You are on page 1of 3

Sustainability, Energy and Environmental Management, 55-704770

Assignment
You are the energy manager of Beatson Clark, a glass recycling and manufacturing company
which collects used glass, melts it in its furnace and casts it into new forms. The furnace is fired by
natural gas purchased from the national gas grid. The company is considering installing an Organic
Rankine Cycle (ORC) to capture waste heat in the flue gases and use it to produce electrical
power. The power can be exported to the grid for a profit.

You have contacted a potential supplier, Turboden Ltd., which installs and maintains ORC
equipment.
The technical appraisal of the ORC (provided by the supplier) forecasts a £182,000 increase in
annual profits due to this proposed installation. The ORC has a guaranteed life of four years. Using
the data provided, answer the questions that follow.
 Capital cost of the ORC unit and auxiliaries = £ 518,790
 ERDF grant (payable in year 1) = 10% of initial capital (non-taxable)
 Corporation tax on profit = 20%
 Discount rate after Tax = 13.3%
 Scrap value at the end of year 4 = £ 60,000
 Tax on profits is payable from years 2 to 5 inclusive (i.e. one year in arrears).

Your task is to independently analyse the data provided by the supplier and produce a poster (Size
A1 - Landscape) for the management of your company with your recommendations about
commissioning the ORC.
The poster should be typed and professionally presented. As the management are not energy
managers, they may not understand the significance or technical details of ORC. It is your
responsibility to discuss the implications of the results of this investment to them in the poster.
The poster should include the following:
 A brief and visual explanation of the technology and its suitability for the application.
 Determination of the payback period of the investment in the ORC and suggestion if this
value makes the investment appear financially viable.
 A cash flow table over a 5 year period for the investment, predicting the PV for each year
and the overall NPV for the investment in the ORC.
 Conclusions about the viability of the investment.
 Savings of carbon and environmental impact
 Recommendations on the next steps for the firm's management.
 Other factors to be considered when selecting the discount rate and the impact on the NPV
of raising the discount rate for this particular investment.

1
Sustainability, Energy and Environmental Management, 55-704770

 Exploration of any government grants available which can make this investment (more)
profitable.
 Search of the market for alternative suppliers and better ROI.
 A case study where ORC has been implemented in a similar situation.

The poster needs to be uploaded electronically on the Blackboard in a pdf format by


Wednesday 7 November, 15:00 (3 pm). The poster presentations will be held on Thursday 15
and Friday 16 November during the timetabled lecture and tutorial sessions. Each student will have
2 minutes to present the poster and 3 minutes for answering questions.
The furnace temperature is not provided. This is not an omission.

Assignment particulars:
Group work or individual: Individual
Word limit: No limit but the poster should be legible from a distance of 2 m
Page size: A1
Hand in deadline date: Wednesday 7 November 2018
Poster presentations: Thursday 15 November and Friday 16 November 2018
Poster format: Formal poster in pdf format
Hand in location: Electronic submission on the Blackboard
Presentation date: Thursday 15 November and Friday 16 November 2018
Feedback will be provided by: Wednesday 5 December 2018

Learning outcomes assessed by assignment:


1) Evaluate the appropriateness of methodologies that can be applied to allow companies to
operate in a more sustainable manner.
2) Demonstrate the application of energy management technique

Penalties:
 Late submissions: 20 marks/day exceeded

2
Sustainability, Energy and Environmental Management, 55-704770

Student Name_________________________ Student Number_________________

Presentation Date: ________________________

S No: _______________________

Marking Criteria:
Criteria Maximum Marks Marks Awarded
Research Skills 25 marks
Presentation 25 marks
Methodology 25 marks
Discussion & Conclusions/Recommendations 25 marks
TOTAL 100 marks

Marking Grid:

Criterion: Weighting: Distinction (100 to 70%) Merit (69 to 60%) Pass (59 to 50%) Fail (49 to 0%) Mark:

Aims exceeded. Results Aims fully achieved. Broad Essential aims achieved. Aimes partially achieved.
contribute to subject knowledge of subject Adequate knowledge of Lacking basic understanding
knowledge and practice. demonstrated. subject demonstrated. of subject
1. Research Skills 25% Broad and deep
understanding of
subject.

H M L H M L H M L H M L
Excellent presentation. Good confident Adequate presentation Poor presentation. Time limit
Poster presents the presentation. Poster quality. Exceeding time limit. exceeded. Questions not
work in interesting guidelines followed. Questions answered vaguely. answered or answered
style, poster guidelines Questions answered Poster guidelines mostly incorrectly.
2. Presentation 25% followed. Within time correctly. Within time limit. followed.
limit. Questions
answered accurately
with depth of
knowledge.

H M L H M L H M L H M L
Robust methodology, Accurate numerical analysis. Numerical analysis mostly Errors in numerical analysis.
analysis beyond the Adequate understanding of accurate but with limited Questionable/unjustified
remit with additional the risks/uncertainties and understanding of the assumptions.
hypothetical scenarios reallife factors involved. risks/uncertainties and
3. Methodology 25%
and understanding of Assumptions not reallife factors involved.
real life factors justified/verified. Assumptions not
considering justified/verified.
risks/uncertainty.
Assumptions
H M L H M L H M L H M L
Results critically Results discussed Outcome of the work evident Limited/no discussion of
evaluated and adequately within existing with limited critical results. No conclusions
effectively discussed. understanding. Results evaluation. Conclusions presented or presented
4. Discussion, Conclusion,
25% Thoughtful conclusions presented with well presented without adequate without justification.
Recommendations
present original insight supported conclusions. understanding.
in the subject.

H M L H M L H M L H M L