significantly, even more so than other energy saving strategies by organisations such as the government and news. However, the reduction in energy usage by the instalment of LED lights was not seen in the Cavendish site and more than half of the individuals who took part in the survey did not select the known option for the definition of sustainability. Therefore results for both the survey and the raw data conclude that more still needs to be done to educate the public on reducing energy consumption and generally sustainability, as well as more versatile and user friendly energy reduction strategies need to be made available to the public.
Although, the small sample size of 14 for the survey was enough to come to significant conclusions, it can be argued to be non representative to the general population. Additionally, the audience that were selected consisted of university students only, therefore ruling out other audiences which again question the reliability and accuracy of the survey results. Yet, as the raw data gathered from the Elcomponent software displays real time energy usage there are no significant drawbacks of using the software, therefore this increases the reliability and accuracy of the results. Furthermore and although not applicable due to the lack of data available, for a more thorough analysis LED light fixtures could have been compared across more sites of the University of Westminster and more places within the sites where they were used.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the University of Westminster’s sustainability team for providing the table data and allowing us to access the raw data using the Elcomponent software.
Kyle Bowman
Midway through our research, we discovered that a laboratory in our University works on microbial fuel cells. We visited the lab and reached out to Kyle Bowman, the head research assistant in Dr. Godfrey Kyazze’s laboratory. Kyle was keen on helping us out, so we decided to set up a meeting with him on the 31st of May.
During the meeting, we explained to Kyle that the aim of our research would preferably involve the use of microbial fuel cells and exoelectrogenic bacteria, due to the convenience of accessibility we have with their laboratory. Kyle suggested that this research could in fact be feasible, as we have most of the MFC research materials available in his laboratory.
Before we start thinking about the methods we would use to perform this research, we first wanted to know what is the current research surrounding the genetic basis of exoelectrogenic bacteria, and what would be feasible to perform within the short amount of time we have for laboratory work.
We discussed about Kyle’s research and clarifiedthe Molecular mechanisms of the mtr pathway that are understood to date, as described in the project description. Kyle assisted us in our research by pointing out the main current theories of how the mtr pathway is utilised by exo-electrogenic bacteria; specifically directing us towards the understanding of nanowires.
During the next two weeks, we thoroughly researched the mtr genes that we could turn into BioBricks and ended up having another meeting with Kyle where one of our main conclusions was that most of the mtr BioBricks currently available do not appear to be compatible with RFC25, an assembly standard used for connecting multiple coding sequences to one another.
We thus decided that this was one of the things worthy starting our work which would eventually leave us with a new BioBrick collection of mtr pathway components.
The ultimate goal of synthesising these newly refined BioBricks wouldn’t be to necessarily characterise them all, but mainly to improve upon what is already existent in the registry and offer future teams valid BioBricks to continue their mtr studies upon.
Another point, more relevant to what we would soon end up putting most of our focus on, are the additions of coding sequences that would eventually become our main mtr reaction facilitators - refer to the parts page.
On top of this, Kyle helped us prepare for laboratory work using MFCs. On the 26th of June we had an MFC workshop, where we learned the foundations of what we would need to use later on when researching our sequences of interest.
Dr. Godfrey Kyazze
As previously mentioned, during our brainstorm sessions, we found that the best direction for our project to take would be one that the University laboratories are already partially concerned with and already have all the main research resources for assisting our project. One of those laboratories was of Dr. Godfrey Kyazze, however at the time we only managed to reach out to the head research assistant, Kyle Bowman.
During the first week of August, we finally managed to reach out to the head of the MFC lab, Dr. Godfrey Kyazze.
Upon discussing through the idea of our project and knowing what we have done so far, Dr. Kyazze suggested that we set a specific focus on characterising the differences between weak and strong promoters combined with protein components of the mtr pathway.
Once we finalised a design for the experiments, we sent them to Dr. Kyazze to receive feedback on the technical aspects of our work which both helped us ensure academic accuracy with obtaining data, as well as expanded our understanding of performing experiments with MFCs. As a result, we have come up with improved design not only for our research of mtr components, but also of indirectly affective BioBricks we were working with, such as RhlA and transcription factors RpoE and CRP.
On top of this, dr. Kyazze showed interest in our plans of coupling plastic degradation with conversion to microbial energy. One of his latest proposals, that was in fact being researched at the moment, was involved exactly with the idea of PET polymer breakdown. We ended up using some of their data to support our own findings.
Dr. Linda Percy
In mid July, while researching on the plastic degradation co-culturing experiment with the Kaiserlautern team, we stumbled upon an issue - we needed to co-culture our Shewanellas with the microalgae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Thus, we decided to reach out to an experts in algal research and found our paths with an expert in marine microbiology, Dr. Linda Percy.
During our meeting, we pointed out that a big issue we are having is the demand of both organisms we are culturing (a bacteria and a microalgae) for different nutrients. Both of these organisms require different growth media for optimal growth, but they could each still live separately under different conditions, only at an altered, usually slower pace.
After some discussion, we found that our challenge here appears to be the following; Shewanella grows best with Minimal Salt Media (MSM), while Chlamydomonas grows best with Tris-Acetate Phosphate (TAP) media. The goal was to find an optimum ratio between the two, for which Dr. Percy helped us design a simple experiment.
If the final output being measured comes in the form of an MFC reading, we are looking for the mixture that would end up bringing us the highest output possible, while ensuring that the Chlamydomonas are still alive and metabolically active, since an MFC output would already indicate that the Shewanellas are. With the timespan we had to document this, we could not see whether any plastics are being broken down, so we ended up performing a viability assay through a stain that would help us see whether the Chlamydomonas are still alive or dead.
Another issue that Dr. Percy proposed could occur involves potential interactions between the microalgae and bacteria, in that the microalgae in some of her own sample cases, specifically Dinoflagelattes, tend to join in and produce their own biofilm mass, while feeding on the bacteria to provide for their own energy (as shown in figure 1).
Figure 1: Electron microscopy images of a Dinoflagellate engulfing bacteria
Her suggestion was to assess whether this would be the case in our MFC samples by doing an electron microscopy scan of an anode filament on which we would expect to find a biofilm of Shewanellas.
Dr. Pooja Basnett
In September, we met with Dr. Pooja Basnett, one of the research assistants in the MFC lab and one of the head researchers in Dr. Ipsita Roy’s biopolymer production laboratory which is concerned with biomedical applications of tissue regeneration. She is now becoming the module leader of Designing a Sustainable World, where she spreads her passions for biological science and inspires students to think as if their research could have an important future application.
We were delighted to have had a meeting with her besides her busy schedule and during our meeting she helped us mindstorm on what we could be doing now to ensure that future scientists would also be interested in continuing the research that we are doing. As it appears, plastic degradation is on its own a huge environmental problem aside from energy pollution and progress in terms of connecting these two problems together to form a solution could spark interest for many entrepreneurial companies.
She suggested we reach out to companies such as London Energy and Biogen, who could help us understand what levels of efficiency of our system could be used for what kind of applications, as well as how would they be maintained. Aside from these, she suggested we reach out to plastic collection companies such as Ocean Plastic Cleanup, who are essentially performing the first step of the solution to plastic pollution - collection.
Another good option would be to simply connect our idea to wastewater treatment, which is currently the most widely accepted and most efficient application for MFCs (Find out more in the MFC section).
The Calthrope Project
The calthrope project makes use of a garden which they share with a nearby cafe located within a park in Kings Cross to turn waste from the café into compost and biogas. On a daily basis, 10kg of waste from the cafe is turned into 9.5kg of compost which they use to grow produce, therefore eradicating energy used when transporting food from external sources. The biogas which is produced is obtained through pipe extractors and is used in a stove in a public community space and. a boiler which is used to heat water flowing through radiators inside a greenhouse also inhabited for food production. Furthermore, in order to optimise conditions for plant growth the compost is regularly tested and changed accordingly, and, the greenhouse is being tested for a hydroponics system for plants such as lettuce, radish and tomatoes. Coupled together, these result in a fully sustainable system whereby energy usage is drastically minimised using waste that would have otherwise been discarded. Hence, the calthrope project ties in well with our project aims of converting waste into a useful product as a step closer to achieving sustainability.
Some data on obtaining biogas and compost from fermenting waste in the large composter:
Companies:
In an attempt to gather information for human practises, we sent out an email to three companies, each with a different route towards sustainability. However, due to time restraints and the busy nature of these companies we were unable to obtain any responses.
The ocean cleanup is a government independent organisation who removes plastic waste from oceans using various technologies. This ties in well with our project aims to use bacteria as a means to remove plastics. Teaming up with this company would allow us to test our MFC as one type of technology to remove plastics in the oceans they were targeting cleanup. In addition to this, we would be able to attain information on the existing technologies used by the organisation, more specifically, how they achieve efficiency and are sustainable, in order to apply and improve our MFC model.
London energy ltd is a company which provides electricity to the National grid through burning waste. Our product could be used as an alternative to this strategy of producing energy as a more environmentally friendly procedure. Teaming up with this company would allow us to not only, acquire real time energy statistics which would be an expansion of the real time energy usage data gathered from the university in the sustainability report, but would indicate how much energy could be saved by using our MFC.
Biogen is a biotechnology based company which houses aerobic digestion plants to provide a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel generated electricity using microbes. Our project shares the same goal of switching to more sustainable measures of electricity production using bacteria but doing so specifically using plastic waste. Teaming up with this company would allow us to gather Information and suggestions on how to improve our MFC model with special emphasis on manipulating bacteria to produce desirable products.
