Chris Ford
Assistant Professor
College of Architecture
The University of Nebraska
402.472.9239
cford4@unl.edu
REIs: RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES
2009 AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Project
Final Report
May 01 2011
Figure 1: A composite ideogram identifying issues related to an REI: Renewable Energy Infrastructure. Image by REI
team.
Introduction
Despite recent scholarship and interest in interdisciplinary operations, our intellectual world still
champions those knowledge bases that clearly reside within the centers of distinct disciplinary
realms. While this tendency necessarily protects a professional discipline’s true operational
boundaries (for instance, in the governance of engineers engaged in issues of life-safety), it
also fosters an insulated intellectual environment in which the development of its collective
knowledge base is characterized by re-productive thinking. In turn, these boundaries
discriminate against new creative discoveries by outside individuals who demonstrate
productive thinking in the conception of unprecedented solutions in another discipline. For
instance, consider the wide ranging differences between art, design, and science while also
recalling the types of individuals who have contributed to two or more of these realms in a
significant way.
If artists and scientists anchor two ends of a figurative spectrum, then designers would occupy
the conceptual midpoint between the two, in terms of both disciplinary interest and operation -Designers are equally dependent upon both creative and analytical thinking, and their thinking
process oscillates between both as they yield creative solutions for problems framed outside of
themselves. Furthermore, because the designer concerns her/himself with solutions that are
conceived in the fulfillment of an articulated need, then the creative work yielded possesses a
certain level of use and utility. Like artists, designers use creative thinking to narrow their
search for acceptable solutions. Like scientists, designers address problems outside of
themselves and are therefore engaged in a form of applied research.
This running description of the differences between artists, designers and scientists is simplified
in order to quickly appreciate the major differences between them.
The Architect as Technological Innovator
While most artists are unlikely to make key contributions to the knowledge base of science,
architects have historically played a role as technological innovators. Among them are:
• Filippo Brunelleschi and his inventive structural solution for the Florence Cathedral dome.
• Frank Lloyd Wright and the structural performance of unique concrete columns in the Johnson
Wax building in Racine Wisconsin.
• Norman Foster and the various inventive architectural systems in the HongKong Bank
headquarters.
• Jean Nouvel and the operable south façade design for the Arab World Institute (IMA) in Paris
France.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
1
• Kieran/Timberlake and their SmartWrap PET envelope system with integrated photovoltaics
cells (w/ Schüco USA), and the specification of the Bosch Rexroth aluminum profiles as a
structural system, (both as found in the MoMA Cellophane House).
• MATx, a material research lab by Kennedy & Violich Architecture, which identifies
technologies developed outside of the building industry and imports them into the architectural
realm.
Of all architects who have also established themselves as technological innovators, then Eero
Saarinen is arguably the greatest of these. Throughout Saarinen’s distinctive portfolio of
modern architecture, we find unprecedented architectural types that not only require new
technological solutions, but are conceptually dependent upon the success of these innovations.
For instance, the Jefferson Memorial (Gateway Arch) in St Louis, neverminding its structural
design, required an inventive design for a new vertical conveyance system that would respond
to a varying arc of incline as well as accommodate a high volume of visiting patrons. The
General Motors Technical Center in Warren Michigan was a design vehicle for inventing
several new architectural products that would eventually become industry-standard. These
include the use of neoprene gaskets for sealing glass units in metal frames, the creation of
insulated metal panels with porcelain enamel finish, and the glazed brick.1 Similarly, Dulles
Airport outside of Washington DC required an inventive solution to transport airline passengers
to larger jetliners that were necessarily parked away from the terminal proper due to the feared
effects of jetwash on architectural surfaces. (This was later circumvented with tug taxis which
are now industry-standard in airports worldwide. Nonetheless, some of Dulles’ mobile lounges
remain in operation.)
The inventive spirit with which these architects acted is enviable. When these architects are
considered together, it is clear they have embraced a very high-risk, high-reward design
strategy that we seldom find in the United States today. This is due likely to a combination of
greater exposure to legal liability, the prevalence of re-productive thinking at our discipline’s
center, and a relative lack of professional bravery.
The Opportunity for Infrastructure
If the architectural discipline is to reclaim its influence on the built environment, then it must
conceive of research-led and performance-based solutions that address issues beyond
aesthetic finishes and the market-serving provision of habitable space. Furthermore, as issues
and problems relating to the built environment become ever more layered and complex,
architect-led interdisciplinary teams will become necessary to address them.
One such opportunity for leadership is infrastructure design, although it is historically shaped by
the engineering discipline. However, if we share Buckminster Fuller’s observation that “society
operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization
precludes comprehensive thinking,”2 then as the discipline of Engineering requires higher
modes of specialized thinking, architects remain in an advantageous position to continue to act
comprehensively, and engage both technological and infrastructural innovation in a critical way.
The challenge for architects first lies in the recognition of their own comprehensive propensities,
and then the deliberate engagement with true issues of infrastructural performance and
associative yields.
While the question concerning infrastructure is typically thrust into the national consciousness
at times of system failure (New Orleans’ levees, Minneapolis’ I-35 West bridge, and Japan's
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant), the subject of infrastructure has sustained a level of
buzzworthiness in the larger architectural discipline. Not only is infrastructure becoming an
increasingly popular form of government investment, but we are witnessing a surge of interest
in the subject of Infrastructure from architectural educators and practitioners alike. This
Serraino, Pierluigi. Saarinen. Taschen: Köln, 2005. p35.
Fuller, R. Buckminster. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Simon and Schuster: New York, 1970. p13.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
2
1
2
discussion has been buoyed by any number of events including recent design competitions by
Actar and the UCLA cityLAB respectively, periodicals such as Lotus and l’Arca dedicating entire
issues to the subject, and book titles such as The Infrastructural City, The Landscape of
Contemporary Infrastructure, and Infrastructure as Architecture. While these endeavors are
particularly stimulating to architectural educators, other impetuses have also piqued the interest
of the architectural profession. For each of the past four years, the Urban Land Institute has
published an annual comparative analysis on the state of infrastructure between the US and
other nations. (The latest ULI publication, “Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative,”
emphasizes overdue attention to both Transportation and Water infrastructure systems.)
Perhaps the greatest device of all in capturing attention is the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Of the $787 billion dollars appropriated by this Act, $132 billion
(17%) is earmarked for either new infrastructure projects or the repair of existing ones.3
While the discipline of engineering continues to generate re-productive and mono-functional
infrastructural solutions, then architects, qualified by their comprehensive propensities, are
positioned as “impact players” for conceiving of multi-functional infrastructural solutions to
address the demonstrated needs of society. The design of new infrastructure typologies,
especially those with hybridized qualities, drastically changes the position, contribution, and
responsibility of the professional disciplines involved in their creation.4 To this end, architects
should no longer wait for an invitation to produce viable infrastructure solutions.
The opportunity must be claimed.
The cruel challenge to this claim however, is a lack of majority consensus regarding the size
and extent of this opportunity before us. In 2011, while ARRA stimulus dollars are fueling the
repair of existing infrastructure, it is also enabling the construction of low concept, monofunctional infrastructure designs (however “shovel-ready,”) that should otherwise find higher
levels of operation through hybridized performative yields. On a comparable level, I also find
designers developing infrastructural solutions as a form of scholarship, and due to the solutions’
non-material realization, otherwise fall short of our society’s demonstrated needs. While I
recognize this latter group’s contribution to discourse about infrastructure, if they are not also
engaging municipalities, utilities, industry professionals, or industrial manufacturers towards
developing their ideas to an actionable state, then the value of their effort is sharply diminished,
if there is any larger value in infrastructural rhetoric at all. These prevailing efforts not only fail
to bolster, but unfortunately, erodes the credibility of the architectural discipline as a whole in
the view of non-architects. For an architect to truly claim this opportunity for infrastructure in
2011, then one must transcend scholarship-induced complacency and, in the least, aspire to
meet the expectation for realizing infrastructural work in a material way.
Premise
Our university-based design / research team has identified and focused on a problem that is
defined by renewable energy production, electrical transmission, and urban land use policy.
We believe a Renewable Energy Infrastructure (REI) addresses this problem in an effective
way and ultimately surpasses the prevailing practices of each of these three identified areas.
At its conception, our interest in a Renewable Energy Infrastructure typology is informed by
both a variety of observable phenomena in the larger world and also a variety of internal
expectations for conceptual and developmental strategies in forthcoming designs. We observe
the increasing demonstrated need for alternative modes of electrical production and
transmission, and see an opportunity for a new infrastructure typology located in those
geographic areas with access to multiple raw resources of sun, wind and geothermal steam.
Miller, Jonathan D. Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative. Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young:
Washington DC, 2010. p5.
4 Shannon, Kelly and Marcel Smets. “Purpose and Conception,” Introduction, The Landscape of Contemporary
Infrastructure. NAI Publishers: Rotterdam, 2010. p9.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
3
3
While the issues framed within this REI research / design investigation are easily identified,
single infrastructural solutions that address industrial-scale production levels of electrical
energy on urban sites are largely unprecedented. However, we were able to find several
projects, both built and unbuilt, that either possess attractive qualities or address some
constraint that an REI would also likely face.
01. Energy Tree, Richard Horden (1999)
Munich, Germany
Figure 2: Horden, Richard. Architecture and Teaching. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 1999. p92-93.
This unbuilt project was conceived in 1999, prior to our currently prevailing renewable energy
market and societal level of acceptance. This approximately 984’ tall structure is divided into
equal sections which when affected by wind, revolves around a central core, thereby converting
incidental wind energy (gathered from five upright airfoils) into electrical energy. This tower
was also intended to have the architecturally programmed spaces of restaurant, hotel,
conference center and observation deck.
02. Solar Net, Solomon Cordwell Buenz / Arup (2001)
2001 US Department of Energy Sunwall Design Competition, Washington DC
Figure 3: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Sunwall Design Competition: US DoE National Solar Design
Competition. NREL; Boulder, 2001. Project Number 280.
The intelligent form of the sloped concave photovoltaic wall is climatologically-determined by
the winter and summer solstice positions. Furthermore, as with all of the Sunwall competition
entries, we appreciated its willingness to engage non-rural, densely populated sites for
generating renewable energy.
03. Forum Esplanade, Jose Antonio Martinez Lapena & Elias Torres Architects (2004)
Barcelona, Spain
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
4
Figure 4: Courtesy of Lorenzo Carlos via CC.
This 48,437sf photovoltaic canopy is dual purposed as both an industrial-scale generator of
renewable energy, but also as a canopy to provide shade in a shadeless park on Barcelona’s
waterfront. This canopy is just one feature of a much larger hybridized infrastructure project
which includes a water treatment plant, garbage incinerating plant, the photovoltaic array itself,
and a recreational park / marina.
04. Urban Oasis, Chetwoods Architects (2007)
Chelsea, London UK
Figure 5: http://www.kraftwerk-kuenstlerdorf.de/images/4/4e/Urban-oasis-solar-flower-4-380x293.png &
http://inhabitat.com/chetwoods-london-urban-oasis/laurie-chetwood-london-oasis-solar-power-sculpture-wind-powersculpture-chelsea-flower-show-floral-sculpture-environmental-technologies-2/
Although conceived as an urban-sited sculpture, this high-tech art captures sunlight (via PV
cells) and wind (via single vertical axis turbine located within the structural spine) to power a
fuelcell that in turn, illuminates the entire sculpture at night in colored light. The operable “petal”
components also act as rainwater harvesting devices.
05. Wind-It, Delon Choppin & Menard, (2009)
2009 NEXT Generation Prize, Metropolis Magazine
Figure 6: LaBarre, Suzanne. “Harvesting the Wind,” Metropolis, May 2009. p90-93.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
5
Although this unbuilt proposal is positioned in a rural setting, it allows today’s prevailing
solutions for transmission and distribution to identify an opportunity for generation. More
specifically, the “Wind-Its” position themselves inside of existing electrical pylon designs
thereby capitalizing upon existing efficiencies.
06. Canop’City, GAPTA (2009)
Los Angeles CA
Figure 7: Courtesy of GAPTA.
This proposal for infrastructure improvements to impoverished areas is the most hybridized of
infrastructure proposals found to date – It concerns itself with electrical production, but also
water, agriculture, and recreation. However altruistic and compelling as an urban
prognostication, there are however losses to the quantity of electrical power that can be yielded
due to interference caused by the juxtaposition of spatial programs in the same physical space.
07. Greenway Self Park, HOK (2010)
Chicago IL
Figure 8: http://hoklife.com/2010/08/24/in-chicago-a-new-green-parking-garage/
Although not generating energy at industrial scales, the Greenway Self Park is a bold example
of a developer taking on risk of placing renewable energy technology into an urban environment
with a high amount of turbulence. These turbines are manufactured by Helix Wind, although
the Project was originally specified to use Aerotecture products and consulting services.
Aerotecture withdrew from the project on the belief that performative yields would be too low to
justify the cost of the renewable energy technology, and in turn, believed it was being added for
largely aesthetic effect.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
6
The Emergence of a New Typology
Figure 9: Urban Grain Elevator, Lincoln NE. Original construction dates from 1918, plus additions. Photo by Jon
Miller.
Figure 10: Suburban Electrical Transformer Station, Lincoln NE. Photo by Jon Miller.
Figure 11: Wastewater Digesters for City of Lincoln municipal system, Lincoln NE. Site is adjacent to a tributary creek
and public bike trail. Photo by Jon Miller.
As a pre-emptive strategy for placing new infrastructure typologies in our viewsheds, it is
important to first understand the historic trend of the act of emergence and the level of
acceptance attained with the population that it serves. To this end, larger society has
demonstrated on multiple occasions to psychologically accept the presence of large-scale
infrastructure types if it directly benefits from its performance – It is implicitly understood that
the level of performative yield and benefit of infrastructure shall exceed any adverse impact that
said infrastructure has in the collective viewshed. While both urban and suburban dwellers
alike have multiple exposures to various infrastructures in a given day, these populations have
developed a psychological comfort with infrastructure through unchanging familiarity, and their
physical presence (if non-kinetic) does not adversely affect us.
Specifically, we investigated the emergence of water towers, cell phone towers, and grain
elevators. Surprisingly, we are finding very little opposition during the proliferation of water
towers, but only praise – The public at large understood the performative benefits of this
emerging type and were immediate beneficiaries of widespread proliferation and successful
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
7
operation. However, with the emergence of cell phone towers in the late 1980s, there was
widespread vocal opposition to this new infrastructure type and its impact on viewsheds. Unlike
water towers which were immediately understood as a public amenity, cell phone service was
an endeavor of private commerce and did not serve the needs of the public at-large.
Furthermore, the price point for early cell phone service and equipment was cost prohibitive for
most and was considered a luxury service, hereby working against any rapid psychological
assimilation of cell phone towers in our cultural consciousness. However, as cellular service
costs decreased, an increasingly large portion of society became users, and we have since
conditionally accepted the visual presence of these towers in our viewsheds as long as they
continue to provide cellular service and enhanced signal strength.
Within the State of Nebraska, the most regionally-appropriate example of adoption is the
sentry-like grain elevators distributed throughout our urban, suburban and rural environments.
While their sublime presence is startling to visitors from non-agricultural regions, they have
been psychologically assimilated by the local population and are rarely read as foreground
objects. Their performative benefit as objects of infrastructure is understood, and their
importance to the region as local economic engines is also understood. Despite their sentrylike stature, these grain elevators dot our viewsheds, but with no public opposition.
When forecasting upon the physical scale an REI would require to generate electrical energy at
industrial levels, we presumed that an REI would be large enough and of a construction type
similar to a mid-rise or high-rise building. In light of this, it becomes clear that an REI needs to
first establish credibility through its quantified performance in order to then effectively challenge
restrictive urban zoning policies, provoke NIMBY attitudes and induce market transformation.
Five Axiomatic Truths
Our research-led design effort seeks to gain credibility in the ultimate postulation of technicallyplausible design solutions using existing and emerging renewable energy technologies that can
be found on the market in the year 2011. Our forthcoming solutions seek to address and fulfill
the demonstrated needs of society with viable solutions that are both “design-ready” and
“shovel-ready.” To this end, the REI research / design investigation is premised upon five
axiomatic truths.
Axiomatic Truth Number One: “Due to the Greenhouse Effect caused by carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuels, there is a need to invent and deploy more environmentallyresponsible modes of electrical production to meet an increased demand by modern society.”
Axiomatic Truth Number Two: “On a per square mile basis, urban areas have significantly more
demand for electrical energy than rural areas.”
Axiomatic Truth Number Three: “Modes of renewable energy production are typically located in
rural areas due largely to social and political forces. Furthermore, these modes are
technologically proprietary and so far only capitalize on one exclusive resource.”
Axiomatic Truth Number Four: “Due to the physical properties of our current electrical grid
system, there are measurable falloff rates of megawatts from their originating power source (in
rural areas) along the transfer length to the end user (in urban areas).” Current renewable
energy technologies of industrial scale, such as wind farms and solar arrays, are typically
located in rural areas and therefore the efficiency with which they serve energy-thirsty urban
areas is compromised. For every single megawatt lost during transmission, .4 is due to
“evaporation” along transmission lines and .6 occurs during step-downs at sub-stations and
transformers.
Axiomatic Truth Number Five: “Transfer efficiency can be increased by collapsing the physical
distance between the original renewable energy powersource (in an urban area) to the end
user (in an urban area).”
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
8
Considering these axiomatic truths, is it then possible to design a free-standing infrastructure
for an urban environment that holistically considers renewable energy-producing resources
such as wind, solar, geotechnical, and if applicable, hydrological resources into one holisticallydesigned entity?
The Constraints of an Unprecedented Design Problem
An REI seeks to generate renewable energy megawatts (MW) at an industrial scale through the
simultaneous harnessing of wind, solar, and geothermal resources, but within an integrated,
holistic, and free-standing facility positioned in an urban environment. An REI is not a retrofit of
a pre-existing architectural condition, but rather is conceived as a new infrastructure typology to
be owned and operated by an electrical utility for purposes of servicing users in high-population
areas.
Figure 12: Composite maps showing those areas with access to strongest natural resources of solar (orange), wind
(blue) and geothermal (green). Top 25% (left), top 50% (middle) and top 75% (right) are shown. We are finding the
location with the best access to raw solar and wind resources combined is Sandia Mountain / Cibola National Forest in
New Mexico. Images by REI team.
According to the 2010 US Census, the State of Nebraska ranks 38th in population (out of fifty
states) with 1,826,341 residents. This ranking places Nebraska in the lowest 25th percentile of
the United States. In contrast to its lower population however, the State of Nebraska ranks
relatively high in access to wind (4/50), solar (19/50) and geothermal (core temps of 200
degrees Celsius) resources capable of producing renewable energy. Climatic resource
availability has been thoroughly documented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), and on a technical level we recognize that an optimized REI design would be custom
tailored to its specific solar, wind, and geotechnical (and if applicable, hydrological) resources.
Figure 13: A map of the State of Nebraska locating each of its five operational wind farms, each of the five largest
cities, and the linear distances between the rurally-located wind farms to urban areas with the maximum number of end
users. If all wind-generated renewable energy MWs were diverted to Lincoln NE, they would travel a combined
distance of 906 miles. Image by REI team.
If an REI design is optimized to its specific climatological resources, then the design of an REI
in Tucson AZ would look and operate very differently from one designed for Anchorage AK.
The specific design parameters for either would include the highest level of specificity for
angles of solar incidence, rate of curvature for the solar arc, wind speeds achieved at higher
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
9
elevations, and overall percentages of wind and solar energy technologies. All of these
parameters require review in order to optimize electrical yields produced by the REI. The
optimum result of this research-based design investigation requires working with the State of
Nebraska’s various public power districts. Our original intent was to design (3) site-specific,
technically-plausible REI solutions of escalating scale for three different sized cities in the State
of Nebraska. These would have included site-specific REI proposals for specific sites in
Columbus NE (population 21,595), Lincoln NE (population 251,624) and Omaha NE (population
438,646) although they already share very similar climatic conditions.
In terms of wind, the US Department of Energy ranks the State of Nebraska as 4th in wind
energy potential. Despite this strength in climatological circumstances, Nebraska in 2009
surprisingly ranks only 24th in actual wind energy production with a current rate of 153.2 MW.
In terms of solar, the US Department of Energy ranks the State of Nebraska as 19th in solar
energy potential with a Sun Index of .89, but there are no industrial-scale photovoltaic arrays
currently operating.
Of the 153.2 MW of renewable energy currently produced in the State, 10%-15% of this amount
is believed to be lost during transfer due to degradation along transmission lines and
processing through transformers. This amount totals 15.3 - 23.0 MW lost over 906 miles of
long span transmission lines from five different wind farm locations, all of which are located in
rural areas. Whereas super-conducting materials and higher voltage lines will reduce some
loss throughout the emerging US “SmartGrid,” we can also eradicate this loss by collapsing the
physical distance between where renewable energy is produced and where it is consumed.
This action would require however an intolerance of the Culture of Acceptable Losses that has
emerged as a side effect of federal deregulation of the electric industry, first set in motion in
1978.
Figure 14 & 15: The left infographic depicts three layers of information relating to solar resources, and the right
infographic depicts five layers of information relating to wind resources. Image by REI team.
There are several constraints in play when determining an appropriate site for an REI. Due to
the highest need for performance, a chosen REI site should not be compromised by positioning
itself amongst urban obstacles, such as other buildings. Depending upon their respective size,
proportion and solar position, these urban obstacles could foil the operation of the REI by either
creating wind turbulence or shade the REI from valuable solar exposure. Another constraint in
play is the economic feasibility of an REI given real estate property values. An REI developed
on a site with commercial value would likely not be a cost-effective solution when compared to
other energy generation facility types, neverminding the new threat to public safety in
introducing open high-voltage lines in an otherwise vibrant downtown.
Due to the danger presented by large-scale mechanical components in motion, we recognize
the very real life-safety concerns that are associated with an REI in an urban environment.
Whereas photovoltaic panels present a very low hazard level of operation, the failure of large
horizontal-axis wind turbines are oftentimes both spectacular and irreparable. In the event that
a bearing generates too much wear by wind shear across the face of the turbine blades, the
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
10
turbine house sometimes ignites due to an internal fire caused by friction between metals.
However, these turbine types are typically located in rural areas. Firefighting teams will set up
a secure perimeter around the problem turbine, allow them to burn in place, and protect against
falling debris including the turbine housing itself. In urban areas, a burning turbine presents
real threats to both people and property. While proper maintenance can prevent fantastic
failures for wind turbines, we are seeing that horizontal axis turbines installed ten years ago are
now being brought off-line and systematically deconstructed due to the end of bearing life. In
the 2010 renewable energy market, it is now more cost effective to replace the turbine entirely
with other associative technological upgrades than it is to repair or replace the original bearing.
While bearing wear is the primary cause of wind turbine failure, high wind speeds present
another set of life-safety issues.
In the event that wind speeds push blade revolutions beyond their recommended operating
limits, there is a safety braking mechanism that shuts down the rotation of the turbine blades.
However, these braking systems can sometimes fail. Under increasing wind speeds, turbine
blades that continue to spin at speeds beyond their specification can achieve considerable
deflection of the blades themselves. Under such stress, the blades themselves can deflect
enough that, in some designs, the blade tips can collide with the mast as they are spinning. In
either case, the power exerted and quickness demonstrated in such destructive acts are
marginalized in rural settings, but would certainly cause considerable collateral damage to both
life and property if similar technological failure occurred in an urban setting.
The best urban sites for an REI are likely to be on the periphery of our downtown areas. In an
optimum scenario, if all other site requirements allow, REIs would be ideally positioned on sites
already operated by electrical utilities and with existing transformer equipment. If the presence
of this new REI construction would not itself precipitate a significant upgrade or overhaul of preexisting transformer equipment, then the REI could feasibly occupy the airspace of this site,
thereby tapping into an existing network without increasing project costs and yet improving
urban land use policy. Although an REI would have a physical presence similar to that of a
building, the REI would not have appropriated square footage per se, and would only be
occupied as required by inspection, service and repair.
REI v1.0: Lincoln NE
Figure 16: Location map of Lincoln NE showing the selected REI site at 8th Street and N Street. This site is owned by
the City of Lincoln and leased to the Lincoln Electric System for an electrical transformer site. Images by REI team.
The site selected for our REI v1.0 study is located in downtown Lincoln NE, immediately south
of the historic Haymarket District. The site is owned by the City of Lincoln, but is leased to the
Lincoln Electric System utility as an electrical transformer site. Our REI site is the airspace
above this existing electrical infrastructure and in so doing, affords us the ability to tap into a
pre-existing electrical distribution network without increasing project costs. Furthermore, it
allows an REI to occupy an urban context without acquiring privately-held land and / or
demolishing existing real property.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
11
With the design problem reasonably formed, we then recalled the larger-scale Solar Net
winning entry for the 2001 US Department of Energy Sunwall Design Competition.5 Upon
familiarizing ourselves with the design intent behind this Solomon Cordwell Buenz / Arup
proposal, we appreciated the intelligent form of the sloped concave photovoltaic wall informed
by the winter and summer solstice positions. Furthermore, as with all of the Sunwall
competition entries, we appreciated its willingness to engage non-rural, densely populated sites
for generating renewable energy.
An inventory was created and periodically updated of the top five performing photovoltaic
panels and vertical axis turbines. These were the only two types of renewable energy
technologies that were of interest due to issues of life-safety and failproofing kinetic
technologies when placed in an urban environment. Interestingly, a 250kW photovoltaic panel
that was of preliminary interest and manufactured by Schott is no longer made, therefore
speaking to the rate of industrial change we are witnessing in the prevailing PV market. Of
more specific interest to this REI investigation, Siemens Corporation is the only known
manufacturer of crystalline PV panels with compound curvature profiles.
Our (4) preliminary REI designs were the result of a three day charette exercise. Our design
strategy was to first generate multiple options for consideration, and only then analyze the
schemes to identify those traits and qualities that we wanted to ultimately carry forward into a
more developed REI design.
Figure 17. Four preliminary designs for an REI sited in Lincoln NE. The design chosen for further development is
shown at the far right. Images by REI team.
The first scheme sought to feature sloped concave profiles to optimize yearly solar angles for
the 41st latitude. However, these profiles were also arranged to deflect prevailing southern
winds upwards to effectively multiply the air velocity moving through the vertical axis turbines
located immediately above. However, due to the staggered patterning of the solution, we
recognized that shadows cast upon the photovoltaics below were self-defeating.
The second scheme explores the possibility of (6) small diameter horizontal axis turbines
covered with a photovoltaic fuselage skin. Supported by a single mast, the face of the turbine
blades would always rotate to front applicable winds, and the photovoltaic fuselage would
further assist the proper wind orientation with fin profiles. In order to best capture wind
resources, REI schemes incorporating wind technology would need to occupy the highest
elevations that municipal zoning regulation will allow.
Whereas the first and second schemes sought an aesthetic informed by scientific determinism,
the third scheme explored a composition of vertical axis turbines and photovoltaic surfaces for
its own aesthetic sake. Furthermore, we brainstormed on possible architectural programs that
may also benefit from being incorporated into this scheme. We would soon conclude that
whatever interest was gained in composition, it lost credibility in energy performance. This
scheme was immediately rejected since it was not congruent with our criteria for beneficial
infrastructure design – Infrastructure design should not sacrifice performative yields for the sake
of compositional aesthetics. Infrastructure is compositionally pragmatic, and is ultimately
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Sunwall Design Competition; United States Department of Energy,
National Solar Design Competition. Publication Number DOE/GO-102001-1339. NREL: Golden CO, 2001.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
12
5
justified through its own performance. Since infrastructure operates instrumentally, then
infrastructural design “is indifferent to formal debates.”6
The fourth scheme is informed by attributes of each of the first three schemes. It is not selfconscious about its own aesthetic, but rather seeks maximum electrical production through
wind, solar and geothermal resources. This fourth scheme was identified for further
development.
Figure 18 & 19: REI v1.0 include perspectives, site plan, transverse section, enlarged component section, and
exploded view of both technological and tectonic systems. Images by REI team.
6 Allen, Stan. “Infrastructural Urbanism,” Point + Lines: Diagrams and Projects for the City, Princeton Architectural
Press: New York, 1999. p55.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
13
The REI v1.0 design assumes its construction would be a scalable, modular system where
smaller portions of an REI can become operational prior to a complete build-out of the overall
design. This economic model for implementation would benefit from streams of funding over
time and would only then yield the highest amounts of MW once completed. For instance, this
scheme for Lincoln NE provides (7) stacked tiers of integrated wind / solar modules each set
every 40’-0” in infrastructure height. However, we assume a maximum allowable REI zoning
height of 375’-0” as determined by the City of Lincoln with respect to the 400’-0” height of the
Nebraska State Capitol building by Bertram Goodhue (1932). The REI uses a piling foundation
with a steel tube steel structural frame with galvanized finish. Whereas the vertical-axis
turbines are secured to the permanent site-specific tube steel frame, the photovoltaic modules
are separate entities with their own structural rigidity. These modules are composed of cast
aluminum frames that allow for quick attachment and detachment to the fixed structural frame
itself.
While the creation of the module was a design response to questions of component assembly
and unit installation, there are additional benefits to thinking about the REI as a module-based
system for several reasons. First and foremost, it achieves a higher level of efficiency where
modules can be pre-engineered, pre-fabricated and assembled in anticipation of future end-use
on, or near, a specific latitude. In this scenario, it changes the expectation for the forthcoming
solutions to be entirely site-specific, and instead recognizes a design economy in constructing a
foundation, structure and vertical circulation system while the technological modules are then
transported on site, lifted, and installed. Benefits in this change of design intent include
reduced schedules for construction, the introduction of a scalable solution that can be brought
on-line in a phased way prior to full project completion, and the possibility of upgradeable
technological components to maximize life expectancy of the REI framework and to further
delay the point of technological obsolescence.
Statistics for REI v1.0 (Lincoln NE):
Wind Turbines
(20) Vertical-Axis Turbines per floor, (8) floors = 160 Turbines Total
(1) Quiet Revolution QR5 vertical-axis turbine @ 11m/s = 4.6 kW
160 Turbines x 4.6 kW = 736 kW
Solar Photovoltaics
(7676.4) sf of solar photovoltaic panel per REI floor x (9) REI floors = 69,087.6sf total PV surface
area
(1) Schott Solar ASE-300-DGF/50-320 (320w) Solar Panel = 26.1267sf
(1) sf of 320w PV panel (284.8w PTC) = 10.9 W
69,087.6sf PV surface x 10.9 W = 573,054.8 W generated (or 573.0548 kW generated)
REI Total Performative Yield: 736 wind kW + 573.0548 solar kW = 1.309 MW
REI v 2.0: Omaha NE
The site selected is on a ridge in downtown Omaha, immediately south of an existing
transformer station operated by the Omaha Public Power District. The site is currently owned
by the Union Pacific railroad. The site runs parallel to train tracks and is adjacent to a bridge for
trains that crosses the Missouri River. Due to site constraints and internal expectations, we
believe the forthcoming REI v2.0 will utilize the same unitized module designed in REI v1.0,
and whose overall profile in the urban context will be proportionally low and long while still
achieving a level of performance that makes it economically viable. Design materials are
forthcoming.
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
14
Figure 20: Location map of selected REI v2 site in downtown Omaha NE. This site is owned by the Union Pacific
Corporation and has immediate proximity to property to the north owned by the Omaha Public Power District. Image by
REI team, after Google Maps.
REI: Performance Mock-Up
After the REI v2.0 design is complete, then additional presentation materials will be generated
to highlight the module-based design thinking for this prevailing strategy. To test the
performative yield of the REI module design, the next logical phase of REI development would
be a full-scale and operational performance mock-up in which a larger research team (but
inclusive of the same external partners) would produce construction documents for a nine or
twelve module performance mock-up to be constructed in Lincoln NE on property operated by
either the Lincoln Electric System or the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. This scope of
research would require different funding resources and technological partnerships.
Conclusion
Through the agency of an REI in our urban fabric, we improve the efficiencies of existing
electrical technologies, improve urban land use policy, and provide an ecologically-responsible
alternative that can ultimately succeed prevailing methods of electrical production at industrial
scales. More appropriately, as new REIs of industrial capability are constructed, existing
greenhouse gas emitting modes of electrical production (such as coal-fired electrical plants)
can be decommissioned. This suggests that REIs could be impact players in future energy
policy where carbon-emitting emissions can be significantly reduced without adversely
impacting reasonable electrical consumption.
The greatest impact of this REI effort shall be the delivery of a plausible, cost-effective option
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Nebraska's public power districts. Because an
REI conceptually emerges from the intersection of energy production, global warming, and
urban living, it suggests that energy solutions can originate outside of traditional disciplinary
boundaries and speaks to the validity of cross-disciplinary, research-led design. We believe the
innovative value of our REI proposal lies in the bringing together of multiple renewable energy
technologies on a single urban site in a deliberate, hybridized, and technologically unbiased
way. While the REI is looking to establish credibility through generating quantifiable electrical
yields at industrial scales, it also addresses other multiple aspects of our nation’s energy
problem (the political, economic, carbon emissions, and technical) while having some collateral
benefit to non-energy areas (in commerce, design, and engineering). We recognize the overall
electrical generation for REI v1.0 seems to be limited at 1.309 MW, the REI has (0) Carbon
emissions. Upon the passing of carbon tax legislation, an REI begins to become cost-effective
as coal-fired and natural gas electrical plants begin to have significantly higher operational
costs.
This project is well-positioned to address attributes of our nation’s energy problem such as our
demonstrated dependency upon importing energy from foreign nations and alleviate some of
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
15
the political and economic pressure associated with a dependency upon this supply line.
Without the natural resources to satisfy our own national demand, embracing renewable energy
would help us transform our energy market from its current fossil-based forms to domestic
wind, solar and geothermal resources that can already be found in abundance stateside.
In hindsight we may recognize 2011 as a turning point in electrical generation policy. For
instance, a number of auto manufacturers such as Chevrolet and Nissan are debuting allelectric vehicles (such as the Volt and Leaf respectively), which in turn, will subvert the
prevailing model of petroleum-fuel automobiles. If and when all-electric vehicles are embraced
in the automotive market, then electrical companies will need to re-assess generation strategies
to meet the demand of today’s plug-in society.
The execution of an REI would be transformational in its ability to combine, in a deliberate and
intentional way, multiple renewable energy technologies in the same physical location and
without proprietary technological exclusion. This would effectively diverge from the current
trend of proprietary system design by companies that exclude other renewable energy types
due to the specificity of their business model / expertise. Furthermore, an REI would be a
friendly counterpoint to research efforts in “SmartGrid” transmission technologies by simply
collapsing the distance between where electrical energy is produced and where it is consumed.
Infrastructure cannot be fully realized in ideological form alone. If we are truly interested in
affecting either incremental improvements to existing infrastructures, or the prognostication of a
fundamentally new infrastructure type, then we must proceed with a heightened seriousness in
our design intelligence, a dire sense of urgency in the timeliness that we work, and focused
clarity upon the effect that we want to induce, just as the technological innovators Brunelleschi,
Wright, and Saarinen have done before us.
Acknowledgements
It is particularly challenging for an architectural educator to compete for research dollars in the
open field of infrastructure research and design. This is largely due to award judges from nondesign backgrounds to categorically group designers with visual artists, thereby choosing to
focus upon our creative thinking skills at the consequence of our analytical skills. To combat
this, one can first establish credibility for their investigation by targeting awards through entities
familiar with the comprehensive design intelligence with which designers operate. One might
compete for internal College funding opportunities, submit for either the Research for Practice
or Upjohn Research Initiative opportunities sponsored by the AIA, or submit for grants offered
by any private foundation with an established design patronage such as the Van Alen Institute.
For proposals authored by designers, by first submitting grant proposals to any of these
entities, we can circumvent any disciplinary or institutional bias that might otherwise be in play,
and upon selection, can quickly establish credibility. In turn, the first award will then secure the
full attention of other grant programs to which designers submit proposals.
It is to this end that I would like to call special attention to the AIA Upjohn Research Initiative
program – It is the most atypical compared to other grant programs, in that members of the AIA
act as judges for the dissemination of this fund. While this gives certain design research
initiatives a great boost of credibility on a national scale, it also insures that the larger interests
of the architectural discipline will continue to be served. Without this Upjohn opportunity,
architectural educators would otherwise need to seek funded research dollars in nonarchitectural venues where the conception of the investigation is likely compromised by the high
level of specificity in another discipline. My personal hope is that, in these challenging financial
times, the endowment which supports the AIA Upjohn Research Initiative will remain intact and
will enable future AIA award juries to continue to invest in provocative and relevant proposals.
This REI scope of research / design work has been executed by a team within the College of
Architecture at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. Team members include Justin Brouillette,
Chris Ford, Krissy Harbert, Ryan Henrickson and Jon Miller. This project was originally funded
by the 2008-2010 Steward Professorship in Sustainable Design award and has since been
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
16
awarded additional funding with a 2009 AIA Upjohn Research Initiative grant and a 2009
energy research grant from the Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research. These funds
are used to develop the REI design with the research assistants above and with external
partners who are disciplinary experts in their respective fields. These external partners include
Mr. Thomas J. Davlin, Manager, Projects Engineering for Lincoln Electric System (LES),
Lincoln NE; Mr. John R Larson, P.E., Manager of the Renewable Power Program, HDR
Engineering, Minneapolis MN; and Mr. Frank L. Thompson, Manager for Renewable Energy
Development, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Columbus NE.
While other simultaneous grants had restrictions regarding travel, it was extremely helpful to be
able to use these AIA Upjohn funds for strategic travel related to both REI research and
dissemination. The AIA Upjohn grant has specifically funded travel to Minneapolis MN, Tucson
/ Phoenix AZ, La Coruna Spain and Sydney AUS. For research purposes, I met with Mr. John
Larsen and several of his HDR colleagues in Minneapolis MN. This was a very helpful meeting
with one of our nation’s leading engineering consultants for industrial-scale windfarms. While I
learned about aspects of electrical generation, transmission and distribution to a finer degree of
detail, we also reviewed the preliminary REI design in which feedback has been incorporated
into this Final Report. For the preliminary dissemination of this investigation, I have attended
two international conferences in which I have found kindred spirits with equal enthusiasm for
infrastructure, and I have made other valuable contacts for further discourse, exchange and
project dissemination. These funds have enabled me to purchase a laptop, assisted the
building of a reference library on the subjects of Energy, Infrastructure Design, and Building
Technology and they have enabled me to invite infrastructural scholars to the University of
Nebraska for joint research / teaching benefit. Specific guests to my SPR 2011 Hybridized
Urban Infrastructure studio include Linda Samuels, Katrina Stoll, Ted Shelton and Mason
White. AIA Upjohn funds remaining after May 01 2011 shall be used towards the creation of an
REI brochure for mailing, and will fund future exchanges regarding infrastructure and its
opportunity in various academic and professional circles.
This REI project has also yielded one research poster, has been separately exhibited in three
different venues, and has received one design award.
Figure 21: Partial team photo with a preliminary REI design at 2009 Monsters of Design Awards reception / exhibit,
sponsored by AIA Kansas City Young Architects Forum, Oct 2009. (Left to Right) Ryan Henrickson, Chris Ford, &
Krissy Harbert.
Contact
Chris Ford
College of Architecture, University of Nebraska
241 Architecture Hall West
Lincoln NE 68588-0107
cford4@unl.edu & 402.472.9239
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
17
REI GRANTS & FELLOWSHIPS
REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures, Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research,
Energy Research Grants – Cycle 4: $25,000, January 2010
REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures, 2009 AIA Upjohn Research Initiative: $15,000,
October 2009
REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures, UNL College of Architecture Steward
Professorship in Sustainable Design: $20,000, Oct 2008 – Oct 2010
REI PAPERS
“REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures v1.0,” Proceedings of ConnectED 2010:
International Conference on Design Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney
Australia, June 2010
“REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures v1.0,” Proceedings from ECO-Architecture 2010:
Third International Conference, Wessex Institute of Technology, La Coruña Spain, April 2010
REI POSTERS
“REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures,” Proceedings of RE-Building: 2010 ACSA Annual
Meeting
New Orleans LA, March 2010
REI ARTICLES
Mortice, Zach. “Upjohn Research Initiative: Renewable Energy Generation on an Industrial
Scale.” Architect’s Knowledge Resource, Practicing Architecture. American Institute of
Architects website.
http://www.aia.org/practicing/akr/AIAB081969
Paul, Steve. “Local Designs land Monster Awards,” Kansas City Star. 10 October 2009.
REI EXHIBITS
REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures, WPA 2.0, cityLAB UCLA, 19 April 2010 – present,
http://wpa2.aud.ucla.edu/info/index.php?/thegallery/exhibition-of-select-design-proposa/
REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures, 2010 University of Nebraska Research Fair, 07
April 2010
REIs: Renewable Energy Infrastructures, 2009 Monsters of Design, Foundation Architectural
Reclamation, 1221 Union Ave, Kansas City MO, 06 Oct 2009 - 09 Oct 2009
REI AWARDS
2009 Monster of Design Award, Architecture Group Project, AIA Kansas City Young
Architects Forum, October 2009
AIA Upjohn Research Initiative Grant – Final Report (May 01 2011)
Chris Ford: Renewable Energy Infrastructures
18