RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES
List of written evidence
Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Institute of Physics
David Milborrow - independent consultant
Fuel Cells UK
University of Liverpool
20C
One NorthEast
Marine Institute for Innovation
Supergen Energy Storage Consortium
Alan Shaw - Retired Chartered Engineer
Professor Stephen Salter - University of Edinburgh
EDF Energy
Rolls Royce Fuel Systems
The Royal Society of Edinburgh
Advantage West Midlands
South West RDA
East of England Development Agency
RWE npower
E.ON UK
Renewable Energy Association
Association of Electricity Producers
Institution of Mechanical Engineers
British Geological Survey
London Climate Change Agency and the London Development Agency
Swanbarton Limited
Yorkshire Forward
Shanks Waste Management Limited
Energy Saving Trust
Energy Networks Association
Environmental Services Association
Greenpeace UK
National Farmers' Union of England and Wales
Centre for Management Under Regulation - Warwick Business School
Environment Agency
East Midlands Development Agency
Bristol Spaceplanes Limited
Royal Society of Chemistry
Durham University
1
7
14
26
33
39
42
49
52
57
61
66
74
85
88
94
97
106
129
138
142
146
152
160
166
170
172
176
178
180
186
189
193
199
203
215
223
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Research Councils UK
Institution of Engineering & Technology
Sustainable Development Commission
Royal Academy of Engineering
UK Energy Research Centre
British Wind Energy Association
Ofgem
Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Dept of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Professor Ian Fells
240
281
289
295
304
315
322
324
332
350
Memorandum 1
Submission from the Institute of Physics (IoP)
The challenge for renewables
The Institute supports R&D into new renewable energy technologies. As well as being low
carbon energy sources, renewables have a number of other advantages. They can enhance
diversity in energy supply markets, secure long-term sustainable energy supplies, reduce
dependency on imported energy supplies, and reduce emissions of local air pollutants. Their
stand-alone nature also makes them particularly suited for use in remote locations with
relatively low demand, which are isolated from national networks. Hence, renewables are an
essential part of the future energy mix, but there is a need for increased research and
innovation in the relevant R&D sectors in order for the UK to be in a position to respond to
the challenges of the medium to long-term future.
The Institute noted that the recent Energy White Paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge, reemphasised the government’s aspiration to see renewables grow as a proportion of the UK’s
electricity supplies to 10% by 2010, with an aspiration for this level to double by 2020. These
targets represent a significant challenge given that, in the UK, only around 4% of electricity was
being generated from renewables in 2006.
The Institute is of the view that the current target of 10% itself is somewhat unrealistic, as
renewables presently suffer from various barriers to exploitation. However, analyses carried
out to support the 2003 Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon
economy, suggested that about a third of electricity might be supplied by renewables by 2040
although this could be substantially higher if some of the other options for low carbon energy
supply were not adopted. For example, renewables might be required to supply up to two
thirds of electricity demand if no new nuclear plants were built and carbon capture and
storage for fossil fuel fired plant were not implemented. The modelling work suggested that
wind, in particular offshore wind, and biomass would account for a significant proportion of
renewable energy generation. In addition, technologies with a higher cost but sizable
potential resource, such as photovoltaics, could also contribute significantly if other lowcarbon options are not available in the future.
Renewable energy-generation technologies
In October 2005, the Institute published its report, The Role of Physics in Renewable Energy
RD&D1, which was prepared by Future Energy Solutions, AEA Technology Environment. The
report set out the challenges facing renewable-energy technologies, the important role of
research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in meeting this challenge, and areas
where physicists contribute to this RD&D.
Section 3 of the enclosed report (pages 6-20), highlights in detail the progress made in a
number of key technologies, including photovoltaics; marine energy; fuel cells; hydrogen
infrastructure; electricity transmission and distribution; energy storage; and mature
technologies. The report provides a robust review of these technologies, citing case studies
from UK university departments, and offering commentary on the barriers to progression
towards RD&D. Furthermore, the report emphasises the technologies that are likely to be
deployed in the UK, or where there may be significant export opportunities for the UK.
1
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_4145.pdf
1
According to the report, the two key areas where the UK has an opportunity to take a
research lead on are:
•
•
the new generation of photovoltaic energy technologies, although this would require a
strong RD&D effort; and
wave and tidal energy, where there are a number of universities with significant
research capability.
Ensuring that these RD&D strengths are developed could bring substantial benefits to the
UK, both in terms of enabling deployment of these technologies, with subsequent
environmental benefits in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and in terms of
financial benefits from export earnings as technologies are deployed globally. This will
require support of RD&D and the availability of suitably qualified personnel to work in these
areas.
Photovoltaics
The Institute’s report revealed that the most obvious area where physicists are contributing to
RD&D is in photovoltaics, where they are carrying out much of the fundamental research
required to develop novel types of cell that may result in step changes in the cost of
photovoltaic generation. Photovoltaics can readily be adapted to suit the diffuse light
conditions found in northern climes as evidenced by their widespread use in Germany. There
is a strong research effort in the UK but to benefit fully from this vitally important technology,
investment in the underpinning science needs to improve considerably.
Currently, over 95% of photovoltaic modules are made of silicon in all its forms, of which
about 5% is non-crystalline silicon (such as amorphous silicon). They convert sunlight into
electricity with an efficiency ranging between 13 to 17%.The maximum potential efficiency is
only about 25% because only the light with the right energy to generate the charge carriers
(the bandgap) is absorbed.
The vast majority of solar cells on the market today are so-called ‘first-generation’ cells made
from monocrystalline silicon. However, they are expensive to produce because of the high
costs of purifying, crystallizing and sawing electronic-grade crystalline silicon, which is rather
fragile and in shortage.
Furthermore, a POSTnote entitled Carbon footprint of electricity generation2 reported that,
“The silicon required for photovoltaic modules is extracted from quartz sand at high
temperatures, which is the most energy intensive phase of module production, accounting for
60% of the total energy requirement. However, future reductions in the carbon footprint of
photovoltaic cells are expected to be achieved in thin film technologies which use thinner
layers of silicon, and with the development new semi-conducting materials (organic cells and
nano-rods) which are less energy intensive.”
As detailed in the Institute’s report, most physicists are now working on ‘second-generation’
solar cells, which are near market, with the aim of reducing high costs by using thin films of
silicon and other semiconductors, such as amorphous silicon, gallium arsenide, copper
indium diselenide and cadmium telluride, which are mounted on glass substrates. For the
future, physicists are also working on ‘third-generation’ cells, such as dye-sensitised
photochemical, and quantum/nanotechnology solar cells, which, if practicable, would yield
extremely high efficiencies and be as cheap as thin-film devices.
2
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf
2
However, the article, ‘Bright outlook for solar cells’, published in the July 2007 issue of the
Institute’s membership magazine Physics World3, whilst commenting on how future research
efforts could transform solar cells from niche products to devices that provide a significant
fraction of the world’s energy, offers some caution by reporting that building cheap and
efficient cheap photovoltaic cells does not guarantee that solar power will become a major
part of the world's energy mix. Even if these devices can be converted into high-performance
commercial products there still remains the problem of actually building and installing the
enormous number of panels that would be required. Mankind currently consumes energy at a
rate of 13 terawatts, and many experts predict that population growth and economic
expansion will increase this figure to around 45 terawatts by 2050. Generating 20 terawatts
of that with panels that are 10% efficient would, according to the 2005 report, Basic
Research Needs for Solar Energy Utilization4, sponsored by the US Department of Energy,
mean installing such panels over 0.16% of the Earth's land surface. Given that only a fraction
of this will be met by installing panels on people's houses, vast ‘farms’ will have to be built in
areas with significant amounts of sunshine. Attempting to build such farms in Western
countries could, ironically, be opposed on environmental grounds.
Furthermore, the article reports that another hurdle is the infrastructure needed to deliver the
solar electricity to where it is needed (when the cells are built in farms). Perhaps the biggest
challenge, however, is how to store solar electricity, given that the Sun does not shine all the
time. Solar energy could be used to pump water up hill when that energy is not needed and
the gravitational potential then discharged when the energy is required (technology that is
already used to allow nuclear power stations to respond to peak demand). It is also possible
that developments in batteries or flywheels might help solve this problem, while solar
electricity could be used to split water and produce hydrogen. However, the infrastructure
needed to pump the hydrogen to where it is needed would be extremely expensive.
Barriers to the deployment of renewables
Realising the large potential benefits that renewables and other advanced technologies, such
as fuel cells, could make to a low carbon economy requires a number of technical, economic,
institutional and social constraints to be overcome. The current Energy White Paper
recognises the key challenges that renewables have to overcome, namely grid integration,
gaining planning consent, scarcity of suitable sites, and limits of support available from the
Renewables Obligation.
Other barriers to the deployment of renewables, as highlighted in the Institute’s report,
include:
Maturity
The maturity of renewables varies considerably. While a number are commercially proven,
others are still at a pre-commercial stage, and some still require quite fundamental R&D.
Cost
In the UK, at current gas prices and under current market structures, without subsidy mature
technologies are not yet competitive with existing gas fired Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
plant, although in the medium term (2020) some technologies (e.g. onshore and offshore
wind) could be. Technologies such as photovoltaics are unlikely to be cost-competitive with
centralised generation unless a step change in cost-effectiveness is achieved by the new
types of photovoltaic cells currently under development. They may, however, become
3
4
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/
http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/abstracts.html#SEU
3
competitive in remote off-grid locations, where the cost of other stand-alone systems, such
as diesel generators, is high. It is also worth noting that as governments seek to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, the emissions will acquire an economic ‘cost’.
Intermittency
Many of the technologies, for example, wind power (which is particularly unpredictable), are
intermittent and thus require energy storage or backup generating capacity to be available on
the electricity network.
Distributed nature
Renewable energy plant are currently generally small in scale – from a few kilowatts for
individual photovoltaic installations to tens of megawatts for biomass plant – compared to
conventional power stations (typically a gigawatt or so). The small scale has advantages for
use in some situations, for example, for stand-alone applications, but in a country like the UK
where the transmission grid is designed for distribution of power from a small number of
large power stations the incorporation of small, distributed sources raises some technical
issues. The bulk of renewable energy resources may also occur in locations which are
remote from regions with large energy consumptions (e.g. remote parts of Scotland), and
where grid infrastructure to transport the power is limited or else does not exist.
Social and institutional constraints
Issues which may hamper development include public acceptability, planning constraints and
institutional barriers, for example, lack of clarity over planning consents, permitting of plants,
skills issues, and investment regimes. While most renewables are environmentally benign in
that emissions of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with them are typically
very low (even after allowing for their manufacture), they do have a number of other local
environmental impacts.
The Severn barrage plan is a good example of the real social, environmental and political
problems in adopting many renewable technologies. The plan to build a tidal barrage across
the Severn estuary to produce renewable energy, according to the National Assembly for
Wales, is potentially the largest single renewable energy source in the UK, which could meet
about 6% of the present electricity consumption of the UK. However, the plan has received
much opposition from environmental pressure groups that claim the barrage could cause
irreversible damage to local wildlife5.
Funding of renewable energy-generation technologies
A significant problem facing renewables and other low carbon generating technologies is that
following the liberalisation of the UK energy market, the current price of electricity is so low
that it is not economically viable to develop and introduce new generating technologies to the
market, unless they can be developed at a low cost and can provide electricity predictably at
competitive wholesale prices.
The solution to date has been to subsidise RD&D; renewables have benefited from UK
government support for RD&D and the support must continue to stimulate investment for
pilot and full-scale prototypes/demonstrators of technologies that are sufficiently mature for
near-term deployment. Research into technologies for mid-term deployment and ‘blue sky’
development is best undertaken within the universities, encouraged and supported by current
funding mechanisms operating within a strategic framework that takes due account of
national priorities and policies.
5
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4898514.stm
4
Investment is also required in the development of whole-lifecycle financial models, including
full acquisition, operating, distribution, disposal/recycling and environmental costs, for all of
the technologies under consideration. Models are also required to predict how significant
power levels generated from renewables might change the characteristics of the
transmission network planning and operation.
The Institute’s report revealed that renewables RD&D in the UK is funded through a
number of routes, the main ones supported by the government and the public sector,
together with EU funding. In addition, there is industry funded RD&D, and commercial
deployment of renewables in the UK is supported by the Renewables Obligation. The
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee suggested in their report, The
practicalities of developing renewable energy6, that the level of funding for RD&D is
not sufficient if the UK is to meet its renewable energy targets. While UK expenditure
has increased in recent years (from $36m in 2004 to $66m per annum in 2005), it is still
lower than in some other leading European countries, such as Germany ($123m per
annum in 2005), according to data from the International Energy Agency7; US
expenditure on renewables RD&D, on average, is about $250m per annum.
A DTI/Carbon Trust review8 found that there appears to be a funding gap in moving
renewables to the pre-commercial stage, and from the pre-commercial to the supported
commercial stage. They also considered that the current landscape for renewables funding is
complex, which suggests that a clearer overall strategy for UK RD&D in both renewables and
other new energy technologies, together with a clearer map of RD&D funding and clearer
demarcation of the roles of different funding bodies could be useful. This could be a key
activity for the UK Energy Research Centre to undertake.
Renewables seem to have developed a ‘low cost’ view of their implementation, which will not
drive the actual costs of developing energy sources on the scale needed. There is no clear
route to provide a large percentage of the UK’s energy needs by this method. Photovoltaics,
for instance, are certainly more appropriate for local power supplies and the concept of using
them for large central ‘power stations’ is difficult to support.
Supporting the RD&D base
The Institute’s report noted that studies which examined the renewables supply chain have
reported that several technology and project developers have found a lack of necessary skills
in the UK – both general technical skills and also more specialist skills9, 10 which developers
have remedied either through in-house training or by recruiting internationally.
Hence, encouraging physicists, and indeed other scientists and engineers, to consider a
career in renewable energy could help to plug the skills gap. One option would be to raise
awareness of and interest in the physics element in the development of these technologies.
This could be achieved by promoting the inclusion of examples of ‘the physics’ of renewable
energy sources and fuel cells in teaching on undergraduate physics courses, or even on Alevel physics and other A-level science courses. Another option would be to raise awareness
6
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldsctech/126/12602.htm
http://www.iea.org/
8
Renewables Innovation Review, DTI/Carbon Trust, 2004
9
Mott MacDonald 2004 “Renewable energy supply chain analysis”, DTI
10
ICCEPT & E4Tech Consulting 2004 “The UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies”.
A report for the DTI
7
5
of opportunities for physicists in these areas in careers advice material for physicists, at both
graduate and postgraduate level, and in advice provided for mid-career changes.
There is also concern regarding the shortage of opportunities at postgraduate level for
physicists wishing to specialise in these areas. There are a few MSc courses in renewableenergy technologies and fuel cells, but these are, by their very nature, multidisciplinary, and
obtaining funding or training bursaries for such courses can be difficult. There are also few
PhD research opportunities, again partly due to the difficulty of obtaining funding for
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research topics. A more flexible approach from funding
bodies may be required.
July 2007
6
Memorandum 2
Submission from David Milborrow, independent consultant
Background and synopsis
1. The author has been studying renewable energy issues for 30 years and has been an
independent consultant for the past 15 years, working on technical and economic issues
for clients in both public and private sector, at home and abroad. Particular specialities
are wind energy and the integration of variable sources, such as wind, into electricity
networks. I have no permanent affiliations, but act as technical adviser to the British Wind
Energy Association and to the Journal Windpower Monthly. The submission is, however,
my own.
2. This submission is mainly concerned with addressing the Committee’s request for
information on “feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints”. As there is a
very wide range of views on wind costs (onshore and offshore) at present, it examines
these and compares UK costs with those recorded in Europe and America. It also
comments on reliability and availability statistics and looks at projections for future costs.
A summary of work on “carbon footprints” - for wind, PV, hydro and nuclear – is also
included.
Wind Energy: history and key issues
3. World wind energy capacity has doubled every three years since 1990 and there is now
(mid-2007) about 80 GW installed, worldwide. Until around 2001, each doubling was
accompanied by a 10-15% reduction in the price of wind turbines. The price of windgenerated electricity fell more rapidly, as there were also improvements in energy
productivity. The continuous decline in prices halted around 2001, partly due to
substantial increases in commodity prices, partly to a shortage of wind turbines.
4. To estimate wind-generated electricity prices, it is necessary to examine the prices of
wind turbines and of wind farms, the energy productivity, operation and maintenance
costs and financing assumptions. Energy production depends on the site wind speed and
has a crucial effect on energy prices. Each of these factors is examined in turn.
Onshore: wind turbine and wind farm prices
5. The most reliable current figures for wind turbines come from two of the major European
wind turbine manufacturers, who quote almost identical average sales prices of £614/kW
for 2006. This is close to the figure (£594/kW) quoted in a recent American analysis
(Wiser and Bolinger, 2007).
6. The total installed cost of a wind farm includes "Balance of plant" costs, such as the cost
of foundations, transport and internal electrical connections. These add between 15 and
30% to the cost of the wind turbines, and there are wide variations that depend on the
difficulties of construction and the size of the project. In addition, the cost of the grid
connection can often add a substantial sum to the project cost. A Carbon Trust (2006)
report suggests these additional costs add up to about £260/kW. Adding 10% to this
figure (to account for recent price increases) and then adding it to the 2006 wind turbine
price quoted in the previous paragraph suggests wind farm costs may be around
£900/kW. This is consistent with one of the supporting documents to the 2007 Energy
White Paper. (Redpoint, 2007)
7. The author maintains a database of wind turbine projects, worldwide, that forms the basis
of an analysis of electricity generation costs, published each year in the Journal "Wind
7
Power Monthly". In 2004 the average onshore project cost was £667/kW, in 2005 it was
£816/kW, and in 2006 it was very similar. The average price for 1650 MW of plant
completed so far in 2007 is £880/kW, close to the figure suggested in the previous
paragraph, although the average price of 700 MW of UK projects is a fraction under
£1000/kW (Power UK, 2007). As with wind turbine prices, there is some uncertainty, as
completed contract prices often include the cost of the first three to five years of operation
and maintenance.
8. American wind farm costs appear to be lower than European costs. The average
installed cost in 2006 was around £760/kW, although the American report notes that
proposed projects now average around £850/kW.
Operational costs:
10. Operational costs have also fallen steadily over the years, partly due to increases of
turbine size, partly due to experience. A detailed breakdown of UK costs comes from the
Scottish Energy Environment Foundation (SEEF) (2005). The data are summarised in
table 1 and add up to £50/kW/yr. Transmission charges, however, vary across the
country and are often not included in generation costs for other technologies, although
they are, of course, a real charge to the operator. If they are taken out of the SEEF total
and the land rent is converted to a £/kW figure, the total is around £30/kW/yr. That
agrees reasonably well with data from Ofgem (2005) - £28/kW/yr. It should be noted that
projects in the South of England incur significantly lower transmission charges.
Table 1. Onshore wind operation and maintenance costs.
All figures are in £/kW/yr, except where noted.
Item
Cost, £/kW/yr
Routine maintenance
7.5
Unscheduled maintenance 2
Electricity charges
0.6
Management fees
5
Transmission charges
25
Insurance
4
Non turbine expenses
0.5
Rates
5.6
TOTAL
50.2
Land rent, % revenue
5
11. The American analysis cited earlier suggests operation and maintenance costs are in a
range up to about £10/MWh. That also corresponds to about £28/kW/yr, but the average
American figure is lower.
Electricity generation potential
12. The usual measure of electricity generation is the "capacity factor". This is simply the
ratio of the average power during a year and the rated, or nameplate, capacity of the
wind farm. Capacity factors of UK wind farms vary between 0.15 and 0.50. The average
is about 0.30, and most wind farms have capacity factors between 0.24 and 0.36
(Milborrow, 2005), although these will vary from year to year, as the energy content of the
wind varies.
8
Generation costs
13. Two further parameters need to be established before generation costs can be derived:
the project test discount rate and the capital recovery period. Although the analysis in the
2007 Energy White Paper uses a discount rate of 10%, that, in the context of renewable
energy, reflects policy risks associated with the Renewables Obligation. As onshore wind
is now an established technology the “technology risk” is low and the Carbon Trust
(2006) suggested 7.75% as an appropriate discount rate. The UK Energy Research
Centre (2007) recently discussed the important distinction between policy risks and
technology risks. 20 years is an appropriate project lifetime for “generic” generation cost
calculations, but costs have also been calculated for a 15-year life, as this length of
contract is quite common in the UK and elsewhere.
14. Broadly speaking, wind farms with the highest capital costs are likely to be in remote
areas – but with high wind speeds. This is logical. If the lowest-cost plant is linked with
low output, and vice versa, the range of generation costs for UK conditions ranges from
£45.5/MWh to £58.3/MWh, as shown in table 2. Generation
Table 2. Estimates of current onshore generation costs for the UK, excluding
transmission.
Installed cost, £/kW Capacity factor Generation cost,
£/MWh, 20-year life
Generation cost,
£/MWh, 15-year life
900
1000
1100
£65.0
£56.4
£51.0
24
30
36
58.3
50.4
45.5
15. Transmission costs can add up to around £6/MWh to these figures, but vary across the
country, and also depend on whether plant is connected to the transmission or
distribution network.
16. The central estimate of £56/MWh for a 15-year contract is consistent with a “value
analysis” quoted by the Carbon Trust (2006). They suggest that suppliers pass 70% of
the value of Renewables Obligation Certificates (currently about £45/MWh), plus 80% of
electricity prices (currently about £30/MWh) to developers.
17. The prices derived in table 2 can be compared with the prices paid for wind energy
around the world. Wiser and Bolinger (2007) suggest that, in the absence of the
American “Production Tax Credit”, wind power prices for 2006 projects would range from
approximately £25/MWh to £43/MWh. Other tariffs pay high prices for a few years, and
then the price drops (Milborrow, 2007); making allowances for this, average tariffs vary
between about £40/MWh (Ireland) to £56/MWh (Spain), although it must be emphasised
that tariffs are adjusted frequently.
18. Other costs: when an electricity network is operated with wind, extra balancing costs are
incurred, to deal with the additional uncertainty in forecasting the supply/demand
balance. Numerous studies have shown that these additional costs are small – around
£2/MWh of wind, when it contributes 10% of the electricity supply. As the wind energy
proportion increases, additional costs are incurred for additional backup and for extra
transmission costs. To deal with these issues, an estimate of the “total extra costs” for
the GB network in 2020 with 20% wind, was derived, compared with an all-gas system
(Dale et al, 2004). The estimate of additional costs -- £3/MWh across all consumers –
applied to a particular set of assumptions about gas price and the installed costs of
onshore and offshore wind in 2020. Since that time the estimate of gas prices has
virtually doubled and wind plant costs have also increased. These changes tend to
cancel each other out. If the analysis is re-worked with a gas price of 40p/therm, a carbon
price of €15/tCO2 and an onshore wind installed cost of £750/kW; the final answer is very
similar.
9
Offshore generation costs
19. Although there is some over uncertainty over offshore costs, responses to a recent
consultation (DTI, 2006) suggested that the current range of installed costs is around
£1300-1500/kW. The upper end of this range is used to derive current generation costs in
Table 3, below, which also includes estimates for 2020, discussed in paragraph 25.
Table 3. Estimates of offshore generation costs
Item
Installed cost
Value, 2007
£1500/kW
Source
DTI (2006)
Value, 2020
£1200/kW
O&M
Capacity factor
Discount rate
£15/MWh
0.35
12%
DTI (2006)
DTI (2006)
DTI (2006)
£10/MWh
0.35
8%
Generation cost
£84.5
Derived
£51.5/MWh
Source
ODE (2007) – 75% of
£1600
Danish Energy Authority
Assumes no technology
risk
Derived
20. European tariffs: Germany and Greece both pay around £60/MWh for offshore wind and
France pays around £88/MWh - but only for the first 10 years. After that, the payment
depends on the capacity factor of the installation.
Reliability
21. Onshore: Analysis of data from German wind farms and wind turbines shows that the
availability of many types of machine is in the range 96-99%. Data from Germany and
from Denmark reveals that numerous machines that are at least 15 years old are still
achieving satisfactory levels of electricity production.
22. Offshore: Despite early problems, reports submitted to DTI showed that North Hoyle wind
farm achieved a capacity factor of 36% (budget 37%) between July 2004 and June 2005.
Scroby Sands achieved a capacity factor of 29% in 2005, a year when its availability was
84% against a target of 95%. If the latter figure had been achieved, it may be inferred
that the capacity factor might have been around 33%. The wind farm at Nysted in
Denmark, completed in 2003, has realised a capacity factor close to 40% over the last 2
years, which suggests that target electricity production estimates can be realised.
Future cost trends
23. As noted earlier, the steady downward trend in wind energy costs halted around 2001/2.
There were two contributory factors: increases in steel, copper and other commodity
prices and a worldwide shortage of wind turbines. Although wind turbine prices may be
starting to level out, steel prices are still rising. There is a reasonable consensus,
however, that improved production techniques, the use of larger machines and other
factors will continue to exert a downward pressure on prices. The extent of this
downward pressure depends on perceptions of market growth and the “learning curve”
effect (usually expressed as the price reduction per doubling of capacity)
24. There are numerous projections of market growth. A review by Molly (2006) suggested
the “mid range” growth was two doublings of capacity by 2014. Historically, installed
costs have fallen by 10-15% per doubling of capacity (Uyterlinde et al, 2007), which
suggests they may fall by 20%, at least, by 2014. If an onshore installed cost of £800/kW
10
is realised in the UK by 2014 (roughly equal to the 2006 American average) that would
suggest generation costs might be about £42/MWh, even if operation and maintenance
costs barely changed.
25. There is a wide range of cost estimates for offshore wind in 2020 in the literature.
Installed cost estimates range from around £1000/kW (Uyterlinde et al, 2007) to
£1500/kW (Ernst and Young, 2007). However, there is more potential for cost reduction,
particularly with the moves toward much larger wind farms. A recent analysis of costs by
ODE (2007) suggested that installed costs offshore in 2020 may be about 75-80% of the
2006 level, which is put at £1600/kW. That may be a cautious estimate, as the study did
not look at very large wind farms, and is used in Table 3. If the offshore market is thriving
by 2020, with 2000 MW per year being installed in Germany alone (Molly, 2006), it is
likely that the “technology risk” premium will disappear, so generation costs could fall to
around £52/MWh, as shown in Table 3. If offshore wind does not “take off” prices will be
higher.
Carbon dioxide emissions in g/kWh
26. The working definition of Carbon footprints, or life-cycle emissions, used here is:
“Emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants resulting from the construction,
operation and decommissioning of wind plant (or solar, or hydro..), per unit of electricity
generated by the facility during its lifetime.”
27. Construction phase energy requirements for wind turbines lie between 611 and 1800
kWh/kW (references are in Table 4, below), whilst a much more limited dataset for
lifetime energy requirements suggest these lie between 2400 kWh/kW (for sub-megawatt
machines) and 1437 kWh/kW for a 3 MW machine (Vestas, 2005)
28. The emissions corresponding to lifetime energy usage depend on the type of energy
used in the manufacturing, installation, operation and decommissioning phases. A wind
turbine manufacturer in France, where the majority of the electricity production is from
nuclear sources, can reasonably claim that the emissions associated with the electricity
used are quite low, whereas a manufacturer in America -- where much of the electricity
comes from fossil fuels -- may use higher estimates.
29. There is a measure of agreement between most of the estimates listed in table 4. Almost
all suggest that wind plant emit between 7 and 20 gCO2 unit of electricity generated. Data
from the Vestas (2005) study has not been included, because Vestas source a high
proportion of their electricity from renewable sources and so bring their figure down to 4.6
gCO2/kWh. This figure is perfectly valid, but probably not comparable with most of the
other data. If Vestas wind turbines were manufactured using electricity from a typical mix
of European sources (coal, gas and nuclear) the emissions would be about 15
gCO2/kWh. Offshore emissions are similar to onshore wind emissions -- more carbon
dioxide is generated during manufacture and installation, but this is offset by higher
energy productivity.
30. Table 4 shows that wind, hydro and nuclear have low carbon footprints, while PV figures
are higher. Gas and coal generate significantly more emissions due, of course, to the
combustion of fossil fuels. Gas typically generates about 350-400gCO2 /kWh and coal
around 850-1000g CO2 /kWh
Table 2. Carbon dioxide emissions from renewable and thermal sources of electricity
generation
Reference
Wiese, A, Kaltschmitt, M, 1996. Comparison of wind energy
technology with other electricity generation systems: a life
cycle analysis. EU Wind Energy Conference, Goteborg
White, S and Kulcinski, G, 1998. Net energy payback and CO2
11
Wind
10-17
9-20
PV
Hydro Nuclear
17
emissions from wind-generated electricity in the Mid-West.
University of Wisconsin
International Energy Agency, 1998. Benign Energy? The
environmental implications of renewables. OECD, Paris
The environmental implications of renewables in the UK,
AEAT-2945, 1998
Serchuck, A, 2000. The environmental imperative for
renewable energy. Renewable Energy Policy Project
International Energy Agency, 2003. Integrating energy
and Environmental goals: Investment needs and
Technology options.
Danish Energy Agency, 2004. Technology data for electricity
and heat generating plants
7-9
98-167
9
9
154-178
5
7-74
60-410
7
5
16
146
39
10
8
31. References
Carbon Trust, 2006. Policy frameworks for renewables.
Dale, L, Milborrow, D Slark, R and Strbac, G, 2004. Total cost estimates for large-scale wind
scenarios in UK. Energy Policy, 32, 1949-56
DTI, 2006. Regulation of offshore electricity transmission. Government response to the joint
consultation by DTI/Ofgem
Ernst and Young, 2007. Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – costs of electricity
production.
Milborrow, D, 2005. UK capacity factor analysis corrects controversial figures. Windstats, 18,
4, 1-3
Miborrow, D., 2007. “Back to being a model of stability”. Windpower Monthly, January
Molly, J, 2006. Wind energy market prognosis, 2010, 2014 and 2030. Dewi Magazin, 29
(August)
ODE (Offshore Design Engineering Ltd), 2007. Study of the Costs of Offshore Wind
Generation. Report to the Renewables Advisory Board and DTI.
Ofgem, 2005. Assessment of the benefits from large-scale deployment of certain renewable
technologies. Report by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates Ltd and Climate Change
Capital.
Oxera, 2004. Results of renewables market modelling. Report for the DTI.
Power UK, 2007 (May). Power station tracker
Redpoint Energy, 2007. Dynamics of GB Electricity Generation Investment.
Scottish Energy Environment Foundation, 2005. Impact of
Renewable Electricity Generation. Report to the DTI
Transmission Charging on
UK Energy Research Centre, 2007. Investment in Electricity Generation: the role of costs,
incentives and risks. Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology.
12
Uyterlinde, M A, Junginger, M, J. de Vries, H, Faaij, A and Turkenburg, W C, 2007.
Implications of technological learning on the prospects for renewable energy technologies in
Europe. Energy Policy, 35, 8, 4072-4087
Vestas, 2005. Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind power plants based
on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines.
Wiser, R and Bolinger, M, 2007. Report on US wind power installation, cost, and
performance trends: 2006. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
June 2007.
13
Memorandum 3
Submission from Fuel Cells UK
1. Executive Summary
Fuel Cells are an exciting emerging energy technology characterised by strong UK
capability, wide-ranging and substantive market opportunities and the potential to
deliver against a range of policy goals:
•
Fuel cells have the potential to revolutionise the energy landscape, bringing
high efficiency, low carbon solutions for transport, large-commercial scale
power, residential, portable and premium power applications.
•
Over 20,000 fuel cells have been installed worldwide. The pace of installation
is accelerating rapidly as the technology approaches commercialisation.
Companies active in the sector are predicting timescales in the near term (less
than five years) for profitability.
•
The potential for carbon savings in the UK by 2020 from fuel cells are in the
region of 0.87-1.74 million tonnes.
•
The global market in fuel cells is expected to be worth over $25 billion (~£13
billion) by 2011.
•
Over 100 UK companies contribute to the global fuel cell industry and over 35
research UK organisations are highly active in fuel cell and hydrogen
research.
•
Between 2003 and 2006, 11 fuel cell companies listed on AIM. The market
capital of these 11 companies was £600 million. This compares to only one
listing on the NASDAQ in the same period, which had a market capital of £20
million, highlighting the attractiveness of the UK financial market.
•
UK research is credible and well respected and has strong global links, in
Europe with Germany and Italy for example, the USA, Canada, Japan and
China.
•
The growing interest in fuel cells in the UK was highlighted in 2005 by the
establishment of Fuel Cells UK, the UK’s only free-standing trade association
for the sector. The willingness of players in the sector to come together is
seen as indicative of the industry’s ‘coming of age’.
2. Introduction
2.1. About Fuel Cells UK
14
This document has been prepared by Fuel Cells UK. The Association was established
in 2005 at the request of the growing number of fuel cell companies and supply chain
related industries in the UK. Fuel Cells UK represents the leading UK fuel cell
companies, as well as organisations from the academic community and other
stakeholders. A full list of members is available on our website: www.fuelcellsuk.org.
Fuel Cells UK acts on behalf of UK fuel cell stakeholders to accelerate the development and
commercialisation of fuel cells in the UK. It provides a respected and authoritative point of
contact and a clear, informed and up-to-date view on research, development and
demonstration priorities for Government, other funding agencies and opinion formers.
2.2. About fuel cells
A fuel cell is a device that directly converts the chemical energy of a fuel into
electrical energy in a constant temperature process. In some ways analogous to a
battery, it possesses the advantage of being constantly recharged with fresh
reactant. Unlike batteries, fuel cell reactants are stored outside the cell. They are fed
to the cell only when power generation is required. Therefore, a fuel cell does not
consume materials that form an integral part of, or are stored within, its own
structure.
There are a number of different types of fuel cells, with the various technologies
being suited to different types and scales of applications (see Section 4.1).
Some of the advantages of fuel cells are:
•
high efficiency;
•
high energy density;
•
low noise levels;
•
low maintenance; and
•
low to zero emissions.
Furthermore, fuel cells are a technology that can:
•
contribute substantially to a global low carbon economy;
•
improve urban air quality and the health of urban populations;
•
form the basis of a 21st Century industrial sector that allows sustainable
growth of the world economy;
•
enhance energy security by allowing a wider choice of fuels;
•
contribute to the alleviation of fuel poverty through superior efficiency relative
to conventional technologies (particularly in CHP mode); and
•
provide essential intermediate and final components of any future hydrogen
economy.
3. Current state of the UK fuel cell technologies
Over 100 UK companies contribute to the global fuel cell industry and over 35
research UK organisations are highly active in fuel cell and hydrogen research.
15
A number of UK companies are already or have the potential in the short term to
become world leaders in their areas. Some were spin-outs from UK universities;
examples include Ceres Power, Intelligent Energy and ITM Power.
16
3.1. Industrial capability
The breadth of the UK fuel cell industry’s expertise can be illustrated by the number
of companies active across the various parts of the supply chain – see Figure 1.
(Detailed companies’ capabilities by sector can be made available on request.)
Figure 1. Number of UK companies active across different parts of the fuel cell supply chain in 2005 (1) (Note:
AFC: Alkaline fuel cells; DMFC:Direct Methanol Fuel Cells; MCFC: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells; SOFC; Solid
Oxide Fuel Cells; PEMFC: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells.)
2.2 Academic capability
The UK academic base exhibits a high degree of collaboration, and there are strong
links with Germany, the USA, Canada, Japan and China. Academic institutions work
closely with industry.
Issues currently being researched include transient behaviour, longevity and cost,
membrane types, systems performance, degradation of electrodes, levels and types
of catalyst coatings, microbial fuel cell systems and process modelling of biomassderived fuels for fuel cell systems. There is also research into fuel cell policy and
strategy, including issues such as public acceptance. Longer term research into fuel
flexibility and optimization of the technology is also being carried out, albeit to a
lesser degree. In 2003, UK academics published over 100 papers directly related to
fuel cells and hydrogen. Figure 2 gives an indication of the levels of interest in
specific areas.
17
Figure 2. Number of UK research organisations active across different parts of the fuel cell supply chain in 2005
(1).
2.3. Areas of strength and deployment
An analysis of the UK’s position in the global fuel cell landscape reveals the following
opportunities:
Figure 3. UK fuel cell capability in the global fuel cell landscape. (1)
The top right quadrant of Figure 3 shows areas where the UK has established
strengths and where there are likely to be substantial global opportunities. The top
left quadrant shows areas where the UK has strengths in more targeted markets.
These markets could, in themselves, be quite significant in global terms.
Areas of key strength and substantial opportunity include large SOFC systems (for
stationary power), PEMFC components (primarily for automotive applications),
18
reformer systems and components and fuel delivery and storage systems. Areas
where niche markets could be successfully exploited include SOFC components and
small stationary power systems, early / niche markets for PEMFC systems (e.g.
back-up power) and balance of plant components.
By playing strategically to these strengths, the UK has the opportunity to develop a
stronger, larger, and more credible footprint in fuel cell technology. The key challenge
is to ensure that appropriate support mechanisms are maintained to keep options
open and allow this nascent industry to flourish and realise its potential for the benefit
of the UK economy.
Fuel cell and hydrogen businesses already support over 800 jobs in the UK. A recent
report for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Carbon Trust (3) estimated
the worldwide market potential for fuel cells to be over $25 billion by 2011, with
significant growth thereafter as commercialisation progresses.
The UK Government is starting to recognise the great capabilities and potential of the
UK fuel cell sector. At the end of 2006, the DTI opened the first call of its first fuel cell
demonstration programme (2) which will run over 4 years, with a total of £15 million
Government funding. The industry has welcomed this as a first step in helping to
bridge the “Valley of death” en route to commercialisation. The next five years will be
crucial in determining long term outcomes. Other countries are already seeing the
benefits of substantial demonstration programmes developed within an appropriate
policy framework (see Section 5).
4. Feasibility, costs, timescales and carbon footprint
4.1. Feasibility
The range of applications in which fuel cells can operate and the size of the
associated markets are very large. These are often grouped into 3 sectors: portable,
mobile and stationary applications.
4.1.1. Mobile (=transport) markets
These comprise:
•
Propulsion systems for cars, trucks, buses & bikes;
•
Marine and aviation power purposes;
•
Specialist vehicles; and
•
Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) for ‘on-board’ power to cover idling power and
‘hotelling’ loads for trucks, buses and other transport applications.
The major auto makers have been investing significantly in fuel cell vehicle
development. Fleet vehicle demonstrations have already commenced in North
America, Japan & Europe. Commercialisation of fuel cells in transport applications is
expected to begin around 2010 and grow rapidly thereafter. UK companies active in
this area include Johnson Matthey, a leading supplier of materials and components
on a global basis, and Intelligent Energy, which is taking forward development a fuel
19
cell powered motorbike in collaboration with Suzuki, and an APU for an aircraft in
collaboration with Boeing.
4.1.2. Stationary markets
These comprise:
•
Commercial and residential distributed generation (DG) and combined heat and
power (CHP) systems;
•
Remote power generators for non-grid connected sites; and
•
Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and back-up power.
The UK has a number of players active in stationary markets, which is an area of
particular strength from a systems perspective (see Figure 3 above). Examples
include Ceres Power, Ceramic Fuel Cells and Baxi, all of whom are targeting the
residential and small scale market, Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems, which is
developing products for large scale applications, and Fuel Cell Control, which has
developed technology to power telephone repeater stations in remote locations.
4.1.3. Portable markets
These comprise
•
Battery replacement in portable electronics (e.g. laptops, mobile phone);
•
Battery re-charging devices in the field or at base sites;
•
Replacement of portable generators.
By way of example, CMR Fuel Cells is developing fuel cell stacks for use in
applications such as battery chargers, auxiliary power units, laptops, power tools,
robotic devices, portable generators, and portable military applications.
4.2. Costs and timescales
A key outstanding barrier to fuel cells is cost. However, the support which the
technology is receiving from both the Financial Markets, eg City of London and
Governments across the world illustrates the confidence which exists in the potential
for costs to fall dramatically.
A number of generic cost curves have been published for fuel cells. Figures 4 and 5
show examples. It can be seen that both governments and industry expect cost
reductions on the scale of orders of magnitude over the next few years.
Government support will be critical to ensure progress along these pathways and to
allow fuel cells to deliver against a range of policy objectives (see section 5).
Figure 4 also shows the likely trend in commercialisation by application, with fuel
cells in stationary and portable devices expected to precede the wide-spread
introduction of fuel cell powered vehicles.
20
Figure 4. Fuel cells system cost over time for various applications. Source: Plug Power Inc.,
presentation at SalomonSmithBarney conference, 2002.
Figure 5. Cost reduction of PEM fuel cells over time, platinum related. Source: U.S. DOE.
4.3 Carbon footprint
There is clear consensus that the widespread introduction of fuel cells for distributed
generation and transport has huge potential for reducing CO2 emissions and
improving quality of life. In effect, fuel cells are much more efficient than conventional
energy technologies, therefore using less fuel.
Fuel cells reduce CO2 emissions to zero at point of use when operated on hydrogen.
Since they are by far the most efficient conversion device for transport applications
(2-3 times better than an internal combustion engine) their use also minimises any
21
CO2 emitted during production of the hydrogen. Using today’s technology, a fuel cell
car running on compressed hydrogen from natural gas will produce half the
Greenhouse gases of a gasoline car on a well-to-wheels analysis (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Fuel cells produce between 0 and 85g of CO2/km (approximately), compared to a gasoline internal
combustion engine, which produces approximately 170g of CO2/km (4). (Projected figures for 2010.). * Lowest
fuel cell CO2 emissions are for hydrogen produced from renewable sources, highest fuel cell CO2 emissions are
for hydrogen produced from fossil fuels.
Fuel Cells in stationary applications also deliver significant CO2 savings due to their
extremely high efficiencies. Larger scale power only generation SOFC hybrid fuel
cells are being developed targeting efficiencies of over 50%, with some developers
predicting efficiencies of up to 70% in later generations. As micro-CHP devices, fuel
cells can use existing gas supplies and replace conventional boilers to provide heat
and power as needed, with an overall energy efficiency of 80-90%.
In addition, fuel cells offer an excellent contribution to the reliability of energy supplies, as they can
be run on a wide and growing range of fuels, including bio-fuels, and in conjunction with other energy
sources – gas and coal turbine generation, wind and photovoltaics – to provide overall improved
efficiencies, reliable and secure supplies. They will also support the development of distributed power
generation.
5. The UK Government’s role
At this critical stage, Government support for fuel cells can make a material
difference with a relatively modest outlay. Against the background of the City’s
current enthusiasm and support, Government intervention will play an important role
in retaining and growing this nascent industry and its supply chain.
The UK is lagging behind other countries (see Figure 7) when it comes to public
support. More funding is required to help accelerate this important industry, bring
forward policy benefits, and enable the UK to compete globally.
22
Figure 7. The public support for fuel cells in the UK is considerably less than in other countries (1 and 5).
By taking a leading position on fuel cell development and deployment, the UK will
encourage investment in its indigenous nascent industry and stimulate the early flow
of inward investment. Longer-term commitment and support for fuel cells will
enhance the attractions of investment by companies in the UK. [
To meet the UK’s economic and environmental goals, the development of fuel cells
needs focused, ongoing support and forward commitment:
5.1. Focused support for development
We believe that there is a need for focused support (e.g. in the form of grants) for
development of near-commercial fuel cells (including materials and components).
This could play an important role in helping to bridge the gap between research and
demonstration, and facilitate longer-term cost reduction through product and process
optimisation.
5.2. Ongoing support for demonstration activity
We would like to see the Fuel cell and Hydrogen Demonstration Programme (2)
extended beyond its current 4 year life time, with resources to enable demonstration
in a wide range of applications and locations (e.g. schools, public buildings, social
housing).
5.3. Forward Commitment to Buy
Forward commitments to purchase products that are not currently commercially
available, against a defined performance specification, provide the market with the
certainty necessary to justify intensive product development effort and “underwrite”
significant financial risk. By focusing on technologies which deliver CO2 benefits and
improve energy security, such mechanisms can align with and help to deliver wider
Government objectives.
We strongly recommend the introduction of forward commitments to buy fuel cells.
5.4. Capital Grants
23
We recommend that the Government commits to the extension of capital grants to
this technology. The level of grant available for a particular technology, whether it be
fuel cells or various types of renewables, should reflect the potential contribution of
that technology to CO2 reduction to meet policy goals. This will help to ensure that
technologies which offer considerable energy and carbon saving potential, but are
currently at a higher cost than other technologies, receive the support that they
deserve.
5.5. Export Reward for fuel cells
It is currently very difficult for domestic customers to obtain reward for exported
power. We believe that two options exist to address this:
• for energy suppliers to offer and publish terms for purchasing exported power from
domestic consumers,
•
for microgeneration output to be “deemed” at a fixed annual level of kWh
according to type approved product and installation standards for each
technology, and for this to be subtracted from a customer’s actual gross
consumption.
In addition, we would like to see utilities encouraged to buy back surplus electrical
power at a fair price, with Government agreeing to “top-up” this amount to provide an
added economic incentive for users to purchase fuel cell appliances. This approach
has proved successful in Germany, which has had a CHP funding regulation in
placed since 2000.
5.6. Mandating the use of fuel cells through regulation
We encourage the Government, over time, to introduce legislative requirements to
purchase fuel cells, as a means of delivering energy policy objectives. A precedent
has already been set for this with the requirement for all domestic boiler
replacements to be condensing boilers. An alternative to this approach could take the
form of a specification that a certain level of fuel cell capability should be installed in
new buildings.
24
6. References
(1) Synnogy, 2005. UK Fuel Cell Development and Deployment Road Map (Funded by the DTI)
(2) DTI Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Carbon Abatement Technologies Demonstration Programme.
http://www.hfccat-demo.org/
(3) E4Tech, 2003. Review of Fuel Cell Commercial Potential for DTI and The Carbon Trust.
(4) Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context
Well-to-Wheels Report, version 2b, May 2006.
(5) Synnogy’s own study.
(6) Fuel Cell Technology and Market Potential 2006,
http://researchandmarkets.com/reports/c/60a02a/0336/
(7) Synnogy. 2003. A Fuel Cell Vision for the UK (Funded by the DTI)
July 2007
25
Memorandum 4
Submission from the University of Liverpool
Executive Summary: This submission aims to bring back to full attention the substantial potential role
of tidal barrage solutions for renewable energy generation in the UK. It is demonstrated here that
installations on as few as 8 major estuaries should be capable of meeting 10-12% of present electricity
demand (possibly over 15% with a more ambitious scheme on the Severn) this employing fully proven
technology. This far exceeds the potential of tidal ‘stream’ turbine or practicable ‘lagoon’ systems
much vaunted by funding agencies over recent times. It also brings attention to an ongoing study
investigating the tidal power potential in the North West of England.
Tapping the UK Tidal Power Potential
1. The medium to long-term procurement of energy and the related issue of climate change is set to
remain at the top of government and public agendas, both nationally and internationally, for some time
to come. No clear vision has yet emerged for a sustainable global energy future and the combination
of rapid growth in both economies and populations in the developing world are set to place extreme
pressure on fossil fuel reserves. It seems inevitable, therefore, that as the 21st century evolves, ever
greater utilisation of renewable energy resources must be made if the means for modern living are to
be preserved. From the perspective of the global community, it is argued that it will ultimately become
an obligation for all societies to properly and fully exploit the natural energy resources at their disposal
for the common good.
2. The geographical location of the United Kingdom and the seas that surround it provide
internationally enviable renewable resources. Technologies for wind power extraction are now mature
and an increasing role for the opportunistic capture of this intermittent energy source for the electricity
grid is firmly established. Marine wave energy offers even greater scope for the future with a
somewhat lower degree of unpredictability but with necessary technological advances still outstanding
at present. Even more exclusive, however, is the potential for tidal energy extraction from around the
UK coastline. The most attractive locations for harnessing tidal power are estuaries with a high tidal
range for barrages and other areas with large tidal currents (e.g. straits and headlands) for freestanding tidal stream turbines. Pertinent here is the fact that tidal barrage solutions, drawing on
established low-head hydropower technology, are fully proven. The La Rance scheme in France is
now in its 39th year of operation (Cottillon, 1978; Pierre, 1993).
3. Of about 500-1000TWh/year of energy potentially available worldwide (Baker 1991), Hammons
(1993) estimated the UK to hold 50TWh/year, representing 48% of the European resource, and few
sites worldwide are as close to electricity users and the transmission grid as those in the UK.
Following from a series of government funded studies commissioned by UKAEA in the 1980s, Rufford
(1986) identified 16 UK estuaries where tidal barrages would be capable of procuring 44TWh/year and
Baker (1986) identified further sites suitable for small-scale installations. In fact the bulk of this energy
yield would accrue from 8 major estuaries, in rank order of scale, the Severn, Solway Firth,
Morecambe Bay, Wash, Humber, Thames, Mersey and Dee (see also Baker, 1991).
4. In the context of the future UK energy mix, it is worth noting that the earlier estimates of UK tidal
barrage potential amounted to approximately 20% of UK electricity need in the late 1980s and today
could offer in the region of 15% (DTI, 2005), with the added benefit (over wind and wave based
renewables) of predictable availability. In addition to barrage solutions to tidal energy capture, there is
also more modest scope for tidal-stream energy generation using submerged rotors, either free
standing or as part of a ‘tidal fence’, these extracting from the kinetic energy of the tidal flows. With
attention inevitably to be placed upon reduced energy consumption and demand management, a
future tidal power contribution at 20%+ of UK electricity demand would appear realistic.
5. Although all tidal energy generation is intermittent locally, covering about 10-11 hours per day,
normally in two pulses synchronised with the approximately 12½ hour tidal cycle, tidal phase lag
around the coastline provides an opportunity for the grid input window to be extended to closer to 24
hours. With its complete predictability, and operating in a mix with thermal, hydropower and nuclear
production as well as thermal renewables, an effective base-load role should be attainable.
26
6. The case for a tidal barrage in the Severn estuary, with the highest tidal range in Europe, has and is
being actively promoted by the Severn Tidal Power Group with increasing influential support. This
scheme alone, (the smaller ‘inner’ of two earlier options [Baker, 1991]), would be capable of meeting
about 5-6% of current UK electricity need (Watson & Shaw, 2007).
7. The estuaries of the North West of England offer fully complementary potential to the Severn by
virtue of the tidal phase lag, as will be illustrated below. The Dee, Mersey, Ribble and Wyre estuaries,
Morecambe Bay and the Solway Firth all have a macro-tidal range. Based on the earlier studies
(Baker, 1991) a total installed capacity of 12GW was estimated (Ribble excluded), with a potential
energy yield of at least 17.5TWh/year, approximately 6% of UK national need and by inference a
sizeable proportion of the North West’s electricity demand. Of all potential UK sites, the Mersey with a
very narrow mouth, and therefore needing a relatively short barrage length (MBC 1992), could offer
power production at the lowest unit cost of all UK sites (Baker 1991).
8. In this region of the Eastern Irish Sea, exploitable tidal stream resources have also been identified
to the north of Anglesey and to the north of the Isle of Man, with more localised resources in the
approaches to Morecambe Bay and the Solway Firth (DTI, 2004). In the estuarial situation, however, it
is unlikely that tidal stream options can come close to the energy yield of barrage alternatives. Recent
assessments for the Mersey (www.merseytidalpower.co.uk) offer estimates of 40-100 GWh for tidal
stream arrays, contrasting with 1200 GWh estimated for a barrage, at an equivalent location. In a
similar vein, whilst tidal lagoons are often mooted as a viable alternative to estuary barrages, offering
a similar operational function, it is highly unlikely that they could be realised at a comparable scale and
remain competitive on cost against the major barrage schemes cited above.
9. It should be noted that a barrage solution attempts merely to delay the natural motion of the tidal
flux as sea level changes: holding back the release of water as tide level subsides under ‘ebb
generation’ so that ‘head’ (water level) difference is sufficient for turbine operation; deferring the entry
of rising tidal flow into the inner estuary basin for ‘flood generation’; or ’dual mode’, a combination of
both. Each mode has some restricting effect, so reducing the range of tidal variation within the basin,
ebb generation solutions generally uplifting mean water levels, ‘flood’ reducing mean levels and dual
mode resulting in little change. A degree of environmental modification is, therefore, inevitable, but this
does not necessarily imply serious degradation from a physical or ecological perspective, though
issues related to protection of habitats would inevitably need to be confronted.
10. Barrage schemes are unique amongst power installations, being inherently multi-functional
infrastructure, offering flood protection, road and rail crossings and significant amenity/leisure
opportunities, amongst other features. Thus, a fully holistic treatment of overall cost-benefit is
imperative for robust decision-making. It is suggested that, to date, this position has been
inadequately addressed in the formulation of energy strategy, especially in respect of barrages’
potential strategic roles in flood defence and transportation planning. It follows, therefore, that apart
from the direct appraisal of energy capture, other complementary investigations must be sufficiently
advanced to enable proper input in decision-making in respect of these ‘secondary’ functions, as well
as the various adverse issues, such as sediment regime change, impact on navigation and
environmental modification.
11. It is important that robust estimates of the realisable UK tidal energy reserves be established so
that they can properly be assimilated into future energy planning (accepting the 10-15 year time
horizons necessary). Thereby, rational implementation might be initiated as and when concerns over
energy price, security, or carbon emissions dictate. Furthermore, it is considered paramount that this
energy potential be fully appreciated when planning application is received for alternative schemes,
which might compromise maximum exploitation of the renewable resource. Such instances might
arise, for example, should a tidal stream array or tidal fence installation be promoted where the
barrage option remains viable and for which a substantially increased energy capture might be
expected.
12. Following this line of argument, there now remains a need to re-appraise the earlier study
estimates of potential barrage energy yield and to further this detailed technical scrutiny with
assessment of the various operational mode options (ebb, flood or dual) and in conjunctive action, to
27
firmly establish the scope for an extended (near 24 hour) generation window and a potential base-load
role within the electricity grid.
13. This submission offers some new insight in this respect, and aims also to bring attention to an
ongoing study ‘Tapping the tidal power potential of the Eastern Irish Sea’ being conducted jointly by
the University of Liverpool and Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory. Project aims are summarised in
the Appendix.
14. At this early phase of the project, it is possible to offer only preliminary findings on the potential for
large scale energy procurement from estuary barrages. This draws on energy generation routines
developed for the project (figure 1) and applied to the base data on the estuary bathymetries, barrage
lines and tidal regimes taken from the 1980s’ literature (later phases will use more precise and
updated inputs).
Figure 1 Screen image showing: top – turbine performance characteristics; middle – tidal (green) and
basin (blue) level variations; and bottom – power outputs. [Unattributed example for illustration only]
15. Figure 2, over the page, illustrates potential outcomes from the introduction of the 8 major barrage
schemes considered earlier (Baker, 1991). These show the combined power outputs, from the
favoured ebb-generation using double regulated axial flow turbines (after Baker, 1991), at each of the
barrages. It is immediately apparent that they form essentially two distinct ‘co-phase’ focused groups,
the Severn/Wash/Humber and the Solway/Morecambe/Mersey/Dee, with the Thames lying
somewhere in between.
16. As far as possible an attempt has been made to consider equivalent barrage power schemes to
those adopted in the earlier studies (ie similar number and size of turbines and sluices and generator
capacities), though limitations in detail available in the literature led to the need for assumptions and
28
compromises, the technical details of which are not given here, but which will be fully explained in
future publications.
17. The operation strategy depicted in figure 2 is that configured to provide the widest generation
window on each barrage. The simulation has been undertaken for 28 tides representing a springneap-spring series, shown in part (a), whilst (b) and (c) show the power produced over two-day
periods from the neap and spring phases respectively.
18. Observations arising and implications:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The North West group of estuary barrages would operate in a complementary fashion to the
Severn (and ‘phase-aligned’ Wash and Humber). It should be noted that only approximate
estimates of tidal phase have been used herein, based mostly on records from nearest ports
and so slight adjustments to the synchronisation might be expected from a more refined
analysis.
By judicious use of pumping to enhance water capture around high tide (essentially short-term
‘pumped storage’) and optimal conjunctive operation of the individual schemes, it would seem
possible that the power dip between the Severn group outputs and the following NW Group
peaks might be smoothed out.
It appears less likely that such action could eliminate the major daily trough, during which only
the Thames makes a significant contribution. Other potential estuary barrage or ‘lagoon’
locations, for example around the East coast of Scotland, may be worthy of future
consideration, or else different modes of operation may need consideration. ‘Flood generation’
or ‘dual-mode’ operation, whilst generally less efficient in energy conversion than ‘ebb
generation’, may provide the added flexibility necessary to provide a significant 24-hr
(continuous) output to the grid. The ongoing ‘Tapping the tidal power potential of the Eastern
Irish Sea’ study should go some way towards appraisal of these possibilities.
Whilst, therefore, the ability to offer a balanced daily supply remains unproven at this point, it
is clear that substantial contributions to daily electricity demands could be made. From this
preliminary analysis, it appears that for much of the day, tidal power contributions of close to
6GW could be provided during ‘springs’, falling to around 2GW during ‘neaps’. These figures
should be set against typical power demands in summer ranging, approximately, from 2540GW and in winter from 30-50GW.
The annual energy output from this ‘maximum generation window’ operation simulation is 29.4
TWh, an alternative ‘maximum power’ operation yields 36.1 TWh, these figures representing
about 10% and 12 % of UK annual demand, respectively. The more ambitious outer Severn
option (Baker, 1991) would be required to lift output above 15%.
The practicability of rapid introduction of such large power inputs to the grid will need careful
attention, though this has recently been broached by the proponents of the Severn barrage
(Watson & Shaw, 2007)
It is clear that a phased introduction of the schemes in pairs could enable an incremental
increase in capacity whilst preserving a reasonable power balance across the generation
window, ie pairing the Severn and Solway, Morecambe Bay and Wash, and Humber with
Mersey/Dee.
Whilst it is appreciated that the economics are likely to play a major part in any progression of
these major tidal power proposals, it is reassuring to note that the unit cost estimates made in
the 1980s varied by little more than a factor of 2, with the Severn and Mersey lowest and the
Thames highest (Baker, 1991).
29
Figure 2 Summative Plots of Power Outputs from Multiple Tidal Barrages (provisional)
a) 28 tide spring-neap-spring series
b) 2-day segment from ‘neaps’
c) 2-day segment from ‘springs’
30
References
Baker AC, 1986 The development of functions relating cost and performance of tidal power schemes
and their application to small-scale sites, in Tidal Power, Thomas Telford, London.
Baker AC, 1991, Tidal Power, Energy Policy, 19(8), 792-797.
Cottillon J, 1978 La Rance tidal power station–review and comments. Proc Colston Symp on Tidal
Energy, Bristol, Scientechnia, 46-66.
DTI, 2004 Atlas of Marine Renewable Energy Resources: Technical Report. Report no. R1106, ABP
Marine Environmental Research Ltd.
Hammons JH, 1993 Tidal Power, Proc IEEE, 81(3), 419-433.
Mersey Barrage Company, 1992 Tidal power from the River Mersey: A feasibility study Stage III,
MBC, 401
Pierre J, 1993 Tidal energy: promising projects - La Rance – a successful industrial scale experiment,
Proc IEEE Trans Energy Conversion, 8(3), 552-558.
Rufford N, 1986 Tidal power still in the running, New Civil Engineer, 22 May 1986, 12.
Shaw, TL, 1980 An environmental appraisal of tidal power stations: with particular reference to the
Severn barrage. Shaw (ed.), London: Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, 220pp.
Watson MJ & Shaw TL, 2007 Energy generation from a Severn barrage prior to full commissioning,
Proc ICE Engineering Sustainability, 160, March, ES1, 35-39.
Appendix: ‘Tapping the Tidal Power Potential of the Eastern Irish Sea’
An ongoing research project is being conducted, over the period October 2006 - September 2008,
jointly by the University of Liverpool and Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory for the Joule Centre,
under financial support from the North West Development Agency.
Project Aims: to establish a generic regional modelling approach to study the interaction between the
practicable exploitation of tidal energy and potential hydrological, morphological and environmental
impacts in the Eastern Irish Sea. Its principal study objectives, each with distinctive deliverable
outcomes, are:
1. To evaluate the realisable tidal energy potential of the coasts of the North West of England,
stretching from the Dee estuary to the Solway, with regard to the installation of estuary
barrages, tidal fence structures or tidal stream rotor arrays, or combinations thereof.
2. To establish the potential daily generation window from optimal conjunctive operation of such
devices, taking account of the different possible modes of operation (ebb, flood or dual phase
generation) in the case of barrages.
3. To evaluate any impact on the overall tidal dynamics of the Irish Sea as a consequence of this
energy extraction and the associated modifications by time lag in estuary momentum
exchange.
4. Arising from (3), to assess the implications, if any, of biophysical coupling in the marine
ecosystem, manifesting water quality or ecological consequences.
5. To ascertain the scale of flood protection benefit likely to accrue from proactive operation of
barrages, fully accounting for the worsening effects of sea level rise (SLR) and change in
catchment rainfall regimes as a consequence of climate change, so affecting fluvial flood
magnitudes and frequencies.
The study outcomes will place on a firm footing the potential of the North West to achieve
contributions (in terms of generating capacity, daily generation window and predictability) towards
renewable energy targets by exploitation of its substantial tidal resources.
_________________________________________________________________________________
__________
The Maritime Engineering and Water Systems Research Group at the University of Liverpool has for
many years been involved in national and international research projects on studying coastal
hydrodynamics and morphodynamics with use of large-scale laboratory facilities and advanced
process-based numerical models.
31
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory has world-class expertise and is internationally known for
research on tides, coastal oceanography and numerical modelling. It hosts the British Oceanographic
Data Centre (BODC) and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL).
July 2007
32
Memorandum 5
Submission from 2OC
1 Executive summary:
1.1
2OC is a Geo-pressure company, making use of the natural pressure within gas
pipelines to drive turbines to produce carbon free electricity. Geo-pressure,
sometimes known as ‘sub-surface’ pressure, is a naturally occurring, regenerating
force, responsible (in part or whole) for such widespread phenomena ranging from
artesian wells and hot springs, to earthquakes and volcanoes.
Geo-pressure drives natural gas around our pipeline network. Before it can be
delivered into our homes and offices, the pressure has to be reduced. 2OC taps into
this release of excess pressure to drive turbines, which produce clean electricity.
1.2
In December 2006, OFGEM approved Geo-pressure for inclusion in the Renewables
Obligation Order. This enabled 2OC to go ahead and sign an agreement with
National Grid to begin work on a £50-60m pilot project installing turbines on two sites
in London. (See attached Document 1 page 8/9 Press Release from 2OC and
National Grid)
There is potential to install up to 2,000 turbines on existing brownfield sites in the UK,
producing up to 1,000 MW (1GW) of local distributed power – the equivalent to a
nuclear power station.
1.3
2OC’s plans to roll this technology out across the UK have recently been put in doubt
following the DTI’s consultation document on the future of Renewable Obligation
Certificates (ROCS) which states:
“The Government views the eligibility of electricity generated from
geopressure where it occurs in conjunction with fossil fuel (e.g. natural gas) as
an anomaly in the legislation and wishes to exclude geopressure associated
with fossil fuels from the RO on the grounds it is not a renewable source of
electricity. Geopressure not associated with fossil fuels will continue to be
eligible.” (Renewable Energy – Reform of the Renewables Obligation. DTI May
2007 Para 3.10 and Q5: p. 20)
The DTI then asks: “Do you agree with the proposal that Geopressure
occurring in conjunction with fossil fuel should be excluded from the RO?”
2OC would like to ask the Committee to consider including support for Geopressure, even where it arises in conjunction with fossil fuels, in your final
report, because it can make an immediate contribution to reducing UK carbon
dioxide emissions.
33
2 Submission author Andrew Mercer, CEO 2OC
Mercer is an entrepreneur who runs a successful business leadership company
called Footdown. He is passionate about the need to tackle man-made climate
change and is keen to do all he can to reduce UK carbon emissions. He is currently
going ahead with plans to demolish his existing home on the outskirts of Bath and
build what will be one of the country’s first purpose built carbon- neutral houses. He
recently set up ‘Entrepreneurs with conscience ’a not for profit organisation trying to
encourage the UK’s most senior business leaders to adopt sustainable practice. It is
supported by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Climate Group.
It was through his mentoring business connections that Mercer first became aware of
technology being manufactured and sold by Cryostar in Switzerland. Essentially, this
was a turbine fitted within a gas pipeline which could be used to generate electricity.
The turbine was driven by the natural Geo-pressure within the pipeline. Mercer
thought it was an idea that would work well in the UK given our existing gas pipeline
network.
Mercer realised that Geo-pressure energy, could not compete with the cheapest
forms of electricity generation like gas or coal-fired and turned to the government to
see what support was available for this fledgling low-carbon business. It was not
forthcoming. Undeterred, Mercer pushed ahead with his plans and National Grid
expressed an interest in the technology.
In December 2006, OFGEM accepted 2OC’s arguments that their Geo-pressure
energy did qualify for price support under the Renewables Obligation Order (ROO)
and was able to access price support via the Renewable Obligation Certificate
(ROC).
For Mercer, this was the culmination of many years’ work and huge personal/financial
investment on his part and his private backers. It enabled him to set up a joint
venture with National Grid, who saw the technology as enabling them to generate all
their internal energy needs within a very few years. The two pilot projects in London
are now going ahead, as the Joint Venture spends an estimated £50-60m on
installing turbines.
However, the DTI is now querying OFGEM’s decision to grant ROO status to 2OC,
because of its connection to natural gas. It is asking for opinions on this by
September 6th 2007. Mercer is now embarking on a lobbying and PR campaign to
persuade the DTI that removing ROO from 2OC is wrong and goes against
everything the government says it is doing to encourage new forms of renewable
energy and technologies to help reduce the UK’s carbon emissions.
To find out more about Mercer, Footdown and 2OC please visit www.2OC.co.uk and
www.Footdown.com
3 Factual information:
34
Geo-pressure a renewable form of energy
3.1
In April 2006 the Renewables Obligation Order (ROO) came into force imposing an
obligation on all electricity suppliers in England and Wales to produce evidence that it
has supplied customers in Great Britain specified amounts of electricity generated by
using renewable sources. The ROO does not define renewable source nor does it set
out a list of those technologies which are capable of qualifying as a renewable
source. However, Section 32 of the Electricity Act defines renewable sources as:
“…sources of energy other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel… [including] waste of which
not more than a specified proportion is waste which is, or is derived from, fossil fuel.”
The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2004) defines “renewable energy” as:
“any energy source that is naturally occurring and that cannot in theory be exhausted
e.g. solar energy, tidal, wind or wave power, geothermal energy.”
The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines renewable as:
“a source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.”
3.2
In the legal submissions to OFGEM, 2OC argued that Geo-pressure occurs naturally
and cannot in theory be depleted by use. Since Geo-pressure is not a substance or
object, it cannot be regarded as waste.
In a report requested by the DTI and commissioned by 2OC, Dr Tony Batchelor of
GeoScience Ltd describes how Geo-pressure (or sub surface pressure) is a naturally
occurring and constantly regenerating force which begins hundreds, sometimes
thousands of metres below surface and is responsible (in part or whole) for such
diverse natural phenomena as artesian and hot water springs, geysers, volcanoes
and earthquakes. In simple terms, as long as planet Earth continues, so will Geopressure. (The nature and source of sub surface pressures. – Report by GeoScience
Ltd to 2OC. June 2007)
Geo-pressure: How will it help the UK to meet its targets to reduce CO2
emissions?
3.3
Geo-pressure could knock several percentage points off UK carbon emissions
by 2010. It is proven technology already in operation in Switzerland, Germany,
Holland and Italy. It is hugely efficient operating at around 85% efficiency. This
compares with efficiency rates of 45-55% for nuclear; about 30% for wind; around
20% solar.
The primary goal of the UK’s energy policy is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by
some 60% by the middle of this century, with real progress by 2020.
35
The 2OC National Grid joint venture could result in savings of 10MtC by 2020;
with an annual on-going reduction of 1MtC. 1MtC is the equivalent to the
amount of carbon emitted by the whole of the National Health Service. (Source:
Climate Change Programme Review Consultation document)
This is the equivalent of between 4 and 6.6% of the total UK reductions goal worth
between £350m and £1.4b in carbon credits.
(These carbon-saving calculations were undertaken by 2OC according to the
conversion factors and procedures set out by DEFRA and validated by environmental
consultants Enviros.)
Geo-pressure: How it works in generation
3.4
When gas emerges from the ground it does so thanks to Geo-pressure. This
pressure is very high and the gas could not be used safely by end users. At several
points in the system, the gas passes through ‘pressure let-down’ stations, at which
the pressure of the gas is reduced by squeezing it through a valve. Reducing the
pressure in this way releases energy.
No gas is burned or used up in the process. It is the natural Geo-pressure of
the gas which drives the turbine (which, incidentally, can be held in one hand)
to produce the power.
3.5
Electricity from Geo-pressure has the added advantage of generating power during
peak periods on the grid, daily as well as seasonal peaks. As gas demand increases,
so does Geo-pressure generation. Gas demand is closely linked to electricity
demand, so Geo-pressure generates electricity at the most useful time,
reducing the need for surplus capacity on the grid and of course, helping to
mitigate the negative aspects of burning gas.
3.6
Geo-pressure technology requires no extra land-take and has very limited
visual impact on what are already existing brownfield industrial sites. This
means there are likely to be few, if any planning problems. 2OC would simply
being adding a small turbine to plant already in situ.
There are over 2000 pressure-reduction sites in the UK that could host a Geopressure turbine, adding up to a total capacity of around 1000MW or 1GW. This is
equivalent to the output of an average nuclear power station.
2OC, in partnership with National Grid, is making plans to roll out Geo-pressure
technology across the gas network.
Geo-pressure: The costs of generating electricity
3.7
36
2OC estimates that the capital cost of generating capacity through geo-pressure is
around £1m per MW capacity, or £1,000 per KW capacity. By comparison, largescale wind energy costs between £600 to £1,500 per KW capacity. (Source: Wind
Power in the UK: A guide to the key issues surrounding onshore wind power
development in the UK, Sustainable Development Commission 2005) Add in that
Geo-pressure operates at around 85% capacity, much higher than the 27-28% for
wind and that it can generate power at peak periods as discussed in 3.5 above.
Geo-pressure: Recommendations for action
It is the hope of 2OC that this submission provides sufficient prima facie evidence to
the Select Committee that Geo-pressure technology as utilised by 2OC and National
Grid - offers a cost-effective way of achieving significant carbon savings – around
10% of the projected UK shortfall from the 2010 target.
2OC has always had faith in the technology. However, its full contribution will only be
realised if the take-up of the technology is helped by government recognition and
support through ROO.
OFGEM has accredited Geo-pressure within the current Renewables Obligation, as
has the DTI. However, the DTI consultation document on the reform of the
Renewables Obligation, outlined in 1.3 poses a very specific threat to our business
plan.
We fail to understand why the DTI, having accepted along with the Regulator that
Geo-pressure is renewable, now, only weeks later, seeks to exclude it, because we
make use of natural gas as the carrier? We must emphasise again that no gas is
used or burned in this process.
Natural gas will be a source of energy in this country for decades to come, – are we
really going to waste the Geo-pressure which delivers it? And the same technique
(tapping into excess Geo-pressure) can be used with imported gas arriving (under
huge pressure) by ship – Geo-pressure will continue long after the UK’s gas
reserves have been used up. Again, are we going to cast it aside because it is
somehow ‘tainted’ by a link to a fossil fuel?
2OC respectfully asks the Select Committee to consider responding to the DTI after
taking into account the evidence submitted above. The responses are being
managed by:
June 2007
Supplementary material
37
Document 1 (2OC and National Grid joint Press Release May 23rd 2007)
News Release
WEDNESDAY 23RD MAY 2007
GAS PRESSURE IN NATIONAL GRID’S PIPELINES TO BE USED TO GENERATE RENEWABLE ENERGY
•
•
•
National Grid and 2OC to use innovative geo-pressure technology to tackle climate change
Pilot schemes agreed that could generate over 45MW
Moves National Grid towards its target of sourcing all its internal electricity needs from renewable sources by 2010
National Grid and geo-pressure energy company 2OC have today announced an agreement
to form a joint venture that will use innovative technology to generate renewable electricity
from natural gas pressure in the pipe network.
The joint venture between National Grid and 2OC will build pilot projects to generate
electricity at two of National Grid’s gas pressure reduction stations, with the potential for work
to start on six further sites in spring 2008. Initial investment for the first eight sites would be
between £50 and £60 million, and the first two projects could potentially be at Beckton near
the proposed Olympic complex and at Fulham. Construction is expected to begin in the first
quarter of 2008 and the sites will be producing renewable power in early 2009. All eight
sites, once up and running, could provide National Grid with all its internal electricity needs.
National Grid Chief Executive, Steve Holliday, said, “It’s clear that for society to tackle
climate change – and for us as a company to reduce our carbon footprint – we need to start
thinking of new ways to meet our energy needs.
“As a company, we have already reduced our emissions by 35%, beating the Kyoto 2012
target of 12.5 per cent emissions reduction for the UK and we are on target to reduce
emissions from our operations and offices across the company by 60 per cent well before
2050. Today’s agreement with 2OC is a great step forward and will help us meet all our
internal energy needs from renewable sources by 2010.”
Natural gas is driven through the pipe network under pressure, which must be reduced by a
pressure reduction station before being safely delivered to homes and businesses. By
installing a turbine generation system at some of these stations, the energy created by
reducing the pressure can be harnessed and used to generate renewable electricity.
Andrew Mercer, Chief Executive of 2OC said, “With this agreement we hope to make a real
difference to the way the world thinks about exploiting the many sources of clean, renewable
energy that exist today. We are excited about working with National Grid to enable them to
meet their internal energy needs from renewable sources and reduce their carbon footprint.
Showing leadership in the fight against climate change and being passionate about finding
new sources of clean energy are core values of 2OC.”
It is expected that each of the pilot installations will generate between 5 and 13MW of
electricity and whilst the actual generation capacity will depend on the characteristics of the
site, a feasibility study has indicated that renewable energy could be generated at around
200 of National Grid’s sites.
John Sauven, Director of Greenpeace UK said, “If we are to solve the problem of climate
change we cannot afford to leave any stone unturned in the hunt for solutions. The work
done by 20C in developing geo-pressure shows the potential for finding clean, renewable
sources of energy and we’re delighted with National Grid’s commitment to this project.
Greenpeace believes that this renewable resource can become an important part of a new
energy system that will help tackle the problems of climate change and energy security."
-ENDS
38
Memorandum 6
Submission from One NorthEast
1.
Renewable Energy Technology is of considerable significance to the
economic development of North East England. The region has a number of
strengths in our businesses and universities that are particularly suited to
the development of renewable energy technology.
2.
Over recent years, these strengths have enabled the development of
innovative businesses in technologies as diverse as wind, wave and tidal
devices, biomass and biofuels, photovoltaics, fuel cells, geothermal
energy, the connection of renewable energy to grid networks,
microgeneration, the design and engineering of renewable energy systems
and the installation of renewable energy systems.
3.
Key to this growth, which is a major driver of the region’s current
economic success, is focussed Research and Development
4.
Two particular features of the region’s approach to Renewable Energy
Research and Development capacity are particularly important:
•
•
The region has developed new facilities and undertaken projects
which are particularly concerned with bridging the gap between
university laboratories and full market application, establishing a
range of facilities and capabilities which are leading in Europe;
The region has developed an approach to renewable energy research
and development that has successfully integrated universities,
development and testing facilities and businesses.
5.
The region’s approach is based on the recognition in recent years that
there have been a number of weaknesses in the UK’s infrastructure for
Research and Development, and diffusion and adoption of renewable
energy technology.
6.
The key weaknesses have been:
•
•
•
•
•
An absence of suitably scaled development, testing and prototyping
facilities, meaning that it was very difficult for new technologies to be
developed beyond the research stage;
An absence of engineering and application oriented capabilities
actively seeking to develop technologies from the research stage to a
stage whereby they could be adopted by businesses for application;
A continuing weakening of close to market product and technology
development infrastructure, such as performance verification testing;
Limited integration between research organisations, including
universities, technology based businesses, and businesses seeking to
apply new energy technologies;
An absence of reliable and independent technical, project, financial
and operational data among many organisation potentially seeking to
apply new renewable technologies;
39
7.
There are many strengths in early stage research for renewable energy
technology. Also, networks, for example those established by the Research
Councils, have largely overcome previous problems of fragmentation in
research capacity.
There is also a range of financial sources and
mechanisms to support research and development. However, due to the
weaknesses summarised in Paragraph 6 above, which are largely related
to capacity and facilities at the translational research and development
stage, technologies are not being introduced at a sufficient pace or scale
into the market.
8.
The region has addressed these weaknesses by the establishment of
NaREC (New and Renewable Energy Centre) and CPI (Centre for Process
Innovation). These are major new institutions with significant capabilities
and facilities.
9.
Facilities developed by NaREC include wind turbine blade testing,
photovoltaics (based on former BP R & D capacity), wave and tidal testing
facilities, low voltage network systems and high voltage network systems.
These facilities are located over three sites in North East England, with the
major site being at Blyth in Northumberland.
10.
CPI have developed facilities to demonstrate fuel cell systems and low
energy processes, including through the National Industrial Biotechnology
Facility, which is hosted and operated by CPI. A key element of their work
is related to the Process Industries, which are clearly major energy users
in the region and the UK as a whole.
11.
Other organisations which have been developing major research and
development projects for renewable energies are Renew Tees Valley,
including energy from waste and carbon capture and storage, TWI, which
is developing REMTEC (Renewable Energy Manufacturing Technology
Centre), and Newcastle Science City, which has Energy and Environment
as one of its major themes.
12.
In addition, the region’s universities are developing technologies in key
areas of renewable energy as well as engineering and design capability.
One innovative example is the work led by Newcastle University, which is
also involving community groups, local authorities, businesses and the
RDA, to develop Geothermal based communities.
13.
Critically, these different elements operate as part of an integrated
network, working with a range of businesses and international partners.
They are supported by a range of infrastructure, including financial
providers, intellectual property advisers and skills developers.
14.
We welcome the establishment of the Energy Technology Institute. We
believe that it could provide a very effective focal point for bringing
technologies to a condition of near market readiness. We would strongly
suggest that the ETI focuses on translational research and relatively near
to market development. We would urge the ETI to take maximum
advantage of existing facilities, including those within energy using
40
businesses, to develop and demonstrate technologies in a ‘near real’
environment.
15.
We also suggest that, overall, much progress has been made with early
stage research, and that Government, universities, businesses and others
should focus their efforts on the further development of technologies to
the application stage. In many cases, the key is to demonstrate potential
value in order to achieve scale and consequently reduced unit costs, such
that cost differentials for renewable technologies relative to other energy
technologies are substantially reduced or removed entirely. In this respect,
the work of Community Energy Solutions in respect of Heat Pumps is
particularly illustrative.
16.
We would also suggest that attention is paid to disseminating the results
of projects already completed to potential funders and project developers.
Support for the establishment of project development and operational
approaches, for example project philosophies, commercial models and
implementation procedures for offshore wind turbines, would be of
considerable advantage.
17.
We particularly suggest that the opportunities and technical and nontechnical requirements for distributed energy schemes, including
community owned systems, is examined, recognising the importance of
such approaches to the adoption of renewable energies.
18.
Overall, we emphasis that the UK has a great opportunity to make a very
substantial contribution to climate change and to develop new industries,
through the development and application of technologies for renewable
energy. Many of these technologies have already been identified and
researched. The challenge now is develop them further to a point of actual
application, and to do so in a manner that reduces unit costs.
July 2007
41
Memorandum 7
Submission from the Marine Institute for Innovation, University of Plymouth
•
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of,
renewable energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind;
photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy;
ground source heat pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy
storage.
Summary
This evidence sets out to inform the committee of a major new research initiative in
the South West of England concerning the development of commercially viable wave
energy conversion devices. The research is to be carried out jointly by the
Universities of Exeter and Plymouth through the Peninsular Research Institute for
Marine Renewable Energy (PRIMaRE). This work is being developed in partnership
with the South West Regional Development Agency, who are currently developing
the associated WAVE HUB project which will provide the necessary infrastructure to
support the deployment of 4 new prototype wave energy conversion devices off the
north coast of Cornwall. The evidence provides details of PRIMaRE’s functions,
planned capital investments and priority research projects. Recommendations are
made with regard to actions that could be taken to strengthen research investment
from both the public and private sectors.
Details of persons submitting evidence
This evidence is submitted by Andrew J Chadwick, Professor of Coastal Engineering
and Associate Director of the Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, Jim Grant,
Enterprise Leader, University of Plymouth, George Smith, Professor of Renewable
Energy, University of Exeter and Dr Catherine Bass, Research Development Officer,
University of Exeter on behalf of PRIMaRE.
Evidence
PRIMaRE - Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy
1. The Universities of Exeter and Plymouth are collaborating to develop PRIMaRE as
a response to the need for academic institutions to have the capability to provide
multidisciplinary, multi-institutional collaborative research associated with the
development of marine renewable energy. PRIMaRE will be able to respond to the
demand-pull for high quality relevant and timely research from the commercial sector,
government departments, NGOs and sector based organisations. We believe it is by
thinking ‘big’ in terms of research activities that academic institutions can have the
best, most efficient and most durable solutions to research needs within the sector.
2. The South West Regional Development Agency’s WAVE HUB project provides a
key factor in the growth of PRIMaRE offering a platform for the demonstration of
wave energy device arrays in situ, the complex operation, monitoring and support
regimes required, as well as a full understanding of the environmental and physical
impact of the scheme. The Wave Hub project will also help to examine the processes
involved in bringing energy ashore, the interface between land and offshore
infrastructures and the factors influencing efficiency, reliability and maintainability of
42
device arrays. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has
proposed Wave Hub as a project to demonstrate the provision of electrical
infrastructure necessary to support and encourage developers of wave energy
converter devices (WECs) to generate electricity from wave energy. Regen SW refer
to the Wave Hub as a “revolutionary” development that could lead to the “creation of
up to 700 jobs and contribute £27 million a year to the economy”. It would also
generate enough clean, renewable energy to power 14,000 homes. Wave Hub will
support the UK government’s energy policy by contributing towards the UK’s drive to
meet the challenges and achieve the goals of the new energy policy including a 60%
reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. In addition, Wave Hub will support the South
West region’s commitment to encouraging technologies for renewable energy
generation that will contribute to the region's renewable energy target of 11% - 15%
of electricity production by 2010. Wave Hub is essential in helping to bridge the gaps
between production prototypes and full commercial wave farms and will enable up to
four developers at any one time to test arrays of their individual devices. At present,
three developers have expressed an interest in linking devices to Wave Hub. The
tests may last up to five years in order to prove the reliability, maintainability,
operability and effectiveness of their devices in marine conditions. They will also be
gathering data on power outputs to see if the devices can produce the levels of
energy / electricity expected. When operational, Wave Hub will be situated 17km
offshore off Hayle on the North Cornwall Coast. Hayle has been recognised as the
ideal place to bring power ashore because of its close proximity to the grid and the
presence of an existing substation.
3. PRIMaRE is a reflection of these institutions’ belief that there is a rapidly growing
opportunity for the creation and development of the marine renewable energy market
(evidence from the EU Green Maritime Paper supports this). UK industry is
strategically well placed to take a substantial share of this market if it is properly
mobilised with UK Government encouragement and is suitably supported in terms of
R&D, innovation services, knowledge transfer and education & training by the
academic sector. Each institution in itself does not have the critical mass to
undertake such important tasks or meet the challenge – hence the decision to join
forces. There is some additional benefit of economies of scale in the administration
and function of the organisation.
4. PRIMARE is a vehicle developed to identify the landscape for marine renewable
research both in long term opportunities and short term requirements and to provide
a delivery capability. It is designed to provide the strategic vision and leadership in
the UK and be part of and function alongside other major European marine energy
initiatives. PRIMARE has therefore already considered key strategic issues behind
the growth of the marine renewable energy sector and is endeavouring to position
itself and shape itself to meet those challenges.
5. The scale of our ambition is:
The establishment of a first-class, leading-edge, regional research facility and
equipment asset pool available for all regional marine energy stakeholders.
To generate a £6-8 million pa (sustainable) research programme, a population of 3050 academics plus similar (or greater) numbers of researchers and postgraduate
43
students. To provide long term benefits for Education and Training and supply of
suitably qualified manpower.
To position Exeter and Plymouth as a leading international presence in marine
renewable energy research and development.
6. PRIMaRE Research Priorities
6.1 Task Area 1: Resource Characterisation
An important lesson learned from the wind industry is that the basis of any successful
renewable energy development, and the degree to which such developments can be
expedited, is a ‘bankable’ quantification of the resource being exploited. This task
area aims to establish resource characterisation procedures that will form the
standard against which banks, venture capitalists, insurance companies and other
investors will conduct due diligence, prior to investment decisions. Projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wave climate monitoring
Development of wave climate modeling
Development of WEC energy absorption models for resource
assessment
Development of bankable wave climate analysis and interpretation
methods
Development of bankable resource reporting standards
Correlation methodology for long term and short term observations
6.2 Task Area 2: Marine Operations
This task area focuses on research that will enable project revenues to be enhanced
or operating costs to be reduced through WEC design improvements, with particular
regard to array configurations. The prime measure is the array capacity factor. This
can be improved by maximising the reliability and availability of all system
components as well as maximising the proportion of the available resource that is
intercepted. Projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optimisation of WEC device development and configuration
Mooring systems for WEC array configurations
Deployment and recovery logistics
WEC control system, development, reliability and availability
Foundations analysis and marine geo-technics
Electrical infrastructure dynamics and performance
Interactions between fluid, structure and sea bed
Total system monitoring, data archiving and publication
Component and reliability and failure
6.3 Task Area 3: Environmental Impact
Wave Hub project development activity has already highlighted that the scope of the
environmental impact assessment for a wave energy development is very broad.
This is in part due to its novelty. The breadth of the environmental impact
assessment impacts proportionally on project capital expenditure. At present, within
the UK at least, there are many more wind development projects that have been
delayed or refused on grounds of environmental impact than wind farms actually
44
installed. Wind power developers not only have to consider the costs of
developments that successfully proceed through the planning and EIA stages, but
also need to account for similar costs for unsuccessful development initiatives. To
expedite the development of a wave energy industry it is vital that research-grade
effort is devoted to the environmental impact assessment process at the stage of the
first significant wave farm development, i.e. the Wave Hub. The essential contribution
of this task area will be to identify the significant impacts on which such studies
should focus and to distinguish these from second, or higher, order impacts to reduce
the capital intensity of future wave power project developments. Projects include
detailed, research grade base-line surveys and subsequent monitoring of:
• Fisheries
• Marine vertebrates
• Benthos
• Coastal bio-diversity and geo-morphology
• Electromagnetic effects
6.4 Task Area 4: Safe and Economic Operations and Marine Risk Mitigation
A brief analysis of the business case and final design documentation for Wave Hub
reveals that the component of projected operating costs that has increased most
through the various stages is insurance. This is in part due to the uncertainties
associated with the absence of precedent projects and experience of wave energy
developments on the scale of Wave Hub. While it is likely that at least initially
insurance premiums for WEC developers and the OpCo are likely to be high, this
should not preclude applying significant research effort to increase the a priori safety
of Wave Hub, and similar future developments. For example, this task area aims to
develop failsafe systems that will actively deter marine traffic from approaching the
exclusion area, rather than relying on passive warning systems such as beacons.
Some of the tasks aim to establish practical, workable codes of operational practice
that should improve insurer confidence. The resulting research products should result
in dramatic downward revisions of insurance premiums and, therefore, operating
costs. In the instance of wave power developments, safer operations will definitely be
more cost competitive. Projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Navigation challenges
Exclusion zones for marine renewable energy device arrays
Technological mitigation measures to reduce insured risk and operating
costs
Development of active collision avoidance systems
Classification and certification of Wave Hub and Wave devices
Strategies of alternative marine users
Through-life costs
Decommissioning
Component recycling and impact on project value and cost of power
6.5 Task Area 5: Underwater and Surface Electrical Systems
Undoubtedly, the variability, intermittency and vigour of the energy resource being
exploited in wave power development results in circumstances in the area of
electrical power distribution that merit research-grade investigation, beyond initial
45
design of the system. Research effort in this task area aims not only to investigate
reliability and compliance issues allied to the continuity and quality of electricity
supplied, but also to conduct research that anticipates undesirable events and
develops measures to mitigate them. In the case of the wind industry, cabling and
connection arrangements for wind farms are not normally guaranteed by the
distribution network operator, but connection is maintained on a best endeavours
basis. For WEC developers, the marine electrical power infrastructure will be their
life-line to revenue, therefore it is sensible that research effort be allocated toward
measures that will permit as close to 100% connection availability as possible.
Projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reliability, maintainability and availability of submerged electrical
infrastructure
Onboard and seabed condition monitoring and control systems
Power flow and fault current analysis modelling in the face of wave
energy variability and intermittency and climate change
Power system protection design for optimal connection reliability
Development of fault location techniques for submerged cables
Investigation of network dynamic stability and impact of faults in
distribution networks on Wave Hub reliability
Investigation of transmission and distribution grid reinforcement or
capacity expansion measures for existing and future marine energy
developments
Investigation of requirements for novel control strategies for fault ridethrough
6.6 Task Area 6: Socio-Economic Factors
To improve the investment environment for marine renewables, and wave power
specifically, it is critical that the policy environment and economic conditions are right
to allow investors to make their decisions with confidence. Clearly, the Wave Hub’s
central role as a pre-commercial demonstration project will help establish these
conditions. However, research tasks in this area build on the prime objective by
having the aim of clarifying routes to expedite the growth of the market for wave
energy; activities in this area focus on identification of hurdles to be overcome, the
development of policy initiatives, identification of market enabling actions, and
isolation of first order economic factors that will determine the rate of market growth.
In addition, research efforts here aim to record the perceptions of the wider
community of stakeholders in the general marine environment and to identify actions
that will maintain the south west’s first mover advantage in wave power. Projects
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marine spatial planning
Public and other stakeholder perception
Regional and national policy drivers to permit optimal project financing
Strategies for adding value to Wave Hub via marketing and branding
Industrialisation and establishment of knowledge economy clusters and
sectors for the SW economy
Capturing the project development ‘roadmap’; delivery of project
46
•
•
•
development toolkit
Carbon and energy life cycle audit for wave power developments arrays
Indirect economic and social benefits of Wave Hub
Socio-economic aspects of decommissioning
7. Planned Capital Research Investment (Circa£6.0m)
Six major capital research investments are under consideration:
• An array of 12 wave measurement buoys, which will provide an internationally
competitive measuring system for fundamental marine/coastal research which
will inevitably constitute a natural attractor for both research funding and
academic expertise. This will provide a measurement of the wave and current
resource that will be necessary for Wave Hub OpCo. The high performance of
this array is also essential in order to undertake the type of applied joint
research with the device developers on the control systems aimed at
improving the survivability and performance of WECs.
• A substantive new Wave Basin and flumes which will be used to test and
validate models of devices and systems and contribute to the better
understanding of the inter-relationship between devices, the supporting
infrastructure and the environment
• Collision Avoidance and Monitoring equipment which will address key issues
of risk.
• A Mooring Test Facility that will allow international level research in design,
numerical modelling and full-scale testing and provide support for developer
driven research topics.
• Materials and Components testing. This will be done at a range of levels, but
at its most ambitious it could involve a full reliability test rig This would be a
unique facility in the EU and might be supported from the forthcoming
European FP7 “infrastructure” call.
• Vessels for Marine Monitoring and Impact. These will be used to deploy
equipment but will also be used to support the proposals from Exeter and
Plymouth for the assessment of environmental impact and benefits(both with
regards the wholesale effect on flora and fauna and a specific understanding
of the effects on fisheries of a “no-take” zone).
8. Recommendations
We believe that the development of marine renewable energy devices is where the
greatest industrial attention will be focused, where industrial outputs will have the
greatest benefit to UK energy provision and offer the greatest means to combat
climate change. Thus, they are likely to offer durable solutions, and create a new
industry sector where the UK can be a leading player. Provision of UK government
support for this industry and the necessary wide ranging research needs is therefore
crucial to both the development of UK energy supplies and to UK competitiveness in
international markets. To provide the necessary research support we recommend the
following:
8.1 UK Government to make marine renewable energy research a greater priority
within the research councils (support for fundamental and applied research) and
47
other government departments (responsible for applied research, innovation,
industrial and sector development etc).
8.2 UK Government to bring together the Research Councils, Government
Departments and Industrial Stakeholders to facilitate the development of the
necessary multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary research clusters. Such developments
would benefit from “platform” type funding, providing base level financial support in
addition to project specific funding.
8.3 The priority research tasks identified in this evidence, should receive due
consideration in the development of any new UK Government initiatives.
July 2007
48
Memorandum 8
Submission from Supergen Energy Storage Consortium
*Area of Expertise
The Supergen Energy Storage Systems (ESS) consortium is an EPSRC sponsored grouping of
academics and industrialists who are developing future energy storage solutions for electrical grid and
automotive applications. Although our main activity is research (device production, modelling and
applications) we monitor relevant technologies and offer independent, non-commercial and objective
advice on all aspects of energy storage.
Summary
This paper asserts that the weak link in the widespread deployment of energy from renewable
sources is the development of economically viable and safe energy storage devices. Energy storage
is needed to provide continuous power from intermittent sources and also to provide very stable power
for the increasing demand from digital devices. There are a wide variety of possible technologies but
only a few are suitable for widespread deployment. Large-scale energy storage is essential for the UK
if we are to develop energy from renewable sources.
We wish to draw to attention of the Science and Technology committee to the following regarding
the status of energy storage technologies:
Paragraph 1:
Over the next 20-30 years energy will increasingly come from a wider variety of sources, over a
wide range of scale lengths varying form large nuclear facilities, wind farms to domestic electrical
production. Additionally, the demands of the energy supply system will broaden to include an
integration of the electrical and transport markets. For example, GM, Lucas/ZAP and Telsa are all
developing “plug-in” Li-ion battery cars. Energy storage is necessary to integrate all of these power
sources and applications. We note that an increasing fraction of the electrical market is for digital
devices, which demand very good power quality. The problems of uninterrupted supply and power
quality must be solved if the UK is to remain competitive over the next 20 years in all sectors including
heavy and light industry and financial services. It is to be noted that poor power quality already
causes productivity losses of $400 billion to the US economy. Similar estimates are not available for
the UK economy.
Paragraph 2:
We assert that the problem of how energy storage should be integrated into distribution and
supply networks has not been resolved; indeed this is a key part of the ESS consortium work. It is
certain that storage facilities covering a wide range of sizes will be needed. Although there different
technologies are suited for different scale lengths, investment in technology development would be
more efficient if the number of choices were as small as possible.
Paragraph 3:
Energy from pumped hydroelectric sources is the only large-scale energy storage technology
deployed in the UK. Most of the facilities are based in Scotland although the largest one is in Wales.
The Dinorwig facility is an astounding piece of engineering although difficult to replicate elsewhere in
the UK. Our conclusion is that pumped hydroelectric power is fully utilised within the UK and there is
little scope for additional development. This is especially true for the large population base in the
South East. Although there have been considerable developments in tunnelling and drilling
technologies we feel that underground pumped hydroelectric will not be able to complete with other
technologies on economic grounds: the initial capital costs and environmental impact are prohibitive.
Paragraph 4:
49
Despite considerable effort and development, flow batteries have failed to live up to expectations.
Flow batteries are systems that take up and release energy on a large scale and have the potential for
grid stabilisation. The most advanced programme, Regenysis, has proved to be unacceptable
industrially and potential orders in the USA have been cancelled. The opinion of the ESS consortium
is that flow batteries deal with potentially toxic and environmentally damaging materials. We note that,
although no chemicals are exported, these devices involve chemical transformations and the handling
of extremely dangerous materials. Additionally, they use mechanical pumping and membranes, which
will eventually breakdown. Accordingly, from a regulatory point of view they should be regarded as
chemical plants with all of the safety considerations and thorough risk assessment that this involves.
ESS is currently developing a guideline for the deployment of this technology in conjunction with
leading chemical plant safety experts and will advise on these aspects.
Paragraph 5:
We note that the UK trails many countries in the development and demonstration of
Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage. Although this will never be a cheap technology it may
have applications for good quality power production for digital applications. This situation should be
more closely monitored by DTI/OSI. The approximate time scale for any introduction of this
technology is greater than ten years.
Paragraph 6:
There is considerable effort in the development of new Li-ion battery technology, particularly in
large DOE laboratories in the USA as well as industrial conglomerates in Japan and EU. This is
because these devices have the potential to be the most efficient storage devices in the longer term
and the technology is scalable from domestic situations to grid levelling applications. The UK is
currently competitive in research terms and with some production capacity. If this situation is
maintained then the UK could have a major role in the deployment of this technology. Li-ion batteries
were one of two technologies selected for development under the ESS. It is to be noted that GM and
others are already introducing Li-ion battery technology into the automotive market. This technology is
mature enough to be introduced into the domestic market for energy storage from domestic wind and
solar sources but introduction on a larger scale requires further materials development and the time
scale is greater than ten years.
Paragraph 7:
Supercapacitors are devices that are capable of storing and releasing power very quickly and can
be used for maintaining stable power quality (for digital power) and extending battery lifetimes. The
storage and release is almost 100%. They are expected to have a major impact on future energy
provision and are the other technology chosen by ESSS for development. We note that there is
currently no production capacity in the UK. However, the essential material for the production of
supercapacitors, nanoporous carbon for electrodes is undertaken by a number of progressive and
innovative UK based companies. We therefore believe that there is scope for the industrial
development of this technology within the UK and that this technology should be monitored and
promoted by DTI.
Paragraph 8:
Hydrogen is also considered as an energy storage technology and indeed here is considerable
discussion of the “hydrogen economy”. Despite hydrogen “road mapping” exercises appearing on a tri
monthly basis it is important to view this technology critically. For stationary energy storage the
process involves consists of hydrogen generation by electrolysis, pressurised hydrogen storage and
subsequent electrical generation through a fuel cell. Although technically feasible and already
introduced on a demonstration, this process is not without its limitations. The whole conversion
process has unacceptable efficiency losses because it involves transforming electrical energy into
chemical energy and back again. The theoretical maximum efficiency is less than 60% (operationally
35-40%, IEA figures) but this figure reduces even further when compression and inverter losses are
included. Fuel cell power is notoriously expensive and fuel cell lifetimes are relatively short (2,000
50
hours mobile, 6,000 hours stationary, £9,000/kW, IEA figures). We do not foresee this technology
being deployed on a wide scale within 10-20 years.
July 2007
51
Memorandum 9
Submission from Alan Shaw, Retired Chartered Engineer
Technical and commercial compatibility with the National Electricity Grid and its
Balancing Mechanism
Executive Summary:
This brief paper summarises the UK context for introduction of new electricity
generation sources based only on the Great Britain (GB) sector of the UK public
electricity supply system, being some 97 per cent of the UK total .
The second part of the paper discusses the fundamental differences between the
pattern of GB electricity demand as shown in the National Grid Seven Year
Statement. This pattern arises from British habits of life and work combined with
seasonal and climatic influences, The largely predictable historic shape of this
pattern, day by day and year by year, is not matched in achievable supply patterns
from most
forms of renewable energy. Instead lunar, solar and other cyclic bases are typically
the the governing factors.The need to safeguard the integrity of National Grid's
demand Balancing Mechanism (BM) is underlined.
Paper:
1. Introduction
1.1 Successful large scale development of any renewable energy depends on its
ability to fit in controllably to the overall demand pattern of the national electricity
supply system , hour by hour, day by day and annually. The overall pattern of
demand varies with the season of the year, weather and special events but by and
large is predictable from past records and the expert knowledge of daily events of the
Great Britain System Operator (GBSO) - National Grid Electricity Transmission
plc.(NGET)
1.2 The UK electricity system in England , Scotland and Wales (GB) together forms a
system separate from Northern Ireland (NI) but interconnected with the NI system by
the Moyle high voltage direct current (HVDC) submarine interconnector between
Northern Ireland and south west Scotland The direct current feature of the Moyle
interconnector means that the two systems, which can exchange power in either
direction by planned mutual consent and are both of 50 cycle alternating current
frequency, are not synchronised with each other.
1.3 The NI system maximum power demand MW (megawatts) and its total distributed
energy MWh (megawatt hours) are similar in demand profile to , but less than 3 per
cent of, the GB system. I will for simplicity therefore take the GB system operated by
NGET as representative, bearing in mind that, based mainly on 2005/2006 figures * it
is around 97 per cent of the UK total.
1,4 It should be noted that although revenues from electricity ( and fuel or renewable
energy used in generation) are energy (MWh) based, the continuous balancing of
52
demand with supply is carried out entirely by frequency sensitive control of the
overall generation power rate (MW). Excess of demand over generation causes
frequency to fall, excess of generation causes it to rise . Frequency maintenance at
an average of 50 cycles per second is a statutory requirement for system stability.
Instantaneously demanded power in MW must be continuously matched by
instantaneously supplied generation in MW. In practice the balance is recorded half
hourly. Electricity on a national scale can NOT be stored. The four pumped storage
stations in Wales and Scotland have a total capacity of only 2,290 MW or about 2.7
per cent of current annual maximum demand **. Not all of this may be available at
any given moment as it is subject to normal pumping/generation profiles imposed by
system requirements
1.5 Until the recognition some ten years ago of the necessity for greenhouse gas
(GHG) control the entire electricity system was supplied by fully controllable forms of
energy generation - coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power and a small percentage
(about 1 per cent) of hydro-electric generation. Hydro power is of course a renewable
energy but dependent on a variable rainfall. As rainfall is to some extent predictable,
visible once it falls, and some can be stored, the small and variable percentage of
total generation it represented at any given time is normally able to be
accommodated by the national grid system, but not always. In 1955 the North of
Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (NSHEB) contracted to supply annually to the then
South of Scotland Electricity Board 280 GWh. In the event, in that year an
unprecedented and prolonged drought reduced the figure to 167.5GWh or only 60
per cent of the contractual amount. The shortfall had to be made good from the
England and Wales system.*** Although such extreme shortfalls are rare this event
was a sharp reminder that hydro power under UK weather conditions is not
completely predictable
2. Fundamental differences between pattern of UK electricity demand and
various renewable energies ability to match with supply
2.1 The following Figure 2.2 and explanations extracted from NatGrid GB Seven
Year Statement 2007 shows how the seasonal demand profiles follow a
characteristic shape determined entirely by the British habits of life and work, some
determined by the weather and climate.
Figure 2.2 below presents demand profiles for the days of maximum and minimum
demand on the GB transmission system in 2006/07 and for days of typical winter and
summer weekday demand. These demands are shown exclusive of station
transformer, pumping demand and interconnector exports.
53
Key points of interest are: (i)
Maximum & Typical Winter Profiles (Weekday)
(ii) Typical Summer Profile (Weekday)
(iii) Minimum Summer Profile (Sunday)
2.2 The various types of renewable energies produce annual daily and annual
availability profiles quite unrelated to the electricity demand pattern produced by the
British way of life and work - tidal power is governed by sea level which varies
approximately with a 12.4 hour period, the diurnal ebb and flow cycle, superimposed
upon a longer sinusoid with a period of 353 hours, the springs-neap cycle. The
largest tidal barrage in operation is the Rance estuary scheme in France. The tides
follow a two week cycle throughout the year. The Rance output is computer
controlled and optimised to match the needs of the French grid. The nominal average
output of this 240 MW project is between 50 and 65 MW and is thus not the
maximum that could be obtained, but it contributes maximum savings to the grid.
While La Rance electricity is the cheapest electricity on the French national grid
Electricity de France say that it would be too expensive to build any further power
stations. Studies have shown that the method of operation that results in the lowest
unit cost of energy is either simple ebb generation, or ebb generation with pumping at
high tide. As the generation period is about an hour later each day the generation
(and pumping if used) needs to be planned in advance to integrate with the needs of
the French national grid.
54
2.3 Studies have shown that the method of operation that results in the lowest unit
cost of energy is either simple ebb generation, or ebb generation with pumping at
high tide. ****
2,4 Solar energy in the UK is of course dependent on time of day, season and cloud
cover. Wave energy is affected by "fetch" i.e distance of wave travel, on strength and
direction of wind and in some cases tidal conditions.
2.5 Such influences tend to produce renewable energies which are intermittent,
uncontrollable and unsuitable for the national grid's continual need for firm,
responsively controllable power. This is the function of the NGET's "Balancing
Mechanism" (BM) . From the point of view of economic electricity generation the
most valuable sources of energy are those which, in instantaneous rate of electrical
production are "firm " i.,e reliable, fully controllable and quickly responsive. *****
2.6 To have large MW capacities of uncontrollable non-firm power running loose risks
the stability of the entire national grid system and can greatly increase the stress
under which grid controllers work. Also of growing concern are the costs of
generation coupled with the annual capital charges of Supergrid transmission
reinforcements to generate and convey the renewably sourced electricity from the
favoured generation sites (in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and offshore) to
satisfy competitively the dominant demands in the Midlands and south of England.
These must be very carefully considered before even greater expenditures are
incurred, all of which must eventually percolate down to consumers and taxpayers.
2.7 The full extent of the potential problems which would be presented to central grid
control by, for example , the realisation of leading Scottish politicians' aspirations in
past months, quoting 40 per cent and even as high as 100 per cent of Scottish
electricity MWh from renewable energy is obviously politically uncomprehended.. The
basic reason is the uncontrollability and unpredictable intermittency of wind energy
together with its overall average annual load factor making both its generation and
Supergrid high voltage transmission to its supposed markets in the Midlands and
South of England
economically unattractive except for the entrepeneurial purpose of earning quite
unjustified subsidies.
2.8 Even at present levels of installed windpower MW capacity the growing total UK
burden of fully controllable standby plant capacity is not publicly understood. To bring
up from near zero load to full load
on-line standby plant at the MW per minute rate ("response time") at which large
scale windpower can disappear only to unload it similarly rapidly risks damage to
high temperature thermal plant such as gas and steam turbines. In extreme
circumstances only large pumped storage hydro turbines can start up "from dry" and
pick up load shed by renewable energy sources rapidly and safely enough. As
footnoted in ** below the existence of such plant nationally is very limited and largely
already spoken for by normal operational contingencies
2.9 I would earnestly recommend the Select Committee to study , with NGET
assistance, the latter's excellent Seven Year Statement 2007 (and previous years)
55
produced annually as a condition of its Transmission Licence and downloadable on
the internet.
I am sirs, yours most faithfully,
Alan Shaw BSc CEng MIET
( Retired ex National Nuclear Corporation Limited (1955-81 ) and author and coauthor of energy papers to World Power, United Nations and other international
engineering conferences.)
Footnotes:
* Electricity Industry Review 11 (EIR11) June 2007 pps 7, 9 and 10.(published by
Electrica Services Limited and sponsored by NationalGrid)
** Dinorwig 2,200MW, Festiniog 350MW, Foyers 300MW, Cruachan 440MW (
Source: EIR 11)
*** "The Hydro " by Professor Peter L Payne pub. Aberdeen University Press 1988
**** Section 21 of " Kelvin to Weir and on to GB SYS 2005" by Alan Shaw: Royal
Society of Edinburgh Inquiry into Scotland's Energy Issues 2005
***** Please note that Capacity Factor, a partial synonym for Load Factor often
appearing in the press nowadays, is an Americanism and a term not recognised by
the IEC/ International Electrotechnical Vocabulary (see "Electropedia " on the
internet.)
July 2007
56
Memorandum 10
Submission from Professor Stephen Salter.
1.0 Personal details: I am Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design at
Edinburgh University. I have been working on renewable energy from sea waves
since 1973 and more recently on applying power conversion ideas from wave to wind
and tidal-streams. I have given previous evidence to Parliamentary Committees on
renewable energy [1][2][3]. Very little has happened to change my views since those
notes were written. The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is still accelerating and
most of its outcomes are at the top end of predictions. I fear that the rate of progress
on renewables is too slow to prevent the triggering of at least six distinct climatic
positive-feedback mechanisms and so my main present activity is aimed at the
design of practical hardware to implement John Latham’s proposal [4] for the direct
reversal of global warming by increasing cloud reflectivity through the Twomey effect.
Very small amounts of sea water injected as a micron spray into marine
stratocumulus clouds can make them reflect more solar energy back out to space.
Double present CO2 levels could occur with no temperature rise. Despite an
enormous energy leverage and a wealth of literature confirming the background
physics, official UK interest in the subject is strikingly similar to that in the early days
of wave energy.
Additions to my previous evidence are as follows:
2.0
Tidal stream. Estimates for the tidal stream resource in the Pentland Firth
have used equations taken from the wind industry. These are based only on the
kinetic energy flux in an open flow field with just an adjustment for the higher fluid
density. They may be inappropriate for long channels with rough beds and irregular
walls because they ignore friction losses. We do not have accurate values for friction
coefficients for the Pentland Firth but, if they are similar to those in the Menai Strait,
then present peak bed dissipation would be over 50 GW. Any small reduction in
velocity caused by turbine installations will release large amounts of energy. About
one third of the present total friction loss could be extracted giving a possible
resource of 10 to 20 GW, much higher than previous estimates.
2.1 It may be possible to get a further increase by using speed- and pitch-control of
turbines to change the phase of the power take-off relative to the tidal cycle. Data
from the Proudman Laboratory show that there is a substantial phase lag (40 to 60
degrees) between the driving head of the Pentland Firth and the flow velocity through
it. The channel has an apparent inertia greater than that of the mass of the water in
it. This may be partly because of the need to accelerate through changes of cross
section and partly because of the mass of water in the approaches. It would be better
to have head and flow in phase with each other. Delaying generation will give the
channel some virtual spring and so bring it closer to resonance. Many people, even
trained engineers, find it difficult to understand phase. One way of looking at it is to
argue that allowing more flow in the early part of the cycle and less in the later
returning part will leave a ‘hole’ in the water at the entrance and so make it look more
attractive to flow in the next cycle. It is likely that smaller tidal-stream sites will have a
57
resonance on the other side of the excitation period and so would benefit from a
phase advance. This would make the combined outputs be steadier.
2.2 I am advised by Professor David Pugh that more accurate estimates of bottom
friction dissipation and flow impedance of the Pentland Firth, and other passages
further north, will need the installation of a chain of (perhaps 20) acoustic Doppler
velocity measurements linked to water depth readings. Sensors would be placed at
points along the flow lines from the Atlantic to the North Sea and data recorded over
the lunar cycle. The changes in depth measurement at each instrument will be used
to calculate the mean surface slopes of the water.
2.3 Although the Royal Navy spent much of the 19th century taking soundings of the
world’s oceans, the installation of a prototype tidal-stream device in the Orkneys was
halted by a collision with an uncharted rock. This is a much more expensive way to
improve chart accuracy than traverses with a side-scan sonar. However the latter is
too expensive for small struggling tidal stream developers.
2.4 Making use of the full resource will require new designs of turbine that can block
a large fraction of the flow-window of the Pentland Firth which has a depth of about
70 metres over much of its area. Reference [5] describes a design.
3.0
Synthetic fuel. As the full electrical output from the Pentland Firth would
often exceed the peak Scottish demand, there will be a need for large interconnectors to southern load centres or ways to convert irregular electrical supplies to
produce natural gas substitutes and liquid fuels for transport. This can be done by
electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen followed by the use of both in a
conversion something like the Fischer Tropsch process, developed in Germany in the
1920s. Peak production in 1944 was 6.5 million tonnes. Under the threat of oil
sanctions the process was used in South Africa by SASOL. Historically the products
have been somewhat more expensive than fuel from conventional sources but the
gap would close if the carbon-neutral feedstock was municipal waste and there was a
high land-fill tax. In the UK this has risen from £3 to £24 per tonne and will be
increased by £8 every year with further increase threatened by the EC. This seems a
much more acceptable carbon-neutral source than any food stuff. Pilot plant is
operating in Fife [6].
4.0
Wave Energy. Waves from offshore deep water sites around the UK offer a
larger ultimate resource than tidal streams, with a different pattern of variability but
quite long reliable forecasting, certainly long enough for grid controllers and the
electricity market. The technology is recovering from the damage caused during the
‘eighties by the UKAEA [1] but progress is still slow. The problems are that some
over-confident newcomers are not using existing information and are not doing
enough small-scale testing of tank models to identify the worst loading conditions.
Pressure from non-technical investors to cut corners and get quick results is very
hard for inventors and engineers to resist if their incomes depend on doing as they
are told. All developers claim to be front-runners in the field with leading-edge and
patented, but simple and proven, technology. Some of the statements made in fundraising advertisements do not bear close examination.
58
4.1 The success of complete generation systems may be at risk if failure occurs in a
single, perhaps very cheap, small component. We need to test large batches of small
parts and sub-assemblies in parallel on some form of test raft in the correct chemical
and biological environment. Failures would then be useful pointers to design
improvement instead of financial disasters for investors. When the small component
does fail, attempts are made to conceal news of the disaster so the mistake is
repeated by competitors. What we need is a system of reporting and widespread
circulation of every detail of accidents and near accidents as was made compulsory
since the early days of the aircraft industry and was operated on a voluntary basis in
the early days of the wind industry, where it led to enormous improvements in
reliability.
4.2 Some ideas, design approaches and technology from the offshore industry can
be usefully transferred to wave energy but methods for moving and installing offshore
structures are not in this category. The costs of installation vessels can vary by more
than an order of magnitude depending on the needs of the oil industry. There is a
need for independent installation methods perhaps involving propulsion modules that
can easily be attached and removed from wave plant.
5.0
Sea bed attachments. There is also a need for sea bed attachments that
can easily be connected or disconnected without the need for heavy lifting gear, and
also for robotic vehicles to prepare the sea bed side of the connection. The design of
these has a considerable overlap with underwater vehicles that could survey the sea
bed off Dounreay for the sources of radioactive particles and recover them safely. So
far 1200 particles, each typically the size of a grain of sand and a lethal alpha-emitter
have been found, with numbers rising as detection equipment improves. It is not
known how many have been blown inland.
6.0
Test facilities. Several types of wave energy device are potentially
vulnerable to currents and most marine-current devices would be vulnerable to
waves. Finding ways to reduce this vulnerability will greatly increase the size of the
resource by extending the number of sites. Waves and currents interact with one
another in an extremely complicated way especially if they approach from opposite
directions. It is important to test renewable energy plant (and other structures) in any
combination of directions of waves and currents. Such a facility would be too
expensive for any single developer but preventing a single accident could save the
cost many times over. Work at Edinburgh University on a model of a test tank has
shown that any complex pattern of currents can be produced by a single vertical-axis
variable pitch-rotor placed in the ‘cellar’ of a circular tank. The previous Edinburgh
wide tank with a long straight line of wave makers has had to be demolished but it
has been partially rebuilt with wave-makers around a 90 degree arc. We can
therefore be confident that the two halves of the technology can be combined.
References
1. Lords Select Committee on the European Communities 1987-8.
Alternative Energy Sources pp.178-206.
59
2. Commons Energy Committee 1991-2 Volume III pp. 62-77.
3. Commons Science and Technology Committee Report on Wave and Tidal
Energy, April 2001.
4. Bower K et al. Computational assessment of a Proposed Technique for Global
Warming Mitigation via Albedo Enhancement of Marine Stratocumulus Clouds.
Atmospheric Research vol. 82 pp. 328 336 2006.
5. Salter SH, Taylor JRMT. Vertical-Axis Tidal Current Generators and the Pentland
Firth. Proc.I.Mech.E vol. 221 Part A. Journal of Power and Energy Special Issue pp.
181-295 April 2007
6. http://www.globalenergyinc.com/920209.html
Further papers on relevant matters can be downloaded from
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
July 2007
60
Memorandum 11
Submission from EDF Energy
Introduction to EDF Energy
1. EDF Energy is one of the UK’s largest energy companies with activities throughout the
energy chain. Our interests include coal and gas-fired electricity generation, combined
heat and power plants, electricity networks and energy supply to end users. We have
over 5 million electricity and gas customer accounts in the UK, including both residential
and business users. We are part of EDF Group, one of the largest energy companies in the
world. EDF Group maintains a large energy research and development capability inhouse.
2. EDF Energy already contracts with a wide range of renewables generators, both
bilaterally and via the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency, and in response to the Renewables
Obligation and consumer demand is aiming to develop 1000 MW of renewable
generation by 2012. This includes a Section 36 application for a 90 MW offshore windfarm
off the coast of Teeside. We also co-fire biomass and energy crops at both our coal-fired
power stations and are assessing a number of renewable microgeneration technologies.
Electricity generation technologies
Drivers for renewables deployment in the UK
3. There are a number of drivers for increasing the level of renewable generation / energy in
the UK at present including:
• increasing demand for renewable electricity by consumers, in particular in the
business / government sector created by financial benefits available from Climate
Change Levy Exemption Certificates and corporate social responsibility initiatives;
• change to the planning system and building regulations whereby new
developments will be required to deliver a defined percentage of their energy
demand from low or zero carbon sources; and
• financial support from the Renewables Obligation.
These are likely to be supplemented in the near future by:
• the introduction of mandatory renewable energy targets by the European
Commission, although the level of any such target for the UK is, as yet, unclear;
and
• evolution of schemes such as the Carbon Emission Reduction Target which may
move energy suppliers’ business models further towards energy services.
Rate of deployment of renewables generation technologies in the UK
4. To-date the primary renewables support mechanism, the Renewables Obligation, has
been designed to enable the deployment of the most economic renewables
technologies – primarily landfill gas, onshore wind and co-firing. Other technologies have
only been deployed where supported with additional grant funding (e.g. Low Carbon
Buildings Fund, Round 1 offshore grants, capital grant support for biomass plants).
5. Looking forwards the proposed banding of the Renewables Obligation will provide
greater financial support for pre-commercial technologies such as offshore wind and
dedicated biomass that are relatively more expensive and emerging technologies such
as tidal / wave technologies that are inherently more expensive and not yet developed
commercially.
6. However, a number of factors may continue to limit deployment including:
61
•
•
•
•
•
•
attractiveness of the UK (level and stability of support mechanisms) relative to
other jurisdictions both for investors and as markets for renewable generation
equipment manufacturers. A key part of this is regulatory uncertainty – the RO has
been amended every year since its inception;
delays caused by the current planning regime. We welcome the proposals
contained within the Planning White Paper for consenting decisions on major
energy infrastructure projects to be decided by an Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC) using National Policy Statements as their primary consideration.
However we remain concerned as to whether the proposals for smaller projects
will have a material effect on the probability of success or speed at which their
decisions will be reached and at some aspects of the proposed IPC process such
as the absence of a definite time limit at the preliminary stage;
delays in connection to the transmission system, particularly in Scotland;
the current RO banding proposals may not be sufficient to deploy some
technologies. For example, later offshore windfarms may be further offshore and
therefore incur increased costs associated with their connection, location in
deeper water and requirement for larger machines. Uncertainty concerning
offshore projects also remains from the as yet unfinalised offshore transmission
charging regime;
immature and limited scope support frameworks for low carbon heat; and
lack of supply of qualified engineers from British Universities.
Feasibility, cost, timescale and progress in commercialising
7. Theory suggests that as greater volumes of a particular technology is deployed, unit costs
should reduce. Recent experience has demonstrated that other factors may have a
greater impact than this learning curve effect. For example, wind turbine costs have
increased in the last couple of years because commodity prices have risen significantly,
bottlenecks in turbine supply have occurred and other markets have offered a greater
financial reward and / or more stable mechanism for investors.
8. When assessing costs as well as looking at each technology in isolation, consideration
should also be given to the total cost / benefit for energy system users associated with
each technology, i.e. a holistic approach. For example:
• wind generation provides a limited capacity credit and therefore to maintain security
of supply at a specific standard additional non-intermittent plant is required to
provide the same effective capacity margin;
• additional operational reserves may have to be held by the System Operator to
respond to rapid changes in wind speed; and
• predictable distributed electricity generation technologies may provide a benefit
from reducing the requirement for investment in the distribution system.
Carbon Footprint
9. A number of organisations (e.g. International Atomic Energy Agency, Parliamentary
Office for Science and Technology) have produced recent reports on lifecycle carbon
emissions from different technologies which present a broadly consistent picture.
Renewables technologies typically produce significantly less than 100gCO2/kWh on a
lifetime basis (and frequently < 50gCO2/kWh). The only equivalent large scale energy
generation technology is nuclear power.
The carbon footprint of heat pump
technologies is dependent on the CO2 intensity of electricity used to power the device –
as the UK’s electricity generation sector progressively decarbonises these devices will
develop a progressively smaller carbon footprint.
Research and Development activity in the UK
62
10. We see the introduction of the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) as a major step forwards
in galvanizing UK research and development efforts into low carbon energy technologies,
including renewables. EDF Energy has been supporting government efforts to establish an
Energy Technologies Institute since the Chancellor Gordon Brown announced its creation
in the 2006 budget. We are prepared to commit up to £5m per annum over 10 years to
the ETI along with a number of other industrial partners with this funding matched by
government.
11. The Institute’s remit is to accelerate the development of secure, reliable and costeffective low-carbon energy technologies towards commercial deployment. The Institute
will focus on a small number of specific R&D projects relevant to industry, commissioning
and funding and supporting projects run by third party researchers and consortia. This will
include R&D in support of demonstration (including possible funding for small scale precommercial demonstrations) and eventual deployment, selected from within a
framework of the following general themes:
• large scale energy supply technologies;
• energy security of supply;
• end use efficiency/demand management;
• transport;
• small scale energy supply technologies;
• support infrastructures (such as energy supply networks, storage skills and capacity);
and
• alleviating energy poverty.
Intelligent Grid Management - Current state of UK research and development
12. The current UK university research base is strong, albeit this strength is concentrated within
a relatively small number of key universities. That said, there is generally a strong culture of
collaboration between the more involved universities (e.g. Manchester University,
University of Strathclyde, and Imperial College). To exploit our UK capability fully will
require intensive investment coupled with the necessary intellectual resource (i.e. good
quality Phd / research students) becoming available to feed growth.
13. The UK commercial sector research base is now limited to the relatively few remaining UK
based manufacturers. However, this is largely a function of the fact that the major
manufacturers are now global players with centralised R&D facilities.
14. In terms of Distribution Network Operator (DNO) R&D activity, Ofgem’s Innovation Funding
Incentive (IFI - which took effect from April 2005) has catalysed a significant upturn (see
also 27 below).
15. Specific examples of intelligent grid systems under development by EDF Energy in
collaboration with strategic partners include:
a) AURA NMS which will provide automated reconfiguration of a distribution
network to optimise its efficiency in terms of distributed generation export,
electrical energy storage, and electrical losses; and
b) FENIX which will explore the feasibility of aggregating the outputs of large
volumes of small distributed generators to form Large Scale Virtual Power
Plants (LSVPPs) which can then participate in the trading and system
balancing market.
16. Notwithstanding the above, in terms of developing intelligent grids, there needs to be a
much stronger UK commitment to the EU Technology Platform ‘SmartGrids’ Strategic
Research Agenda11.
11
See http://www.smartgrids.eu/
63
Intelligent Grid Management - Feasibility, costs, timescales
commercialisation (reliability and associated carbon footprints)
and
progress
in
17. The decline in the UK’s traditional heavy industrial base will be a limitation in terms of our
immediate future manufacturing and hence commercialisation capability. The UK
contribution in the shorter term (5 years) is more likely to be in the form of designers and
implementers of innovative applications utilising global products and solutions in new and
cost-effective configurations, based on our knowledge of advanced market liberalisation
and de-regulation.
18. In the short to medium term (5 – 10 years), the manufacturing base will continue to
migrate towards low cost countries. However, given our maturity in a liberalised market
and our innate ability to innovate, the UK could dominate in the high-end of the value
chain. In terms of manufacturing, the greatest UK value is likely to lie in development of
control systems, software and modelling (and hence in licensing), and also in terms of
consultancy and knowledge transfer. A strong UK R&D base would also support our
universities and enable the UK to attract key skills.
19. For successful commercialisation, delivery mechanisms must be improved to transfer
academic work into real applications. The relevant ‘intelligent grid’ applications in which
the UK could then become successful include: software; light current solutions (e.g.
control of FACTS12 devices); Wide Area Monitoring and Protection systems (WAMS/WAPS);
and Intelligent Grid Management applications.
20. Given the rapid development of the European ‘SmartGrids’ forum and the USA Electrical
Power Research Institute (EPRI) ‘Intelligrid’ programme, coupled with the ‘developing
economy’ countries following an accelerated pathway to low carbon economies, the
potential world market over the next 5 to 15 years for intelligent grids is extremely strong
(but also potentially very competitive).
21. In terms of commercialisation routes, investment will be forthcoming provided that the
risks can be assessed and managed. This in turn requires regulatory uncertainty to be as
low as possible, as the technology risks are reasonably high. Given the envisaged UK
value opportunities (above) there is a strong established UK technological base that
could benefit from measures to grow the market.
22. In terms of key UK commercial players, this would include the major electricity distribution
infrastructure providers and distributed generation providers (e.g. E.ON, EDF Energy,
Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power, Iberdrola, RWE, etc.) and also the key
(global) manufacturers who are strong in the UK (e.g. ABB, Areva, GE, Siemens, etc.).
Competition will inevitably materialise from the countries with fast growing economies
and (still) a low cost base – i.e. China and India, and also potentially Russia.
23. In terms of successful commercialisation, the most critical factors include:
a) demonstrating
technology;
deliverability
by
application
and
deployment
of
new
b) making available further funds for research and development;
c) commitment of resources deeply focussed on technology transfer;
d) conviction to drive to a vision, and a will to deliver a competent solution;
e) a sensible planning regime and a strong commercial framework based upon
science and engineering, allowing markets to deliver within the vision
framework;
f)
removal of identified barriers to technology adoption, commercial
deployment, environmental acceptance, and cultural change; and
12
Flexible Alternating Current Transmission Systems – or ‘FACT-lite’ technologies which have been adapted
for application on distribution networks
64
g) continuing to provide leadership to, and engagement with, the European
SmartGrids Technology Platform.
24. In the UK, by 2020, intelligent grids will have reached a stage of partial maturity, but far
reaching emission targets (e.g. to 2050) may give rise to even greater network developments,
for example to accommodate fuel cell and storage technologies, to accommodate an
increasing interface with electrically powered transportation systems.
Intelligent Grid Management - UK Government’s role in funding R&D and providing incentives
for technology transfer
24. As well as direct funding of R&D (e.g. through the DTI’s Sustainable Networks Programme)
the Government’s role is primarily in establishing the necessary stakeholder groups to
jointly steer R&D effort and addressing barriers to technology transfer (noting that these
barriers might be not only technological, but also constitutional, commercial and
regulatory in nature).
25. The DTI / Ofgem-sponsored Electricity Networks Strategy Group (ENSG) and its associated
Transmission and Distribution Working Groups (TWG & DWG) have the capacity to make a
key contribution in terms of implementing Government policy. The ENSG has a brief to
consider the technical, commercial and regulatory issues surrounding the development
of ‘intelligent’ distribution grids that will support a low carbon economy.
26. Closely linked to the work of the TWG and DWG is the work of the DTI sponsored Centre
for Distributed Generation and Sustainable Electrical Energy (CDGSEE). The CDGSEE was
established in 2004 and the Government has allocated a further £1m to continue and
expand the CDGSEE’s activities relevant to the development of intelligent grids.
27. A particular Government (Ofgem) initiative has been the introduction of the Innovation
Funding Incentive (IFI) which encourages British DNOs to engage in relevant R&D. A
further example is the complementary Distributed Generation (DG) and Registered Power
Zone (RPZ) mechanisms. The IFI scheme alone gives access to some £16m/year for
distribution network related R&D. This has recently been extended for the period to 2015
and to include transmission networks.
28. The development of intelligent grid supporting technologies will require a sustained high
level of R&D investment but, given the appropriate market signals, such investment will be
provided by manufacturers (with support from the DNOs through their IFI allowances in
some cases). Government funding is best directed at creating the required ‘pull-through’
environment that will accelerate the development of the market.
29. Currently, the key constraint is in not yet feeling the degree of technology pull that would
create the confidence for a adoption by the key stakeholders in this area of technology.
The Energy White paper proposals should provide a catalyst, but more closely directing
Government focus towards this area of technology is necessary.
30. The UK is currently challenged in terms of skills associated with the implementation of
intelligent grids. Barriers include a relatively small number of specialists, a rising age
profile, and a level of inertia in terms of only just beginning to realise the extent of the
challenges of a low carbon economy. Training focus needs to move more rapidly away
from ‘traditional’ power engineering concepts to modern intelligent grid skills which better
reflect developments in technology and applications and, in particular, the emerging
recognition that social, environmental and economic sustainability are essential elements
of future intelligent grids.
July 2007
65
Memorandum 12
Submission by Rolls-Royce Fuel Cells Systems
1. Executive Summary
1.1 RRFCS , a majority owned subsidiary of Rolls-Royce plc, is engaged in the
commercial development of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for use primarily in localised
power distribution. Based in Loughborough, RRFCS has locations overseas in the
US and Singapore. The Company currently employs 108 people in the UK of whom
75% are graduates and 30% have PhDs.
1.2 The practical application of solid oxide fuel cells is at an early stage but the
advanced engineering work at RRFCS has identified how the technology can be
taken forward in the future.
1.3 The intellectual property of RRFCS resides in the UK and the USA and the
Company undertakes significant research activity overseas with around 25%
undertaken in UK universities.
1.4 The early products will serve the Distributed Generation market with high
efficiency low emission products with a cost of electricity approximately equivalent to
the incumbent heat engines.
2. Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems Ltd. (RRFCS)
In 2002 Rolls-Royce plc made the decision to commercialise ten years of strategic
research work into Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and established a unit to undertake this
task. To improve access to mass ceramic manufacturing skills and to off set some of
the cost of fuel cell development, Rolls-Royce plc sold 25% of the equity to a
Singaporean consortium, “EnerTek”, in 2005. All Rolls-Royce plc’s Fuel cell related
Intellectual Property was transferred to this majority owned subsidiary.
3. Location
RRFCS’s Headquarters is located in Loughborough close to the University and it is
in this location that cell development and systems integration is undertaken. The
major test facilities are located in Derby, which is the site of Rolls-Royce plc’s civil
aero-engine operation. There are also subsidiaries in the USA, which undertake fuel
processing and in Singapore, for research and automated mass manufacturing
technology of ceramic components. Singapore will also host the first manufacturing
facility.
4. Employment.
The Company currently employs about 108 people in the UK, of whom around 75%
are graduates including 14 from overseas.. Of the Graduate population around 30%
have PhD’s. There are also 22 trainees, and 23 temporary employees in the UK. A
further 50 people are directly employed in the US and Singapore.
5. Product Focus.
66
5.1 The RRFCS initial focus is the sale in 2010 of 1MW pressurised Fuel Cell
Systems with high efficiency, negligible emissions of nitrogen and sulphur oxides and
particulates. Performance at part load and in high temperature will be superior to
heat engines.
5.2 The total system will be city centre friendly with an excellent safety case, no
requirement for stored gases or unacceptable noise or vibration.
5.3 The target cost of electricity is no higher than current products serving the
distributed generation market.
5.4 With long term development, efficiencies of 70% are possible before waste heat
recovery.
6. System Architecture.
6.1 A number of technical disciplines are needed to achieve the performance
objectives, these are built in five subsystems. Not all the skills needed are available
to RRFCS in the UK.
6.2 Natural gas is not pure methane and requires processing before it can be used
by the fuel cell stack and the stack is sensitive to the fuel conditions during start up
and shut down. This technology is being developed in the RRFCS unit in the USA.
6.3 The fuel cell stack has to be enclosed on the right environment requiring aero
thermal. The stack and aero thermal management are the central activities of the
Loughborough site.
6.4 A specialised small micro turbine (equivalent to20kW) is required. The RollsRoyce plc unit in Indianapolis is developing the unit.
6.5 Fuel cells deliver direct current and power electronics are required to connect to
the alternating current system of the grid. The development of this sub-sytem is done
by M Technologies in the USA partly because of familiarity with USA codes and
standards.
6.6 There are therefore five subsystems requiring safe control. The UK branch of
Data Systems and Solutions (a Rolls-Royce subsidiary) are carrying out this task.
7. Testing
7.1 Important test facilities have been established in Derby including 30 rigs
operating at atmospheric pressure and three presurised rigs. There is one Test Bed
capable of testing all subsystems together at 250kW. With DTI assistance a further
three 15kW pressurised rigs are being built for endurance testing of fuel cell stack.
7.2 Customer verification is planned initially in the USA with American Electric Power
at their test site near Columbus Ohio. Upto 3 1MW units are planned for testingin a
controled customer environment during 2008 and 9.
8. Academic Partners.
67
8.1 RRFCS activity involves significant research activity and as a result the company
has an extensive partnership with a number of UK and overseas universities. These
include in the UK:
• Loughborough University - materials characterisation, development of ceramic
nanomaterials and product lifecycle / recycling strategy;
• Imperial College - electrochemistry and development of cathode and current
collector/interconnect materials;
• St. Andrews University - development of next generation anode and current
collector materials;
• Strathclyde University - development of advanced laser-based instrumentation
methods;
• A number of smaller activities with the Universities of Cambridge, Surrey, and
Birmingham;
And overseas:
• The University of Genoa - system modelling and experimentation; and
• The A*Star Institutes in Singapore.
8.2 Imperial College, Strathclyde University and St. Andrews University are partners
in the programme supported by the DTI.
8.3 RRFCS directly funds £1.0 million of research work in Universities and technical
institutes of which £0.25 million is undertaken in the UK.
9. Europe
9.1 RRFCS draws on the expertise and capability of a range of UK businesses to
support the programme; for example GEM, ESL and MEL supply active materials
and inks; Metalcraft and PreciSpark are active in metal components, whilst RiskTec
and a number of small consultancies provide specialist advice.
9.2 Bosal is responsible for the manufacture of the internal reformers, where the
requirements as similar to automotive catalytic converter designs.
Bosal also
provide insulation product.
9.3 Inmatec in Germany manufactures the ceramic substrate on which the Cells are
printed. RRFCS is also currently seeking a full production supply chain partner.
10. USA
The RRFCS US facility is located in Canton, Ohio where R&D activities in fuel
processing and fuel cells is performed with financial assistance from the Dept. of
Energy and the State of Ohio. M. Technologies in Massachusetts are also engaged
in developing the Firmware and Software for the power electronics subsystem.
11. Singapore
Construction of the first manufacturing facility will commence in 2008 for the
production of stack and tiers.
12. Carbon Footprint
12.1 The Carbon Footprint of the RRFCS technology is dependent on a number of
variables including fuel, how it is used, the ambient conditions at which comparisons
68
are made and the output streams. The carbon capture from fuels generally depends
on having a viable infrastructure for sequestration, use in enclosed crop production,
or carbon recycling.
12.2 Fuel Cells have a practical advantage over central power stations running on
bio-fuels, as they can be co-located with the fuel source avoiding a substantial
portion of the transport issues associated with bringing the fuel to the point of use.
12.3 The need for reduced Carbon emissions will be driven by economic necessity.
Regulations framed to achieve improved performance will be aimed at minimising the
overall economic impact. Bio-fuels are particularly difficult to evaluate because of
their variability, harvesting, processing and transportation costs. To give the
Committee a sense of the potential if necessity drove the regulations regardless of
the first cost and operating cost then it is possible to envisage that SOFC hybrids
working on bio-fuels produced from food production waste could be carbon reducing
after carbon capture.
12.4 The following table give some comparisons of Carbon Foot print.
Key:
NG = Natural Gas
CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
SOFC = Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (the technology use by RRFCS.
hybrid = Pressurisation by Micro-turbine
Coal IG-CCGT = Coal Integrated Gasification- Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
69
"Well to wire" CO2 emission [kg/MWh el]
140
40 °C ambient
15 °C ambient
Base case
120
CO2 capture, fossil fuel
100
80
60
40
20
0
Coal steam cycle
NG CCGT
Coal IG-CCGT
SOFC hybrid
Fig 1. Well to wire CO2 emissions for conventional generation
and SOFC hybrids compared. The more direct approach used
for CO2 capture in the SOFC hybrid results in almost complete
capture.
70
"Well to wire" CO2 emission [kg/MWtotal]
Without Exhaust Heat Recovery
With Exhaust Heat Recovery
30
1 unit electric
3 units thermal demand
20
10
0
Coal power
+ NG boiler
NG CCGT
power + NG
boiler
SOFC
hybrid +
heat pump
Micro GT for Micro CHP
SOFC
CHP
SOFC + aux hybrid CHP
boiler
+ heat pump
Fig 2. CO2 emission footprints for a range of approaches to providing end
domestic energy users with both power and heat.
13Future Development
Advanced engineering work at RRFCS has identified how the technology can be
taken forward in the future.
13.1 Power Density.
The current design that is expected to enter revenue service in 2010 has a power
density close to 400W per litre of stack. This power density can potentially be
developed to give approx 3000W per litre of stack. This will require research into the
fundamentals of the science of thin layers operating at high temperatures and the
movement of gases within them over extended periods of time. Power density will
bring the added benefit of lower first cost and operating costs.
13.2 Water.
The gas output from the cells is sufficiently clean for the production of water either for
human consumption with limited additional treatment or directly for irrigation or other
“grey” water uses. Unlike the output from a heat engine useful quantities can be
produced at high ambient temperatures. Six tonnes per 1MW of power output per
day at 40ºC can be achieved. Water will be a valuable additional output for areas that
are short of fresh water.
13.3 Fuel Flexibility.
The challenge for the future is likely to be met by a variety of fuels especially if biofuels are a greater part of the mix in the future. The fuel process technology built into
the first product is capable of development over a broad range of potential fuels.
71
13.3.1 Differing climatic and soil conditions will create a wide variety of bio-fuel
possibilities and the key to efficient exploitation will be the ability to generate power
locally from locally available fuels. This will reduce fuel transportation inefficiencies.
13.3.2 Highly efficient generation by water generative units close to the point of use
will be essential to balancing land use between energy creation and food production.
13.4 Hydrogen.
Fuel Cells being a chemical device are an example of a reversible process. Concepts
exist for applying the technology to the production of high purity hydrogen from
available fuels close to the point of use (e.g. a hydrogen filling station). The energy
density of hydrogen is low unless the technical and safety challenges of extremely
high pressure storage are solved. A practical solution for industry and transport could
be to distribute carbon based fuels and generate hydrogen where it is required.
13.5 Carbon Capture.
In the chart covering the carbon footprint the benefits of carbon capture can be seen.
Well designed Fuel Cell systems can be adapted to capture a very high percentage
of the carbon in the fuel for a modest reduction in efficiency.
The fundamental difference between a fuel cell system and heat engine is that the
carbon dioxide is created in the fuel circuit and therefore not in air. There are
economic penalties in the form of increased capital cost, operating cost and loss of
efficiency that need careful benefit analysis before regulations are drafted to require
carbon capture, but studies exist that suggest the penalties are smaller for Fuel cells
than for other technologies.
13.6 Carbon Recycling
Carbon Capture brings with it the cost and inefficiencies of carbon sequestration at
least where this does not contribute to enhanced oil extraction. RRFCS has
developed concepts for using captured carbon and recycling it into hydrocarbon fuels
for ease of transportation. One use could be to create liquid fuels for aviation from
biomass.
13.7 New materials.
All of the above can be enhanced by the development of advanced materials for the
use in the construction of the cells.
14. Government Support -The UK
RRFCS has been supported by the Department of Trade and Industry and East
Midlands Development Agency in the UK. These currently supports two technology
programmes totalling £20 million of which £10 million of grant has been received.
This support also underpins collaboration with a number of industrial and academic
partners including MEL, ESL, Scitek, St.Andrews, Imperial, and Strathclyde
universities.
15. Research and Development Cost comparisons
72
15.1 Engineering.
The Committee may be interested in the relative cost comparisons of engineering
expertise in those locations in which RRFCS operates:
Annual cost of a qualified engineer with 2-3 years experience :
UK
£29-33k
USA £ 32-37k
Singapore £ 19-22k pa
Post Doctorate Research Assistant:
UK
£85k
USA £38 to 50
Singapore A*Star Institute £35K
15.2 Public support
UK 50% for approved R&D programmes
USA 50 to 80% with local state additions
Singapore 50% for research, 30 - 50% for training and technology transfer.
The RRFCS policy is to locate activities where support is economically attractive
provide the programme aligns with the commercial objectives of the Business.
16. Conclusion
16.1 Fuel cells offer a replacement for heat engines to reduce emission levels
economically, using today’s fuel infrastructure. Based on the RRFCS example much
but not all of the necessary intellectual property, skill sets and academic teams exist
in the UK. The fuel cell industry is in its infancy with many avenues to explore all of
which are environmentally beneficial and can benefit security of supply in the future.
Exploitation of these avenues will enhance the ability to establish and lead a new
global industry.
16.2 Studies have shown that the UK lags behind other countries in investment in
fuel cell development, most notably the USA and Japan, with arguably inferior results
but this apparent lead is not permanent. There is evidence that concepts pioneered
by RRFCS are being explored and adopted by potential competitors who operate in a
much more flexible and efficient national support regime than the UK. Economic
incentives to carry out research and development abroad can erode the UK
knowledge base over time. This is a process that is increasingly having an effect on
the locus of activities of RRFCS.
July 2007
73
Memorandum 13
Submission from The Royal Society of Edinburgh
Executive Summary
1. It is hoped that the Inquiry will view renewable technologies in the light of an
overall energy strategy. Partitioning of thinking with regard to technology
options and choices should be avoided as there are interesting opportunities
for making progress towards a much higher degree of sustainability. To
prepare for the longer term, investment in the development of alternative
sources and cleaner technologies is essential.
2. Displacing or supplementing fossil derived energy with renewable derived
energy is a truly formidable challenge because of the scale of the problem, the
incompatibility of infrastructures required and the complex interactions
between technical, policy and economic aspects. The myriad supply and
demand-side options require an integrated approach. Solutions need to be
pursued at all scales.
3. The development of renewables is dependant on the value of Renewable
Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and to this extent is a distortion of the market in
generation.
4. Research, development and demonstration of projects are paramount and
these aspects should be built-in to a programme and not treated in isolation to
one another. Full scale demonstrators are essential if commercialisation is to
be achieved.
Introduction
5. The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) is pleased to respond to the House of
Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into renewable energygeneration technologies. These comments have been compiled with the
assistance of a number of expert Fellows of the RSE, under the direction of
the Vice-President, Professor John Mavor.
6. The response has been written to correspond with the layout and framework
of the points raised by the committee of inquiry. In terms of timescales, near
term is deemed as being 5 years or less, medium term is 5 to 15 years and
long term is beyond 15 years.
7. The majority of the UK’s natural resources in wind, hydro, marine and biomass
energy are found in the north of the UK. This is illustrated by the fact that 50%
of the UK renewable energy production is sourced from Scotland.13 Therefore,
it is recognised that renewable sources of energy are a key contributor to
13
The Energy Technologies Partnership
74
energy supply needs because of their low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
as well as their abundance. However, it should be recognised that abundance
of resource does not necessarily result in its utilisation as that resource must
be harnessed effectively and economically.
8. Scotland has major research and development strengths across the energy
spectrum, including renewable energy-generation technologies, particularly
within its institutions. In the UK, the University of Strathclyde, judged in relation
to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and
Carbon Trust research income it receives, is first in electricity transmission and
distribution, while the University of Edinburgh is first in ocean energy while the
University of St Andrews is second in energy storage. Also, The Sustainable
Power Generation and Supply initiative (Supergen) research consortia in
marine energy, highly distributed power systems and energy storage is led by
Scottish universities. Furthermore, crucial to the pull-through of renewable
energy technology is the need for the research and development community
to be in close proximity to leading development and demonstration facilities as
well as energy sources. In Scotland such facilities include the European
Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), PURE Energy Centre on Unst, Scottish
Enterprise Energy Technologies Centre, and the University of Edinburgh’s
curved wave tank. Furthermore, pull-through and commercialisation is being
aided by the Intermediary Technology Institute (ITI) in Energy, based in
Aberdeen, which has £150 million to fund and manage early stage research
and development programmes across the energy spectrum, including
renewables, power networks and energy storage.
Committee Question 1
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of,
renewable energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind;
photovoltaics, hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy;
ground source heat pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy
storage.
Offshore wind
9. Onshore wind is now a mature technology and the wind industry in the UK is
the fastest growing in the world, although the support infrastructure is fragile.
Offshore wind installations offer the opportunity for greater wind strength and
duration and the absence of visual intrusion in the landscape. The design and
placement of large structures offshore is a mature technology and a legacy of
the oil and gas industry. However, development of offshore wind generation in
the UK is proving excessively slow, such that the enormous potential of the
Scottish west coast in particular, and the potential for associated commercial
exploitation, risk not being realised. Grid connection issues pose technical
challenges. In Scotland, at March 2006, 180 MW had been consented to and
a further 10 MW planned. This includes the UK and Europe’s flagship
Talisman/Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) Deepwater Offshore Windfarm
Demonstrator in the Moray Firth, which is currently under construction. If the
demonstrator proves successful, a commercial full-scale development could
be viable.
75
Photovoltaics (PV) and solar thermal
10. The generation and applicability of electrical power photovoltaics has been
greatly enhanced by two developments. One is the development of
amorphous photovoltaic cells which promise to become much cheaper than
existing technology. The other is the development of microelectronic controls
which permit domestically-generated electricity to be fed into a national grid.
The current collection efficiency of photovoltaic cells is around 10% although
the latest technology has an efficiency of 15%. This technology is best
incorporated with new build housing and applications remote from the grid.
Research is needed to increase efficiencies even higher for this technology.
11. On the other hand, solar thermal produces hot water and actually works well in
Scotland because although sunnier climates have higher solar radiation levels,
Scotland’s cooler climate allows us to make good use of the solar heat
produced. The technology is simple and well developed.
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
12. A critical driver for hydrogen and fuel cell technology is to implement
renewable energy in mobile applications and hydrogen seems to offer the best
solution. Large scale implementation of hydrogen fuel transport is generally
accepted to be verging on long term largely due to cost and development
needs. Due to the intrinsic high conversion efficiency for electricity production
and its scalability, significant stationary fuel cell deployment is anticipated in
the near to medium term. This will focus upon distributed generation and
combined heat and power (CHP) applications and provides an opportunity to
significantly extend dynamic renewable generation through mitigation of
intermittency problems. Potential fuels include both fossil sources such as
natural gas and coal, biogases from waste and biomass pyrolysis.
13. More medium term application of hydrogen for transport include using it in a
normal combustion engine. Public transport is particularly amenable to
hydrogen fuel cell implementation as there is much less need for a distribution
network and storage in buses is easier to implement. As part of the EU CUTE
programme, the largest hydrogen bus demonstration in the world, three fuel
cell buses are being run by London Transport. These are supplied by the only
hydrogen fuelling station in the UK, operated by BP at Hornchurch. Despite its
relatively small scale, the PURE Energy Centre on Unst is involved in the
research and development of hydrogen technologies, and has utilised wind
power to extract hydrogen from sea water and use it in conjunction with a fuel
cell. However, the problem of hydrogen storage is the primary issue and work
on identifying hydrogen storage materials continues worldwide, including here
in Scotland.
14. Unfortunately, the recent announcement that BP has decided to cancel plans
for its Peterhead hydrogen extraction scheme is an untimely blow as the
scheme was a major UK project not only in terms of hydrogen development
but also carbon sequestration and enhanced oil recovery.
76
15. As part of its response to the report, A Strategic Framework for Hydrogen in
the UK (June 2005), the Government announced a £15 million, four-year
programme for hydrogen and fuel cell demonstrations. However, in Scotland,
the Hydrogen Energy Group (HEG) established by the Forum for Renewable
Energy Development in Scotland (FREDS) has recently published a report,
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Opportunities for Scotland (October 2006) which
highlights UK investment in hydrogen and fuel cell technology as being
negligible in contrast to the USA, Canada, Germany and Japan. Therefore,
more support is needed and as the government appears to view hydrogen
energy activity as an important focus, it should press ahead with the
establishment of the Hydrogen Coordination Unit (HCU).
Wave
16. Wave power systems are weather dependent, to at least the same degree as
wind turbines. Wave generation is at the development stage and no economic
large scale wave energy device has yet been produced. As has been the case
in other fields, there have been some well documented and spectacular
failures of engineering.
17. Scotland has companies involved in the design and construction of waveenergy devices, considerable relevant expertise in its universities and the
Scottish Executive has given significant support to the development and
implementation of these technologies. Wave energy converters need
hydrodynamic characteristics to enable them to operate at maximum efficiency
over the normal range of sea conditions, yet they must be robust enough to
withstand the worst storms. Edinburgh-based company Ocean Power
Delivery’s (OPD) Pelamis has been tested and demonstrated at the EMEC in
Orkney and is currently being installed off the Portuguese coast. With financial
support from the Scottish Executive, there are also plans to utilise Pelamis
technology to build the world’s largest commercial wave farm in Scotland.
However, it should be recognised that this would equate to a capacity of only 3
MW. Therefore, the commercial deployment of wave technology has to be
regarded as medium to long term.
Tidal
18. Tidal power output is distinct from wave as it can be predicted to a high
degree of certainty. Tidal barrage technology is technically proven; the La
Rance scheme in France has provided 240 MW since its construction in 1967.
Approximately eight sites have been identified in the UK as suitable for
barrages, including the largest proposal, the 9 GW Severn barrage. Estimates
suggest that a combination of a barrage system across the River Severn and
an under sea, bi-directional, un-enclosed turbine array across 10-20% of the
Pentland Firth could meet circa 25% of the UK demand for electrical power.
However, to ensure diversity of supply, it would not be appropriate to rely on
such a large proportion of supply from such limited number of sources and
sites. A barrage scheme, such as the Severn, would have to be regarded as a
long term development.
77
19. The proposal for the large Pentland Firth tidal current system is at a very early
stage of research and has not progressed much beyond the simple conceptual
stage. However, there are other, smaller potential sites for tidal current energy
around the coast that would provide a modest contribution in a much-reduced
timescale. In this regard, a prototype by Marine Current Turbines has been
operating in the Bristol Channel since 2003. With this in mind, tidal current
technology deployment would be regarded as near term, provided that the
Renewables Obligation can provide the necessary level of support.
Bioenergy
20. Biomass resources can be used for a number of energy applications including
electricity generation, heat, CHP, and the production of fuels for transport.
With regard to electricity generation, the co-firing of biomass in existing plant,
particularly coal, is currently done relatively quickly and at low cost and can
give an immediate reduction in emissions. Furthermore, there are plans for
dedicated biomass plants and one such plant is under construction in
Lockerbie. The combustion of biomass for electricity generation will therefore
occur in the near term. The combustion of biomass and waste is a mature
technology and has potential as an energy source for water and space
heating. Both energy crops and forestry material are best suited for distributed
systems, as opposed to centralised generation, in heat-only or CHP. These
systems, which include electricity as well as heating and cooling, cover
distributed energy applications ranging from domestic microgeneration to
industrial-scale CHP and medium to large scale renewable energy projects.
21. While there is always the possibility of incremental improvements in the
efficiency of combustion plant, the real technical challenges lie in the
advanced technology for producing biofuels. The Renewable Transport Fuel
Obligation places a requirement on transport fuel suppliers to ensure that 5%
of their overall fuel sales is from a renewable source by 2010. The two
principal sources at present are bioethanol and biodiesel.
ƒ Bioethanol is most efficiently produced from rapidly growing, high
carbohydrate content crops. In the UK plants are being developed to
produce bioethanol from both wheat and sugar beet. In fact, Ensus has
recently announced (March 2007) that it has secured funding to build the
UK’s first large-scale wheat bioethanol plant, which is due to be operational
in 2009.
ƒ Biodiesel is produced from oil crops such as rape, linseed and sunflower.
There is mounting interest in this area in Scotland. The first large scale
commercial biodiesel plant started production in March 2005 at the Argent
Energy Plant in Lockerbie. Also, INEOS Enterprise is investing £70m in a
biodiesel production facility at its Grangemouth site. The biodiesel is
produced from cooking oil and tallow. However, the biggest potential may
be in the form of ‘second generation’ biofuels. These biofuels would be
produced from any plant feedstocks other than food crops and use
advanced chemical processes to break down the cellulose in the feedstock.
78
Ground source heat pumps and other microgenerators
22. The Scottish Executive launched its draft Energy Efficiency & Microgeneration
Strategy in March 2007 with the aim of encouraging a greater uptake of
microgeneration. Such technologies include heat pumps, micro-wind, microhydro, micro-CHP, biomass, solar PV and solar thermal. These technologies
are mature and the Scottish Community and Householders Renewables
Initiative (SCHRI) offers advice and grants to help with the installation of
microrenewables. The Scottish Executive is developing a renewable heat
strategy as the energy used for heating is a significant proportion of energy
consumption and to date there has been a tendency to focus upon electricity
generation.
Intelligent grid management and energy storage
23. With regard to the Grid network, it is likely that in the near future there will be
increasing levels of renewable sources of power, producing variable and
intermittent supplies. In some ways this will change the operation of the
network as the branches of the network will need to be more flexible and have
increased capacity to cope with new generation ‘tapered’ towards the
periphery. This will require active management of the network and Ofgem has
been quite far-sighted by creating a range of incentives for further
development and application, such as the Innovation Funding Incentive (IFI)
and Registered Power Zones (RPZ) programmes. Short term difficulties in the
areas of integration and network management are being solved through this
route. Furthermore, the Joint DTI/Ofgem Working group is doing a lot of work
in this area and much of the Grid technology needed is already identified.
There is on-going R&D activity in the electrical network technology field,
including power electronics and active network management systems.
University departments working in these fields are probably the principal
repositories of expertise since the dismantling of the research base of the
power utilities in the previous decades. The main concerns in this area
surround the distribution system, particularly in light of increasing levels of
distributed energy.
24. Major research, development and demonstration in energy storage
technologies is needed to meet the needs of increasing intermittent
renewables in the system and to balance supply and demand. Pumped
storage hydroelectricity is the only proven large scale energy storage
mechanism and has been operating for decades using a relatively simple
principle. Pumped storage offers a crucial back-up facility at periods of high
demand due to its flexibility and could be used to store power from intermittent
generators at periods of low demand. There are a range of alternative energy
storage technologies being considered such as flywheels, compressed gas
and electrochemical technologies.
25. Electrochemical technologies provide some of the most practical solutions.
For larger scales, redox flow fuel cells have particular potential and are being
developed by Plurion in Scotland with support from ITI Energy. For smaller
stationary applications and mobile applications in particular, modern battery
79
technology, based on either lithium or on nickel-metal-hydride is being
considered. Over the last 10 years, the performance of lithium batteries has
improved by approximately 30% in terms of their ability to store energy and
over the next 10 years, researchers in Scotland expect a further improvement
of 50-100% in density, as well as a tenfold improvement in charge and
discharge rate. There is considerable expertise in this field in Scotland in St
Andrew’s University and the UK should continue to invest in lithium ion
technology for batteries. Furthermore, capacitors/supercapacitors are used in
conjunction with batteries to provide a power boost, when required.
Committee Question 2
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
26. With regard to the commercialisation of offshore wind, wave and tidal
technology, many barriers exist. Although, as illustrated above, progress has
been made, the gap between capital costs, expected operational costs and
revenue still remains too large for substantial industrial commitment, without
improvements in the ROC system. Uncertainty about real future costs,
particularly the operating and maintenance costs is a major problem. Turbine
prices are increasing as global demand expands, reliability is uncertain, raw
material prices are high and grid connections are uncertain. It is important that
work take place to establish whether some of the above risks can be
mitigated, by a regime of capital grants and adjustments to economic
instruments.
27. The reliability of the performance of large-scale marine power generating
plants has still to be tested but there are concerns about the ability of ocean
wave and tide generators to operate reliably in the extremely high energy
environments in which they will operate. Furthermore, the most likely sources
of marine energy in the UK are at some considerable distance from likely large
users of electricity. Hence the total costs for design and erection of the energy
generators, and the power transmission system must be analysed and
estimated in relation to the market, and the price which the market will pay.
Too often in the past, seemingly attractive projects have foundered because of
over-optimistic initial assumptions and omissions of key cost elements, for
example in transmission/distribution. The problem of grid connection is
common to all renewable sources as distribution grids tend to be ‘tapered’
towards their periphery, which is often where the renewable energy is
available. Therefore, there are important possibilities for applying renewable
technologies to produce chemicals close to generation sites, displacing fossil
fuel based chemical production in other sites.
28. In the case of wave technology, devices that have been developed and
demonstrated are highly subsidised. The Pelamis project in Portugal is subject
to a guaranteed price for its electricity for 15 years. Therefore, these
technologies present a major, medium to long term opportunity for the UK. In
the UK, Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) have stimulated the
development of onshore wind, being the only technology closest to market, at
the expense of other technologies. In the Energy White Paper of 2007 there is
80
a policy proposal to implement a banding regime with regard to the
Renewables Obligation. The aim of this is to bring forward emerging
renewable technologies. The current proposals indicate that the level of
support for emerging technologies would increase to 2 ROCs/MWh.
Furthermore, in Scotland, a Marine Supply Obligation (MSO) has been
proposed to provide additional encouragement for the development of wave
and tidal sources located in Scotland. However, these proposals as they stand
may not provide sufficient incentive to make emerging technologies viable
propositions.
29. An issue that has not been mentioned thus far is that some renewable energy
technologies could present considerable challenges to sustainable
management of the marine environment. The types of risk to marine wildlife
that need most attention involve those concerning some of the most iconic
marine species, including large sharks, seals, dolphins and whales, as well as
seabirds. The engineering solutions for both tidal and wave power
technologies need to include the assessment of environmental risks from an
early stage because this could affect both the design and the commercial
viability of different designs. The environmental compliance issues are rarely
built-in to design briefs in advance of technical feasibility being tested and
usually come late in the day, and as an after-thought, during testing. Although
current knowledge to help assess relative environmental suitability is poor,
developing methods of assessment and accumulating data needs to be an
integral part of the development process.
30. With regard to hydrogen production, the largest source and cheapest
commercial process for the manufacture of hydrogen is by reforming methane,
but this may produce CO2 at the point of production unless the precursor
carbon monoxide is used in the production of valuable downstream fuels such
as methanol. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to use the methane in
combustion plant for electricity generation rather than for the manufacture of
hydrogen, whilst developing higher efficiency technologies such as fuel cells.
Also, since 50% of the world’s known gas (methane) supplies are stranded
due to lack of infrastructure, methane reforming and processes such as
Fischer-Tropsch could be used for gas to liquid transformation, which would
allow access to this huge additional resource of high hydrogen, low carbon
fuel.
31. Production of hydrogen using wind energy is low carbon if not entirely carbonfree, as carbon is produced both during the manufacture and the
commissioning stages, and is also an expensive way to produce hydrogen, as
is using nuclear energy in the electrolysis of water. There is potential in
hydrogen as an energy vector for transport applications in the longer term
provided that it is produced from low carbon emissions sources. Widespread
applications of hydrogen technology require major investment in production,
transport and storage infrastructure, and stimulation of demand. Until costs
are reduced and mass production is developed, the evolution of a hydrogen
economy will be slow.
81
32. With regard to the commercialisation of bioenergy, the high cost of transport of
relatively low energy content means that woody material should be converted
to energy within about 50 km of its source. Although this is not an entirely
carbon-neutral source of energy, with proper management carbon costs can
be kept low. In terms of biofuel, plant oils and crops can fetch a good price for
industrial or food uses, therefore the economic case for biofuel production may
be weak at present unless farmers get a guaranteed market and price.
However, there are global food security concerns as increased use of food
crops for biofuel production could lead to food shortages and increased prices
which would be felt most by the poorest sections of society. The primary
barriers to ‘second generation’ biofuels concern the technology and
prohibitively high costs at present.
33. As for energy from ground source heat pumps as well as other
microrenewables, a primary barrier is the estimated rates of return on capital
investment being measured in decades, although this period would be
reduced by grants being available. Other issues include limited public
awareness of technologies as well as planning and technical constraints. In
terms of good practice, it is best to install such technologies as part of a new
build. With the market for microrenewables being at a very early stage of
development, significant deployment of these technologies falls within the long
term timeframe.
34. Furthermore, it is the case that one of the major threats to the
commercialisation of energy technologies in the UK is the lack of technicallyskilled human capital. Young engineers are not entering into programmes of
education and training in the energy sector as they once did and this must be
rectified if there is to be progress in commercialisation.
Committee Question 3
The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable
energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for technology
transfer and industrial research and development.
35. One major casualty of the privatised energy industry has been research,
development and demonstration. The world-renowned research carried out by
the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) and the South of Scotland
Electricity Board (SSEB) in the 1970s and 1980s has been abandoned by the
privatised energy companies. While the Government has stimulated research
in renewables to a limited extent, a comprehensive energy supply research
programme with a practical demonstration focus needs to be established.
36. Therefore, the government should be commended for its proposal to form the
Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) which focuses on the delivery of usable
technology. The priority themes of the ETI include large scale energy supply
technologies, support infrastructure and energy security. With the emphasis
on a public and private sector partnership, there is scope for truly innovative
and rewarding research and development, and this initiative needs to be taken
forward urgently. Such support must be far-sighted in nature to provide the
incentives and certainty to encourage further investment.
82
37. As part of this, the government must investigate the skills crisis and introduce
initiatives to act as a catalyst to introduce new students to energy-related
discipline areas. In Scotland, some effort has been made by the Scottish
Enterprise, High Technology Talent Strategy Board in this area. The
government’s Knowledge Transfer Partnership programme is a most effective
enabler for knowledge transfer and a flagship programme could usefully be
established in the area of new and renewable energy systems. Such an
initiative would both bridge the industry/academia gap and help with the
training of new graduates.
38. To date, UK renewables other than onshore wind have received limited
support and the demonstration infrastructure has not been within the remit of
the DTI. The average annual per capita R&D spending on renewables 19902005 was a little over 0.3 Euros in the UK while in Spain it was about 0.5
Euros, Japan about 0.9 Euros and Germany almost 1 Euro.14 Indeed, time
delays have been observed to place renewable projects in jeopardy: e.g. the
Marine Current Turbines demonstration in Strangford Loch in Northern Ireland.
This situation may be contrasted with that which prevails in Portugal where
designated sites are made available to developers.
Committee Question 4
Other possible technologies for renewable energy-generation
39. A physical consequence of conventional thermal plants is that high-grade heat
has to be rejected. Some of that heat, where appropriate, should be captured
in local heating schemes and CHP plants, or used in conjunction with
combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT).
40. While not a generation technology, active demand-side control (enacted via the
Internet for example) is a facilitating technology because it is able to reshape load
profiles to better accommodate stochastic renewable supplies while arranging cooperative switching with the public energy supply systems during times of shortfall.
There is an opportunity to significantly escalate research in this area.
Additional Information and References
Any enquiries about this submission should be addressed to the RSE’s Consultations Officer,
Mr William Hardie (email: [email protected]).
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
14
The Royal Society of Edinburgh response to the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee Inquiry, The Practicalities of Developing Renewable Energy (October 2003).
Science Scotland, Energy Special, Issue 5 (Spring 2006)
The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland (June 2006).
Scottish Science Advisory Committee, Scientific Network of Excellence in Energy
(December 2006).
The Energy Technologies Partnership, Expression of Interest in Support of the UK
Energy Technologies Institute (February 2007)
IEA energy R&D database (Euros based on 2005 prices)
83
July 2007
84
Memorandum 14
Submission from Advantage West Midlands
Areas under consideration
1. The current state of UK R&D in, and deployment of, renewable energy
generation technologies including offshore wind, photovoltaics, hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies, wave, tidal, bio energy, ground source heat pumps and
intelligent grid management and energy storage.
The West Midlands Region has strong innovation capabilities applicable to these
technologies. While the picture is not even across them, these capabilities are
generally competitive at international level and are contained in a mix of both
business and academic assets. The regional picture was assessed in a study
undertaken by Birmingham University for the regional Innovation and Technology
Council, a copy of which is included with this submission supported by an ‘inventory’
of academic capability.
2. The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
The commercialisation of renewable technologies does pose particular problems; the
Region has two demonstration units in renewable energy and this response draws on
the regional experience with these two projects, as follows:
Eccleshall Biomass- Farming for Energy
This proejct involves the construction of a technology pathfinder renewable energy
power plant fuelled from a locally grown miscanthus (elephant grass) supply chain.
This project will:
•
•
•
Provide a significant farm diversification opportunity
Support regional objectives by allowing the creation of a regional supply chain
around the technology supplier, also a regional company.
Make a direct contribution to carbon reduction in the Region.
AWM funding has been used to supplement DTI Funding, via the New & Renewable
Energy Scheme, and private sector funding. The private sector contribution is in the
majority. The project is now in commissioning stages.
Waste to Asset- The Greenfinch Project
85
This project proposes the construction of an advanced waste disposal facility to
handle food waste generated in Ludlow. This project will:
• Develop an anaerobic digestion plant capable of treating 5,000 tonnes a year
of biodegradable wastes in South Shropshire and producing renwable
electricity together with a directly usable fertiliser.
• Establish the operation of this site in a community company to provide waste
management services and renewable energy generation in South Shropshire.
• Provide access to the site so that it can serve as a national demonstrator.
• Give a firm platform for a regional supply chain to take advantage of this
emerging marketplace.
The project was led by South Shropshire District Council working in conjunction with
Greenfinch Ltd, a regional technology provider. The project is also supported by
DEFRA, through the Waste Implementation Programme. This project is now
established in operation.
Experience with these projects indicates that:
•
The commercialisation process does need to recognise a distinct deployment
phase, where new technologies can build meaningful experience that will
allow them to enter highly structure and risk averse markets on something like
equal terms with more established offerings.
•
Demonstration in this area tends to encounter barriers with processes for
electrical connection and for planning, where there scale and nature present
‘out of the ordinary’ challenges to the process.
Support for this aspect of the innovation process is emerging as a key consideration
in achieving success.
3. The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for
renewable energy generation technologies and providing incentives for
technology transfer and industrial research and development.
The two projects described above together with a further DTI supported industrial
R&D project, connected with generation technologies for renewable energy, all have
substantial UK Government support. This support has been essential in achieving
the considerable progress that has been made in terms of both the deployment of
renewable technologies and in the building of supply chains for these technologies.
While the grant application process can be demanding, the schemes themselves are
seen as an essential part of the landscape.
4. Other possible technologies for renewable energy generation.
86
Selected Waste to Energy technologies could usefully be added the scope of the
inquiry. This technology poses very similar issues to other renewables but with a
significant added complication in that the typical framework of deployment, via PFI
projects of substantial scale, adds further to the issues around commercialisation.
As a more general point, the focus on renewable energy tends to fall on electricity
generation. Renewable heat technologies (including combined heat and power) also
have a role to play.
Available at office:
1. Report ‘Energy Strengths in the West Midlands’
2. Listing of academic resources in energy innovation
3. Presentation ‘Energy Strengths in the West Midlands’
July 2007
87
Memorandum 15
Submission from the South West Regional Development Agency
1.
Executive Summary
1.1
The South West Regional Economic Strategy identifies environmental
technologies (including renewable energy) as one of the eight priority sectors
selected for specific intervention. The South West RDA provides a variety of
support to the renewable energy sector and over the past few years has
committed over £7.5m to supporting the development, demonstration and
commercialisation of new energy technologies. Some of the major projects
and initiatives that the RDA has supported include the establishment and
funding of Regen SW, the region’s renewable energy agency; grants for
research and development in emerging technologies; and the South West Bioheat Programme.
1.2
The most significant area of activity for the South West RDA is in developing a
marine renewable energy industry, for which we are developing Wave Hub
and an associated economic support programme. The Wave Hub is an
electrical “socket” off the north coast of Cornwall to allow companies
developing wave energy technology to deploy groups (arrays) of devices in a
vigorous wave climate over several years. The project aims to enable the final
stage of development for companies in the UK, taking advantage of the
region’s strong natural resource of wave power, the existing skills and facilities
in the marine sector, and the research capability in universities and research
institutes to build a strong capability in marine renewables, consolidating the
UK’s leading position in this area.
1.3
Wave Hub will enable device developers to access a demonstration site
without the cost and time commitment of laying a cable and securing a
consent. The developers will be able to prove the performance of their
devices and, at the same time, form collaborations with industry and research
centres to improve the economics of their devices. It will work closely with the
DTI’s Marine Renewable Deployment Fund and other grant funded
programmes, such as the Carbon Trust’s Marine Accelerator and various UK
and European research programmes. It will also provide a location for
determining the environmental impacts of the technologies and thereby
influence stakeholders and affected communities as well as informing
decisions about the location of future projects.
2.
Introduction
2.1
The South West has a track record of developing 'firsts' in renewable energy.
Among almost 100 renewable electricity schemes in the region is the UK’s first
commercial wind farm and the first UK scheme to harness electricity from
fermented farm and food waste. The region has high levels of wave, wind,
hydro and solar energy and the best climate in the UK for growing energy
88
crops. It currently has 150 businesses working in renewable energy and a
number of individuals who lead the world in renewable energy modelling,
project development, and device design and installation.
2.2
Recognising the South West’s potential to be a major force in the renewable
energy industry and to make a significant contribution to tackling climate
change, the South West Regional Economic Strategy has prioritised activity
that encourages new enterprises; helps the industry to compete in the global
economy; and promotes innovation. This will also help the region to deliver on
its statement of intent to secure economic growth within environmental limits.
2.3
As a contribution towards unlocking this potential in the South West’s
renewable energy sector, the South West RDA has committed over £7.5m to
supporting the development, demonstration and commercialisation of new
energy technologies over the last few years, and supports the renewable
sector in a number of different ways. Some of the major projects and
initiatives that the South West RDA has provided funding for include:
•
Regen SW – Regen SW acts as a catalyst for the development of renewable
energy in the South West, with the objectives of increasing the amount of high
quality renewable energy projects on the ground; securing short-term growth by
supporting business in the renewable energy sector; and positioning the region for
long term economic growth by developing early leadership in renewable energy
technologies. Regen SW has had a number of notable successes, and is
currently delivering sector support for the South West renewable energy industry.
•
Grant for Research and Development – A variety of renewable energy
companies have received grants to support their R&D, including a grant to
help the development of a 4000 kW wind turbine and a feasibility study for
a tidal energy device.
SW Bioheat Programme – The South West Bioheat Programme aims to
stimulate the bioheat industry in the South West through increasing the
number of systems on the ground, supporting fuel suppliers and providing
recognised training programmes across the region.
Marine Renewable Energy Programme – The South West region has a
long coastline with many areas having potentially commercial levels of
energy for either wind or tidal stream generation projects. To capitalise on
this, the South West RDA has developed a programme of activity to
stimulate a world class marine energy sector in the region.
•
•
2.4
It is our activity on marine renewable energy that is the focus of the rest of this
paper.
3.
Early Stages of the Wave Hub Project
3.1
South West England wants to take a prominent position in marine renewable
energy, capitalising on its significant potential to generate substantial amounts
of electricity from wave and tidal stream resources around its coast and
ample, immediately available, grid capacity. The South West RDA has long
89
recognised the potential of the marine energy industry for the region and
agreed to support demonstration projects in this sector.
3.2
In July 2003, the South West RDA invited an expert industry panel, facilitated
by Regen SW, to suggest ways in which the region’s wave resources could be
exploited to economic advantage. The panel considered a number of options,
including carrying out surveys to map resources and environmental
constraints and possible financial support mechanisms, but identified the
concept of developing a proving zone for wave energy devices as the best
option for the region to pursue. This would provide wave device developers
with a means of taking the next step towards the commercial application of
devices, and enable the future financing of commercial projects.
3.3
In October 2003, the South West RDA commissioned an initial report into the
concept of developing a Wave Hub. The Seapower South West report
confirmed the likely merits of this idea of developing a Wave Hub, based upon:
•
•
•
•
•
the region’s strong wave energy resource;
capacity of the electricity distribution network to accept substantial
additional generation without major investment;
strength of the existing marine skills base and available facilities;
strength of the knowledge base including universities and research
institutes such as Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, the Met Office, and the United
Kingdom Hydrographic Office; and
substantial grant support available in Cornwall from the EU (Objective 1
and Convergence).
3.4
The South West RDA considered the industry’s advice, and the Seapower
South West report and, in March 2004, we agreed to develop Wave Hub
further. Since this time, we have kept in regular contact with the industry and
are convinced that this facility is critical if the UK is to retain its position as the
world leader in wave energy.
4.
The Wave Hub Concept
4.1
Wave Hub is a groundbreaking renewable energy project in the South West
that aims to create the world’s first large scale wave energy farm by
constructing an electrical ‘socket’ on the seabed around 10 nautical miles off
Hayle, on the Cornwall coast. 8 square kilometres of sea bed will be leased
from the Crown Estate and up to four companies developing wave energy
conversion devices (WECs) will be granted a 2 sq kilometre area, within which
to moor an array of devices. The devices will then connect to the Wave Hub
infrastructure on the sea floor and up to 20MW of green power will be
transmitted through a sub-sea cable to the local distribution network at Hayle.
4.2
Each developer will be granted a lease to use Wave Hub for between 5 and
10 years. The Wave Hub operator will record climate conditions and the
electricity generated by each array. It will also monitor the environmental
impacts the arrays are causing. This will enable the developers to build up a
90
validated track record of performance that they can then use to support
proposals for commercial scale wave farms in the South West and elsewhere.
4.3
The recording of environmental impacts through research by the Wave Hub
operator will inform stakeholders and regulators and provide a basis for
decisions about future sites.
5.
Linkages to Other UK Initiatives
5.1
The project will provide the final stage of development for wave technologies
in the UK. Early stage designs can be tested at the established facilities
provided by NaREC in north-east England. Single prototypes, at part- or fullscale, can then best tested at EMEC in Scotland. Wave Hub provides the final
demonstration stage before the devices can be deployed commercially.
5.2
The device developers deploying at Wave Hub can expect to benefit from the
Dti’s Marine Renewables Deployment Fund which offers capital support and a
subsidy per unit of power generated to developers who have already
completed preliminary trials at EMEC or similar facilities elsewhere.
5.3
The Carbon Trust’s Marine Accelerator Fund seeks to speed up the
commercialisation of devices and the Wave Hub will provide an ideal platform
for many aspects of the technology improvement they envisage.
5.4
Government, EU and commercial funds are available for generic research and
Wave Hub will provide the opportunity to research many areas of concern to
stakeholders, regulators and communities. Of particular importance are
effects on fish stocks; impacts on marine mammals and sea birds; effects on
coastal processes, including shoreline waves used by surfers; establishing
procedures to ensure navigational safety and socio-economic impacts.
6.
Current Status
6.1
Since 2004, the South West RDA has completed studies into technical
feasibility, the business case and economic viability of the project, and has
subsequently commissioned the detailed design and an environmental impact
assessment. Applications for consent to construct were submitted to the Dti
and Defra in June 2006. Negotiations with stakeholders have now been
concluded and we understand that the Departments concerned will be
determining our applications within the coming weeks.
6.2
In April 2007, the South West RDA Board resolved to go ahead with the
project at a total cost (excluding allowances for depreciation and use of
capital) of £27.87m. The Agency expects this to be part-funded by up to
£11.75m from the Cornwall Convergence programme and has received a
conditional offer from the Dti Marine Renewables Deployment Fund of £4.5m,
91
making the net cost to the Agency of £11.62m. The costs of operating the
project after construction will be met by fees paid by the device developers.
The Board’s decision is subject to various milestones being achieved before
the cable and equipment are ordered, including completion of a site lease,
consents being obtained and binding contracts being entered into by at least
two device developers. The investment also has to be approved by the Dti
and HM Treasury through the Central Projects Review Group.
6.3
Subject to these requirements being fulfilled, we expect to order the cable and
equipment by the end of 2007 and construct the project in 2008, or maybe
2009, depending upon the lead times to obtain the cable and equipment and
the availability of cable-laying ships.
6.4
Four device developers have been selected to work at the Wave Hub following
invitations for expressions of interest and interviews to determine their
suitability in terms of financial and managerial capability and the amount of
testing already completed. All four have completed some level of testing in
sea conditions and we are satisfied they have the capacity to proceed with
building an array of devices. The South West RDA is working with this group
to maximise the linkages with regional and UK suppliers and facilitating their
progress wherever possible.
7.
Future Development of Wave Energy
7.1
Beyond Wave Hub, there are likely to be opportunities for building commercial
scale projects off the South West coastline as well as export opportunities for
the device developers, their suppliers and knowledge-based consultancies.
7.2
Unlike offshore wind farms where fishing can safely take place between
individual turbines, wave farms will need to exclude all fishing and other
maritime activity because of the presence of mooring lines and electrical
cables. Development of future sites will therefore require that areas of coastal
sea will be set aside for this purpose with other maritime activities expressly
excluded. This will require acceptance from commercial shipping interests
and leisure craft users that these areas will be denied to them and that safety
of navigation can be maintained. Fishermen will see wave farms as a further
constraint on their activities. Coastal communities will be concerned to
understand any possible effects on coastal erosion, erosion of sand from
beaches and any adverse effects on waves used by surfers, an important
aspect of the tourist industry. Our environmental impact assessment has
predicted all of the latter to be negligible, but actual measurements will prove
or disprove this.
7.3
We expect that the Wave Hub will play an important part in contributing to a
greater understanding of these factors and make a contribution to debates
about coastal policy and, in due course, marine spatial planning.
92
July 2007
93
Memorandum 16
Submission from East of England Development Agency
On behalf of EEDA and its partners, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the
Science & Technology Committee Inquiry into renewable energy generation technologies.
The Renewables Industry is of particular importance to the East of England, where we have
significant regional strengths in terms of investment, natural resources and world-class
research & development capabilities focussed directly at developing this industry in the wider
context of regional economic development.
Please find below our contribution to the four key areas of your Inquiry.
1
Evidence of the current actions taken by EEDA and its partners in relation to R&D
and deployment of renewable energy generation technologies.
1.1 Offshore wind, wave and tidal
o £9.5m capital funding for the OrbisEnergy innovation and incubation centre to provide a
global centre of excellence for offshore renewables
o Revenue funding into Renewables East ‘Championing Offshore Renewables’ programme
to encourage early stage development into new and established offshore wind, wave and
tidal deployment, including:
ƒ Supply chain development;
ƒ Technology acceleration;
ƒ Knowledge transfer;
ƒ Business support networking;
ƒ Industry Liaison & Promotion.
o EEDA proof of concept R&D £200k capital grant to Trident Energy for wave generation.
1.2 Photovoltaics
o the Centre for Integrated Photonics is a regionally recognised EEDA funded asset with
expertise in converting electronic pulses into light through highly efficient conductors. The
key to further transfer of their expertise lies in achieving the reverse process of light into
electronic pulse
o The DTI LCBP Phase 2 Grant Scheme has allocated £17m of its £48m budget. This
includes a unique collaboration between Renewables East and Essex County Council to
develop the supply chain and increase uptake of renewables, which has led to a £1m
fund being allocated by Essex CC to install PV in schools. A further allocation is now
being considered for business networking and awareness raising.
1.3 Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
o EEDA has been actively engaging regional universities that have complementary skills
and expertise including Cranfield University and UEA.
1.4 Bioenergy
o BioREGen is an East of England project funded through DEFRA’s BREW programme
that focuses on encouraging the deployment of technology to allow the UK to better
understand technologies such as Anaerobic Digestion and so access a new fuel supply
chain, thus enabling further development of UK intellectual property. Work ongoing in the
region has focused on:
ƒ Studies in deploying Anaerobic Digestion & Gasification
ƒ Business support for potential projects
ƒ Gasification trials with new feedstock
94
o
o
o
o
ƒ Knowledge transfer with Guidance Notes
The formation of the British BioAlcohols Group has brought together the Institute of Food
Research, John Innes Centre and University of East Anglia to look at research into
alcohol production from ‘whole’ crops. Linking into this work is a ‘field to wheels’ program
with the automotive sector (Lotus) and research work into the use of biodiesel or rape oil
for heating systems
£40k funding for Epicam for a system to recover waste heat from internal combustion
engines and turn it back into usable engine power
£70k funding for AxelChoice to assemble, install and demo an exhaust energy
regeneration system
£200k funding for Camcon to design, build and test an intelligent valve system which
reduces typical petrol engine CO2 emissions by 18%
1.5 Ground source heat pumps
o The DTI LCBP Phase 2 Grant Scheme has an allocation for heat pumps. Funding from
Essex County Council has been secured for a Support Manager to develop the supply
chain, increase the uptake of renewables, business networking and improving awareness
of renewables including heat pumps.
1.6 Other
o £33k proof of concept funding for Wind Technologies Ltd to patent and produce a smallscale onshore winds generator
o £40k funding for Select Innovations Ltd to commercialise an innovative power supply
solution for discharge tube lamps
o £55k for Ashe Morris to develop a heat exchanger for use in the chemical industry
o £72k for Thermofluidics to take to market a heat-powered pump system for electricity-free
water circulation in both building and irrigation contexts .
2
The feasibility costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
2.1 EEDA has developed and funds a number of related and closely working partners,
focussing on Renewable Energy, Sustainable Engineering and Innovation. Key partners
such as Centre for Sustainable Energy, Renewables East and other innovation centres
(i.e. St Johns) look to pass on network and learning opportunities for evolving technology
commercialisation opportunities.
2.2 In addition EEDA provides direct funding into businesses for energy and environmental
commercialisation through R&D capital grants (5-10% of £5.5m) and proof of concept
grants (10-15% of £2m).
2.3 The Region has developed a number of ‘general’ approaches to financing feasibility and
commercialisation activity and the partner organisations EEDA has set up are effective at
ensuring these are known to inventors and developers. There is also an increasing level
of private investment interest in the sector and the Low Carbon Accelerator has been set
up by a regionally based consortium, contributing around £90m in its first year.
2.4 This is complicated by the variety of different market opportunities and risk approaches
inventors and developers exhibit. The smaller-scale opportunities and ones with return
less in line with commercial / market focused returns will not get support from national
programmes such as Carbon Trust and yet may be too large for regional R&D funds. A
revolving fund, to address the intermediate stage is about to be piloted in the Region.
3 The government’s role in funding R&D and incentivising technology transfer.
3.1 The approach of Central Government to this type of funding for research and
development is sometimes perceived as fractured, with organisations such as the RDAs,
95
Carbon Trust, The Technology Strategy Board and Environment Agency all offering
differing (but sometimes overlapping) opportunities. This presents a relatively confusing
and complicated system for businesses and Universities who would like to engage
together in applying for funding and collaborating on projects.
3.2 There are as a consequence some areas which appear to fall outside the remit or
capacity of the existing funding organisations and schemes, including:
o Funding for research into developing smaller scale project for energy recovery
(electricity, heat and transport fuels) from UK waste with the outputs being used locally.
o Development of demonstration plants for various technologies.
o Funding for Biofuels research and its use within the transport sector. BBAG has applied
for funding from different programmes – there needs to be better synergy between these
programmes (medium term research vs shorter term commercialisation)
4 Other possible technologies for renewable energy generation:
4.1 We would advise consideration of the following two possibilities:
o Biomethane can be produced from UK organic waste residues or from grown crops
(through better use of available land). It could be developed as a transport fuel following
a programme of deploying LNG/CNG and encouraging vehicles to use the fuel.
o Methane fuel cells for transport or power production.
5 Concluding remarks
5.1 As you can see from the evidence supplied above, the East of England is a vibrant and
burgeoning centre for the development of the ‘renewables’ sector – with valuable natural
resources, both in the region and off shore. There is also considerable opportunity to
build ‘renewables’ into the supply chain companies already resident in the region.
5.2 The Regional Development Agency is contributing to a variety of key actions aimed at
regional economic development as well as providing leadership in the development of
renaissance projects with sustainable credentials. In addition, with the increasing need
for affordable housing in the region, we are working with the Buildings Research
Establishment to develop workable solutions to the dilemma of cost versus sustainable
construction.
5.3 The private sector is also active in the region with the following projects:
o British Sugar have opened a Bioethanol plant at their Wissington site in Cambridgeshire.
This project won the Project Award at the recent British Renewable Energy Association
Awards.
o Morrisons, the supermarket chain, have introduced biofuels to their petrol stations in and
around Norwich (as a result of discussions with Renewables East)
o Lotus – the racing car company based at Hethel, near Norwich, are currently developing
a lightweight electric racing car.
5.4 Finally, the Region has engaged with the Skills for Business network to identify a range of
skills gaps and mismatches in both the renewables and related industries and is working
with its Skills & Competitiveness Partnership to develop ways in which the region can
respond to the increasing demands of the industry on a limited labour pool.
5.5 Should you have any further questions, or require more information on any of the above
evidence, please do not hesitate to contact my office. I look forward to hearing more
about the outcomes of this enquiry.
July 2007
96
Memorandum 17
Submission from RWE npower
Executive Summary
1. RWE npower welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Science and
Technology Committee inquiry into renewable energy technologies.
We
feel that the inquiry is timely, particularly given the recent
publication of the government’s energy white paper, “Meeting the Energy
Challenge”.
Consumers, industry and government face difficult choices
in responding to the need to provide secure and sustainable energy
supplies for the UK.
RWE npower are committed to engaging with
government on this issue, and to playing a key role in helping to
deliver against government targets for renewables.
2. Our written evidence submission provides detail on the current state of
research and development (R&D) in, and deployment of, renewable
technologies.
In particular we highlight barriers to the large scale
deployment of existing renewable technologies, namely UK supply,
planning and grid.
Background
3. RWE npower, part of the RWE Group, owns and operates one of the largest
and most diverse portfolios of power generating plant in the UK with
over 10,000 megawatts (MW) of large gas, coal and oil-fired power
stations, cogeneration plant and renewables facilities.
4. Our renewables division, npower renewables, is an award winning
renewable energy business at the forefront of the British renewables
sector.
We are committed to developing and operating onshore and
offshore wind farms and hydroelectric power stations, producing clean
and sustainable electricity for use in UK homes and businesses. We are
also working with companies that are developing technologies to harness
the power of our marine environment (waves and tides).
To date, our
projects’ combined operating portfolio has the ability to generate
approaching 500 MW of clean electricity, and we have many more projects
under development and construction. A number of our conventional power
stations also co-fire biomass.
5. RWE’s retail arm in the UK is npower, one of the UK’s leading suppliers
of electricity and gas with over 7 million customers.
Serving the
residential, small to medium enterprises and industrial and commercial
sectors, npower delivers competitive, advanced solutions for its
customers. npower also supports R&D into renewable technologies through
its 100% renewable electricity tariff, Juice.
97
UK research and development in, and deployment of, renewable technologies
6. The table below sets out the renewable technologies which are supported
through the Renewables Obligation (RO) and the Non Fossil Fuel
Obligation (NFFO).
The table also shows RWE npower’s position with
regards to each of these technologies, as well as the key barriers to
overcome in achieving large scale deployment.
Technology15
Installed
Capacity
16
(MW): UK
Installed
Capacity
(MW): RWE
npower
Key Challenges / comments
Onshore wind
Landfill gas
1844
815
341
None
Hydro <20MW DNC
601
59
304
27217
181
60
26
(c.10%)18
None
Supply; Planning; Grid
Limited
opportunities
growth.
Limited
opportunities
growth
Supply; Economics; Grid
Supply chain
Sewage Gas
69
None
Biomass and waste
using ACT
Waste using ACT
5
None
2
None
1
None
at
present
None
at
present
486
Offshore wind
Co-firing
biomass
Biomass
Marine
(wave
tidal power)
PV
TOTAL
of
and
0.3
4094
for
for
Economics; Supply chain
Limited
opportunities
for
growth
(No comment - not close to RWE
npower activities)
(No comment - not close to RWE
npower activities)
Full scale testing; Economics;
Planning; Grid
Economics
Wind
7. Npower renewables is a leading developer and operator of onshore and
offshore wind farms. We currently operate 18 onshore wind farms and 1
offshore wind farm with a total generating capacity of over 400MW;
equivalent to almost 20% of UK installed wind capacity.
8. Built in 2003, our North Hoyle project was the UK’s first major offshore
wind farm. We are also committed to building our second offshore wind
farm, Rhyl Flats.
This 90MW wind farm will produce enough renewable
electricity to meet the needs of around 56,000 homes. In addition, we
hold options to build 2 further major offshore wind farms (each of
approximately 1,000MW) as part of the second round of offshore licenses
that were granted and we are working to develop these options further.
15
Source: Ofgem list of stations accredited for the Renewables Obligation and Climate Change
Levy
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=27&refer=Sustainability/Environmnt/Re
newablStat
16
Source: Ofgem list of stations accredited for the Renewables Obligation and Climate Change
Levy
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=27&refer=Sustainability/Environmnt/Re
newablStat
17
Ofgem estimation calculation: ROCs are only issued for the percentage of electricity
generated from eligible renewable sources. This qualifying percentage changes on a monthly
basis for each station. This estimate of capacity is based on the number of ROCs issued in
the latest month
18
Calculated using Ofgem methodology
98
We also have a strong portfolio of onshore wind farms in development and
under construction.
99
Co-firing of Biomass
9. RWE npower co-fire biomass at a number of conventional power stations
including Didcot, Tilbury and Aberthaw and have been a major contributor
to co-firing under the RO.
Hydro
10.
We also operate hydroelectric power stations at 15 sites with a
combined capacity of 59MW.
We are committed to continuing to develop
small hydroelectric power schemes.
Marine renewables
11.
We are currently investigating the potential for a wave
scheme to be located near the village of Siadar on the Isle of Lewis.
The scheme is a joint project between npower renewables and Wavegen, a
wave power company based in Inverness.
The scheme would involve
building a new breakwater similar to those used around our coastline for
the provision of harbour facilities (thus also providing some protection
for harbour facilities in the local community) and could generate up to
3MW of electricity, enough to supply around 1,500 homes.
12.
We also support research and development of marine
renewables through the npower Juice fund, created in 2003.
Juice is
npower’s domestic 100% renewable electricity tariff, which is offered to
customers at no extra cost compared to their standard electricity.
Npower makes an annual contribution to the Juice fund of £10 for every
customer that stays with Juice. In 2006, npower’s contribution was over
£500,000 and the fund is expected to grow to £1 million within the next
3 years.
To date, the Juice fund has supported two major projects in
addition to a number of smaller projects; namely the Regen South Wave
project and The Path to Power report, in conjunction with the BWEA.
Microgeneration
13.
npower
also
promotes
a
range
of
microgeneration
technologies to residential customers, providing advice on micro wind
devices, ground source heat pumps and photovoltaics.
npower have
recently launched a photovoltaics (PV) product, npower solar, which
provides information and advice about solar panel installation through
an appointed installation contractor. The product encompasses a service
whereby npower collects and passes through to the consumer the value of
environmental certificates and enables customers to sell back excess
electricity generated by the solar panels.
Research and Development
14.
In addition to the npower Juice fund, which supports
research and development into marine renewables, RWE has also committed
significant investment into the research and development of low carbon
technologies and renewable technologies notably clean coal technology.
In 2006, RWE committed to spend just under £34m on R&D, including £21m
on research into clean coal technologies and £1.7m on renewable
technologies.
Key challenges in research and development in, and deployment of, renewable
technologies:
Regulatory certainty
15.
Investors are sensitive to political risk and regard
frequent changes to policy as a source of significant uncertainty. As
such, clear commitments from government and stable support mechanisms
have a real role to play in the deployment of renewable technologies.
100
16.
RWE npower supports the RO and believes that it has to
date created a positive economic environment for growth in renewables in
the UK and indeed has the potential to ensure that strong investment in
renewables continues.
We are supportive of the some of the proposals
announced in the recently published consultation document, the Reform of
the RO; recognising the need for structural changes to the RO mechanism
such that it i) targets support where it will deliver large scale
deployment of renewable generation capacity (principally offshore) ii)
provides good value for money for consumers in terms of CO2 saved per £
paid into the RO.
17.
It is our view that the current level of reform is
appropriate but the graph below demonstrates influence of political risk
on deployment rates, clearly showing the hiatus that occurred during the
transition from NFFO to the RO.
Build rate of UK wind capacity (MW)
1200
Capacity (MW)
1000
800
Transition from
NFFO to RO
600
400
200
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
0
Date
18.
In particular, we believe that the following are
important in maintaining investor confidence during the current reforms:
•
Delivering on grandfathering promises
19.
The government outlined a commitment to the principle of
grandfathering in the 2005 Review of the RO. With the exception of cofiring, any reduction in support applies only to future projects
(operational after the date of implementation of proposed changes, 1st
April 2009). We support the principle of grandfathering, but note that
the proposed approach to banding risks reducing ROC values.
As such,
grandfathering does not protect existing investments, as only the volume
of ROCs are protected and not their value.
20.
Further, in the May 2007 RO consultation, the government
have introduced an entirely new proposal (not outlined in any RO
consultation or energy review documentation to date), which proposes to
limit grandfathering to 20 years.
Noting that not all projects are
financed on the basis of a 20 year life, for example hydro, we are
101
concerned that amendments to principle of grandfathering at such a late
stage in the consultation process risk damaging confidence in government
commitments.
•
Providing certainty as to the frequency and nature of future reforms
21.
The proposed banding of the RO necessitates that
technology bands are reviewed in future to ensure that the level of
support is appropriate and in line with changes in technology costs and
electricity prices.
Given that regulatory reform weakens investor
confidence, we feel that it is important to provide confidence as to the
logic and timing of future reviews. We therefore support the proposal
to pre-set independent reviews in statute at 5 yearly intervals (in line
with the EU ETS timetable), and to limit the circumstances which can
lead to an ad hoc (“emergency”) review, thereby providing clarity as to
the frequency and nature of future reforms.
22.
Further, we believe that the need for consistency and
stability in support mechanisms currently rules out early harmonisation
of support mechanisms across EU.
Commercialisation (feasibility,
reliability, carbon footprint)
costs,
timescales,
progress,
Costs
23.
The Dti have recently published their working assumptions
on the relative capital and operating costs of a range of renewable
technologies in a report published alongside the Reform of the RO
consultation19.
This report represents the most up-to-date study
available of the costs of renewable technologies. We broadly agree with
the cost assumptions contained within this report, with the following
notable exceptions.
24.
We believe that the cost of biofuels has risen since this
work was undertaken such that the “blended” biomass fuel cost of
£3.70/GJ is lower that current cost of most biofuels.
We would
similarly comment that, since the Dti work was undertaken, our direct
experience of the costs of building offshore wind indicates that there
has been no let-up in the trend of increasing offshore construction
costs.
These costs have now broken the £2M/MW mark, so the DTI range
(£1.37M to £1.71M/MW) does not capture the costs currently being
experienced.
The published capital costs for onshore wind appear to
capture the correct range of costs (£1M to 1.4M/MW for <10MW sites and
£0.88M to £1.2M/MW for >10MW sites), but we would add that our recent
experience has tended to the upper end of these ranges.
25.
The work undertaken by Ernst and Young should aid
government in ensuring that banding is effective in providing sufficient
support
to
encourage
further
deployment
of
“post-demonstration”
technologies, namely offshore wind and dedicated biomass.
26.
However, the RO was designed as a ‘near to market’
technology support mechanism and we do not believe that it should be
used to fully support emerging technologies, primarily because it is
unlikely to provide sufficient revenue to support them without
distorting the mechanism.
19
Department of Trade & Industry, Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Costs of
electricity production, April 2007. This report was commissioned by the Dti and prepared by
Ernst & Young LLP.
102
27.
It is our view that emerging technologies should be
supported through appropriately structured R&D funding, be it in the
form of capital grant funding or revenue support.
Further, proceeds
from environmental taxes should directly fund R&D. We therefore welcome
the proposal to use the Environmental Transformation Fund (funds
generated from Carbon Auctions under EU ETS) in addition to the use of
funds such as the MRDF to support emerging low carbon and renewable
electricity technologies and energy efficiency measures. The proportion
of
auction
revenues
made
available
through
the
Environmental
Transformation Fund will have an important bearing on the future
direction of R&D into renewable technologies.
28.
Whilst most studies focus on pre-tax costs, the corporate
tax reliefs available to renewable generation projects, or the lack of
them, are an essential part of assessing the overall economic
feasibility of various technologies. Subject to additional specific
comments below on R&D, we are concerned generally that the recently
announced changes to capital allowances (including the abolition of
Industrial Buildings allowances) could operate significantly to reduce
the viability of certain renewable technologies. We have in the past20
been assured, in the context of investment in renewable energy sources,
that the government would remain committed to retaining a mechanism for
delivering specifically targeted incentives. We therefore believe such
incentives should be actively considered as new forms of renewable
technology emerge.
Timescales and Progress
29.
Whilst we are reassured that that primary Reform of the
RO proposals (namely, the continuation of RPI indexation post 2015 and
banding up of “post demonstration technologies”) will go some way to
addressing economic challenges encountered by renewable technologies,
other significant barriers remain which impact on the speed at which
renewable technologies can be deployed.
•
UK Supply
30.
Wind developers in the UK must compete for turbines in a
competitive international environment.
Demand for turbines, in
particular, has risen dramatically over recent months and has
contributed to rising project costs for both onshore and offshore wind.
The aforementioned Dti report acknowledges that capital costs of wind
projects have risen by circa 25% over the previous 12 to 24 months.
Further, the costs of turbines, towers and blades are expected to
increase in real terms until around 2010 as a result of supply / demand
issues and rising steel costs.
31.
RWE npower takes its role as a buyer very seriously. As
such we actively seek to engage with manufacturers to develop
opportunities in the UK.
For example, npower renewables recently cosponsored (with Business Link North East) “Meet the Buyers – Wind
Energy”.
This trade fair in Northumberland aimed to bring together
turbine suppliers, the construction industry and local contractors in
order to build relationships between local and international suppliers.
We support the development of voluntary approaches to developing
opportunities for UK manufacturers that can be adopted by the industry
as a whole and contribute positively to UK GDP.
•
20
Grid
Letter from HMPG, 2nd February 2004
103
32.
The availability of grid connections for renewable
projects remains a major barrier to deployment of most renewable
technologies, particularly wind and marine renewables.
Designed for
conventional forms of generation, physical grid access and the grid code
inhibit, hence slow, connection of renewable assets to the grid.
Further, UK grid code obligations are more onerous than in other
European countries, and hence impact upon the technical requirements of
turbines and impose unnecessary costs.
33.
In the short to medium term, the constraints associated with grid
queue management need to be addressed to enable timely connection of new
generation.
In the medium to long term, appropriate strategic
investment in infrastructure will be necessary to prevent the
transmission and distribution grids constraining current and future
generation, and to provide for the changing nature of generation to
include more distributed and embedded generation, in addition to
existing centralised generation.
Delivering additional renewable
capacity will necessitate new grid infrastructure, which will need to
include overhead lines.
The UK government has a responsibility to
ensure that local impact and cost issues associated with new
infrastructure do not cause further delays. We are supportive of recent
proposals to include necessary infrastructure in the planning process.
•
Planning
34.
The lengthy planning and consenting regime has slowed
deployment of renewable technologies, in particular onshore wind.
The
UK government’s energy review process recognises that the current
process burdens participants with uncertainty, delay and sometimes
significant upfront cost.
35.
RWE npower generally welcome the proposal to replace
Section 36 and 37 consent processes in England and Wales with an
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).
We believe that this will
provide a more efficient and predictable approach to planning and
consenting. It is of note that projects below 50MW will be unaffected
by the IPC and therefore the proposal does not address slow progress of
many onshore wind projects. Further, as planning is a devolved matter
these proposals will not impact upon devolved administrations.
Government role in funding R&D
36.
Generally RWE npower are supportive of government
involvement to date in funding R&D, for example through the work
undertaken by bodies such as The Carbon Trust.
37.
We believe that government can play a role in encouraging
and facilitating technology and or knowledge transfer, for example in
identifying synergies between industries (e.g. offshore wind and oil) or
opportunities for knowledge transfer by publishing industry specific
information.
38.
We also support the government's commitment to raising
the profile of research and development and trying to tackle the severe
skills shortages in renewables R&D (and elsewhere).
We look to the
government to assist with funding mechanisms which will bring forward
technology development and deployment.
104
39.
We would encourage the government not only to maintain
current corporate tax reliefs for R&D, but where necessary to broaden
those allowances to ensure that they will apply to the development and
commercialisation of early stage sustainable technologies, including
carbon capture and storage as well as renewable energy geneation. Our
concern is that the existing reliefs are either framed or interpreted in
too narrow a way, such that they may have negligible effect on
stimulating R&D and investment in this area.
Other possible technologies for renewable energy generation
40.
We believe that the UK government has been effective to
date in identifying and supporting the most viable and cost effective
renewable technologies. Those technologies currently supported through
R&D funding programmes, the Renewables Obligation and the Climate Change
Levy represent those which demonstrate the greatest potential for large
scale deployment, through which government targets can most efficiently
be met. There remain significant barriers to the deployment of existing
renewable technologies which the UK government must address.
In doing
so, it should be acknowledged that consumers will face difficult
choices, for example in planning consent of wind farms.
41.
research into
that the UK
deployment of
and grid.
Finally, whilst it
new renewable and
government should
existing renewable
is important that there is “blue sky”
low carbon energy solutions, we feel
focus on tackling barriers to the
technologies, namely supply, planning
July 2007
105
Memorandum 18
Submission from E.ON UK
Executive Summary:
•
Innovation within the energy sector is vital in contributing to new and novel
methods of energy generation and supply that are sustainable, secure and
competitive.
•
E.ON UK strongly supports market-based mechanisms to incentivise
investment wherever possible. However, market drivers are not strong or
urgent enough to drive technologies through the innovation chain (the three
phases of the innovation chain are represented by i) the research &
development stage; ii) the demonstration stage, and finally iii) the deployment
stage). Direct Government support throughout the innovation chain is vital.
•
Current UK support mechanisms are complex and inefficient, and inadequate
in areas – particularly for the demonstration stage of the innovation chain.
Extended support is also needed during the early commercial deployment
stage when market incentives are insufficient.
•
Individual technology sectors would benefit from a coherent and focussed set
of objectives and roadmap.
•
The focus of academic research needs to be better directed toward sector
priorities.
1. E.ON UK is the UK’s second largest retailer of electricity and gas, selling to
residential and small business customers as Powergen and to larger industrial and
commercial customers as E.ON Energy. We are also one of the UK’s largest
electricity generators by output and operate Central Networks, the distribution
business, covering the East and West Midlands.
2. We are a leading developer of renewable plant, including Scroby Sands offshore
wind farm , and are currently investing significantly in both tidal and wave
demonstration technologies, and in demand-side technologies, such as ground
source heat pumps.
3. E.ON UK invests at least £10M a year into the research, development,
demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) of energy technologies, and our CEO,
Paul Golby, is the co-chair of the Energy Research Partnership (ERP). Launched in
January 2006, the ERP provides strategic direction to UK energy RDD&D by
bringing together key public and private sector stakeholders.
106
4. As leaders in this field, E.ON UK welcomes the Committee’s timely inquiry into the
RDD&D of renewable energy generation technologies. We are happy to discuss
these issues in more depth with the committee if that would prove useful.
Responses to specific issues highlighted by the Committee:
1. The current state of UK R&D in, and deployment of, renewable energy generation
technologies including offshore wind, photovoltaics, hydrogen and fuel cell technologies,
wave, tidal, bio energy, ground source heat pumps and intelligent grid management and
energy storage.
Current State of UK RDD&D:
2. Publicly funded RDD&D in the UK was reduced significantly in the late 1980s and
1990s due to the privatisation of the utility sector and national laboratory
facilities. However, this does not take into account support from an increasingly
wide range of RD&D players in the devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales)
and the English regions. The volume of energy RDD&D is rising again, coupled
with concerted attempts to make the research portfolio more coherent.
3. Additionally, a significant volume of energy R&D conducted in the UK is funded
through the EU Framework Programmes while the UK is active in many IEA
research and technology implementing agreements as well as other international
collaborations.
4. Current national funding streams come from the Research Councils, Government
Departments and the Carbon Trust. As noted above their activities are reinforced
by an increasing number of other bodies, many operating at the sub-national
level.
5. The Research Councils support high quality pure and applied research in all areas
of energy RDD&D. Funding is provided through directed programmes and
individual grants. The current expenditure on all energy related research and
training is approximately £40m and this is planned to rise to about £70m by
2008.
6. The Research Councils Energy Programme (RCEP) led by the Engineering and
Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC), acts as an umbrella for all Research
Council activities. RCEP encompasses: the interdisciplinary Towards a Sustainable
Energy Economy (TSEC) programme; EPSRC's SUPERGEN (Sustainable power
generation and supply); the fusion programme at Culham; the Carbon Vision
Programme (jointly with the Carbon Trust); and a number of other capacity
building initiatives.
7. Government Departments support a large number of energy research
programmes through the RDD&D innovation chain, and including major capital
107
grants to assist the full scale deployment of nearer market technologies not yet
able to compete on level terms with fossil fuels.
8. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) supports the largest number of
schemes. Its Technology Programme, operated by the Office of Science and
Innovation (OSI)∗, gives £20M support pa into low carbon and renewable energy
R&D. The marine energy challenge provides £50m scheme for wave and tidal
stream demonstration projects. Capital grants totalling £117m have been made to
offshore wind farms and £66m allocated to biomass projects. The Major PV
Demonstration Programme has provided £31m support since 2002.
9. The Carbon Trust is an independent company, funded by Government and led by
business. It aims to accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy in the UK
by working with business and the public sector. Via its £20m pa innovation and
investment programme, relying on funds recycled from the climate change levy, it
promotes the commercial development of new and emerging low carbon
technologies. RD&D is about £5m pa. Currently, the Carbon Trust has over 90
RD&D projects in its portfolio worth in total around £22m.
10. The Energy Technology Institute occupies the middle ground between the longerterm research funded by the UK’s Research Councils and the deployment of
proven technologies. Core funding will be provided on a 50:50 public private
partnership basis, with the ambition, when fully operational, to inject some £110
million per year into UK-based energy research.
11. The Government will provide 50% of the core funding of the Institute, up to an
agreed limit. The Institute will have a lifetime of at least 10 years. A small
number of major companies, including E.ON UK, have pledged a total of £32.5m
pa to support the ETI. The cross-government Environmental Transformation Fund
provides further investment in renewable energies, supporting full scale
demonstration and early commercial deployment activity.
12. There is a significant need to co-ordinate and focus the fragmented spectrum of
energy RDD&D activity. The Office of Science and Innovation, sitting within the
DTI, was created in April 2006 and has overall responsibility for the Research
Councils.
13. The Energy Research Partnership, as mentioned above, is a public-private
partnership co-chaired by the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Executive of
EON.UK, Paul Golby. It brings together key public and private sector stakeholders
in UK energy RDD&D, promoting a coherent approach to addressing UK energy
challenges.
14. The UK Energy Research Centre, a consortium of eight academic institutions,
aims to co-ordinate a National Energy Research Network
∗
E.ON UK note that Government organisations and support mechanisms may change due to the reorganisation by the new PM.
108
Current State of UK RDD&D in Specific Technology Streams:
Offshore wind:
18. Whilst wind energy is generally considered the most commercially advanced
renewable energy technology, offshore wind, and particularly deepwater
technology, is still far from competitive, so Government support across the entire
RDD&D chain is essential.
19. The Renewables Obligation, and to some extent the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS), is providing ‘market pull’ to stimulate deployment of offshore wind
technology, as is amply demonstrated by the number of offshore wind projects
currently at the development stage around UK shores. E.ON UK is involved in
developing a significant number of offshore wind projects in the UK, including the
London Array and Solway Firth projects.
20. SUPERGEN is providing £2.5M annually for R&D into offshore wind technologies,
with the DTI technology programme covering both R&D and demonstration
projects. In addition, three UK offshore wind demonstration projects have been
given capital grants from DTI/Scottish Executive/EU totalling £40M.
21. More work is needed to develop a clear strategy and roadmap for the UK offshore
wind power sector. There is a major opportunity for the UK to capitalise on
excellent offshore wind regimes and to utilise its extensive offshore engineering,
construction and operations expertise, but there is currently a lack of wind R&D
facilities and expertise, as well as a lack of wind industry equipment supply chain,
located in the UK.
22. Crucially, more work is needed to develop a clear and focussed strategy and
roadmap for RDD&D in the UK offshore wind sector.
Photovoltaics:
23. It is generally considered that UK Photovoltaic (PV) RDD&D is lagging behind
other leading countries due to a lack of emphasis and focus in key areas. The
overall aim of PV RDD&D must be a dramatic reduction in costs in order to be
competitive with other forms of electricity generation. This includes technological
areas such as increased research emphasis on the manufacturability of devices,
as well as increases in conversion efficiencies.
24. Specifically, it is E.ON UK’s opinion that research support should focus on thin-film
technology that offers multiple likely advantages including lower manufacturing
and installation costs and less need for silicon, rather the crystalline silicon
research that has predominated.
25. DTI is supporting a major PV demonstration programme with £31M from the Low
Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP), and SUPERGEN has two R&D consortia
109
worth £5.6M. However, the UK lacks the central laboratory infrastructure that
other leading countries have used effectively.
26. In general, it is our opinion that the UK PV community requires reorganisation,
and the volume and nature of research funding needs improving. E.ON UK
expects the ETA work stream programme to address this issue.
Marine (Wave & Tidal):
27. The marine energy sector is still in its infancy. There are significant uncertainties
relating to cost, time to commercial viability, and the sector’s ultimate power
contribution. Support for RDD&D in this area is complex: SUPERGEN provides
£2.5M for R&D annually and the Carbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge provides
£3M for demonstration and deployment projects. There is £50M of support from
the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund, but little has been taken up. E.ON UK
is aiming to invest a significant amount in marine energy demonstration projects.
28. The UK has excellent natural marine resources, excellent marine engineering
expertise and supply chain, and active and innovative SMEs at work in this area.
This could provide first mover advantages for the UK, but we need a long-term
and focussed RDD&D strategy, focussing on maintaining the UK’s research edge
and ensuring support for commercial deployment of new technologies.
Bioenergy:
29. A wide range of public and private sector funding opportunities exist across the
RDD&D chain for bioenergy technologies. Over £5M is available to R&D annually
from a combination of SUPERGEN, the ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy
Programme’ (TSEC), and the ERA – Net Carbon Vision Industry, as well research
grants from the Carbon Trust and the DTI Technology Programme. More than
£120M is available for deployment phase projects from DTI Capital grants and
directly from the RO., whilst a number of further programmes provide support for
demonstration projects. E.ON UK is investing directly in dedicated bioenergy
generation plants, as well as having configured our current coal fleet to co-fire
biomass.
30. However this complexity does not necessarily provide the focus required to
ensure the deployment of the most effective bioenergy technologies for the UK,
though we expect the ETI to address this issue. Sustainable bioenergy requires a
stable policy framework and good cross-sector co-ordination. There is also no
current incentive to drive heat generation from biomass technologies.
Networks:
31. RDD&D into networks is essential in enabling the deployment of new generating
technologies required to achieve the UK Government’s energy and environmental
goals. The significant risks associated with large-scale demonstration or
deployment of novel network technologies are potential barriers to innovation.
110
32. Regulatory incentives to promote innovation – such as the Innovation Funding
Initiative (IFI) (restricted to less than 0.5% of a network operator’s turnover) are starting to make a positive impact, though co-ordination of the increasing
number of cross-cutting initiatives will be vital to drive the strategic direction of
networks innovation.
2. The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable technologies
as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
33. E.ON UK is actively involved in a number of projects estimating potential costs,
timescales, carbon abatement potential, and commercialisation of new energy
technologies. Summary data is available on these issues in the Appendix. It
should be noted that these data represent a view under a single-set of specific
circumstances and constraints, they do not necessarily represent E.ON’s accepted
view of the future.
3. The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable energy
generation technologies and providing incentives for technology transfer and industrial
research and development.
34. The Government’s role in the RDD&D innovation chain is not only to provide
appropriate funding, but to provide co-ordination and focus in order to achieve a
specific set of objectives.
35. Energy research activity in the UK is framed by the UK's energy strategy goals:
• cut CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050;
• maintain reliability of energy supplies;
• ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated; and
• improve UK competitiveness
34. Because of their long-term nature, these goals must be underpinned by RDD&D
and technological innovation. Traditional science and engineering RDD&D has a
key role to play, but the policy emphasis on environmental progress, social
objectives and the role of markets underlines the need for a "whole systems"
perspective, with the inclusion and integration of relevant social, economic and
environmental research.
35. It should also be noted that the above energy policy objectives do not explicitly
include RDD&D focus on renewable energy generation technologies per se, nor
should they. The term ‘renewable energy’ is difficult to define, and a prescriptive
approach to RDD&D – Government picking winners via differing support streams
– is inferior to a technology-neutral approach aimed at achieving the above
energy policy goals.
111
36. The current RDD&D landscape is highly fragmented and complex. E.ON UK would
suggest that this diversity is not necessarily most effective at adding value to UK
RDD&D in to renewable energy generation technologies and would warrant
review.
37. The organisations recently created, such as the Energy Technologies Institute and
Energy Research Partnership, are well placed to advise on high-level strategic
focus and direction for energy RDD&D in the UK, aimed at supporting the UK
energy policy goals in a technology-neutral, market-led fashion, as well as aiding
the co-ordination needed to achieve these aims.
38. The development of a strategic vision by key stakeholders has been considered
very useful in certain technology areas, and should be extended to cover all
priority areas.
39. Current EU State Aid rules restrict support for large-scale demonstration phase
projects. E.ON UK would support Government efforts to engage with key
stakeholders to review the appropriateness of these rules.
4. Other possible technologies for renewable energy generation.
40. E.ON UK believes support for RDD&D should be technology-neutral, and aimed at
supporting all the government’s energy policy goals. Definitions of ‘renewable
energy technologies’ inevitably stifle innovation as new and novel technologies
await recognition through definition. All forms of energy generation technology
should be encouraged on their merits to help achieve the UK energy policy goals.
July 2007
112
Appendix
Carbon Roadmapping – Technology Assumption Sheets
The following sheets represent the best view that is available within Power
Technology of the main technical characteristics and costs of renewable energy
technologies. Some of the information, particularly for the later years, is more of a
belief than it is hard fact.
General Assumptions
All money in £2007
Grid emission factors in tCO2/MWh (for demand side savings) are taken from E4Tech
report up to 2020 and estimated for 2030 as follows:2010 = 0.42, 2020 = 0.39, 2030 = 0.24, this crudely assumes that all new build to
2020 is gas and all new plant between 2020 and 2030 is zero emissions.
CO2 savings from the measures on these sheets are not by any means additive. For
example a high take up of zero emissions centrally despatched plant will reduce
“savings” made by demand reduction. In some such cases savings from micro
generation could become negative. Also a high take up of one technology (eg new
build advanced CCGT) may compete with another technology (eg IGCC + CCS) for
common components such as steam turbines. In particular the build rates for nuclear
are the maximum across all technologies because of competition for sites, skilled
workforce and large forged components. Furthermore it is unlikely that power
generation equipment for centrally despatched plant can be provided at a rate that
exceeds 4GW/year across all technologies.
The capital cost of nearly all these technologies are dependent on the prices for
basic commodities such as steel and concrete, sometimes to a large extent. This
document assumes that current prices prevail throughout the period.
Contributors:Hydro and Marine:- Tony Barber
Biomass: Ben Goh
Heat: Ben Goh and Andy Boston
Micro generation:- Andy Boston
113
Hydro: Low Head
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure changes?
2020
2030
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
£2000
£2000
£2000
£10
£10
£10
80%
80%
80%
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Only in
construction.
Flexibility
comment
The power output will be seasonal but quite predictable and
consistent.
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
100 MW
300 MW
500 MW
10 MW
20 MW
20 MW
Appropriate sites.
ROCs
Appropriate sites.
ROCs
No, why?
Too soon
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
500 MW is about
the limit of
potential UK
capacity.
500 MW
40 MW
Access and
longevity of ROCs,
or other funding
mechanism.
114
Wind: Onshore
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Flexibility
comment
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are the
limiting factors?
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
2020
1200
1400
2030
1100
25
25
25
28
30
31
Currently in a price rise due to high demand but continuing
drive to bigger, and better engineered, turbines, should
ultimately lead to a return to the ‘traditional’ decrease in
capital cost with time.
2.5
4
5
500
200
300
Planning
Permissions,
Manufacturing lead
times,
Changes expected
to Renewables
Obligation may
make onshore wind
farms less attractive
economically.
Grid constraints
Market growth
worldwide:
manufacturer
overload in short
term
Need for new wind
turbine
technologies/
design concepts
Limits to turbine
size
3
6
10
200
300
Grid Stability
Government action to lever planning authorities to give
planning permissions more readily.
Removal of grid constraints
BWEA (1GW capacity in June 05, 2GW in Jan 07 for all wind) Also the ‘Windstats
Newsletter’, and experience
115
Wind: Offshore
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Flexibility
comment
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are the
limiting factors?
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
2020
1800
1800
2030
1800
30
30
30
35
38
38
Continuing drive to bigger turbines, counteracted by need to
use more remote & difficult sites … likely to maintain Capex
Load Factor affected by accessibility issues, which impact
offshore plant operational availabilities.
2
8
15
300
600
800
Permissions,
Manufacturing lead
times,
Installation
equipment (crane
barges, etc)
Changes expected
to Renewables
Obligation may
make offshore
windfarms more
attractive
economically.
Grid constraints.
Market growth
worldwide:
manufacturer
overload in short
term
Too short a
timescale for
offshore
Need for new wind
turbine
technologies/
design concepts
Limits to turbine
size
Grid Stability
Yes, Max
12
18
reach
Yes,
1000
1000
Max Build
Rate
What is
Improved government encouragement to offshore wind
enabler
farms.
Info sources: BWEA, the ‘Windstats Newsletter’, and experience
Marine: Tidal Barrage
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
£1300
£1300
2030
£1300
£10
£10
£10
116
2020
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Load Factor
25%
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Only in
construction.
Flexibility
comment
The power output will be variable but highly predictable.
Note long construction period (7+ years) makes capex
appear even more expensive.
0
0
0
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are the
limiting factors?
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change? If
yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate and
what are those policy
and infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach
25%
25%
0
0
0
Projects will take
many years to
construct.
Strongly
dependent on
government
support for major
projects. Also
dependent on EIA.
As for 2020.
8000+ MW
(Severn barrage)
9000 MW
(Severn +
Mersey +
others)
ROC banding or
feed-in tariff,
strong government
support.
As for 2020.
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
117
Limited sites.
Marine: Tidal Lagoon
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are the
limiting factors?
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change? If
yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate and
what are those policy
and infrastructure
changes?
£2000
£2000
2020
2030
£2000
£10
£10
£10
38%
38%
38%
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Only in
construction.
Flexibility
comment
The power output will be variable (although less so than
tidal stream) but highly predictable and partially
controllable.. Capex is higher than barrage but lead times
shorter, load factor is higher and environmental impact is
lower.
0 – no projects
500 MW
3000 MW ??
currently
committed to (47
MW if Oldbury goes
ahead, 60 MW for
Swansea Bay).
0
100 MW
250 MW ??
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
100 MW
Strongly
dependent on
banding of ROCs,
and capital grants
or feed-in tariffs.
Consenting and
grid access are
also serious
issues.
As for 2020.
2000 MW
10 GW !
300 MW
1 GW ?
ROC banding or
feed-in tariff.
As for 2020.
This is very hard
to predict and
depends on a
number of very
uncertain factors.
PTech reports, BD1454 and BC1068 – critical analysis of Atkins figures for Swansea,
inc 10% contingency.
118
Marine: Tidal Stream
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are the
limiting factors?
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change? If
yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate and
what are those policy
and infrastructure
changes?
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
£2200
£1300
2020
2030
£1000
£300
£100
£100
30%
30%
30%
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Only in
construction /
installation.
Flexibility
comment
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
The power output will be variable but highly predictable.
No, why?
12 MW
400 MW
3000 MW ??
5
100 MW
250 MW ??
Ability of
technology
developers to
produce successful
commercial
devices.
Strongly
dependent on
banding of ROCs,
and capital grants
or feed-in tariffs.
Consenting and
grid access are
also serious
issues.
As for 2020.
1000 MW
4000 MW ?
200 MW
300 MW ???
ROC banding or
feed-in tariff.
As for 2020.
This is very hard
to predict and
depends on a
number of very
uncertain factors.
Not much – most
major projects will
take around 3 yrs
to deployment, so
this is based on
current proposals.
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
119
Marine: Wave
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
2020
2030
£3000
£1300
£1000
£300
£100
£100
30%
Only in
construction /
installation.
30%
30%
Flexibility
comment
The power output will be variable and highly seasonal,
although more predictable in the short term than wind.
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
10 MW
300 MW
2000 MW ??
5
80 MW
150 MW ??
Ability of
technology
developers to
produce successful
commercial
devices.
Strongly
dependent on
banding of ROCs,
and capital grants
or feed-in tariffs.
Consenting and
grid access are
also serious
issues.
As for 2020.
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure changes?
No, why?
Not much – most
major projects will
take around 3 yrs
to deployment, so
this is based on
current proposals.
1000 MW
3000 MW ?
200 MW
200 MW ???
ROC banding or
feed-in tariff.
As for 2020. Needs
improvement in
capes and opex.
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
120
This is very hard to
predict and
depends on a
number of very
uncertain factors.
Biomass: Co-Firing
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure
remain, what is the
maximum technical
reach and build rate of
these technology options
in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
What are the limiting
factors?
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change? If
yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate and
what are those policy
and infrastructure
changes?
Capex
£/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Flexibility
comment
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
2020
2030
25-35
15-35
20%-60%
0 to +0.2
-2 to +0.2
Variations in above values dependent on fuels used and
carbon accounting.
1
2-3
150-200
150-200
ROC support.
Energy crop
availability. LCPD.
Consideration of
biomass for CCS (ve CO2 emissions =
double credits?).
ROC support. Fuel
supply
infrastructure.
2-3
5-6
500-1000
500-1000
No LCPD
shutdowns
Increased
guaranteed
revenue support
for co-firing. High
CO2 and ROC
prices
<= Ditto +
development of
supply
infrastructure.
121
Biomass: Dedicated Fluidised Bed
Combustion (FBC)
What are the cost (capex
and opex) and fuel
requirement and flexibility
of these technology
options in 2010, 2020 and
2030?
Assuming current policy
and infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and build
rate of these technology
options in 2010, 2020 and
2030? What are the
limiting factors?
Could this reach and build
rate be improved through
policy and/or
infrastructure change? If
yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate and
what are those policy and
infrastructure changes?
Capex £/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Flexibility
comment
Tech reach,
GW
Build Rate,
MW/yr
Limiting
factors
2010
1800-2400
20-30
2020
1800-2400
20-30
2030
1800-2400
20-30
80%
-2 to +0.2
80%
-2 to +0.2
80%
-2 to +0.2
1
1
1
2.2-2.5 GW
Reach limit of
fuel supply?
2.2-2.5 GW
200
Reliant on grant
support.
Fuel availability.
Many regulations
prevent biomass
build
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
1.5 GW
Larger capital grant pot and garanteed revenue support
Infrastructure grant scheme
Relaxation of waste regs
Allow build on existing generation sites
122
Heat: Biomass
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex £/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr#
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
emissions
Comment
Assuming current
policy and
infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and
installation rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Post 2006
installations,
MW
Installation
Rate, kW/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach, MW
Yes, Max Build
Rate kW/yr
What is
enabler
2010
150-1000
5-20
50%-90%
0-1
2020
2030
-1.5-+1
Huge variation in costs due to variation in scheme sizes and
types and treatment of emissions and access to CCS
0.25
100-200
Capital grant
Fuel costs (lack of revenue support)
Supply infrastructure
Low gas price – ease of access to gas grid.
0.5
2.5
100-500
100-500
?Heat revenue support + increase in gas price.
123
Domestic Heat: Biomass pellet boiler
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex
£/house
Opex
£/kW/yr#
Average
output
MWh/year
CO2 t/house
savings
Comment
Assuming current
policy and
infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and
installation rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Post 2006
installations,
M
Installation
Rate,
houses/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach, M
houses
Yes, Max Build
houses/yr
What is
enabler
2020
2030
4,000
18
3.8
Only 150 existed in 2004 so still a new technology. Looks
good in terms of £/tCO2 abated but not cost effective for
householder.
0.013
0.052
5,000
5,000
Only competitive against all electric heating
0.027
0.39
10,000
50,000
Grants to make it competitive against other heating
systems. Still unlikely to beat gas on price
124
Domestic Heat: Solar thermal
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex
£/house
Opex
£/kW/yr#
Average
output
MWh/year
CO2 t/house
savings
Comment
Assuming current
policy and
infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and
installation rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Post 2006
installations,
M
Installation
Rate,
houses/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach, M
houses
Yes, Max
Build
houses/yr
What is
enabler
2020
2030
2625
1.4
0.32
One of the least cost effective measures, but high “show”
value
0.004
3.6
2,000
400,000
Cost. Ultimately could be applicable to 75% of dwellings
0.008
3.7
4,000
400,000
Slightly earlier take up of measure, but unlikely to
effectively compete with other low carbon technologies in
UK so little overall improvement.
125
Domestic Heat: Ground Source Heat Pump
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex
£/house
Opex
£/kW/yr#
Load Factor
CO2
t/house/yr
savings
Comment
Assuming current
policy and
infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and
installation rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Post 2006
installations
(M), and
savings
Installation
Rate,
houses/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be
improved through
policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach
Yes,
Max Build
Rate
What is
enabler
2020
2030
4500
4000
3000
1.0 (vs gas)
3.6 (vs All elec)
0.95 (vs gas)
3.3 (vs all elec)
1.1 (vs gas)
2 (vs allelec)
Capex assumes wet heating system already exists or would
need to be acquired anyway, ie competing with LPG or oil
boiler installation to replace all electric. Savings based on
gas fired boiler at 80% efficiency (improving 5%pts /decade)
and GSHP with CP of 2.5 for 12.5 MWh p.a. heat
0.5
0.002
0.17
2.1 Mt CO2
0.003 Mt CO2
0.6 Mt CO2
500
15,000
50,000
Not competitive against oil or gas – may never be.
Competitive against electric heating but then higher cost as
radiators and pipework need installing as well. Only 1.2M
homes are all electric heating.
Too late to effect
change here
1.0
0.34
4.2 Mt CO2
1.2 Mt CO2
30,000
100,000
Grants to cover capital cost. In very low carbon world where
electricity has been decarbonised then GSHP could displace
gas or oil heating. It is then applicable to the 17M homes
which have gardens, so1M may be conservative in this
scenario.
Information sources: E4Tech study preliminary results (DCLG 2006 and DEFRA
2007).
126
Micro generation: Wind
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and
2030?
Assuming current
policy and
infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and
installation rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Could this reach and
build rate be
improved through
policy and/or
infrastructure
change? If yes, then
what is maximum
theoretical reach and
build rate and what
are those policy and
infrastructure
changes?
Capex £/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr#
Load Factor
CO2
t/house/yr
savings
Comment
Post 2006
installations,
MW
Installation
Rate, kW/yr
Limiting
factors
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach, MW
Yes, Max
Build Rate
kW/yr
What is
enabler
2020
2030
1500
1300
1000
10%
0.26
10%
0.24
10%
0.13
Assuming 1.5 kW per house, total cost based on DEFRA
1.7
73
930
500
10,000
130,000
Expensive relative to other demand side measures. EEC3
expects 500-3000 installations by end of 2011.
Unlikely to be able
to change support
much before 2010
150
3000
20,000
500,000
No planning needed, becomes fashionable, significant grants
or feed in tariff made equal to import rate, access to ROCs
and enough stability of support to drive volume
manufacturing by 2015, little change before 2010.
Information sources: E4Tech study preliminary results (DCLG 2006 and DEFRA
2007). EST estimate for most of 2020-2030 information.
127
Micro generation: PhotoVoltaic
2010
What are the cost
(capex and opex) and
fuel requirement and
flexibility of these
technology options in
2010, 2020 and 2030?
Capex £/kW
Opex
£/kW/yr#
Load Factor
CO2
t/house/yr
savings
Comment
Assuming current
policy and
infrastructure remain,
what is the maximum
technical reach and
installation rate of
these technology
options in 2010, 2020
and 2030? What are
the limiting factors?
Post 2006
installations,
MW
Installation
Rate, kW/yr
Limiting
factors
Could this reach and
build rate be improved
through policy and/or
infrastructure change?
If yes, then what is
maximum theoretical
reach and build rate
and what are those
policy and
infrastructure
changes?
No, why?
Yes, Max
reach, MW
Yes, Max Build
Rate kW/yr
What is
enabler
2020
2030
3750
0
1700
0
1100
0
8%
0.75
8%
0.70
8%
0.44
Assume 2.5 kW peak module per house. Note low load
factor for UK climate, assumed to not have active tracking.
1
4
200
500
500
2000
One of the least economic forms of generation so only for
enthusiasts, or small off-grid applications.
Too soon
70
10,000
Only a technical breakthrough with a step change in
production costs can give it a real boost. Either to make it
much cheaper or easier to incorporate in existing building
materials such as glass or roof tiles. Or policy is to subsidise
this technology in particular to a large extent (eg like
Germany). If so then 9M homes could be suitable for 2.5kW
units by 2050, assume half installed prior to 2030
Information sources: Defra 2006, DCLG, E4Tech 2007, EST 2006, DTI PV trial
128
Memorandum 19
Submission from the Renewable Energy Association (REA)
Executive Summary
1. Renewable energy currently accounts for about 2% of UK energy (one of the
lowest penetrations in Europe). The EU has now agreed a target of 20%
contribution to total energy from renewables by 2020. If this is adopted at the
national level (and there are good reasons why the UK share should exceed
the 20% average), it will require a ten-fold increase in deployment over the
next thirteen years (it has increased about two-fold in the last thirteen). It will
also, on present trends, make renewables a larger contributor to UK energy
than coal or nuclear.
2. There are several important implications for a change of this scale:
•
A substantial growth will be required in renewable heat and transport fuels.
Historically almost all of the UK focus has been on renewable electricity
generation.
•
Renewable energy is particularly well suited to decentralised generation,
which also provides other benefits in energy efficiency. This has impacts on
networks and other infrastructure.
•
Renewable energy offers many options for on-site energy production. This
will lead to new requirements and opportunity for interfaces with the
energy user in many areas including metering and performance displays.
•
Therefore research and development needs also to consider a wide range
of interface technologies, in addition to the generation technologies
themselves.
State of UK research and development in renewable technologies
3. We comment below mainly on the less commercially mature technologies, and
in particular on marine energy, for the following reasons. Marine energy is an
emerging technology with potential for an installed capacity of 1.0 – 2.5 GW
each of wave and tidal energy across Europe by 2020.21 The UK has around
35% of Europe’s wave resource and 50% of its tidal resource, and is the
current world leader in device development. It therefore should exemplify best
practice when it comes to R&D, and if there are shortcomings in our
management of R&D in this sector, they are likely to also occur in other
sectors.
4. Academic research in the area of marine renewable energy is burgeoning,
with many universities, such as Southampton and Lancaster, setting up their
own “Centres for Marine Energy”. The research programme at Edinburgh
University, funded by the Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council’s Supergen initiative, provides useful data on issues of generic
interest to the marine renewables sector.
5. However, many of these universities are also developing their own marine
generating devices, such as the Manchester “Bobber” and Southampton
University’s tidal turbine. This creates a tension between academia and
21
Carbon Trust (2006): Future Marine Energy
129
commercial developers, since the latter are reluctant to divulge their
intellectual property to a university with the expertise to assist with their
technical development, but who may also be a potential competitor. There is a
need for unbiased test centres and independent expertise – particularly for
early-stage devices – to take forward the ideas of commercial developers
(which may of course result, in some cases, in demonstrating that the ideas
are not viable).
6. A small number of UK marine energy developers are well-advanced with their
R&D. Marine Current Turbines (MCT) of Bristol has conducted a staged
development programme consisting of small scale tests off a raft in Loch
Linnhe during the early 1990s, progressing to installation of a 350 kW
demonstrator in the Bristol Channel in 2003 and culminating in construction of
a grid-connected 1.2 MW generator to be deployed this year in Strangford
Lough, Northern Ireland. The company plans to install a “farm” of tidal stream
generators, producing 10s of MW, within 5 years.
7. A second 250 kW tidal stream generator, designed by Open Hydro (Dublin), is
currently being tested in the ocean at the European Marine Energy Centre
(EMEC) in Orkney.
8. Ocean Power Delivery (Edinburgh) is a world leader in wave energy
generation. Their 750 kW “Pelamis” machine has also been tested at EMEC
and three machines are now being constructed for deployment off the coast of
Portugal, where it will provide sufficient electricity to power 1,500 households.
9. Wavegen’s Limpet plant on the island of Islay is the only grid-connected wave
generator operating under commercial conditions. The company has now
signed an agreement with npower renewables, which may lead to the
development of a 3MW wave energy plant in the Isle of Lewis.
10. The four companies mentioned above have produced the only devices in the
UK to demonstrate energy generation in a real marine environment at a scale
greater than a few kWs. The time and cost of associated R&D should not be
underestimated and there is a wealth of ideas, particularly from retired
engineers who seem to be drawn to this field, which remain undeveloped
through lack of financial support.
11. Photovoltaics (PV), by comparison is a more developed technology in terms of
the energy generation aspects. However its deployment in the UK is at a
relatively low level and there is substantial potential for new developments to
integrate PV into specific applications (for example building products).
Deployment of renewable technologies
12. The current deployment of renewable technologies in the UK is given in the
table below. The data is sourced from Ofgem. The total hydro capacity in the
UK is 1355 MW, the majority of which was built some decades ago, and is
therefore not all accounted for in the table below 22.
22
The RO only caters for plant built after 1990, unless it has been refurbished, which is the case for some of the
large hydro. Therefore the 1355 figure and the 585 MW in the table cannot be added to give an overall total, as
this would result in some double-counting.
130
Generating stations accredited under the
Renewables Obligation
Installed capacity
(kW)
Number of stations
*Co-firing of biomass with fossil fuel
272,305
39
Biomass
180,600
16
Biomass and waste using ACT
4,757
5
Waste using an ACT
1,659
2
Micro hydro (including Hydro ≤ 50kW)
15,100
42
Hydro <20 MW DNC
585,698
170
Landfill gas
815,347
361
Off-shore wind
303,800
6
On-shore wind
1,844,069
175
Wind ≤ 50 kW
597
61
PV
710
125
Sewage gas
68,863
110
Wave / Tidal
1,250
2
4,093,736
932
349,829
19
4,443,565
951
TOTAL ROC-accredited
Renewable generating stations
accredited under the CCL only
Energy from Waste
Total
13. The data on heat generating technologies and very small scale projects is not
so well documented. A good indication of smaller installations can be gleaned
from the numbers of projects that have received grant funding. The DTI’s data
for 200523 is presented in the table overleaf. More up to date data would have
to be gathered from those operating the various grant programmes
Technology
Cumulative Number of
Installations
March 2005
Microwind
650
Micro Hydro
90
Ground Source Heat Pumps
546
Biomass Pellet Boilers
150
Solar Water Heating
78,470
Photovoltaics
1,301
Micro CHP
990
Fuel Cells
5
14. Of the technologies listed in the two tables above, the scope for further
deployment varies greatly. Those with the most potential for expansion are
biomass, including energy from waste, wind energy (on and offshore), PV,
23
“Our Energy Challenge – DTI’s Microgeneration Strategy, March 2006.
131
wave and tidal energy, along with all of the heat producing technologies (i.e.
solar thermal, biomass and heat pumps).
15. Most landfill gas and sewage gas capacity is already utilised. It is traditionally
assumed that there is virtually no scope for further expansion of large-scale
hydro, due to conservation-based environmental concerns. However the REA
believes that with climate change continuing to rise up the agenda, this may
not always be the case. This also applies to tidal barrages.
16. Now that the UK is signed up to a new EU renewable energy target of 20% by
2020, the drive to use biomass for sectors other than electricity will be
stronger. Until now we have only had a renewable electricity target. Also, if
the target is measured using the Eurostat rather than substitution principle,
biomass has an advantage over those technologies that produce electricity
only24.
17. Wind energy and wave and tidal are clearly anticipated to provide the major
growth in power generation technology deployment. Wind energy is welldocumented elsewhere, and therefore we focus mostly on the prospects for
wave and tidal energy.
18. The UK is well placed to take forward marine renewable energy projects,
benefiting from existing expertise in the offshore oil and gas industries. At the
same time, first movers in the field, such as MCT, have been hindered by
competition from the offshore industry for scarce and expensive resources,
such as the jack-up rigs needed for installation. Contractors will
understandably choose to work for an established industry, where the risks
are understood, rather than for a risky, new venture.
19. Even with this existing marine expertise, there are new challenges to be
overcome for offshore “wet” renewables, particularly the problems of working
(for deployment and maintenance operations) in a high wave and/or tidal
stream environment. Survivability of generators in this environment is another
issue and devices have to be engineered for longevity, which increases their
costs.
20. The cost of environmental monitoring – a requirement for the licensing
process – is overwhelming. The budget for MCT’s Seagen project in
Strangford Lough was £8 million, of which £2 million was for the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) and subsequent monitoring. The industry will not
attract outside investment, when such a high percentage of project costs is
seen to be consumed by conservation issues.
21. The EIA and licensing process presents a further disincentive to outside
investment. The offshore wind industry has spent considerable upfront sums
on an EIA for a particular site, only to have the consent denied and we believe
that similar situations may arise for wave and tidal projects. This is an area
where government could assist, by providing baseline EIAs for locations of
high wave and tidal stream energy.
24
Footnote 8 of EU renewables roadmap says:
“When the target was established in 1997 it was expected that a much smaller proportion of it would be realised
by the contribution of wind compared to biomass. As biomass is a thermal process and wind is not, one unit of
final energy produced from biomass counts 2.4 times more than one unit of final energy produced from wind and
counted in primary energy.” Source
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/03_renewable_energy_roadmap_en.pdf
132
22. Despite these drawbacks, the marine energy industry is moving forward. The
publicly-funded Wavehub project in Cornwall expected to be operational next
summer will provide grid-connected berths for up to four wave energy
converters, all of which are now booked.
23. The European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney reports that all its berths (both
wave and tidal) are currently under negotiation and if these go to plan, it will
be full by 2009.
24. On the commercial front, E.ON and Lunar energy have issued a joint
statement saying that they plan to build tidal power generators off the west
coast of England with a total capacity of 8 MW. This is scheduled to go online
by 2010.
25. Alderney Renewable Energy, a consortium that has five year rights to develop
wave and tidal energy in the island’s territorial waters, plans to install three
tidal power turbines on the seabed, supplied by Open Hydro. It estimates that
up to 3GW could be tapped from the site.
26. In the majority of other renewable technologies, particularly biomass boilers,
ground and air source heat pumps, technology development and manufacture
has mostly taken place outside the UK, although there are some exceptions.
For many years the UK has had a prominent position in the development of
small-scale wind turbines, and substantial support should be made available
to this sector as it moves towards volume deployment.
27. We also have significant expertise in small-scale hydro-generation, which,
though the UK market is modest, provides a basis for a valuable export
business.
28. Photovoltaics (PV) is a solid-state semiconductor technology being developed
on a global basis. The UK is not a leader on developing and manufacturing
traditional PV cells, though there are several centres of expertise in our
academic institutions, and some R&D work on emerging solar cell
technologies. In addition there is acknowledged UK leadership in the field of
producing feedstock for silicon solar cells and the related equipment.
29. The UK has also been prominent in developing PV products for buildingintegrated system, and in a wide range of related architectural issues.
30. We should be ready to support any such areas, where the UK has an existing
or potential world-class position.
31. We would propose there would be value in a strategic assessment of all of the
technologies mentioned above to identify areas, where particular potential
exists for UK industry. This should lead to a national research, development
and deployment programme to raise the capabilities of UK industry in the
sector.
Intelligent grid management
32. The committee is right to include grid management in its enquiry – this should
encompass transmission and distribution, and may increasingly involve
actions on the other side of the meter – i.e. demand-side measures. All need
to change in order to accommodate target levels of renewable generation.
Intelligent may have many meanings:
133
• more detailed information regarding running conditions
• more network protection and control
• more network analysis
• more sophisticated risk management
• network capability to self heal
• dynamic ratings and other clever techniques for increasing capacity.
33. As the UK is well-provided with potential for renewable generation it is
appropriate to ensure that generation is not limited by inability to deliver the
power. This has long been a concern. DTI published a consultation paper in
November 1999 on Network Access Management Issues, and in response the
joint industry – government Embedded Generation Working Group was set up
the following year (along with sub-groups). Whilst the grouping has been
reconfigured a number of times, its remit has remained the same, and is now
carried forward under the guise of the Electricity Networks Strategy Group
(plus Transmission and Distribution working groups). Despite the research on
accommodating embedded generation, over the last seven years the amount
of embedded generation the networks have accommodated has barely
changed as an overall percentage.
34. Renewable Generators have also made little contribution to the debate, mainly
due to lack of resources. The various working groups are inevitably
dominated by grid providers rather than users.
State of UK research and development in grid management
35. Much has been learnt from the work of the working groups described above,
although within the last two years some of the momentum has been lost, as
DTI funding for much of this work has faltered. Ofgem’s arrangements for
Registered Power Zones and the Innovation Funding Initiative have stimulated
some new thinking on new approaches to networks business, but again,
generators have not been greatly involved in the process.
36. R&D has proceeded only slowly. The involvement of Distribution Network
Operators is crucial, but very few of them have dedicated in-house R&D
experts. Much R&D has been carried out by individuals who must also run
their “day job”, be that network design, asset management or general
management. Nevertheless, relative to the rate of progress made with
deploying renewables, it has been sufficient.
37. Those carrying out this work, have sometimes questioned why the work is
required, and observed that their distribution networks are as yet barely being
challenged in the ways anticipated.
38. Successful developments have not been promoted sufficiently well, thus
limiting the opportunities for transfer of technology developments into real
solutions
39. There is opportunity to align the UK very closely to the EU Strategic Research
Agenda, and to secure greater influence in the programme in terms of
research priorities and allocation of funds. The UK is neither “punching above
its weight” nor even “punching at its weight” on this issue.
134
Deployment of Intelligent Grid Management
40. The UK is not a leader in manufacture of intelligent networks to support
renewable generation, but has the potential to design and implement solutions
based upon technology available elsewhere in the world. To date we have few
examples of transferred technology. In the short-term we may need to adopt
and adapt solutions from overseas in order to deliver renewable power.
41. Technology that is used overseas (such as explosive fuse links for limiting
short circuit infeed from generators, thereby saving the expense of uprating
switchgear) has been resisted by the DNOs in the UK, largely based of
inflexible interpretations of legislation by the Health and Safety Executive. It is
curious that technology that has been accepted for over a decade in many
other countries is judged unsafe to be used in the UK.
42. Investment in know-how and funding is required to deploy intelligent networks
to permit timely and economic delivery of renewable power. It will also reap
benefits in the longer term in terms of export of solutions from UK plc.
43. Intelligent grid network management isn’t always the answer. Sometime it is
simply a case of deploying traditional solutions, such as new connections or
reinforcement of existing networks quickly. This may require a sophisticated
approach to how network operators and renewable generators work together,
i.e. “intelligent networking of intelligent people” rather than “intelligent grids”.
44. For effective commercialisation and deployment, network operators and
solutions-providers need a long-term stable regulatory framework, and if this
cannot be achieved they require rewards that include a premium to cover this
risk. In the longer term fundamental commercial and regulatory market
changes may be necessary to ensure that widespread deployment of
intelligent grid management occurs. The distinct commercial and licensed
roles of the network owner, operator generator and supplier maybe have to be
revisited in order to fit an intelligent grid in a low carbon environment.
Intelligent Management of Demand
45. Intelligent demand management is an often neglected aspect of the debate.
Flexible demand can be used in conjunction with intermittent energy resources
to balance demand with available output. It can also be used to manage
certain transmission and distribution network constraints, as an alternative to
installing more wires. This strategy avoids constructing power stations that
are only needed for a short time every year to meet peak demands and can
resulting in significant carbon savings.
46. The use of demand flexibility does not have to be centrally managed. It could
evolve through the autonomous actions of individuals if they were exposed to
shorter term process signals than is currently the case – i.e. some form of
“intelligent meter”. Real time price and electricity consumption information
could be displayed on a half hourly or other short term basis. More
sophisticated facilities may be included but the basics described here would
suffice.
47. Under the current market arrangements there would need to be a mandatory
application of new minimum standards for metering to make this happen.
135
Carbon footprints
48. There is plenty of academic work on this issue, and we have no fresh data to
bring to the debate. We just make one observation – there can be an
excessive focus on this issue, to the extent that – particularly with biomass –
we find that the best can be the enemy of the good.
49. It is damaging to expect the UK to leapfrog “first generation” technologies, in
the expectation that better options will materialise. There is much debate on
second generation biofuels, when we have barely made progress with
domestic production, nor even introduced policy to deliver our target of 5%
biofuel by 2010. A recent decision has been made to convert the forthcoming
Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation into a carbon-based rather than
volume-based policy, before it has even been introduced and before there is
accurate data to substantiate the methodology for calculating carbon savings.
UK Government’s role in funding R&D
50. In general the level of support, which the UK has provided for renewable
energy, has been substantially below that available in the leading nations. If
we are interested in establishing a world-leading position, we must be
prepared to make available significantly increased funding.
51. The Government has tended to think of renewables support in three phases.
R&D for emerging technologies, deployment support (most often in the form of
grants) for technologies that are in the process of demonstration and early
commercialisation, followed by revenue based support for the final stage. This
could work, but in general we find that the UK’s management of renewables’
grant programmes is often problematic. Recently that there have been
examples of conflict between grant programmes and revenue-based support
(i.e. the Renewables Obligation) resulting in developers having to chose
between one or the other.
52. Many renewables technologies (in common with some from other sectors)
have experienced what the REA has called ‘the valley of death’ in the precommercial phase between technology development and full market
deployment. We have not been good at providing support for industry at this
later stage, where grants are less relevant and revenue-based support for
‘early movers’ would be more appropriate. For example the UK was a
technology leader in wind power at the early stages, but lost most of our
industry when Denmark introduced deployment incentives in the late 1980’s.
The marine renewables industry is now in the same position (and in danger of
going the same way!).
53. We would also note that the procedures for independent assessment of R&D
proposals have been progressively watered down in recent years. For wave
and tidal technology, this is now a mere box-ticking exercise at the preliminary
stage, with no face-to-face meeting of assessors. We are concerned that this
may lead to poor decisions on funding allocation (either funding of non-viable
projects or rejection of good ideas), since much valuable information was
exchanged at the past assessment meetings. This means not only that there
is less oversight for the spending of Government money, but also that projects
may not get as much benefit from awareness of existing technology and work
on related areas.
136
54. It is not realistic to expect early stage marine renewables projects to proceed
without funding for contingency. R&D money is also split between too many
devices. This could be helped if government provided a small fund for
inventers of new concepts, prior to the Technology Programme (TP) main
stream. This should not involve the stringent requirements of commercial
partnership or use the TP financial model, which in any case is not appropriate
for small businesses. Devices could be taken through a rapid, cost-effective
and independent evaluation procedure, to identify the best ideas and
mechanisms for further development. This would reduce the wastage of public
and private funds on concepts that are not viable. Furthermore, the inventors
would have independently acquired data with which to approach potential
commercial partners for a TP-funded programme.
55. The government’s Marine Renewable Deployment Fund of £42 million, aimed
at bridging the funding gap for early-stage pre-commercial projects, provides
25% capital grant and a revenue support payment of £100/MWh. However,
no developers have yet achieved the minimum qualification of 3 months
continuous operation or 6 months operation with occasional breaks. We urge
the government to be patient and wait for more developers gain the
operational experience that will allow them to apply to the fund.
56. We would like to see more support for R&D funding into biomass CHP
(including cooling) plant in the region of 100kWth – 2MWth, where the plant
should be capable of providing in the order of 25kWe –500kWe respectively.
This size of plant is particularly important in distributed energy on a local
scale. At present there is little technology on the market and that which is
available is not truly commercialised.
Research on opportunities for
commercialising biomass CHP at these scales and what can be achieved to
reduce the capital costs would be very helpful.
57. R&D on emissions from modern biomass systems we believe would also be
helpful in dispelling some misconceptions and increase the acceptance this
carbon-neutral technology.
UK Government’s role in providing incentives for technology transfer
58. A major benefit would appear to be to facilitate introductions between
prospective partners both in the UK and internationally.
59. The government, both at national and regional level, already provides
incentives for technology transfer between industry and academia. As already
stated, marine renewables developers are reluctant to enter into a
collaboration that involves sharing of IP or sub-contracting of research work
that they are better placed to conduct themselves.
Other possible technologies
60. It is important that we incorporate within the strategic programme those
associated technologies required to enable deployment of renewable energy.
In addition to intelligent electricity grids, similar consideration should be given
to heat networks.
61. Associated technologies such as metering and performance displays should
also be reviewed as these can make a substantial contribution to accelerating
deployment of renewable energy systems.
July 2007
137
Memorandum 20
Submission from Association of Electricity Producers
1. The Association of Electricity Producers represents electricity generators in
the UK. Its membership comprises a wide range of companies using fossil,
nuclear and renewable sources of energy to generate electricity. Members
have interests and experience in a range of innovative renewable energy
technologies including offshore wind, wave, bioenergy and advanced
conversion technologies. We are not able to provide evidence relating to
photovoltaics, ground source heat pumps, hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, intelligent grid management or energy storage as our members
do not have significant interests in these technologies.
2. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence into this inquiry.
The current state of research and development in and deployment of renewable
energy generation technologies
3. A significant proportion of research and development is undertaken informally
by companies during the testing and installation of devices and during the day
to day operation of the plant. It is not necessarily carried out in dedicated
research facilities. Calculating the amount of money spent on such research
is very difficult.
Offshore Wind
4. Research undertaken by the offshore wind sector has included work to
increase the capacity and performance of wind turbines and enabling turbines
to be located in deeper waters. There has also been research undertaken to
overcome some of the operational difficulties facing the offshore wind industry,
notably health and safety and maintenance access issues. Conditions
offshore can prevent even minor repairs from being undertaken during winter
months. The loss of revenue caused by a turbine being out of operation
creates a strong commercial incentive to overcome such problems.
5. Recent experience with the development of offshore wind has found that the
cost of development is higher than was originally estimated. Similarly the
scope for economies of scale has not proved as great as had been estimated.
It had been estimated that the cost of offshore wind might fall to as low as
£25/MWh25. Such significant cost reductions are now looking unrealistic in the
short and medium term. A recent report for the DTI26 found that the cost of
offshore wind could fall to between £76-94/MWh by 2020.
Marine Power
6. In the field of wave energy there is a significant amount of research being
undertaken on a number of different wave energy devices. At present there is
only one device, Pelamis, developed by Ocean Power Delivery, which can be
deployed on a commercial scale.
Two projects are planned using this
technology; Scottish Power’s 3MW project off Leith and EON and Ocean
25
26
PIU Report, 2002
Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Costs of electricity production, April 2007, Ernst and Young
138
Prospect’s 5.25MW project off the north Cornwall coast. Both projects will be
connected to the grid at sub-sea connections dedicated to marine energy
devices. The two sub sea connections are the European Marine Test Centre
in Orkney Orkney Test Centre and the Wave Hub off the north Cornwall coast.
The use of these sub sea hubs demonstrates the importance of dedicated
infrastructure to support the development and testing of new marine
renewable energy generating technologies.
7. In addition to Pelamis there are approximately seven other technologies being
developed to exploit marine renewable energy. It is unlikely that all of these
technologies will reach full commercialization. However, it is important that
innovative designs and technologies have sufficient opportunity to be tested.
Without such opportunity the few technologies which prove successful would
not be developed.
Bioenergy
8. Significant research and testing of bioenergy, in particular the use of different
biomasses for the generation of electricity is being undertaken within the
industry. In many cases testing is undertaken informally, for example by
trialing new biomass fuels and overcoming difficulties with their use and
handling etc. Such informal research is vital to the increased use of such
fuels. However, due to its ad hoc nature it can be overlooked in assessments
of more formal research and development.
The feasibility, cost, timescales and progress in commercializing renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints
9. The cost of carbon emissions is likely to have an increasingly significant
impact on the price of electricity in years to come. Increased electricity prices,
as would result from increased value of carbon emissions, would help the
economic feasibility of offshore wind and other emerging technologies. In the
long term this could reduce the amount of support these technologies need
from mechanisms such as the Renewables Obligation. However, for offshore
wind to be commercially viable without any additional support the price of
carbon would have to increase electricity prices considerably.
Carbon Footprints
10. There have been a number of studies of the carbon footprints or carbon
balance of renewable energy technologies. The most recent and perhaps
most relevant is that by Themba Technology27, commissioned by the
Department for Trade and Industry as part of its proposals on reforming the
Renewables Obligation. The study found that for almost all uses of biomass
for electricity generation there was a net positive carbon balance (i.e. that the
emissions associated with the production, transportation and use of the
biomass were lower than the associated carbon savings from the generation
of electricity). The carbon balance remained positive for imported as well as
indigenous sources of biomass. The net carbon balance was most largely
positive for waste biomasses as the report included in its calculation the
carbon (in the form of methane) that would have been released into the
27
Themba Technology, September 2006
139
atmosphere had the material been sent to landfill. Whilst this would not
necessary be the case for all waste biomasses, it demonstrates the wide
range of factors which need to be considered when calculating a carbon
balance for any biomass.
11. For non-fuel based technologies such as offshore wind, wave and tidal
technologies the carbon balance of the technologies is far clearer and simpler
to calculate. The production of zero carbon rated electricity from non-fuel
based renewable energy technologies would more than compensate for the
emissions associated with the production and installation of the turbine
equipment. For onshore wind it has been calculated that the energy used in
the manufacturing of the equipment would have been produced by the turbine
within three to ten months of operation. This means that during its lifetime28
each wind turbine would produce between 30 and 100 times the energy used
in its construction and manufacture.
The UK government’s role in funding research and development for renewable
energy generation technologies and providing incentives for technology transfer and
industrial research and development
12. There is a clear role for the UK Government in the funding of blue sky
research and development for renewable energy technologies. Without
Government support the market is unlikely to invest optimally in such early
stage research and development. To date Government funding for research
and development of technologies has provided the industry with a solid basis
of support. Many renewable energy technologies which are currently at the
research and development phase could offer significant potential to the
market.
They could also make a valuable contribution towards the
Government’s targets for renewable energy and carbon emissions reductions.
13. There has been a move in recent years to attempt to fund renewable energy
generation technologies through market based mechanisms at earlier stages
of their development. Two examples of this are the development of the
Marine Supply Obligation in Scotland and the UK Government’s proposal to
band the Renewables Obligation to give increase support to emerging
technologies. The proposal to band the RO will provide enhanced levels of
support for emerging technologies.
This will help progress towards
commercial viability post demonstration technologies where the basic
technology is proven. However, there will continue to be a need for direct
Government support for technologies at the pre-demonstration stage. If the
Government attempted to support technologies at earlier stages of
development in this way it could have a highly damaging effect on the
development of new technologies.
Other possible technologies for renewable energy generation
14. The Association is not aware of any specific new technologies which are likely
to come forward as it deals primarily with those technologies which are past
28
Lifetime of a turbine assumed to be 25 years
140
the research and development stage. New renewable energy technologies
will, however, undoubtedly come forward in future.
15. The Association would be pleased to discuss further any of the comments
made in this evidence.
July 2007
141
Memorandum 21
Submission from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
Introduction
1. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) is a professional body
representing over 78,000 professional engineers in the UK and overseas. Our
membership is involved in all aspects of energy supply, conversion and use. They
operate in the automotive, rail and aerospace industries, in construction and building
services, in renewable energy, fossil-fuel derived power generation and nuclear
power, and in the over-arching field of sustainable development. As a Learned
Society, our role is to be a source of considered, balanced, impartial information and
advice.
General Comments
2.1 As IMechE said in its initial response to the Energy White Paper, the over-riding
priority and objective for UK energy policy must be to engage fully and with some
urgency in the battle against climate change, through the rapid development and
widespread deployment of secure, sustainable, low carbon solutions across the
whole energy field, based on a stable, long-term framework and carbon-pricing
signals.
2.2 IMechE believes the Energy Hierarchy provides the most appropriate framework
for a truly sustainable, coherent energy policy. It gives priority to demand-side energy
conservation and efficiency measures and the development of low carbon,
sustainable supply-side measures. It is in the demand-side that the bulk of the
opportunities to move quickly and effectively towards a low carbon, secure and
sustainable energy future are to be found.
2.3 As it is impossible to eliminate all demand for energy, the only sensible approach
to energy supply is to have a diverse and balanced portfolio of energy sources. The
future energy mix should include all sources of renewable power and heat, combined
heat and power (CHP), nuclear, coal with carbon capture and storage, oil and gas.
There is no magic bullet in energy and climate change.
2.4 It is clear that many low carbon technologies already exist or can be developed,
for heat, power and transport. Government must provide a fair and stable framework
that allows each and every one of them to realize their potential. IMechE therefore
welcome the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry as a timely contribution to
the development of this framework.
2.5 Renewable energy generation is a high-technology sector. It is crucial to many of
the Government’s strategic priorities, not just the battle against climate change.
Indeed, it is crucial to achieving sustainable development, energy security, and the
emergence of a competitive, environmentally benign, knowledge-based economy.
While many renewable technologies exist, their deployment in the UK has been
significantly hampered by a variety of factors, not least planning and grid connection
142
issues, but also inconsistent and inadequate Government policy measures. The
climate change imperative, and now the binding EU targets for the sector, dictate that
support policies right across the innovation chain, from R&D through demonstration
to full-scale deployment, must be developed and implemented quickly. The UK is
blessed with an abundance of renewable energy resources; it now needs the political
leadership to make the very best use of them.
Responses to Specific Points
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of, renewable energy-generation
technologies including: offshore wind; photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy;
ground source heat pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy storage.
3.1 Offshore Wind. While there has been a recent increase in the deployment of offshore wind farms, significant
barriers still remain. Recent Government announcements on planning and the introduction of a 1.5 ROCs per
MWh support level within the Renewables Obligation (RO) will help considerably. R&D support should focus on
cost reduction, turbine design, deep-sea operations and reliability, access and maintenance issues.
3.2 Photovoltaics. PV has significant long-term potential, but has so far achieved very low levels of penetration
into UK markets, largely because of its high cost and perceptions of its ineffectiveness in the UK’s often cloudy
weather. While it can find applications in certain niche markets, it remains a long way from large-scale viability
and the focus for government support should therefore be in R&D. Priority issues include cost reduction, cell
materials, efficiency improvements and building integration concepts.
3.3 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies. This is another sector in need of substantial R&D support to realise
any potential for large-scale application. Issues include low carbon hydrogen production, its effective storage and
distribution, and fuel cell cost reductions and efficiency improvements.
3.4 Wave. Wave energy is much nearer to full-scale viability than PV or hydrogen-based technologies, but it will
need both government and industry support to get it from small-scale prototype through to large-scale
demonstration. The introduction of a 2 ROCs per MWh band for wave energy in the RO is welcome, but will not
be sufficient on its own to bring forward large-scale demonstration schemes.
3.5 Tidal. There are two basic types of tidal energy generation: barrages and tidal stream. Barrages are
relatively mature technologies, with very limited application in terms of suitable sites. They do, however, have the
potential to deliver very large quantities of energy. The Severn Barrage is one such scheme that has been
gaining support over recent years, along with other schemes to exploit the tidal characteristics of the Severn
Estuary. The Government should support the development of detailed plans and complete timely assessments of
their economic, environmental and social impacts. Tidal stream devices are at a similar stage of development to
wave energy devices, and merit similar support measures. As with wave energy, the 2 ROCs per MWh banding
for tidal stream devices will not be sufficient on its own to bring forward large-scale demonstration schemes.
3.6 Bioenergy. This covers a wide range of materials, technologies and applications, but there are some generic
issues relevant to most or all bioenergy schemes which we describe here. The first is maximising the availability
of biomass (including in “waste” streams) for energy production, not just in terms of growing and using more, but
also in developing new crop species. The second is the optimisation of conversion processes and technologies.
Finally, there is a need to properly integrate crop production and biomass use with sustainability issues, and
within the overall energy system, for example, to exploit fully the opportunities for combined heat and power.
Existing Government support measures (largely support for co-firing) have done little to develop indigenous
supply chains or conversion technologies. The banding of various bioenergy technologies in the RO, the
introduction of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation and the encouragement for Energy from Waste
schemes in the Waste Strategy for England are all welcome steps in the right direction.
3.7 Ground Source Heat Pumps. These (along with air and water source heat pumps) are generally mature
technologies that have been deployed in significant quantities overseas, but not in the UK as yet. Installation
costs, lack of awareness and lack of available land provide probably the greatest barriers. The main market for
heat pumps should be in new build developments, where installation costs can be effectively minimised and
systems sized appropriately. There is scope for greater public sector support, through the micro-generation
strategy, the development of a strategy for sustainable heat and in the procurement and regulation of housing
developments.
143
3.8 Intelligent Grid Management and Energy Storage. Aside from the well-established pumped storage used
alongside large-scale hydro power schemes, (electrical) energy storage is not widely used. It has enormous
potential, however, not just to smooth out supply peaks and troughs from intermittent renewables such as wind
energy, but also to transform our electricity supply infrastructure from the current highly inefficient system based
on peak demand to a far more efficient one based on average demand. A variety of different technologies have
potential and some have even got near to commercial exploitation (e.g. the Regenysys system). The potential
benefits merit significantly higher priority being given to R&D funding in this area. Grid management also needs
to be studied and improved, to better integrate distributed and embedded generators, to better cope with
intermittent supply sources and to explore new and effective demand-side measures to help provide security of
supply.
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable technologies as well as their
reliability and associated carbon footprints.
4.1 In the near-term, offshore wind and bioenergy (particularly energy from biomass waste) are likely to be the
most commercially attractive large-scale options, supported by the banded RO. Actions to address planning and
grid connection issues, and much greater incentives for combined heat and power schemes for biomass, could
also make significant contributions. Ground source heat pumps could also become much more common place
over the next decade or so, through measures such as the Code for Sustainable Homes (and a wider Code for
Sustainable Buildings) and Building Regulations.
4.2 Wave and tidal energy technologies have significant potential for large-scale deployment in the period 20152025, but will need support over and above the RO banding and the modest levels of existing R&D funding. This
period is also relevant to intelligent grid management and, possibly, energy storage.
4.3 Photovoltaics and hydrogen/fuel-cell technologies are unlikely to achieve large-scale deployment much before
2025. In the shorter term, they merit targeted R&D funding to address the issues relevant to them (described
above).
4.4 Not all renewable technologies are sustainable, and not all are necessarily very low carbon. Wind, wave and
tidal energy schemes are likely to have the lowest carbon footprint and be most sustainable. Bioenergy has a
slightly higher carbon impact, mainly through the fossil fuels used in growing and transporting the crops, and
needs to be managed carefully to ensure it meets sustainability criteria by, for example, not being produced at the
expense of tropical forests. Ground source heat pumps have a potentially very low carbon impact, if the electricity
used to run the pump is from low carbon sources. Hydrogen’s carbon footprint depends on where it comes from
and, if it comes from fossil fuels, whether the carbon is captured and stored as part of the production process. PV
currently has quite a high carbon impact (by renewables standards) due mainly to extraction of silicon and the
complicated and energy-intensive manufacturing process.
The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable energy-generation technologies
and providing incentives for technology transfer and industrial research and development.
5.1 There is an overwhelming case for direct Government support for renewable technology development and
innovation. As well as stimulating new business opportunities and social benefits, such support has many other
benefits, including the development of skills, capacity and collaborative networks. It can also encourage and
leverage private-sector investment in R&D.
5.2 Over recent decades, UK investment in energy sector R&D has been weak. We have fallen behind many
other nations in bringing new technologies to market, and our capacity to exploit R&D carried out here or
elsewhere has been diminished. While we welcome the recent increases in public R&D funding in the energy
sector, and the establishment of the UK Energy Research Centre, the amounts being spent still do not adequately
reflect the scale or urgency of the climate change challenge, nor the many potential opportunities for UK plc.
144
Other possible technologies for renewable energy-generation.
6.1 There are a wide range of new and emerging renewable technologies, not all of which have been mentioned
above. Of probably greatest relevance to the UK is Solar Thermal (for heating and cooling). Similar in many
ways to Ground Source Heat Pumps, in being well established elsewhere but having not, as yet, achieved
significant penetration in to UK markets, solar thermal has tremendous potential in both new build and, crucially,
in refurbishment of existing buildings. Barriers at present include the high up-front installation costs and, like PV,
misplaced perceptions that solar energy technologies are not effective under UK weather conditions. To realise
the potential, and contribute significantly to the 2020 renewable energy targets, support is needed to develop
markets and supply chains (e.g. through Building Regulations, the Code for Sustainable Homes, the microgeneration strategy, public procurement, a sustainable heat strategy, and householder grants and fiscal
incentives) and for R&D to improve efficiencies and reduce costs.
July 2007
145
Memorandum 22
Submission from the British Geological Survey
Executive Summary
1. The British Geological Survey (BGS) is a component body of the Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) and the UK’s premier centre for earth science information and
expertise. BGS welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry.
2. Evidence is provided on the current state of UK research and development on five
renewable energy-generation technologies:
• geothermal
• hydrogen
• underground storage of compressed air and hydrogen
• tidal
• wave
Geothermal
3. Geothermal electricity generation is mainly associated with volcanic regions of the world.
However, a number of countries have demonstrated that geothermal resources can still
be exploited in regions that do not have exceptionally high sub-surface temperatures.
Temperatures increase with depth due to the small amount of heat conducted upwards
from the deep earth. This results in the geothermal gradient, which has an average UK
value of 26° C per km, but locally it can be in excess of 35° C per km. Evidence of these
raised sub-surface temperatures is seen at Bath-Bristol and in the Peak District where
hot springs discharge at the surface.
Investigation of the geothermal potential of the UK
4. In the late 1970s and early 80s the then UK Department of Energy funded a programme
to assess the UK’s geothermal resources. Deep sedimentary basins where porous,
permeable rocks occur at depth were investigated as possible sources of hot water. The
total heat-in-place was estimated to be in excess of 300 x 1018 Joules. Hot dry rock
(HDR) technology was also examined as part of the geothermal programme. This
involves drilling a deep well into crystalline rock, creating a permeable reservoir and
pumping cold water, which becomes heated, to a production well. An experiment was
conducted at Rosemanowes quarry on the Carnmenellis granite in Cornwall. Three wells
were drilled to depths of over 2 km, but the programme came to an end because of the
technical problems that needed to be overcome for HDR to have become a viable
technology at that time.
Legacy of the geothermal programme
5. At Southampton, an exploration well was drilled as part of the geothermal programme
and this was developed by the city council and a commercial partner to provide hot water
to a district-heating scheme. The city centre scheme is an integrated energy scheme that
incorporates geothermal energy and a gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant.
The scheme comprises 2 MW of thermal geothermal energy, 2 small CHP units, 8 MW of
chilled water plant and a 5.7 MW dual fuel Wartsila CHP electric generator.
Developments in Continental Europe
6. In the UK research into the utilisation of our deeper geothermal resources ended with the
termination of the Department of Energy’s geothermal programme in the mid-1980s.
However, other European countries with similar sub-surface temperatures to the UK
continued their research and Germany, in particular, has encouraged renewable energy
146
generation through legislation and grant funding. There are now a number of power
generating geothermal schemes; of particular note are:
•
At Unterhaching, near Munich in Germany, a 3.5 km deep borehole has tapped
thermal water at a temperature of 122º C. This will be used to generate 3.7 MW of
electricity and will provide a district-heating scheme with hot water (up to 41 MW
(thermal)).
•
Soultz-sous-Forêts on the western edge of the Rhine Graben in north-east France is
the site of the European Deep Geothermal Energy Programme pilot project. This is a
Hot Dry Rock project where three boreholes have been drilled into crystalline rock to a
depth of 5 km. Temperatures are around 200º C and the returned heated water will be
used to drive a 6 MW electricity generating plant.
•
In northern Germany, at Neustadt-Glewe, saline water is extracted from a sandstone
aquifer at a depth of 2.3 km. The water is at a temperature of 98º C and has been
used for over ten years for a district-heating scheme. In 2003 a binary-cycle electricity
generating plant was installed. This generates 400 kW of electricity, about half of
which is used to power the plant and the remainder is fed into the local electricity
network. At a temperature of 98º C, this is the lowest temperature in the world for the
generation of geothermal electricity.
Research and development in the UK
7. The UK currently has no on-going research or development into geothermal electricity
generation. However, we can gain from the experiences of others in Europe and North
America and with central government finance we could build on the investigations of the
1970s and 80s. There are a number of potential programmes that could be researched:
8. Further explore the potential of deep UK aquifers to produce hot water for district-heating
schemes and assess the latest binary-cycle generation technologies that may enable
such schemes to be self-sustaining and carbon neutral.
9. Consider the instigation of another hot dry rock project situated on a suitable
radiothermal granite that can take advantage of the technological developments
pioneered at other HDR sites.
10. Investigate the geothermal potential of the North Sea where many oilfields are coming to
the end of their productive lives. These fields have been thoroughly explored and the
infrastructure for the extraction of deep, hot brines is already in place. Some of these
fields have sub-surface temperatures in excess of 100º C and so electricity generation,
especially using binary-cycle technology should be possible. It is unclear, given the high
running costs of rigs in deep water, if electricity generation could be economical.
However, some rigs could be retained to become multi-purpose platforms for the
sequestration of carbon dioxide, as hubs for wind turbines and for geothermal electricity
generation.
Iceland as an external supplier of geothermal electricity to the UK
11. Iceland is a volcanic region that is near to becoming self-sufficient in electricity generated
from its geothermal resources. A research project, entitled ‘Iceland Deep Drilling Project’,
is aiming to drill deep boreholes (3.5.km) into super critical geothermal reservoirs where
temperatures are likely to be 400º to 600º C. It is envisioned that these super critical
resources could increase power generation ten fold. The UK could import the surplus of
Icelandic green electricity through a cable interconnector and thus increase the diversity
of UK energy suppliers. As the UK stands to benefit we could offer our expertise in some
aspects of the project in order to assist in its realisation.
147
Hydrogen
12. Hydrogen is regarded as having great potential for use as a versatile and major energy
carrier, being complementary to electricity, and with the potential to replace fossil fuels in
what is referred to as a future Hydrogen Economy. It is, however, presently used mostly
as chemical feedstock in the petrochemical industry, and in food, electronics and
metallurgical processing industries.
13. Currently the bulk of hydrogen is made from natural gas, but there may be potential to
explore for naturally-occurring hydrogen overseas and in the oceans. Little research has
been conducted so far. Sustainably produced hydrogen should be the basis of a low
carbon economy, delivering a reduction in emissions of the greenhouse carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other atmospheric pollutants, with the associated benefit of security of supply.
The use of hydrogen as a fuel and energy carrier will require an infrastructure for safe
and cost-effective hydrogen transport and storage. A ‘green’ Hydrogen Economy should
include the production of hydrogen and electricity generated fully from sustainable,
renewable sources, such as on Unst, NW Scotland. A variety of process technologies
can be used, including chemical, biological, electrolytic, photolytic and thermo-chemical.
14. There are industrial parks using hydrogen to power buildings, local buses and converted
cars on Teesside and the island of Unst, NW Scotland. On Teesside, hydrogen obtained
from industrial processes, once obtained, is already stored underground in salt caverns.
Underground storage of compressed air and hydrogen
15. Most renewable energy is from wind power which is, of course, dependent on prevailing
weather conditions and cannot directly be varied to meet diurnal or seasonal variation in
demand. Energy storage, in the form of underground compressed air energy and
hydrogen, could help to minimise the temporal mismatch between supply and demand by
storing energy produced at times of low demand as compressed air and converting it
back to electricity at times of peak demand.
Compressed air storage (CAS) and compressed air energy storage (CAES)
16. The potential exists for CAS and CAES of electricity generated from renewable sources
such as wind or tidal energy. Electricity is not usually stored as such, but is converted to
other forms such as gravitational, pneumatic, kinetic potential (CAS, CAES and
hydroelectric facilities), magnetic or chemical energy. Alongside pumped-hydroelectric,
CAES is currently the only other commercially available (and economic) technology
relying on geological storage and the cheapest, most abundant substances (i.e. elevated
water or compressed air), capable of providing the requirement of very-large system
energy storage deliverability. However, the scale and location-specific nature of energy
storage in natural formations renders it of limited benefit to small scale, local distributed
networks and renewable energy generation sites.
17. The efficiency of conversion and re-conversion between electricity and the stored energy
form of each system ultimately governs the viability of any scheme, but is maximised by
generating electricity from storage to meet demand peaks and gain maximum revenue.
CAS
18. With CAS, compressed air is stored in conventional high-pressure gas cylinders or
pressure vessels (generally above ground). Current technological and cost limitations of
manufacturing such pressure vessels on the scales required for efficient CAES plants
mean that CAS is generally too small to be considered for CAES schemes. Above
ground storage systems only become competitive with large underground storage
facilities when capacities are limited to short durations of perhaps 3-5 hours supply,
which is very small for CAES storage.
148
CAES
19. Hydroelectric power plants have, for many years, been used to store excess off peak
(night-time and weekends) power and provide increased peak time output. CAES
facilities likewise provide the potential to store energy and could be used alongside, for
example, wind turbines. Though instances of this technology are not numerous, it is likely
that compressed air energy storage will assume a greater importance as energy markets
change with time. To date, CAES has been found to be too inefficient and costly for wide
spread commercial use by the wind industry, due largely to the energy losses resulting
from the requirement to turn two rotational devices – the air turbine and then the
generator motor.
20. The technological concept of CAES is more than 30 years old with the first CAES facility
commissioned in Germany in 1978 using caverns created in the Huntorf salt dome near
Hamburg for storage. A second plant near McIntosh in Alabama, USA, was constructed
in 1991, and utilises caverns constructed in the McIntosh salt dome. In 2001, approval
was granted to develop a CAES plant in an old limestone mine 670 m (2200 ft) below
ground at Norton, Ohio. Commercial operation was estimated to begin in 2003 and to be
fully operational by 2008. Research into CAES is ongoing around the world, with plans to
construct a number of CAES plants that will utilise aquifers and former mines. Italy has
operated a small 25 MW CAES research facility based on aquifer storage, whilst Israel
has conducted research in to building a 3x100 MW CAES facility using hard rock
aquifers.
21. The basic concept is that during the storage phase, electrical energy (from e.g. wind
energy or excess output of power plants) is used to compress air, which is stored under
pressure underground. Storage can be in porous rocks or in large voids, such as salt
caverns. Storage volumes required to make CAES plants economic are large, hence
above ground facilities are not practicable due to prohibitive costs. The stored air is held
until the demand on the grid for energy is such that the compressed air is released
through a turbine (it may also be mixed with gas) and connected generator, generating
power (electricity) through a generator.
22. A CAES power plant is therefore, a combination of compressed air storage and a
modified gas turbine power plant. Technical issues surround the heat generated during
compression of air, but these are lessening.
23. Gaelectric Developments Ltd was awarded a licence in Northern Ireland during 2006 to
assess suitability of Triassic halite for compressed air storage. This would represent an
important development as there are only two other operational sites in the world.
However, there is no Government involvement and development would probably be
heavily dependent on German technical expertise.
Future technologies/developments
24. In 2003, it was planned to build the Iowa stored energy plant, which would be the first
plant to use wind energy, as well as off-peak electricity to compress the air and store it in
an underground aquifer. The proposal included building a wind farm, however, following
further investigations, the geology may not be as favourable as was originally thought.
25. Early in 2005, a Canadian company indicated that it was working on developing a system
that will allow wind energy producers to store energy in the form of compressed air in
underground steel tanks or pipes, and release it through a special generator to create
electricity when it is needed. The wind energy storage system will make use of a
Magnetic Piston Generator (MPG), which permits the generation of electricity through
conventional wind turbine means when the wind is blowing as well as simultaneously
compressing and storing compressed air in a storage facility for release through the
MPG when the wind turbine cuts out due to lack of wind.
Public perception of CAES
149
26. Recent planning applications for Underground Gas Storage facilities in England have
attracted considerable public opposition. Public safety concerns have been raised by
reports of serious but isolated incidents where stored gas has escaped from caverns,
particularly in the USA. Such public fears and reluctance to accept underground energy
storage options could be important when considering and planning for the renewables
sector, e.g. storage of hydrogen.
Hydrogen Storage
27. Hydrogen storage becomes an issue if generation exceeds requirements locally. On
Unst, any geological storage would have to be in rock caverns, but this is not yet
envisaged. Further potential for storage might be in porous strata (aquifers or depleted
oil/gasfields), perhaps with the use of water curtains to maintain the pressure on the
formation and prevent outward migration of the stored hydrogen away from the injection
site (footprint).
Storage media
28. Two basic types of storage facility exist for the storage of renewable energies: salt
caverns and lined rock caverns (LRC).
29. Underground salt caverns provide potentially secure environments for the containment of
materials that do not cause dissolution of salt. Salt cavern storage is based on proven
technology and is used throughout Europe and North America and offers options for the
storage of liquid (oil, LPG and LNG), natural gas, hydrogen and compressed air. Stable
salt caverns are fashioned by solution mining, which involves the injection of water under
carefully controlled conditions to create uniform shapes and prevent subsidence. A
borehole is drilled into the halite beds and then completed with two or three casings.
Fresh or saltwater is injected, which dissolves the salt, producing brine that is pumped up
a central casing for subsequent disposal or use (as a chemical feedstock, for example).
30. England and Northern Ireland possess major salt deposits and potential to develop salt
cavern storage onshore exists in the UK in a number of areas. The salt deposits are of
two different ages, being Permian in the NE of England and Triassic in the NW, Cheshire
Basin, Worcester, Somerset and Wessex areas. Gas storage facilities already exist in
the Triassic salts of Cheshire Basin (Hole House) and Permian salts in NE England
(Atwick/Hornsea and Billingham on Teesside) and there are a number of other sites in
England currently under development or at the application stages, including those in the
Triassic halites of Cheshire (Byley and Holford), Lancashire (Wyre/Preesall) and Dorset
(Isle of Portland area). Further facilities are planned in the Permian salt deposits near
Aldborough and the currently operational site at Atwick (Hornsea). The onshore salt
deposits extend offshore in a number of areas, such as the East Irish Sea and Southern
North Sea, where they are generally thicker and could provide nearshore options for
development of caverns associated with offshore windfarms.
31. LRC provides storage capacities in countries/regions where crystalline and metamorphic
strata form the majority of rocks at outcrop and where there is a lack of other suitable
geological formations (such as salt deposits or sandstone reservoir rocks) to provide
underground storage facilities. The LRC concept has been successfully tested at two
sites in Sweden. The main principle relies on a rock mass (primarily, crystalline rock)
serving as a pressure vessel in containing stored gas or air at high pressures (15 - 25
MPa). The caverns are lined with reinforced concrete and thin carbon steel liners, the
latter acting as an impermeable barrier to the gas/air. They can be cycled many times
per year and thus provide hhigh deliverability.
32. Other forms of storage may be possible, such as in porous rocks (aquifers, depleted
oil/gasfields) but the two types above are likely to be of more immediate relevance in the
UK context.
150
Tidal
33. BGS has developed seabed drilling technology for site investigation work in areas with
high tidal currents and a successful project was recently completed offshore Orkney.
The BGS seabed mapping programme collects new data and integrates this with existing
third party data to produce better understanding of the seabed, seabed sediments, and
sediment movement. These data are critical to understanding the impacts of tidal stream
and barrage developments. The data underpins site investigation and is a key
contribution to the information required to underpin marine spatial planning. It is directly
relevant to marine developments, including all marine renewables, extraction of
aggregates and environmental and conservation issues. BGS has recently undertaken
mapping surveys in the East English Channel, the Bristol Channel, the Forth, the Clyde,
and near Ullapool. BGS works closely with other marine organisations, including CEFAS,
JNCC and the devolved conservation agencies, SAMS and the DTI strategic
environment assessment programme. BGS has several joint PhD projects on marine
geohazards (landslides and tsunamis) and geodiversity and marine habitats.
Wave
34. The BGS geological mapping programme is directly relevant to site investigation, and
research is currently in progress studying sandbanks, their historical evolution and
movement and potential for future movement.
July 2007
151
Memorandum 23
Submission from the London Climate Change Agency and the London Development
Agency
1.0
Executive Summary
1.1
This paper is a combined submission of evidence from both the London Climate
Change Agency and the London Development Agency. London is taking the lead in
tackling climate change and this submission sets out the background to this work and
the practical action that London is now undertaking, including renewable energy and
hydrogen technologies, from which other cities and local authorities can learn from as
well as the identification of barriers that government must address if the UK is to meet
and go beyond its climate change and renewable energy targets.
2.0
London Climate Change Agency
2.1
The Mayor committed to establishing the London Climate Change Agency (LCCA)29
in his 2004 election manifesto to implement projects in the sectors that impact on
climate change, especially in the energy, transport, waste and water sectors. The
LCCA is playing a key role in helping to deliver the Mayor’s Energy Strategy and
Climate Change Action Plan. The LCCA is a municipal company owned by the
London Development Agency (LDA) and led by the Mayor as chairman.
3.0
London ESCO
3.1
One of the LCCA’s key projects was the establishment of the London ESCO30, a
public/private joint venture energy services company between the LCCA Ltd (19%
shareholding) and EDF Energy plc (81% shareholding) to design, finance, build and
operate decentralised energy systems, including renewable energy and fuel cell CHP
systems. The author is the LCCA’s director on the London ESCO Board.
3.2
The first tranche of immediate projects will double London’s CHP capacity and
implement both large and small scale renewable energy projects at an investment
value of some £100 million and deliver a reduction in CO2 emissions of approximately
310,000 tonnes pa.
4.0
London Plan
4.1
The London Plan31 is used as a positive planning policy tool to stimulate the take up of
renewable energy technologies by requiring developers to provide 10% of the
development’s energy requirements from on site renewable energy. The Further
Alterations to the London Plan32 will go one step further by specifically requiring
developments to have energy supplied by combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP)
29
London Climate Change Agency - www.lcca.co.uk
London ESCO – www.londonesco.co.uk
31
London Plan, February 2004 – “The London Plan - the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy”, Feb 2004,
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/strategy.jsp
32
Further Alterations to the London Plan, consultation, September 2006, “Draft Further Alterations to the
London Plan”, http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/further-alts/docs.jsp
30
152
or trigeneration wherever feasible and to reduce their CO2 emissions by a further 20%
through the production of on site renewable energy. This key change in moving from
an energy led approach to a carbon led approach was necessary since not all renewable
energy technologies reduce CO2 emissions by the same amount and some may even
increase CO2 emissions in certain situations.
4.2
However, having a groundbreaking London Plan does not necessarily guarantee
increases in renewable energy and other low and zero carbon technologies unless it
can be shown that there is a low carbon energy industry in London. Prior to the 2004
Mayoral election this was an area of market failure, hence the need for the
establishment of the LCCA and the London ESCO which in itself has begun to
catalyse the market and attract new ESCO players into London.
5.0
The Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan
5.1
The Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan33 was published in February 2007 which set
a target to reduce London’s CO2 emissions by 60% below 1990 levels, not by 2050
but by 2025, if CO2 emissions are to be stabilised at 450ppm and catastrophic climate
change avoided. However, 50% of this target depends on government taking action
through such measures as removing the regulatory barriers to decentralised energy and
carbon pricing.
5.2
London’s electricity and gas consumption is responsible for 75% of London’s CO2
emissions. This is normally not separately identified but smeared across end use
energy consumption but it is important to realise where CO2 emissions are actually
coming from since it is no fault of the energy consumer that centralised energy is so
inefficient, otherwise the wrong policy actions and effort will be set in place and the
primary cause of climate change not addressed.
5.3
The Mayor’s goal is to enable 25% of London’s energy supply to be moved off
reliance on the national grid and on to local decentralised energy systems by 2025
with more than 50% of London’s energy being supplied in this way by 2050. Of the
2025 target 15% of energy will come from biomass and waste and 38% of energy will
come from local heat and power networks and microgeneration some of which will
also be renewable energy.
6.0
London Development Agency
6.1
The LDA is a regional development agency (RDA) whose functions have been
delegated to the Mayor. The LDA is leading from the front in helping to deliver the
Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan in low and zero carbon developments and by
requiring decentralised energy to be incorporated in its own developments in advance
of and as part of the procurement of delivery partners to develop its developments.
With the assistance of the LCCA the LDA has established a Decentralised Energy
Team to help deliver this strategy which sets an important example of ‘show by doing’
to the development community in London and to other RDA’s.
33
The Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan – Action Today to Protect Tomorrow www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-change/ccap/
153
6.2
However, the delegated powers, obligations and budgets should be reviewed for
RDA’s to enable them to support (and achieve) government targets for renewable
energy and CHP.
7.0
Decentralised Renewable Energy Technologies
CHP and CCHP
7.1
Combined heat and power (CHP or cogeneration) and combined cooling, heat and
power (CCHP or trigeneration) are important technologies for renewable energy both
now, by providing an economic infrastructure for renewable energy technologies to
interconnect to, and in the future, where such energy infrastructure can be re-energised
with renewable gases/fuels or renewable hydrogen. For example, a CCHP system
installed today fuelled by a low carbon fuel such as natural gas can be re-energised
with a renewable fuel in the future when the primary energy plant requires
replacement since the CCHP system infrastructure will last typically 3 to 4 times
longer than the primary energy plant.
7.2
A further sophistication of this approach is to provide dual fuel primary energy plant
so that the plant can take advantage of natural gas today but switched over in say 5
years time to a renewable gas when a renewable gas infrastructure has been developed
for the purpose. This is the approach that is being taken on some London projects. In
either event, such an approach will provide future proofing for renewable gases and
fuels and enable a rapid upscaling for both renewable heat and electricity within a
relatively short timescale.
Photovoltaics
7.3
Photovoltaics (PV) is an important technology for an urban environment like London
since one thing that a city has a lot of are roofs and other locations (eg., glass/glass PV
for canopies, atria and rooflights and PV/wind energy lighting columns) upon which
PV can be installed. PV is also a complimentary technology to CHP, particularly for
residential, since the two technologies operating together provide complimentary
reverse summer/winter overlapping energy profiles with peak electricity in the
summer from PV and peak electricity in the winter from CHP. This is one of the
achievements in Woking where PV was made more economic by taking a holistic
approach to decentralised energy supplying communities.
7.4
PV is one of the more expensive renewable energy technologies but it has a very long
life, typically 3 times longer than other renewable energy technologies. Therefore, PV
has significant lifetime CO2 emissions reduction capability. It is important for London
to stimulate and catalyse the PV market because of its huge potential to generate
renewable electricity local to where the energy loads exist. For this reason, the LCCA
and the GLA Group have implemented a number of photovoltaic projects. The LCCA
is also working on potential inward investment projects as manufacturers/suppliers
take advantage of the low carbon energy economy in London.
Wind Energy
154
7.5
Wind energy is another important technology that also, like PV, has a complimentary
reverse summer/winter overlapping energy profile with CHP.
7.6
The potential for non building integrated wind energy is more significant than would
be imagined for a city like London. The London Energy Partnership wind energy
study identified that the wind energy capacity for the Greater London area was
predicted to be 50.34MW, generating 144.5GWh annually and reducing 147,015
tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, taking account of various constraints in London.
However, the potential for wind energy could be more significant than this,
particularly if advantage was taken of the River Thames corridor.
7.7
The UK has 50% of Europe’s wind energy resource and yet the UK lags behind other
European countries such as Denmark, Germany and Spain who have much less wind
energy resource.
7.8
The potential for building integrated wind energy could also be significant for a city
like London. However, this is an emerging technology that will require supporting if it
is to achieve its potential. The LCCA demonstration project at Palestra is an example
of this technology which is currently undergoing re-engineering by the manufacturer.
Solar Water Heating
7.9
Solar water heating has the potential to deliver up to the equivalent of 80% of
domestic water heating. However, it is important to understand that ‘equivalent’ is not
the same as ‘actual’ since it only takes a few hours to heat a domestic hot water
cylinder, particularly in the summer, so even if solar energy is available for many
more hours in a day it cannot be fully realised unless there is a continuous hot water
demand - difficult for most working households. More solar energy production and
consumption could be realised if thermal storage was utilised in conjunction with solar
water heating, particularly in the summer.
7.10
Unless solar water heating displaces a high carbon fuel such as electricity, coal or oil
water heating it will not achieve a significant reduction in CO2 emissions against a low
carbon fuel such as natural gas. It should also be noted that solar water heating is not a
complimentary technology to CHP, particularly for domestic CHP.
Ground Source Heat Pumps
7.11
Ground source heat pumps are a partial renewable energy technology deriving low
carbon, low temperature renewable heat from the ground which is then increased by a
heat pump connected to the high carbon national grid. This increase in temperature is
determined by the coefficient of performance (COP) of the heat pump. Although
manufacturers often quote high COP’s (typically a COP of 3 or 4) it is important to
understand that these are instantaneous peak values in the most advantageous
conditions.
7.12
The average annual COP of a good heat pump is typically 2 which will reduce energy
consumption by 50% over the year as a whole. However, this does not necessarily
mean that this will reduce CO2 emissions. For example, a ground source heat pump
with an average annual COP of 2 connected to the grid will have a CO2 emission
155
factor of 0.422kgCO2/kWh x 50% = 0.211kgCO2/kWh compared with natural gas
high efficiency condensing boilers with efficiencies up to 97% and at this efficiency
the CO2 emission factor will be 0.194kgCO2/kWh @ 97% efficiency =
0.200kgCO2/kWh, ie., 5.2% less CO2 emissions than a grid connected ground source
heat pump.
7.13
Where CHP or CCHP is the alternative technology these will achieve a far greater
reduction in CO2 emissions than ground source heat pumps simply because the CHP
or CCHP will be displacing high carbon grid electricity (as well as co-generating heat)
rather than consuming high carbon grid electricity. Ground source heat pumps could
be connected to and supplied by on site PV or wind energy but this would not be a
good overall use of renewable energy which would otherwise displace grid electricity
for lighting and appliances.
7.14
Nonetheless, ground source heat pumps have their place in reducing CO2 emissions,
particularly for rural environments, where there is no gas grid and the alternative fuels
are grid electricity, coal or oil.
Hydro Electricity
7.15
Large scale hydro electricity is a mature technology in the UK. However, run of river
hydro is an under utilised resource in the UK compared to Germany which has over
5,500 small scale hydros.
7.16
In London, there may also be scope for large scale hydro if a Thames Barrage is
required to protect London from rising sea levels brought about by climate change
over and above what the Thames Barrier can protect. If a Thames Barrage is required
a holistic approach should be taken towards the project and what else it could be used
for. The LCCA has carried out some pre feasibility work which shows that a barrage
could be designed to also generate hydro electricity. It could also be used as a
transport link across the River Thames which taken together could provide a
significant financial contribution towards the project and add to London’s renewable
energy capacity and associated reduction in CO2 emissions, combining both climate
change adaptation and mitigation measures.
Biomass
7.17
Biomass is non fossilized biodegradable organic material originating from plants,
animals and micro-organisms. Energy from biomass or bioenergy and its relationship
to climate change is a complex subject and must take account of any negative
implication on food production, biodiversity, habitat loss and rainforest destruction.
7.18
Biomass is claimed by some to be carbon neutral since the carbon released is replaced
by the carbon stored in replacement planting. However, this assumes that there will be
replanting to replace the carbon released and it ignores the energy consumed to regrow, harvest and transport the biomass. For example, some biomass projects in the
UK import forest biomass from Scandinavia and Canada or even sugar from Brazil or
palm oil from the tropics. It also ignores the time taken to store the carbon through
replanting so there would be a net increase in CO2 emissions until the biomass had
been fully re-grown. For example, a quick growing tree like Poplar would take 50
156
years to recover the carbon released into the atmosphere through burning the tree
which may take only a few hours to release its carbon into the atmosphere.
7.19
Unless these issues are taken into account and properly assessed and accredited energy
from biomass may actually increase CO2 emissions rather than reduce CO2 emissions.
For example, some tree wood species have higher carbon contents than coal (eg forest
trees) and can take many years to sequester their carbon whilst other biomass can have
very low carbon contents and have annual or 3 yearly replanting (eg., cellulosic
biomass or willow coppicing) or are biomass wastes where the waste needs to be dealt
with in any event. For example, California, having initially stimulated the corn ethanol
market and found little CO2 benefits arising from this form of biomass, introduced the
California Low Carbon Fuel Standard in January 2007. The standard is measured on a
lifecycle basis in order to include all emissions from fuel consumption and production,
including the ‘upstream’ emissions that are major contributors to the global warming
impact of fuels.
7.20
Renewable Gases and Synthetic Fuels
In an urban environment like London renewable gases and synthetic fuels from the
organic and residual fractions of industrial, commercial, sewage, municipal and
biomass wastes is a far greater renewable energy resource than transported solid
biomass. It also significantly reduces, if not virtually eliminates, waste to landfill and
incineration, treats waste as a resource, converts a renewable resource into a form of
renewable energy that can be stored and pipelined, creates a common energy carrier
for both buildings and transport, can create a macro renewable energy infrastructure
for zero carbon development and transport, reduce London’s traffic congestion
through the minimisation of transport movements for both renewable fuels and wastes,
increase London’s indigenous renewable energy footprint and significantly reduce
London’s CO2 and toxic pollutant emissions.
7.21
For example, if all of the London waste that currently goes to landfill (where it emits
greenhouse gases such as methane) were utilised, it could generate enough to provide
electricity to 2 million homes, and heat up to 625,000 homes. The LCCA and the LDA
are working to develop a renewable gases and liquid fuels market in London through
the support, development and funding of demonstration projects. Early work on these
projects suggests that they could be more commercially viable than landfill or mass
burn incineration and deliver significant reductions in CO2 and toxic pollutant
emissions. See also Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.
8.0
Centralised Renewable Energy Technologies
8.1
The Mayor considers that government targets for reducing the carbon intensity of the
national grid are insufficient and that a greatly accelerated programme of developing
large scale renewable energy must be set in place to deliver this.
8.2
In particular, the Mayor supports the development of the large scale off-shore wind
turbines in the Thames Estuary (London Array, Greater Gabbard, etc). The locational
benefits of these projects should be recognised, taking account of the reduced
transmission and distribution losses, etc., through supplying London and the
surrounding area rather than the UK as a whole.
157
9.0
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies
9.1
London is in the lead in the deployment and implementation of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies. Transport for London trialled 3 hydrogen fuel cell buses as part of the
CUTE Programme and following the successful performance of these buses a further
70 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are currently being procured to be introduced in
London by 2010.
9.2
The LCCA has also carried out a feasibility study to implement a fuel cell CHP
trigeneration scheme in Palestra. The project is now being considered for
implementation in conjunction with Transport for London, the head lessee of Palestra.
9.3
The LCCA is also working on a potential fuel cell inward investment project and
renewable gases and liquid fuel projects. Renewable gases and liquid fuels derived by
anaerobic digestion, gasification and/or pyrolysis are hydrogen rich fuels and so can
be developed into renewable hydrogen either now or in the future. See also Renewable
Gases and Liquid Fuels.
10.0
Removal of the Barriers to Renewable Energy
Regulatory Barriers to Renewable Energy
10.1
In order to stimulate the rapid economic uptake of decentralised energy (CHP, CCHP,
renewable energy and hydrogen fuel cells) the regulatory barriers to decentralised
energy must be removed34. This will require the further relaxation of the exemption
from the requirements for a licence limits, in particular, the 1MW domestic barrier on
individual private wire networks and the 5MW (including 2.5MW domestic)
aggregate barrier over public wire networks for smaller decentralised energy systems,
similar to Woking, and the introduction of a new vertically integrated decentralised
energy (stripped down) licence for operation on larger decentralised systems such as
in London and other major cities.
Planning Barriers to Renewable Energy
10.2
There should be a much firmer direction to local planning authorities on the need for
renewable energy and possible intervention by regional planning authorities (or the
Mayor in London) or government, as appropriate, where it can be shown that
renewable energy projects are being unnecessarily delayed or rejected for no good
reason which can be set out in new planning guidance.
Allan Jones MBE
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Technologist
34
DTI/Ofgem Review: Distribution Generation Call for Evidence – London Climate Change Agency Submission
of Evidence www.dti.gov.uk/files/file36363.pdf
158
London Climate Change Agency Ltd
London Development Agency
July 2007
159
Memorandum 24
Submission from Swanbarton Limited
Intelligent Grid Management and Energy Storage
Executive Summary
1. Energy storage has potential as an enabling technology to support the wider
introduction of renewable technologies and for the development of intelligent power
grids. The size and initial cost of large-scale demonstrations inhibits development in
this area. The current regulatory regime does not favour such demonstrations by
either established or new companies. A realistic level of commercial support is
needed to secure the early implementation of large-scale energy storage projects
using novel technologies.
2. The Japanese Government is supporting the widespread use of energy storage
as a means of smoothing windpower output and so assisting their power industry to
reach targets for renewable generation. Large-scale battery storage plants have
been constructed and operated in Japan with initial capital funding support as part of
the renewable programme. Similar support (but at a lower level) has been provided
for projects in the USA and Australia.
Introduction
1. "Energy storage" has been cited as an essential part of any energy network. To
be precise, energy storage could refer to stocks of coal, oil, natural gas or even
water in a reservoir as these are all parts of the energy chain. For convenience, this
memorandum uses the term "energy storage" to mean the conversion of primary
energy into some form of stored energy, so that it can be restored again at future
stage. Most commonly, this is associated with electrical energy storage.
2. Electricity is an energy vector, but not the only one. Gas, Heat, compressed air
and hydraulic power are others. Hydrogen is attracting considerable attention as a
novel energy vector and some are proposing significant investment in hydrogen
infrastructure (electrolysers, pipes, compression facilities, storage and fuel cells) as a
future energy network.
3. Many electrical energy storage technologies are already well developed in terms
of their technical performance. However their commercial introduction is somewhat
slower that would be hoped.
The current state of UK research and development and deployment of energy
storage technologies
4. The UK has taken a major role in the development of several electrical energy
storage technologies. Members of universities, other research groups and industry
will be able to comment on specific technologies. In general terms, the UK's
pumped storage facility at Dinorwig, built by the CEGB was one of the best in class at
the time of its construction. Its performance has recently been surpassed by other
160
pumped storage plants overseas, such as Goldistahl in Germany. Over the past ten
years, the UK has had leading roles in the development of other storage technologies
such as flywheels, high temperature batteries and flow batteries. Lack of commercial
follow-through has slowed or delayed progress in this area.
5. Electrical energy storage devices can be categorised in many ways, by size, by
storage type or by application. In terms of their relevance to renewable generation
technologies, it is likely that storage devices will be needed that have the following
technical parameters:
− Small scale (5 - 50 kW, and 2 -8 hour storage) for use with domestic size micro
generation from renewables
− Medium scale ( 1 - 10 MW, 2 - 8 hours storage) for use by distribution companies
, and renewable energy companies to defer network upgrades and / or modulate
the output from renewable energy sources
− Large scale ( 10 - 100 MW, up to 8 hours storage) for use as network
management, to provide ancillary services to the grid and for energy trading
− Very large installations, such as pumped storage of 1000 MW or more are
considered unlikely due to lack of suitable sites in the UK.
Scale up and commercialisation
The status of commercialising energy storage technologies and reliability and carbon
footprints are shown in the following simplified chart.
Technology verification
required
Currently Available
2nd generation CAES
(compressed air energy storage)
Lead acid batteries
Nickel Cadmium batteries
Sodium Sulphur batteries
Flywheels
Technical and commercial
scale up required
Available – small scale
Ultracapacitors
Advanced Flywheels
Hydrogen Storage
Zebra batteries
Flow batteries: Vanadium and
zinc bromine
Lithium batteries
Technical maturity
Figure 1: Scale-up, commercialisation and technical maturity of
energy storage technologies suitable for use with renewable
generation
161
6. A range of possible storage technologies are under consideration. With the
exception of the widespread use of the lead acid battery in un-interruptible power
supplies, the others have not achieved any significant market penetration for use
alongside renewable generation. This is mainly due to a range of commercial
factors. Nevertheless, the UK continues to be represented by a number of
companies with interests in advanced batteries (including flow batteries), capacitors
and flywheels, but we have yet to see significant commercial development activitiy.
7. The capital costs of an energy storage device must include the storage medium
itself, plus the costs of the equipment for energy conversion. So for a battery system,
there must be an AC / DC power converter as well as the battery cells. With pumped
hydro there are pumps and motor generators as well as the cost of the reservoirs and
penstocks. The operational costs of the energy storage device include any
maintenance of the system as well as the efficiency loss of the system.
8. In the British competitive electricity market, this means that there must be a price
differential between the purchase price and the selling price of electricity sufficient to
repay the efficiency loss, as well as the capital and other operating costs of the plant.
Although there have been complaints about the high cost of electricity at peak times,
this is a relatively rare occurrence and it does not happen frequently enough to justify
substantial investment in bulk energy storage incurring the present expected capital
costs. In other words, it is often cheaper to buy power from the market, than it is to
store electricity for several hours.
9. The British regulatory regime (based on the EU model for "deregulation" of the
power industries) also inhibits the commercial development of energy storage. Many
network companies (Distribution Network Operators or DNO's) have shown interest
in using energy storage devices as part of their network assets. Sited in areas where
there are restricted distribution links, a large battery for example could be used as a
means of connecting a new windfarm to an existing wire, as the battery would act as
a buffer or warehouse, giving the network operator security of supply. However,
because a DNO may not trade energy it cannot recover the true value of the asset. It
would need to lease the asset from a third party so that it does not have to trade
energy itself, which would be outside its licence obligations.
10. Significant research has been made into the potential benefit that energy storage
can give to electricity networks. Storage can be used to provide reserve power,
compensate for fluctuations from renewable generators such as wind turbines and
manage supplies in the event of local or national dis-connections. By shifting demand
to base load generation, storage can reduce the need for less efficient peaking plant.
35
Using storage instead of other generating sets can yield significant savings in
power plant emissions. 36 Yet those involved in the marketing of large scale storage
35
See for example Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Report, Energy The Changing Climate, 22nd
Report, Chapter 8
36
For example, Emissions comparison for a 20 MW Flywheel based Frequency Regulation Power Plant, KEMA
Consulting, 2007 under contract to Beacon Power, funded by US Department of Energy through Sandia National
Laboratories.
162
products are discouraged, because the market framework works against ownership
and operation of energy storage. A network company is prevented from owning such
assets and it is not able to remunerated by sales of energy and other services. On
the other hand, for an energy sales company to profit from sales of energy form
energy storage plants, they must rely on substantial price swings between peak and
off peak prices, which, certainly in mainland Europe, is an anathema to those setting
energy policy in Europe. So we have the situation where many organisations, such
as network operators, energy traders and renewable energy generators would like to
use energy storage but they are commercially dis-incentivised so to do.
11. Although many individuals in the wind power community claim that no network
reinforcement is necessary to accommodate present levels of windpower generation,
there is evidence to suggest that reinforcement will be necessary when levels of
windpower generation exceed 20 or 25 %. 37 I refer to this as the 20% transition
point. Although not the only solution, energy storage can offer significant benefits.
However, without a favourable regime to encourage the early adoption of distributed
and flexible storage, there simply will not be the technologies or the installations to
meet network requirements when the requirements become significant.
12. There are further disincentives to storage, especially for projects in the UK.
Studies show that large storage plants (say 20 - 50 MW or more) could support the
grid by providing modulating power and reserve power to deal with rapid fluctuations.
However gaining connections to the network for projects of this size is a challenge,
(as indeed it is for other large-scale renewable developers). A recent private study38
identified only three suitable sites where connection would be possible in one of the
DNO licensed areas in the south of England. Larger projects require connection to
the higher voltage networks, such as 132 kV or 275 kV
13. Even where a site has been identified, the capital cost of the connection is high,
connection fees have to be paid, and furthermore business rates may be due on the
assets themselves. (Batteries that can be used in an un-interruptible power supply
are rateable. In a study that is ongoing at the moment, the potential rating liability
equals nearly one eighth of the plant's expected annual financial turnover. Add the
cost of rent, maintenance and insurance and the uncertainty of income and the rates
of return fall well below that expected in the power industry.
The UK Government's role in funding research and developments and
incentives for technology transfer
14. Although not high, in comparison to some countries such as France, Germany
and Japan, the UK Government has been consistent in providing modest funds for
research in a number of energy storage technologies.
15. At the early stage of development, universities, research organisation and
industry are able to research and develop products, especially for devices that are
targeted at the small scale. Support for development and demonstration at the
medium and large scale has been somewhat less encouraging, probably for two
37
Large Scale Integration of Wind Energy in the European Power Supply, European Wind Energy Association,
Report December 2005
38
Private study by Swanbarton Limited, confidential information.
163
reasons, a) a lack of suitable projects and b) the more significant scale of investment
required for large-scale demonstration. The DTI has been supportive of energy
storage R&D and has included energy storage in its technology programme. The DTI
has also recognised the role of storage as an enabling technology in the networks of
the future. However sizeable projects simply cannot be proposed and demonstrated
within the very tight regulatory and commercial framework that exists in today's
power industry unless there is a realistic level of commercial support for the project
as exists for other renewable energy technologies.
15. The use of hydrogen as an energy vector has, in my view, attracted a
disproportional level of funding. The role of hydrogen as a proxy for storage is
misunderstood. Its economics are even more insecure than that of batteries.
16. The UK government has not been pro-active enough in promoting technology
transfer at the MW scale demonstration level. Private companies have led the way in
technology transfer from overseas of important technologies such as high
temperature batteries, flow batteries and capacitors. Although some technologies
can easily be transferred because they are so close to commercialisation, there is
real benefit from participation in large-scale demonstrations which would bring benefit
to the national power industry across all levels.
17. If the UK is to be ready to deploy advanced technologies such as energy storage
when they are required, it is necessary to take action to encourage such investment
now. The supply chain needs to build capacity and the existing power industry needs
to be able to adopt the new technologies before the 20% transition point is reached.
18. Japan currently has about 1100 MW windpower generation and is committed to
increasing this to 3000 MW by 2010. Progress is restricted by concerns about grid
stability due to the fluctuating output of the wind farms, weak interconnections
between local networks and the long distances between the wind farms and the
areas of demand.
19. A 50 MW wind farm being developed at Rokkhashu in the Tohuko region of
Japan is being integrated with a 30 MW NAS battery39. The local power company
will not accept additional windpower onto its network if there is insufficient regulating
reserve power available to secure the stability of the grid. The 30 MW 210 MWh
battery will be used to provide either a constant power output or a smooth power
output. This will be one of the largest batteries in the world. The Japanese
government is providing support for this project in order to support Japan's quest of
increasing its windpower resource. The battery and wind farm are under construction
now and are expected to be operational by the end of 2007.
20. In the USA, there are several examples of MW size energy projects supported
by funds from the US Department of Energy and State funds. These projects
recognise the need for financial support in order to initiate large project development.
The US Department of Energy Energy Storage Systems Program is also
collaborating with the Australian Government on demonstration projects.
39
The Battery Developer is NGK Insulators Ltd
164
21. In the UK, Large-scale renewable generation technologies can receive funding
support, albeit indirectly, through the Renewable Obligation Certificates.
Technologies such as energy storage are not eligible for ROCs and are further
penalised by unfavourable regulatory regimes which limits ownership and operational
opportunities. It would be appropriate for the UK government to consider how energy
storage projects can be supported in their early phase.
July 2007
165
Memorandum 25
Submission from Yorkshire Forward
Evidence relating to the experience of Yorkshire Forward and Community
Energy Solutions in commercialising Air & Ground Sourced Heat Pumps
Introduction and Background
1. Community Energy Solutions (CES) is a non for profit distributing community interest
company established in 2006 by the DTI in partnership with Yorkshire Forward and
One North East.
2. The aim of CES is to bring affordable warmth to low income off gas communities
through either the extension of the gas network or the introduction of proven domestic
renewable technologies.
3. This evidence relates to the experience of Yorkshire Forward and CES in achieving a
paradigm shift in the number of air source heat pumps (ASHP) and ground source
heat pumps (GSHP) installed from small volume pilot projects to volume installations
into communities in excess of 50 households.
4. We believe that, subject to final deal confirmation, the company has valuable
evidence of the commercialisation and depolyment of heat pump (HP) technology in
the sector of large scale installation programmes, in communities of high deprivation,
at rates competitive with long established technologies e.g. gas-fire central heating.
5. While our evidence relates only to the deployment of heat pumps, we believe that the
lessons are likely to relate to all potential mass market renewable energy
technologies.
Analysis
6. At its inception, CES carried out detailed analysis of the UK and other major
European markets and in relation to the UK market found the following:
7. The type of commercial activity taking place tends towards the installations of units on
a one off basis at high cost. Even organisations with a potentially high level of
demand, such as social housing providers, are tending to install in small pilot
numbers with little evidence of scale up.
8. The organisations involved tend towards small economic units, comprising individuals
and small enterprises.
Results
166
9. CES undertook a detailed investigation of the market and the purchasing process and
has achieved some considerable progress in making step changes towards achieving
volume installations, specifically:
10. With ASHP’s, CES is delivering complete whole house installations, including all
piping and radiators, tanks etc, at a price comparable with a gas installation to 213
homes in North Linconshire. At an average cost of £4,000 for a whole house
installation this level of offer is generating considerable interest.
11. CES will shortly confirm a GSHP proposition, again for a whole house installation
including boreholes, pipes, radiators, tanks etc, for around £6,300.
12. Prior to this the best known installation price has been £6,500 for basic heat pump
and ground works only.
13. These prices include existing grant mechanisms where available.
Challenges faced
14. The process of achieving this position has identified many challenges within the
market and market behaviour.
15. Our experience in negotiations has generally been that despite offering to secure a
step change in demand side orders and volume and taking on the sales and
marketing costs and responsibilities, the supply side has generally been unable or
unwilling to deliver a matching shift in supply side economics to create a new market
equilibrium for higher volumes at a price attractive to the social sector.
CES’ response and experience to date
16. The response of CES has been to look for market players who are willing and able to
offer the shift in supply side economics required, and some interesting evidence has
emerged:
17. The manufacturers of HP technology have been generally more responsive in looking
to develop new market equilibriums than the installation side.
18. It appears that manufacturers are motivated by growth and volume orders but that
view is not shared by the installation and drilling components of the chain.
19. In addition most manufacturers of GSHP and ASHP, because of the maturity of the
technology, are able to scale up efficiently. The market growth currently taking place
is not enough to make any significant difference to pricing.
20. Frustrations have been expressed by some GSHP manufacturers that they perceive
installers are not using the available grant funding to develop the market and expand
product sales but to enhance their margins at current levels. Specifically, one
manufacturer stated that it had “cut prices back as far as it could” (under the Low
Carbon Buildings Programme), but that the installation community was simply “using
the product discount and the grant funding to enhance their own profits”.
167
21. The “specialist installers”, particularly on the GSHP side, have proved inflexible.
22. In some cases the “specialist installers” have expressed complete disinterest in the
market opportunity CES has created. They have stated that growing their operations
is a challenge and the preference is to maintain current supply scale and keep prices
and margins high.
23. The cost of drilling remains a considerable barrier to market growth and indeed is the
chief barrier remaining to CES’ completion of its GSHP proposition.
24. Some drillers have expressed disinterest in the potential of a large scale retrofit
market.
25. A change in market equilibrium has been created approaching manufacturers directly.
In the case of ASHP’s, a Yorkshire based manufacturer responded strongly to the
opportunity to grow volume, with significant programme technical and price support.
Similarly, although within the boundaries imposed by its German parent offices, the
UK branch of a GSHP manufacturer has responded keenly and worked closely with
CES to grow the market.
26. In addition the use of installation organisations from outside the heat pump specialist
community, from the organisations serving large scale gas and other retrofit projects,
has brought the ability to provide scale and competitive pricing.
27. However, challenges remain on achieving cost effective drilling and groundworks
prices. Whilst a great many of the logistics costs (moving drilling rigs between jobs),
are diminished by CES’ high volume/high density projects, a corresponding shift in
groundworks cost has yet to be seen.
Conclusion
28. In order for the market to commercialise at price and volume levels suitable for
competitiveness with fossil fuel alternatives in the mass market housing sector, there
needs to be a step change in both supply and demand curves.
29. In terms of demand, CES has been able to agglomerate large scale demand and
market analysis suggests that at the right price enormous demand exists.
30. However there needs to be a corresponding shift in supply side economics.
31. With both ASHP’s and GSHP’s, the supply side consists of several components (e.g.
compressors and ground loops) of the supply chain and there needs to be a shift of
all components to deliver meaningful change. This is particularly the case for
GSHP’s.
32. In the case GSHP’s, manufacturers are interested in volume growth although all are
inevitably operating at the low end of volume compared to the white goods industry of
which this product is arguably part.
33. Installers from the high volume gas installation sector can create change by bringing
their approaches, prices and scale to the sector. Although there is an element in this
sector that allows margins to be enhanced to make up for low gas installation
margins.
168
34. There is a significant challenge associated with the drilling sector. This sector has
been in long term decline for some considerable time due to the decline of the mining
industry and supply is tight. Operators consider GSHP to be an opportunity to recoup
the profitability of the sector and growth in the number of people to operate rigs is
slow. The existing supply curve is not shifting but prices appear to be simply rising in
the face of increased liquidity in the GSHP market.
35. Finally, the feasibility and timescale of progress in commercialisation outside the “fuel
rich” sector ultimately rests with the entry of new players and approaches to the
market where those new players bring different supply approaches, costs and
methodology, and significantly shift the supply curve.
July 2007
169
Memorandum 26
Submission from Shanks Waste Management
We welcome your inquiry into renewable energy generation technologies.
We note that you are particularly interested in the current state of UK research and
development in, and the deployment of, a wide range of renewable energygeneration technologies.
We would like to draw your attention to the contribution which the production of solid
recovered fuel (SRF) from municipal solid waste (MSW) can make to security of
energy supplies, stable energy prices and achieving UK climate change targets.
Shanks
Shanks is one of Europe’s largest independent waste and resource management
companies offering a wide range of waste management solutions within its various
collection, transport, recycling, treatment and disposal services. Shanks employs
over 4,000 people across its operations in the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK,
where it is involved with a number of long term PFI contracts to supply waste
management services to Local Authorities.
Shanks has developed a solution which, through investment in new recycling and
recovery infrastructure, significantly shifts the business of traditional waste
management towards resource management, making a significant contribution to
renewable energy targets, achieving landfill diversion and carbon dioxide reduction
cost-effectively and efficiently. This solution is based on the use of a Mechanical
Biological Treatment process (MBT) which along with kerbside collection, civic
amenity site management, and composting forms part of the range of services which
Shanks offers.
Mechanical Biological Treatment
Mechanical Biological Treatment is a generic term applied to a range of technologies
for the treatment of residual municipal solid waste (MSW). Shanks use a form of MBT
that uses the biodegradable fraction of MSW - essentially anything that degrades
through natural bacterial action, as a source of heat. Elevated temperatures within
the mass of waste and sustained airflow across and through it stabilises and
sanitises the waste over a period of 10-14 days as well as reducing the overall mass
by around 25%. The resultant, dried, ‘stabilate’ material can then be subjected to
further refinement to recover stones, glass and metals etc to produce Solid
Recovered Fuel (SRF). With a calorific value two-thirds that of coal, and a ‘carbon
neutral’ content in the order of 60%, SRF brings with it intrinsic economic and
environmental value in terms of its contribution to the energy mix. I am attaching a
short briefing paper which explains Shanks's MBT process in more detail.
The potential scale of the contribution which could be made by SRF to the UK energy
mix is significant. A report prepared for the ICE40 in 2005, stated that up to 17% of the
UK’s electricity requirements could be met by the exploitation of the energy potential
from such fuel. Certainly the timescales within which significant quantities of fuel
may become available should be of interest. Over the next five years, long term
contracts for the management of over 7.5 million tonnes of MSW the precursor to
recovered fuels, will be procured.
SRF is a renewable fuel that can be used either as a direct replacement for fossil
fuels within a variety of processes or as a dedicated source of power through
advanced thermal treatments such as gasification.
Deployment of SRF production facilities in the UK
40
Quantification of the Energy Potential from EfW, Oakdene Hollins, March 2005 – Report commissioned by the RPA and ICE.
170
Shanks has a number of SRF production facilities under construction, two of which are located in East
London with another located at Dumfries, Scotland. All these plants will be in full production by this
year, when annual production of SRF will be in the order of 200,000 tonnes per year. Moreover,
Shanks was appointed as the preferred bidder for the 25 year contract to manage the waste of Cumbria
County Council in November 2006. Additionally, the Company is bidding for other contracts and, if
successful, annual fuel production could substantially rise.
Obstacles to the development of SRF production
1) Planning
One of the major hurdles to the development of widespread energy from waste (EfW)
schemes in the UK currently stem from difficulties within the planning arena to realise
projects and the issues associated with perception over the combustion of waste.
We believe the proposal announced in the Planning White Paper for a single consent
regime for nationally significant energy infrastructure should prove helpful in terms of
the first hurdle.
2) The Renewables Obligation and combustion of SRF
Currently, the only eligibility in relation to ROCs for the use of SRF, relates to the
power output that can be attributed to the biomass content when the material is used
within advanced thermal techniques such as gasification or pyrolysis and, since
January 2006, in accredited CHP schemes.
Shanks has advocated the introduction of ROCs for SRF where the same can be
shown to meet specified criteria as set out in the CEN/TS 343 standards, regardless
of the type of technology utilised for the combustion of the material.
We have a number of opportunities to combust SRF alongside biomass streams in
facilities which have the technical capability and necessary consents in place, namely
the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). However, under the current arrangements,
revenue from ROCs from such a facility would be lost if a ‘pure’ biomass stream is
co-combusted with a fuel derived from mixed waste, including SRF. This has been a
very significant barrier preventing such avenues being explored and hence limiting
the use of such fuels within appropriately permitted facilities. We therefore welcome
the Government’s proposals in the Energy White Paper and Waste Strategy to make
the Renewables Obligation “waste neutral”, so that ROCs for biomass are not lost
when it is co-fired with SRF.
We also welcome the proposal in the Waste Strategy to base a definition of SRF on
the CEN/TS 343 standard.
Conclusion
With the exception of recycling, waste management concepts in the UK have
focussed on disposal – either by burning or burial. Shanks believes the UK needs to
develop the practice of resource efficiency, both in materials use and in energy
production and conservation. We therefore welcome the policies emerging in the
Energy White Paper, Planning White Paper and Waste Strategy, which indicate a
clearer recognition of the valuable contribution which SRF can make in terms of
meeting UK energy needs in a cost-effective and efficient way.
July 2007
171
Memorandum 27
Submission from Energy Saving Trust
The Energy Saving Trust was established as part of the Government’s action plan in
response to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which addressed worldwide
concerns on sustainable development issues. We are the UK’s leading organisation
working through partnerships towards the sustainable and efficient use of energy by
households, communities and the road transport sector and one of the key delivery
agents of the Government’s climate change objectives. Our response focuses on the
key areas of the Energy Saving Trust’s activities and related issues that are relevant
to the consultation. Please note that this response should not be taken as
representing the views of individual Energy Saving Trust members.
Our particular interest in this consultation is the Government’s role in funding
research and development for micro-renewable energy-generation technologies and
providing incentives for technology transfer.
Need for intervention
1. In the short term, there is sufficient established technology to deliver energy
efficiency improvements in the consumer sector. The key task is to engage
consumers and scale up existing activity to deliver faster. But climate change is a
long term issue; and the scale of emissions reductions required cannot be
achieved with existing technology alone. Plans need to be put in place now to
ensure that there is sufficient investment in innovation of both new energy
efficiency technologies and microgeneration41 technologies that allow individuals
to produce low carbon heat and electricity in their own homes.
2. We have built an analysis tool42 that enables us to look at the impact of different
policy mechanisms on the potential uptake of microgeneration. It is clear from this
work that there is significant market and carbon saving potential but effective
intervention is required to deliver this:
¾
¾
Without policy support, the potential savings from microgeneration are
negligible – below 2 MtCO2/year by 2050.
The model suggests if well supported microgeneration technologies could
make a combined saving of well over 60 MtCO2/year by 2050.
3. To encourage mass market uptake of microgeneration, one of the most important
factors is ensuring that sufficient investment is made in technology.
Microgeneration products need to be available to the market at affordable costs.
The results of the model are highly sensitive to predicted reduction in costs of
technologies and if these don’t occur, the carbon savings won’t follow.
41
Microgeneration is defined in section 82 of the Energy Act 2004 as the small scale production of heat and/or electricity
from a low carbon source.
42
The work builds on a report done for DTI in 2005 – ‘Potential for Microgeneration’ by Energy Saving Trust, Element
Energy and E-Connect. The new model results will be available in September 2007 and we would be happy to share these
with the Committee.
172
Conversely, if technology costs come down faster than predicted, this would have
a large positive impact on uptake.
4. It is a political reality that subsidy programs are likely to be capped. As a result,
they do not provide a long term support mechanism which will increase
microgeneration uptake. Where subsidies are provided, they should therefore be
targeted towards technology development and cost reduction.
5. The general case for Government support of pre-commercial technologies is wellestablished – there is under-investment in the free market due to a spillover of
benefits from the innovator to free riders. For low carbon technologies, as the
Stern Review set out, the case for Government support is increased significantly
by the externality of climate change.
6. For technologies to enter mass market a number of issues need to be addressed:
¾
cost reductions through mass manufacture;
¾
very high levels of reliability in the field;
¾
extensive and customer friendly supply chains; and
¾
effective product accreditation.
7. It is clear that a grants system alone is not the optimal policy intervention. Early
consultation on ‘route mapping’ undertaken for the DTI’s microgeneration
strategy43 has identified several other barriers that need to be addressed:
¾
public awareness raising, information, advice and support,
¾
skills development and training, especially for installers, and
¾
accreditation of products and installers to ensure appropriate standards of
performance and reliability.
8. In the new build sector specifically, the Government has set an ambitious target to
move to zero carbon homes (Code for Sustainable Homes44 Level 6) by 2016.
This will involve radical change in the housebuilding sector, with very different
designs that will need to involve both very high levels of energy efficiency and
microgeneration. The housebuilding sector will therefore be both a fertile test bed
for new technologies and in need of innovation in design and construction
techniques itself.
9. If the 2016 target is to be met, rapid innovation to deliver it is required now. Within
the period 2008-2011, this will need to encompass both widespread adoption of
the basic techniques to deliver low carbon homes (Code levels 3 and 4) as well
demonstration of the new designs and technologies required to meet the higher
Code levels, so that significant construction experience can be gained in the
following 5 years before making zero carbon mandatory.
43
The Government’s Microgeneration Strategy includes the commitment that ‘DTI will work with industry to
develop a route map for each microgeneration technology.’
44
The Code is the national standard for the sustainable design and construction of new homes. It is a voluntary
star rating system that shows the sustainability of a new home as a complete package. The Code is a flexible
framework that enables developers to demonstrate the sustainability of new homes. For consumers the Code is a
mark of quality, giving them information they can trust. In March 2007 Communities and Local Government
published full technical guidance on how to comply with the Code, see
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314116927.html
173
From development to market
10. Spending on assisting both energy efficiency and microgeneration technologies
for citizens across the “valley of death” from development into the market is
negligible and has been substantially under-funded when compared to upstream
generation technologies for example. There is minimal activity on demonstration,
field trials and early market support since:
¾
the Energy Technologies Institute is not yet established, but is likely to focus
on R&D rather than nearer market support
¾
the remit of the Carbon Trust does not cover commercial demonstration and
deployment of these technologies and Carbon Trust has chosen not to
prioritise R&D in most key mass market technologies,
¾
funding for Best Practice in the household sector is just £1 million annually
(compared to £19 million for the business sector), which is clearly insufficient
and unbalanced given that household emissions account for approximately
half of all carbon emissions, and
¾
the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target cannot sensibly be structured to
finance significant early stage innovation or provide non-financial support.
11. The Energy Saving Trust is the only organisation, within publicly funded
institutions, with a remit for supporting for commercial demonstration and early
market support of new technologies. We have a unique understanding of
consumer behaviour in the energy saving domain and can offer practical support
on marketing new technologies to consumers. Through mass communication, the
Energy Saving Trust can provide a receptive consumer base, in which new
technologies can flourish. However, we currently have no significant budget to
take forward support for new technologies. There is therefore no adequate
mechanism at present.
What is needed
Field trials
12. For key products, field trials are required to deliver credible performance data and
underpin the development of consumer confidence in new products.
13. In principle, it might be possible to replicate the 100% private sector funding as for
the current microwind field trials45 led by Energy Saving Trust. The private sector
backers are predominantly energy suppliers and retailers (as opposed to
manufacturers). They have felt it necessary to fund field trials due to concerns
about reports of under-performance once the technology began to be deployed in
significant numbers. This situation has only arisen because the gap in public
sector support has allowed a new product to reach the market without reliable
45
There has been very limited independent monitoring of installed roof-top micro-wind systems on domestic
dwellings in the UK undertaken to date. This field trial by the Energy Saving Trust is to establish the first large
scale monitoring exercise in the UK. It will provide independent evidence of: 1. the level of energy generation and
savings from micro-wind achieved from in-situ installations; 2. the factors that can influence the performance of
micro-wind systems; and 3. the customer experience and perceptions of the technology (acquisition, installation
and operation) and the customer benefits that can be achieved.
174
data on either the performance of individual devices or the wind speed conditions
in which they are being deployed. This is not ideal and consequently we strongly
advocate the provision of support for demonstration prior to new products coming
to market otherwise retailers and developers will be less inclined to supply new
products in the future.
14. In particular, to provide market confidence, technologies should be independently
monitored to ensure impartial information. For pre-commercial devices, results
should be disseminated to industry to focus future development effort. For
commercially available products results should inform consumer promotion,
including ‘Energy Saving Recommended46’ and advice.
Technology acceleration
15. In our view, support should be targeted on the barriers identified in DTI’s route
mapping process for mass market commercialisation for the key microgeneration
technologies
16. These barriers will be addressed by the most appropriate means, for example:
¾
targeted technical support,
¾
marketing support,
¾
training, and
¾
supply chain incentives.
17. The mix of mechanisms will depend on the specifics of the technology, its
potential market and the barriers.
July 2007
46
Under Energy Saving Recommended only products that meet strict criteria on energy efficiency can carry the logo. See
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/energy_saving_products/about_energy_saving_recommended_products
175
Memorandum 28
Submission by the Energy Networks Association (ENA)
Introduction
1.
ENA is the industry body for the licensed electricity and gas transmission and
distribution companies in the UK, and we welcome the opportunity to provide our views.
2.
It would not be appropriate for us to comment on the feasibility, costs, timescales and
progress in commercialising renewable technologies and we will limit our response to
consideration of the technical development of the networks required to facilitate increased
volumes of renewable energy-generation.
Technical and practical considerations for networks
3.
New forms of Renewable energy-generation will bring a range of challenges for
networks, including a need to address stability, intermittency, security and plant margin
issues. At distribution level there will be an impact on how networks have to be designed
and operated, potentially transforming them from largely 'passively' managed to more
'actively' managed systems. The ENA recognises that this is technically possible but the
changes will require time to be fully researched, prove reliability in the field and then to build
into the networks. There will also be a concomitant requirement for investment.
4.
Increasing deployment of decentralised energy systems will also have a profound
impact on the whole of the network system and will present integration and management
challenges.
Regulatory framework
5.
The regulatory framework for the energy network companies will need to be adapted
to accommodate the technological developments outlined above. The existing regime has
been successful in removing inefficiencies, resulting in network charges to customers falling
by 50% in real terms since 1990. Additional elements have been added to the simple RPI-X
model to incentivise reductions in losses, improve quality of supply, and support for
distributed generation and network innovation. However, it will be necessary to consider
whether the current framework of incentives gives sufficient weight to long-term
considerations of the environment and network development. If not, can it be adapted to
accommodate them or do we need a different, more strategic approach to deliver the kind of
networks which will be required in response to the long term needs of customers?
6.
The implications for the networks of the proposals for the so called ‘eco towns’ will
require a co-ordinated approach to planning and regulation which properly incentivises
network development and removes barriers to its speedy implementation.
Falling assets and skills base
7.
The bulk of the existing electricity transmission and distribution system was built in
the 1950s to meet the needs of a very different electricity generation paradigm. Principal
asset lives are typically fifty years and so the current infrastructure will increasingly need
replacement. If it is to be effectively adapted to meet the needs of renewable energygeneration technologies then decisions on deployment need to be made soon.
176
8.
A considerable deficit is developing in engineering skills, which may constrain the
ability to build and operate the networks of the future. We welcome the Government’s
increased emphasis on skills development.
Summary
9.
Successful deployment of generation by whatever technology is tied inextricably to
parallel developments in networks. We are concerned that energy policy and how this is
reflected in the regulatory regime for networks does not adequately deal with the need to
synchronise developments in generation and infrastructure.
10.
We would welcome the opportunity to take questions either in person or by
correspondence to assist the Committee in its deliberations.
July 2007
177
Memorandum 29
Submission from the Environmental Services Association
The Environmental Services Association (“ESA”) is the sectoral trade
association representing the UK's managers of waste and secondary
resources, a sector with an annual turnover of around £9 billion.
ESA’s
Members
seek
to
align
economic
and
environmental
sustainability by delivering compliance with relevant EU waste and
environmental law.
The waste management sector has to date made the greatest
contribution towards meeting the UK’s renewable energy targets,
through proven technologies such as landfill gas and extracting
energy from waste. The potential for waste biomass to contribute
further towards the UK’s twin energy goals of security of fuel
supply and greenhouse gas emission reductions has been recognised by
the Government’s Biomass Task Force.
ESA notes that:
•
waste biomass has been recognised by the Government and other
bodies as a significant potential renewable resource;
•
the Government has failed to provide the necessary incentives
or remove the significant barriers to enable the sector to
realise its potential;
•
incentives would come through a stable long term framework; and
•
the Government should rely on the market to deliver the
appropriate renewable generation technologies of the future,
rather than attempting to “pick winners”.
Waste management contribution to date
1. A large proportion of the UK’s renewable electricity has to date
been generated from waste biomass, which in 2005 contributed over
30% of renewable electricity generation. This has been achieved
at relatively low cost.
2. The majority of the contribution from waste to date has been
provided by landfill gas and delivered through the Government’s
Non Fossil Fuel Obligation policy. Policy drivers such as the
Landfill Directive, which limits the volume of biodegradable
waste which can be landfilled, will lead to a significant decline
in landfill gas production in the future. If the UK is to
continue
to
harness
the
energy
contained
in
waste,
new
infrastructure will be required.
Significant potential
3. The Government’s Biomass Task Force has recognised the potential
of waste biomass as a renewable resource, describing it as a
178
“secure and sustainable source of biomass energy”. Waste biomass
has potential to contribute to the UK’s twin energy goals of
security of fuel supply and reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
4. The Institution of Civil Engineers has suggested that as much as
17% of the UK’s electricity requirements could be met by energy
recovered from residual waste by 202047.
5. It is also recognised that energy recovery from waste offers
significant environmental benefits over energy recovery from
other forms of biomass. DTI-commissioned research has estimated
that the largest net greenhouse gas savings from different
sources of biomass came from waste48.
Policy framework
6. To realise the full energy potential of waste biomass, national
policy must create incentives whilst at the same time removing
the non-market barriers which currently constrain the development
of new energy recovery facilities.
7. The Renewables Obligation has successfully brought forward the
uptake of more efficient renewable technologies. However, the
Government’s intention to introduce differentiated levels of
support could–in the long term–undermine UK renewable generation
by introducing uncertainty among operators as to what the
Government might perceive to be future winners.
8. The Government’s latest biomass action plan continues the
tradition of recognising the substantial potential carbon and
energy benefits of exploiting waste biomass resources, but
failing to introduce concrete policy proposals which might
facilitate its development.
9. In particular, planning has proven to be a significant barrier to
the uptake of new energy from waste facilities. Easing this
constraint would provide a strong boost for renewable generation.
The Government’s recently published planning white paper has
proposed that the largest energy from waste facilities should be
determined by an independent infrastructure Planning Commission
(IPC). However more can be done to reinforce the national role
that smaller waste management facilities will play in meeting
domestic and international energy renewable energy production and
waste management targets.
July 2007
47
48
‘Quantification of the potential energy from residuals (EfR) in the UK’, Oakdene Hollins, March 2005
‘Evaluating the sustainability of co-firing in the UK’, Themba Technology, September 2006
179
Memorandum 30
Submission from Greenpeace UK
1. Greenpeace UK is an office of Greenpeace International, a campaigning organisation
that is independent of governments and businesses, being funded entirely by
individual subscriptions.
2. Greenpeace was one of the first organisations to campaign for action to be taken to
halt anthropogenic climate change. It has built up considerable expertise on the links
between energy use and climate change. The expertise includes scientific knowledge,
understanding of the economics of the electricity market, analysis of state subsidy
and business impacts and behavioural responses to the climate threat.
3. Greenpeace’s expertise and is recognised in a number of international and national
fora. At international level, Greenpeace holds Economic and Social Council NGO
status at the United Nations. Greenpeace has participated in and observed the UN’s
Climate Change Negotiations since 1989. Among Greenpeace staff members are lead
authors on reports of the many chapters of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change. Greenpeace also has official observer status and engages in public
consultations held by the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, the IMF and
the Asian Development Bank.
4. Greenpeace welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry into renewable
energy-generating technologies at a crucial time for the future of the UK energy
policy and development of the renewable energy industry.
5. On 9 March 2007, the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered commitments on
behalf of the UK that will require radical, although achievable, alterations to how the
UK generates its energy. At the Spring European Council, the EU agreed a package
of targets on emissions reductions, energy efficiency and renewable energy
generation, including committing to a binding target of 20 per cent of total energy to
come from renewable technologies. The 20 per cent target encompasses all energy
for heat, power and transport.
6. This target is commensurate with the nature of the challenge of tackling climate
change. If we are to make 80-90 per cent cuts in CO2 emissions from UK by 2050,
we will not do it by energy efficiency, switching from coal to gas, and hoping that
people don’t overfill their kettles before making tea. We will need a complete reorientation of our energy policy, including (by current standards) huge amounts of
renewable energy and combined heat and power. It is entirely appropriate that a
challenging target for renewable generation is set as an intermediate staging post.
Given that it is now 15 years since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,
our current energy sourcing from renewable power of less than 2% - lagging behind
our European partners - indicates a lamentable lack of vigour in tackling the threat.
7. To date, UK energy policy has tended to focus purely on the electricity sector,
neglecting transport and heat energy. This focus neglects the full potential for
renewable generation, especially in the heat sector where the government has shown
no real interest.
8. The UK has an immense renewable resources potential available. Compared to its
European partners the UK is in the enviable position of being able to meet its energy
180
needs many times over through renewable resources. Yet the UK lags behind many of
its European neighbours on installed capacity for renewable generation, especially
Spain and Germany, despite being a manufacturing base for some of the largest
developers and suppliers of key renewable energy technologies.
9. There are a variety of technologies available, at various stages of commercialisation
but all are viable or potentially viable technologies, capable of being deployed on a
large/wide scale, including offshore wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, wave, tidal,
anaerobic digestion and biomass heating or CHP.
10. The UK can more than adequately meet the EU 20 per cent renewable energy target
with the currently available technologies. Although the ‘burden-sharing’ arrangements
of this 20 per cent target have yet to be negotiated, the enormous renewable energy
potential that the UK has means that reduction of the UK target, so that other
countries with less good resources would have to do more, seems politically
unrealistic. In any case, Greenpeace calculates the UK can comfortably reach 20 per
cent of energy from renewable energy by 2020. The graph and tables below indicate
the feasible potential for renewable energy in 2020 on the basis of published data or
industry estimates. It assumes that energy consumption remains roughly the same as
it is now – in practice we could improve on this considerably.
181
Transport
Heat
Power
Total
Output
TWh
Mtoe
689.5
59.249
821.950
70.6
51
345.9
29.7
1857.352
159.5
Transport
Heat
Power
Renewables Total
Biofuels
Hydro
Biomass
Bioenergy CHP
Wind
Marine
Geopressure
Microrenewables
Fossil61
Contribution to
Transport
Heat
Power
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
37.1%
44.2%
18.6%
100.0%
5.0%
17.8%
56.0%
20.2%
53
34.5
15.854
58.055
73.0
80.057
47.058
6.159
60.560
3.0
1.4
5.0
6.356
6.9
4.0
0.5
5.2
5.0%
4.6%
7.1%
6.3%
95.0%
49
4.5%
82.2%
6.2%
23.1%
13.6%
1.8%
6.8%
44.0%
1.9%
0.9%
3.1%
3.9%
4.3%
2.5%
0.3%
3.3%
79.8%
http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/ecuk1_4.xls - final energy consumption for transport
Derived from remaining energy used by sector not allocated to power and transport
51
http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes5_5.xls - final consumption
52
http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/ecuk1_4.xls - total final energy consumption
53
Greenpeace does not believe the 10% RTFO target is acceptable or achievable in an ecological sound way. We
have limited biofuel contribution to 5% of transport fuel use for the purpose of this exercise
54
Assumes currently installed hydro capacity is supplemented by further capacity in small and micro hydro. We
are also assuming that the remaining potential large hydro sites are included. This does not indicate any such
support for new large hydro.
55
Biomass Strategy, May 2007. For the purposes of this exercise all biomass is used in a heat only boilers at
85% efficiency on district heating networks.
56
http://www.nsca.org.uk/assets/biogas_as_transport_fuel_june06.pdf Methane potential from anaerobic
digestion. Assumed all biogas is used in CHP
57
Includes onshore and offshore wind currently installed, in planning and the potential Greenpeace believes at
least this could be achieved by 2020. Total practicable potential is 150TWh is stated in www.r-ea.net/content/images/articles/IPA%20Report%20June%2006.pdf
58
With proper support Greenpeace believes could be delivered by 2020, through wave power, tidal stream and
including the development of marine energy in the Severn
59
2OC (www.2oc.co.uk) state geopressure capacity of 1GW by 2010
60
Figures derived from those in Study of Renewable Energy Potentials carried out by IPA Energy Consulting on
behalf of REA (www.r-e-a.net/content/images/articles/IPA%20Report%20June%2006.pdf). Microrenewables
includes solar thermal, solar PV and heat pumps.
61
Remaining energy is derived from fossil fuels.
50
182
Fossil
Marine
Geopressure
Wind
Microrenewables
Bioenergy CHP
Biomass
Hydro
Biofuels
44.0%
82.2%
95.0%
13.6%
1.8%
23.1%
4.5%
6.8%
6.3%
6.2%
5.0%
Transport
7.1%
4.6%
Heat
Power
11. Our framework for thinking about renewable energy should no longer be “how much
is appropriate for the UK?”. Instead, our framework for policy should be “How do we
best reach 20 per cent renewable energy given the enormous resource available and
the binding commitment we have entered into?”.
183
12. In short, the focus of energy policy should be on delivering the 20 per cent renewable
energy target whilst simultaneously reducing carbon emissions and driving energy
efficiency to reduce gross demand for energy.
13. Reducing energy demand should make the 20 per cent target more achievable. Thus
an important way that the UK can help fulfil it’s commitment of 20 per cent gross
energy consumption is by a shift from the current, wasteful centralised electricity
system to a decentralised energy system.
14. Currently, two thirds of the energy used in electricity generation is wasted as heat,
resulting in a greater demand for primary energy than is necessary. The base load of
heat and electricity required could be provided by one generating technology, a CHP
plant, close to the point of end use, distributing heat and electricity, rather than
having electricity generated far from the point of use and heat provided by gas or oil
boilers on-site.
15. With a large proportion of electricity generating capacity reaching the end of its useful
life, the UK has a unique opportunity to move towards a decentralised power system
with a focus on renewables, cogeneration and energy efficiency.
16. Further information about the cost, emissions and security benefits can be found in
the annexes on “Decentralising Power: an Energy Revolution for the 21st Century”62
and “Decentralising UK Energy: Cleaner, Cheaper, more Secure energy for 21st
century Britain.”63 London has also committed to deliver substantial amounts of the
capital’s energy this way.64 The reports are appended for information.
17. There are limited figures on costs. However given the threat of climate change and
the likely impact on developing countries, it has often been referred to as a moral
question, including by the new Prime Minister65. We agree it is a moral issue, and
thus costs should be seen in the same way as, for example, the costs of tackling
racism in the workplace or the costs of providing a minimum wage or decent state
pension.
18. The renewables sector needs to have complete confidence in the position of the
government to ensure the investment in the industry required to ensure the growth
required to enable the UK to meet the 20 per cent target. Current support for a new
generation of nuclear and coal fired power stations will undermine the future
investment in the renewables industry, as stated by Patricia Hewitt on 24 February
2003 in a statement accompanying the 2003 Energy White Paper:
“It would have been foolish to announce, as the hon. Gentleman apparently wanted
us to do, that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations
because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary
investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables…”
19. The figures we present here for renewable energy supply are indicative. Equally, the
policies required to deliver this level of renewable energy would need to be worked
out by a thorough study.
20. A full audit of supporting policies is required, and 2 of the documents Greenpeace
submitted to the 2006 Energy Review dealing with reform to the electricity market
and the Renewables Obligation are attached. But what is apparent is that the current
62
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7759.pdf
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7753.pdf
64
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/node/491
65
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4932988.stm
63
184
ideology and market framework are wholly inadequate to the task. A revolution in the
way we think about energy and the importance of inserting new and renewable
technologies into the market are manifest. Nothing in the Energy White Paper is
remotely near to the task in hand. And a few dodgy nuclear power stations will barely
make much difference, even accepting their huge downsides.
21. Just one example is the Renewables Obligation. It would need to be raised to (at
least) over 30 per cent by 2020 to meet the EU target. Nothing remotely like this is
on the table. Microgenerators are not appropriately rewarded. There is no regulatory
framework or support for renewable heat. There are no guarantees that biofuels will
not make greenhouse gas emissions worse not better.
22. These policies need to deal with the market pull for renewable technologies – using
existing, viable technologies. Additional R&D for e.g. deployment and grid issues,
could be funded through the Energy Technologies Institute. It is important that this
new organisation has an open, transparent and publicly-participatory decision-making
process in terms of the financial allocation process. Half of the money is being
supplied by public funds. It would be inappropriate for those funds to entrench the
competitive position of the donating companies. A revolution is needed in our energy
supply and use – it may – or may not- be something that those companies are best
place to take advantage of.
July 2007
185
Memorandum 31
Submission from the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales (NFU)
The National Farmers' Union of England and Wales (NFU) represents the interests of
some 55,000 members involved in commercial agriculture, horticulture and farmer
controlled businesses.
The NFU welcomes recent Government policy measures that will stimulate the
market for a broader range of renewable energy generation technologies. We
believe that agriculture and the land-based renewables have an important role to play
in the context of climate change and renewable energy targets. It is our aspiration
that every farmer should have the opportunity to become a net exporter of lowcarbon energy services. We raise a number of specific points below that may impact
upon the market opportunities for farmers to provide renewable fuels for power
generation, or to engage in on-site renewable generation, for domestic use or for
export to the electricity grid.
1. The European Union's 2020 targets for renewable energy, agreed by Heads of
State in March this year, have added a sense of urgency to the measures announced
in May in the 2007 Energy White Paper. Given the likely constraints on renewable
transport fuel supply, and the almost total absence of policy support for renewable
heat, perhaps as much as 35-40% of UK electricity may need to come from
renewable sources by 2020. This represents a huge 9 to 10-fold increase from the
present modest baseline, assuming smaller proportions for renewable heat (17%)
and transport fuels (10%), in order to achieve 20% renewable energy overall.
2. Together with offshore wind power, marine energy and tidal power, the twin
drivers of climate change response and sustainable energy targets will create
opportunities for
a diversity of land-based renewables, including smaller-scale decentralised
technologies such as anaerobic digestion and biomass-fired mini power stations.
The proposed “banding” of the Renewables Obligation (RO) is a key measure that
will stimulate “post-demonstration” technologies such as straw-fired or wood-fired
power generation (eligible for 1.5 RO certificates), as well as “emerging technologies”
such as gasification or anaerobic digestion of biomass, biomass-fired CHP, energy
crops for power generation, and photovoltaics (eligible for double RO certificates).
3. The NFU notes that enhanced revenue-based support for many of these
technologies will create new opportunities for agricultural diversification and rural
incomes. In particular, we anticipate new investment in biogas digesters (both
single-farm and centralised) producing electricity and heat, small-scale combined
heat and power (CHP) units, and the possible use of solar photovoltaics to meet
some electricity use in farm buildings. Also significant will be a likely increase in the
market (and improved terms of trade) for perennial energy crops as power station
feedstock.
4. In this brief response, the NFU would like to highlight a number of possible
concerns with government energy policy in general, and with some of the details of
186
the consultation on “banding” of the Renewables Obligation (RO). Firstly, it is
worrying that the Government's own projections suggest that the banded RO will only
just fulfil its original expectations of 15% renewable electricity by 2015, correcting a
likely shortfall in the previously unadjusted RO. This is still a long way from the
massive deployment required to address the EU targets, to mitigate climate change,
and to create opportunities for UK entrepreneurs to export low-carbon technologies
to emerging industrial economies.
5. While the focus of this submission is on electricity generation, we are also
concerned about the lack of attention paid to renewable heat and transport in the
recent Energy White Paper (EWP). On the latter subject, the Government has so far
failed to establish a stretched target for the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation
beyond 2010, although the obligatory goal for 2020 agreed by EU Heads of State
does provide some long-term market signal. Renewable heating appears in the EWP
only under the heading of “Distributed Energy”. The Government is said to be ‘still
considering’ a consultants’ report on this subject and ‘developing its thinking in this
area’; and its Biomass Strategy, while a welcome recognition of the potential of
bioenergy, offers little beyond what is already obvious - that industrial heating and
CHP offer the best-value carbon savings. The NFU believes its members can play
an important role in providing renewable heating services or fuels (such as energy
crops or woodland thinnings) for low or zero-carbon building developments in rural
and urban fringe areas of the country, and that planning as well as energy policy
should reflect this.
6. The NFU looks forward to the forthcoming establishment of a product standard,
exempt from waste management regulation, for the digestate by-product from biogas
digesters. This will reduce the regulatory burden upon operators of single-farm
anaerobic digesters when land-spreading or selling raw or processed digestate as a
fertiliser or a possible fuel. Simplification of regulations to enable movement of
digestate between farms, without a waste carrier licence, would also enable smaller
livestock farmers to collaboratively operate one digester between several farms.
7. The NFU notes that the growing of perennial energy crops, which require low
inputs and may therefore have a very positive “carbon balance”, will be increasing
important for “decarbonising” the economy. These crops also offer improved
biodiversity and nutrient management benefits compared to arable crops or
grassland. However, the present modest areas of planting (about 0.1% of arable
land area) of both short rotation coppice willow and miscanthus have so far failed to
establish a working market. Through consultation with growers and contractors, the
NFU has established that what they most need is a stable, consistent framework of
government support, with announcements and timetables that reflect the seasonality
of agricultural decision-making. Past delays in government announcements about
the future of support mechanisms have seriously eroded the confidence of farmers,
who have seen little evidence of any other public-sector demonstration or
commitment to these crops. The grant application process in England is excessively
bureaucratic and time-consuming compared to the online, fast-track procedure in
Scotland - and there is presently no such support available in Wales.
8. Notwithstanding the recent announcement of a new programme of energy crop
establishment grants under the draft Rural Development Programme for England
187
2007-2013, the NFU continues to be concerned by Defra's stop-start support for
perennial energy crops and the impact this has on the industry. The previous
scheme closed in June 2006, and a timetable has yet to be announced for the new
establishment grant applications. Most farmers will decide this summer what to plant
for next year, so we anticipate a low take-up of this scheme for Spring 2008 planting.
9. The NFU is extremely concerned that the definition of “energy crops” has not
been clearly established between Defra and DTI (now DBERR). As is evident from
the above discussion, the original use of this term applied to new types of crops that
offer significant environmental benefits (in terms of reduced inputs, improved carbon
balance and enhanced biodiversity) compared to conventional crops. Generally,
these characteristics are confined to perennial crops, which avoid the energy costs
associated with the land preparation and sowing of annual crops. The EU definition
of energy crops, as applied to the Energy Crops Aid payment of 45 euros/hectare,
already blurs this definition by including also annual crops grown expressly for
energy purposes. The NFU is aware that some stakeholders would like annual
crops, or the by-products from processing of biofuel crops (possibly including tropical
agricultural residues such as palm kernel shell), included within those “energy crops”
feedstocks eligible for double ROCs under the proposed banding of the Renewables
Obligation. We do not believe this is consistent with the intention of the RO banding,
which is evidently targeted at “emerging technologies” (i.e. those that would not
otherwise find a market).
10. The Energy White Paper 2007 does state clearly “there is a case for continuing
to support energy crops so as to promote the development of an effective domestic
supply chain for this valuable resource” (Parag. 5.2.42). However, there is only one
mention (Box 3.1) where the term is given more explicitly as “perennial energy
crops”. Together, these occurrences imply that energy crops are grown domestically,
and that they are perennials. However, the NFU believes this is a definition which
does need to be defined more explicitly in government proposals to incentivise new
agricultural supply chains for renewable energy.
July 2007
188
Memorandum 32
Submission from Centre for Management Under Regulation, Warwick Business
School
The UK Government has highlighted the importance of climate change for several
years and, despite major policy changes in that time, has now ended up with a new
energy policy (DTI, 2007). The 2007 EWP was published after the UK endorsed a
European Commission proposal for a 20% renewable energy target by 2020. It
seems to us that much of the basis of the 2007 EWP should be questioned and rethought in the light of this new commitment. The Science and Technology
Committee inquiry is therefore a welcome and timely examination of the issues
surrounding renewable energy deployment.
The 2007 EWP has put us on a path to cutting carbon dioxide by 60% by 2050 from
1990 levels, which is welcome. However, this already seems as if it may not be
enough. The 60% reduction is in line with meeting a 550 parts per million (ppm)
volume of carbon dioxide by 2100, which is taken to be equivalent to a 2 degree
centigrade temperature rise which, in turn, is taken to be the maximum average
global temperature rise without risking major feedbacks (IPCC, 2007). If the 2oC is
nearer to an equivalent of 450 ppm then we may need to cut our emissions even
more. Most importantly, it is imperative we start to do so soon and do so at a fast
enough rate to make a difference, hence the EU’s new climate and energy policy.
The latter is in line with the urgent global environmental imperatives, rather than
political preferences.
In our view, the UK has never taken renewable energy deployment seriously. While
the Government is still consulting on nuclear power, it seems destined for a reemergence, at least into UK energy policy if not actually into the electricity mix. This
large-scale, centralised, inflexible, electricity-only technology seems far more in
keeping with this Government’s preference for a future energy system. This seems to
us to be flawed: firstly, because it is an inflexible electricity-only technology which
currently provides only 8% of total energy; and secondly, because the resources and
commitments needed to get new nuclear power plants off the ground can only
undermine the development of the other non-nuclear electricity and non-electricity
technologies which are necessary for de-carbonising the other 92% of the energy
system. Renewable energy and demand reduction have to be the fundamental
answer to that de-carbonisation.
Similarly, the ongoing commitment to pursuing carbon sequestration and storage
(CCS) technologies for coal stations is equally flawed. We would not oppose the
construction of new fossil fuel plants in the short term, but believe that these should
be gas, which can be used over the longer term to provide flexible balancing
generation to support an increasingly renewables based electricity system. The
impact of CCS technology on the operational efficiency of coal stations, coupled with
the possible environmental risks posed by the long term storage of carbon dioxide,
mean that the use of the technology on new coal stations would offer little if any
advantage over new gas. We do not believe that the issue of the security of gas
supply is as severe as sometimes portrayed.
189
Renewable energy policy has been supported in the UK since 1990: first, with the
Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and since 2002, the Renewable Obligation. The
UK has been poor at deploying renewable electricity relative to other countries in
Europe. It is inconceivable that the UK will be able to deliver their appropriate share
of the EU 20% renewable energy target with the UK’s current renewable energy
policies. Other countries are managing to deploy as much renewable energy
annually as we have deployed since the start of our programme in 1990. It is
therefore the UK renewable energy policy which is the problem, not renewable
energy technologies per se. If the UK had an effective renewable energy policy in
place, we could not only meet the EU 20% renewable energy target by 2020 but it
would also contribute to other energy policy objectives. For example, energy security
would be improved because the so-called ‘electricity-gap’ would be mitigated and
diversity increased, and because we would reduce our need for fossil transportation
fuels. This further undermines the need for nuclear power so that any potential
investment in it could be re-directed to renewables and demand reduction.
The transformation of the energy system from its current ‘dirty’ state to being
sustainable is an energy system issue, not just a technology or an economics issue.
All the factors which make up an energy system have to work together to enable that
transition. This means that the issue of appropriate infrastructure, market rules and
incentives, innovation policy, skills, law, planning, technologies, institutions and
behavioural changes and consumption issues all have to be addressed to ensure
there are no ‘gaps’ in the delivery of the new renewable energy, demand reduction
and smart control66 technologies.
• There is a great deal of academic literature available about the best ways to
develop and deploy technologies. In essence, this is about supporting niches
(or new technologies) from the idea stage through to deployment, and
including nursery markets. It requires focus to reduce risk and provide
certainty of long term commitment. We in the UK are very poor at this and
have to change.
• Enabling new entrants to energy markets is more likely to encourage
innovative approaches to both energy supply and demand reduction. So for
example, we would like to see measures such as CERT broadened in their
approach to allow non energy suppliers to have access to the energy service
opportunities that are available.
• Our economic regulatory environment has to be altered to come in line with
sustainable development. Ofgem argues that this is the case but in reality its
interpretation of its Duties67 means that its primary Duty of protecting the
interests of current customers68, defined as keeping prices low, wins out over
the secondary and tertiary concerns.
• Our renewable energy, transport, housing and demand reduction policy should
be changed and enlarged:
o Focus on demand reduction should increase, including setting a carbon
per household cap under the supplier obligation as soon as possible;
66
Whether for efficient operation and design of networks or for efficient consumer use.
The Utilities Act requires Ofgem to “protect the interests of consumers, present and future, wherever
appropriate by promoting effective competition between persons engaged in … the generation, transmission,
distribution or supply of electricity …” (Ofgem 2006, p 107).
68
Even the balancing of the primary duty between present and future customers is not satisfactory.
67
190
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
regulating against inefficient products; and limiting generating stations
waste heat
The RO should be preferably be scrapped and replaced by a feed-in
tariff for all sizes and types of renewables, including microgeneration69.
If the RO is maintained, then new technologies should be supported by
a feed-in tariff in addition to the RO to provide increased certainty for
investors and encourage new entry to the renewables market
Incentives for large scale CHP and renewable heat
Measures to deliver biomass strategy
Appropriate R,D and D for developing technologies
Planning difficulties improved as a result of the feed-in tariff but also
with positive planning such as Merton Rule
Grid difficulties improved: the 2002 Renewable Energy Directive
requirement to guarantee access (as opposed to priority access) is
fulfilled meaning that the BETTA queue is reduced and access
becomes easier; transmission access (including offshore wind and
marine) is improved so that offshore transmission lines becomes part of
the National Grid and rules and incentives of access are not geared
towards non-intermittent centralised plant
Renewable Transport Fuels supported effectively
Zero carbon homes supported
ƒ Strong building regulations for new homes
ƒ Retrofit for existing homes
The Stern Review and the Government has talked about the need to establish a
domestic social cost of carbon to reflect its appropriate value, as opposed to the
deeply uncertain international price of carbon. This is valuable. However, as the
Stern Review also highlighted, getting the price of carbon will not in itself be enough
to move to a sustainable energy system. He argued that stimulating innovation (via
innovation policies) and human behaviour changes are as important as establishing
an appropriate price of carbon. As mentioned above, stimulating innovation requires
establishing a condusive environment for change and this needs reduced risk
(increased certainty). A carbon price cannot, and must not, replace a focussed
renewable energy and demand reduction policy.
In general, economic theorists argue that technology should be supported either by
focussed specific support, ie a renewable energy policy, or via a broad carbon policy
but not both since that is open to ‘double dipping’. In other words, renewables
benefit from a specific support mechanism and, additionally, from the extent of the
incentive against carbon fuels. In theory, this may be true. The size of the EU 20%
renewable energy target is already raising questions of cost and concerns that such
support for renewables across the EU will undermine the carbon price. However, the
evidence available showing that new technologies need specific support is
overwhelming as a way of mitigating the investment risks. Given the potential for
renewables development in the UK, the Government must build on its support for
renewables, not waver. It is unthinkable that we could deliver the amounts of
renewable energy and demand reduction necessary to meet the European 20%
renewable energy target without a serious, focussed sustainable energy policy. The
69
The 2007EWP wrongly calls the NFFO, the first renewable energy policy in the UK, a feed-in tariff and cites
its failure as a reason for not supporting a feed-in tariff in the UK now
191
three strands of a sustainable energy system: focussed technology and innovation
policy; behavioural change and an appropriate value of carbon have to work
together, as argued by Stern and as supported by evidence of how technologies
have developed.
July 2007
192
Memorandum 33
Submission from the Environment Agency
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Environment Agency welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the
inquiry of the Select Committee on Science and Technology into renewable
energy generation technologies.
1.2 The Environment Agency recognises renewable energy as a key component of
the carbon-constrained 21st Century energy economy. However, carbon saving
objectives must not be allowed to automatically override other environmental
concerns.
2.0 Environmental impacts
2.1 No energy source is completely harmless to the environment. For each
technology, there is a trade-off between the wider benefits (e.g. in terms of
energy security and lower CO2 emissions) and their social and more local
environmental impacts. The key issue for the Environment Agency is to ensure
that all environmental implications are fully taken into account in the deployment
of renewable energy resources, so that the most sustainable option is selected.
2.2 In order to allow informed choices about the most sustainable option, it is
essential that the renewable research and development agenda includes social
and environmental issues, in addition to engineering aspects. The case of
onshore wind demonstrates how social rather than engineering factors can be
the dominant factor in determining the level of deployment (or lack thereof) of a
technology.
2.3 Life-cycle analysis is a useful tool for calculating cradle-to-grave environmental
impacts. While whole life impacts are reasonably well known for some
renewable technologies (e.g. on-shore wind), there are research gaps for other
technologies (e.g. tidal technologies) which need to be addressed.
2.4 In addition, a clear assessment framework for determining the carbon footprint
of different renewable technologies is needed. It should not be assumed that
renewable technologies automatically provide carbon savings. We are
particularly concerned that some biofuels appear to have a larger carbon
footprint than some fossil fuels.
3.0 Need for cost-effective solutions
3.1 In addition, questions need to be asked whether renewables, in particular under
the current support system (the Renewables Obligation, RO) are the most cost193
effective way to achieve carbon savings. A recent assessment by Ofgem
suggests average emission reduction costs under the RO of £400 t/C,
compared to £66 t/C for reductions under the European Emission Trading
system. Under the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) each tonne of carbon
emissions reduced results in savings of up to £60, depending on the measure
applied 70. Analysis of the UK Climate Change Programme found that while
some measures such as the EEC produce a net benefit (thus providing a real
‘win-win’ solution), the RO has a net cost71.
3.2 In view of the large CO2 reduction effort needed to achieve the UK’s targets, it is
important that emission reductions are achieved in the most cost-effective
manner, while at the same time minimising environmental impacts. For this
reason, energy efficiency measures should be prioritised. Renewable energy
resources would be more effective if the energy they supply was used in
efficient applications. While we recognise that some renewable technologies
need extra support to allow commercialisation, there needs to be a coherent
support system that aims at leveraging the most cost-effective carbon solutions,
with some additional support towards technologies further from
commercialisation.
3.3 We focus the remainder of our comments on renewable sources particularly
relevant to the Environment Agency’s role as environmental regulator –
biomass, tidal energy, energy storage and energy from waste. These renewable
sources are of specific concern in terms of their potential environmental
impacts.
4.0 Biomass
4.1 We support bioenergy as a renewable source of energy. However, adequate
safeguards must be in place to minimise environmental impacts which can
include:
•
•
•
•
large-scale changes to land use for energy crops;
effects on water resources, soils and biodiversity;
the handling and reuse of wastes as fuel;
emissions from power stations.
4.2 Whole life-cycle impacts of bioenergy should be assessed including net
greenhouse gas emissions (including the emissions related to inputs such as
fertilisers), environmental and biodiversity impacts and wider sustainable
development contributions. Water consumption of certain bioenergy crops is an
important concern if grown in low rainfall parts of the country, such as East
Anglia and the South East.
70
Reform of the Renewables Obligation 2006: Ofgem’s response
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environmnt/Policy/Documents1/16669-ROrespJan.pdf
71
Synthesis of Climate Change Policy Evaluations, DEFRA 2006
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/synthesisccpolicy-evaluations.pdf
194
4.3 Incentives such as grants, reduced excise duties or supplier obligations should
be focussed on those technologies and fuels with the lowest environmental
impact.
4.4 Provided other environmental issues are addressed, we welcome fuels that
reduce the overall emissions of CO2 in the short to medium term. Clean, treated
wastes of biological origin could be used as part of local energy solutions.
5.0 Tidal power
5.1 England and Wales have a large part of Europe’s tidal resource. Tidal power
could play an important role in reaching renewable energy targets. Yet,
environmental impacts could be substantial as our estuaries are of international
importance for fish and migratory birds.
5.2 Government should take a strategic overview of the development of the tidal
energy resource, to ensure climate change obligations are balanced with other
environmental obligations. An ad–hoc, case–by-case approach by individual
developers is unlikely to deliver the most sustainable solution overall.
5.3 We have concerns about the renewed interest in the Severn Tidal Power
Barrage, which in our view would cause irreversible impacts to the
internationally important habitats and ecology of the estuary. We cannot
envisage how required compensation measures could be provided. We also
have wider concerns relating to its implications for a number of other
environmental considerations, such as water quality, water resources and flood
risk management. We thus welcome that the Sustainable Development
Commission is carrying out a major study into the Severn Barrage. The study is
due to be published by September 07 and we hope that the Committee will be
able to consider this in its deliberations.
5.4 Other tidal energy options such as tidal stream turbines or tidal lagoons need to
be explored and their environmental impacts assessed more fully.
6.0 Energy storage
6.1 Energy storage is crucial to the success of renewables, many of which are
intermittent. However, storage has its own environmental implications,
especially in the case of batteries most of which contain heavy metals (e.g. lead,
Cadmium). Unless these batteries are recycled or carefully disposed off, they
can add to soil and water pollution. In the Environment Agency’s view, more
research is needed into alternative battery technologies, in particular for large
scale applications.
7.0 Energy from waste
7.1 We recognise that a large proportion of the waste stream is made up of material
from renewable resources, such as food wastes and paper. However, as
recycling reduces greenhouse emissions more than any other waste treatment
activity and generally has lower overall environmental impacts, we believe that it
195
should be given priority. After recycling, energy from waste can play a role
provided air pollution standards are met.
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 The Environment Agency supports the acceleration of renewable energy
research, development and deployment as a pillar of the UK’s climate change
policy. However, we believe that greater attention needs to be paid to carbon
footprints and other environmental impacts of renewable technologies to ensure
that they are truly sustainable.
July 2007
196
Memorandum 34
Submission from East Midlands Development Agency
Summary
1. The East Midlands Development Agency (emda) recognises both the economic
risks as well as the opportunities that the new energy agenda presents and has
worked to ensure they are reflected in the Regional Economic Strategy, in its own
Business and Corporate Plans and in the Regional Energy Strategy priorities.
2. emda would like to bring a number of points to the notice of the Committee, in
part relating to clarity of the terms of reference, but mainly in response to the
areas in which the Committee are seeking information. In particular, we believe
that the diversity of the technologies must be recognised as well as the risks
associated with the perception that activity (deployment) equals progress.
3. emda would like to emphasise the need to review the approach to
“demonstration” with respect to replicability, return on (public) investment and
relationship with actual deployment. There is also a need to integrate
consideration of barriers to deployment into the R&D of the technologies
themselves rather than consider deployment or integration issues as a separate
or secondary issue.
4. Finally emda would raise with the Committee the role that buyers (public and
private) should play in encouraging new technologies to market as well as
demonstrating and building confidence in them.
Introduction
5. East Midlands Development Agency is one of nine Regional Development
Agencies in England set up in 1999 to bring a regional focus to economic
development. We work across a broad set of areas that are important to those
that live and work in the East Midlands, such as;
ƒ Business support
ƒ Enterprising communities
ƒ Skills
ƒ Innovation
ƒ International trade and inward investment
ƒ Environment
ƒ Property
ƒ Tourism and culture
ƒ Rural development
ƒ Urban regeneration
6. Part of our work includes the development of a Regional Economic Strategy,
setting out the regional investment priorities. “A Flourishing Region” is the third
Regional Economic Strategy (RES). It sets out our aspirations and vision for the
region over the next decade or so to 2020. Its production follows the most
extensive consultation process we have ever undertaken and is informed by the
197
most comprehensive evidence base assembled on the East Midlands, its
economy and its strengths and its challenges. A Flourishing Region can be found
at http://www.emda.org.uk/res.
7. Energy (and renewable energy) technologies apply across the region and to all
sectors and this is reflected in the RES in two of its three main themes;
ƒ Raising Productivity: recognising the benefits to our businesses in both
developing and exploiting as well utilising new energy technologies
ƒ Achieving Sustainability: recognising the important role energy has to play in
terms of natural resources, wellbeing and quality of life and addressing
environmental concerns such as climate change.
8. The RES identifies Priority Actions that are important to the regional economy
and emda has a key role, working with appropriate partners, to take them
forward. Our regional aim in terms of energy (and resources) is “To transform the
way we use resources and use and generate energy to ensure a sustainable
economy, a high quality environment and lessen the impact on climate change”.
9. emda has worked with the East Midlands Regional Assembly (EMRA) and the
Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) to respond to national policy
objectives and drive forward the regional opportunities. We have jointly published
a Regional Energy Strategy. The vision of the Regional Energy Strategy is that
“The East Midlands will take a lead in moving towards a low carbon future that
benefits our economy, protects our environment and supports our communities”
10. The aims of the Strategy are to achieve a low carbon future that will deliver
economic opportunities through the exploitation of new markets and
technologies as well as the efficient use of resources; ensuring that low carbon
design and construction through the planning and regeneration process deliver
affordable warmth and cooling and, through a reduction in green house gas
emissions, ensure that changes experienced in our climate are within limits that
we can adapt to.
11. In support of delivering this strategy, emda is leading on the “Energy for
Enterprise” work stream.
12. The priorities for this work stream are as follows:Energy for Enterprise, emda leading
Business Performance - Improving the productivity and performance of
businesses in the region through more efficient use of energy and resources
Economic Exploitation - Enabling the region to exploit new economic
opportunities from new and emerging technologies, processes and services
Energy Capacity - Supporting an appropriate regional level of generation and
supply of energy to meet future energy needs reliably, securely and in a
sustainable way.
13. Set out below are the key issues that emda would like to raise with the
Committee.
Issues for Consideration
198
14. The Committee should be clear in its terms of reference about whether it is
examining electricity-producing technologies or energy-producing technologies. If
it is the former then this should be made more explicit in the wording. emda would
prefer the latter as we believe that once again the scope of an examination into
this area is likely to be dominated by the need to fulfil a target (i.e. proportion of
electricity produced from renewables) rather than the need to explore and
understand the evidence.
15. If it is the latter, then technologies such as solar thermal, biomass heat, wider biofuels (including automotive and even aviation) and more process-based
approaches such as passive ventilation (and heating/cooling) for buildings, heat
recovery technologies and perhaps CHP should be included.
16. emda also believe that fuel cells (and hydrogen for that matter) can only be
considered a renewable energy technology if the fuel (hydrogen) is produced in a
renewable-energy system. If hydrogen formed from natural gas is used, then it
could be a very efficient producer of electricity, but it is not renewable.
17. On the 27th October 2005 in a House of Lords debate on energy security, Lord
Sainsbury (then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and
Industry), said “…nuclear is a renewable source of energy—it clearly is so. I am
very happy to agree that nuclear is a renewable source of energy.” Perhaps the
Committee should clarify this position with respect to its Terms of Reference and
whether this is indeed the Government’s position?
Current State of UK Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D)
18. emda supports research and demonstration in various ways but does not
maintain detailed evidence of the broad landscape. We would like to refer the
Committee to the Energy Research Partnership work to map the UK’s university
research into energy; http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk
19. We do, however, from time to time, commission specific reviews into areas and/or
sectors that we are considering supporting. We would be happy to share (on
request) these reports with the Committee: recently these have included (some
are still under way);
ƒ Low Carbon and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
ƒ Biomass Markets Analysis
ƒ Energy Investment Prospectus
ƒ Renewable Energy & Waste Management Sectors: identifying inward
investment opportunities
20. emda has worked closely with the Universities of Nottingham, Loughborough and
Birmingham in their bid to host the “hub” of the new Energy Technologies
Institute. All three universities are world leading in a range of energy research
areas and their work on the bid has shown a combined excellence. The
Committee may wish to contact these universities with a view to sharing the
evidence base that they have developed.
199
21. emda has also directly funded consultancy support to build the industrial RD&D
base evidence in support of this bid, but at the time of writing this work has not
reported. The Committee may want to view this report, expected by the end of
July.
Commercialisation of renewable energy technologies
22. One of emda’s priorities for energy (see above) is to support the exploitation
(deployment) of these technologies by our businesses both at home and abroad.
One of the key points to consider is that in many ways the technologies exist as
separate “sectors” in that they often do not share the same market, supply chain,
skills sets etc. For example, ground source heat pumps have little in common
with micro-wind or PV. Similarly, fuel cell technologies have little in common with
wave and tidal.
23. To further complicate matters, often the small scale version of the technology
shares little with the large scale, e.g. micro-wind involving single 5KW (max)
turbines and wind farm developments using 3MW turbines.
24. At the larger scale, commercial decision-making based on return on investment
drives deployment of renewable technologies, whilst at the small-scale decisions
on investment are based on personal value judgements, often the desire to do
something good for the environment. The DTI will be commissioning (with joint
funding from a number of RDAs, including emda) research into consumers’
attitudes towards so-called micro-generation technologies, with a view to better
understanding the market place. This work will not report until next year.
25. There is increasing evidence, however, that some of these technologies are not
efficacious at the small scale. Carbon Trust work has suggested that small scale
CHP units may in fact increase CO2 emissions in comparison to conventional
best practice and some preliminary work discussed in one of our regional
universities suggests that house-mounted wind may be so affected by
neighbouring buildings as to reduce its stated capacity by more than 60%.
26. The danger that the public makes investments based on perceived value that is
subsequently called into question by research and performance evaluation could
lead to deepening scepticism - even a backlash - and of course a great deal of
wasted investment potential.
27. Adequate and effective demonstration of new energy technologies is essential.
Historically, the public sector has been guilty of what might be termed PPP
(Perpetual Pilot Projects) when it comes to demonstration. In fact most publicly
funded demonstration projects demonstrate that almost anything can be achieved
if there are large grants available. By their (grant dependent) nature they are not
replicable and the funding tends to support the actual installation far more than it
supports the demonstration and little attention is applied to how the
demonstration activity accelerates deployment (or measuring its effectiveness).
28. Where focus is applied to the R&D of a specific technology the institutions
involved are rarely tasked with better understanding the wider set of “enabling”
200
technologies and competencies that actually determine the rate of deployment.
These might include performance of essential supporting technologies and
components (e.g. reliability and longevity of inverters for Photovoltaics), the
manufacturing capabilities, capacities and supply chain issues, installers’ and
wholesalers’ skills and competencies, specifiers’ competencies and
understanding, building or other system integration issues.
29. All of these and more determine the rate of successful deployment yet they are
usually dealt with as additional research and support programmes separate from
the technology development. More rapid commercialisation could be achieved if
deployment issues were considered alongside technology development.
30. Large buyers, public and private, could have a more active role in pulling
technologies to market, growing supply chain capacity and demonstrating
(confidence in) technologies. The public sector has recognised this for some time
but downward pressure on spending is stifling innovation and competency in risk
management when it comes to new technologies is questionable. The private
sector on the other hand is in the main a long way from performing this role in the
way they procure goods and services.
31. It is commonly cited that the energy labelling on white goods enabled the
consumer to make better choices when buying new appliances and as a result
selected better performing products; influencing manufacturers to strive towards
improving their products’ performance. In fact the pressure was far more subtle.
Evidence suggests that it was in fact the large buyers (retail chains etc) that, in
looking for product differentiation, chose the energy labels as much out of
convenience than conscience. It was thus the professional buyers’ approach that
influenced the market whilst simultaneously imposing a choice, albeit beneficial,
on the end consumer.
Recommendations
The Committee should;
32. seek to clarify the range of technologies that are under scrutiny so as to ensure a
clear outcome.
33. consider the diversity within the renewable energy technologies sectors in terms
of scale, market place, supply chains and skills and competencies so as to reflect
the variety of needs in its recommendations.
34. consider the benefits as well as the risks associated with small-scale deployment
of micro-generation technologies in order to inform the buyer of the potential
performance of his or her investment.
35. scrutinise the approach to the demonstration of renewable energy technologies
to reduce the incidence of PPPs and increase the effectiveness of deployment
and replication (public purse return on investment).
201
36. review the way that “enablers” of deployment are accommodated in the RD&D
process for new renewable energy technologies so that it may recommend a
more efficient approach that integrates deployment issues with the technology
development.
37. consider the role that large buyers should be encouraged to play; in particular
how private and public buyers might collaborate to share risk (and risk
management skills) in demonstrating and accelerating energy technologies to the
wider market.
July 2007
202
1. Memorandum 35
2.
Submission from Bristol Spaceplanes Limited
Executive Summary
A very important action the United Kingdom can take to address both our energy
security and climate change problems is to join our friends in chartering Space Solar Power
System (SSPS) with a view to building an experimental system. An SSPS would use very
large satellites – several kilometers across to capture the sun’s energy in high
GeoSynchronous Orbit (GSO) and cleanly beam it down using wireless power transfer (WPT)
to rectennas on the ground; directly into the electric power grids of contracting utilities. SSP
has the potential to provide virtually unlimited clean power. The power reaching the Earth
from the Sun is about ten thousand times greater than the power consumed by the world’s
population. High space transportion costs have been a major obstacle, but there are now
realistic prospects for large reductions in the next decade or two. There are still several
issues to be resolved, but a programme of study and experiment is now well worthwhile.
Solar energy is converted to direct current by solar, or photovoltaic, cells. That direct current
then powers microwave generators which feed a highly directive satellite-borne antenna,
which beams the energy to the Earth. There a rectifying antenna (rectenna) converts the
energy to direct current. After processing, this is fed to the power grid.
The first practical WPT
demonstration was done by
Bill Brown of Raytheon in
1975. Rectennas would be
kilometers across, however
crops or other farming could
be done under these, just as
now done under electric
power lines. Maxwell’s
equations governing power
transmission argue strongly
for a large scale solution,
which has been impractical
to undertake to date. Many
past and current studies and
demonstrations of SSP
concepts have been done.
An SSP design - the Integrated Symmetrial Concentrator
By NASA artist Pat Rawlings http://64.40.104.21/sps/large/ISC_in_GEO.lrg.jpg
A typical SSP satellite – with a solar panel area of about 10 km2, a transmitting antenna of
about 2 km in diameter, and a rectenna about 4 km in diameter – may yield an electric power
of several Gigawatts. Critical aspects motivating SSP research are:
203
1. low attenuation of the microwave transmission beam by the Earth’s atmosphere
2. twenty-four-hour energy availability, except around midnight during the
equinoxes;
3. very carbon dioxide emission per unit of power generated; similar to dams,
4. potential availability of many Terawatts of clean energy for a billion years into the
future,
5. zero fuel costs. (Except for station keeping)
The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) is now objectively exploring SSP for
its potential contributions to tactical, operational, and strategic energy security in addition to
space security. These studies include exploring the political, scientific, technical, logistical,
and commercial feasibility of SSP.
We recommend UK fund an SSP economic impact and environmental analysis study.
3.
204
4.
Low Cost Access to Space
5.
The first requirement before an SSPS could be considered is greatly reduced launch
costs. Current commercial space access prices are far in excess of what known
SSPS concepts could afford. Graphing what they are and what they would be at
higher flight rates, we see the curve below, however. The red dots below are Elon
Musk, SpaceX, $1300/lb and below that, Sandia National Laboratories projects
$20/lb72 SpaceX’ Demonstration Flight 2 Flight Review Update (PDF version) has
been cleared by DARPA and is approved for public release. Two flights are
scheduled by year end. The key to SSP is being financially able to charter a
company able to financially negotiate the path to those much higher flight rates - the
same market SSP provides. This is what Sunsat Corp offers.
The
to
space
key is
move
transportation into the private sector. Many businesses and settlements will one day thrive in
space; we just have to provide a market that will incentivize low-cost space transportation.
Groups such as the Space Solar Power Workshop are recommending that Congress charter a
space solar power corporation, to build power satellites, just as they chartered Comsat in
1962, to build communication satellites. This is the simplest and fastest way to throw open the
doors to space development, while providing clean baseload power to the planet.
72
“Space Sunshade Might Be Feasible”, Nov. 3, 2006,
http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=13269
205
Microwave Power Transfer
6. An SSP satellite would consist of a solar energy collector, to convert solar energy
into dc electric power; a dc-to-microwave converter; and a large antenna array to
beam the microwave power to a rectenna (rectifying antenna) on the ground.
7.
8. For transmitting the power to the ground, frequency bands around 5.8 or 2.45 GHz
have been proposed, which are within the microwave radio windows of the
atmosphere. The antenna array to transmit the energy to the ground would require
a diameter of about 1 - 2 km at 2.45 GHz, and its beam direction would be
electronically controlled and locked to an accuracy of significantly better than 300
m, corresponding to 0.0005 degree (for a geostationary orbit of the satellite).
9.
10.
In addition to the orbiting SSP satellite, a ground-based power receiving site,
the rectenna, - a device to receive and rectify the microwave power beam - has to
be constructed to convert the beamed energy back to dc electric power. The size
of the rectenna site on the ground depends on the microwave frequency used and
the transmitting antenna’s aperture. A typical rectenna site would have a diameter
of 2-3 km for a transmitting antenna of 1-2 km2. This is frequency dependent,
however.
11.
The rectenna (located on the Earth) receives the microwave power from the SPS and
converts it to dc electricity. The rectenna is composed of an RF antenna, a low-pass filter, and
a rectifier. It is a purely passive system, apart from a low-power pilot beam to maintain
assured beam lock. A low-pass filter is necessary to suppress the microwave radiation that is
generated by nonlinearities in the rectifier. Most rectifiers use Schottky diodes. Various
rectenna schemes have been proposed, and the maximum conversion efficiencies anticipated
so far are 91.4% at 2.45 GHz and 82% at 5.8 GHz. However, the actual rectenna efficiency
will also depend on various other factors, such as the microwave input power intensity and the
load impedance.
12.
The rectenna array, with a typical radius of approximately 2 km, is an
important element of the radio technology for which high efficiency is essential.
The peak microwave power flux density at the rectenna site would then be 300
W/m2, if a Gaussian power profile of the transmitted beam was assumed. The
beam intensity pattern would be non-uniform, with a higher intensity in the centre
of the rectenna and a lower intensity at its periphery. For human safety
requirements, the permissible microwave power level has been set to 10 W/m2 in
most countries and the SPS power flux density would be constructed to satisfy this
requirement at the periphery of the rectenna.
13.
14.
After suitable power conditioning, the electric output of the rectenna is
delivered to the power network.
15.
206
16.
Besides microwave power transmission very recently also laser power
transmission has been suggested. In such a scenario highly concentrated solar
radiation would be injected into the laser medium (direct solar pumping) and
transmitted to Earth. On the ground the laser light would be converted to electricity
by photovoltaic cells. Such a system would be fundamentally different from a
“classical” microwave power transmission: In space there would be the light
concentration system and lasers instead of a photovoltaic cell array and the
transmitting antenna, and on the ground there would be a photovoltaic cell array
instead of a rectenna. Other differences from power density to rectenna/receiver
characteristics would be quite different, if laser were to become available or
preferred by a customer contract.
207
17.
Space Photovoltaics
The key elements in the dc power generation for the SPS system are solar cells. Thin-membrane (amorphous)
silicon solar cells are expected to be the most suitable today, because of their good performance for a given
weight (W/kg), although their conversion efficiency is lower than the figures for crystalline cells. But progress
beyond 2000 Watts/Kg in several companies and new technologies continues.
EMCORE Corporation, for example, announced last month that its PhotoVoltaics Division attained a record solar
conversion efficiency of 31% for an new class of advanced multi-junction solar cells optimized for space
applications. The new solar cell, the Inverted Metamorphic (IMM) design, is one fifteenth as thick as conventional
multi-junction solar cell.
Developed with the Vehicle Systems Directorate of US Air Force Research Laboratory, the cell will enable
extremely lightweight, high-efficiency, and flexible solar arrays to power next generation satellites. EMCORE's
investment in technology innovation will enable the introduction of concentrator solar cell products with conversion
efficiency of 40% as a part of planned high-volume product roadmap.
David Danzilio, Vice President and General Manager of EMCORE's PhotoVoltaics Division stated, " The
successful demonstration of this new class IMM cell represents the most significant improvement in terms of
watts/kg and $/watts in the past decade, which will enable never before envisioned space power applications. Our
industry leading scientists and engineers continue to refine and optimize our terrestrial concentrator products and
production capabilities to meet our customers' needs and enable CPV systems to achieve the lowest cost of
73
power."
73
„EMCORE Announces Significant Performance Advancements of Multi-Junction High-Efficiency Solar Cells
for Space and Terrestrial Applications“, http://www.emcore.com/news/release.php?id=158
208
Political / Economic Planning
There is no question SSP can be built; the question is how to build it economically – as a
private company would. An engineer has been defined as someone who can build for a
dime what any fool can build for a dollar. When America has faced such seemingly
insurmountable problems as SSP before, often a public/private corporation has been
chartered – a cooperation between government and individuals. In1862 the
Transcontinental Railroad Act, which spanned North America with rail, was enacted by
Congress
The process to create a congressionally chartered corporation, the SunSat Act, is well understood.
This was the same legislative tool used to create Comsat in 1962, one hundred years after the
Transcontinental Railroad. An SSP system is no less a challenge than Comsat or the
Transcontinental Railroad were in their day and would also seem to dictate a public/private
corporation to reduce those risks via compensating appropriate rewards.
The only successful path to build SSP, is a congressionally chartered corporation, we
call it SunSat Corporation. The purpose in this paper is to explore SunSat Corp’s forest
as we look at the trees ahead of us. We want to understand the new and complex
business process which we must cultivate and drive. Draft Sunsat Legislation has been
placed on the web at http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsat-how.pdf
Telerobotics
On June 16, 2007, Boeing’s Orbital Express system, validated telerobotic and
autonomous spacecraft servicing capabilities, performing a fully-autonomous "flyaround and capture" of a client spacecraft. During the five-hour test, the ASTRO
(Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations) spacecraft used its onboard
cameras and video guidance system to separate from, circle and re-mate with Ball
Aerospace’s NextSat spacecraft. The test primarily used passive sensors with no
active exchange of relative navigation information or involvement by ground
controllers.
“Positioned in orbit 60 meters above NextSat, ASTRO followed an imaginary line called the "Rbar," extending
from Earth's center to a satellite and beyond, to capture the spacecraft. Rbar is the approach direction needed to
effectively service a satellite without interfering with its cameras or antennas.
ASTRO and NextSat began Scenario 5-1 in the Mated Nominal mode. At the predicted time, ASTRO's
autonomous systems separated it from NextSat to a range of up to 120 meters. ASTRO then circled NextSat
using its sensor systems to continuously track NextSat during the fly-around. If sensor inputs had deviated
outside established limits, an autonomous safing action would have repositioned the spacecraft to a safe location.
It did this successfully in mid-May when Orbital Express experienced a computer sensor anomaly. The system's
autonomous safing feature maneuvered the spacecraft to a safe location until the team could re-mate them. The
team has resolved that anomaly.
After completing the fly-around, ASTRO maintained its relative position with NextSat at 120 meters for 17 minutes
then maneuvered above NextSat to perform a corridor approach to within centimeters of the client spacecraft. The
capture mechanism grappled NextSat and performed a soft berth, drawing NextSat and ASTRO together.
209
During the next major unmated operation (Scenario 7-1), ASTRO will depart NextSat to a range of four kilometers
74
before approaching the client spacecraft and performing a free-fly capture using its robotic arm.
Carnegie Mellon’s Skyworker, a robot designed for assembling immense projects in
space, in particular SSP satellites, can be reviewed at
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/skyworker/
An award winning film showing Skyworker in action is also available for viewing.
NASA’s Space Telerobotics Office was closed in 1997, but useful resources remain
there: http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/telerobotics_page/telerobotics.shtm
74
“The Boeing Orbital Express“, June 27, 2007, http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/7266
Other Orbital Express news releases at http://www.boeing.com/ids/advanced_systems/orbital/news
210
Satellite Control and Programme Interfaces
All modern SPS concepts rely on robotic assembly and maintenance systems
rather than on human astronauts. Suitable orbit transfer vehicles may need to be
developed to transport very large structures from lower to higher orbits. Solar electric
propulsion orbital transfer vehicles have been suggested for this purpose. Some
corresponding prototype propulsion systems, like a magneto-plasmadynamic
thruster, a Hall thruster, and a microwave discharge ion engine have been tested ([1],
section 2.3.1.2).
18.
19.
Other key issues of SPS technology are subsystem lifetime, especially
photovoltaics, and maintenance. The limited lifetime of solar cells has already
been mentioned, but a long-term radiation hazard also exists for any solid-state
device on the SPS, such as, for instance, dc-to microwave converters.
20.
21.
Both effects can in principle deform the structure and change its attitude. In
particular, the radiation pressure exerts a force which is continuously changing in
direction with respect to the line joining the satellite and the rectenna. This may
pose serious problems concerning the control of the orbit and the orientation of the
RF beam. The amplitude of this force is of the order of 100 N for a solar cell area
of 10 km2 (2 * solar radiation power flux * 10 km2 / velocity of light).
22.
23.
Regarding maintenance, the present-day experiences for low-Earth orbits with
the Hubble space telescope and the International Space Station indicate that
maintaining and servicing a much larger system in a much higher orbit may be
very difficult and much more expensive than for low Earth orbits. A completely new
approach to space maintenance may be required to maintain large assets at
geostationary orbit. Currently, progressive replacement is the only viable option.
An active defense against “small” incident meteorites could also be valuable.
211
24.
Alternative Energy Overview
25.
Very active discussions concerning global oil peak production dates are in progress.
We find the most current and authoritative research as of this date, predicts that
global oil production to peak during the 2008 to 2018 timeframe. While we will never
"run out" of petroleum; it will simply become too expensive to burn in most cars and
trucks. To quote from that study, "In a worst-case scenario, global oil production may
reach its peak in 2008, before starting to decline. In a best-case scenario, this peak
would not be reached until 2018. These estimates were made in a Swedish study by
Fredrik Robelius, whose doctoral dissertation estimates future oil production". –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070330100802.htm and
http://www.peakoil.net/GiantOilFields.html
Also very recently, the most current and authoritative research predicts global coal
production to peak around 2025. - "Peak coal by 2025 say researchers", initiated by a
German member of Parliament. Authors were Dr. Werner Zittel and Jörg Schindler
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coalreport.pdf and
http://www.energybulletin.net/28287.html
On the Terawatt scale of interest, Biofuels are also not the answer (from
EnergyPulse Weekly):
Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic ethanol and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and a
Threat to America's National Security - Part I
By Alice Friedemann, Freelance Journalist - two more parts also linkable from there.
Briefly summarized below, we find no other baseload energy source as clean, safe or
reliable considering the MASSIVE energy quantities we require.
Clean?
Safe?
Reliable?
Baseload?
Fossil Fuel
No
Yes
Decades remaining
Yes
Nuclear
No
Yes
Fuel very limited
Yes
Wind Power
Yes
Yes
No, intermittent
No
Ground Solar
Yes
Yes
No, intermittent
No
Hydro
Yes
Yes
No; drought; complex scheduling
Bio-fuels
Yes
Yes
Very limited quantities - competes directly with
food production.
212
SSP
Yes
Yes
Yes
26.
213
Yes
27.
Conclusions
The main conclusion from work done so far on Space Solar Power is that it has
potential for providing virtually unlimited clean power but that much research
work remains to be done to establish practicability. The emerging space
tourism industry offers the prospect of the economies of scale needed to
drive down the cost of transport to orbit to levels where experimental SSP
satellites can be afforded. The time is therefore right for HMG to start to fund
a programme of research into SSP.
Some SSP Links
1.
2.
URSI Space Solar Power White Paper, report, and appendices at
http://www.ursi.org/WP/White_papers.htm A major focus is on Wireless Power Transfer.
The Space Solar Power Workshop website at http://www.sspi.gatech.edu .
3.
International Telecommunication Union, Question ITU-R 210-1/1 on “Wireless power
transmission”, 2006, http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-r/publica/que/rsg1/210-1.html
4.
L. Summerer, Solar Power from Space – European Strategy in the Light
of Global Sustainable Development, ESA SPS Programme Plan 2003/2005,
GS03.L36,
July
2003,
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ESA_SPS_ProgrammePlan2_06.pdf
5.
Space Frontier Foundation/National Security Space Office (NSSO)
Public discussion area: http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com
6.
“Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power“ By Jeremy
Singer, April 11, 2007,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070411_tech_wed.html
July 2007
214
Memorandum 36
Submission from Royal Society of Chemistry
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of,
renewable energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind;
photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy;
ground source heat pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy
storage.
Photovoltaics (solar power)
Solar power has the potential to provide a significant proportion of the UK electricity
needs. The chemical sciences will be crucial in reducing the cost and increasing the
efficiency of solar technology through improvements to current design and
manufacture and through the development of the next generation of technology, such
as technology that takes advantage of biological methods of harvesting and storing
energy from light. The UK has a strong research base in areas including
understanding and mimicking photosynthesis systems and also in dye-sensitised and
organic solar cells. Ideally it will become routine to integrate solar power into
buildings through the use of specialised construction materials (for example roof tiles
and windows) coupled to energy storage and low energy demand devices.
Photovoltaic (PV) devices consist of a semi-conducting material, currently most
commonly silicon, which convert photons into electrical current by means of the
photoelectric effect. They were developed in the 1950s to power space satellites, but
their potential for providing remote power for telecommunications, water pumping
and refrigeration rapidly increased demand for terrestrial applications. The
drawbacks of early photovoltaic technology also became obvious, namely cost, low
power density and intermittency of operation.
Although prices are coming down PV systems currently cost around 55 pence/kWh
which is more than a factor of 10 greater than current gas, coal and nuclear power
plants. A number of different technologies are at various stages of development to
both reduce the cost of solar modules and to increase their efficiency. Over 80% of
modules are currently based on crystalline silicon. Silicon is an excellent material for
solar cell production since its technology has become highly developed as a result of
the global semiconductor market. In addition, its supply is virtually inexhaustible and
it is non-toxic, although its manufacture is currently highly coupled to semiconductor
demand. In the late 1970s and early 1980s thin films of inorganic semiconductors
made from indium tin oxide (ITO), cadmium selenide (CdSe), copper indium
diselenide (CuInSe2), amorphous silicon, thin film silicon and titanium oxide (TiO2)
were developed as potentially cheaper PV materials. Innovative research on very thin
(less than 20 atomic layers), high efficiency silicon devices is now in progress.
One of the factors that keeps system costs high for these technologies is the
requirement of high temperature processing of the semiconductor material. This, and
215
the rapid growth of the organic light emitting diode market, have resulted in
considerable research on PV materials based on molecular, polymeric and
nanocomposite materials. Although commercially viable efficiencies have yet to be
demonstrated, progress is rapid. In 2004 at least two manufacturers claimed
efficiencies of 5% for organic PV materials that can be printed or sprayed on to a thin
support, flexible backing film, potentially offering considerable production cost
reductions.
Dye sensitised solar cells (DSCs) offer a near market alterative system to silicon
cells. These cells were invented by Michael Grätzel and Brian O'Regan at the École
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in the 1990s. DSCs currently have a sunlight
conversion efficiency of 11%, which is lower than that of silicon based solar cells,
however, they have a lower cost base which allows them to compete. There is
significant potential to improve the efficiency and further reduce the cost of DSCs.
The growing number of uses for photovoltaic devices, and the considerable
improvements in reliability and price have generated a market that is growing at
about 25% per annum. Although PV began by providing power to remote locations
that had no grid connection, over 50% of today’s world market is for building
integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) devices that are incorporated into the roofs and
structures of buildings. Providing governments continue to support the installation of
BIPV and introduce policies that allow net metering, by which consumers can sell
surplus electricity back to the grid, it is likely that the demand for PV will continue to
grow. As a result, many independent studies suggest that the costs of PV will
continue to fall and that it is plausible to reduce module costs by a factor of seven or
greater by 2020 – this would allow BIPV to provide electricity below today’s retail
price in sunny areas of the world.
Useful amounts of electricity can also be generated directly from infrared radiation
using a process called thermophotovoltaics. It is unlikely that the power of the sun
will be harnessed directly using this technology, but it is theoretically possible. It is
more likely that thermophotovoltaics will be used to generate electricity from waste
heat to boost the efficiency of conventional thermal power generation technologies.
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
The hydrogen economy is the name given to an economy based on hydrogen rather
than carbon based fuels. The transition to the hydrogen economy represents the
biggest infrastructure project of the 21st Century. A sustainable hydrogen economy
would offer enormous economic, social and environmental benefits and this justifies
the significant investment of resources and capital.
When hydrogen (H2) is burned or used as fuel to generate electricity in a fuel cell, the
major by-product is water. Whilst hydrogen is abundant on Earth, it is not abundant in
the form H2 and must be produced in a way that uses energy. Therefore, H2 is
potentially a significant fuel source and the key challenges are to minimise the
energy used in producing H2 and ultimately to produce H2 from sustainable sources.
216
There are technical barriers throughout the supply chain of the hydrogen economy,
and the key challenges for the chemical sciences are highlighted in the following
sections.
Hydrogen production
Energy is required to produce hydrogen and therefore as a fuel it is only as clean as
the process that produced it in the first place. Currently the most common method is
steam reforming of natural gas in two-step catalytic process, producing a mixture of
H2 and CO2. There are concerns over the economics of the process and over the
release of CO2. In the future it will be possible to employ carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technology to safely store the CO2, however, this will add to the cost of the
hydrogen production and the energy required. There are a number of medium and
long-term options for producing hydrogen:
•
Coal and oil residues or biomass gasification. The high temperature of the
process and the need to separate nitrogen from air (presumably cryogenically)
are barriers which add to the cost of this process.
•
Using electricity (preferably from renewables) to split water via electrolysis can
be seen a method of storing (renewable) power. Further work is still needed
to develop improved electrode surfaces for electrolysers and also the
materials of construction. Uses for the by-product O2 also need to found.
•
Thermochemical splitting of water in the next generation of high temperature
nuclear reactors or concentrating solar power plants. There is a need for new
materials and an understanding of the fundamental high temperature kinetics
and thermodynamics in order to achieve this.
•
Biochemical hydrogen generation. Green algae and cyanobacteria utilise light
to split water, producing both H2 and O2. Currently O2 concentration in the
system and the rate of reaction are limiting factors.
New natural
microorganisms and genetically modified organisms may hold to key to
increased efficiency.
•
Photocatalytic water electrolysis is where the energy of sunlight is used to split
water into H2 and O2. The system, and current R&D priorities, are focussed
on two basic principles. Firstly, the light harvesting system must have suitable
energetics to drive the electrolysis. Secondly the system must be stable in an
aqueous environment.
Hydrogen storage and distribution
Hydrogen is the lightest element and occupies a larger volume than other fuels.
Currently, in prototype vehicles, compressed hydrogen is used, but this is relatively
bulky. Liquid hydrogen would be a more efficient way to store H2 (850 times denser
than gaseous H2) but with a boiling point of -253°C it is very energy intensive to
maintain the very low temperature required to store hydrogen in this form. Finding
mechanisms to store hydrogen in a form that is safe, suitable for intended use and
217
regenerable (if applicable) is therefore a key research priority that the chemical
sciences must rise to meet. Some of the key technologies and issues are
summarised below:
•
High surface area nanostructured materials, such as carbon nanotubes, have
been shown to be able to store and release significant quantities of H2. Such
materials are as yet unproven and much scientific endeavour is required to
fully assess their potential.
•
Certain metal complexes absorb H2 reversibly to form metal hydrides.
Numerous compounds have been and continue to be studied.
Key
requirements of a suitable metal hydride include, high H2 content, low cost,
favourable kinetics, resistance to poisoning and the materials should not ignite
in air.
•
There are a number of options for chemical carriers of H2; this means that the
H2 is bound into the chemical structure of the carrier. Organic liquids, such as
cyclohexane and methanol, inorganic complex hydrides such as 3Na[AlH6]
and chemical hydrides such as NaBH4 all have potential to carry H2. Key
challenges include the mechanism of releasing H2, recharging the materials,
H2 density and cost. R&D programmes continue to explore these issues.
There are a number of worldwide examples of pipeline networks for safely moving
pressurised hydrogen, thus demonstrating that a larger scale network is possible.
However, there is an issue of compatibility of H2 with existing natural gas
infrastructures both in terms of the materials employed (potential for leakage) and
the need for a faster flow rate (requiring more energy). The chemical sciences have
a key role to play in material design for hydrogen carrying infrastructures.
Hydrogen may potentially be stored in large quantities in depleted oil and gas fields
and aquifers. There is a significant parallel here with work being carried in the field of
carbon capture and storage.
There have been concerns over release of molecular hydrogen into the lower
atmosphere, for example through leakage. The presence of H2 may lead to a
reduction in the levels of hydroxy radicals (•OH), and as •OH is a sink of methane
(CH4) it may lead to an increased level of CH4 in the atmosphere. Clearly it is
important that the role of H2 in the atmosphere is better understood.
Hydrogen use
Aside from direct combustion, fuels cells are the main method for obtaining energy
from hydrogen. Fuel cells (FCs) fall broadly into three categories:
1. Low Temperature (50-150°C): alkaline (AFC), proton-exchange membrane
(PEMFC) and direct methanol (DMFC) fuel cells;
2. Medium Temperature (around 200°C): phosphoric acid fuels cell (PAFC);
218
3. High temperature (600-1000°C): molten carbonate (MCFC) and solid oxide
(SOFC) fuel cells.
The DMFC differs from the other FCs because it uses methanol as fuel, rather than
H2. Each of the six systems has preferred uses (for example stationary and mobile
power generation), advantages and disadvantages and specific research priorities
that need to be addressed. For chemical scientists there are numerous technical
challenges to be overcome including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Membrane design
Materials for construction
Understanding the fundamental thermodynamics and kinetics
Tolerance to impurities
Electrocatalyst design
Cost
Speed of start-up
On-board storage of hydrogen is posing significant obstacles to delivering hydrogenpowered vehicles. The development of materials for hydrogen storage is a key
challenge for chemical scientists.
The cost of fuel cells versus that of the internal combustion engine is also a problem,
with the latter typically costing $50 for each kilowatt of power it produces while fuel
cells cost a hundred times more. Technical challenges such as making fuel cells
rugged enough to withstand the stress of driving, reducing their size and weight while
increasing power density, fuel flexibility and fuel cell poisoning still exist.
The RSC believes that for the hydrogen economy to become a reality, major
scientific and engineering challenges need to be addressed in terms of the
generation of hydrogen on a large scale, storage, cost-effective safe transportation
and the next generation of materials and technology for hydrogen fuel cells. We
recommend that the Government supports the science and engineering research that
will ultimately deliver a sustainable hydrogen economy at a level where the UK is in
competitive position in a world perspective.
Bioenergy
The RSC has recently submitted evidence to two relevant inquiries, the EFRA
Committee inquiry into bioenergy (appendix A) and the Royal Society inquiry into
biofuels (Appendix B). Both documents are attached to this submission as
appendices.
Energy Storage- Batteries
Rechargeable batteries offer the most direct means of storing electrical energy and
as a result are highly efficient.
Lithium-ion batteries represent the most important development in rechargeable
battery technology for a hundred years. They have three times the energy density of
219
conventional rechargeable batteries and have had a major impact in consumer
electronics. A lithium-ion battery occupying some 10 m3 could store 4.5 MWh of
energy and with a charge/discharge efficiency of over 99.9%. This technology is
already the storage solution of choice in a number of energy research centres around
the world.
Lithium-ion technology presents one of the greatest challenges for chemists. Scale
up to larger batteries requires:
•
fundamental advances in new cheaper, safer electrode and solid polymer
electrolyte materials with better performance;
•
new non-flammable liquid electrolytes or ionic liquids.
Moreover, Li-ion batteries for vehicles are comprised of hundreds of cells, if any of
these fails the whole system is compromised.
Cobalt oxide is a key material for producing lithium ion batteries. The world estimated
cobalt reserves are relatively small; less than a tenth of that of nickel and just over a
hundredth of that of copper. Cobalt accounts for a quarter of the mass of lithium ion
batteries. If 30 million battery packs capable of powering electric vehicles were made
annually the world cobalt reserves would be depleted in six years (provided the
global estimates are accurate). The majority of cobalt reserves are located in
politically unstable regions - the top three sources of cobalt are Congo, Cuba and
Zambia. This could raise a major security of supply issue. To address this electrodes
based on cheaper more abundant materials must be synthesised.
A further possible driver for the development of novel battery technology at the
smaller scale end of battery technology is regulation. In the EU, measures have
already been taken to limit the mercury content of batteries. Further regulation will
aim to reduce other heavy metals, including cadmium, nickel and lead. Also options
for disposal of batteries will be limited to encourage collection and recycling.
Energy Storage – Superconductors
In superconducting magnetic energy storage devices (SMES), energy is stored in the
magnetic field of a coil within which a current flows. The device consists of a
superconducting coil, typically made of niobium with titanium or tin, in a copper
matrix, a power conditioning system (PCS), a refrigeration system for cooling the coil
and a cryostat vacuum vessel. Efficiency losses are mainly due to the cryogenic
system, which has to keep the coil below the critical superconducting temperature of
around –268°C.
Chemists are needed to address the identification and development of new
superconducting materials with higher critical temperatures, preferably room
temperature, and with suitable mechanical properties for processing into coils and
wires.
220
Wind, tidal and wave power
Advances in materials science to develop high strength, lightweight materials for
turbine blades and towers are required in order to facilitate the construction and
continued operation of large wind and tidal power turbines. Long lasting protective
coatings will also be required to reduce maintenance costs and prolong the operating
life of wave and tidal energy devices.
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
No comment.
The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable
energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for technology
transfer and industrial research and development.
It is important that there are sufficient trained and committed scientists and engineers
to do carry out the research, development, demonstration and deployment of
renewable energy-generating technologies. It is also important that the Research
Councils and DTI ensure that there are collaborative funding mechanisms throughout
the technology development pathway that allow scientists, engineers and
technologists to work together to bring basic research through to developed products.
The RSC is hopeful that the new Energy Research Institute should address this issue
and be a true multi-disciplinary centre to address the technology challenges.
The RSC has recently submitted responses, relevant to this inquiry, to the Sainsbury
review of science and technology consultation (Appendix C) and the EPSRC
knowledge transfer and economic impact consultation (Appendix D) – these are
attached as appendices.
Other possible technologies for renewable energy-generation.
Artificial photosynthesis
Artificial photosynthesis is a research field that attempts to replicate the natural
process of photosynthesis, converting sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into
carbohydrates and oxygen. The process essentially comprises two steps one
involving a light reaction and other a dark reaction. In the first step light is captured
and the energy used to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. In the second “dark”
step hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make carbohydrates (or possibly
other products). The potential of artificial photosynthesis is huge as it offers a route
221
to sustainable hydrogen production and also potentially to a process that removes
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and creates useful products. The scientific and
technical challenges, however, are equally large – in essence this is because the
natural process is incredibly complex and comprises of numerous interlinked
processes. Artificial photosynthesis will require a number of years of research and
development before a commercial process is envisaged.
At a recent RSC policy seminar (Harnessing Light) Professor Tony Harriman and
Professor Jim Barber gave presentations on this subject. In addition to the scientific
challenges it was noted that there is worrying trend in expertise loss – partly through
retirement and partly through losing researchers to the competitive field of molecular
photonics.
Blue energy
A significant potential to obtain clean energy exists from mixing water streams with
different salt concentrations. This salinity-gradient energy, also called blue energy, is
available worldwide at estuaries where fresh water streams flow into the sea. The
global energy output from estuaries is estimated at 2.6TW, which represents
approximately 20% of the present worldwide energy demand. Large amounts of blue
energy can also be made available from natural or industrial salt brines.
Blue energy can work either on the principle of osmosis (the movement of water from
a low salt concentration to a high salt concentration) or electrodialysis (the movement
of salt from a highly concentrated solution to a low concentrated solution) where the
saline water and fresh water be separated by a selectively permeable membrane. In
the osmosis process water pressure is created that can drive a turbine. In the
electrodialysis case the movement of ions creates the electricity. The by-product of
blue energy is brackish water. Brackish water is simply a combination of fresh and
salt water which naturally occurs in an estuary.
Though the technology of blue energy has been understood for quite sometime,
manufacturing the membranes was far too expensive for this to become a practical
energy alternative. Recently, more economical membranes have been developed
which will allow blue energy technology to begin being implemented in suitable
environments. Further developments that reduced the cost or improved the
efficiency of membranes would significantly improve the economics of this process.
Currently blue energy is being used successfully in the Netherlands.
July 2007
222
Memorandum 37
Submission from Durham University
1.
INTRODUCTION
This paper describes Durham University’s work with respect to energy research. It supports the
University’s and ONE North East’s Energy & Environment Strategies.
2.
BACKGROUND
Society’s use of energy and the impact which it is having on our environment is one of the most
pressing social and scientific issues of the age. This is exemplified by scientific observation,
Government policy, social comment and media interest.
The North-East has a long history as an important energy region for the UK economy, but faces
critical challenges in securing a role in the new energy economy and developing a sustainable
energy future.
These challenges include the technical issues of obtaining energy supply from fossil and
renewable sources, the capacity to develop new energy sources, including nuclear,
understanding the changing nature of demand for energy, addressing environmental impacts,
engaging the public in different energy scenarios, coping with fuel poverty, and the wider issues
of security.
Durham University has a long history studying social, technological and scientific aspects of the
environment and is addressing these challenges by identifying the key determinants of
sustainable energy futures.
3.
DURHAM STRENGTH IN ENERGY TEACHING & RESEARCH
Durham University runs undergraduate degrees in Natural Science (BSc), Environmental Science
(MSci) and New & Renewable Energy (MEng). It also runs postgraduate courses in
Environmental Science (MSc), New & Renewable Energy (MSc) and Plant Biomass
Development (MSc).
Durham has four interdepartmental Research Centres working on the study of these issues:
• Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) with expertise in fossil fuels, C02
sequestration and earth-visualisation.
• Durham Centre for Renewable Energy (DCRE) with expertise in a wide range of renewable
energy technologies, their integration, and role in society
• Institute of Hazard and Risk Research (IHRR) with expertise on energy in society,
specialising in the environmental, social, cultural and political dimensions of energy use.
• Institute of Plant and Microbial Sciences (IPMS) with expertise in plant and microbial genetics
and crop productivity for biofuels and biomass.
These Research Centres are based upon Durham’s strengths in the following:
• World class research work in Energy & Environment in a combination of scientific,
technological and social science Research Departments working on a compact campus in an
interdisciplinary environment.
• The high research standing of these Departments (RAE Grades Physics 5, Chemistry 5**,
Biological and Biomedical Sciences 5, Engineering 5, Earth Sciences 4 and Geography 5**).
• The connectivity of the research work being done to Regional, National & International
agenda. Including the development of regional businesses and spin-out companies,
involvement with the New & Renewable Energy Centre, Blyth (NaREC), academic leadership
in national research programmes, including the SUPERGEN, advice to national and
international businesses, and a range of connections to international research organisations
and universities.
223
This research impact is described in detail in Appendix II, underlining the excellence of the
research base.
4.
DURHAM ENERGY RESEARCH VISION
Durham’s interdisciplinary expertise places it in a strong position to address the Nation’s research
strategy in Energy & Environment, working with Regional partners to develop an innovative
research agenda which contributes to the joint Research Council’s Energy Programme (RCEP).
In the past energy research has been characterised by reliance on technology and economics as
the basis for policy.
In the future technical, economic, environmental, social, political and cultural dimensions will
need to be addressed in a holistic manner. Durham University proposes to focus research in
Energy & Environment, together with regional partners, on the 4 multidisciplinary University
Research Centres described above.
Durham’s strategy prioritises multidisciplinary research which integrates future social, scientific
and technological work in the following holistic Themes:
• Systems, Products and Materials for New Energy Futures (DCRE) including:
o Large scale wind
o Microgeneration
o Photovoltaics
• Energy, Environment and Society (IHRR & IPMS) including:
o Governing energy systems
o Public engagement with energy futures
o Energy and equity
o Plant and microbial genetics for biomass and biofuel production
• Carbon Sequestration and Petroleum Geoscience (CeREES).
o Carbon Capture and Storage
o Subsurface characteristics
The following Venn diagram illustrates Durham’s Energy Research structure, described in more
detail in the Appendices. A list of Durham staff involved in Energy research are listed in Appendix
III.
224
Institute of Hazard
and Risk Research
Institute of
Plant and
Microbial
Science
SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY
FUTURES
Durham Centre
for Renewable
225
Centre
for
Research
in Earth
Energy
Thin film solar array at St Asph in Wales.
CIGS cells from Shell Solar. Some of the PV21 team members are shown. Supergen PV21 is coordinated by DCRE.
Copyright 2007 K Durose
AFM (atomic force microscope) image of
crystal grains at the early stages of growth of a
thin film solar cell structure. Part of the work of
DCRE.
Copyright 2006 J Major
Savonius wind turbine and generator Arabidopsis thaliana, used as a model to study
developed for domestic use with DCRE.
oil, starch, plant responses to the environment
Copyright 2006 Rugged Renewables
for biomass by Durham IPMS.
Copyright 2007 Keith Lindsey
Compact energy efficient generator developed Wind tunnel used for testing wind turbine
by DCRE.
developments.
Copyright 2005 Cummins International
Copyright 2006 R G Dominy
226
5.
APPENDIX I, RESEARCH CENTRES, GROUPS & COMPANIES
5.1.
University Research Centres
5.1.1.
Durham Centre for Renewable Energy (DCRE)
Director Prof
K Durose, Physics, Engineering, Chemistry & Geography Depts
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.1.2.
Photovoltaic materials,
Wind energy,
Wave energy,
Thermodynamic and electrical energy conversion,
Microgeneration and networks
Social implications of new energy sources.
Centre for Research on Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) Director Prof
R Davies, Sciences, Engineering, Mathematical Sciences, Computer
Sciences, Chemistry Depts
•
•
•
•
•
5.1.3.
Digital acquisition and visualisation of sub-surface features reservoirs,
Forecasting and analysing risk,
Geomechanical modelling of reservoirs and wells,
Global exploration studies.
Enhancing petroleum recovery,
Institute of Hazard & Risk Research (IHRR)
Director Prof P
Macnaghten, Geography, Biological and Biomedical Sciences,
Engineering Depts
•
•
•
Interdisciplinary Institute bridging science & social sciences,
Responding to hazards & risks pervading natural & social life,
Public response to risk in energy technologies including the nuclear
industry
Strong potential to develop and understand the social science impacts
on/of energy use articulated though increased dialogue between the
traditional, fossil fuel, and renewable technologies.
•
5.1.4.
Institute of Plant & Microbial Sciences (IPMS)
Director of Research Prof K Lindsey, Biological and Biomedical
Sciences
•
•
Metabolic engineering for increased yields of starch and oils in plants.
Metabolic engineering for increased ethanol production in microorganisms.
Engineering of stress resistance in crops to maximize crop yield in
response to climate change.
Engineering of crop protection against pests and pathogens to
maximize crop yield in response to climate change.
•
•
5.2.
Spin-Out Companies
5.2.1.
Durham Pipeline Technologies (DPT)
•
•
•
5.2.2.
A supplier of innovative technical solutions for pipeline access,
inspection and cleaning based on patented bristle tractor technology.
Has an ambitious R&D programme backed by an extensive network
of leading industrial and academic resources
http://www.dpt.co.uk/
GeoPressure Technology (GPT)
227
•
•
•
5.2.3.
Geospatial Research Ltd (GRL)
•
•
•
•
5.2.4.
Provide highly acclaimed training and consultancy in sub-surface
pressure problems,
Projects backed by a suite of niche software designed to manage and
visualise pressure data
http://www.geopressure.co.uk/index.htm
Specialises in digital mapping and survey, and the application of
geospatial technologies in petroleum and mineral exploration.
Virtual outcrop models - reservoir analogues
3D immersive visualisation
http://www.dur.ac.uk/grl/index.htm
Evolving Generation Ltd (EGL)
•
•
Design of novel permanent magnet generator topologies suitable for
large wind turbines.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/scientific.enterprise/Evolving%20Gen%20Page.ht
m
228
6.
APPENDIX II, DURHAM’S RESEARCH IMPACT
6.1.
Regional Impact
Areas of Regional impact for Durham’s research:
• Regional Industry:
o The creation from the University research platform of 4 successful, energyrelated commercial spin-out companies, based in the North East, DPT, GPT,
GRL & EGL. Details given above.
o Prof Durose collaborates via the PV.NE network with Romag Ltd, Consett, the
largest manufacturer of architectural glass laminated solar modules in the
world.
o DCRE is working with 4 local companies to develop new & renewable products,
EMAT, Northumbria Plastics, Econnect, AMEC Wind Energy.
o CeREES is working with County Durham Environment Trust to do research on
carbon sequestration involving regional partners such as H.J.Banks.
o CeREES is setting up collaborative outreach and research projects related to
Earth energy resources with Sherburn Stone Ltd, the North Pennines World
Geopark, Killhope Lead Mining Museum and Durham Country Council.
• North-East Centre for Environmental Science and Industry (NECESI), set up by
Prof Huntley, undertakes contract work for the environmental industry sector in the
Region and helps other clients address environmental problems. The Centre
collaborated with Newcastle International Airport and Port of Tyne in developing
environmental management schemes.
• New & Renewable Energy Centre (NaREC) established by ONE North East at
Blyth:
o Prof Tavner is a Director of NaREC and Chairman of their Advisory Panel
o Prof Durose works with PV Technology Centre, the UK’s only centre for
advanced products and industry –development interfacing.
o DCRE has set up of some of the electrical test equipment at NaREC.
• Newcastle Photovoltaic Applications Centre (NPAC) at University of Northumbria
o Prof Durose collaborates with NPAC, which is is a member of the SUPERGEN
PV-21 consortium.
6.2.
National Impact
Areas of National impact for Durham’s research:
• EPSRC SUPERGEN,
o Prof Durose is Principal Investigator for “Photovoltaic Materials for the 21st
Century – PV-21” SUPERGEN III, £3M grant, 2004-2008.
o Prof Tavner is Principal Investigator for “Wind Energy Technologies”
SUPERGEN V, £2.5 M grant, 2006-2010.
• NERC “CLASSIC, Climate and Land-Surface Systems Interaction Centre” Centre of
Excellence. Seeks to improve the representation of the land surface in climate
models, thus contributing to improved predictions of potential future climate change
that results principally from fossil fuel use. Prof Huntley is a Principal Investigator.
•
NERC research on the potential impacts of climate change on Arctic ecosystems
and feedback to the climate system. Prof Huntley and Dr Baxter are joint-funded.
•
PV NET Durham University are founder members of the UK network of researchers
in PV Materials and Devices. Prof Durose was coordinator for the Research
Position Document for UK used by funding bodies in determining Strategy.
National Industry:
o Two lectureships in Earth Sciences are funded directly by national oil
companies (Total, Statoil UK).
o DCRE is working with national companies to develop new & renewable
products, Carbon Concepts, Rugged Renewables, Future Solutions.
o Engineering has established the first New & Renewable final year option in K
for 4 year MEng.
o Engineering has established a 1 year New & Renewable Energy MSc.
•
229
Earth Sciences has a long history of training PhD and MSc students who have
careers in the international oil and gas industry. The new Petroleum
Geoscience PhD Scholarship Programme has funding from 10 oil and gas
companies totalling £1M.
o Prof Davies of CeREES has strong links with the oil and gas industry in the UK
and DTI, through his career with Esso and Mobil
o CeREES has been set up in collaboration with the Halcrow Group Ltd and
involves sharing of laser scanning equipment..
o The Sea Level Research Unit has strong linkages with the nuclear power
industry (Halcrow , Sellafield and Nuclear Electric) with respect to coastal
stability
National Advisory bodies
o Dr Bulkeley (IHRR) is an advisor to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research advising on the social science impacts on governance and policy
associated with climate change
o Prof Hudson (IHRR) is a specialist advisor to the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister on the Select Committee on Coalfields Regeneration.
o Prof Lindsey (IPMS) is a member of the UK Government Advisory Committee
on Releases to the Environment.
o Prof Lindsey (IPMS) was a contributor to a House of Lords European Union
Select Committee report on 'European Strategy for Biofuels' (2006).
o Prof Slabas (IPMS) is a member of BBSRC's panels on 'Sustainable
Agriculture' and 'Bioenergy', Royal Society Fellowship Panel, Programme
Advisory Committee for the DEFRA BBSRC LINK programme on Renewable
Materials.
o Prof Holdsworth (CeREES) is Deputy Chair of the Information Advisory Group
of the British Geological Survey
o DCRE has 5 members of the EPSRC College (KD, KSC, JSOE, MCP, PJT).
o
•
6.3.
International Impact
Areas of International impact for Durham’s research:
• EU FP 3,4 and 5 funding for PV Materials work, DCRE, Physics, Prof Durose.
• EU FP4 funding for Dynamics of the Arctic Treeline project, Biological & Medical
Sciences, Prof Huntley.
•
EU FP 5 funding for Electrical Extraction Technology in Hybrid Diesel Vehicles,
Engineering, Dr Bumby
•
DCRE members are working with international companies, Cummins, Baxi
Potterton, Pilkington, Antec Solar, First Solar, Whispertech New Zealand, to
develop new & renewable products.
CeREES is working with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation on the cleanup of
oil producer waste waters
CeREES research is funded substantially to work on hydrocarbon exploration and
production-related projects in the Caspian region, SE Brazil, offshore Norway and
Greenland, Australia and SE Asia. Sponsors include BP, Shell, BG, Statoil and the
UK government through both NERC and the DTI..
Dr McCaffrey (CeREES) currently holds a Royal Society Industrial Fellowship
working with the Global Structural Geology Network in BP.
Prof Davies (CeREES) has strong international links to major upstream oil and gas
companies, e.g. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco
Dr Bulkeley (IHRR/DCRE) is working with Sanyo to investigate factors influencing
uptake of PV in the EU
International Advisory bodies
o Prof Durose (DCRE) is a founder member of ‘SOLARPACT’ Transatlantic
research network for thin film solar cells and EU lobby group
o Dr Bulkeley (IHRR) collaborates on the social science impacts of climate
change with the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder
Colorado and with Colorado State University
•
•
•
•
•
•
230
o
o
o
o
o
Prof Lindsey (IPMS) advises the Swiss National Science Foundation funding
panel on GM crops.
Prof Hussey (IPMS) advises the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology ZMBP at
the University of Tübingen, and the Canada Board for Research Chairs.
Prof Hudson (IHRR) is a collaborator to the MATISSE European Framework
Programme assessing sustainable development and energy issues at the EUlevel.
Prof Hudson (IHRR) has international collaborations with the Jordanian and
Saudi governments concerning sustainable energy policies.
Prof Tavner (DCRE) is Technical Adviser to FKI plc an international
manufacturing company for the energy industry.
231
7.
APPENDIX III RESEARCH FUNDING
List of Research Funding totalling £23M at Durham provided by ETI Industrial, Regional &
Research Partners in the energy area:
232
233
234
8.
APPENDIX IV STAFF
Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES)
Name
Position/Role
Department
Richard Davies
Professor
Earth Sciences
Director of CeREES
Bob Holdsworth
Professor,
Earth Sciences
Coordinator,
Deputy Director
Reader,
Earth Sciences
Mark Allen
Deputy Director
Secretary
David Toll
Senior Lecturer
Engineering
Deputy Director
Michael Goldstein
Professor
Mathematical
Deputy Director
Sciences
Malcolm Munro
Professor
Computer Sci/ eDeputy Director
Sciences Inst
Maurice Tucker
Professor
Earth Sciences
Roger Searle
Professor
Earth Sciences
Neil Goulty
Brian Straughan
Professor
Professor
Jas Pal Badyal
Professor
Richard Swarbrick
Howard Armstrong
David Wooff
Reader
Chairman & MD of Geopressure Technology
Ltd
Reader
Reader
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Senior Lecturer
Director of Geospatial
Research Ltd.
Senior Lecturer
Senior Lecturer
Allan Seheult
Senior Lecturer
Jonathan Imber
Statoil Lecturer in
Petroleum Structural
Geology
Total Lecturer in
Petroleum Geosciences
Lecturer
Christine Peirce
Daniel Donoghue
David Petley
Fred Worrall
Ken McCaffrey
Earth Sciences
Mathematical
Sciences
Chemistry
Earth Sciences
Principal Research Interests
Global Petroleum Systems and Processes
Basin structures and 3-D visualisation
Chairman, Geospatial Research Ltd
Global to regional basin tectonics and
stratigraphy
Geotechnical engineering systems and
geo-mechanical properties
Bayesian statistical analysis & uncertainty
analysis for physical models
Visualisation; Software Development,
Maintenance and Evolution
Carbonate systems and basins
Marine geophysics & ocean-floor
geomorphology& tectonics
Applied geophysics & overpressure
Fluid flow modelling
Surface chemistry and petroleum
Refining
Overpressure in sedimentary basins, mudrock compaction and basin modelling
Earth Sciences
Geography
Geography
Earth Sciences
Earth Sciences
Marine geophysics, seismic acquisition
Geographical Information Systems
Landslides and geotechnical processes
Carbon dioxide sequestration
Basin structures, 3-D visualisation and
Digital Geological Mapping
Earth Sciences
Mathematical
Sciences
Mathematical
Sciences
Earth Sciences
Palaeontology and palaoenvironments
Bayesian statistics
Earth Sciences
History matching and prediction. Robust
analysis of variance.
Offshore tectonics, seismic interpretation &
numerical modelling
David Selby
Lecturer
Lecturer (from 09/05)
Earth Sciences
Earth Sciences
Volcanic rifted margins, quantifying rock
textures and 3-D visualisation
Clastic systems and basins; landscape
evolution
Carbonate systems and basins
Petroleum systems geochemistry
Steve Parman
Lecturer
Earth Sciences
High pressure experimental geochemistry
Colin Macpherson
Glenn Milne
Lecturer
Lecturer
Earth Sciences
Earth Sciences
James Casford
Lecturer
Geography
Stable Isotopes & geochemistry
Modelling sea-level change & global
geophysics
Marine sedimentology and palaeo-ecology
Peter Craig
Lecturer
Djoko Wirosoetisno
Lecturer
Nick Holliman
Lecturer
Mathematical
Sciences
Mathematical
Sciences
Computer Sci/e-
Dougal Jerram
Stuart Jones
Moyra Wilson
Earth Sciences
235
Bayesian statistics & statistical analysis of
computer models
Modelling fluid dynamics
3-D visualisation technology, applications &
Shamus Smith
Charles Augarde
Lecturer
Lecturer
Richard Hobbs
NERC Senior Research
fellow
Research Fellow
MD of Geospatial
Research Ltd
Research Fellow
Richard Jones
Anthony Mallon
Durham Centre for Renewable Energy (DCRE)
Name
Position/Role
Professor,
Ken Durose
Director of DCRE
Lecturer
Karen Bickerstaff
Andy Brinkman
Harriet Bulkeley
Jim Bumby
Karl Coleman
Alan Craig
Antje Danielson
Danny Donoghue
Rob Dominy
Ivana Evans
John Evans
Li He
Douglas Halliday
Ray Hudson
Michael Hunt
Keith Lindsey
Khamid Mahkamov
Mike Petty
Li Ran
Tim Short
David Sims-Williams
Ed Spooner
Peter Tavner
Phil Taylor
Reader
Lecturer
Reader
Royal Society University
Research Fellow
Senior Lecturer
Sustainable Energy
Advisor
Reader
Reader
EPSRC Advanced
Fellow
Reader
Professor
Senior Lecturer
Professor, Director of
the Wolfson Research
Institute
Lecturer
Prof
Lecturer
Science Inst.
Computer Sci
Engineering
E-Sciences
E-Sciences
Earth Sciences
Department
Physics
Geography
Physics
Geography
Engineering
Chemistry
Mathematics
Earth Sciences
Geography
Engineering
Chemistry
Chemistry
Engineering
Physics
display systems
Hazard analysis & safety
Numerical modelling of sub-surface
processes
Seismic processing, imaging & modelling 3D visualisation
Digital characterisation of sub-seismic
structures, 3-D visualisation, software
development, quantification of uncertainty
Compaction & sealing of fine-grained
sediments
Principal Research Interests
Solar energy materials and device
research
Public response to risk / Social factors in
energy
Crystal growth, thin film deposition
Urban sustainability / social factors in
energy
Electrical machines and systems, Hybrid
electrical vehicles
Carbon nano-materials
Mathematical modelling and numerical
analysis
Sustainable Energy Advisor / carbon
sequestration
Remote sensing and costal monitoring
Aerodynamic flow around vehicles and
wind generators
Inorganic materials and structure –
physical property relationships
Solid state chemistry and new materials
Computational fluid dynamics
Luminescence spectroscopy of energy
materials
Wolfson Research
Institute
Sustainable development and sustainable
energy strategies
Physics
Biological Sciences
Surface science / carbon nanotubes
Oil bearing plants
Stirling engines, Solar thermal power,
Micro CHP
Organic electronics
Power electronics; machine and power
system control
Solar power implementation
Solar car / power implementation
Engineering
Professor
Lecturer
Engineering
Lecturer
Lecturer
Emeritus Professor,
MD of Evolving
Technology
Head of School of
Engineering, Technical
Director FKI Energy
Technology
Lecturer,
Director of EConnect
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Machines of unusual topology for power
extraction from renewable sources
Engineering
Electrical machines, wind power,
connection to network, condition
monitoring
Engineering
Integration of Renewable Energy in
Electrical Networks / MSc course leader in
New and Renewable Energy
236
Institute of Hazard and Risk Research (IHRR)
Name
Position/Role
Department
Phil Macnaghten
Professor, Director of
IHRR
Geography
Ash Amin
Professor
Geography
Louise Amoore
Lecturer
Geography
Sarah Atkinson
Reader
Geography
Karen Bickerstaff
Lecturer
Geography
Harriet Bulkeley
Lecturer
Geography
Alex Densmore
Reader
Geography
Danny Donoghue
Reader
Geography
Christine Dunn
Senior Lecturer
Geography
Rob Ferguson
Professor
Geography
Matthew Kearnes
Professor, Director of
the Wolfson Research
Institute
RCUK Fellow
Geography
Stuart Lane
Professor
Geography
Antony Long
Professor
Geography
Rachel Pain
Reader
Geography
Dave Petley
Professor, Wilson
Chair in Hazard & Risk
Geography
Sim Reaney
RCUK Fellow
Geography
Jonathan Rigg
Reader
Geography
Nick Rosser
RCUK Fellow
Geography
Ian Shennan
Professor
Geography
Ray Hudson
Geography
237
Principal Research Interests
Public attitudes, cultural dimensions
of environmental and innovation
policy,
Public engagement with emerging
technologies.
Economic and political geography;
cities and regions in Europe.
Global geopolitics and the
governance of worker and migrant
bodies; the politics and practices of
risk management (with specific
reference to the rise of risk consulting
as a technology of governing); and
political and social theories of
resistance and dissent.
Health and risk.
Public understanding of
environmental and technological risk.
The multi-scale politics of climate
change; environmental policy
processes.
Tectonics and topography of
mountains.
Remote-sensing of vegetated terrain;
hillslope geomorphology; computer
aided learning techniques.
Geographical Information Systems,
with particular reference to use in Low
Income Countries.
River channels, sediment yield,
meltwater hydrology, water chemistry,
hillslope, glacial, and aeolian
geomorphology.
Sustainable development and
sustainable energy strategies.
Technology and risk.
Geomorphological surfaces,
computational fluid dynamics,
sediment transport, in-stream
ecology, water quality, hillstream
hydrology.
Coastal dynamics; sea-level and
crustal movements on active and
passive coastal margins; Late
Quaternary Greenland ice sheet
history.
Social identities and exclusions in
urban space, especially violence, fear
of crime and community safety.
Geopolitics of fear and everyday
experience. .
Landslides and geotechnical
processes.
Risk based modelling of diffuse
agricultural pollution.
Problems, tensions and potentialities of
development in the Southeast Asian
region.
Slope failure.
Sea-level, coastal and environmental
change, including future changes and
impacts.
Ian Simmons
Emeritus Professor
Geography
Susan Smith
Professor
Geography
Jeff Warburton
Reader
Geography
Yongqiang Zong
Senior Lecturer
Geography
Catherine Panter-Brick
Professor
Anthropology
Di Bailey
Reader
Applied Social
Sciences
Institute of Plant and Microbial Sciences (IPMS)
Name
Position/Role
Department
Brian
Huntley
Professor, Director
of IES
Ralf
Ohlemüller
RCUK Fellow
Steve
Lindsay
Professor
Bob Baxter
Senior Lecturer
Martyn
Lucas
Lecturer
Steve Willis
Lecturer
Biological &
Biomedical
Sciences
Human-environmental relations, past
and present.
Geographies of inequality,
geographies of housing policy,
personal finance and community
safety.
Hydrology and geomorphology of
gravel-bed rivers and mountain
streams; peat erosion; geocryology;
experimental geomorphology.
Past and future coastal evolution,
natural hazards, environmental
monitoring and management using
GIS and remote sensing technologies.
Critical risks to health and well-being;
interdisciplinary studies of vulnerablity
and resilience with exposure to
adversity.
Interdisciplinary risk assessment,
planning and management in health
and social care.
Principal Research Interests
Response of organisms, especially higher
plants, to changing environment forecasting
impacts of future change, with ecological and
biogeographical consequences.
Biological &
Biomedical
Sciences
Biological &
Biomedical
Sciences
Biological &
Biomedical
Sciences
Biological &
Biomedical
Sciences
Biological &
Biomedical
Sciences
Climate change impacts upon ecosystem
structure and function in the Arctic.
Professor
Earth Sciences
Volcanic hazards.
Professor
Director of
CeREES
Earth Sciences
Global petroleum systems and processes.
Professor
Earth Sciences
Landslides and the application of laser
scanning to map surfaces in 3-D.
RCUK Fellow
Earth Sciences
Potential health hazards of volcanic dust.
Lecturer
Earth Sciences
Fred Worrall
Senior Lecturer
Earth Sciences
Joy PalmerCooper
Professor
Education
Charles
Augarde
Senior Lecturer
Engineering
Future climate change and sea-level rise.
Environmental risk assessment of new
chemicals, vulnerability assessment of
ground and surface waters to contamination,
drought assessment.
The origins and development of
environmental knowledge.
Numerical modelling of geotechnical and
structural problems using non-linear finite
element (FE) methods.
Peter Tavner
Professor,
NAREG group
leader, Technical
Director FKI Energy
Engineering
Jon
Davidson
Richard
Davies
Bob
Holdsworth
Claire
Horwell
Glenn Milne
Climate and ecology.
Climate change impacts upon vector-borne
diseases including malaria and West Nile
Virus.
Impacts of environmental change upon river
ecosystems and their biota.
Modelling climate change impacts upon
species and biodiversity, especially butterflies
and birds.
Electrical machines, wind power, connection
to network, condition monitoring.
238
Technology
School of
Government &
International
Affairs
School for
Health
Francisco
Klauser
RCUK Fellow
Rachel
Casiday
Research Fellow
Frank
Coolen
Professor
Mathematical
Sciences
Michael
Goldstein
Professor
Mathematical
Sciences
Professor
Physics
Particle physics.
Professor
Sociology
Cultures of risk, risk and reflexivity.
James
Stirling
Roy Boyne
Security and risk.
Risk and public engagement with science in
the School for Health.
Generalized methods for uncertainty and risk
(e.g. interval-valued probability) in
combination with statistical inference.
Bayesian/subjectivist approaches to statistics,
the synthesis of expert judgements and
experimental data under partial prior belief
specification.
Prepared by
P J Tavner, Engineering
July 2007
239
Memorandum 38
Submission from Research Councils UK (RCUK)
Executive Summary
The Research Councils seek to support a full spectrum of energy research and
postgraduate training together with expanding UK university research capacity in energy
related areas. The Research Councils’ Energy Programme builds on a substantive
portfolio of activities bringing together researchers from many disciplines to tackle the
research challenges involved in developing and exploiting energy technologies and
understanding their environmental, economic and social impact. The Energy Programme’s
vision for energy research is to position the UK to successfully develop and exploit
sustainable, low-carbon and/or energy efficient technologies and systems to enable it to
meet the Government’s midterm and long-term energy and environmental targets.
Recognising the scale and urgency of the energy challenge expenditure on energy
research by the Research Councils has increased from £40m 2004/05 to approximately
£77m in 2007/8. Within this the renewable energy expenditure has increased from £8.3m
to £18.8m. The development of the Energy Technologies Institute provides an opportunity
to further strengthen the pull through from the research base and for accelerated
deployment of new energy technologies. However, given the urgent need for increased
investment in energy and the focus on applied research, development and early stage
demonstration being developed for the Energy Technologies Institute, ETI should be
funded to be additional to the current Research Councils’ programme and not replace it.
The Research Councils employ a variety of approaches in support of renewable energy
research, in particular the Sustainable Power Generation and Supply (SUPERGEN)
initiative has sought to build a critical mass in the UK community through multidisciplinary
consortia in themes ranging from Photovoltaics, Fuel Cells and Wind Energy Technologies
through to Bioenergy, Hydrogen and Marine. SUPERGEN has brought together both
researchers in universities and industry, linking those engaged in novel research with the
ability to exploit any potential outcomes.
A whole systems approach to energy research is also considered by the Research
Councils to be important as delivered, for example, through the Towards a Sustainable
Energy Economy (TSEC) programme which funds the UK Energy Research Centre
(UKERC). UKERC has a unique role in integrating the different disciplines of the energy
research community, supporting interdisciplinary studentships, developing an energy
research atlas and providing authoritative technology and policy assessments.
The maintenance and development of the skills base in renewable energy research is an
objective of the Research Councils’ Energy Programme. This occurs through a
combination of both responsive and strategic approaches across all of the main renewable
energy themes. The research councils all support studentships in renewable energy and
the number of students has increased markedly since 2004, in particularly through TSEC,
UKERC, and the SUPERGEN consortia. The number of EPSRC project students funded
has increased from 37 to over 100 since 2004/05, and there are also a substantial number
240
of other studentships. Also, two EPSRC Science and Innovation awards have been
awarded to increase research capacity in identified key renewable energy areas.
The Research Councils recognise the importance of strong partnerships and engagement
with research users such as industry in order to meet their needs and increase knowledge
transfer and economic impact. This engagement of industry stakeholders in shaping longterm priorities occurs through a variety of channels including Energy Summits and
membership of the Energy Research Partnership. The strategic engagement is coupled
with close partnership in delivery through activities such as the Technology Programme
and Strategic Partnerships with Industry, for example with, E-ON, ABB, EdF and Scottish
Power. The Research Councils will also shortly complete a public dialogue exercise to
gain a better understanding of public priorities for future energy research.
RCUK Introduction
1. Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic partnership set up to champion
the research supported by the seven UK Research Councils. Through RCUK
the Research Councils are working together to create a common framework
for research, training and knowledge transfer. Further details are available at
www.rcuk.ac.uk
2. This evidence is submitted by Research Councils UK on behalf of five of the
Research Councils (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council,
Economic and Social Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, and Science and
Technology Facilities Council) and represents their independent views. It
does not include or necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Science and
Innovation (OSI). RCUK welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry
from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
3. This memorandum provides evidence from RCUK in response to the
questions outlined in the inquiry document, including additional material from:
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Annex D
Annex E
The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable
energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for technology transfer
and industrial research and development
4. The research councils have a key role in supporting the fundamental science
that underpins energy research, and precompetitive research that will position
the UK to most effectively develop and exploit technology advances. More
applied business-led research, development and demonstration is supported
by, for example, the Technology Strategy Board, Department of Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), the Carbon Trust, DEFRA,and
RDAs. The Research Councils develop programmes in consultation and
241
sometimes jointly with other funders such as the Carbon Trust, DBERR and
the Technology Strategy Board. The Energy Programme’s Scientific Advisory
Committee includes members from DBERR and DEFRA. EPSRC, on behalf of
all the Research Councils, is a member of the Energy Research Partnership
and EPSRC has been closely involved with the Energy Research
Partnership’s work on the energy innovation chain. The development of the
Energy Technologies Institute provides an opportunity to further strengthen
the pull through from the research base and for accelerated deployment of
new energy technologies. However, given the urgent need for increased
investment in energy research, development, demonstration and deployment
(RDD&D) and the focus on applied research, development and early stage
demonstration being developed for the Energy Technologies Institute, ETI
should be funded to be additional to the current Research Councils’
programme and not replace it.
Fundamental Research
5. The principal Research Councils supporting energy research are the BBSRC,
EPSRC, ESRC, NERC and STFC. In 2005, the Councils established a joint
Energy Programme75, coordinated by EPSRC. The Programme’s vision for
energy and climate change research is to position the UK to successfully
develop, and exploit sustainable, low-carbon and/or energy-efficient
technologies and systems to enable it to meet the Government’s midterm and
long-term energy and environmental targets. The Energy Programme is
steered by the Cross-Council Programme Co-ordination Group (PCG), which
has representatives from all five of the above Councils, and is advised by the
Cross-Council Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC).
6. The Programme builds on an existing substantial portfolio of activities, and
brings together researchers from many areas to tackle the research
challenges involved in developing new energy technologies and
understanding the environmental, economic and social implications. The
Councils seek to support a full spectrum of energy research and expand UK
university research capacity in energy related areas. Research Councils work
in partnership with others to contribute to the postgraduate training needs of
energy related business and other key stakeholders and recognise the
importance of conducting technology-based research in the context of a
thorough understanding of environmental impacts markets, consumer demand
and public acceptability; cross-Council initiatives, often in collaboration with
stakeholders, play a crucial role.
7. Expenditure on energy research by the Research Councils has increased
substantially in recent years, from about £40m in 2004/05 to approximately
£77m in 2007/08. Much of the increase has occurred in the engineering and
technology areas although there is also a substantial investment in bioenergy.
8. Research Council spend on renewable energy research has increased from
£8.3m in 2000/2001 to £18.8m in 2006/2007 (Table 1). Recognising the
75
www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Energy/default.htm
242
importance, scale and urgency of the energy challenge, the Research
Councils are committed to supporting a full spectrum of renewable energy
research.
Table 1 - Summary by financial year of the Research Councils
expenditure
(in £,000s) on renewable energy activities.
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-4
2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
Wind
£260
£330
£490
£481
£242
£125
£1,140
Solar
£4,125
£4,666
£3,927
£3,834
£4,179
£4,065
£1,651
Fuel cells & Hydrogen
£981
£1,463
£1,984
£2,687
£2,393
£2,705
£3,074
Wave & tidal
£300
£605
£616
£830
£995
£1,026
£1,080
Bioenergy
£622
£752
£927
£1,177
£1,249
£2,023
£4,123
£40
£64
£63
£73
£79
£106
£124
Storage
£837
£888
£809
£730
£466
£789
£1,193
Networks
£919
£1,114
£1,388
£1,804
£2,390
£3,666
£4,037
Other renewable
£267
£432
£587
£453
£1,220
£1,315
£2,380
£8,356
£10,318
£10,795
£12,072
£13,218
£15,822
£18,802
Geothermal
Total
9. The Research Councils’ main funding mechanism for renewable energy
research is through the directed activities of each Council which include, for
example, the SUPERGEN76 Programme and the TSEC77 Programme, and
through the Research Councils Institutes.
•
•
TSEC3 (funded by BBSRC, ESRC, EPSRC and NERC) adopts a
multidisciplinary, whole-systems approach to energy research and is a
broad-based programme that aims to enable the UK to access a secure,
safe, diverse and reliable energy supply at competitive prices, while
meeting the challenge of global warming.
SUPERGEN is a multidisciplinary initiative led by EPSRC and involving
BBSRC, ESRC, NERC and with funding from the Carbon Trust). The
initiative builds critical mass in energy research to help the UK meet its
greenhouse gas emissions targets through a radical improvement in the
sustainability of power generation and supply. Researchers work in
consortia, multidisciplinary partnerships between industry and universities,
focused on major programmes of work.
10. The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) (funded by ESRC, EPSRC and
NERC) is a key component of the Research Councils directed activities.
UKERC’s mission is to be the UK's pre-eminent centre of research, and
source of authoritative information and leadership, on whole system energy
research including renewable energy5. UKERC seeks to bring together
government, industry and the research community; be a networking centre to
co-ordinate UK research, facilitate industry collaboration and promote UK
76
www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Energy/Funding/SUPERGEN/default.htm
www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/sustaineconomy/
5
www.ukerc.ac.uk
77
243
participation in international projects; be a centre of excellence in research
and training and help maximise returns from research investment. UKERC is
making a separate submission to this inquiry.
11. Additionally a substantial portfolio of renewable energy research is also
supported through the Councils’ responsive mode activities, which allow novel,
blue skies research or more applied proposals to be submitted in any research
area within or across the individual Councils’ remits. All applications, whether
responsive or under directed programmes, are peer reviewed and judged on
the basis of scientific excellence.
Skills and capacity
12. Skills and training are mainly addresses in two ways; Project studentships and
Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs) [EPSRC] and Masters’ courses
(NERC, and EPSRC through the CTAs) and Doctoral Training Accounts
(DTAs) [EPSRC]. There are also other training activities such as industrial
CASE awards that support small number of studentship. CTAs allow a single
flexible mechanism for funding all EPSRC schemes that link postgraduate
training with the workplace, such as Masters Training Packages, Engineering
Doctorate, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, Research Assistants into
Industry, Industrial CASE and CASE for New Academics. They provide a
responsive approach to training driven by the market needs as they allow
universities the flexibility to deploy funds in response to emerging themes and
industry needs.
13. The Councils the Councils recognise the need for a balanced portfolio of
studentships across the main renewable energy themes and strategically
intervene where appropriate. An example of this is in the SUPERGEN
programme where increased numbers of project studentships have been
encouraged, and in the TSEC programme and UKERC. Research Councils
also invest in PhD studentships in the renewable energy area through
responsive routes
14. To further increase capacity in this area EPSRC has made two Science &
Innovation (S&I) awards6 in renewable energy to date: the £3M Centre for
Integrated Renewable Energy Generation and Supply (CIREGS), at Cardiff
University, and the £2.7 million award to the University of Strathclyde focusing
on future trends in power technology. The Research Councils Energy
Programme also contributes to the ESRC-led inter-disciplinary early career
fellowships scheme.
15. In March 2007, BBSRC launched an Initiative in Capacity-building in
Bioenergy Research7, with up to £20M available to support high-quality
applications. The initiative seeks to create greater research capacity in the UK
by encouraging collaborative research between biologists, engineers,
6
S&I awards are made by EPSRC to build capacity in strategically important areas of academic research.
www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Opportunities/Capacity/SIAwards/default.htm
7
www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/initiatives/bioenergy.html
244
physical, social and environmental scientists.
16. The Research Councils are working closely to help meet the technology,
policy and postgraduate training needs of energy-related businesses and
other key stakeholders. The recently held third energy Summit consulted with
the user community on their postgraduate training needs, and the outputs will
be used to advise future training investment. UKERC has established a
Research Atlas8 including an on-line searchable database of energy-related
awards and projects and analyses of capabilities and progress by technology
that is available to all stakeholders
Knowledge Transfer and collaboration with other stakeholders
17. As the Councils fund fundamental science it is important that strong
partnerships and increased engagement with research user stakeholders is
made in order to improve, and increase, knowledge transfer and economic
impact. Within the Energy Programme, and specifically the engineering and
physical sciences portfolio on renewables, 45% of projects involve
collaboration with industry, resulting in £12.7M of direct and indirect support to
UK universities over the lifetime of the projects.
18. Engagement of industry stakeholders in shaping the long-term strategic
priorities of the Energy Programme has also occurred through three Energy
Summits organised by EPSRC. The summits have been designed to gather
together key industry opinion formers and seek their views on potential
priorities and opportunities for the research base. In May 2007 the most recent
Summit focused on business-led requirements for trained people in energy
related topics.
19. In addition to SUPERGEN and TSEC there are a number of examples of
projects supported jointly with stakeholders together with activities to exploit
industry-led research priorities appear in the section on specific technologies
and the section on feasibility. In summary they include:
• Rural Economy & Land Use (RELU) Programme (involving BBSRC,
ESRC, NERC, Defra and SEERAD) and designed to study the social,
economic and environmental implications of increased land use for energy
crops
• Technology Programme (TSB, EPSRC) leveraging £11.6M of industry and
DTI funding across eight independent renewable energy projects
• Industrial Partnership Award Scheme and LINK (BBSRC) to encourage
industry participation in bio-related energy research
• E.ON, ABB Scottish Power and EdF Strategic Partnerships (EPSRC)
undertaking research into active network management for distributed
energy generation
• Technology Partnership Scheme (STFC) transferring core underpinning
capabilities in instrumentation, engineering, sensor technology and
Microsystems prototyping to universities and industry
8
http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/ERA001.html
245
• Energy Research Unit (STFC) undertaking collaborative research with
university and industry groups as well as provision of a renewable energy
test site for use in applied projects.
• STFC has invested in the development of new facilities available to
stakeholders for research into materials for renewable energy
technologies; A facility for the combinatorial synthesis, atomistic
characterisation during in situ cycling and synthesis of hydrogen storage
materials; A nanostructure facility and a new High Performance
Computation facility for investigating novel photovoltaics.
• Several of NERC’s research and collaborative centres (RCCs) conduct
research on or relevant to renewable energy technologies, much of it in
collaboration with universities, other institutes and industry.
20. The Research Councils are involved with the establishment of the Energy
Technologies Institute (ETI). The aim of ETI is to accelerate the development
and exploitation of new energy technologies. ETI will focus on applied
research, development and small scale demonstration. It is important however
that public support for the ETI must not be at the expense of basic and
strategic long-term research into renewable energy technologies which
underpin their development.
International Collaboration
21. A primary objective for the Research Councils energy programme is to
increase the international visibility and level of international collaboration
within the UK energy research portfolio. With advice from the SAC an
international vision for the energy programme has been developed which has
identified target countries for priority action which include, China, India, South
African, USA, Europe and Brazil. In addition the Councils have appointed
Professor Nigel Brandon, Imperial College, as an energy senior research
fellow to be an envoy and advocate for the Research Councils’ Energy
Programme within the International community.
22. UK and Chinese researchers have been brought together in renewable energy
through the TSEC ‘International Networking for Young Scientists Working on
Renewable Energy - China:UK Partnership’. Also, funding for a follow-up call
for research proposals with China and South Africa has been allocated for the
second half of 2007.
23. Other highlights within the international energy portfolio include:
•
•
International development projects in bioenergy for Africa and India; the
SCORE project, involving Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as
research groups in Africa and India; and a project researching enhanced
biomass production for energy generation in water scarce regions of India.
UKERC has bilateral meetings with China, India, Japan and Italy and
hosted the pre-Gleneagles G8 summit with a workshop of the G8+5.
246
•
Hydrogen scholarships: Involving an exchange of UK students researching
hydrogen as an energy vector with the Sandia National Laboratory and US
Department of Energy (DoE)
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of,
renewable energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind;
photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy; ground
source heat pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy storage
24. The UK has a strong, internationally leading, research base in most of the key
renewable energy technologies. However, many of them require significant
progress in underlying engineering physical, biological, natural and social
sciences. The Research Councils are committed to supporting a full spectrum
of renewable energy research and given the importance, scale and urgency of
the challenges relating to energy it is important that investment levels are not
only sustained but continue to grow. This section outlines the contribution
being made by the Research Councils and their research centres/institutes to
research into the specific technologies listed in the Inquiry Announcement.
Wind
25. Within this technology area significant research challenges exist in improving
efficiencies, improving reliability, handling intermittency of supply and
environmental issues together with public perception and acceptability.
26. The SUPERGEN Wind Energy Technologies Consortium81 led by the
Universities of Strathclyde and Durham consists of nine research groups and
brings together wind turbine technology and aerodynamics expertise with
other specialists from outside the wind industry in hydrodynamics, materials,
electrical machinery and control, reliability and condition monitoring. The
Consortium’s key objective is to undertake research to improve the costeffective reliability and availability of existing and future large-scale wind
turbine systems in the UK.
27. Several NERC research and Collaborative Centres, the British Geological
Survey (BGS), Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), Proudman Oceanographic
Laboratory (POL) and Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS),
conduct research relevant to the siting and development of offshore wind
turbines. For example, the BGS seabed-mapping programme is directly
relevant to site investigation, and research is currently in progress studying
sandbanks and their historical evolution and movement and potential for future
movement. Further information is in Annex D.
28. In 2006 UKERC published a highly regarded report on “The Costs and
Impacts of Intermittency”82, dealing largely with the intermittency inherent in
81
82
www.supergen-wind.org.uk/
www.ukerc.ac.uk/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,550/
247
wind generators. The report was targeted at non-specialists and policy
makers, but also provided new information for the expert community.
29. Advanced wind turbine designs are under development through the UpWind
project supported by the EU and involving STFC as a partner.
Solar, especially photovoltaics (PV)
30. In PV technology research challenges exist in materials, efficiency and costreduction in photovoltaic technology.
31. Dye-sensitized and Organic PV is an area with much active research, it
promises cheap lightweight, flexible solar cells that could be used in a huge
number of applications. The Excitonic Solar Cell Consortium83 (SUPERGEN)
brings together leading UK researchers from Bath, Imperial College,
Edinburgh and Cambridge in this field and is exploring the potential for the
next generation of organic and dye-sensitised photovoltaic systems.
32. Semiconductor PV challenges are to develop more efficient and cheaper
materials. The Photovoltaic Materials for the 21st Century (PV21) Consortium
(SUPERGEN) is conducting research into the generation of electrical energy
from sunlight using advanced wafer silicon and thin film devices with the
primary objective of making a step change in the reduction in the cost of solar
cells. The Consortium is lead by the Universities of Bath and Durham and
involves four leading academic partners and seven main industrial
collaborators84.
33. Other themes within the solar technologies area include:
• Solar concentrators which can be used to focus sunlight onto PV cells,
improving efficiencies considerably. However, there are issues with UV
radiation and thermal damage. Research in this area is undertaken in
conjunction with semiconductor PV research.
• Solar thermal concentration, which captures the sun’s energy first as heat
and then converts it into electricity in a conventional generator, is a
relatively well-developed technology, although there is limited application in
the UK, and therefore little R&D, because of the climate.
• Direct solar conversion is mainly by photosynthesis and electrochemical
methods and may be used to generate liquid fuels directly. There is a
strong capability in the UK in this area and research is supported by both
EPSRC and BBSRC.
34. UKERC is investigating PV in its Future Sources of Energy theme. They have
mapped the research landscape and a road map for development has been
drafted and is undergoing peer review. The topic is led from Loughborough
University.
83
84
http://www.bath.ac.uk/chemistry/supergen-ESC/
http://www.pv21.org/
248
Hydrogen and fuel-cell technologies
35. Fuel cells are an area of intense academic and industrial research; the
technology is becoming increasingly mature especially for static large facilities,
though there are still issues regarding small mobile applications. Research
challenges exist with regard to fuel cell integrity, durability, power density and
fuel flexibility.
36. The Fuel Cells Consortium85 (SUPERGEN) led by Imperial College London
and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne aims to investigate and mitigate
some of the key challenges facing fuel cell development. The Consortium, in
partnership with Ceres Power, Johnson Matthey, Rolls Royce and Defence
Science and Technology Laboratory, are researching the production of a thickfilm solid oxide fuel cell with “zero” leakage, significant improvement of fuel
cell durability by halving the current degradation rate and to substantially
improve the power density of existing fuel cells.
37. The Biological Fuel Cells Consortium86 (SUPERGEN) led by the University of
Surrey is concerned with the harnessing of biological materials as alternative
fuels and catalysts for electrochemical energy generation systems. Unlike
conventional fuel cells bio-fuel cells operate at ambient temperatures,
atmospheric pressure and neutral pH thus offering potential benefits to the
environment, waste management portable electronics and implantable
devices.
38. Hydrogen is the fuel currently most focussed in support of fuel-cell technology.
It is a vector rather than an energy source. Research is addressing the
technology involved in generating, storing, and distributing hydrogen, as well
as the socio-economic impacts of safety, regulation, economics and public
acceptability. Efficient and safe storage is critical. Current storage densities
are insufficient, though there have been advances in capacity in recent years
that indicate that commercially competitive levels of storage should be
achievable. Examples of significant projects in hydrogen are:
•
•
Sustainable Hydrogen Energy Consortium87 (UK-SHEC) (SUPERGEN) is
conducting novel research into producing, storing, distributing and using
sustainable hydrogen as an energy carrier. This project is led by the
Universities of Oxford and Bath
A multidisciplinary project on hydrogen production using solar energy has
recently been awarded to Imperial College. The project will research the
exploitation of low temperature natural biological and photocatalytic
processes to develop alternative, and cost effective, methods for
harvesting solar energy to produce renewable hydrogen fuels directly, and
to explore how these could be embedded within novel, integrated energy
production systems, incorporating fuel cell and hydrogen storage
technology.
85
http://www.supergenfuelcells.co.uk/
http://www.biologicalfuelcells.org.uk/
87
http://www.uk-shec.org/
86
249
•
•
ESRC-funded research at City University has highlighted the importance
of creating market niches, partnering in the supply chain, government
funding for demonstrations and trials, managed institutional change, and
above all the alignment of all these and is currently examining the role
played by different kinds of support for field trials and demonstration
projects in fuel cells in Europe, the USA and Japan.
Two UKERC studentships at Imperial College, London are addressing the
production and use of hydrogen as a fuel. One project is investigating the
development of intermediate temperature solid oxide electrolysers for
hydrogen production, and another concerns the preparation and
characterisation of new materials for hydrogen storage.
39. Formic acid (methanoic acid CHOOH) is an alternative to hydrogen and
ethanol as an energy storage vector. It has advantages over hydrogen in that
it can be stored as a liquid at room temperatures and pressures. It has the
benefits of fast oxidation kinetics, but has not been fully tested as a fuel.
Research challenges are: efficient catalysis, the use in conventional and new
fuel cells, and novel generation methods.
Marine, including wave and tidal
40. The marine environment offers some of the greatest potential for renewableenergy generation in the UK, not only from offshore wind turbines, but also
from wave-energy devices and tidal power installations.
41. To exploit wave energy, research must address the challenges of engineering
structures to focus and convert wave energy, and of ensuring that the
structures can survive the hostile marine environment. Current important
development technologies are the Pelamis device, the Manchester bobber
and marine turbines. Industry and government-supported pilot activities are
underway with demonstration arrays planned.
42. The Marine Energy Research Consortium88 (SUPERGEN) led by Edinburgh
University is increasing knowledge and understanding of the extraction of
energy from the sea to reduce investment risk and uncertainty. This will
increase confidence for future stakeholders in the development and
deployment of the technology.
43. The National Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOCS)
[NERC/Southampton University] conducts wave climate research in the North
Atlantic and British shelf seas, and this is valuable for assessing the “available
resource” for wave energy and some of the risks for all offshore installations
(including wave and offshore wind). POL conducts offshore wave modelling
and near-shore wave measuring – research which could underpin the
development of offshore wave power technology.
88
http://www.supergen-marine.org.uk/
250
44. UKERC has marine and offshore topics within its Future Sources of Energy
and Environmental Sustainability themes. The research landscape has been
mapped, peer reviewed and published (www.ukerc.ac.uk). Further studies are
looking at the environmental capacity and impact of development.
45. The Environmental Mathematics and Statistics programme (NERC, EPSRC)
included a grant for research at Sheffield University into waves on shallow
coastal waters, which have implications for offshore engineering including
renewable energy-generation structures.
46. NERC’s Research and Collaborative Centres conduct a substantial amount of
research relevant to the development of tidal power schemes. Particularly
notable is POL’s contribution to the DTI’s Renewable Energy Atlas89. Details
of this and other POL research, of BGS’s seabed-drilling technology for site
investigation, and of SAMS’s work on tidal jets are in Annex D. NERC also
supports ecological and biodiversity research which would be relevant to the
siting of tidal barrages.
Bioenergy
47. Bioenergy is receiving increasing attention and is now a reasonably developed
area, although it is broad and not all technologies are equally advanced. The
Councils are involved in research into producing biofuels (including developing
and growing energy crops, and culturing marine algae) and into generating
energy from them as well as fundamental research on plant breeding and
genetics. The main research challenges relate to efficiencies, process
intensification and environmental impacts, depending upon the technology.
48. Co-firing of woody biomass is already used in UK coal-fired power stations,
and direct combustion is the most accessible of the bioenergy technologies.
Gasification of biomass produces synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen) and also liquid fuels. Aerobic and anaerobic biotechnologies are less well developed and there are many challenges in
understanding the basic processes, genetic manipulation, process
intensification etc. These methods can be used to produce bioethanol,
hydrogen and other low-mass chemicals. Research Council supported
projects in this area include:
•
•
89
90
91
The Bioenergy Consortium (SUPERGEN)90 led by Aston and Leeds
Universities and involving the Scottish Association for Marine Science
(SAMS) researching and developing power generation and fuel production
through thermo-chemical conversion of biomass, particularly from
dedicated energy crops such as miscanthus and willow.
The TSEC-BIOSYS Consortium91 (BBSRC, EPSRC and NERC)
coordinated by Imperial College providing authoritative and independent
www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=21&documentID=25
http://www.supergen-bioenergy.net/
www.tsec-biosys.ac.uk/
251
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
answers on technical, economic, environmental and social issues related
to the development of bioenergy in the UK. Specific issues include the
potential role of bioenergy in satisfying UK energy demand, the potential
contribution of bioenergy to UK Government objectives, and the economic,
social and environmental implications of large-scale bioenergy
development. The project will integrate research findings from EPSRC
SUPERGEN Bioenergy and Distributed Generation, EPSRC Sustainable
Urban Environments (SUE), the cross council RELU programme, DEFRA
bioenergy crop networks, Carbon Vision activities, as well as relevant
information from EU and international bioenergy activities.
UKERC Future Sources of Energy and Environmental Sustainability is
looking at life cycle assessment, learning rates and input into whole
system models.
The Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme funded by
BBSRC, ESRC and NERC, with additional funding from SEERAD and
Defra, includes biomass research. The project brings together a wide
range of experts from various institutions, including BBSRC’s Rothamsted
Research and NERC’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, to study the
social, economic and environmental implications of increased land use for
energy crops. The aim is to provide an integrated, interdisciplinary
scientific evaluation of the implications of land conversion to energy crops,
focusing on short rotation coppice (SRC) willow and Miscanthus (elephant
grass). The project has attracted additional funding from DEFRA. A
second RELU project will start later this year to analyse the environmental
risks and conduct cost-benefit analysis of anaerobic digestion in on-farm
energy production.
BBSRC’s Capacity-building in Bioenergy Research Initiative, mentioned in
the introduction, seeks to support a multidisciplinary bioenergy research
centre, multidisciplinary programme grants with industrial collaboration,
and bioenergy networks to build UK research capacity.
BBSRC is also funding long-term research in its research institutes into
the improvement of energy crops, and responsive mode research into
aspects of plant and microbial science relevant to bioenergy, for example
research into the microbial conversion of feedstocks to useful products
including fuels.
Two of NERC’s collaborative centres, PML and SAMS, are conducting
research into the significant potential for generating energy from marine
algal biomass. Details are given in Annex D.
BEGIN (Biomass for Energy Genetic Improvement Network). This
network is funded by Defra but two of its three research programmes are
led by BBSRC’s Rothamsted Research. It aims to deliver the breeding
programme and plant materials that will allow further improvement of
willow for Short Rotation Coppice (SRC). This will be delivered through a
targeted breeding programme which uses molecular markers, genetic
mapping and genomics to generate optimal varieties of willow. Poplar
genomics is also included. However, there is currently some uncertainty
about the availability of continued funding for this activity
A recently announced ESRC-funded research project at Manchester
University is comparing innovation processes, challenges and obstacles
252
•
for transition to a bio-economy, with a particular focus on bioethanol in
Brazil, the USA and Europe.
NERC is funding a studentship at the University of Southampton
examining the impacts of climate change on the availability of shortrotation-coppice poplar and willow, and one at the Scottish Agricultural
College modelling scenarios of the future supply of crop types and forestry
for the most efficient production of biofuels.
Ground-source heat pumps
49. This is one of the weakest areas of renewable energy research in the UK.
The UK investigated its deep geothermal resources in the 1970s and 80s.
BGS was involved in the research and development, which came to an end
largely due to the low prices of competing energy sources, e.g. gas. Other
countries have continued research and there are now a number of operating
geothermal schemes in continental Europe in regions with similar sub-surface
temperatures to the UK. The experience of these schemes can be used to
reassess the potential for geothermal energy generation in the UK. The
biggest challenges in the UK are public perception, industry adoption and
market penetration. One of the few examples of larger scale application in the
UK – is at CEH in Bangor at the new Environment Centre, Wales (see annex
D).
Grid management
50. The large-scale use of renewables will involve connecting, controlling and
distributing the electricity generated by thousands of small highly distributed
facilities rather than the large centralised generating plant we currently have.
This will require a radical redesign of the current distribution network and the
control systems used to balance and control the load.
51. The principal projects supported in this area include:
•
•
•
The SUPERGEN Highly Distributed Power Systems Consortium92 is
assessing the impact of smaller generators and incorporating these into
the grid. This project is led by Strathclyde University.
The SUPERGEN Future Network Technologies (FutureNet) Consortium93 is making a
major contribution to understanding how networks need to change so as to support and
encourage renewable low carbon energy sources while providing the standards of service
that customers expect. This Consortium is led by Imperial College London and the
University of Strathclyde.
UKERC’s Intermittency report94.
Energy storage
52. Much progress has been made in developing capacitors, supercapacitors and
battery technologies. The research challenges mostly relate to materials
research. Whilst energy storage is not a renewable energy technology per se
a good system of energy storage is critical for wide scale penetration of the
92
93
94
http://www.supergen-hdps.org/
http://www.supergen-networks.org.uk/
www.ukerc.ac.uk/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,550/
253
energy market by renewables. This is because energy storage systems can
buffer the fluctuating generation of renewable energy. Related to this are
hydrogen, ethanol and formic acid. All are energy vectors and can act as
energy storage systems and be used in fuel cells or direct electricity
generation.
53. The Energy Storage Consortium95 (SUPERGEN) is developing new materials
to advance rechargeable lithium ion battery and supercapacitor technologies.
This ability to store energy cheaply and efficiently is essential for any power
grid that has a contribution of 15% of its energy from renewable sources due
to their inherently intermittent nature. This Consortium is led by the
Universities of Strathclyde and Surrey together with a number of industrial
partners including, AEA Technology, Huntsman, Johnson Matthey, MAST
Carbons and Rolls Royce.
54. BGS (NERC) provides advice on the geological feasibility of deploying
underground storage technologies in the context of British energy and
environmental goals, involving the potential of energy storage from renewable
sources in the form of compressed air and hydrogen. Such energy storage
could help to minimise the temporal mismatch between supply and demand by
storing energy produced at times of low demand as compressed air and
hydrogen and converting it back to electricity at times of peak demand. The
two basic types of facility within the UK for the storage of renewable energies
are salt caverns and lined rock caverns.
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints
55. As indicated in paragraphs 15-19, the Research Councils recognise the
importance of working with industry to transfer research knowledge, and have
developed a number of productive research partnerships. Involvement of
business and other stakeholder throughout research projects from their design
to their completion is central to most of the Research Councils managed
energy activities.
56. Some of the Research Councils are involved in commercialising the outputs of
research conducted in their own research centres. However, there are
currently no examples in the renewable energy technology area (other than of
technologies developed for NERC centres’ own use, e.g. by the British
Antarctic Survey (BAS), BGS,CEH, and POL – see Annex D).
57. Much work into the potential impact and economic viability of renewable
energy is being supported. Within TSEC the ‘Managing Uncertainties’ theme
investigates the socio-economic challenges and implications of moving
towards a sustainable energy economy’; and the ‘Carbon management’ and
‘Renewable Energy’ themes each support a consortium (‘Carbon Capture and
Storage’ and TSEC-BIOSYS’ respectively). Additionally, UKERC has relevant
95
http://www.energystorage.org.uk/
254
cross-cutting themes: energy Systems and Modelling’ ; ‘Environmental
Sustainability’ ; and ‘Materials for Advanced Energy Systems’.
58. The NERC Programme ‘Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System’
(QUEST) has agreed to fund a research project to start in late 2007 at Imperial
College that will assess the potential of biomass energy solutions (along with
avoided deforestation and forest carbon sinks) in the context of sustainability.
This project includes socio-economic and biodiversity considerations as well
as effectiveness in terms of the carbon cycle and will provide valuable data on
the viability of bioenergy.
59. The STFC operates a Proof of Concept fund that is available for STFC
researchers and their HEI collaborators wishing to take forward ideas to
develop new and innovative products and devices. This scheme is available
for all areas of STFC’s research and development portfolio - indeed funding
has recently been awarded to develop an online wind energy forecasting tool
created by the STFC’s Energy Research Unit.
60. Within the TSEC ‘Managing Uncertainties’ theme the Beyond Nimbyism
project addresses the issues of public acceptability, perception and
engagement and how they affect technology development and diffusion. It
seeks to examine a range of technologies which are expected to figure in the
UK renewable energy profile to develop a sophisticated understanding of
public responses to such technologies in different contexts.
61. ESRC has recently commissioned comparative research into the use of
renewables demonstrations and trials in North America, Europe and Japan, to
examine their effectiveness in terms of accelerating innovation, and the impact
of external policy factors.
62. ESRC’s recently completed Sustainable Technologies Programme included
research examining progress in a range of renewable technologies, including
microgeneration96. The issues covered included areas in which microgeneration (and household energy-saving investments) suffer from an “uneven
playing field”.
63. Under NERC’s strategic priority, Sustainable Economies, researchers are
investigating the environmental, economic and social impacts of renewable
energy sources in terms of their complete generation cycles, including power
source, infrastructure, and site impacts. For example:
•
•
96
through collaborative work, POL is seeking to develop models that can
demonstrate the impacts of establishing offshore renewable energy
operations;
the SAMS artificial reef programme has contributed to the understanding
of artificial ecosystem creation and manipulation that will be an essential
foundation for offshore wind farms, tidal barrages and wavepower mooring
arrangements;
www.sustainabletechnologies.ac.uk/final%20pdf/online%20version.pdf
255
•
Under the TSEC-BIOSYS and RELU-Biomass projects, CEH is looking
specifically at the hydrological implications of and constraints facing
bioenergy crops. Field studies of the implications of bioenergy crops on
biodiversity have also been undertaken.
64. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (funded by ESRC, EPSRC
and NERC) is developing comprehensive and systems-level approaches to
decarbonisation both within the UK and within an international framework,
working from the level of national energy systems, to carbon-intensive sectors,
and to the household level and personal behaviour. One research task is
“Avoiding carbon lock-in by industrialising nations” which includes study of the
mechanisms for technology transfer and the potential for technological 'leapfrogging' of fossil fuelled electricity.
65. A number of NERC’s research centres are employing renewable energygeneration technologies on their main sites or for field work in remote
locations. Details are given in Annex D.
66. UKERC is identifying and developing road maps for a number of renewable
energy systems in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders. Work on
the learning rates for new technology is being undertaken to support modelling
using the MARKAL whole system model and other integrated research
projects. Learning rates are a key component of the rate of uptake and
deployment of novel systems
Other possible technologies for renewable energy-generation
67. Some other technologies have been mentioned above, e.g. alternatives to
hydrogen for fuel cells. Two other areas of research with potential for
renewable energy generation are mentioned below, as is some research into
low-head hydro schemes.
68. There is interest in developing artificial devices for the capture of solar energy,
based on the high conversion-efficiency of the light-harvesting complexes that
form part of the photosynthetic machinery of plants.
69. Thermoelectric materials have the potential to contribute to renewable energy
generation. Where there is a thermal gradient, some materials will support an
induced electrical current, c.f. piezoelectric effect. EPSRC has a small
portfolio (£1.1M) of research in this area.
70. NERC’s CEH is researching (in an interdisciplinary project funded by the Joule
Centre) the potential for exploitation of low-head hydro schemes both within
UK97 and abroad. The National River Flow Archive98 is a database that holds
information on a representative set of gauging stations around Britain from
which flow duration curves can be obtained for any stretch of water. Software
packages (HydrA and Low Flows 2000) have been developed for use in
97
98
www.joulecentre.org/
www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/river_flow_data.html
256
Britain and abroad that provide interpretation and advice on the suitability of
sites for different styles of turbine.
Research Councils UK
July 2007
257
ANNEX A: MEMORANDUM FROM THE BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL (BBSRC) TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE INQUIRY: RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of,
renewable energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind;
photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy; ground
source heat pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy storage.
1. BBSRC’s scientific remit dictates that the renewable energy research funded
by BBSRC is exclusively in bioenergy, including the biological generation of
hydrogen. Bioenergy is a high priority area for BBSRC. Its importance was
recognised in 2005 when BBSRC conducted a review of bioenergy research,
chaired by Professor Douglas Kell. The aims of the review were to examine
the main drivers for bioenergy research in the UK, to consider BBSRC’s role
within this context, and to identify priorities for future BBSRC research
activities. The review report was published in March 2006 and is published on
the BBSRC website. The findings of the review are being used to inform
BBSRC’s activities in preparation of its CSR2007 Delivery Plan.
Bioenergy Initiative
2. As a result of the Review, BBSRC launched an Initiative in Capacity-Building
in Bioenergy Research in March 2007, with up to £20M available to support
high quality applications. The Initiative seeks to create greater research
capacity in the UK by encouraging collaborative research between biologists
and engineers, physical scientists and researchers in social and
environmental sciences. The Bioenergy Initiative has three funding streams:
•
•
•
A Multidisciplinary Bioenergy Research Centre
Multidisciplinary Programme Grants with Industrial Collaboration
Bioenergy Networks to build UK Research Capacity
3. The Bioenergy Centre is planned to provide a focus for UK bioenergy
research, and involve a variety of research, from the molecular level, through
systems-based basic and applied research. Researchers from a variety of
disciplines will be required to work together on complex areas of bioenergy
research.
4. Programme grants for longer-scale interdisciplinary research will help to build
capacity by bringing together staff with different skills, retraining existing staff
and employing postdoctoral scientists in a multidisciplinary environment.
Industrial input is encouraged strongly to translate the research into usable
energy sources.
5. Networking activities are felt to be important to bring new groups into the field
and to provide cohesion for the existing bioenergy research community.
258
6. Expressions of interest for all three funding streams have been received and
will be sifted by a review panel, and full applications will be invited later in
2007. These will be subject to full peer review.
Current BBSRC Funding for Bioenergy Research
7. BBSRC funds bioenergy research through several mechanisms in addition to
the Bioenergy Initiative. BBSRC-sponsored Institutes receive a core strategic
grant from BBSRC and the Institute of Grassland and Environmental
Research (IGER) and Rothamsted Research (RRes) use part of this funding
to support long-term programmes on the genetics and improvement of energy
crops for energy generation from biomass.
8. BBSRC also funds research through responsive mode, on a variety of aspects
of plant and microbial science, as well as studies on photosynthesis and
carbon allocation within plants and microbes, and microbial conversion of
feedstocks to useful products, including fuels. BBSRC also funds studentships
in aspects of bioenergy research.
9. Societal and Environmental Considerations. BBSRC is keen to ensure that
the research it funds in bioenergy takes account of societal, ethical,
environmental and economic issues. The ‘food vs fuel’ debate has been in the
public eye recently, and the environmental impact of converting large amounts
of land to biomass generation needs to be considered. BBSRC is keen to
ensure that there is expertise in these issues on the panel for its Bioenergy
Initiative, and besides supporting the RELU-Biomass project it has been
involved in several meetings and consultations on this subject.
The UK Government's role in funding research and development for renewable
energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for technology transfer
and industrial research and development.
10. The UK Government has a key role in funding the development of a variety of
energy technologies, through the research councils as well as DEFRA, DTI,
Department for Transport and other agencies. BBSRC funding is essential to
support the fundamental biological research required to underpin biofuel
development. BBSRC funding will also be essential to support the
interdisciplinary research required to translate biological knowledge into
useable technologies and products.
11. BBSRC provides a variety of incentives for industrial participation in its
research, including the Industrial Partnership Award scheme and LINK
programmes. However, it is only able to support research falling within its
remit, and is not able to fund near-market research, so other sources of
Government funding are required to provide sufficient incentives for industry to
participate in the whole portfolio of research required to deliver BBSRC’s
objectives in bioenergy.
259
ANNEX B: MEMORANDUM FROM THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL (ESRC) TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE INQUIRY: RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
1. The ESRC supports high quality social science research across a broad range
of energy issues, including the economic, regulatory, business, social and
public acceptability aspects of renewable energy. Energy, Environment and
Climate Change is identified as one of seven key research challenges within
ESRC's 2005-2010 Strategic Plan; energy is therefore a priority area for
creating new research opportunities. Much of the Council's current research is
funded in collaboration with RCUK partners, for example through the
Research Councils Energy Programme, including the UK Energy Research
Centre, and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, as is detailed
elsewhere in this submission, and is undertaken in collaboration with a range
of policy, business and other stakeholders. Further details of ESRC research
can be obtained from ESRC society Today at http://www.esrc.ac.uk.
2. Research of particular relevance, includes that being undertaken by the ESRC
Sussex Energy Group (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/), as a
part of the Research Councils Energy Programme. The group is, for example,
undertaking research on: the extent to which control technologies can aid the
transition to more active electricity networks and aid the development of
distributed generation from renewables; the value of renewables in
contributing to diversity of UK electricity supply portfolios; and methods for
evaluating energy policy.
3. The Cambridge Electricity Policy Research Group
(http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/), also funded under the Research Councils
Energy Programme, is undertaking research on better market design for
delivering efficient, secure and diverse energy supply and on appropriate
mechanisms for supporting RD&D in energy. For example a recent paper has
discussed the potential role of international collaboration, markets and
competition in mainstreaming new energy technologies (Mainstreaming New
Energy Technologies, K Neuhoff and R Sellers
(2006)http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/TSEC/2/prog3.html
4. A research report on "Large scale Deployment of Renewables for Electricity
Generation" Karsten Neuhoff (2004) (Cambridge Working Papers in
Economics CWPE 0460)
(http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/pubs/wp/ep59.pdf) is also relevant and
concludes:
"Resource assessments suggest that renewables could satisfy a much larger
share of global energy demand. This would enhance our security and
environment. However, the market share of renewables will not increase
unless new energy and technology policies address the following barriers:
• Traditional energy technologies are not exposed to full security and
environmental costs and offer energy below the level of total social costs.
Levelling the playing field implies re-allocation of rent between
260
stakeholders and is therefore a slow process. In the meantime, subsidies
for renewable technologies might be required to ensure efficient
investment decisions, and subsidies for conventional technologies should
be reduced.
• Markets and tariff structures are designed and optimised for fossil
generation technologies. They do not address the specific requirements of
renewables: flexible operation, long-term contractual arrangements to
reduce financing costs particularly in an environment with high regulatory
risk, and simple procedures with low-transaction costs for their small-scale
nature.
• Renewables are at different stages of development, and fit into different
markets. Therefore, policy support needs to address the specific stage and
market of each renewable. For emerging and innovative technologies, this
means increasing substantially the collective investment in RD&D, and for
those entering the market, increasing the level of deployment incentives.
Several countries applying strategic deployment in parallel will create
industry confidence in continuous market growth.
• The discovery of a new energy technology that suddenly resolves all
energy challenges would be great, but has not happened in the past and is
unlikely to occur in the future. In contrast, we have consistently observed
that technologies become more cost effective with improvements through
market experience. However, this does not happen autonomously - most
renewable energy technologies are locked-out from large-scale market
experience because the playing field is uneven and various barriers and
technology spill-over prevent industry from financing the learning
investment. It is in the power of governments to unlock these
Technologies"
5. Research under the Research Councils Energy Programme, co-ordinated by
the University of Manchester (Dr P Devine-Wright - Beyond Nimbyism: a
multidisciplinary investigation of public engagement with renewable energy
technologies) is extending research on public acceptability to renewable
energy technologies (mostly related to onshore wind) by examining a range of
forms of technology which are expected to figure, to varying degrees, in the
UK renewable energy profile – offshore wind, biomass of various forms, small
scale HEP, large scale photovoltaics and more speculatively the various
ocean technologies currently under development and by deepening
understanding of the dynamics of public engagement in renewable energy
technological development.
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/
6. New research recently commissioned by the ESRC under its Targeted
Initiative on Innovation is comparing approaches in the use of demonstrations
and trials in North America, Europe and Japan in respect to fuel cells, wind
and photo-voltaic and evaluating their impacts on accelerating innovation and
the impact of external policy factors on success (City University). Another
project is comparing experience in Brazil, USA and Europe in supporting
innovation in the transition from a petrochemicals based to a bio-economybased technology platform, with a particular focus on bioethanol.
261
7. Research under ESRC's recently completed Sustainable Technologies
Programme, has tracked the progress of a range of renewable technologies,
including microgeneration, community energy initiatives, marine and wind
energy, and the impact of, and interaction between, innovation systems,
markets, regulation and incentives, and business and societal responses. A
summary report of findings can be found at:
http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ac.uk/final%20pdf/online%20version.pdf.
For example, "Unlocking the Power House: policy and system change for
domestic micro-generation in the UK" (Watson, J., Sauter, R., Bahaj, B.
James, P Myers, L, Wing R, October 2006) suggests that successful
deployment of microgeneration on a large scale will require policy makers to
support a diversity of routes deployment, with incentives for both householders
and energy companies. The report also focuses on two areas in which microgeneration and household energy saving investments suffer from an 'uneven
playing field' – the fiscal system and the market settlement system for
electricity and highlights a range of areas requiring further attention such as
development of a household energy service market, design of buildings and
infrastructure and smarter metering. Further details can be found at:
http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ac.uk/PDF/project%20reports/109%20Unl
ocking%20Report.pdf
262
ANNEX C: MEMORANDUM FROM THE ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES
RESEARCH COUNCIL (EPSRC) TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE INQUIRY: RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES
1. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is
responsible for promoting and supporting basic, strategic and applied research
within its remit for the benefit of the UK. The EPSRC mission is:
2. to promote and support, by any means, high quality basic, strategic and
applied research and related postgraduate training in engineering and the
physical sciences;
3. to advance knowledge and technology, and provide trained engineers and
scientists, to meet the needs of users and beneficiaries thereby contributing to
the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life of
its citizens; and
4. The EPSRC currently invests approaching £650 million a year in the science
base for research and training in engineering and physical sciences with a
view to ensuring that the UK will be prepared for the next generation of
technological change.
5. The EPSRC welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Inquiry. Further
details on EPSRC activities are available at www.epsrc.ac.uk.
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of, renewable
energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind; photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel
cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy; ground source heat pumps: and intelligent grid
management and energy storage.
6. EPSRC supports research and training in the core physical sciences
(mathematics, physics & chemistry), underpinning technologies (e.g. materials
science and information & communications technologies) and all aspects of
engineering.
Training
7. Most PhDs studentships are run through standard research projects, most
notably the SUPERGEN consortia. Skills and training are mainly addresses in
two ways; Project studentships and Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs)
and Masters’ courses (through the CTAs) and Doctoral Training Accounts
(DTAs) [EPSRC]. There are also other training activities such as industrial
CASE awards that support small number of studentship. CTAs allow a single
flexible mechanism for funding all EPSRC schemes that link postgraduate
training with the workplace, such as Masters Training Packages, Engineering
Doctorate, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, Research Assistants into
Industry, Industrial CASE and CASE for New Academics. As funding is
provided directly to the Universities CTAs provide a responsive approach to
263
training driven by the market needs, as they allow universities the flexibility to
deploy funds in response to emerging themes and industry needs. Table 1
shows the number of studentships in each renewable energy theme. Masters
training funding is also provided through the CTA initiative and Table 2 details
the universities and the subject title of the MTAs supported.
Table 1 EPSRC studentships
Wind
Project
Students
0
CTA/ DTA
Studentships
5
Solar
6
11
Fuel cells & Hydrogen
18
23
Wave & tidal
21
6
Bioenergy
17
5
Geothermal
0
0
Storage
7
2
Networks
40
3
Total
109
55
Note on table 1: project student number shown are full time equivalent and represent the proportion of projects that
are applicable to renewable energy .
Table 2: Masters Training packages supported by EPSRC in renewable
technologies.
University
(Training package) TITLE / NAME
Birmingham
Cardiff
Cranfield
Sustainable Energy Materials
Sustainable Energy
Offshore Technologies: Masters Level Courses for
the Offshore and Ocean Industries
Sustainable Energy Systems
Flexible Learning Adv. Master in Energy
Decommissioning and Environmental Clean-up
Sustainable Energy Engineering
Renewable Energy Systems Technology
Energy systems
Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy: Biomass & Waste Technology
Edinburgh
Heriot Watt
Lancaster
Leeds
Loughborough
Newcastle
Newcastle
Newcastle
264
Primary
Sector
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
Power
University
(Training package) TITLE / NAME
Northumbria
Electrical Power Engineering
Primary
Sector
Power
8. Platform grants (EPSRC) enable research groups to maintain capability by providing support
for key research staff, and to allow research groups to take a strategic view of their research.
Four Platform grants have been made; Decentralised polygeneration of energy; Sustainable
Electric Power Systems; Materials for High Temperature Fuel Cell Technology; Future
Technologies in Power Electronics.
9. Research, development, demonstration and technology transfer are all essential to enable the
implementation of innovation in the energy supply market and funding agencies must work in
effective partnerships to support innovation. EPSRC would emphasise that the shortage of
trained personnel within the energy industry as a key area of concern.
The UK Government's role in funding research and development for
renewable energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for
technology transfer and industrial research and development.
10. As stated in the main body of the document the research councils have a key role in
supporting the fundamental science that underpins energy research. ESPRC aims to support
a full spectrum of energy research to help the UK meet the objectives and targets set out in
the 2007 Energy White Paper.
11. EPSRC provides a major investment in renewable energy and related R&D, at a level of over
£13 million in the period 2006/07. Renewable sources of power include wave, wind, biomass,
solar PV, and fuel cells utilising renewable hydrogen sources. The portfolio includes issues
relating to the integration of renewable sources of generation into the energy grid. The nature
of research is such that it is likely that EPSRC funded research, being undertaken in other
areas such as materials, chemistry and physics, may also give rise to useful results in this
field. Full details of all of the projects identified by EPSRC as relevant to the inquiry can be
provided if required.
12. EPSRC is continuing to make strategic investments in research addressing both the supply
and demand side of the energy economy through a major research programme on
Sustainable Power Generation and Supply (SUPERGEN). SUPERGEN is a multidisciplinary
research programme that addresses simultaneously technical solutions and market and public
acceptability issues. As such it is ideally placed to inform the development of effective
regulatory strategies to enable the transition towards a low carbon economy. Table 3 shows
the current SUPERGEN consortia list and levels of funding.
Table 2 Current SUPERGEN consortia.
Future Network Technologies
SUPERGEN Consortium
PV Materials for the 21st Century
£7.0M
Funding
(Commitment)
£3.1M
Bioenergy
Conventional
Power Plant Life Extension
£6.4M
£2.1M
UK Sustainable
Hydrogen Energy
Fuel
Cells
£6.0M
£2.1M
MarineDistributed
Energy
Highly
Power Systems
£5.5M
£2.6M
265
Excitonic Solar Cells
£1.1M
Energy Storage
£2.1M
Biological Fuel Cells
£2.0M
Asset Management and Performance of Energy Systems
£2.5M
Wind
£2.5M
13. In addition to the managed activities EPSRC also supports a significant portfolio of responsive
mode proposals in all the renewable energy themes. This provides a mechanism for
researchers to undertake novel blue skies research in a bottom up manner.
14. Platform grants are one of the key mechanisms by which EPSRC strives towards maintaining
and developing the strength of the UK engineering and scientific research base, by
supporting, through underpinning funding, those UK groups considered to be world leaders in
their fields. Platform funding is aimed at providing a baseline of support for retention of key
research staff with the aim of providing stability to these groups. It is also anticipated that it will
provide the stability and flexibility to permit longer-term research and international networking,
and to take a strategic view on their research. An example of such a platform grant is
supporting a group at Imperial College London looking at the development of clean, small
scale energy generation technologies and their integration with the existing power system.
Collaborative working
15. EPSRC is working with the other research councils and funding organisations to support a full
spectrum of energy related research renewables, cleaner fossil fuel technologies and nuclear
fission and fusion and work in demand reduction. I addition to the collaborative activities
outlined in the main text of this document
16. EPSRC is working with the DTI under the auspices of the Memorandum of Understanding with
the USA on collaboration in energy research, as part of this agreement. EPSRC has
supported five postgraduate research students to spend an additional year working on
hydrogen-related research at Sandia National Laboratories in the USA.
17. 45% of EPSRC’s current renewable energy research portfolio is conducted in collaboration
with industry, involving over 300 companies, with the value of their cash and indirect
contributions totalling over £12 million.
18. Working with the DBERR and other research councils, EPSRC has organised three Energy
Research Summits. Industrial participants were asked to identify common business-led
research or postgraduate training opportunities which will are being used to inform the
strategic direction of the Research Councils Energy Programme.
19. EPSRC have appointed Professor Nigel Brandon, Imperial college, as an energy senior
research fellow to be an envoy and advocate for the Research Councils’ energy work. In
particular, their work involves developing the international profile and level of collaboration and
to provide information to EPSRC on potential international research opportunities.
266
ANNEX D: MEMORANDUM FROM THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH
COUNCIL TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
1. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is one of the UK’s
seven Research Councils. It funds and carries out impartial scientific
research in the sciences of the environment. NERC trains the next
generation of independent environmental scientists. Its three strategic
research priority areas are: Earth’s life-support systems, climate change,
and sustainable economies.
2. Details of NERC’s Research and Collaborative Centres are available at
www.nerc.ac.uk.
3. NERC’s comments are based on input from the British Antarctic Survey
(BAS), British Geological Survey (BGS), Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
(CEH), Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), Proudman Oceanographic
Laboratory (POL), Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) and
Swindon Office staff.
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of, renewable
energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind; photovoltaics; hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy; ground source heat pumps: and intelligent
grid management and energy storage.
4. NERC funds and carries out a wide range of research related to renewable
energy-generation technologies. Much of the research is funded under the
cross-Council Energy Programme, in particular the Towards a Sustainable
Energy Economy (TSEC) programme. This programme includes support
for the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). NERC leads the Research
Councils' administration and oversight of TSEC and of UKERC, whose
progress is monitored by twice-yearly meetings of a Supervisory Board99.
5. The TSEC Programme100 (funded by , EPSRC, ESRC, NERC, with
contribution from BBSRC and also involving STFC) was launched
following provision of additional funding in the 2002 Spending Review.
The programme was designed to adopt a multidisciplinary, whole-systems
approach to energy research. The earmarked budget for TSEC was £20
million of core funding plus £8 million for renewables previously earmarked
following the Performance and Innovation Unit Review of Energy R&D in
2001. TSEC is a broad-based programme of research which aims to
enable the UK to access a secure, safe, diverse and reliable energy supply
at competitive prices, while meeting the challenge of global warming. In
the event, in order to support a number of high-quality projects that could
not otherwise have been supported, the TSEC budget was augmented to a
total of £36.5 million, the additional funding being drawn from Research
99
The Board comprises Research Council officers and Research Council independent advisors and
DTI/OSI liaison officers, with UKERC Directors in attendance.
100
www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/sustaineconomy/
267
Council baseline funding and from the additional £30 million funding for
energy announced under the 2004 Spending Review. The TSEC budget
was allocated through five funding streams: establishment of the UK
Energy Research Centre (UKERC); Managing New Uncertainties; Keeping
the Nuclear Option Open; Renewable Energy; and Carbon Management.
One of the TSEC awards is the TSEC-BIOSYS consortium: ‘A whole
systems approach to bioenergy demand and supply in the UK’. Several of
NERC’s Research and Collaborative Centres (RCCs) conduct research on
or relevant to renewable energy technologies, much of it in collaboration
with universities, other institutes and industry.
Wind
6. BGS, PML, POL and SAMS conduct research relevant to the siting and
development of offshore wind turbines. The BGS seabed-mapping
programme is directly relevant to site investigation, and research is
currently in progress studying sandbanks and their historical evolution and
movement and potential for future movement. PML is conducting research
as part of the EU project EMPAFISH into the ecological, fisheries and
economic benefits of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in order to develop
operational management tools to support decisions on the design of
MPAs. This research will be of benefit when considering the development
and siting of offshore wind turbines. POL carried out X-band radar
observations in connection with the Scroby Sands wind farm.
7. NERC is also funding a CASE studentship at the University of Sheffield
(co-supervised by POL) into the impact of offshore wind turbines on the
accuracy and availability of high-frequency radar ocean surface
measurements.
8. CEH researched terrestrial wind power in the 1980s and 1990s, and has
recently carried out impact assessments of offshore installations.
Wave
9. NERC-funded research at NOCS and POL is particularly relevant. For
example, NOCS conducts wave climate research in the North Atlantic and
British shelf seas, and this is valuable for assessing the “available
resource” for wave energy and some of the risks for all offshore
installations (including wave and offshore wind). POL conducts offshore
wave modelling and nearshore wave measuring – research which could
underpin the development of offshore wave power technology.
10. In addition, the Environmental Mathematics and Statistics programme
included a grant for research at Sheffield University into waves on shallow
coastal waters, which have implications for offshore engineering including
renewable energy-generation structures.
268
Tidal
11. BGS has developed seabed drilling technology for site investigation work
in areas with high tidal currents, and a successful project was recently
completed off Orkney. The BGS seabed-mapping programme is based on
collecting new data and integrating this with existing third party data to
produce better understanding of the seabed, seabed sediments, and
sediment movement. These data are critical to understanding the impacts
of tidal stream and barrage developments. The data underpin site
investigation and is a key contribution to the information required to
underpin marine spatial planning; it is directly relevant to many marine
developments, including all marine renewables, extraction of aggregates
and environmental and conservation issues. BGS has recently undertaken
mapping surveys in the East English Channel, the Bristol Channel, the
Forth, the Clyde, and near Ullapool. BGS has several joint PhD projects
on marine geohazards (landslides and tsunamis) and geodiversity and
marine habitats.
12. NERC has been funding research at SAMS on the physics of tidal jets in
fjords101. This is being used to assess the potential of tidal barrages in sea
loch systems.
13. POL has been involved in producing the DTI Renewable Energy Atlas102
(tidal stream energy) by providing output from state-of-the-art highresolution tidal models103. The main tidal resource parameters included in
the Atlas are tidal range, tidal flows and annual tidal power estimates.
POL is currently providing new data to update the Atlas.
14. POL is involved with a proposal for work with MerseyBasin104 called the
Mersey Observatory in which one element proposed is a marine
renewable energy generator (mini-barrage, or in-situ turbine) linked into
the national grid.
15. POL (with Liverpool University) is involved in a project funded by the NW
Development Agency and the Joule Centre (a consortium of North West
universities and businesses) to investigate the tidal power potential of the
eastern Irish Sea. This focuses mainly on the generation of power from
tidal barrages in the estuaries of the Dee, Mersey, Ribble, Solway and
Morecambe Bay, demonstrating how continuous power generation may be
achieved by linking estuaries with different tidal phases. Other tidal power
technologies like free-stream turbines and man-made lagoons will also be
examined. Early estimates suggest that there is potential to meet at least
half of the region’s electricity needs. The study will also examine the
impact of a combined tidal power scheme on the physical and biological
101
www.sams.ac.uk/research/departments/physics-department/physics-projects/researchproject.200704-26.4666579306/?searchterm=energy
102
www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=21&documentID=25
103
POL Annual Report 2004/05
104
www.merseybasin.org.uk/
269
environment of Liverpool Bay via water quality and habitats. Aside from
generating energy from the tides, the barrages could be used to site
further wind or wave power devices, and there would be further potential
benefits like flood protection, transport and leisure amenities.
Bioenergy
16. Under the TSEC Programme, NERC is co-funding the BIOSYS Consortium105,
coordinated by Imperial College London. The project brings together a large partnership
with diverse expertise in bioenergy, ranging from fundamental molecular plant biology
through to greenhouse gas characterisation through to social and policy implications.
17. NERC’s Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System (QUEST)
programme has agreed to fund a research project starting in 20078 at
Imperial College that will assess the potential of biomass energy solutions
(along with avoided deforestation and forest carbon sinks) in the context of
sustainability. This project includes socio-economic and biodiversity
considerations as well as effectiveness in terms of the carbon cycle.
18. A working group coordinated by the QUEST core team and co-sponsored
by Volkswagen has also just begun, and over the coming year will assess
how sustainability criteria influence bioenergy potential.
19. NERC is also funding a studentship at the University of Southampton
examining the impacts of climate change on the availability of shortrotation-coppice poplar and willow, and a studentship at the Scottish
Agricultural College modelling scenarios of the future supply of crop types
and forestry for the most efficient production of biofuels.
20. CEH has identified two specific tasks related to bioenergy under the Land
Use Change heading in its Sustainable Monitoring and Management of
Land Resources theme106:
21. Initial assessments of the UK capacity for renewable energy production;
22. Assessment of biofuel crop impacts on biodiversity.
23. In addition, much of CEH’s other work is relevant to energy (for example
carbon inventory & land use change107, pathways & impacts of
atmospheric emissions108, hydrological constraints on biofuel crops109 and
trends & drivers of change among taxa).
24. CEH is also involved in research into development of conversion
processes looking at the production of bioethanol from green waste in the
Intensified Integrated Bio-refinery project110 funded by EPSRC.
105
www.tsec-biosys.ac.uk/
www.ceh.ac.uk/science/documents/CEHImplementationPlan-PublicVersion3.pdf
107
www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/ukcarbon/
108
www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/bef/documents/Airpollutionandvegetation.pdf
109
www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/ph/HydrologicalImpactsofEnergyCrops-HIECrop.html
110
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E012299/1
106
270
25. Given the pressure on terrestrial sources of biomass from the increasing
demand for food by a burgeoning world population, it is improbable that
such sources can meet more than a tiny proportion of demand. The
world’s oceans cover over 70% of the earth’s surface and are extremely
productive.
26. Microalgae have very high growth rates, utilise a large fraction of incident
solar energy (up to 10% can be fixed into biomass) and can grow in
conditions that are not favourable for terrestrial biomass growth. Many
taxa can produce high levels of oils potentially suitable for use as
biodiesels. Some estimates suggest the yield of oil from algae is over 200
times the yield from the best-performing terrestrial plant oils. More
realistically, microalgae yield can vary from 20 to 30 times that of
temperate oil crops.
27. Growing seaweed biomass does not compete with land based agriculture
for resources and the productivity of seaweeds is equal to or greater than
that of the most productive terrestrial crops.Seaweeds do not contain
lignin-cellulose complexes that are limiting in the production of biofuels
from terrestrial landmass.
28. Anaerobic digestion of seaweed biomass is equal to or more efficient than
using terrestrial biomass.
29. NERC is funding111 R&D into Photobioreactor (PBR) Technology by PML
Applications, the Trading subsidiary of PML. This research is primarily
focussed on the growing selected microalgae on a large scale for
bioactives. However PBR technology is a platform technology with many
applications. The drive towards renewable energies has resulted in an
increase in world-wide activity using PBR Technology to grow microalgae
for biofuels. Currently most of this world-wide research is focussed on
biodiesel, however there are possibilities in terms of biogas (methane,
hydrogen and oxygen). Growing microalgae on a large scale using PBR
Technology can also be used to capture waste emission CO2.
30. Currently the UK lags behind the rest of the world in terms of algal
biotechnology and PBR technology. This needs to be addressed especially
since the UK has a strong base in understanding the physiology and
biochemistry of microalgae, and because microalgae have much higher
productivities and yields than land plants.
31. SAMS is participating in EPSRC’s renewed SUPERGEN Bioenergy
programme112, in a consortium investigating the potential of marine
biomass to UK energy, fuels and chemicals. It has also been
commissioned by The Crown Estate to undertake a feasibility study into
the use of marine biomass for biofuel and to recommend avenues for
further research.
111
112
Under the Small-Business Research Initiative
www.supergen-bioenergy.net/
271
32. The Blue Energy Group at SAMS is concerned to develop four separate
themes relating to marine renewable energy; the first two are detailed
here, the third and fourth in the section on feasibility.
(i)
Biodiesels: SAMS’s capability includes: the screening of strains of
microalgae held at the Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa113, the
largest protistan biological records centre in Europe, for oil production
using conventional gas chromatographic (GC) and high-throughput
flow-cytometric approaches; selection and characterising of suitable
production strains using conventional and molecular DNA-chip
technology; process and product optimisation by multivariate trials
involving several parameters identified as potentially enhancing lipid
biosynthesis and cellular productivity; scale up and process
optimisation; knowledge transfer (KT) and intellectual property (IP)
protection.
(ii)
Methane and Bioethanol: SAMS is utilising its expertise in the biology
and culture of seaweeds to investigate the production or harvest of
macroalgae as feedstock for biofuel production. Characteristics of
seaweeds vary among species and over time, environmental
conditions etc. Such variation impacts on the utility of seaweeds as
biofuel feedstock. SAMS is active in species selection and the
manipulation of seaweed chemistry by varying culture conditions,
harvest time and post-harvest treatments so as to optimise the output
from anaerobic digestion of macroalgal biomass. SAMS is also
interested in using its track record in isolating novel microbial strains
for industrial applications to find novel bacteria for the production of
ethanol from seaweed derived sugars.
Ground source heat pumps and geothermal
33. The UK investigated its deep geothermal resources in the 1970s and 80s.
BGS was involved in the research and development, which came to an
end largely due to the low prices of competing energy sources, e.g. gas.
Other countries have continued research and there are now a number of
operating geothermal schemes in continental Europe in regions with
similar sub-surface temperatures to the UK. The experience of these
schemes can be utilised to reassess the potential for geothermal energy
generation in the UK. The UK should also consider supporting the Iceland
Deep Drilling Project, as the UK could become an importer of green
electricity through a cable interconnector.
Energy storage
34. BGS provides advice on the geological feasibility of deploying
underground storage technologies in the context of British energy and
environmental goals, involving the potential of energy storage from
renewable sources in the form of compressed air and hydrogen. Such
113
www.ccap.ac.uk/
272
energy storage could help to minimise the temporal mismatch between
supply and demand by storing energy produced at times of low demand as
compressed air and hydrogen and converting it back to electricity at times
of peak demand. The two basic types of facility within the UK for the
storage of renewable energies are salt caverns and lined rock caverns.
35. PML undertakes research to address issues related to the impacts of
leakage from the geological storage of CO2. PML has given evidence to
OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic) and the London Convention during consideration of the legality of
carbon capture and storage (CCS). PML has also contributed to the UK
Energy Research Council and the UK Consortium on Carbon Capture and
Storage. PML has also interacted with key stakeholders via a Reference
User Group to provide an effective mechanism of delivering its CCS
related science to the heart of government departments, industry,
agencies and NGOs. PML’s modelling expertise is heavily engaged in this
research and its models represent the first step towards a predictive
capability to assess the ecosystem consequences of CO2 leakage from
geological storage sites.
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising
renewable technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon
footprints.
36. In addition to funding underpinning science, NERC runs a number of
funding schemes that encourage collaboration with industry – some
examples appear above. NERC also helps its research centres to
commercialise research outputs where appropriate, and provides some
support for early-stage (pre-)commercialisation activity by researchers
whose science was funded by NERC, e.g. the Business Plan Competition
and the Follow-on-Fund.
37. NERC has funded114 the development of a database and software tool for
offshore wind energy resources. A key component of the work is to
develop the ability to better retrieve wind field data from satellite earth
observation technology. The resulting product is expected to be a
statistically significant information service tailored to the offshore
environment providing wind yield variations as well as average expected
supply.
38. CEH has industrial links through projects such as the Intensified Integrated
Bio-refinery project115 and hydro-power assessment software116. CEH
Lancaster leads the Centre for Sustainable Energy117 at the Lancaster
Environment Centre and works with commercial companies in the
incubation unit, exchanging skills and information and seeking joint funding
for scientific research.
114
Under the Small Business Research Initiative
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E012299/1
116
www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/hrr/Riverregimes.html
117
http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/centre_energy.htm
115
273
Sustainability and societal aspects of renewable energy technologies
39. Under NERC’s strategic priority 3 (Sustainable Economies), NERC-funded
researchers are investigating the environmental, economic and social
impacts of renewable energy sources in terms of their complete generation
cycles, including power source, infrastructure, and site impacts. For
example:
•
•
•
•
•
•
through collaborative work, POL is seeking to develop models that
can demonstrate the impacts of establishing offshore renewable
energy operations;
the SAMS artificial reef programme has contributed to the
understanding of artificial ecosystem creation and manipulation that
will be an essential foundation for offshore wind farms, tidal
barrages and wavepower mooring arrangements. This on-going
programme also includes research into the underlying policy issues
and has driven forward policy with such regulators as The Crown
Estate and Fisheries Research Services, Aberdeen;
the TSEC-BIOSYS project is examining the social and policy
implications of large-scale bioenergy deployment in the UK.
The cross-Council Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU)118
programme Biomass project is also looking at the impacts of
increased biofuel use.
Under the TSEC-BIOSYS and RELU-Biomass projects, CEH is
looking specifically at the hydrological implications of and
constraints facing bioenergy crops. Field studies of the
implications of bioenergy crops on biodiversity have also been
undertaken.
CEH’s internationally renowned monitoring schemes (such as
Countryside Survey119 and National River Flow Archive120) identify
changes in habitats and ecosystems in response to altered
management such as the introduction of bioenergy crop cultivation.
CEH is also modelling the impact of offshore wind turbines on
scoters and other bird populations121.
40. A studentship at Imperial College London is being funded to examine the
potential for international bioenergy trade and its implications for the UK,
and a studentship at Southampton is focussing on the implications for
biodiversity of short-rotation coppice.
41. NERC is also funding three studentships in “Renewable Energy:
Technology and Sustainability” at the University of Reading, which are
118
www.relu-biomass.org.uk/
www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/
120
www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/river_flow_data.html
121
Kaiser, M.J., Caldow, R.W.G., Sutherland, W.J., Elliot, A., Stillman, R.A., Showler, D., Galanidi,
M., & Rees, E.I.S. (2005) Predicting the displacement of common scoter Melanita nigra from benthic
feeding areas due to offshore windfarms. 13pp.
119
274
examining approaches to minimising the negative impacts of energy
production and consumption on the environment and society.
42. CEH’s research is attempting to take a whole-systems approach to energy
looking at the supply chain and conversion processes of all UK power
generation (fossil, nuclear and renewable) along with the impact of its use.
CEH leads the Environmental Sustainability (ES) theme in the UK Energy
Research Centre (UKERC)122. This has included collaborative work to
map the research landscape to identify knowledge gaps requiring
research123.
43. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, CEH (and the institutes from which it
was formed) studied the ecological impacts for barrage schemes on major
estuaries in the UK with studies including the Severn/Cardiff Bay and
Morecambe Bay. Interest in barrage schemes has begun to grow again,
and studies of coastal habitats (e.g. saltmarsh124) and wading birds125
have developed models that can be applied to analyse potential impacts.
44. CEH is looking at the barriers to deployment of low-head hydro schemes in
the northwest of England. It is working with a number of departments
(across disciplines) at Lancaster University to identify and mitigate the
hurdles which prevent small landowners from using hydro schemes and
encourage uptake in the region. The research has an academic core,
identifying issues, modelling and validating data and advising on
interpretation, but the end product will be a web based tool for public use.
45. The third and fourth concerns of the Blue Energy Group at SAMS are (iii)
the environmental impacts of offshore engineering-based renewable
technologies; and (iv) policy, marine governance, legal and social impacts
of offshore engineering-based renewable technologies:
(iii) As indicated above, SAMS has skills and experience in assessing
and modelling impacts of a wide range of inshore and offshore
developments including breakwaters, trawling, oil exploration drilling,
sewage dumping, sewage outfalls, marine fish farming and shellfish
farming, mine tailings disposal and radioactive contamination. This
expertise all relates to the development of sustainable and
environmentally sensitive offshore power generation and SAMS can
deliver environmental information (predictions and measurements) of
construction and operational impacts particularly on benthos,
sensitive habitats, and acoustic impacts on marine animals and fish.
(iv) SAMS undertakes research into national government and
international marine governance measures including impacts on
fishing activities and agreements, conservation and management
methods and their policing and contravention, social impacts of
marine activity and international legal frameworks for the conservation
of living marine resources.
122
www.ukerc.ac.uk/
http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/ERA001.html
124
www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/epms/AngusGarbutt.htm
125
www.ceh.ac.uk/birds/Default.asp
123
275
46. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is developing
comprehensive and systems-level approaches to decarbonisation both
within the UK and within an international framework, working from the level
of national energy systems, to carbon-intensive sectors, and to the
household level and personal behaviour. One research task is “Avoiding
carbon lock-in by industrialising nations” which includes study of the
mechanisms for technology transfer and the potential for technological
'leap-frogging' of fossil fuelled electricity.
47. PML126 is engaged in a number of projects (funded by the EU) examining
the potential impact of offshore renewables, including aerial surveys of
water birds in strategic windfarm areas; the development of generic
guidance for sediment transport monitoring programmes; methodology for
assessing marine navigation safety risks of offshore windfarms. Other
work relevant to marine renewables funded by DTI includes: evaluating the
impacts of offshore renewables on marine biodiversity, including the
potential for habitat enhancement / restoration through use of No-Take
Zones or other management measures; identifying the potential for
aquaculture, including use of shellfish models to assess carrying capacity;
assessment of the impacts of turbines and other structures on coastal
processes, including site-based hydrodynamic and sediment transport
modelling studies; and integration of socio-economic aspects into
developmental appraisal.
48. SAMS is hosting a Masters (by research) student funded by the European
Social Fund to investigate whether the noise produced by underwater tidalenergy devices is adequate for marine mammals to detect and then avoid
colliding with them127.
Utilisation of renewable energy technologies by NERC and its RCCs.
49. A number of NERC’s RCCs employ renewable energy technologies, some
of which may be able to serve as demonstration projects.
BAS
50. BAS has invested in utilising wind and solar power in remote locations in
the Antarctic for scientific instrumentation. In 2001/02 it developed a
power system for the remote SODAR and seven Low Power
Magnetometers. Other sustainable solutions for the bases and the
Cambridge site are being investigated.
BGS
51. BGS has installed a wind turbine at its Keyworth site, which will generate
up to 5% of site electricity.
126
www.pml.ac.uk/Default.aspx?RecordId=7806
www.sams.ac.uk/research/departments/ecology/ecology-projects/marinerenewables/researchproject.2007-05-10.5255803228/?searchterm=energy
127
276
CEH
52. CEH Bangor is housed in the new Environment Centre Wales building,
which has a large atrium covered in photovoltaics to generate electricity,
and a ground source heat pump to drive the underfloor heating and cooling
system. The latter incorporates 150-m boreholes and uses the difference
between ground and air temperature in winter to provide heating and in
summer to provide cooling.
53. Ground source heat pumps are also being installed at CEH Wallingford.
CEH Lancaster is heated by Lancaster University’s Combined Heat and
Power system (CHP), and the university has purchased land with the
intention of growing material to feed the generator. The Lancaster
Environment Centre (LEC – i.e. CEH and Lancaster University) is
intending to reduce its carbon footprint by better managing its energy and
making improvements which may include the installation of wind turbines
and photovoltaic systems to act as demonstrators for the commercial firms
working with LEC in its incubator unit.
54. The CEH vehicle fleet is using hybrid (13) and dual fuel (21) technologies.
55. CEH uses wind and solar power to power some remote field equipment,
generally at around 30W.
POL
56. POL uses solar panels on wave buoys and has a part-share in a wind
turbine located on Hilbre Island, providing power to POL’s Coastal
Observatory monitoring system.
Swindon Office
57. NERC’s head office will shortly be installing photovoltaic panels to
contribute to the office electricity supply.
The UK Government's role in funding research and development for
renewable energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for
technology transfer and industrial research and development.
58. NERC is one of the Research Councils through which the Government, via
the Office of Science and Innovation in the DTI, funds research into
renewable energy technologies. Funding through the Research Councils
remains substantial, although the Government is now also funding
renewables research through the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), a
partnership between the Government, Research Councils and industry.
NERC and the other Research Councils that participate in the crossCouncil Energy Programme were involved in discussions on developing the
ETI, and aim to work closely with it, led by EPSRC. The ETI aims to
stimulate industrial collaboration in energy science and engineering in the
UK; its focus will be on applied research and development and some smallscale demonstration where appropriate, while the Research Councils' work
remains more focused towards earlier-stage research.
277
59. Funding for research in renewables is also coming from regional sources
through the Regional Development Agencies (RDA). An example is the
Joule Centre128 sponsored by the North West Development Agency which
is funding research throughout northwest England. A requirement for
funding through Joule is a demonstration of co-funding from other sources
(usually industrial).
Other possible technologies for renewable energy-generation.
Hydro power
60. CEH is researching the potential for exploitation of low-head hydro
schemes both within UK129 and abroad. The National River Flow
Archive130 is a database that holds information on a representative set of
gauging stations around Britain from which flow duration curves can be
obtained for any stretch of water. Software packages (HydrA and Low
Flows 2000) have been developed for use in Britain and abroad that
provide interpretation and advice on the suitability of sites for different
styles of turbine.
61. The CEH Wallingford Hydrological Risks and Resources team is involved
in studies looking at high-head hydro (dam) schemes for water resource
management and hydro power (e.g. Cahora Bassa Dam in
Mozambique)131
128
www.joulecentre.org/
www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/REGROUPS/LUREG/Research%20Home.htm
130
www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/river_flow_data.html
131
www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/hrr/Waterresources_000.html
129
278
ANNEX E: MEMORANDUM FROM THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FACILITIES COUNCIL TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY: RENEWABLE ENERGY
GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of, renewable
energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind; photovoltaics; hydrogen and fuel
cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy; ground source heat pumps: and intelligent grid
management and energy storage.
1. The successful development of renewable energy technologies requires
fundamental materials and process development, engineering integration of
devices, and then deployment, testing and demonstration of prototype
devices. STFC makes significant contributions to the first two steps in this
process.
2. Many key renewable energy technologies - photovoltaics, hydrogen, fuel cells,
bio-energy, and energy storage – still require significant progress in underlying
device and material performance to improve their reliability and cost
effectiveness. Such progress depends upon understanding the properties of
chemicals and materials at the molecular level. STFC’s portfolio of facilities
provides a unique set of tools for the characterisation, optimisation and design
of new chemicals and materials at the molecular level that will play a key role
in fundamental developments, design, characterisation of device performance
and monitoring / characterisation of devices in use. A significant number of
HEI researchers already make use of the STFC facilities to underpin basic and
applied research in this area and in partnership with the EPSRC, STFC has
provided strategic mode access to the facilities for successful proposals in a
recent ‘Materials for Energy’ call.
3. Even when technologies are successful commercially, their continuing
development benefits from ongoing research work (eg condition monitoring for
offshore wind energy , innovative generator designs etc). STFC’s Energy
Research Unit (ERU) has carried out renewable energy collaborative research
with HEI’s and industry for many years, and is currently a partner in both the
Supergen wind consortium and the EU-funded Upwind project, both of which
are seeking to develop advanced wind turbine designs. The ERU also runs a
renewable energy test site as a facility for academic use in applied renewable
energy research projects.
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
4. The STFC facilities are used in materials characterisation at all stages in the
product pipeline from basic R&D through to product application and
performance.
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
279
The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable
energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for technology transfer
and industrial research and development.
5. The STFC is committed to enabling research and development and
technology transfer in the Renewable Energy Generation area. A number of
specific initiatives worthy of note:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The STFC aims to develop and enhance its facilities to enable in-situ rapid
throughput studies of relevance to whole device modelling and applied
research for energy and materials related studies. We are developing the
concept of a Materials Innovation and Imaging Institute that would tie
together access to multiple facilities with detector development, simulation,
data processing and analysis to provide a solution based approach to
materials problems.
We are exploring an extension of the successful STFC technology
partnership scheme to energy applications, with the aim of transferring
core underpinning capabilities in instrumentation, engineering, sensor
technology and microsystems prototyping to HEIs and other partner
organisations including industry;
Industrial usage of the STFC facilities is a key component of STFC’s
Knowledge Exchange Delivery Plan and to facilitate this and raise
awareness within the industrial community, a wider access Sales Team
has been recruited to broker interaction with commercial partners and
customers;
The STFC operates a Proof of Concept fund that is available for STFC
researchers and their HEI collaborators wishing to take forward ideas to
develop new and innovative products and devices. This scheme is
available for all areas of STFC’s research and development portfolio indeed funding has recently been awarded to develop an online wind
energy forecasting tool created by the STFC’s ERU.
The STFC is now exploring opportunities for partnering with the
Technology Strategy Board in this area.
The STFC is committed to developing new training activities aimed at
increasing the quality and breadth of access to facilities
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
280
Memorandum 39
Submission from Institution of Engineering & Technology
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The IET believes that developing a diverse portfolio of renewable technologies is
crucial for the long term sustainability of our energy system, for the UK to meet its
national and international environmental challenges, and for the economic benefits
that a strong position in this market can bring.
2. Renewables currently meet a very small fraction of our total energy needs, and it will
take decades of sustained support before they begin have an appreciable impact.
This is an enormous long term challenge that will require strong and sustained
Government commitment, as apart of a long term multi-stranded energy policy.
3. Government must adopt a better integrated strategy covering the whole innovation
chain, to maximise the chances that successful R&D will deliver successful products.
Piecemeal policies have delivered mixed results, mainly limited to the deployment of
mature lower-cost technologies at the expense of larger-scale and emerging
technologies.
4. To improve support for renewables, we recommend that government Government
should
•
Be more selective in setting priorities and allocating funding for early stage
research;
•
Be more successful at leveraging support for costly demonstration and
commercialisation;
•
Take advantage of the potential for international partnerships;
•
Pre-emptively identify and address barriers to deployment, including the
supply of technical skills.
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
281
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Below we present our detailed evidence in response to the questions posed by the
Committee.
The current state of UK research and development in, and the deployment of,
renewable energy-generation technologies including: offshore wind; photovoltaics;
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; wave; tidal; bioenergy; ground source heat
pumps: and intelligent grid management and energy storage.
5. Renewable energy technologies cover a wide spectrum in terms of level of maturity,
scale, cost and potential benefits. A summary of the current state of development,
deployment and future potential of renewable generation technologies in the UK (see
Table 1) shows that many technologies are well advanced in terms of basic R&D, and
some are already deployed on a commercial scale. However, others remain
uncompetitive in terms of cost, while a number of newer technologies require support
to effect the transition from R&D to full-scale demonstration and commercial
deployment.
6. Renewables currently meet a very small fraction of our total energy needs, and it will
take decades of sustained support before they begin have an appreciable impact.
This is an enormous long term challenge that will require strong and sustained
Government commitment. Currently renewables supply under 5% of UK electricity
and under 2% of total UK energy. By contrast, fossil fuels meet 90% of the UK’s
energy needs now, and it is hard to see their contribution falling below 50% over the
next 50 years.
7. The potential for the contribution of renewables in the short to medium term is limited
by the fact that we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper but must operate within
the constraints of an inherited energy system. The critical and pervasive nature of
energy infrastructure in advanced industrialised nations such as the UK would make it
extremely difficult to implement some of the more radical scenarios that have been
put forward for renewables and distributed energy with the urgency required to meet
our goals. Therefore, strong support for renewables will have to be taken forward
alongside a diverse set of measures to reduce energy demand and promote a
broader suite of low carbon technologies.
The feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialising renewable
technologies as well as their reliability and associated carbon footprints.
8. Projections of costs and timescales for the commercialisation of energy technologies
have to rely on many assumptions about the structure of the markets the technology
will operate in and the availability and nature of government and other support for
R&D and deployment. They should therefore be used with caution. Several studies of
the costs of renewable technologies are available, and we will not add to them, but
will instead put forward a couple of observations pertinent to interpreting them.
9. The cost of energy technologies is in part a function of their rate of deployment.
Historically, the cost of renewable technologies in Europe has decreased by between
15% and 30% for each doubling of installed capacity132. Based on the experience of
the last few decades, the time required for energy technologies to reach maturity is of
132
International Energy Agency (2000) Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy (OECD,
Paris): http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
282
the order of 10-20 years, during which time cost is likely to fall by a factor of 3 to 4
times.
10. Many of the renewable technologies available today (e.g. wind, solar thermal, first
generation PV) have already been in development for several decades, and therefore
we should not expect their costs to continue to reduce at such a rate in future. For
example, with an expanded market for microgeneration technologies we might expect
their cost to come down 30-50% over the next 15 years.
The UK Government’s role in funding research and development for renewable
energy-generation technologies and providing incentives for technology transfer and
industrial research and development.
Context and principles
11. The UK Government has a crucial role to play in bringing forward renewable
technologies. Developing a diverse portfolio of renewable technologies is crucial for
the long term sustainability of the energy system, for the UK to meet its national and
international environmental challenges and for the economic benefits that a strong
position in this market can bring. Delivering these technologies within a market
system at the rate demanded by the climate change and security of supply
imperatives poses challenges that can only be overcome with strong and sustained
government support.
Review of current policies
12. Renewables and other emerging technologies are now being developed in the
context of a global technology market, where funding and support has become
considerably more complex over the last 20 years. The UK has seen a dramatic
change in the structure of its energy industries. Today there is no indigenous
manufacture of large electrical generating equipment, and only limited activity relating
to electrical network equipment, most or all of which is supplied from overseas.
Against this backdrop, both public sector and private sector energy R&D spending
has declined dramatically. At the same time, overseas manufacturers are conducting
ongoing R&D which directly benefits the UK through the performance of the
equipment purchased and installed, but the expenditure is not recorded, even though
in certain instances it may even be incurred in the UK.
13. In principle, the main UK Government policies to promote renewable energy
technologies have been ‘technology neutral’ and ‘market based’. In summary, we
believe that policies have been designed in a piecemeal fashion and their results
have been mixed.
ƒ
The level of current R&D support for renewables according to sources such as
the UKERC Research Register and the Research Councils ranges from a few
thousand pounds per annum for microgeneration and biofuels to a few million
each for photovoltaics, marine technologies and hydrogen and fuel cells. The UK
has a strong and capable research base to use this funding effectively, but we
suggest below that some of the funding priorities may need to be reassessed (see
§18).
ƒ
In addition to supporting basic research through the Research Councils,
government currently provides a variety of capital grants for emerging
technologies; however to date they have lacked coordination and focus and as a
result have not had an appreciable impact. There are now proposals for new
institutional arrangements bringing together public and private sector to enhance
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
283
and focus funding resources for demonstration and deployment (see §21). It will
be essential for Parliament to monitor and guide their remit and activities.
ƒ
The Renewables Obligation (RO) on electricity suppliers has been successful in
speeding up the deployment of mature renewable generation technologies, but it
has not encouraged the development of the diverse portfolio of renewable
technologies that will be required in the longer term. The proposed ‘banding’ of
the RO is a departure from ‘technology neutrality’ which may tip the balance in
favour of some of the more costly technologies (particularly offshore wind).
Recent analyses, however, have questioned whether the RO itself is the most
cost-effective mechanism for promoting renewables133, and whether the latest
round of consultations missed an opportunity to revise it more radically.
ƒ
Long term support for renewables is also expected to come from the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) which is designed to make the markets
more favourable to low-carbon technologies by putting a price on carbon
emissions. To date it has not provided the stable market outlook required for longterm investment in the sector. The UK Government will need to enter the
negotiations for the next phase of the EU-ETS (2008-2012) and the post-Kyoto
framework with strong political will to ensure that greater clarity is established
going forward on a global footing, or be prepared to act within the terms of the
draft Climate Change Bill if international negotiations do not produce the desired
results.
General recommendations
14. The IET believes that the role of Government in promoting renewable technologies
should be
•
to provide efficiently managed public funding for new technologies;
•
to facilitate and co-ordinate technology development activities by the public
and private sectors, and on the international scene;
•
to understand and address the market failures which put renewables at a
disadvantage to established technologies, despite their widely acknowledged
benefits.
15. Effective and efficient support mechanisms need to be designed based on an
understanding of the whole innovation chain, from the lab to the market. It is common
now to talk of Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment (“RDD&D”) to
encompass the different stages in the chain.
16. The design of support mechanisms, especially those aimed at eliciting private sector
investment, should also be informed by an understanding of the cost and risk profiles
of different technology options134. While we agree with the current consensus that
asking government to ‘pick winners’ in the technology stakes is neither appropriate
nor efficient, we believe that a ‘one size fits all’ approach risks limiting the diversity of
the portfolio of technologies coming forward (see comments on the RO, §13).
17. Public funding of new technologies is vital, but needs to be managed creatively to
maximise the benefits delivered. In order to deliver optimal results, funds for RDD&D
need to be better targeted towards the most promising alternatives and towards those
organisations which have the capability to deliver high quality results.
133
Ofgem response to the consultation on the Reform of the Renewables Obligation 2006:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environmnt/Policy/Documents1/16669-ROrespJan.pdf.
134
UK Energy Research Centre (2007) Investment in Electricity Generation: The role of costs,
incentives and risks (UKERC, London): http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/410/014.
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
284
•
In terms of technology areas, the UK should avoid replicating research carried
out in other parts of the world, but should focus on adding value where it is
best positioned and on resolving the local integration of global technologies.
The UK remains a leading player in electrical systems design and operations,
and exploits this overseas through its consultancies. Support should thus be
targeted at this area and those technologies where the UK has actual or
potential industrial capability or can demonstrate a unique advantage, such as
marine power.
•
The efficiency of the funding allocation process could be improved by making
more extensive use of competitive bidding mechanisms, as was recently
announced for the demonstration of Carbon Capture and Storage
technologies.
Research & Development
18. We recommend that the allocation of R&D funding among the different technologies
be reviewed with a clear view on their UK potential further down the innovation chain.
In our view, there is a strong case for promoting more research into biofuels given
their key role in European and domestic renewables targets. High levels of funding for
PV research may have to be reconsidered in view of the weak position of the UK in
PV manufacturing. Funding for marine technologies should only remain at such a
high level if there is serious commitment for fostering a large UK manufacturing base.
Funding for energy storage technologies should continue to increase, given that they
are expected to play a vital role in integrating and balancing renewable technologies.
Finally, wind power research should focus on operational issues rather than
components, which are unlikely to be manufactured in the UK.
19. Government could take a role in facilitating the participation of UK organisations in
EU-funded research projects. Historically UK companies and research
establishments have been under-represented in EU energy research programmes135
(though UK universities have played a prominent role as members of consortia with
non-UK companies meaning that technology transfer takes place outside the UK).
Funding under FP7 includes €2.3 billion for energy over the next seven years.
•
Government support could include better information dissemination,
administrative support, and even seed funding for collaborative bids, possibly
under the remit of the Environmental Transformation Fund.
•
It would also be helpful for Government to develop a clearer view of how
national research priorities relate to European and global programmes. The
DEBBR Energy Group has achieved good coordination in the area of
hydrogen and fuel cells, and we would argue for this approach to be rolled out
to other technologies.
Demonstration
20. In our view, the weakest link in the innovation chain on which government needs to
focus its attention is demonstration, followed by deployment. The critical
demonstration/early commercial stage of a technology combines steeply increased
costs with substantial risks, and for this reason is often referred to as the “Valley of
Death” for new technologies. This is a generic weakness that besets innovation in the
UK and Europe more generally. While most renewable technologies are successfully
135
IET submission to the Energy Review 2006, Appendix 3:
http://www.iee.org/policy/submissions/sub747.pdf.
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
285
supported through basic R&D, the transition to market is generally left to the private
sector and capital grants funding at this stage is restricted by EU State Aid rules.
21. Government needs to be more successful at leveraging support from the private
sector and developing international partnerships for demonstration projects,
particularly in the case of large scale capital intensive technologies which have the
potential to make a significant impact (e.g. wave and tidal technologies).
Demonstration is costly and will only make an impact on the total UK and global
position if it is undertaken on a material scale, and followed by full-scale roll-out. The
resources required will be substantial particularly for large scale technologies, but
there is scope for sharing them with the private sector and international partners
under the right arrangements. The Energy Technologies Institute and the
Environmental Transformation Fund announced in recent Budget rounds could
provide the basis for such arrangements. It is disappointing that several months after
their respective announcements, the arrangements and funding for these institutions
remain largely unknown to industry at large. Parliament should monitor their
development and seek to ensure that they fulfil their promised roles.
Deployment
22. Government will need to commit resources to defining and addressing the barriers to
deployment. These can include unintended barriers in the regulatory and commercial
framework, technical or safety standards, which need to be tackled through better
policy co-ordination. For example , barriers to the deployment of investment
forthcoming through the RO posed by the planning and connection regimes have now
been recognised by Government and it is hoped that they will be addressed; more
forward thinking will be required to prevent such policy bottlenecks in future. Other
technologies, particularly those adapted for the consumer market (microgeneration),
are hampered by lack of comprehensive accreditation schemes, a dearth of reliable
information and advice and a shortage of skilled installers (solar thermal, geothermal
and photovoltaics), which could be addressed with better government-industry
coordination.
23. Government must ensure that policies designed to promote renewables do not
founder on a lack of skills to implement them. There will need to be a steady supply of
a skilled workforce to devise, design, install and maintain renewable technologies as
they come forward. There is currently significant concern on the part of employers
that the supply of skills will not be adequate or suitable in coming years to meet their
demand for technical personnel. This concern extends to all levels of education and
qualification, from technicians to experienced professional engineers and advanced
researchers136. Government will need to keep a watching brief on developments in
this area in partnership with industry, and be prepared to intervene if necessary.
24. Finally, Government must recognise that some of the emerging technologies may
prove inherently more costly to implement than conventional technologies and may
therefore require more long term support. Clarity of vision will undoubtedly encourage
more research, but a more sustainable support framework may also be needed going
forward.
136
For a review of recent surveys, see Energy Research Partnership (2007) Investigation into High
Level Skills Shortages in the Energy Sector: http://www.energyresearchpartnership.co.uk/files/ERPSkills-Brochure.pdf
IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
286
Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007
Table 1. Current status, future prospects and actions on renewable technologies in the
UK137.
Where are we?
What can be achieved?
What is holding it back?
Energy from waste
A variety of mature or near- Significant potential, depending on Potential for landfill gas
restrictions on landfill.
market technologies exist for local circumstances.
recovering energy from waste.
Planning consent for ther
Electricity
generation
from
to energy plants.
landfill gas is the most widely
used.
On-shore wind power
Technology
economical
policies.
is
mature and Gradual expansion of capacity (over Objections under planning
with
current 15GW of potential wind capacity has
been applied for in Scotland alone). Transmission grid capacity
Increasing costs due
competition for raw mat
equipment.
Concerns about managing
for increased wind capacity
Off-shore wind power
Fundamental technology is Potential
for
mature but uneconomic under development.
current policies.
large
scale High capital cost - increas
global competition for raw
and equipment.
Deployment
offshore
will
continue to bring technological
and operational challenges.
Transmission grid capacity
Transmission/distribution
expansion.
Concerns about managing
for increased wind capacity
Hydroelectric power
Mature technology.
Tidal power
Several technologies exist in Sizeable natural resource to be Risk/cost of demonstration
prototype, in need of full-scale exploited in UK.
High initial costs and
demonstration
and
operating lifetimes.
Potential
for
technology
export.
commercialisation.
Future potential limited; most natural
resources already exploited.
About 10-15 years from full
commercialisation.
Wave power
Several technologies exist in Sizeable natural resource to be Risk/Cost of demonstration
prototype, in need of full-scale exploited in UK.
demonstration
and
Potential for technology export.
commercialisation.
About 10-15 years from full
commercialisation.
Photovoltaics
Mature but costly technology, Limited potential for improvement of High capital cost.
currently used mainly in niche current (first and second generation)
and ‘showcase’ applications.
technology but some scope to Competition for raw
improve production costs through (silicon) resulting in high co
137
For further details on renewable technologies, see the IET Factfiles:
http://www.theiet.org/publicaffairs/energy/renewable.cfm
287
Where are we?
What can be achieved?
What is holding it back?
improved manufacturing processes.
Lack of skilled installers.
Higher efficiency and more flexible Lack of information and ac
materials currently in development schemes.
could result in lower-cost, higherefficiency applications.
Mass
deployment
has
been
achieved where government support
has been substantial (e.g. Germany,
Japan).
Solar thermal energy
Technology is mature
relatively cost-effective.
and Large potential for domestic use, Lack of skilled installers.
both retrofit and new build.
Lack of information and ac
schemes.
Integration with building sto
Biomass
Technologies
using
‘first
generation’ biomass resources
for heat, power generation and
transport are fairly mature but
relatively costly.
Biomass for heat and power Lack of supply chain coord
generation could be more widely
Lack of skilled installers.
used in parts of the country.
Potential limited by other demands Lack of information and ac
schemes.
for land use, especially food crops.
Higher-yield ‘second generation’
biofuels are being researched
but are at least 10-15 years
from commercialisation.
Geothermal
Mature but costly technology.
High cost of installation.
Lack of skilled installers.
Lack of information and ac
schemes.
Integration with building sto
Hydrogen and fuel cells
Hydrogen is not inherently
renewable; in the near term, the
most likely sources are fossil
fuels,
resulting
in
CO2
emissions unless accompanied
by abatement technology. This
is an immature technology.
288
Memorandum 40
Submission from Sustainable Development Commission
The Science and Technology Select Committee (STSC) in conducting a wide-ranging
inquiry on Renewable Energy-Generation Technologies. This is the Sustainable
Development Commission’s (SDC) response to the call for evidence.
We have focussed on two renewable technologies (wind and tidal) and on the role of
intelligent grid management in supporting the development of renewable
technologies. This draws on our previous work on wind energy138 and our current
work on the role of Ofgem139, and on tidal power140, both due to be published in
autumn 2007.
Wind power
Onshore wind is the most commercialised renewable technology today. It is one of
the more competitive renewable generating technologies and as such has been the
technology most supported by the Renewables Obligation (RO).
The connection of offshore wind projects represents the next stage of UK renewables
deployment with projects starting in Robin Rigg (180MW), Lynn (90MW), Inner
Dowsing (90MW), and Gunfleet Sands (180MW) all of which are being supported by
the Offshore Wind Demonstration Programme.
Deployment and timescales
There is currently around 2GW of wind generation connected to the UK’s electricity
generating system, with a further 1,260MW of renewables under construction; there
is also 4,600MW with consent and 11,4000MW in the planning process141.
The main barrier to further deployment is the multiple delays in granting planning
permission for both individual wind development projects and for the transmission
and distribution infrastructure required to connect renewable generators to the
energy system.
The grid infrastructure in the North of England and Scotland is currently congested
with little spare capacity for the connection of new projects. Under the current
Security and Quality of Supply Standards (SQSS) the capacity of all generating
stations cannot exceed the capacity of the grid infrastructure. This means that the
capacity of the network needs to be increased before new projects can connect.
138
SDC (2005). Wind power in the UK. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=234
Further details can be found on the SDC website at http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/pages/ofgemreview.html
140
Further details can be found on the SDC website at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal.html
141
Figures obtained from the British Wind Energy Association website: http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp
139
289
The upgrade of the Beauly-Denny line to 400kV would increase the capacity of the
network in Scotland by around 6GW and would allow for the connection of 67 new
renewable projects. However the upgrade of the line will have an impact on visual
amenity in areas of Scotland and as a result is currently subject to public inquiry,
which could delay construction until 2012. It may also be subject to under-grounding
requirements.
An influx of renewable applications prior to the introduction of the British Electricity
Transmission and Trading Arrangements (BETTA) along with existing capacity
constraints has lead to a queue of projects (known as the GB or BETTA queue)
awaiting connection to the transmission and distribution system in Scotland. This
queue is managed on a first-come first-served basis which has led to a situation
where some of the projects at the front of the queue which do not have planning
consent or appropriate financial backing are delaying the connection dates for other
projects which are more likely to go ahead. One alternative approach would be to
move to a ’connect then manage‘ approach, which would see renewable generation
connected so that the capacity of the grid was exceeded, but accounted for by a
reduction in the generating output of fossil fuelled plant.
These challenges apply to both onshore and offshore wind. However, for offshore
wind the absence of a firm offshore regulatory framework adds additional risk. At
present there is no agreed framework for how offshore wind should connect to the
transmission system and how the commercial relationship between projects and grid
operators should work. Government and Ofgem have recently agreed part of the
offshore regulatory regime, and this will allow the construction of offshore lines to be
open to competitive tendering between transmission companies and other interested
parties. This is important progress in finalising the offshore regulatory regime by
2008. However, the process so far has been characterised by decision-making
delays in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly
Department for Trade and Industry) which need to be avoided in future if the 2008
deadline is to be met.
Costs
In our 2005 report on wind power, we estimated that the generation costs of onshore
wind power to be around 3.2p/kWh (+/-0.3p/kWh), with offshore at around 5.5p/kWh,
compared to a wholesale price of around 3p/kWh. 142 The additional system cost was
estimated to be around 0.17p/kWh when wind makes up 20% of total capacity
installed. This figure accounts for the additional costs caused by the variability of
wind, which requires a small increase in ‘balancing requirements’ of the network
operator. Generation costs are likely to decrease over time as the technology
improves, but this will be balanced against increased costs for integrating higher
levels of wind generation into the system. However, as the SDC’s work, and the more
recent work by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC)143, has shown, wind power
and other ‘intermittent’ generators do not require dedicated backup capacity, and the
cost of handling any net increase in variability is small.
The generation costs of offshore wind are harder to calculate, and are proving to be
more expensive than anticipated. In its current form the Renewables Obligation will
142
These prices are based on pre-2005 data and are therefore likely to have changed.
UKERC (2006). The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/258/852
143 143
290
not deliver sufficient financial support to for large-scale deployment of offshore wind,
but the recent decision to band the RO should change this144.
Market arrangements
Wind is free and uncontrollable which means that the marginal operating cost for
wind generation is close to zero. Wind generation would rather sell its output than
not. This essentially means that wind will take the lowest wholesale price which is
often set by the price of gas. As such the financial return on wind generation is
variable and dependent on the wholesale price of electricity.
Under the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA)
around 2% of the electricity traded is done so through the balancing and settlement
mechanism. The mechanism was designed to incentivise parties to match supply
with demand and encourage investment in generation to minimise the risk of largescale power outages. This was achieved by having two imbalance prices, a System
Buy Price and System Sell Price.
Through this mechanism generators have to state how much electricity they will
generate every half hour. Generators that under-produce must buy electricity at the
system buy price, those that overproduce must sell the surplus at the system sell
price. Whilst the predictability of wind and other intermittent generators does improve
over a half hour period there is still greater scope for being out of balance and paying
punitive charges.
The costs of the mechanism are very high for small generators, such as renewables,
who are exposed to risk from the spread between the two imbalance prices.
However, renewable generation has to reach a significant proportion of the total GB
generating mix to pose a significant risk to the balance of supply and demand.
Ofgem recently approved a code modification (P197) which changed the basis for
system buy and sell prices to reflect the marginal price of electricity, thereby
increasing the cost borne by the generator for being out of balance. This has led to a
situation where the generators that are being most heavily penalised are the ones
that pose the least risk to the system.
Whilst the RO allows wind to cover the cost of the balancing mechanism, it’s
existence is evidence of a set of trading arrangements which do not recognise the
particular characteristics of wind or other renewable generation.
Carbon footprint.
The energy balance, or ‘carbon payback‘, of wind turbines has been cited as a factor
that limits its effectiveness at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are a
number of studies on this subject145 with most suggesting that wind turbines take
144
HM Government (2007). Meeting the Energy Challenge. Energy White Paper 2007.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html
145
Danish Wind Turbine Manufactureres Association (1997), The Energy Balance of Modern Wind Turbines,
Available from http://www.winpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm; citations in Wind Power Weekly (1992),
Available at http://www.awea.org/faq/bal.html; and Milborrow, D, (1998), Dispelling the Myths of Energy
Payback Time, Wind Stats Newsletter, Vol 11, No 2
291
between 3-10 months to produce the electricity consumed during their life-cycle. The
payback period varies depending on the size of the project and the location.
Tidal power
The SDC is currently conducting a review of the potential for tidal power in the UK,
with funding support from the UK Government, Welsh Assembly Government,
Scottish Executive, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Northern
Ireland), and the South West Regional Development Agency. The project was
originally announced in the DTI’s Energy Review146, and was restated in the Energy
White Paper 2007144. The review covers both types of tidal resource, tidal stream and
tidal range, and reviews the technologies available for harnessing this resource.
The SDC is assessing the potential role of tidal power generally, and of a Severn
barrage specifically, to contribute to the twin challenges of climate change and
energy security. The primary aim of the project is to develop a public-facing report on
tidal power in the UK from a sustainable development perspective which will include
recommendations for policy-makers. The SDC’s work is based on a set of evidencebased research reports looking at the various issues in more detail, along with the
results of a substantial public and stakeholder engagement programme.
Our review has been confined to an assessment of existing studies and research; it
has not involved any new primary research except where this has been provided to
the SDC directly. Our review of options for a Severn barrage has focussed on two
principal barrage options: the large Cardiff-Weston barrage promoted by the Severn
Tidal Power Group (STPG) and the smaller Shoots barrage close to the second
Severn crossing and currently promoted by PB Power. The review recognises that
there are other schemes which have been studied previously or are currently being
suggested, for example, Somerset County Council’s interest in an outer barrage to
address flood protection objectives, and these schemes will be referenced but are
not considered in detail. The report will also address tidal lagoons and tidal stream
technologies from a UK-wide perspective.
We hope to publish our final report and the accompanying evidence base in Autumn
2007.
Intelligent grid management
There is an increasing need for the development of more sophisticated grid
management solutions in order to facilitate the connection of renewable and low
carbon generation.
The current energy system is based around a series of large power stations
connected to the transmission network. The transmission system operator’s role is to
ensure that supply and demand of energy are always in balance so as to ensure that
146
HM Government (2006). The Energy Challenge. Energy Review Report 2006.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/page31995.html
292
the lights stay on. The distribution network operators (DNO) in the current system are
designed to be only passive players in the energy system, ensuring that electricity
flows from the transmission network to our homes and businesses.
However, as the market moves towards increasing levels of distributed generation so
it will be important for the distribution networks to become more active managers of
the energy flowing across their network. As the distribution networks become more
active, so the system can start to provide more innovative solutions for matching the
characteristics of different types of generation with different demand profiles.
Deployment and timescales
Ofgem have recognised the potential for intelligent grid management and put in place
a series of incentives to move the distribution networks to become more active in
managing energy flows. However, a move to more active management of the
distribution networks could be costly, and the need depends largely on whether
distributed generation technologies can compete in the current market framework.
The DNOs have an incentive to connect distributed generation, which in 2005 was
set at the rate of £1.50 per MW of connected distributed generation. This incentive is
reinforced by the Registered Power Zones programme which provides an extra £3
per MW if the connection is made using an innovative solution. However, the
incentive is having little impact as the criteria for receiving the it is quite narrow and,
once demonstrated, the innovative solution can no longer gain the additional funding
when used by other DNOs. This has led to the demonstration of innovative solutions
but no mechanism for the rapid commercialised roll-out.
Work being done by Surrey University in association with United Utilities147 highlights
the potential for DNOs to lose money by connecting distributed generation. This is
due to the loss of revenue that would have come from the charges associated with
the pass-through of electricity from the transmission network. Whilst this work is still
at an early stage, it potentially highlights the need for a more thorough review of the
charging and incentive arrangements for DNOs, to facilitate the move towards more
active management.
At present, the innovation spend by DNOs is very low, with the highest (EdF) at
around 0.4% of turnover. The UK all-industry average for innovation expenditure is
around 2% of turnover. Ofgem adopted an innovation funding incentive in the 2005
price control review which allowed DNOs to spend 0.5% of their turnover on
innovation. This has helped to restore innovation funding to levels equivalent to preprivatisation, but is still below the UK national average for all industries.
Timing is a critical issue. Network assets have a long lifetime, with investments made
over the next 5-10 years delivering infrastructure that will last until 2050. However,
the low level of innovation means that network expenditure is going on like-for-like
replacement of network assets, meaning that the grid in 2050 will be no more
technologically advanced than the grid of 1970. A much stronger focus is required on
UNIVERSITY OF SURREY/UNIED UTILITIES A TOOL TO ANALYSE THE REGULATORY INCENTIVES ON A DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
OPERATOR AT A PROJECT LEVEL (2007)
147
293
the incentive regimes for network innovation to reduce network losses, increase
capacity and ensure that the system is future-proofed for the connection of new
generating technologies.
July 2007
294
Memorandum 41
Submission from Royal Academy of Engineering
Introduction
The Royal Academy of Engineering is pleased to be able to respond to the House of
Commons Science and Technology Select Committee Inquiry into Renewable
Energy-Generation Technologies.
The Royal Academy of Engineering strongly endorses the Committee’s interest in the
subject of renewable energy generation in the UK, but notes that this is an extremely
crowded policy area at present with consultations arising from the May 2007 Energy
White Paper, March 2007 Draft Climate Change Bill and the May 2007 Planning
White Paper. Additionally, the number of organisations involved in researching lowcarbon technologies is large. In such an environment, there is always a danger of
effort being duplicated.
An Engineering Led Response to Climate Change
In response to the Energy White Paper, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Fourth Assessment Report, the Draft Climate Change Bill, the Stern Review
and the Energy White Paper, The Royal Academy of Engineering and the 35 UK
engineering institutions, together representing nearly 250,000 registered engineers
and over 600,000 members, formed a Round Table of industry experts under the
Chairmanship of Lord Browne of Madingley. Their objective is to provide engineering
led advice to Government on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy
production and usage, and the sustainability of both.
Such a coming together of the engineering profession is unprecedented and reflects
a conviction that engineering is essential to the provision of solutions to the urgent
challenges posed by climate change.
Various targets have been set for the stabilisation of atmospheric CO2. In the UK,
these were historically derived from the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution’s report Energy, The Changing Climate148, which advocated a 60%
reduction in emissions. This was derived from the then perceived need to stabilise at
550ppm of CO2. However, this target has, since 2000, become controversial and
many experts have revised their estimates of the required target downwards to
between 450 and 500ppm. The scale of the challenge to deliver the necessary
reductions is such that delivery currently seems unlikely unless significant new
initiatives are taken. Investment in new technologies and techniques will be required
as well as investment in the engineering workforce expected to deliver and run these
technologies. The most appropriate strategies to ensure robust, economic and
effective actions are far from clear.
It is clear that if a suitable level of stabilisation of CO2 is to be achieved, the trajectory
of CO2 increase needs to be reduced quickly. If there is no significant global progress
148
Energy, The Changing Climate, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, June 2000
295
by 2025, CO2 levels of 450 to 500ppm will be unattainable. Given the long economic
life of the electricity generating plant and energy using products that will be
contributing to emissions over that period, the window for action in terms of designing
and deploying low emissions technologies on a sufficiently large scale is significantly
shorter.
Virtually everything that uses energy to function or to generate power is an
engineered product, ranging from mobile phones to nuclear power plants. Similarly
products that reduce energy demand such as loft insulation, double glazed windows
and heat pumps are also engineered products. From a position of understanding the
processes involved in inventing, developing, designing, producing and marketing
these products, the engineering profession is in a unique position to advise
Government on the practical actions and priorities required to improve sustainability
and energy efficiency, and to accelerate the development of new energy efficient
products
Climate change is a global issue; the atmosphere cannot be segmented into
particular national responsibilities. However, the technical advances which will make
a global impact will, in all probability, need to be championed by the first world
countries that currently have the highest per capita energy demand. Demonstrating
leadership and a will to tackle climate change in the World’s leading industrialised
economies is prerequisite to catalysing Global action. Achieving UK technical and
commercial leadership in moving towards a low-carbon economy is key to bolstering
the UK’s global leadership on climate change issues as well as underpinning the
export potential for UK technologies through technology transfer to other carbon
intensive and fast expanding economies.
The Round Table (see annex 1 for membership) believes that the engineering
profession has a key role to play in the delivery of the CO2 emission reductions
envisaged in the Stern Review, firstly through the commercialisation and deployment
of technologies in the UK and secondly through the export of those technologies
including the use of the flexible mechanisms149 under the Kyoto Protocol and its
successors.
Furthermore, the Round Table believes that a detailed study should be
commissioned that would set out an engineering led response to the climate change
challenge, providing Government with recommendations that would bring forward the
commercialisation and deployment of emission reducing technologies in a timely and
optimal manner. This would be focused on the timescales for implementation,
maximum impact and lowest abatement costs for reductions in emissions from
energy production and usage.
In the opinion of the Round Table, a number of technologies show significant
potential for near and medium term reduction in emissions and the proposed study
149
Flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol allow Annex 1 signatory nations (those with binding
emissions reduction targets) to claim credit for emissions reduction projects in other countries: by emissions
trading between Annex 1 nations; by buying credits from non-Annex 1 nations under the Joint Implementation;
or by receiving credits from non-Annex 1 nations for investing directly in local emission reduction schemes
under the Clean Development Mechanism. Flexible mechanisms are administered by the United Nations
Framework Convention of Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/2860.php).
296
will test the evidence behind them. Similarly, the Round Table is of the opinion that
certain changes to regulatory and taxation structures could lead to early or immediate
reductions in emissions from energy production and use throughout the economy as
well as setting the foundations for sustained reductions into the future.
297
1.
The Current State of UK Research and Development
1.1. As well as addressing the state of renewable technology research in the UK, it
should be remembered that a key product of university research is trained
people. The lack of investment in wind energy research (onshore as well as
offshore) is leading to a shortage of technical specialists entering UK industry in
these important areas of major commercial activity. As technologies such as
tidal stream and fuel cells become commercially viable, the same lack of trained
engineers and technicians in these fields will become apparent.
1.2. The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) has produced an Atlas of UK
Energy Research150 which provides a concise and updated view of current
energy research in the UK, who the key funders are and where the research is
being conducted. The key outputs from this work are available as landscapes of
roadmaps for the various technologies considered and the Committee may find
these useful in its deliberation.
1.3. In general terms, the Academy would make the following points about the state
of research and development of key renewable energy-generation technologies
within the UK:
1.3.1.
Offshore wind energy is significantly more expensive and risky than onshore
wind energy and research is needed to lower costs and reduce risks. Without
this research the development of offshore wind energy, where the UK is
trying to move forward faster than many other countries, may be delayed.
1.3.2.
Tidal stream energy research remains very fragmented with significant
barriers to the development and dissemination of knowledge, particularly of
the resource, arising from commercial sensitivities of the device developers.
This may be contrasted with the then Department of Energy large wind
turbine programme managed by ETSU in the 1980s. This undertook publicly
funded research and monitoring the results of which were made publicly
available into aspects both of wind turbine performance and wind resource
characterisation. Such a programme gave very valuable information for the
subsequent commercial development of wind energy and contributed to the
establishment of Garrad Hassan and Partners and Renewable Energy
Systems Ltd (both major UK successes in wind energy).
1.3.3.
Wave energy remains at an early stage of development with no clear device
architecture becoming pre-eminent. The “winner” will only emerge through a
process of natural selection following field trials. Thus a priority is to facilitate
full-scale field trials to increase experience of wave energy and to accelerate
this process.
1.3.4.
The key present problem in intelligent grid management is the “GB queue” of
16 GW of wind energy applications in Scotland and no mechanism to
connect them within a firm time scale. Other than that particular issue there
is a reasonable consensus of how to proceed up to the 2020 level of 20% of
electrical energy from renewables. However research is now needed for the
150
http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/ERA001.html
298
Grid implications of higher levels of low carbon generation i.e. to meet the
60%-80% CO2 reductions by 2050 or the 20% of total energy from
renewables. Given the length of life of transmission and distribution assets
and the very high rates of spend now being sanctioned by OFGEM (which
are presently being expended on like-for-like replacements) this is becoming
an urgent issue. At present, the issues associated with incorporating
distributed distribution in the UK network are limited to wind energy, but will
apply equally to other distributed technologies such as micro CHP when they
become available.
1.3.5.
2.
Cost effective energy storage remains a key goal of energy research. Two
major UK initiatives; high speed flywheels (URENCO) and REDOX flow
batteries (Regenesys) were technically successful and were taken to beyond
the prototype stage. However both manufacturers then withdrew from the
market. It is very difficult to compete with fossil fuels, which store energy in
chemical form, under present market conditions. Research should be
continued on energy storage with the applications focussed on the longer
term 2050 ambitions of very deep cuts in CO2 emissions when the very
onerous requirements that will be placed on the power system may allow a
commercial case of energy storage to be developed.
The Feasibility, Costs, Timescales and Progress in Commercialising
Renewables
2.1. The Academy currently has no properly researched information to offer on
feasibility, costs, timescales and progress to commercialisation but the
collection of this data will form a key part of the evidence base for the proposed
engineering led study proposed by the Academy and the 35 UK engineering
institutions.
2.2. In general terms, the Academy would endorse a holistic approach to
considering the pathways to a low-carbon economy. In particular, a technology
path should be considered where technologies which become commercially
viable early on are replaced by later generations of technology that have better
carbon footprints and reliability. This is important because investment in later
generations of technologies is less likely to happen if markets for product have
not been established by the earlier technologies. A good example of this is in
the bio-fuels sector where bio-ethanol derived from corn or sugar beet does not
perform well in terms of carbon footprint but plays an important role in paving
the way to market for lingo-cellulosic ethanol technologies.
299
3.
The UK Government’s Role in Funding RDD&D for Renewable
Technologies
3.1. Research spending on energy has declined dramatically in the UK since the
privatisation of the industry in the mid-Eighties as can be seen in Fig 1.
Fig 1 Energy R&D (Public) Spend
3.2. While the fall in R&D spending in the sector has been significant, it has also
become more fragmented, making the roles of the Energy Research
Partnership, Environmental Transformation Fund and the Energy Technology
Institute vital in coordinating and directing the available funding.
3.3. Given that climate change is such a high priority concern for the Government, it
follows that Government energy RDD&D spending should not be allowed to
decline, but in fact be increased. The complexity and number of funding
organisations currently in the field also means that best value for money may
net be extracted for the funding available. As the Energy Research Partnership
have recommended, the research landscape for energy RDD&D should be
radically simplified leading to a national energy research programme consisting
of the Research Council Energy Programme funding early stage university
based research, the Energy Technology Institute funding development
programmes and the Environmental Transformation Fund funding
demonstration programmes.
4.
Other Possible Technologies for Renewable Energy-Generation
4.1. Climate change is now accepted globally as a real threat, as is the role of
anthropogenic CO2 emission in accelerating climate change. It is currently
estimated that atmospheric CO2 levels must be stabilised at 450 to 500 ppm by
2050 in order to restrict global warming to 2°C.
4.2. In order to reach the goal of stabilising atmospheric CO2 levels, the trajectory of
the increase of CO2 concentrations needs to be reduced urgently and it is
300
estimated that unless significant results are seen before 2015, then it will be
impossible to stabilise at the levels that climate scientists predict to be required.
The logic of this situation dictates that early and large wins are required that
cannot be attained by diffuse technologies such as wind or still developing
technologies such as tidal stream.
4.3. The urgency of the climate change problem means that while every effort must
be made to develop the renewable technologies of tomorrow, some large scale
carbon avoidance schemes must be considered now. Such schemes need to be
rated at the gigawatt scale and include the replacement of current nuclear
generation capacity, carbon capture and storage, and schemes such as the
Severn Tidal Barrage.
4.4. It is well known that both nuclear fission and large tidal barrages carry
significant environmental risks in terms of nuclear waste management and
altering the ecology of tidal estuaries, but the urgency of the need to reduce
CO2 emission from the power sector suggests that these potential risks should
now be balanced against the risks of failing to stabilise atmospheric CO2 at
acceptable levels.
4.5. Carbon capture and storage is rightly being championed by Government as it
has the potential to provide gigawatts of low-carbon electricity generation in the
UK as well as significant export potential for the technology. Public funding is
essential to the large scale demonstration of carbon capture and storage as the
risk profile, capital intensity and current pre-commercial nature means that
industry will be unable to carry out the required RDD&D themselves. Industry
does, however, have a strong desire to see carbon capture and storage
succeed as a technology and recent developments have shown them willing to
participate in the Government sponsored competition announced in the 2007
Budget and Energy White Paper. Other areas of research that must be
addressed for carbon capture and storage include the safe storage of CO2, the
infrastructure required to handle the CO2 and the legal aspects of sub-sea
disposal.
5.
Conclusions
5.1. An engineering led response to climate change involving all of the UK
professional engineering institutions should be commissioned to help inform
Government and industry on the optimal route to a low-carbon economy.
5.2. The number of bodies involved in funding energy research should be
rationalised with oversight provided by the Energy Research Partnership.
5.3. Government spending on energy RDD&D should be increased from its current
low levels.
July 2007
301
Annex 1
Members of the Round Table Group
1. Lord Browne of Madingley FREng FRS, Chair,
President, The Royal Academy of Engineering
2. Mr John Armitt FREng
Chief Executive, Network Rail
3. Prof Phil Blythe
Professor of Transport, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
4. Prof Jacquie Burgess
Professor of Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia
5. Dr David Clarke
Head of Technology Strategy, Rolls-Royce
6. Prof Roland Clift FREng
Professor of Environmental Technology University of Surrey
7. Mr Bill Coley
Chief Executive, British Energy
8. Tom Delay
Chief Executive, The Carbon Trust
9. Mark Fairbairn
Executive Director Gas Distribution, National Grid
10. Dr Mike Farley
Director of Technology and Policy Liaison, Mitsui Babcock
11. Dr Paul Golby
Chief Executive, E.On UK
12. Dr Keith Guy FREng
Director, Spiritus
13. Roger Hitchin
Technical Director, BRE
14. David Hone
Group Climate Change Adviser, Shell International B.V.
302
15. Lord Oxburgh KBE FREng FRS
Non-Exec Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell 2004-5, Life Peer
16. Mr Richard Parry-Jones FREng
Group Vice President, Product Development, Ford Motor Company
303
Memorandum 42
Submission from the UK Energy Research Centre
The UK Energy Research Centre's (UKERC) mission is to be the UK's pre-eminent centre
of research, and source of authoritative information and leadership, on sustainable
energy systems.
UKERC undertakes world-class research addressing the whole-systems aspects of energy
supply and use while developing and maintaining the means to enable cohesive research
in energy.
To achieve this we are establishing a comprehensive database of energy research,
development and demonstration competences in the UK. We will also act as the portal
for the UK energy research community to and from both UK stakeholders and the
international energy research community.
Executive Summary
ƒ
Funding of renewable energy is increasing, which is welcome
ƒ
Co-ordination of research has improved over recent years, but there is potential
for further improvement
ƒ
The research landscape and funding structures continue to undergo disruptive
change, which is counterproductive; a consistent approach should be pursued
ƒ
There is a need to improve funding in bioenergy systems, particularly biofuels
ƒ
The focus for large scale wind energy research should be on operational issues
ƒ
The challenge remains in producing viable cost effective PV systems
ƒ
Fuel cell research also faces considerable barriers, but the UK has a good position
which should be maintained
ƒ
The UK has a leading position in marine renewables, but it is still far from
commercial deployment
ƒ
In addition to research on the individual renewable energy technologies,
integration issues are increasingly important and continuation of the existing
strong research activity is encouraged
The following submission is preceded by a tabled summary of the current state of energy
research and development and deployment in the UK, technology by technology. This is
used as the basis for commentary on the technology potential of:
ƒ Wind
ƒ
Photovoltaics
ƒ
Hydrogen and fuel cells
304
ƒ
Marine renewables
ƒ
Bioenergy
ƒ
Groundsource heat pumps
ƒ
Microgeneration
ƒ
Intelligent grid management
ƒ
Energy storage
Finally, UKERC offers its views on the research funding landscape. Recommendations are
highlighted in bold.
Summary of Current State of R&D and
Deployment Technology by Technology151
Technology
R&D volume in last 4 Current installed capacity
calendar
years
(£million)
Wind - offshore
2.9
4.4
1.4
0.7
in
in
in
in
2007
2006
2005
2004
Photovoltaics
4.6
3.9
3.0
1.9
in
in
in
in
2007
2006
2005
2004
Hydrogen & fuel cells
7.5
6.8
5.4
6.3
in
in
in
in
2007
2006
2005
2004
Wave
8.5 in 2007
11.2 in 2006
6.0 in 2005
2.6 in 2004
Wind - onshore
Tidal - barrage
Tidal - current
Bioenergy - biofuels155 0.9
0.4
0.4
0.3
1,872 MW
10.9 MW152
Shoreline wave - 0.5153
The installed capacity of tidal
power reached 3,836MW in
2005154
2007
2006
2005
2004
0.5% of total transport fuel
sales from UK-sourced biomass
in 2007 (264 million litres)
Bioenergy - biomass156 2.9 in 2007
2.7 in 2006
4.1% of UK electricity and
heat157. Total installed capacity
151
152
153
154
155
in
in
in
in
304 MW
Unless stated otherwise, data is from the UKERC Research Register
2005 data from IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme
DTI, DUKES 2006
Variability of UK marine resources, 2005
Biofuels designates liquid fuels derived from biomass including dedicated energy crops
305
2.1 in 2005
1.5 in 2004
Ground
pumps
source
in 2005 was 4850 MW.
3.2 MWth158
heat
Microgeneration159
0.22 in 2007
Not available
Energy storage
1.6
1.1
0.5
0.2
Not significant
in
in
in
in
2007
2006
2005
2004
Technology Potential
1. The potential of the different technologies is summarised below. Primarily this is
in terms of the time to reach a level of development when significant contributions
to energy generation can be expected. However, some indication of levelised
costs for wind power will be presented, based on UKERC’s recent report:
Investment in electricity generation – the role of costs, incentives and risks (May
2007). Levelised costs provide an important indicator of the relative attractiveness
of different technologies to investors but the complete picture includes market
risks and volatility as well as the design and credibility of any support
mechanisms.
Wind power
2. Although wind power is a relatively mature technology, R&D is required to
underpin the scaling up of the technology. It is widely recognised that
turbines larger than 2 to 3 MW rated require improved design codes to account for
the intrinsically more flexible structures. Turbine manufacturers are under
extreme pressures to deliver the increased volumes of machines and cannot
undertake the basic research required. In setting up a technology platform for
wind, the European Commission acknowledged that publicly funded research was
required and that Universities and research institutes had an important role to
play, both in delivering the research and in providing the highly trained engineers
required by the fast growing industry.
3. There are engineering challenges in siting turbines offshore at increasing water
depths. Condition monitoring for predictive maintenance is a key issue for
operators if acceptable levels of reliability are to be achieved. Support for
continued development of technology in these areas will help meet policy aims
and potentially provide an exploitable knowledge base for the UK.
156
Biomass is biomaterial (eg from energy crops and forestry waste) burned to produce heat or electricity or
both
157
Figures taken from Biomass Strategy Document May 2007, published by DEFRA. DTI, DFT
158
2005 data from National Energy Foundation
159
Microgeneration includes domestic scale generation from wind and CHP
306
4. Wind energy is already making an important contribution to UK electricity supply.
It is well known that the UK has a massive wind resource. Increasingly the
barriers to exploitation will be the electricity distribution and transmission
infrastructure (see section 2.8 below).
5. Current estimates of onshore generation costs according to UKERC160 are in the
range £39/MWh +- £17/MWh, with offshore in the range £48/MWh +- £20/MWh.
6. Energy payback period is a reasonable proxy for carbon footprint. Experts agree
that the period is measured in months rather than years. For example,
calculations by the Danish Wind Industry Association indicate the payback period
for onshore wind turbines around three months (although clearly this figure is site
dependent), with slightly lower figures for offshore wind.
Photovoltaics
160
7.
PV technology has been evolving steadily since its appearance in the 1960s. Initially the devices were
based on crystalline silicon, drawing heavily on the knowledge of that material that developed out the
fast growing electronics industry. The first thin film device was based on amorphous silicon soon after
discovery of the material in the late 1960s. Thereafter a range of alternative thin film and wafer based
cells were developed, some for space application where multiple-junction cells with over 40%
efficiency have been demonstrated. Some were developed specifically for the terrestrial market, most
notably Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) and Copper Indium di-Selenide (CIS) devices where monolithic
manufacturing techniques have been applied to keep costs down. Efficiencies for commercial thin film
modules can be up to 12% whilst experimental laboratory test cells have considerably higher
efficiencies. This compares with the best commercial mono-crystalline silicon modules that have
efficiencies approaching 20%. More recently research has opened up the possibility of low cost
moderate efficiency organic cells, both dye based and polymer devices.
8.
The primary challenge is the design and fabrication of low cost, stable, good efficiency cells that will
eventually be able to compete with bulk generated conventional electricity. The expected timeline for
technology development, and the point at which PV technology will be able to compete without explicit
subsidy, is a matter of debate and of course depends of the levels of R&D expenditure that will be
committed and the degree of commercial investment. The published Strategic Research Agenda of the
EU PV Technology Platform presents an informed view on these key issues, and this has been adapted
to provide UK specific targets in UKERC’s UK PV Research Road Map.
9.
The overall aim of research in PV has to be to reduce PV generated electricity costs. Some
improvement in conversion efficiency is required, particularly for the thin films, but this must be
coupled to dramatically reduce production costs; the goal is often considered to be the reduction in the
cost per peak Watt, but should more accurately be the cost per kW hour generated considering all
system and operational costs. There is no one approach or technology that stands out in terms of its
potential to deliver but it is clear that increased research emphasis on the manufacturing process is
required. Materials research aimed at improved PV devices must constantly bear in mind the
UKERC report: Investment in electricity generation – the role of costs, incentives and risks (May 2007)
307
manufacturability of provided device architectures. Although most of the research challenges lie with
PV module design and manufacture, systems are presently let down by underperforming balance of
system components and in particular the inverter. Moreover presently available performance prediction
tools are inadequate and as a result, potential customers can be misled. Research is needed to improve
the available calculation tools.
10. UKERC’s Research Road Map for PV (January 2007) projects a target price for PV systems of 1
Euro/Watt by 2030, but of course this figure is critically dependent on R&D and market expansion. By
this time it is estimated that PV in the UK could be contributing approximately 3% of national
electricity.
11. Energy involved in the manufacture of a PV system is recouped in the case of the market dominant
silicon wafer cells in between 3 and 4 years, with thin film cells, having less energy intensive
manufacturing, at 3 years or less. Design and fabrication improvements are anticipated to reduce these
figures substantially, perhaps to around 1 year for thin film devices.161
Hydrogen & fuel cells
12. Fuel cells, operating on hydrogen or hydrogen-rich fuels, have the potential to
become major factors in catalysing the transition to a future sustainable energy
system with low carbon dioxide emissions. The vision of such an integrated
energy system of the future would combine large and small fuel cells for domestic
and decentralised heat and electricity power generation with local (or more
extended) hydrogen supply networks which would also be used to fuel
conventional (internal combustion) or fuel cell vehicles.
13. As the table in Section 1 shows this field receives is the best-funded of the
technologies discussed, although in comparison to other countries the absolute
level is modest. The UK has established an internationally competitive position
and can boast two world-class spin-out companies, which demonstrates a good
return from the investment to date.
14. There remain three major technological barriers that must be overcome for a
transition from a carbon-based (fossil fuel) energy system to a hydrogen-based
economy. First, the cost of efficient and sustainable hydrogen production and
delivery must be significantly reduced. Second, new generation of hydrogen
storage systems for both vehicular and stationary applications must be developed.
Finally, the cost of fuel cell and other hydrogen-based systems must be reduced.
15. Consequently we believe there are strong grounds for the existing funding
level to be at least maintained.
Marine Renewables (Wave and Tidal Current Energy)
16. Marine renewables cover wave energy and tidal current energy. The potential for
offshore wave energy in the UK has been estimated to be 50 TWh/year with
nearshore and shoreline wave adding another 8 TWh. The UK tidal stream
potential is 18 TWh. Taken together, approximately 15-20% of UK electricity
demand could in principle be met by wave and tidal current. This growing sector
161
Figures from US Department of Energy.
308
believes that by 2020 there could be 1-2GW of installed capacity in the UK. To
achieve this requires successful demonstration of the technology at full scale.
17. Since 2000, a number of large scale wave and tidal current prototypes have been
demonstrated around the world, but marine renewable energy technology is still
10-15 years behind that of wind energy. UK based developers are leading the
field with the majority being SMEs. The Carbon Trust estimates that there are 4050 devices in various stages of development. In the UK only one wave energy
device (Pelamis) and two tidal current devices (MCT & Open Hydro) have been
demonstrated at near full scale in the open sea. The first commercial wave energy
farms using the Pelamis device are being planned in Portugal, Orkney and
Cornwall. The largest tidal current turbine (Seagen, MCT) will be installed in
August 2007 in Strangford Lough in N. Ireland. Although there are some
companies installing large devices there is still no clear technology winner, with
many companies still in the early development stage.
18. The UK leads the development in marine renewable energy and has the potential
to benefit from any emerging global market. Areas where the UK can benefit from
this global market include: wave & tidal current device development; Electrical
system design; Scale model tank testing; Resource Assessment; Device
Installation, Device Manufacture; Grid connection; System demonstration;
Offshore test facilities at European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney and at
the Wavehub off the Cornish coast.
19. Although progress is underway through deployment and test there are still key
scientific challenges to be addressed in areas including, Resource Assessment and
Predictability, Engineering Design and Manufacturability, Installation, Operation
and Maintenance, Survivability, Reliability and Cost Reduction. The research
priorities required to meet these challenges have been drawn from current
roadmaps and vision documents including more recent consultations within the
community by the UKERC Marine Research Network. Some of these priorities are
being addressed by the EPSRC Supergen Marine Consortium. Development of a
prototype is time consuming and very expensive, taking between 7 and 10 years.
An overarching challenge is to reduce this development time, which will require
developers and academic research teams to collaborate in research programmes
such as Supergen Marine to develop reliable design codes and reduce the reliance
on tank testing at different scales.
Bioenergy
20. The UK’s biomass resource is significant and is estimated by some as generating
up to 20 million tonnes per annum. Research and development needs within the
bioenergy area have been identified in the UK horizon scanning activity in
foresight, in the EU with the Biomass Action Plan and the ReFUEL project for liquid
transportation and the development of the biorefinery concept. A clear distinction
is necessary between first generation crops that have been developed for food
(sugar beet, oil seed rape and wheat grain) that may be used for chemical
conversions to biodiesel and bioethanol and second generation lignocellulosic
(biomass) crops that can be used as feedstock for heat, power and liquid fuels.
309
The UK biomass strategy report May 2007162 makes it clear that biomass streams
in the UK could be much better utilised.
21. First generation technologies have in general a poor carbon footprint and
represent a ‘intermediate step’ towards second generation lignocellulosic
feedstock. Research emphasis for these crops should be placed on landscapescale impacts of moderate increases in OSR growth, on the knock-on effects on
increased cereal growth and consequent loss of set-aside land and associated
impacts on UK Biodiversity and altered carbon footprint and complete Life Cycle
Analysis. At present there is limited understanding on how these bioenergy
chains compare in environmental impact and a better evidence base is required.
22. Future strategic research efforts should be focussed on second
generation lignocellulosic feedstocks. Current funding in place will address
breeding and improvement for higher yield in these crops, but the UK should be
prepared to place additional resource to ensure adequate miscanthus,
poplar and willow germplasm as the climate changes and this will require
a strategic long-term investment in breeding and improvement. Our 10
year aim should be to obtain reliable 20 tonnes ha-1 y-1- yields, rather than the
commercial-scale 10 t ha-1 y-1 currently reported, with limited inputs of water,
fertilizer and chemicals. All evidence suggests that in comparison to arable crops,
deployment of perennial second generation crops will give positive benefit to the
environment, however landscape-scale issues of large commercial plantation still
require further whole-system understanding, where spatial supply and demand
are considered together in relation to the emerging technology deployment. It is
well recognised that the ‘bioeconomy’ will be of increasing importance but in the
UK limited research effort has been focussed on the biorefinery concept and this
will require a cross research council initiative involving bioscientists, engineers,
computer scientists and environmentalists working together to ensure the value
chain is captured from these emerging concepts. The UK is some way behind the
rest of Europe and the USA in this area.
23. The UK will continue to rely heavily on imported feedstock for liquid transportation
biofuel and for co-firing. The development of additional tools to assess
sustainability in a global context should be given high priority. Similarly,
public awareness should be raised in this area, given current misconceptions and
misinformation for example on food versus fuel, environmental impacts, and the
biomass resource available to us in the UK and globally.
Ground source heat pumps
24. Ground source heat pumps make use of renewable (solar) energy stored in the
ground and provide one of the most energy-efficient ways of heating buildings.
They are suitable for a wide variety of building types and are particularly
appropriate for low environmental impact projects. They do not require hot rocks
(geothermal energy) and can be installed in most parts of the UK, using a
borehole or shallow trenches or, less commonly, by extracting heat from a pond
or lake. Heat collecting pipes in a closed loop are used to extract this ambient
162
UK Biomass Strategy, May 2007
310
stored energy, which can then be used to provide space heating and domestic hot
water. In some applications, the pump can be reversed in summer to provide an
element of cooling.
25. The only energy used is electricity to power the pumps. Typically, a ground source
heat pump will deliver three or four times as much thermal energy (heat) as is
used in electrical energy to drive the system. And, in the longer term this
electricity can be provided from renewable sources.
26.
Ground source heat pump systems are widely used in other parts of the world,
including North America, China and Europe. Typically they cost more to install
than conventional systems; however, they have very low maintenance costs and
can be expected to provide reliable and environmentally friendly heating for in
excess of 20 years. They require heating systems optimised to run at a lower
water temperatures than conventional UK boiler and radiator systems. They are
therefore well matched to underfloor heating systems.
27. No fundamental research is required and the basic technology is well developed.
Improved system designs for heating and cooling applications require
research and development and improved design guidelines should be
developed to increase the confidence in installation quality and
performance.
Microgeneration
28. Microgeneration covers the very smallest electricity generation plant. Most often
these units are installed at consumers premises, and a large market is foreseen
for domestic application. The key technologies are micro-wind, PV and micro-chp
(usually gas powered). Common issues relate to grid interfacing through power
electronics and the safe integration of numerous such sources into the electricity
distribution system. Significant R&D is underway on these topics, much of it
supported by EPSRC’s Supergen Programme, but the challenges are considerable
and continuity of research funding in this area is essential. Currently the
technologies are far too expensive and research efforts should be directed at
improved designs suited to high volume manufacture. For micro-wind there still
exist challenging problems of yield estimation; the wind field in and around
buildings is very complex and needs to be better understood through a
combination of fluid flow modelling and field measurement.
29. The roll-out of smart metering and the increasing use of IT in the home
opens up the possibility of linking demand side management to microgeneration, house by house. Research is required to explore this new
opportunity.
Intelligent grid management
30. The UK’s electricity system remains dominated by conventional generation that
injects large amounts of power into the high voltage transmission network, where
it is transported to passive distribution networks, and finally delivered to
311
consumers. Future power systems based on renewable and low carbon distributed
generation are likely to be rather different. Large numbers of generators varying
in type and scale and with different operational characteristics will be connected
across every level of the distribution system. Integration of these new resources
is a central challenge and is key to ensuring the evolution of a viable and effective
system based on sustainable generation sources.
31. There are numerous technical challenges to be addressed including the planning
and operation of active distribution networks, the control and interfacing of
renewable energy sources, and system protection. The UK is currently leading
research in this area through the EPSRC Supergen consortia and the DTI Centre
for Distributed Generation and Sustainable Electrical Energy. Increasingly there
is a need to demonstrate the new technologies at a convincing scale, and
the concept of Registered Power Zones (RPZs) is useful in this regard. Technical
developments need to be supported by appropriate regulatory change
and continuing cooperation between researchers, industry and the
regulator (OFGEM) is important.
Energy storage
32. Research undertaken by the DTI Centre for Distributed Generation and
Sustainable Electrical Energy indicates that dedicated energy storage systems
would need to be much cheaper than at present to play any useful role in
electricity supply systems, even with an increased renewable energy penetration.
Nevertheless there is always a hope that new and significantly improved energy
storage systems will be developed and some level of background research is
appropriate, as for example being currently undertaken by EPSPC’s Supergen
Energy Storage consortia.
33. In the longer term, say around 2050, when many observers expect the electricity
system to be dominated by sustainable sources, energy storage could be essential
to ensure stable and robust operation of the system.
34.However, if there is parallel electrification of the energy system, which
some believe is inevitable, then there would also be an increase in
devices with in-built storage capacity, such as electric vehicles, heating
systems, and other power devices with a large re-charging demand.
Coupling this need with advanced Demand Side Management systems
could give effectively the same flexibility as a dedicated network storage
system. More open ended research should be funded to explore these
longer term possibilities.
Comments on Research Funding Landscape
35. Recent years have seen a welcome increase in R&D expenditure and activity for
renewable energy technologies, applied at stages along their span of evolution
from basic research to demonstration. The emergence of the Research Council’s
312
Energy Programme has increased collaboration and coherence across the UK
research community. In addition significant R&D support is available from Carbon
Trust and DTI, ostensibly to fund nearer to market research.
36. Nonetheless significant and strategically important areas of basic technology
research remain under-funded163. Many researchers would accept that they often
make use of available development funding to undertake work that is really of a
more fundamental nature. That this can happen does reflect to an extent a lack
of clarity in the provision of funding from the different agencies. UKERC welcomes
the progress that is now being made in co-ordinating the various energy RD&D
initiatives that have developed in the last 3-4 years. However there is further
work to be done to ensure the effective, coherent RD&D effort along the
innovation chain that is needed to realise the UK’s long-term energy
goals. UKERC is already working with ERP, DTI and RCEP and is well positioned to
contribute to the further development of energy research policy.
37.Much as the sector welcomes the proposed new Energy Technologies Institute
(ETI) and significant associated increase in R&D expenditure, there are concerns
that without appropriate high-level co-ordination, this additional source of funding
could further complicate and obscure the research landscape. UKERC sees itself
having a useful role in supporting the Research Councils in their role in
connection with the ETI.
38. If Government wishes to create a smooth path for strategic research to move
through to development to commercial deployment, then greater strategic
persistence is required, outlasting individual Ministers or Governments. The
research funding landscape in the UK has seen a number of disruptive
changes over recent years and we believe this should be avoided in
future. The support mechanisms, for technology transfer in particular, have
lacked stability and this interrupts the process of technology development and
discourages participation. Germany’s Fraunhofer model in contrast has been
developed consistently over decades and is widely regarded as exemplary. Japan
and the USA have developed similar frameworks.
Training
39. R&D makes a valuable contribution to the training of skilled professionals. The
measures in the UK Climate Bill, the intention to create ‘zero carbon homes’ by
2016, and EU intentions in the 2007 Energy Efficiency Action Plan for 20% of all
energy to be renewable by 2020, imply an unprecedented expansion of
renewables deployment. Although the energy sector does not see itself as held
back yet by a lack of trained staff164 this situation is likely to change quickly, and
there are areas such as the wind sector that already have difficulty recruiting
suitably trained engineers.
163
UKERC’s PV Research Road Map for the UK (Jan. 2007) highlights significant under funding of PV and the
lack of central research facilities as the key factors holding back the development of PV technology in the UK.
The Carbon Trust’s recent PV Accelerator Programme is welcome but not nearly enough to bring UK research
funding into line with key competitor countries. And wind energy research has been under funded for many
years in the UK following a mistaken belief that the technology is fully mature. Research into biofuel production
is also currently low in relation to the challenges.
164
ERP report: Investigation into high-level skills shortages in the energy sector.
313
Postscript – Energy research data from UKERC
40. One of UKERC’s key functions is to provide up to date and authoritative data on
UK energy research. This is presented as an Energy Research Atlas comprising a
Research Register (an online searchable database of energy related awards and
projects), used in the production of the research spend figures of Section 1, a
Landscape (including a comprehensive account of research groups by subject, and
funding frameworks), and a collection of research Roadmaps covering the main
energy fields. All of these can be accessed at www.ukerc.ac.uk. The Atlas is
being used increasingly by Government departments to provide the evidence base
to underpin R&D planning.
July 2007
314
Memorandum 43
Submission from the British Wind Energy
Association
Executive Summary
While progress is being made in the deployment of wind power in the UK,
key barriers to progress in the planning system and access to the grid
remain. Solutions to these issues are available, but they are not being
implemented swiftly. The recent reform proposals for the Renewables
Obligation should ensure stability in the market, but further reform will be
necessary if 2020 targets are to be met. Wave and tidal stream
technologies require concerted and coherent support if the industrial
potential they represent is to be secured for UK business: at present, the
path beyond the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund is not clear.
1. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) is the leading UK trade
association in the field of renewable energy, with over 320 corporate
members representing 98.9% of the wind energy business in this
country. Wind energy is the fastest-growing renewable technology in
this country, and will make an increasingly significant contribution to
UK electricity supplies over the next decade and beyond. BWEA also
represents the interests of the emerging wave and tidal stream
energy sector, building on its experience in the development of
offshore wind.
2. Currently there are 148 wind farms operating in the UK, five of which
are offshore. These have a total capacity of 2,176MW, made up of
1,872MW of onshore and 304MW of offshore wind. In addition,
841MW of onshore wind capacity and 474MW of offshore capacity
are currently under construction, while a further 1,604MW of
onshore and 2,260MW of offshore projects have consent and await
construction165.
3. Despite the good progress in building wind generation capacity – in
February this year the UK became only the eighth country in the
world to break the 2,000MW barrier – there is considerably more
potential in the UK and BWEA members are keen to exploit this.
Onshore, developers have submitted a further 8,330MW of projects
to planning authorities, which if all built would generate
approximately 6% of UK power demand. If only one quarter of this
capacity was consented by the end of 2007, then it is still possible
165
Up to date statistics on the progress of wind power in the UK can be found on the
BWEA website, at www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp.
315
for the current target of 10% of the UK’s power to be gained from
renewable sources by 2010 to be achieved.
4. However, the planning system is a major barrier to achieving build-out
of onshore wind in the UK. There are projects that have been held
up in the system for up to four to five years, and in general the
planning arrangements in the UK do not deliver timely decisions for
wind projects: only 5% of all onshore wind applications are decided
within the supposed statutory limit of 16 weeks, while for other
large projects of all kinds (those requiring Environmental Impact
Assessments), verdicts are reached on 70% within their limit of 13
weeks, according to an analysis of all such decisions in 2006166.
5. While BWEA welcomes the attempt by Government to improve this
situation through its proposals in the Planning White Paper, these
will have only a limited impact on the consenting of onshore wind.
The new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will only decide
on projects of greater than 50MW (the current Section 36 limit) in
England and Wales. The number of such projects that will be coming
through the system after the IPC comes into existence will be very
limited, since such sites are rare in England and Wales, and most of
these will have been developed before the IFC comes into operation.
6. For projects under 50MW that are currently within the system in
England, Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) is supposed to guide
local authorities in making their decisions. However, BWEA members
are finding that their projects are rejected for reasons which are in
contravention of this guidance. Central Government, while it should
be lauded for putting in place strong policy, has failed to ensure that
it is followed on the ground.
7. As outlined in paragraph 3 above, the 2010 target is still achievable.
However, because of the time taken from consent to operation, the
horizon for consenting wind farms which can contribute to the target
is fast approaching. Given current trends in procuring wind turbines,
gaining a grid connection and discharging planning conditions, BWEA
considers that only projects consented before mid-2008 can
contribute to the 2010 target. This places a significant emphasis on
timely delivery of positive decisions in the intervening months.
BWEA would therefore suggest that DTI intervenes directly by
sending the “Renewables Statement of Need”167, contained in the
2006 Energy Report “The Energy Challenge” and reiterated in the
Energy White Paper, to all planning authorities in the UK. A similar
166
DCLG statistics:
www.communities.gov.uk/pub/50/DistrictCouncilsLondonBoroughsUnitaryAuthoritiesandN
ationalParkAuthorities_id1505050.pdf
167
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file32017.pdf
316
intervention occurred in April 2007 when the Head of the Planning
Division of the Welsh Assembly Government wrote to Welsh
planning authorities explaining what is expected of those bodies in
delivering Welsh renewable energy targets.
8. It will only be possible to unblock the planning logjam by implementing
measures like that outlined in paragraph 7, and to that end a
balanced system of incentives to determine applications
appropriately within set time limits, together with penalties for not
doing so, should be put in place. Planning fees have been increased
recently, so local authorities should have the resources they need to
secure the expert advice required to accelerate the decision making
process. BWEA has also been concerned about the propensity of
planning inspectors to make decisions on appealed projects that are
also inconsistent with PPS22. However, after recent proactive
engagement on the part of BWEA with DCLG and the Planning
Inspectorate, we are hopeful that this situation can be remedied.
9. It is also highly important that central Government acts to enforce
current policy guidance, otherwise in the new situation envisaged
under the proposed planning reforms, where local authorities are
supposed to be guided by new National Planning Statements,
onshore wind projects will still be rejected by local authorities. This
will only add to the expense and time needed to determine an
application, not only for the developer but also for the local
authority, particularly if the former is awarded costs from any
appeal procedure.
10. In the offshore sector, consents have been awarded for the first
Round Two projects, and in general the system is comprehensible
and working reasonably well. We have some concerns, however,
regarding the interaction between the licencing proposals in the
Marine Bill White Paper and those in the Planning White Paper. The
latter proposes that the IPC has the final say for offshore generating
projects of 100MW or more, while smaller projects are decided by
the proposed Marine Management Organisation. While BWEA is still
considering its position on this split responsibility, there is the
distinct possibility of confusion, inefficiency and inconsistent
decision-making if this new structure goes ahead.
11. The other key non-economic constraint to the deployment of wind
power is access to electrical networks, both transmission and
distribution. The main issue for our industry is that access to and
management of the transmission network is still approached on the
basis that large, dispatchable central generators are assumed to be
the norm. Smaller, dispersed generators which generate when their
resource is available are difficult to accommodate within this model.
Changing the ground rules to expedite connection and allow more
317
variable generation onto systems is taking a long time; BWEA’s
perception is that this process can be accelerated, but to do so
would require a change to Ofgem’s remit so that sustainable
development (and in particular carbon emission reduction) is
promoted to have equal status with the priority of reducing cost to
the consumer. This would free up National Grid to be more creative
in solving these problems. Ofgem has been more proactive recently
in promoting the sustainable development agenda, which BWEA
welcomes, but in our view it is still too tightly focused on consumer
protection, which interferes with the UK’s ability to move swiftly to a
low-carbon economy.
12. In addition, planning and delivering the enhanced grid infrastructure
required to transmit power from where the wind blows strongest
(and waves and tides are best exploited) will be challenging. This is
where the planning reforms that Government is proposing are likely
to have the most beneficial effect in ensuring the growth of
renewable generation.
13. The third key issue affecting deployment of wind power is the
economics, and here there has been welcome progress in bringing
stability to the market. The detailed proposals regarding the reform
of the Renewables Obligation (RO) contained in the Energy White
Paper showed clear evidence of Government taking on board the
response of the renewables industry to the preliminary consultation
of late 2006. BWEA believes that the current reform package is a
suitable platform for growth in the short to medium term, so long as
the planning and grid issues are resolved.
14. Welcome as this outcome is, it is becoming very clear that there will
need to be further change if growth is to be sustained into the long
term, and growth is required to meet new commitments. The
sudden end of the RO in 2027/28 will begin to deter investment in
new renewable generating capacity from about 2012 onwards,
starting with the more expensive technologies, particularly offshore
wind. This is because the period under the RO that investors will be
able to recoup their outlay will get progressively shorter: there will
come a point where the income available under the RO will not
sustain the investment, and new build will stop. Government’s own
analysis168 clearly shows this effect, with new capacity build peaking
in about 2012/13 and dropping away to nothing in about 2020. Even
with a strong carbon price signal, the abrupt end of the RO will
inevitably disrupt investment.
168
Reform of the Renewables Obligation: What is the likely impact of changes? Report by
Oxera for DTI, May 2007. URN 07/949.
318
15. While a solution to the 2027 issue is required to meet the current
‘aspiration’ to have 20% of UK power from renewables in 2020,
further change will be needed if the UK is to meet the likely
commitments required under the EU 20% by 2020 renewable target.
This target is for all energy use, and given the resources and
relative development of technologies in the power, transport and
heating/cooling sectors, the renewable electricity contribution to this
figure will have to be much more than 20%. European Commission
analysis indicates this contribution would have to be 34% for the EU
as a whole, compared to the 19% likely to be delivered by 2010.
While the UK is far behind in terms of renewables’ contribution to
current energy supply (now about 2%), this country has
considerable renewable resources, and thus might be expected to
deliver around the EU average. The Government’s current
‘aspiration’ to have 20% of our power from renewables in 2020 will
thus be inadequate. The RO, even when reformed in line with the
current reform proposals, will not deliver this. Either it will have to
be extended further, or an additional system put in place to deliver
the extra power. What such a system might look like would be
dictated by the resources favoured to provide that power. BWEA
believes that offshore wind has a significant role to play here.
16. While the exact target that the UK will have to aim for under the EU
20% objective is not yet clear, BWEA believes that 20-25,000MW of
offshore wind is both necessary for the prospective share, and
possible by 2020. In order to get there, however, some key actions
must be taken soon. First and foremost is that urgent steps must be
taken to roll out a site award process. Given that delivery of first
power from a project follows some seven years after site award, all
the capacity that can possibly contribute in 2020 will have to have
signed agreements to lease by about 2013. Under certain
assumptions about project attrition rates, this means ‘rounds’ of
awards every year for the five year period 2009-13 of perhaps
5,000MW each. This is comparable to Round Two, which was for a
maximum of 7,200MW. This is clearly challenging, but the industry,
Government and Crown Estate are all taking steps to make it
happen: BWEA is encouraged by commitments in the Energy White
Paper to further site award, though we believe it has to happen
faster than the timetable outlined there, both to ensure delivery by
2020 and to avoid a dip in delivery between Round Two and future
projects, which will impact supply chain investment.
17. The prospects for the other technologies that BWEA champions, wave
and tidal stream, are less clear. However, the magnitude of the
available resource means that the UK could potentially supply 15-
319
20% of its generation needs from this sector alone169. Currently only
a handful of devices are approaching first commercial deployment,
and these have been slower to come through than had been hoped.
This has meant that the project support available under the Marine
Renewables Deployment Fund has not yet been called upon.
Further, the Emerging Technologies band under the reformed RO
gives 2ROC/MWh, which will not provide enough revenue for postMRDF projects to achieve commercial viability – which Government
itself acknowledges. The wave and tidal sectors are consequently in
a very uncertain position: it is clear that funding beyond the MRDF
will be required within the period covered by the current
Comprehensive Spending Review, yet Government will not commit
more money while the MRDF remains unspent. This unfortunate
position is further complicated by the very confusing proliferation of
funding streams for new energy technologies, as discussed below.
However, the Government has invested relatively heavily in wave
and tidal already, creating an unrivalled infrastructure, both physical
and intellectual. Were it to waver now, failing to put in place a clear
path from the MRDF to the RO at 2ROC/MWh, that investment would
be wasted as other countries overtake us. That is a real possibility,
as evidenced by the recent vote in the US Congress to devote
$200m of federal funds to wave power research.
18. Considering the wider landscape for renewable technology research,
development and demonstration, Government will have to act
quickly to resolve the current confusion and ensure that the
maximum benefit to the UK economy is delivered. What is
appropriate varies by technology: onshore wind is a mature
technology, and future R&D will be primarily driven by
manufacturers,
from
their
own
budgets,
though
some
complementary innovation may result from European and national
co-funding; for offshore wind there is more scope for Government to
support UK companies in developing key technologies and
techniques; in the wave and tidal sector, a sustained commitment to
pull these emerging technologies into the market will bring
significant industrial rewards, with UK firms becoming world leaders.
Consequently, Government should be providing a coherent set of
funding streams, each tailored to the needs of technologies at
different stages of development.
19. What we have in this field is an extremely opaque set of mechanisms,
with no clarity on how they interrelate, and at this stage no
certainty about how much money will be available to fund which
technologies. A number of different schemes are being brought
forward, the most important of which appear to be the Energy
169
Future Marine Energy. Results of the Marine Energy Challenge: Cost competitiveness
and growth of wave and tidal stream energy, Carbon Trust, January 2006. CTC601.
320
Technologies Institute and the Environmental Transformation Fund.
However, these are being developed with very poor engagement
with some of the industries they are apparently being set up to
support. BWEA fears that priorities that are set without appropriate
engagement will not be suitable, opportunities will be missed, and
money spent inefficiently. We believe Government must act quickly
to clear up the confusion and provide transparency to these
processes.
July 2007
321
Memorandum 44
Submission from Ofgem
1. Ofgem welcomes the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into renewable
energy-generation technologies, particularly given our own commitment to promoting
sustainable development in the energy sector. This memorandum sets out Ofgem’s role
and our response to those questions in the call for evidence which relate to our work and
expertise.
The role of Ofgem
2. Ofgem is the regulator of the gas and electricity industries in Britain. Our principal
objective is to protect the interests of present and future gas and electricity consumers.
We do this by promoting competition, wherever appropriate, and regulating the
monopoly companies which run the gas and electricity networks. Other priorities include
helping to secure Britain’s energy supplies and contributing to the drive to combat
climate change. Our work on sustainability includes helping the gas and electricity
sectors to achieve environmental improvements as efficiently as possible, and taking
account of the needs of vulnerable customers: particularly older people, those with
disabilities and those on low incomes.
A stable regulatory regime
3. Our first task in promoting renewables is to create a stable regulatory regime that
gives investors the confidence to deploy capital into the sector.
•
Markets: Both the wholesale and retail markets are fully open up to competition.
This means investors are able to choose openly which technologies they wish to
support. The Government provides incentives to invest in renewable technologies
through the Renewables Obligation. Our role is to administer these arrangements.
•
Networks: The electricity networks, in particular, have a large role to play in
making sure that renewable technologies are able to get their power to market.
Our regulation of these networks means we have a low cost of capital combined
with a strong growth in capital expenditure – so customers get a modern reliable
system at a competitive price. Ofgem has sought to be innovative on research
and development whilst at the same time providing continuity and stability for
those both participating and investing in the utility networks business. Since
1990, the regulatory structures, based on incentives and comparability, resulted
in impressive efficiency gains while also raising the quality of service.
4. The remainder of this response focuses on our role in network regulation because of
its importance in the transition to a lower carbon economy.
Renewing Britain’s energy networks
5. The need to renew Britain’s energy networks in order to connect more renewable
generation and maintain the reliability of the networks represents an ongoing challenge.
Ofgem has shown its determination to meet the challenge by increasing capital
expenditure by 50 per cent in the 2004 electricity distribution networks review and by
100 per cent for transmission networks in 2006.
6. In December 2004 Ofgem approved some £560m of investment in the Scottish
transmission system to connect renewable generation in response to growing demand for
connections driven by the Government’s renewables policies. In the 2007-2012
transmission price control review we approved nearly £5 billion of investment to renew
322
Britain’s electricity and gas infrastructure to meet new demands from gas imports and
renewables connections.
7. Our goal has been to enable timely efficient investment and to ensure that lack of
investment does not present a barrier to new connections. As we know, planning issues
have presented a major block to bringing new projects on stream and we particularly
welcome the measures in the Government’s Energy White Paper to address the planning
regime. As well as enabling significant network investment, we are also leading work to
review access to the transmission system with specific measures in train to manage the
effects of the ‘BETTA queue’. A longer term strategy for reform of the access regime is
due for presentation to the Ofgem Authority and the Secretary of State in May 2008.
8. In setting the electricity distribution price control two years ago for the period 20052010, we also allowed a major investment of £5.7 billion, an increase of 48 per cent, in
the development of local electricity networks. In addition we put in place the DGI, IFI
and RPZs described below, all of which were designed to reward generation connections
at the distribution level – principally renewables - and to encourage innovation in
network development.
9. Building on the price reviews work we led with the DTI the Distributed Generation
review and are now leading work to deliver the four stage package of measures agreed,
including a review of the licensing and market arrangements as they apply to distributed
generation.
Promoting research and development
10. During the 1990s there was a decline in R&D activity in the energy sector. This was
perhaps not to be unexpected as the networks did not face such fundamental technical
challenges in the early years following privatisation. This situation has changed recently,
prompted by increasing asset renewal and the challenging requirement for networks to
accommodate low carbon energy sources.
11. Ofgem has introduced new regulatory incentives to encourage the companies in
innovation with a particular emphasis on sustainability. In setting the electricity
distribution price control for 2005-2010 we initiated new incentives (Distributed
Generation Incentive, Registered Power Zones and the Innovation Funding Incentive for
distribution companies to reward generation connections – principally renewables - and
to encourage innovation in network development). In addition, we significantly
strengthened incentives to reduce distribution losses, partly due to consideration of the
carbon benefits of loss reduction, and committed to an additional mechanism to provide
funding for selected network undergrounding in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
12. With some two years experience, the effectiveness of the IFI has been marked and
R&D expenditure has already returned to greater than 1990 levels. In the 2006
transmission price reviews we continued this approach to IFI and gave support to some
major state-of-the-art capital projects e.g. the Dewar Place substation development in
the heart of Edinburgh. In addition, RPZs have brought forward a number of imaginative
new technology projects in the field for facilitating the connection of distributed
generation from low-carbon sources. Furthermore, the local gas network price review of
2007 has also asked for consultation on this topic. By adopting this approach Ofgem has
been able to introduce more innovation without losing the credibility that has
accompanied the RPI-X methodology.
13. We are happy to provide any further information that the Committee may find helpful
in the course of its inquiry.
July 2007
323
Memorandum 45
Submission from Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Biofuels: Photosynthetic microbes and sustainable energy
“Photosynthetic microbes have untapped potential to help solve the global energy challenge.”
170
1. Executive summary
Photosynthetic microbes, encompassing both microalgae and photosynthetic bacteria, are
the most efficient users of the sun’s energy and present enormous opportunities to produce
bioenergy. As unique chemical factories they have up to 40 times more yield per unit area
compared to land plants. Photosynthetic microbes have the potential to produce biofuel
(biodiesel and biogas) and to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in the sewage, solid waste, power and manufacturing industries.
Applications that could be developed as close to market include the production of biogas and
reduction in energy consumption associated with Primary Industries. Currently under intense
International investigation is the capture of waste CO2 emissions and production of biodiesel.
Central to the deployment of these applications is the large scale cultivation of the microbes
using photobioreactor171 (PBR) and photosynthetic biofilm (PSB) technologies. The UK has a
strong research base in aquatic microbial bioscience and biotechnology although it now lags
behind US and European effort to develop bioenergy technologies. We recommend research
aimed at harnessing the capabilities of this untapped resource. Here we welcome the
opportunity to provide evidence on the following applications using:
Photosynthetic bacteria
• High quality pipeline biogas: photosynthetic bacteria can be used to purify low quality
biogas from Primary Industries (e.g sewage treatment, landfill, feed lots, food waste
and municipal solid organic waste) to produce pipeline quality gas for network
distribution.
•
Biohydrogen: Ligno-cellulose can be used as a feedstock for photosynthetic bacteria
to produce biohydrogen.
Microalgae
• Biogas. Microalgae grown using waste CO2 emissions can be subsequently
anaerobically digested to produce biogas.
•
Biodiesel: Molecular and genetic engineering of microalgal species high in lipids
grown using waste CO2 emissions has potential as an economically viable route to
biodiesel.
•
Biogas: Microalgae can reduce energy consumption in secondary and tertiary
sewage treatment and resultant biomass can be converted to biogas.
2. Recommendations
• Biochemical, genetic, metabolic and ecological research aimed at harnessing the
capabilities of photosynthetic and other microbial systems.
•
170
171
Investment in development of platform PBR and PSB technologies including
establishment of pilot and demonstration facilities.
Donohue & Cogdell (2006). Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 800
House of Commons Upper Waiting Hall: Photobioreactor Demonstration: 29th Jan – 1st Feb 2007
324
•
Facilitate International collaboration in areas with ideal climatic conditions (e.g.
Ghana).
3. Introduction
Photosynthetic microbes (microalgae and photosynthetic bacteria) have the potential to
produce biofuel (biodiesel and biogas) and reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in the sewage, solid waste, power and manufacturing industries. Here we
provide background evidence on using photosynthetic microbes for bioenergy.
Figure 1 summarises the broad potential of photosynthetic microbes in bioenergy production
As summarised in Figure 1 (refer to respectively labelled paragraphs), photosynthetic microbial
consortia can be used to produce:
A. High quality pipeline biogas Conventionally derived biogas from bacterial anaerobic
digestion is of low calorific value. Photosynthetic microbes can be used to convert this
poor quality biogas to pipeline quality biogas by removing CO2 and H2S and replacing
with hydrogen (Table 1). The total biogas potential for the UK equates to 6m T/y of
oil equivalent and conversion of raw biogas to pipeline quality gas could double this
energy value to around 12m T/y oil equivalent172. By combining cultured strains and
natural isolates, robust anaerobic photosynthetic bacteria consortia capable of
cleaning and upgrading biogas from a wide range of sources including landfill,
sewage sludge digestion, abattoir and farm waste digestion, and municipal solid
waste digestion can be achieved.
Component
Sewage
Biogas
Landfill
Biogas
Natural
Gas
Enhanced
Biogas
(estimated)
Energy content (MJ/m3)
21
21
37
40
55-75
25-45
0-0,3
0-3
0.1-0.5
Trace
54
42
0-0.1
0-1
0.1-1
22 mg/ m³
95
0.7
Trace
Trace
Trace
0
80
Trace
0
18
0
Trace
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen
Hydrogen sulfide
Chlorine (total Cl)
Table 1: Calorific values and compositions of biogas compared to natural gas173
B. Biogas production and reduction in energy consumption in sewage treatment.
The energy required to treat sewage is high and the water industry is the fourth most
energy intensive sector in the UK. Further tightening of water quality standards
172
173
www.nsca.org.uk/assets/biogas_as_transport_fuel_june06.pdf
www.nsca.org.uk/assets/biogas_as_transport_fuel_june06.pdf
325
suggests energy costs will increase174. Over 10 billion litres of sewage are produced
every day in England and Wales and it takes approximately 6.34 gigawatt hours of
energy to treat this volume of sewage, almost 1% of the average daily electricity
consumption of England and Wales. In total, the water industry used 7,700 GWh of
energy in its operations during 2005/06, and emitted over 4 million tonnes of
greenhouse gases, 1% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions175. We estimate that
50-70% of the existing UK sewage treatment plants could be retrofitted with
photosynthetic biofilm (PSB) technology, where the main constraint on the remaining
sites would be availability of suitable land area for installation. Photosynthetically
derived oxygen from microalgal consortia could replace energy intensive activated
sludge processes (Figure 2). Resultant biomass can be anaerobically digested
producing raw biogas which can then be upgraded as above.
OXYGEN
RAW
SEWAGE
ORGANIC
MATTER
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
BACTERIAL
OXIDATION
ORGANIC
SLUDGES
ENERGY
RAW
SEWAGE
ORGANIC
MATTER
SUNLIGHT
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
BACTERIAL
OXIDATION
DISHCHARGE
/EMISSIONS
AMMONIA
PHOSPHATE
CARBON DIOXIDE
ORGANIC
SLUDGES
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
ALGAE
(BIOFUEL)
ALGAL
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
AMMONIA
PHOSPHATE
CARBON DIOXIDE
CARBON DIOXIDE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
ALGAL/BACTERIAL CONSORTIA SEWAGE TREATMENT
Figure 2: Basic biological processes in wastewater treatment, illustrating the benefits of
algal/bacteria consortia
C. Biogas production from microalgae grown on waste CO2 emissions. GHG
emissions from power stations can be reduced by fixing CO2 using an autoflocculating
microalgal consortia grown in photobioreactors (Figure 3). Resultant biomass can be
anaerobically digested where the biogas is upgraded by a photosynthetic bacterial
community to produce methane and hydrogen biofuel. Practical applications of
microalgae biofixation of CO2 and biofuel production in wastewater treatment could
lead the way to future applications, such as in the coproduction of biofertisers, higher
value co-products (i.e biopolymers and animal feed) and possibly in the future to
stand alone, dedicated, biofuel production systems endowed with a much larger
global potential.
OXYGEN (OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION)
O2
Mains
Gas
Combined
cycle gas
power station
HIGH
QUALITY
METHANE/
HYDROGEN
BIOGAS
Solar
Energy
PBR +
PHOTOSYNTHETIC
ANAEROBE
CONSORTIA
Power station
CO2
Emissions
Low Quality
Methane
CO2
Biogas
PBR +
AUTOFLOCCULATING
MICROALGAL
CONSORTIA
FLOCCULATED
MICROALGAL
CONCENTRATE
Anaerobic
Digester
Figure 3: Power station emission conversion into biofuel diagram
D. Biodiesel from microalgae. Molecular and genetic engineering of selected
microalgal species for high lipid content needs research to provide economically
viable biodiesel. Microalgae biosynthesise a wide range of commercially interesting
174
175
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Postnote No. 282 April 2007
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/ian-pearson/ip070426.htm
326
bioenergy byproducts such as fats, oils, sugars and functional bioactive compounds.
Many species are rich in lipids and hydrocarbons suitable for direct use as highenergy liquid biofuels, at levels exceeding those present in terrestrial plants, and also
have potential as substitutes for the refinery products of fossil fuels. Hardly surprising
considering that the majority of petroleum is believed to originate from microalgae.
One species, Botryococcus braunii, in particular, has been widely studied176. The
yield of oil from microalgae is predicted to be up to 100 times greater then land based
crops at 7500-24000 litres of oil per acre per year compared to rapeseed and palmoil
at 738 and 3690 litres of oil per acre per year respectively. There is now renewed
widespread International effort on developing microalgal based biodiesel although the
UK is not currently part of this effort. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fuels Development has
recently reinstated research in this area177.
E. Biohydrogen from lignocellulose feedstocks. Because lignin is perhaps the
second most abundant carbon polymer on Earth and thus a renewable resource, it is
a candidate substrate for biofuel production, the most desirable of which is hydrogen.
Of the enzymes responsible for hydrogen production, hydrogenase requires no ATP
for activity but are reversible, thereby limiting hydrogen accumulation (Figure 4).
Nitrogenase, the enzyme responsible for reduction of dinitrogen gas, also produces
hydrogen but is very energy intensive. However, the itrogenise reaction is
essentially irreversible allowing pressurization of the hydrogen produced. The
advantage in photosynthetic bacteria is that they can obtain the energy necessary for
hydrogen production through photosynthesis driven by the ‘free’ supply of sunlight.
Figure 4: The metabolic pathway leading to biohydrogen production in photosynthetic
bacteria.
4. Feasibility, costs and timescales
The technologies described in this document are capable of being retrofitted to existing
infrastructure. We outline here our predicted timescales and feasibility.
176
177
Banerjee, B, Sharma, Chisti Y, Banjeree UC. 2002: Critical reviews in Biotechnology 22(3) 245-279.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/40352.pdf
327
Table 2: (PML predictions)
Bioenergy Route
1
Biogas Upgrade
2
Low energy sewage
treatment
Power station flue gas to
biogas
Power station flue gas to
biodiesel
Biogydrogen from ligno
cellulose
3
4
5
Feasibility
%
85
Cost
Timescale
2-5
Reliability
%
75
Carbon
footprint
Low
Low/Medium
95
Low
2-5
95
Low
85
Medium
2-5
75
Low/Medium
70
Medium/High
7-10
55
Medium
60
Medium/High
8-10
50
Medium
5. Recommendations for action
5.1.Basic research
There is clear strategic vision on bioenergy in Europe and the United States, with
considerable resource investments at the bioscience end of the R&D spectrum. During the
1990s the UK was at the forefront of bioenergy development from photosynthetic microbes,
but now UK R&D activities lag behind international leaders in this field. The UK has a strong
research base in microbial bioscience and biotechnology and this should be utilised
to provide maximum benefit within the international bioenergy market sector.
Photosynthetic microbes can and will make a significant contribution towards satisfying the
global need for clean, alternative energy sources. There is an urgent need for research
aimed at harnessing the capabilities of photosynthetic and other microbial systems.
The US Department of Energy has issued a call for Bioenergy Centers to develop microbialbased strategies that generate alternative energy sources from biomass, sunlight and other
renewable resources. In addition, the European Science Foundation is considering a major
funding initiative to support bio-inspired solar energy strategies. These programmes and
private sector initiatives represent an exciting beginning to a long-term concerted effort to
develop clean microbial solutions to the world's energy challenge.
The continued development and improvement of these microbial 'biorefineries' will
require significant additional biochemical, genetic, metabolic and ecological insights
into the relevant microorganisms. It is essential to acquire a systems-level
understanding of energy capture and its transformation in order to direct the reaction
products into pathways that produce alternative fuels or sequester greenhouse gases
with increased efficiency. Additional research is required to ascertain whether communities
of photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic bacteria could be tapped to provide clean energy
or replace fossil-fuel-derived feedstocks. It will also be necessary to find economically viable
biorefinery options, optimize the processes involved, and scale-up the systems. For algal
biodiesel to become a more competitive option, metabolic and genetic engineering and strain
selection for lipid production is required. Stable consortia, are essential to success and
we recommend a multidisciplinary and systems biology approach is needed to
develop, characterise and optimise microbial consortia.
5.2. Platform technology
PBRs and PSBs as a platform technologies have wide reaching potential in bioenergy, CO2
mitigation and in high value bioactives. Future developments in molecular and cellular
engineering of photosynthetic organisms will be implemented in PBR and PSB platform
technology. Therefore it is important to invest in the PBR and PSB engineering and
328
necessary IP to guarantee the UK’s dominance in the international biofuel market. In
addition to providing funding on fundamental R&D, Government should also fund pilot
and demonstration plants.
5.3. National gas network
The feasibility of using purified biogas in national gas grid network needs to be fully
assessed. For example; how will the presence of low levels hydrogen in enhanced biogas
affect the network and final combustion devices?
5.4. International Cooperation
Ghana possesses the one of the best climates on Earth for biofuel production from
photosynthetic microbes, where warm night time temperatures and high insolation will reduce
the need for PBR insulation and therefore capital costs. By combining the expertise of UK
algae biotechnologists and Ghanaian engineers, Ghana could become a net exporter
of Biofuels to the rest of the World and provide a demonstration platform for
Greenhouse Gas reducing technologies. A joint project, whilst producing a sustainable
replacement for fossil fuels, will also benefit local sanitation, water supply and ultimately
poverty through job creation.
Several US and European groups are already planning PBR installations in Ghana for biofuel
production, so the UK Government should build upon the existing close relationship with The
Honourable President John Kufuor’s regime and the Ghanaian people, to ensure that
superior UK PBR and PSB technology can be implemented accordingly.
6. Background Information
6.1. Solar Energy
Photosynthetic microorganisms can capture solar energy, a free, abundant and under-used
energy source. The amount of solar energy that strikes the Earth every hour ( 4.3 1020
Joules) is approximately equal to the total amount of energy that is consumed on the planet
every year ( 4.1 1020 Joules). Therefore, capturing even a small fraction of the available
solar energy could make a significant contribution to global energy needs. Photosynthesis
plays a central role in all bioenergy production. It drives the first step in the conversion of
sunlight into chemical energy and is therefore ultimately responsible for the production of
feedstocks required for all biofuel synthesis.
Land-based bioenergy crops create serious economic and environmental concerns, which
include the sequestering of huge areas of arable land or ecologically sensitive regions (such
as rain forests) for their growth, the introduction of competition to food production, and a
concomitant increase in the price of staple food. In contrast, aquatic-based large-scale
photosynthetic microbes culturing facilities can be sited on any land, including waste or
industrial sites. Photosynthetic microbes use sunlight far more efficiently than soil based
crops, with potential aerial productivities approaching 120T/ha/y, compared to 15T/ha/y for
Miscanthus.
6.2. Microbial communities
There are billions of microorganisms populating every niche of the Earth, many of which
have untapped potential to help solve the global energy challenge. To grow in unusual
environments, microorganisms have evolved unique metabolic strategies to extract energy
from nutrients and sunlight to generate various potentially useful by-products. In many cases,
these microorganisms function cooperatively in communities and consortia where their
concerted activities perform functions that would not be possible in the absence of their
partners.
Consortia often contain diverse communities containing multiple strains of microbes. This
has a number of benefits. Firstly, diverse communities tend to be more stable over long time
periods. This is particularly important in bio-treatment processes, which generally operate in
329
a continuous flow mode, frequently under unsteady state conditions and involve multiple
elemental (biogeochemical) cycles. The value of using diverse microbial consortia is
highlighted in the sewage industry where consortia consisting of bacteria, protozoa and fungi
are applied in activated sludge for wastewater treatment and in anaerobic digestion for high
strength organic feedstocks.
The largest group of microscopic photosynthetic microbes are the microalgae. Microalgae
have many advantages for cultivation as renewable energy crops over land based crops in
the production of bioenergy; they have faster growth rates; they can be cultivated in poor
quality or nutrient loaded wastewater and under difficult agro-climatic conditions; they require
less land space and there is no fertiliser run-off; they can uptake toxic metals like chromium,
cadmium and arsenic; by virtue of their relatively small sizes, they can be easily chemically
treated and they contain no sulphur, are non-toxic and highly biodegradable. Costs
associated with the harvesting and transportation of microalgae are relatively low, in
comparison with those of other biomass materials from higher plants.
The oldest group of photosynthetic microbes are the anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria
which comprise a large and heterogeneous group of organisms, brought together primarily
because they all use light as an energy source in the absence of oxygen. These bacteria are
mainly anaerobic organisms, and require a reduced compound as electron donor, such as
H2S and simple organic molecules. Photosynthetic bacteria also produce hydrogen from
organic compounds by an anaerobic light-dependent electron transfer process. Organic
acids derived from either anaerobic digestion or fermentative hydrolysis or digestion178 of
organic waste/biomass provide ideal feedstocks for hydrogen production.
6.3. Harvesting
Concentrating biomass for biofuel production is energy intensive. Therefore it is important to
develop robust microbial consortia that have the ability to autoflocculate. Microorganisms can
be present in bio-treatment processes as discreetly dispersed cells, as flocs, or as biofilms.
The latter two are by far the most common and both flocs and films can be considered as
matrices of naturally immobilised cells. More importantly, autoflocculation and biofilm growth
provide a low energy means of harvesting the biomass from a liquid bulk. In the context of
biofuels, low energy biomass harvesting is a fundamental prerequisite.
6.4. Photobioreactor (PBR)
A PBR is a system that efficiently grows photosynthetic microbes, which are then used in
various commercial applications. By providing efficient exposure to light, optimal
temperatures, and pH levels, photobioreactors make viable the commercial production of
algae.
178
Patent: Robinson & Skill, Means for Continuous Digestion of Organic Matter. US5637219 (1997)
330
Figure 5: 5000 litre Biocoil PBR designed & constructed in UK by S. Skill (1993)179180
During the 1980s, Professors John Pirt and David Hall of Kings College, London, were the
early pioneers of photobioreactors and up until the late 1990s, the UK lead the world in PBR
design and development.181 PML now have the expertise182 and infrastructure to reinstate the
UK at the forefront of this field.
6.5. Photosynthetic Biofilms
PSB systems are a relatively new technology for the growth of photosynthetic microbes and
183 184
treatment of wastewater.
They are inexpensive to construct utilising waste transparent
plastic (PET: Polyethylene terephthalate) as the primary biofilm support matrix. PSB systems
are capable of removing nutrients, heavy metals and hormone disrupting chemicals from
wastewater in a low cost, single stage process, where the resultant biomass can be easily
recovered and converted into biofuels.
7. PML and it’s relevant area of expertise
Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) is a Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) Collaborative Centre. As an internationally recognised interdisciplinary centre, PML
is mission driven delivering a valuable, integrated approach to solving problems and
providing solutions concerning the complexity of marine ecosystems and the unique
bioresources they contain. PML is uniquely qualified to research and advise on many of the
issues that form the debate on global change and sustainability in marine systems.
PML has a strong core expertise in microbial chemistry, physiology and molecular biology
(algae, viruses and bacteria). Key to the development of bioenergy within the UK, PML has
world leading expertise in growing photosynthetic microbes on the large scale using
Photobioreactor (PBR) Technology. Current research using PBR technology at PML is
working towards the replacement of petroleum based products with a renewable resource
and using CO2 from flue gas to promote growth and reduce CO2 emissions. The PBR
technology PML is developing within these projects is directly applicable to large scale
production of photosynthetic microbes for biofuels and biogas production. PML have a long
term aim, building on core expertise, to build a centre of excellence in photosynthetic
microbe biotechnology encompassing bioactives, biofuels, bioremediation and CO2 capture
technology.
July 2007
179
180
181
182
183
184
National Geographic, March 1994
New Scientist-Blooming Sewage 2nd October 1993
Skill & Robinson (1991), Department of the Environment Select Committee. Evidence submission.
Patent: Skill & Robinson (2002), Photoreaction. US6370815
Patent: Skill (1998), Culture of Microorganisms. WO9824879
Patent: Skill & Robinson (2004), Purification of Contaminated Water. WO2004046037
331
Memorandum 46
Submission from the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This memorandum has been prepared by the DBERR’s Energy Group in
consultation with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)
and DEFRA and it incorporates their contributions. We are aware of the
separate memoranda submitted by the Research Councils and have
endeavoured to provide our information on a comparable basis. This
memorandum addresses the technologies and issues identified in the terms of
reference, but we would be happy to provide further information on these and
other technologies not specified if necessary.
1.2. The Government’s policy on renewable energy is set out in the recent Energy
White Paper185. Renewable energy is an integral part of the Government’s
strategy for reducing carbon emissions. In 2006, 4% of electricity generation was
from renewable sources. Renewables also form a part of Europe’s climate
change and energy policy. In March 2007, the European Council agreed
amongst other things, a binding target of a 20% share of renewable energies in
overall EU consumption by 2020 (this applies to transport and heat as well as
electricity) and a 10% minimum target for share of biofuels in EU transport by
2020.
1.3. The Government’s strategy to develop renewable technologies is devised and
delivered in conjunction with a wide range of bodies including private sector and
academic. Different organisation work together to provide strategic advice,
financial support and coherent framework of policy and action in these areas,
both domestically and internationally. The Government sets the overall strategic
direction by ensuring that each part of the innovation system works effectively
with the whole system and bringing together participants to set common goals by
setting the level of public funding to leverage the investment from the private
sector and by working to expand research and industrial capacity. The objective
of Government support for renewable and other low carbon energy technologies
is to promote development of new technologies from initial concept to the point
where they can be deployed commercially.
2. CURRENT GOVERNMENT ROLE IN SUPPORTING R&D FOR RENEWABLE
ENERGY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
2.1. All energy technologies broadly go through the same stages of development:
research through to deployment, each stage requiring different types of support,
which collectively constitutes the innovation system. In reality, the innovation
185
Energy white paper: meeting the energy challenge 2007 - URN No: 07/1006
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html
332
system is not linear and projects at the demonstration and deployment stages
may have further need for R & D. Support for the research, development and
demonstration of new technologies forms the technology push aspect of
innovation. Market pull comes by providing the market mechanisms and
incentives that help create the demand for the wider deployment of new
technologies e.g. Renewables Obligation. Also the EU ETS which establishes a
cost of carbon, providing further incentives for low carbon energy generation. The
role of key Government organisations is set out below:
Research Councils
2.2. Research and development is essential in developing new renewable energy
sources to replace or complement existing or future low carbon energy generation,
as well as improving existing energy generation. The DIUS provides funding
through the Science Budget to the Research Councils. The Research Councils’
Energy Programme brings together within one framework all Research Council
activities on energy. The programme is led by the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and is made up of a broad spectrum of
energy-related research and postgraduate training in the environmental, social,
economic, biological and physical sciences and engineering, funded both through
joint activities and by individual Research Councils. Comprehensive information
about the Research Councils’ role in supporting energy R&D will be provided in a
separate memorandum to the Committee from Research Councils UK.
2.3. Research Councils’ expenditure on energy-related basic, strategic and applied
research and related postgraduate training expected to amount to over £70 million
in 2007-08. [The Research Councils fund the UK Energy Research Centre
(UKERC) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, both of which
undertake research related to renewable energy. ]The Research Councils’ Energy
Programme will work in partnership with the Energy Technologies Institute when it
is launched later this year.
Technology Strategy Board
2.4. The DTI’s Technology Programme was launched in 2004. It is designed to
stimulate innovation in the UK economy, provides funding to support
Collaborative Research & Development (CR&D) and knowledge transfer. One
of the priorities for the Technology Programme has been low carbon energy
technologies including renewables. Since the programme’s launch there have
been 7 calls in this area and around 70 projects have been supported with a total
value of some £35.4M. Details of the latest call can be found at:
http://www.technologyprogramme.org.uk/extranet/competitions/Spring07/docume
nts/PriorityDescriptions/LowCarbonEnergy.pdf
2.5. From July 2007 the Technology Programme will be directed by a new executive
body, the Technology Strategy Board, set up to drive forward the Government’s
Technology Strategy. Calls for proposals for low carbon energy projects will be
handled under existing arrangement during 2007 to ensure a smooth transition
from the existing Technology Programme.
333
Energy Technologies Institute
2.6. The Energy Technologies Institute is due to be launched later this year. It is a
joint venture partnership which brings together public and private sector R&D in
the UK to set strategic direction in low carbon energy research and fund its
delivery. Current partners include BP, E.ON UK, Shell, EDF Energy, Rolls-Royce
and Caterpillar. It will provide the UK with a world-class means for delivering
applied energy technology research to underpin eventual deployment. To do this,
the Institute will connect the best scientists and engineers working in academic
and industrial organisations both within the UK and overseas. The projects these
teams deliver will accelerate the progress of industrially applicable innovative
energy technologies through the innovation system to enable some commercial
deployment within 10 years. The potential budget is up to £100M pa for 10
years.
DBERR Sustainable Energy Capital Grants
2.7. The DBERR currently supports a number of individual programmes which
provide capital grants as part of a long-term package (10+ years) of targeted
support for demonstration and early phase deployment of low carbon
technologies. They are designed to remove financial barriers to further
development, and identify risks and costs and sensitivity of key inputs to financial
viability across a number of low carbon technologies such as wind, wave and
tidal, biomass, microgeneration and low carbon buildings, fuel cells and
hydrogen, and carbon abatement. Further information on these individual
programmes is provided at annex A.
Environmental Transformation Fund
2.8. In June 2006 the Government announced the creation of a new Government
fund to invest in low carbon energy and energy efficiency technologies. The
Fund will bring together the Government’s existing work within the UK, including
the DBERR’s existing Sustainable Energy Capital Grants, and internationally to
support amongst other things the demonstration and deployment of new energy
technologies, including renewables, and to promote the better use of energy.
The Fund will open in April 2008 and details of the domestic element of the
programme will be announced in 2007 in the context of the CSR.
Framework Programme 7
2.9. The EU’s Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
is the main instrument through which research is supported at European level.
The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) took over form FP6 on the 1st
January 2007 and will run for 7 years. The focus of the research and
demonstration actions in this Work Programme will be on accelerating the
development of energy technologies towards cost-effectiveness for a more
sustainable energy economy for Europe (and world-wide) and ensuring that
334
European industry can compete successfully on the global stage. FP7 has a
budget €50,5 Billion over the period of 2007 to 2013 of which €2 350 Million is
available for Energy Theme. This compares to the budget of €17.5 billion for
FP6 which covered the period 2003 to 2006.
2.10. In addition to the Framework Programme, the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE2)
is part of a broader EU programme on Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme which supports promotional sustainable energy projects and socalled 'integrated initiatives'. The programme acts as the EU’s tool for funding
action to improve market conditions so to encourage the use of renewable
energy sources and save energy. The programme budget of €727 Million will be
used to co-finance international projects, events and the start-up of local or
regional agencies.
Market Pull Mechanisms: EU Targets / Renewables Obligation / ETS
2.11. The Renewables Obligation (RO) is the Government’s key mechanism for
encouraging new renewable generation and runs until 2027. Since its
introduction in 2002, electricity supplied from renewables has more than doubled
from 1.8% to 4% in 2006. It places an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers
to source an annually increasing proportion of their sales from renewables.186
Suppliers can meet their obligation by presenting RO Certificates (ROCs); paying
a buyout price (£34.30 for 2007/08 rising each year with RPI); or a combination.
Suppliers that surrender ROCs receive a pro-rata share of the money paid into
the buy-out fund – acting as an incentive to invest in renewables.
2.12. The RO was designed to bring forward the most cost-effective technologies
first and it has been very successful in doing this. However if we want to move
significantly beyond 10% renewables we need to bring forward those renewable
sources such as offshore wind that are currently further from the market. To
address this, the Energy White Paper set out detailed proposals to reform the
RO. The key proposals are to extend the obligation level to a maximum of 20%
on a headroom basis and ‘band’ the RO to provide differentiated levels of support
for groups of similar technologies, including more support for emerging
technologies
2.13. This package will increase the deployment of renewables by over 40% over
2009-2015 compared to existing arrangements and increase the diversity of the
technologies deployed. This would bring the total projected electricity supplied by
renewables to around 15% in 2015187. The RO is expected to result in over
£1bn/year support for renewables by 2010 including the exemption from the
Climate Change Levy. In addition, by placing a price on current and future
emissions, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme incentives industry either to
186
Eligible technologies are; Sewage gas, Landfill gas, Co-firing, Onshore wind, Hydro-electric,
Energy from Waste with CHP, Offshore wind, dedicated regular biomass (with/without CHP); Wave,
tidal stream, ACTs (advanced conversion technologies – gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion),
solar PV, geothermal. Eligible waste technologies only receive support in respect of the biomass
fraction.
187
This figure includes electricity from RO ineligible sources.
335
improve its energy efficiency, invest at scale in technologies using renewable and
low-carbon fuels, or to develop innovative renewable and low-carbon
technologies. Further details on future support levels can be found in Annex B
and in the current consultation on the RO.
2.14. The Energy White Paper also set out proposals to improve the planning and
consenting process and grid connection for both on and offshore renewables
including publishing a statement of need for renewables and working with
National Grid on bringing forward connection opportunities.
3. CURRENT STATE OF UK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND
DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES
3.1. Onshore and Offshore Wind
3.1.1. The UK has some of the best onshore188 and offshore189 wind energy
resources in Europe. Onshore wind technology is fully deployed and off shore
wind is at early demonstration phase. Much of the technology involved in
offshore wind is applicable to onshore wind.
3.1.2. Industrial R&D in offshore wind in the UK is currently being carried out by a
variety of world–leading UK organisations. These include major turbine blade
manufacturers (Vestas Blades UK Ltd), major offshore foundation installation
contractors (Seacore Ltd), world-class steel producers (Corus UK Ltd), major
offshore wind developers (RWE, Npower), large energy companies (Scottish &
Southern Energy, Scottish Power), international engineering consultants
(Atkins PLC), leading wind energy consultants (Garrad Hassan) and
international oil and gas companies (Talisman). The UK also has a strong
academic community with extensive capabilities to support industry in offshore
R&D. In addition to the following universities: Oxford, Southampton,
Loughborough, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Strathcylde; there are centres of
excellence, such New and Renewable Energy Centre (NaREC) and Science &
Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) Energy Research Unit and others,
which provide facilities and services to industry.
3.1.3. Future research requirements over the next 5-10 years are likely to be in the
sizing-up of turbines, with machine capacities increasing from the current 2 to
3 MW to 5 MW plus, whilst at the same time reducing radar cross-section
using innovative design and advanced materials. The operation and
maintenance of these larger machines will need to meet market expectations
and increase reliability whilst reducing all elements of cost. This may
188
Study of the Costs of Offshore Wind Generation – A Report to the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB) &
DTI. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file38125.pdf
189
Study of the Costs of Offshore Wind Generation – A Report to the Renewables Advisory Board
(RAB) & DTI. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file38125.pdf
336
ultimately lead to a number of fundamental changes in the design of major
components including generators and drive mechanism. As developments
move to greater distances offshore with deeper water sites and challenging
seabed conditions, alternative cost-effective foundations and installation
methods will need to be perfected. The scale of production required will also
mean development of production technology and techniques.
3.1.4. The supply chain includes, developers, finance, legal, insurance,
consultants, supply chain manufactures covering all major elements of a wind
turbine, including blade manufacture, foundations, seabed survey, logistics
and port storage, installation, cable laying, connections, standards/certification,
and O&M services. Significant entry to the turbine supply chain market is
currently limited as the turbine suppliers source many components outside the
UK. Innovative product development is required to enable UK companies to
gain an edge over competitors already established in this market.
3.1.5. The current worldwide demand for wind turbines has resulted in supply chain
constraints across all of the manufacturers. This presents an opportunity for
UK companies to enter the supply chain especially with the UK market being
one of the top three markets in Europe in the wind sector.
3.2. Photovoltaics (PV)
3.2.1. Although the UK is not a leader in the current PV market technologies there
is potential and opportunity for the UK in the next phase of technologies. For
example, the UK has strengths in the new PV generation technologies
(including scientific capabilities in organic semi- conductors which provide a
basis for organic/polymer), which could make PV economic.
3.2.2. Industrial R&D in photovoltaics is pursued by a number of companies at a
number of levels. Some are mainly suppliers of materials to the PV industry
while others are more involved in the development of cell structures or
applications. The companies range in size from large multinationals (Johnson
Matthey plc, Merck Chemicals, DuPont, Kodak, Sharp Electronics UK Ltd),
through medium sized enterprises (Cambridge Display Technology Ltd, PV
Crystalox, ICP Solar Technologies UK Ltd, West Technology Systems, Exitech
Ltd) down to small niche companies (PV Systems (EETS), NaREC, Plasma
Quest Ltd). The UK science base for PV is varied and covers a wide set of
interests. There are currently around 30 UK universities involved in academic
research in this area, indicating a significant research effort. Those with
notable strengths include: Bath, Imperial College, Cambridge, Oxford,
Southampton, and Sheffield Hallam.
3.2.3. Current research efforts are concenterated on: reducing the cost of
manufacturing existing crystalline silicon PV modules and improvements in cell
efficiency; process development for thin and/or large area wafer that could
lead to lower cost/improved performance; new types of PV cells such as
organic, polymers, nanostructured solar cells etc.
3.3. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
337
3.3.1. Fuel cells produce electricity by means of an electrochemical reaction
between hydrogen and oxygen (air), with water as the only by product. They
have been used in space missions since the 1960s and are increasingly being
demonstrated in applications such as portable power, stationary power
generation/combined heat and power (CHP), and as a replacement for the
internal combustion engine for transport. With the exception of some niche
markets they are not yet cost-competitive for such applications, and further
R&D is required to address the techno-economic barriers. These include for
fuel cells, cost reduction and increased durability under real operating
conditions; and for hydrogen, cost –competitive methods for producing lowcarbon hydrogen, and hydrogen storage systems to provide adequate driving
range.
3.3.2. The UK has a strong research base and a small number of world-class
companies. These include both multi-nationals such as Johnson Matthey
(which produces Membrane Electrode Assemblies) and Rolls Royce (a
developer of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) for industrial/commercial scale
distributed power generation/CHP, and SMEs such as Intelligent Energy (a
developer of proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, and Ceres Power
(a developer of SOFC for small scale power generation/CHP). One of the key
issues affecting the sector is that although the existing status of the technology
is largely pre-commercial demonstration, once commercialisation begins the
take-off could be extremely rapid (as fuel cells displace the incumbent
technology). This would require a quick and flexible supply chain. Johnson
Matthey is one of the companies actively trying to develop such a UK supply
chain.
3.4. Wave and Tidal
3.4.1. A number of wave and tidal-stream energy technologies are currently under
active development, with a small number of devices having already been
demonstrated at full-scale for limited periods. The UK has a significant wave
and tidal-stream resource which taken together it has been estimated could
provide up to 20% of UK electricity demand190.
3.4.2. The current exploited market for wave and tidal-stream energy devices is at
present small. The technology is still in its early stages and the timing and size
of the eventual market is still uncertain. The eventual exploitation of the
potential market is dependant upon the successful development of
technologies that can extract this resource reliably and economically. It is
therefore by no means a foregone conclusion that a successful industry can be
developed.
3.4.3. However, leading technologies are moving towards larger-scale
demonstration and Government has put in place a number of measures that
190
Carbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge www.carbontrust.co.uk/technology/technologyaccelerator/marine_energy.htm
338
collectively provide the most comprehensive support for the development of
these technologies anywhere in the world191.
3.4.4. The number of UK companies involved in technology development is
relatively small. There are a small number of companies with devices in the
water or with developed plans for deployment within the next year. These
companies are mostly SME’s, focused on development of a particular device
and with annual turnovers of the order of a few £M. Some of these SME’s have
larger companies as partners or shareholders.
3.4.5. The UK has a long established, world-class academic science base in wave
energy research. A thorough understanding of wave climate and conditions
and the available ocean and shoreline resource has been developed over
many years. UK companies and academics are world leaders in tidal stream
and wave energy technology.
3.5. Bioenergy
3.5.1. Biomass covers a wide range of fuel types (including wastes) and can
contribute to a range of end markets – with mature technology in place for
electricity, heat and transport applications. Unlike other renewables, notably
wind, biomass is capable of providing continuous output once a robust fuel
supply infrastructure is in place. It is anticipated that a combination of the
Renewables Obligation (including proposed banding), grants for biomass
heat/CHP and co-firing will stimulate interest in bioenergy.
3.5.2. The UK Biomass Strategy was published on 23rd May 2007192 and gives an
overview of the Government’s aim to increase the contribution of sustainable
bioenergy and biofuels. The Biomass Strategy estimates the current
contribution from bioenergy and biofuels to be approaching 4Mtoe.
3.5.3. The need to increase the energy supply from sustainable bioenergy does
mean that we need to develop more efficient fuel supply chains, produce
transport biofuels with improved carbon savings, improve fuel sampling for
biomass content, develop systems for producing energy from biomass such as
anaerobic digestion and more efficient heat and power generation plant.
Guidance on Consenting Arrangements in England and Wales for a Pre-Commercial
Demonstration Phase for Wave and Tidal Stream Energy Devices www.dti.gov.uk/files/file15470.pdf
191
DTI Wave and Tidal-stream Energy Demonstration Scheme www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/businessinvestment/funding/marine/page19419.html
South West Regional Development Agency Wave Hub Project - www.wavehub.co.
Scottish Ministers' Wave and Tidal Energy Support Scheme - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/BusinessIndustry/infrastructure/19185/WTSupportScheme/WTSupportSchemeIntro
Renewables Obligation Consultation May 2007 - http://www.dti.gov.uk/consultations/page39586.html
European Marine Energy Centre – www.emec.org.uk
192
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/energy/renewablefuel/pdf/ukbiomassstrategy0507.pdf
339
3.5.4. “Second generation” transport biofuels are currently at the commercial
research, development or pilot stage and use more advanced technologies,
e.g. converting the whole plant into fuel, and using straw, wood and
biodegradable waste as feedstocks. They have the potential to deliver far
more fuel per hectare and give greater greenhouse gas savings than first
generation fuels but capital costs are currently much higher. An extra £20M for
research into green bioenergy was announced on 8th March 2007. This takes
total public funding to £36M over the next five years. It will support the build
up of research capacity into how bioenergy can help replace fossil fuels with
renewable, low-carbon alternatives.
3.5.5. Specific programmes to tackle waste sponsored by Defra include the
Technology Research & Innovation Fund (TRIF) which was set up to provide
funding for R&D projects into innovative new technologies which will help
England’s obligations to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill; and the
New Technologies Demonstrator Programme which set up nine demonstration
projects covering at least four different waste treatment technologies including
anaerobic digestion and gasification. But policy focus is on the speedier
deployment of infrastructure using established technologies, as much as the
development and demonstration of new technologies.
3.6. Ground Source Heat Pumps
3.6.1. Ground source heat pumps are a proven and reliable product and there are
encouraging signs that industry is taking a lead in the development of the
sector. Under the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC), organisations such as
nPower estimate they have installed approximately 700 systems, as part of
their EEC offering.
3.7. Intelligent Grid Management and Energy Storage
3.7.1. Many renewables are intermittent by their nature and if we are to rely on
them for a major fraction of the electricity generation we need to consider how
to manage the challenges that this intermittency raises to secure a reliable
electricity supply to consumers. Intelligent Grid Management is a generic term
applied to a range of potential innovation which aims to coordinate and
manage generation and network resources and possibly energy storage and
demand. The UK is well placed in the development of intelligent grid
management technologies, with a number of SMEs and academic institutions
involved, such as Ecconect, Universities of Manchester, Strathclyde, and
Imperial College etc. Due to the nature of the technology, SME’s are as likely
to be successful in this area as larger multinational companies that have a
presence in the UK, which are all now foreign-owned. The application of
intelligent grid management techniques could have a very significant impact on
the capacity of the networks to accept these new generation technologies and
on the costs of doing so.
340
3.7.2. A number of first generation products, such as Ecconmect’s GenAVC
device, are now available commercially; however there is considerable scope
for innovation and further development as the availability of commercial
distributed generation technologies gathers pace.
3.7.3. The DTI Technology Programme and other support programmes have
supported intelligent grid management innovation. In addition, the availability
of research funding has improved markedly since 2005, with the introduction of
Ofgem’s Innovation Funding Initiative, which allows Distribution Network
Operators to recover the costs of innovation and demonstration in this area.
3.7.4. Work carried out by the Centre for Distributed generation & Sustainable
Energy indicates that commercial utility-scale electrical storage technologies
could have a significant role to play in the next decade, as a means of allowing
significant amounts of variable-output renewable generation onto the electricity
grid and in managing the impact of that variability. The Centre’s work also
suggests that electrical storage to the electricity networks could be valued at a
premium over conventional generation alternatives, such as open cycle gas
turbines.
3.7.5. The UK is relatively well placed in terms of the development of novel battery
technologies, particularly in the area of flow cell batteries, where SMEs such
as Plurion are active. The flow cell battery appears to be a particularly
attractive development due to the potential for reduced capital cost and the
inherent separation of energy and capacity. Other technologies with the
potential for utility-scale applications, such as pumped storage and
compressed air storage, are subject to significant siting and environmental
constraints.
3.7.6. Demand side management is essentially a technique for deferring the use of
electrical energy, i.e. it is analogous to electrical storage. A number of
initiatives in the area of demand side management as a potential means to
mitigate the impacts of dealing with the variable output of some renewable
generation technologies in a more cost effective and carbon friendly fashion
have been supported.
4. COMMERCIALISATION AND CARBON FOOT PRINT OF RENEWABLE
TECHNOLOGIES
See table at Annex B.
5. OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
5.1. There are also a number of other renewable products that are already deployed
and not mentioned in the terms of reference: geo-thermal (limited economical
sites in UK); solar thermal (well established technology – typical household
system £2-3k); barrages (technically feasible) and hydro (established technology,
341
but limited sites for environmental reasons). Further information can be provided
if required.
5.2. On technologies for the future, in 2006, the OSI Foresight carried out a review of
how science and technology could contribute to better energy management. A
number of state of science reviews across the energy domain, including
photovoltaics, wind and wave technologies were commissioned. The overview
report, state of science reviews and other related reports produced by this review
are available from the Foresight website
http://www.foresight.gov.uk/HORIZON_SCANNING_CENTRE/Energy/Energy.ht
ml
5.3. The reports highlighted the importance of significant technological and scientific
breakthroughs to allow the theoretical or small-scale possibilities to be turned into
large-scale, deployable, solutions e.g. the more futuristic possibilities include
cheap, and more efficient, photovoltaic cells; high-temperature superconductor
power transmission; and technologies for storing and transporting hydrogen.
Major breakthroughs in the technologies for energy storage would also help
unlock the potential of intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and
sun. New approaches to systems modelling and software design are also seen
as critical – e.g. modelling wind generating systems in a variety of weather
conditions; developing software agents and information and communications
technologies to help introduce greater degrees of intelligence into the
management of energy demand.
July 2007
Existing Sustainable Energy Capital Grants Programmes for Demonstration and
Deployment of Renewable Energy Technologies:
•
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration programme – 3 year, £15M capital grant
programme announced in December 2005 (part of HFCCAT). The programme aims
to support the demonstration of fuel cell systems for both transport and stationary
power applications, and the demonstration of hydrogen energy systems for transport
applications. These technologies hold promise for electricity generation and transport.
•
Off shore wind –£99 M capital grant programme. The programme provides
support for early deployment support for proven technologies.
•
Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme – 3 year, £30M DBERR, £36M Big
Lottery funded capital grant programme launched in 2003. The programme
aims to support demonstration and deployment of biomass electricity, heat
and CHP. A 5 year extension to the scheme is being funded by Defra to
support biomass heat and CHP projects in the industrial, commercial and
community sectors. It will be worth some £10-15m in England over the two
financial years to 31 March 2008.
342
•
Marine Renewable Deployment Fund – a 3 year £50M capital grant and
revenue stream programme launched in 2005. The programme aims to
support demonstration projects through a combined approach to support. The
UK has good marine resource and has the potential to be a world leader in
this technology area.
•
Low Carbon Buildings Programme Phase 1 – 3 year, £36M capital grant
programme launched in April 2006. The programme aims to support the
deployment of microgeneration technologies to homeowners, public sector
and industry, while promoting a more holistic approach to energy
conservation.
•
Low Carbon Buildings Programme Phase 2 – 2 year, £50M capital grant
programme announced in Budget in April 2006. The programme aims to
support the deployment of microgeneration technologies to public sector
developments whilst actively driving down costs through the use of a
framework agreement
Defra is currently consulting on how the third phase of the Energy Efficiency
Commitment (renamed the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target) should
include microgeneration and renewable energy generation technologies
among those measures which the programme supports. This phase will run
from 2008 to 2011; and is intended to produce lifetime savings of 42 million
tonnes of carbon (MtC).
343
Annex B
Proposed Future Support Levels in a Banded Renewables Obligation
Band
Established
Reference
Technologies
Support
Level (ROCs
per MWh)
Sewage gas; Landfill gas; Co-firing of non-energy 0.25
crop (regular) biomass
Onshore wind; Hydro-electric; Co-firing of energy 1
crops; Energy from Waste with CHP; Other not
specified
Post-Demonstration Offshore wind; dedicated regular biomass
Emerging
Technology
1.5
Wave; tidal stream; ACTs; dedicated biomass with 2
energy crops; dedicated biomass CHP; solar PV;
geothermal
Current and Projected Supply
Technology
2006 Supply193
TWh
2015 Projected Supply
TWh
No Change
Banded
RO194
Sewage Gas
0.3
0.9
0.9
Landfill Gas
4.1
4.3
4.2
Co-firing
2.2
3.9
5
Onshore Wind
3.4
15.2
12.4
1.1
0.9
Energy from
with CHP
Waste 0
Hydro-electric
2.3
2.9
2.8
Offshore Wind
0.7
8.4
16.7
2.6
2.8
Dedicated
(regular)
Biomass 1
193
These figures only represent the electricity supply on which RO Certificates have been claimed.
The figures, taken from the Oxera report published alongside the consultation on the RO, indicate
estimated generation in the Obligation period 2015/16 and take into account proposed policy changes.
The report is available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39039.pdf
194
344
Dedicated
Biomass 0
(energy
crops)
&
Biomass CHP
0
0.6
Wave
Stream
Tidal 0
0
0.3
Anaerobic Digestion/ 0
Gasification / Pyrolysis
0
0.1
Solar PV
0
0
0
TOTAL:
14.2
39.3
46.7195
195
and
Totals in excess of sum of figures due to rounding.
345
ANNEX C
Commercialisation and Carbon Foot Print of Renewable Technologies (identified in Terms of Reference of the Inquiry)
Technology
Feasibility
Costs (2006
and costs)
prices Time to market Reliability
Onshore
Wind
Proven technology.
1.8 GW deployed.
Large high wind
£62/MWh
Large low wind
£74/MWh196
Offshore
Wind
Currently
only £91/MWh199
commercially viable with
extra support via the RO
and continued support to
drive down costs. 304MW
deployed.
- Being
deployed.
-
Early
deployment.
Carbon footprint
Availability of >75% and
improving with greater
deployment
and
experience.
Capacity factor197:
Large high wind – 31%
Large low wind 26%
The energy payback of
wind farms has been
estimated
at
3-10
198
months
As with other emerging
technologies, early projects
have
experienced
problems but it is hoped
that solutions will be found
as deployment increases.
Capacity factor200:
31%
The energy payback of
wind farms has been
estimated
at
3-10
201
months
196
Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
Capactiy factor reprsente the % of the theoretical maximum capacity of a given technology producing electricity 24 hours a day every day of the year. Impact of banding
the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
198
Wind Power in the UK, Sustainable Development Commission
199
Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
200
Capacity factor represents the % of the theoretical maximum capacity of a given technology producing electricity 24 hours a day every day of the year. Impact of banding
the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
201
Wind Power in the UK, Sustainable Development Commission
197
346
Technology
Feasibility
Costs (2006
and costs)
prices Time to market Reliability
Carbon footprint
Photovoltaics Proven technology but £635/MWh203
needs high levels of
support for commercial
operation.
14MW
deployed 202
Being
Capacity factor204:
deployed, but 16%
“new” products
required
for
mass
market
on commercial
terms
The energy payback of PV
has been estimated at 3-4
years205.
Hydrogen and Technical feasibility has
Fuel Cells
been demonstrated, but
significant
technoeconomic barriers need to
be
overcome.
This
requires
R&D
breakthroughs – it is not
just
a
question
of
economies of scale.
Niche
applications – 1
– 2 years;
Stationary
(distributed)
power
generation/CH
P – from 2010 ;
Transport
(internal
combustion
engine)
replacement –
from 2020
It all depends how the
hydrogen is produced. Fuel
cells can show carbon
reductions
even
when
operated on conventional
fuels such as natural gas,
but the real benefits will
only be obtained with low
carbon
methods
of
producing hydrogen.
Wave
Some niche markets
are cost-competitive
now, but mainstream
applications such as
stationary
power
generation
and
transport require a
reduction of 1 – 2
orders of magnitude.
Early stage demonstration £199/MWh206
not
yet commercially
proven at large-scale
For
commercialisation,
need
>5000hrs
for
passenger
cars
and
>40,000hrs for distributed
power generation. This has
not yet been demonstrated
but technical progress is
being made.
Small
scale Capacity Factor: 30%207
arrays planned.
The long-term
Dependent upon individual
device but expected to be
relatively short.
202
IEA PVPS Annual Report 2006
Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
204
Capacity factor represents the % of the theoretical maximum capacity of a given technology producing electricity 24 hours a day every day of the year. Impact of banding
205
http://www.iea-pvps.org/pv/index.htm
203
347
Technology
Feasibility
Costs (2006
and costs)
prices Time to market Reliability
Carbon footprint
commercial
prospects still
uncertain.
Tidal-stream
Early stage demonstration £181/MWh208
not
yet
commercially
viable.
The long-term Capacity Factor: 35%209
commercial
prospects still
uncertain. But
MW scale tidalstream
protégés
planned to be
installed
in
2007.
Bioenergy
Proven
technology.
Commercially viable under
current regime where
affordable fuel supplies
are available.
Being
deployed.
Although
research and
development
still required for
advanced
conversion
technologies
and
second
generation
Co-firing regular £90/MWH
Co-firing energy crop £67/MWh
Biomass regular £90/MWh
Biomass energy crop £122/MWh
Biomass
CHP
£135/MWh210
Dependent upon individual
device but expected to be
relatively short.
This is dependent on
Capacity Factor211:
Co-firing regular – 90%
type of biomass used,
Co-firing energy crop – conversion efficiency,
90%
end use and any
Biomass regular – 80%
products involved.
Biomass energy crop –
80%
Biomass CHP – 80%
206
Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
Capacity factor represents the % of the theoretical maximum capacity of a given technology producing electricity 24 hours a day every day of the year. Impact of banding
208
Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
209
Capacity factor represents the % of the theoretical maximum capacity of a given technology producing electricity 24 hours a day every day of the year. Impact of banding
207
348
the
the
the
co-
Technology
Feasibility
Costs (2006
and costs)
prices Time to market Reliability
Carbon footprint
biofuels,
Ground
Proven technology.
Source Heat
Pumps
£800 - £1300 per kW Being deployed No
comparable
depending on geology
available.
and
building
application212
data The electricity used to drive
a GSHP system means
that there are some
carbon
emissions
associated with its use.
210
Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
Capacity factor represents the % of the theoretical maximum capacity of a given technology producing electricity 24 hours a day every day of the year. Impact of banding
the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007
212
Renewable Heat and Heat from Combined Heat and Power Plants - Study and Analysis Report, AEA
211
349
Memorandum 47
Submission from Professor Ian Fells
The Severn Barrage as an important source of Renewable Energy.
The tides in the Severn Estuary have a rise and fall of over 10 metres, second only to
the Bay of Fundy on the east coast of Canada. Harnessing the power in these tides
has been a goal of energy engineers for almost a century (a Government study group
was set up as early as 1925 to report on the potential of the Severn Barrage). A
definitive report, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Energy, was published
in 1989 and has since been followed up with a further appraisal by the Severn Tidal
Power Group (STPG), which consists of a number of international engineering
companies. The aim is to produce electricity predictably from a renewable source.
The engineering, economics and environmental impact of a Severn Barrage have
been exhaustively studied. In the past the scheme has been regretfully rejected on
economic grounds, but that was when any new scheme had to compete with fossil
fuel fired generation. Now that clean energy is at a premium and marine technologies
such as wave power are being actively pursued the Severn Barrage emerges as a
very attractive possibility. The economics are as good, if not better than wave power,
tidal stream and offshore wind systems; the technology is well understood (a
successful tidal barrage has been generating 240MW of power at La Rance, in
Brittany, for over 40 years and continues to operate today), those cost would be
about the same as for the Channel Tunnel and could be raised according to the
banking community, provided there was strong and continuing support for the
scheme (the same is true for nuclear power). The Barrage could provide 5% of UK
electricity, more if the longer rout from Minehead rather than Weston-super-Mare
were adopted, it would provide over a thousand jobs in tourism, a fast rail or road link
to Wales and do much to control periodic flooding, especially of the Somerset Levels.
The UK is keen to show that it leads the way in combating Climate Change;
unfortunately we have one of the worst records in Europe in terms of promoting
renewable energy. Here is a scheme based on a fortunate geographical advantage
which we can exploit, just as Austria and Norway exploit their hydroelectric potential.
There will be environmental objections especially the bird lobby, but the wading birds
can be accommodated by designing areas that dry out at low tide, and there is now
considerable experience in dealing with silting problems.
Here is a much-researched, renewable energy source, on an heroic scale that would
place the UK in the forefront of clean energy production. It will be a shame if we
continue to neglect it.
See:
1
2
July 2007
“The Severn Barrage Project, General Report” Energy Paper 57,
HMSO1989.
The Severn Barrage—definition study for a new appraisal of the project
“STPG http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file 155363.pdf