Groundwater cooling systems in London Paper No: 14 F. Ampofo*, G.G. Maidment, J.F.

Missenden Department of Engineering Systems, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK *Tel.: +44-020 7815 7013; Fax: +44-020 7815 7699; E-mail address: ampofof@lsbu.ac.uk

Abstract The environmental impact of the UK building stock has increased the pressure on architects, engineers and building operators to reduce the use of air conditioning in favour of more passive cooling solutions. Good progress has been made in this direction but many passive solutions are limited to new-build projects. For existing buildings, and those for which mechanical air conditioning cannot be avoided, low energy cooling capability can be incorporated to improve significantly overall efficiency. This paper focuses on one such example cooling using groundwater, which has gained popularity in recent years in the London area. Among the reasons for this are the excellent energy efficiency and the increasing viability of water abstraction systems. The paper shows that groundwater cooling technology can be incorporated into new and existing buildings to help reduce their environmental impact.

Introduction The ongoing drive to reduce buildings environmental impact has increased the pressure on architects, engineers and building operators to reduce the use of mechanical refrigeration in favour of more passive cooling solutions. Good progress has been made in this direction but many passive solutions are limited to new construction, representing 2-3 %/yr of the UK building stock [1]. For existing buildings, and those for which mechanical air conditioning cannot be avoided, low energy cooling capability can be incorporated to improve significantly overall efficiency. Low energy cooling technologies have been applied in the UK. These include night cooling by natural ventilation and/or mechanical ventilation, slab (high 1

thermal mass) air cooling, slab water cooling, evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, chilled ceilings and beams, displacement ventilation, ground coupling air cooling and heating, aquifer (groundwater) cooling, and sea/river/lake cooling. This paper examines one such low energy capability cooling using groundwater. The paper presents an overview of the geographical area of the chalk aquifer beneath London as well as the groundwater levels and quality in the London basin. It then compares groundwater cooling systems that have been installed in London. It provides details on the systems used so far and compares the environmental and energy performance of groundwater cooling with vapour compression cooling.

Basic groundwater cooling system A groundwater cooling system requires the presence of an aquifer from which water can be extracted via a borehole. Figure 1 shows this principle. Cold water is abstracted from one part of the aquifer system (the 'cold' well) (6oC 12oC, depending on the aquifer and location) and is used via a heat exchanger for cooling the building. The resultant heated water is then recharged into the aquifer at a different location (the 'hot' well). A second borehole is not a requirement for many installations in areas where the water table is rising (e.g. in the London area), and extracted groundwater can often be re-used as grey water (it can be potable) or discharged to the sewer [1].

Heat exchanger

Cold well

Warm well

Figure 1. Using groundwater for cooling.

Geographical area of the chalk aquifer beneath London The area covers the majority of the London Basin, see Figure 2 [2]. Its northern edge lies along the southern catchment boundary of the Upper River Colne and the northern catchment boundary of the River Roding, with the sections in between cutting across the Rivers Thames, Colne and Lee sub-parallel to the Chalk outcrop pattern. The eastern edge is defined by the Thames Region boundary of the Environment Agency, which runs along the eastern catchment boundaries of the Rivers Roding and Ingrebourne. The south of the area is mainly defined by the outcrop pattern of the Chalk of the North Downs, while the western border runs along the catchment boundaries of the River Wey and The Cut near Maidenhead. The River Thames flows west to east across the middle of the area. Most of the area is covered by urban development, principally London and its suburbs, with other urban centres being Slough, Staines and Epping.

Figure 2. Geographical area of the London Basin [2].

Groundwater levels in the London basin chalk aquifer Rising groundwater levels result from a significant reduction in groundwater abstraction from the Chalk aquifer beneath London since the mid-1960s. Prior to this the Chalk aquifer had been increasingly exploited through the development of groundwater sources during the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. By the time abstraction peaked in the 1960s, groundwater levels below central London had dropped to 88 metres below sea level, creating a large depression in the water table [3]. The subsequent reduction in abstraction has resulted in groundwater levels recovering by as much as 3 metres per year in places in the early 1990s [3]. This has led to a gradual re-filling of the water table cone of depression. The Chalk aquifer is confined over most of London by a layer of impermeable London Clay and other strata, up to 80 metres thick in places [3]. This prevents the water table actually bursting through at ground level but causes artesian pressure to build up underneath the London Clay as levels rise, slowly increasing its saturation. It is this re-saturation, which could affect the stability of certain foundations and cause ingress of water into tunnels in the London Clay. The rising groundwater beneath London can be regarded as an available resource that could be utilized for potable and non-potable purposes. The responsibility for the strategic management of groundwater resources falls within the remit of the Environment Agency and any groundwater cooling scheme needs to comply with their abstraction rules. A database for borehole sites in the London basin is available from the Environment Agency. Figure 3 shows the licensed and the actual abstraction of groundwater from 1990 to 2004 in the London basin [3]. The figure shows the huge cooling potential that exists from using groundwater. For example, in 2004 Annual licensed quantity = 123705 Ml/a Actual quantity abstracted for cooling or other process = 38180 Ml/a The difference between the licensed and the actual abstraction of groundwater can provide an extra cooling potential of over 1796 TJ for a design temperature difference of 5K.

140000 Licensed Abstraction Actual Abstraction

120000

100000

Abstraction (Ml/a)

80000 100075 101216 111970 111565 38941 81646 81415 123705 2004 38180 81516 81060 89162 99033 98727 97440 98726 98639 24391

60000

40000

30612

21199

20000 19949 19172 18679 18221 16896 19139 22638

21396

20742

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Figure 3. Licensed and actual abstraction from chalk aquifer beneath London.

Water quality In terms of quality, groundwater in its natural state is generally of excellent quality, because rocks etc. act as filters. London has relatively high concentrations of magnesium, sodium, chloride and sulphate in the water [4], not affecting heat transfer characteristics or reliability in closed systems. Particulates such as silt may be filtered using appropriate gravel or carbon filters, to avoid fouling of heat exchanger surfaces. Surface water may also contain bacteria, albeit in an anaerobic environment. Although the presence of bacteria in a water-cooling scheme will have minimal risk, the water should be sampled for the presence of bacteria, as a precaution. Appendix 5 of [5] provides a compilation of existing standards and

recommendations for water quality for different application. Unfortunately, it does not include standards and recommendations for water quality for operating a groundwater cooling system. However, the authors have sampled groundwater at a couple of sites in London for the presence of bacteria and found that the nearest comparable application is bathing water, e.g. the sea, and Table 1 shows the recommended water quality standards.

26440

Table 1. Recommended water quality standards for bathing water [5]. Microbiological requirements <10000 counts per 100ml for Total coliforms and <2000 counts per 100ml for faecal coliforms Chemical and physical requirements No abnormal colour change, no oil films. pH 6 9 The Bathing Water (Classification) Regulations 1991 (Appendix 19 of [5], based upon EC Bathing water directive 76/160/EEC) Guidelines and standards

Comparison of groundwater cooling systems in London Table 2 presents a comparison of groundwater cooling systems that have been installed in the following sites in London. It should be noted that the pump powers are the continuous maximum ratings of the driving motors; the actual power absorbed is typically 60 70% of this. The powers are relatively high as all the boreholes are deep, leading to lower COSPs. Portcullis House Houses of Parliament The City Hall The Queens Gallery, Buckingham Palace The Sadlers Wells Theatre The Zetter Hotel in Clerkenwell The Royal Festival Hall

Table 2. Comparison of groundwater cooling systems in London.

Portcullis House Location Bridge street, Westminster London SW1A 2LW 2001 Two, 165000 litres each 765 kW 2 30 m 300 mm 150 m 256 kW Basket strainer 22 litres/s 13.5 oC Plate 150x3 Chem Firm Serving toilet cisterns and pre-wash plates Sewer City Hall The Queen's Walk, London SE1 2AA 2001 None 1000 kW 2 50 m 200 mm 100 m 260 kW Basket strainer 30 litres/s 12-14 oC Plate Toilets, trees Queen's Gallery Buckingham Palace, Buckingham Palace Road London SW1A 1AA 2002 None 700 kW 1 N/A 438 mm 150 m 56 kW 400 micron cartridge filter 2 22 litres/s 13.4 oC Plate M15-BFM8 Alfa Laval Lake fill in gardens Sadler's Well Theatre Rosebery Avenue, London EC1R 4TN 1998 None 500 kW 1 N/A 200 mm 200 m 30 kW Basket strainer 12 litres/s 11-12 oC Plate WC's, hand basins, showers, bottled water for sale Sewer Zetter Hotel 86-88 Clerkenwell Road, London EC1M 5RJ 2004 None 47 kW 1 N/A 200 mm 130 m 5 kW Basket strainer 1.4 litres/s 13-14 oC Plate Alfa Laval WC's, bottled water for sale Royal Festival Hall South Bank, Belvedere Road, London SE1 8XX 2006 None 1200 kW 2 100 m 300 mm 140 m 264 kW Basket strainer 25 litres/s 14 oC Plate Toilets, cleaning the landscape River Thames 20 oC N/A

Year system completed Buffer tank Cooling capacity Number of boreholes Distance between boreholes Borehole diameter Depth of borehole Pump set max. rating Filtration Water extraction rate Water extract temperature Heat exchanger type Model Manufacturer Extra use of water

Discharge of water used Water discharge temperature Any failures and problems

19-21 oC 1 pump not working, sand

River Thames, sewer if used in Greywater 20-22 oC None

Sewer

Sewer

22-23 oC None

22 oC None as yet

22 oC None as yet

Comparison between ground water and vapour compression cooling In order to be viable the groundwater cooling system must compare favourably with a conventional vapour compression system in terms of running cost, energy consumed and CO2 emissions. The assumptions made and the results are shown in Table 3. The COSP, the co-efficient of system performance is the useful cooling divided by the power needed to supply this, including ancillaries. The range of COSP for groundwater depends on pumping power; for deep boreholes with no

static recovery, this is high (low COSP), for shallow water sources, or with static recovery, this is low (high COSP). This highlights the advantage of secondary use of clean deep borehole water which offsets the cost of the static lift. The results indicate that the cost per kWh of groundwater cooling is around 2.5 8 times less than that of the vapour compression system. The energy consumption and CO2 emissions per kWh of groundwater cooling are around 3.3 50 times less than that of the vapour compression system. Other annual costs such as maintenance etc. are pertinent; much of the two competing systems are common (air cooling, chilled water circulation etc.), thus the running cost comparison is essentially between borehole and vapour compression water-chiller. With time, these costs will become available in the public domain. Capital cost comparison depends on whether an existing source is being adapted or whether a new borehole (costing perhaps 144300 [6]) must be driven or a new chiller be purchased (budget price 41000 per 500kW [7]). Each case requires individual assessment. Table 3. Comparison between groundwater and vapour compression cooling. Groundwater cooling system Cooling energy output (kWh) t for groundwater (K) Cp for water (kJ/kg K) Mass of groundwater needed (kg) Volume of groundwater needed (m3) Cost of groundwater @1.135 p/m () Nett COSP of cooling system Energy consumption (kWh) Energy cost @ 0.05/ kWh () Total cost () CO2 emissions assuming 0.43 kg CO2/kWh (kg CO2)
3

Vapour compression refrigeration 100 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 2.79 [9] 100/2.79 = 35.84 35.840.05 = 1.79 1.79 15.41

100 5 4.2 17143 17.1 17.11.135 = 0.19 9.4 140.6 [8] 100/9.4 100/140.6 = 10.64 0.71 10.640.05 0.710.05 = 0.532 0.036 0.72 0.23 4.58 0.31

Conclusions The paper demonstrates that the use of groundwater to provide cooling is a technique that has gained popularity in recent years in the London area. This can be attributed to a number of reasons including excellent energy efficiency and the increasing viability of water extraction systems. Another key factor is the avoidance of cooling towers, which, in addition to having significant maintenance implications, may also occupy valuable space. Also, the paper shows that groundwater cooling technology can be incorporated into newly-build and existing buildings to improve significantly overall efficiency, thus helping to reduce the environmental impact of the UK building stock.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude for the financial support of the Carbon Trust in this study. The input of our project partners, in particular, Dr Hywel Davies at CIBSE and London Underground Ltd is also gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to the system users at the various sites for providing design data and information for the comparison in Table 2.

References [1] De Saulles, T., Free cooling systems, BSRIA Guide BG 8/2004, ISBN: 0860226425. [2] The Environment Agency, Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, Berks RG1 8DQ. [3] The Environment Agency, Groundwater levels in the chalk-basal sands aquifer of the Central London basin, May 2005. [4] Environment Agency, State of the environment report for London, 2001. [5] Leggett, D.J., Brown, R., Brewer, D., Stanfield, G., Holliday, E., Rainwater and greywater use in buildings: best practice guidance, CIRIA publication C539, ISBN: 0860175397, London 2001. [6] Green, L.M., Ground water cooling, bsj building services journal: the magazine of CIBSE, June 2005. [7] Private Communication, YORK International Ltd, Gardiners Lane South, Basildon, Essex, SS14 3HE.

[8] Rafferty, K.D., Well-pumping issues in commercial groundwater heat pump systems, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 104, Part 1B, 1998. [9] Market Transformation Programme, BNCR17: Energy efficiency performance indicators for packaged liquid chillers, Available at: http://www.mtprog.com/ApprovedBriefingNotes/BriefingNoteTemplate.aspx?intBriefi ngNoteID=197

10