01 01
Module 1: Project Briefs
Towards Free Energy Participants: Spencer Olsufka, Jelena Milkic, Shengliang Rong
What if electricity was free to use? What if all energy came from renewable sources? What new social or economic benefits might then be possible? The following projects grew from these original questions by critically examining the City of Chicago through the lens of waste.
01
Lake Michican circa 2050
Towards Free Energy
02
2013 OVERALL (EU)
2013 RENEWABLE MIX (EU)
Renewable Other
Wind (75%) Other (24.5%) Solar (0.5%)
7% 2026 OVERALL (EU)
2026 RENEWABLE MIX (EU)
Renewable Other
Wind (75%)
Other (18%) Solar (6%)
25% Illinois Renewable Energy Requirements for Energy Utilities (EU)
03
Module 1: Project Briefs
Distributed Generation* (1%)
2013 OVERALL (ARES)
2013 RENEWABLE MIX (ARES)
Renewable Other
Wind (60%) Other (40%)
7% 2026 OVERALL (ARES)
2026 RENEWABLE MIX (ARES)
Renewable Other
Wind (60%)
Other (34%) Solar (6%)
25%
Illinois Renewable Energy Requirements for Alternative Retail Electric Suppliers Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Source: Illinois Renewable Portfolio Standard, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)
The City of Chicago currently has a set of goals to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources, outlined in a Renewable Portfolio Standard. The graphs above compare the city’s current and future requirements for both Electric Utilities and Alternative Retail Electric Suppliers. An Electric Utility (EU) is the “default” supplier of electricity in a regulated area. An Alternative Retail Electric Supplier (ARES) is a registered and certified business which sells electricity to residential or commercial customers in a competitive market. Other Eligible Renewables: Solar Thermal (Electricity), Photovoltaics (PV), Dedicated Crops for Energy Production, Biomass, Tree waste, In-state Landfill Gas, Biodiesel, Hydropower, or Waste Heat from Industrial Processes *Distributed Production = Less than 2 Megawatts from: Wind, Solar Thermal (Electricity), Photovoltaics (PV), Biomass, Tree waste, or Hydropower
Towards Free Energy
04
Energy Mix, 2011
Natural Gas (17%)
Nuclear (35%)
Coal (43%)
Hydro (1%) Non-renewable
Wind (3%)
Renewable
Biomass (1%)
05
Module 1: Project Briefs
Energy Mix, 2013 and Beyond
Natural Gas (95%)
Wind (5%)
Non-renewable Renewable
2012 “The Switch�: ComEd to Integrys In 2012, the City of Chicago voted to switch its EU from Commonwealth Edison to Integrys in an effort to secure lower energy prices. Until recently, the electricity mix on the left was provided by the Illinois Power Agency and Commonwealth Edison (ComEd). On the right is the mix to be provided to Chicago by the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) & Integrys Energy Services. Coal and nuclear power have been eliminated as energy sources for the city.
Towards Free Energy
06
Energy Mix Potential, 2014 and Beyond
Natural Gas
Wind Biogas
Non-renewable Renewable
Chicago, IL
Marcus Hook, PA
02 Marcus Hook Power Station, Marcus Hook, PA
07
Module 1: Project Briefs
Energy Chicago has established a “no coal” criteria for its electricity supply. While there is no way to regulate the actual amount of coal-generated electricity in the grid, Integrys must be able to prove that it could theoretically supply enough non-coal electricity at any given time to cover the city’s demands. Because Integrys itself does not own enough non-coal generation facilities to meet this demand on top of the demands from its other customers, it is forced to buy the electricity elsewhere. This means that the majority of Chicago’s electricity demand is being met by a power plant 650 miles away. Integrys Group’s Generation Mix: Coal: 72.6% Natural Gas/Fuel Oil: 19.7% Renewable Energy: 7.7% Total Generation: 2,471.1 MW
02 The Marcus Hook Power Station will now provide Chicago with 95% of its energy. The other 5% will come from two wind farms in southern Illinois.
50+
l transpo rta
iona
reg
s of
Mile
Methane Emissions
Waste is another resource being sent outside of the city. All wastes, including organics, are sent to landfills outside of Chicago. Keeping waste management and electricity generation within city limits would dramatically reduce the distance both resources and wastes are transported and has the potential to benefit local community areas.
tion
Methane Emissions
Food Waste in Landfills account for 23% of all methane emissions in the United States
Methane Emissions
O’hare Airport
LEGEND Vendor Waste (Miles) Produce Waste Distribution Waste
Mariano’s Grocer
Agricultural Land
Transit - Plane Truck, Railroad
Land Fill
WFM Warehouse
Compost Bin
Whole Foods Store
iles
+M
200
of
nal
io reg
on
rtati
spo
tran
Methane Emissions Emissions Methane
50+
Mariano’s grocery store participates in composting it’s food waste
Methane Emissions
Inactive landfill
Miles of regional transportation
Regional Scale Waste - Food Miles “Think Globally, Eat Locally.” This is not always the way of networks especially when it comes to taking advantage of our readily available resources. As chains grow larger so do their food miles. An average produce travels 1,500 - 2,500 from the farm to the store.
Whole Foods Market Distribution Center
Along with a higher food mile count larger chain stores such as whole foods has an average of 1,300 pounds of waste per employee per year. These pounds of waste go directly into a landfill unable to decompose properly. The waste produced by a community garden or farmer that services a farmers market utilizes the waste as a composte to be further fed into their soil to provide more nutrients for their produce.
1:250,000
03 Food Waste Flows - City of Chicago
Towards Free Energy
08
09
Module 1: Project Briefs
Vacant
Religious Worship
Warehouse & Storage
Retail (non-mall)
Service
Education
Mercantile
Office
Public Assembly
Outpatient
Lodging
Enclosed & Strip Malls
Public Order & Safety
Other
Health Care
Food Sales
Inpatient
Food Service
Energy Use Intensity (kBTU/ft2/yr)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
System Diagrams
01 Energy Use Intensity by Building Type (kBTU/ft2/yr) Source: Autodesk Sustainability Workshop
Currently, flows of food, waste, and energy in and out of Chicago exist independently. Chicago produces over three million tons of waste annually, of which twenty six percent is organic material. With the exception of recyclables, all waste currently produced, regardless of type, is directed to landfills outside of the city. Organic waste can instead be diverted and used as source for making renewable energy, through anaerobic digestion. An enormous opportunity therefore exists to merge the systems of food and energy into a single, closed-loop system. The process of anaerobic digestion produces biogas and compost. The gas can be burned for new electricity distribution and the compost can be used as natural fertilizer in local community gardens and urban farms. In turn, the produce from these farms can supply local restaurants with produce. The restaurants would send their food waste to anaerobic digesters, receiving free electricity from the digester plants in return. The food industry is one of the most energy intensive in the United States. Food Service and Food Sales rank number 1 and number 3, respectively, in Energy Use Intensity (EUI) by Building Activity, according to the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (2013) conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Providing a renewable and selfsustaining source of energy for the industry would help offset the negative impacts of such a high EUI. The food industry is also one of the most wasteful. Even a small restaurant can produce upwards of fifty tons of food waste per year, equivalent to roughly 250 households. Through this new system, city-wide access to fresh food will be improved. New, low cost electricity creates an incubator for local economies, eventually inspiring new development and making neighborhoods more inviting places to live.
Towards Free Energy
10
01
MATERIAL
SUPPLIER
AGENCY PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED
REGIONAL GRID
FOOD
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP NEW ELECTRICITY PRIMARY CONNECTION SECONDARY CONNECTION
RESTAURANT
FOOD WASTE
SOLID WASTE
LANDFILL
CITY IPA
CCA
EU
ARES
DISTRIBUTION
INDIVIDUAL
01 Existing System 02 Private Model 03 Public Model
11
Module 1: Project Briefs
ENERGY LOOP FOOD LOOP
02
MATERIAL AGENCY
SUPPLIER
PRIVATELY OWNED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
LOW LAND VALUE
REGIONAL GRID
VACANT LAND
PUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP NEW ELECTRICITY PRIMARY CONNECTION SECONDARY CONNECTION
RESTAURANT
PRIVATE COLLECTION
SOLID WASTE
FOOD WASTE
LANDFILL
CITY IPA
CCA
EU
ARES
FERTILIZER
DIGESTERS
ENERGY LOOP FOOD LOOP
DISTRIBUTION
INDIVIDUAL LABOR SOURCE SOCIAL PROGRAM
FOOD
PUBLIC TRANSIT LOW LAND VALUE VACANT LAND
CRF
03
MATERIAL AGENCY
SUPPLIER
PRIVATELY OWNED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
LOW LAND VALUE
REGIONAL GRID
VACANT LAND
PUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP NEW ELECTRICITY PRIMARY CONNECTION SECONDARY CONNECTION
RESTAURANT
PRIVATE COLLECTION
SOLID WASTE
FOOD WASTE
LANDFILL
CITY IPA
CCA
EU
ARES
DIGESTERS
FERTILIZER
ENERGY LOOP FOOD LOOP
DISTRIBUTION LABOR SOURCE FOOD
INDIVIDUAL
PUBLIC TRANSIT LOW LAND VALUE VACANT LAND
CRF
Towards Free Energy
12
Community Garden, Urban Farm, Community Resource Farm - What’s the Difference? A community garden is defined as a neighborhood-based development with the primary purpose of providing space for members of the community to grow plants for beautification, education, recreation, community distribution, or personal use. Sites are managed by public or civic entities, nonprofit organizations or other community-based organizations that are responsible for maintenance or operations. Processing and storage of plants or plant products are prohibited on site. An Urban Farm permits the growing, washing, packaging, and storing of fruits, vegetables, or other plant products for wholesale or retail sales. A Community Resource Farm (CRF) is a new definition of urban agriculture for the City of Chicago proposed by our research team. A new definition is needed to allow a CRF to function like a community garden, while removing the City’s restrictions on the distribution of produce. The purpose of a CRF is to provide the restaurants receiving free electricity from anaerobic digesters with a supply of fresh, locally and sustainably grown produce. Two different models are proposed for a Community Resrouce Farm - one publicly-owned by the City, and one with private ownership. Where a CRF is city-owned, a portion of the produce may also be distributed to workers taking part in newly established social programming. Designation as a CRF would also allow this new typology to exist in areas where the city zoning ordinance currently allows Urban Farms, but not community gardens.
13
Module 1: Project Briefs
01 Community Garden
02 Urban Farm
03 Community Resource Farm
Towards Free Energy
14
1733 TONS FOOD WASTE/DAY 13 TONS ORGANIC WASTE/DAY
200 KWH ELECTRICITY/DAY
8 TONS LIQUID FERTILIZER
80’-0”
DINER
170’-0”
1 TON SOLID COMPOST
Food Service Energy Use Intensity: 82.1 kWh/m2/yr New employees: 4.3
Community Garden: 25,000 ft2 (.5739 acre)
Average Yield Per Acre (bushels): Potatoes - 391.4 Corn - 158.9 Oats - 80.0 Wheat - 71.4 Beans - 20.6
1733 TONS FOOD WASTE/DAY 13 TONS ORGANIC WASTE/DAY
200 KWH ELECTRICITY/DAY
8 TONS LIQUID FERTILIZER
80’-0”
DINER
170’-0”
1 TON SOLID COMPOST
Social Programs: Volunteers:
15
Food Service Energy Use Intensity: 82.1 kWh/m2/yr
Community Garden: 25,000 ft2 (.5739 acre)
Module 1: Project Briefs
Average Yield Per Acre (bushels): Potatoes - 391.4 Corn - 158.9 Oats - 80.0 Wheat - 71.4 Beans - 20.6
Private and Public Models A new definition for urban agriculture also becomes flexible in the way it is applied. The new system would allow a Community Resource Farm to be publicly or privately owned, depending on what is most appropriate for the context of each site. A different set of benefits would exist for either model. In one model, a CRF might be privately owned an operated by a local restaurant. Food grown on the farm would supply the restaurant with a supply of fresh produce. In turn, the restaurant would hire new employees to work in the same garden. A second model of resource farm would become a key element in new social programming that would provide food and employment for those enlisted in the program. These publicmodel Community Resource Farms would help evenly distribute food access throughout the city, and allow the choice of what to eat to be based on health and not cost. In both models, fertilizer produced by the anaerobic digesters would be used to improve the quality of the soil used to grow food. The addition of a private waste collection agency would provide an opportunity for new players to enter the market, introducing competition that would force the City of Chicago to streamline their own system of waste collection. Eric Goldstein, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “the problem [is] that our largest institutional players are forced to pay to send food waste to distant landfills or incinerators. If you want to get people to invest in the capacity, you need to send them a signal that there will be a product, that the raw materials will be there to pay back their investment.� The burden of having to pay to have waste collected would be therefore be alleviated by providing electricity generated by the anaerobic digesters directly back to the restaurants for free or low cost.
01 Private Model
Eventually, this strategy might be expanded to include office, institutional, or light manufacturing uses. The cost to business and industry is about half a billion dollars in annual energy costs, including lighting, HVAC, and equipment. By reducing their energy costs by serving them with the free energy generated by food waste, it would spur development and densification in stagnant areas of the city.
02 Public Model
Towards Free Energy
16
Land Value < 50% Median Price
Unemployment > 20%
Low Access to Fresh Food
Mobility: CTA + Divvy
Electric Transmission Lines
Wi-fi
Vacant Property
Land Use
17
Module 1: Project Briefs
Site Selection Using the methodology of mapping and overlapping different systems and data, a unique set of parameters was developed for selecting sites most appropriate for the construction of anaerobic digesters and Community Resource Farms. Selection of CRF site: 1. Access to Road/Highway/ Railroad 2. Proximity to low Land Value 3. Proximity to Labor Source 4. Proximity to Vacant Land 5. Proximity to CTA/Divvy 6. Proximity to Organic Waste Producer 7. Proximity to Transmission Line
Selection of Anaerobic Digester site:
We also identified a sets of key stakeholders in the current systems of food and energy. Energy:
PR = Private PB = Public
Residential User [PR] Commercial User [PR] Energy Utility (ComEd) [PR] Alternative Retail Electricity Supplier (Integrys, other) [PR] Illinois Power Agency [PB] Community Choice Aggregation [PB/PR] Municipality (City of Chicago) [PB] Regional Transmission Organization (PJM) [PR] Supplier (Marcus Hook Power Plant, southern Illinois wind farms, other - coal, nuclear, natural gas, renewables) [PR] Urban Agriculture: Sweet Water Foundation Growing Power The Plant Growing Home Chicago Botanical Garden Green Youth Farm Windy City Harvest
1. Proximity to Transmission Line 2. Proximity to low Land Value 3. Proximity to Organic Waste Producer 4. Proximity to Road/Highway/ Railroad 5. Proximity to Labor Source 6. Proximity to CTA/Divvy 7. Proximity to Vacant Land
Towards Free Energy
18
LEGEND Coal Power Plant
Food Desert
Residential
Natural Gas Power Plant
Low Land value
Industrial
Biomass Power Plant
Low Employment
Commercial
Nuclear Power Plant
Opportunity Area
Divvy Station
345 KV Transmission Line
ATT Coverage
CTA Station
138 KV or Less
CTA Line
Metro Station
City Boundary
Metro Line
Vacant Property
SITE
Organic Waste Producer
Resources/Food The state of Illinois is currently missing out on a huge potential to incentivize renewable energy development through a broken structuring of how funds are distributed. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is an ambitious but achievable set of annual goals for both Energy Utilities (EUs) and Alternative Retail Electric Suppliers (ARES) to meet. By 2025, all electricity supplied to the City of Chicago will have to come from a minimum of 25% renewable sources. The main goal of our project is to produce electricity for the city usage, through the process of anaerobic digestion, while reducing food waste in the city of Chicago. This would be a source of renewable, cheaper and more affordable energy which is also one of the goals of the City of Chicago. Better conditions, will attract more businesses, revitalize disadvantaged neighbourhoods, provide jobs for more people, and bust economy.
Synthesis
19
Module 1: Project Briefs
ACCESS TO Road/High Way/Rail Road ACCESS TO CTA/Divvy NEAR TO Labor Source NEAR TO Cheaper Land NEAR TO Vacant Land NEAR TO Organic Waste Producer NEAR TO Transmission Line Lake View Area Population Density 11536.4 per square km Energy Efficiency 0.38 KWH per person Energy Density 4337.78 KWH per square km Lincoln Park Population Density 7762.2 per square km Energy Efficiency 0.5 KWH per person Energy Density 3,913.08 KWH per square km 138 KV
138 KV
North Lawndale Population Density 4331.9 per square km Energy Efficiency 0.49 KWH per person Energy Density 2130.4KWH per square km
345KV
Beverly Population Density 2416.65 per square km Energy Efficiency 1.17KWH per person Energy Density 2817.3KWH per square km
1:125,000
Towards Free Energy
20
143 1
21
Module 1: Project Briefs
Points of Departure Our team also identified a number of complex issues surrounding key players of each system which required more in-depth solutions. The first is the outsourcing of waste and resources. Secondly, we observed that density has an inverse correlation with energy consumption. Notably, areas with higher population density consume less energy per capita than areas with lower density. The later condition describes a large percentage of Chicago. Third, was an issue of numbers. Anaerobic digestion is only about 35% efficient at converting raw material to electricity. We arrived at a ratio of 143:1 - the number of people required to generate enough food waste to meet the average electricity demand of a single person. This conclusion revealed that major changes to the system were needed in order to increase its efficiency and feasibility. The first step, then, was to determine what set of additions or changes were needed to make converting food waste to electricity a feasible addition to the City of Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waste management strategy. Our team approached this challenge from three critical angles. One project provides a way to increase the amount of electricity produced from anaerobic digestion to a level high enough to meet the energy demands of fifteen different Chicago community areas. A second focuses on reducing electricity demand through patterns of use, behavior, and dwelling typology. Another focused on changing public perception of waste to make the retention of waste both an attractive and cost-effective solution for the city. In conjunction, all three components help to make a closed-loop system feasible.
Towards Free Energy
22