Emerging Engineer Presentation 2015

ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF ALLEVIATING WATER STRESS IN THE THAMES BASIN UTILISING SUSPENDED SHADE MATERIAL

DOMINIK FECHER

• Water Stress in the UK

• Open Water Evaporation Reduction

• Financial Viability

THE UK

Source – EA 2009

THE SOUTH EAST

22%

19%

Rainfall

18% - 25%

2015 Supply Surplus

>900ML/D

2021 Demand = Supply

2039Shortage

= 370ML/D

RESERVOIR LOSSES

4202

4 Days

10,505263.2m³

Year

Second largest consumer

• Water Security in the UK

• Open Water Evaporation Reduction

• Financial Viability

EVAPORATION

EVAPORATION REDUCTION

Suspended Shade Materials

Floating Covers Chemical Covers

SIMULATION OF UK EVAPORATION

EVAPORATION REDUCTION

123456789

101112

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

The Effect of SSM on Energy Transfer

Covered Container Uncovered Container

Change in Temperature (°C)

Test

Num

ber

• Water Security in the UK

• Open Water Evaporation Reduction

• Financial Viability

THE SAVINGS

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

Simplified Penman Equation Estimate of Evaporation Within the Thames Basin

Month (January = 1)

Evap

ora

tion

(m

m)

Chigwell No2 Reservoir

Water Value128p/m3 (Current)237p/m3 (Desalinated)

THE COSTS

Existing Founda

tion•£5.88/m2

Foundation

Required

•£5.88/m2 +•(£63 x m)

ECONOMIC VIABILITY

-£40,000.00 -£35,000.00 -£30,000.00 -£25,000.00 -£20,000.00 -£15,000.00 -£10,000.00 -£5,000.00 £0.00 £5,000.00 £10,000.00

Net Present Value of SSM Investment Based on a 30 Year Return Period

NPV - Unit Price 237.00 Wall required NPV - Unit Price 237.00 No Wall requiredNPV - 128.43 Wall required NPV - Unit Price 128.43 No Wall required

• Water Security in the UK

• Open Water Evaporation Reduction

• Financial Viability

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

QUESTIONS

INCLUDE NET PRESENT VALUE FORMULA

𝑁𝑃𝑉= σ 𝐶𝑡(1+𝑟)𝑡 −𝐶𝑜 (Equation 4.0)

Where

𝐶𝑡 = Net cash flow during the period 𝑟 = Discount rate

𝑡 = Return period 𝐶𝑜= Initial investment

CONTAINER CHOICE

Material Specific heat capacity (J/kg°C)

Soil Wet 1480

Soil Dry 800

Porcelain 1085

Aluminium 897

Glass 840

Clay 920

Polystyrene 1300

VALIDATION OF EXPERIMENT

No Wind and No Light (Measured After 24 Hrs)

No Wind and 1.5 Hrs Light (Measured After 24 Hrs)

24 Hrs Wind and 2 Hrs Light (Measured After 24 Hrs)

No Wind and No Light (Measured After 48 Hrs)

1.5 Hrs Wind and 1.5 Hrs Light (Measured After 1.5 Hrs)

No Wind and No Light (Measured After 24 Hrs)

6.5 Hrs Wind and 6.5 Hrs Light (Measured After 6.5 Hrs)

24 Hrs Wind and 24 Hrs Light Test 1 (Measured After 24 Hrs)

24 Hrs Wind and 24 Hrs Light Test 2 (Measured After 24 Hrs)

24 Hrs Wind and 24 Hrs Light Test 3 (Measured After 24 Hrs)

6.0 Hrs Wind and 6.0 Hrs Light (Measured After 24 Hrs)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Comparison of the Control Sample, Simplifi ed Penman equation Esti mate and Adjusted Simplifi ed Penman Estimate

Simplified Penman Equation Estimate Adjusted Simplified Penman Equation Estimate Control ContainerEvaporation (mm)

EVAPORATION REDUCTION

1.5 Hours - Solar + Wind

24 Hours - No Solar + Wind

6.5 Hours - Solar + Wind

24 Hours - Solar + Wind

50% Covered Test

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

The Effect of SSM Cover on Evaporation

Polyethylene Covered Container Control Container

Evaporation (mm)

WINTER CONDITIONS

Control Container

Polyethylene Cover

Simplified Penman

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Comparison of Control Sample, Adjusted Simplified Penman Estimate and Covered Container Losses - Outdoor Test

Outdoor Testing Date (27/11/13 - 29/11/13) Outdoor Testing Date (26/11/13 - 27/11/2013)Outdoor Testing Date (25/11/13 - 26/11/13)

Evaporation (mm)