renewable energy-generation technologies list …€¦ · renewable energy-generation technologies...

RENEWABLE ENERGY-GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

List of written evidence

Page

1 Institute of Physics 1

2 David Milborrow - independent consultant 7

3 Fuel Cells UK 14

4 University of Liverpool 26

5 20C 33

6 One NorthEast 39

7 Marine Institute for Innovation 42

8 Supergen Energy Storage Consortium 49

9 Alan Shaw - Retired Chartered Engineer 52

10 Professor Stephen Salter - University of Edinburgh 57

11 EDF Energy 61

12 Rolls Royce Fuel Systems 66

13 The Royal Society of Edinburgh 74

14 Advantage West Midlands 85

15 South West RDA 88

16 East of England Development Agency 94

17 RWE npower 97

18 E.ON UK 106

19 Renewable Energy Association 129

20 Association of Electricity Producers 138

21 Institution of Mechanical Engineers 142

22 British Geological Survey 146

23 London Climate Change Agency and the London Development Agency 152

24 Swanbarton Limited 160

25 Yorkshire Forward 166

26 Shanks Waste Management Limited 170

27 Energy Saving Trust 172

28 Energy Networks Association 176

29 Environmental Services Association 178

30 Greenpeace UK 180

31 National Farmers' Union of England and Wales 186

32 Centre for Management Under Regulation - Warwick Business School 189

33 Environment Agency 193

34 East Midlands Development Agency 199

35 Bristol Spaceplanes Limited 203

36 Royal Society of Chemistry 215

37 Durham University 223

38 Research Councils UK 240

39 Institution of Engineering & Technology 281

40 Sustainable Development Commission 289

41 Royal Academy of Engineering 295

42 UK Energy Research Centre 304

43 British Wind Energy Association 315

44 Ofgem 322

45 Plymouth Marine Laboratory 324

46 Dept of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 332

47 Professor Ian Fells 350

1

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, re-emphasised 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 low-carbon 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

2

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

3

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 http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/ 4 http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/abstracts.html#SEU

4

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

5

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 A-level 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 7 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

6

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 renewable-energy 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

7

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 wind-generated 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

8

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.

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.

Item Cost, £/kW/yrRoutine 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

9

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.

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.

Installed cost, £/kW Capacity factor Generation cost, £/MWh, 20-year life

Generation cost, £/MWh, 15-year life

900 24 58.3 £65.0 1000 30 50.4 £56.4 1100 36 45.5 £51.0

10

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 Value, 2007 Source Value, 2020 Source Installed cost £1500/kW DTI (2006) £1200/kW ODE (2007) – 75% of

£1600 O&M £15/MWh DTI (2006) £10/MWh Danish Energy Authority Capacity factor 0.35 DTI (2006) 0.35 Discount rate 12% DTI (2006) 8% Assumes no technology

risk Generation cost £84.5 Derived £51.5/MWh 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

11

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 Wind PV Hydro Nuclear Wiese, A, Kaltschmitt, M, 1996. Comparison of wind energy technology with other electricity generation systems: a life cycle analysis. EU Wind Energy Conference, Goteborg

10-17

White, S and Kulcinski, G, 1998. Net energy payback and CO2 9-20 17

12

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

7-9 98-167 9

The environmental implications of renewables in the UK, AEAT-2945, 1998

9 154-178 5

Serchuck, A, 2000. The environmental imperative for renewable energy. Renewable Energy Policy Project

7-74 60-410 39

International Energy Agency, 2003. Integrating energy and Environmental goals: Investment needs and Technology options.

7 5 10 8

Danish Energy Agency, 2004. Technology data for electricity and heat generating plants

16 146

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 Transmission Charging on Renewable Electricity Generation. Report to the DTI UK Energy Research Centre, 2007. Investment in Electricity Generation: the role of costs, incentives and risks. Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology.

13

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.

14

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

15

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.

16

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.

17

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 biomass-derived 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.

18

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),

19

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

20

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.

21

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

22

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.

23

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

24

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.

25

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

26

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 free-standing 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.

27

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

28

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

29

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 spring-neap-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 25-40GW 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).

30

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’

31

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.

32

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

33

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 Geo-pressure, 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.

34

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:

35

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 Geo-pressure. (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.

36

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 Geo-pressure 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

37

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, large-scale 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

38

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

39

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;

40

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

41

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 non-

technical 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

42

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

43

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 30-50 academics plus similar (or greater) numbers of researchers and postgraduate

44

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

45

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

46

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 ride-through

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

47

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

48

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

49

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:

50

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

51

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

52

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

53

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.

54

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.

55

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)

56

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 co-author 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

57

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

58

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 inter-connectors 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 fund-raising advertisements do not bear close examination.

59

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.

60

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

61

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 in-house.

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:

62

• 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

63

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 cost-

effective 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 pre-commercial 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/

64

Intelligent Grid Management - Feasibility, costs, timescales and progress in commercialisation (reliability and associated carbon footprints)

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 deliverability by application and deployment of new

technology; 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

65

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

66

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.

67

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 Rolls-Royce 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.

68

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

69

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

70

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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Coal steam cycle NG CCGT Coal IG-CCGT SOFC hybrid

"Wel

l to

wire

" C

O2

emis

sion

[kg/

MW

h el]

Base case

CO2 capture, fossil fuel

15 °C ambient40 °C ambient

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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Coal steam cycle NG CCGT Coal IG-CCGT SOFC hybrid

"Wel

l to

wire

" C

O2

emis

sion

[kg/

MW

h el]

Base case

CO2 capture, fossil fuel

15 °C ambient40 °C ambient

71

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 bio-fuels 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.

Fig 2. CO2 emission footprints for a range of approaches to providing end domestic energy users with both power and heat.

0

10

20

30

Coal power+ NG boiler

NG CCGTpower + NG

boiler

SOFChybrid +

heat pump

Micro GT forCHP

Micro CHPSOFC + aux

boiler

SOFChybrid CHP+ heat pump

"Wel

l to

wire

" C

O2

emis

sion

[kg/

MW

total]

1 unit electric3 units thermal demand

With Exhaust Heat RecoveryWithout Exhaust Heat Recovery

Fig 2. CO2 emission footprints for a range of approaches to providing end domestic energy users with both power and heat.

0

10

20

30


NG CCGTpower + NG

boiler

SOFChybrid +

heat pump

Micro GT forCHP

Micro CHPSOFC + aux

boiler


"Wel

l to

wire

" C

O2

emis

sion

[kg/

MW

total]


0

10

20

30


NG CCGTpower + NG

boiler

SOFChybrid +

heat pump

Micro GT forCHP

Micro CHPSOFC + aux

boiler


"Wel

l to

wire

" C

O2

emis

sion

[kg/

MW

total]


With Exhaust Heat RecoveryWithout Exhaust Heat Recovery

72

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

73

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

74

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 energy-generation 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

75

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.

76

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.

77

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 wave-energy 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.

78

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.

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.

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.

79

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, micro-hydro, 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

80

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

81

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 carbon-

free, 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.

82

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 technically-skilled 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.

83

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 1990-2005 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 co-operative 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]). 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)

14 IEA energy R&D database (Euros based on 2005 prices)

84

July 2007

85

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

86

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.

87

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

88

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 Bio-heat 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

89

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

90

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

91

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 full-scale, 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,

92

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.

93

July 2007

94

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:

Supply chain development; Technology acceleration; Knowledge transfer; Business support networking; 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:

Studies in deploying Anaerobic Digestion & Gasification Business support for potential projects Gasification trials with new feedstock

95

Knowledge transfer with Guidance Notes o 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

o £40k funding for Epicam for a system to recover waste heat from internal combustion engines and turn it back into usable engine power

o £70k funding for AxelChoice to assemble, install and demo an exhaust energy regeneration system

o £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 small-

scale 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,

96

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

97

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.

98

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 (MW): UK16

Installed Capacity (MW): RWE npower

Key Challenges / comments

Onshore wind 1844 341 Supply; Planning; Grid Landfill gas 815 None Limited opportunities for

growth. Hydro <20MW DNC 601

59 Limited opportunities for

growth Offshore wind 304 60 Supply; Economics; Grid Co-firing of biomass

27217 26 (c.10%)18

Supply chain

Biomass 181 None Economics; Supply chain

Sewage Gas 69 None Limited opportunities for growth

Biomass and waste using ACT

5 None (No comment - not close to RWE npower activities)

Waste using ACT 2 None (No comment - not close to RWE npower activities)

Marine (wave and tidal power)

1 None at present

Full scale testing; Economics; Planning; Grid

PV 0.3 None at present

Economics

TOTAL 4094 486 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/RenewablStat 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/RenewablStat 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

99

We also have a strong portfolio of onshore wind farms in development and under construction.

100

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.

101

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)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Date

Cap

acity

(MW

)

Transition from NFFO to RO

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 co-firing, 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

102

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, costs, timescales, progress, reliability, carbon footprint) 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.

103

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 co-sponsored (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.

• Grid

20 Letter from HMPG, 2nd February 2004

104

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.

105

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. Finally, whilst it is important that there is “blue sky”

research into new renewable and low carbon energy solutions, we feel that the UK government should focus on tackling barriers to the deployment of existing renewable technologies, namely supply, planning and grid.

July 2007

106

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.

107

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

108

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 longer-

term 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.

109

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

110

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.

111

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.

112

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

113

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

114

Hydro: Low Head

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

£2000

£2000

£2000

Opex £/kW/yr

£10

£10

£10

Load Factor 80%

80%

80%

CO2 t/MWh emissions

Only in construction.

What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?

Flexibility comment

The power output will be seasonal but quite predictable and consistent.

Tech reach, GW

100 MW 300 MW 500 MW

Build Rate, MW/yr

10 MW 20 MW 20 MW

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?

Limiting factors

Appropriate sites. ROCs

Appropriate sites. ROCs

No, why? Too soon 500 MW is about the limit of potential UK capacity.

Yes, Max reach

500 MW

Yes, Max Build Rate

40 MW

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? What is

enabler

Access and longevity of ROCs, or other funding mechanism.

115

Wind: Onshore

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

1400 1200 1100

Opex £/kW/yr

25 25 25

Load Factor 28 30 31 CO2 t/MWh emissions


Flexibility comment

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.

Tech reach, GW

2.5 4 5

Build Rate, MW/yr

500 200 300


Limiting factors

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 Grid Stability

No, why? Yes, Max reach

3

6 10

Yes, Max Build Rate

200 300

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?

What is enabler

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

116

Wind: Offshore

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

1800 1800 1800

Opex £/kW/yr

30 30 30

Load Factor 35 38 38 CO2 t/MWh emissions


Flexibility comment

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.

Tech reach, GW

2 8 15

Build Rate, MW/yr

300 600 800


Limiting factors

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

Need for new wind turbine technologies/ design concepts

Limits to turbine size Grid Stability

No, why? Too short a timescale for offshore

Yes, Max reach

12 18

Yes, Max Build Rate

1000 1000


What is enabler

Improved government encouragement to offshore wind farms.

Info sources: BWEA, the ‘Windstats Newsletter’, and experience Marine: Tidal Barrage

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

£1300

£1300

£1300

What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these

Opex £/kW/yr

£10

£10

£10

117

Load Factor 25%

25%

25%

CO2 t/MWh emissions


technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?

Flexibility comment

The power output will be variable but highly predictable. Note long construction period (7+ years) makes capex appear even more expensive.

Tech reach, GW

0

0 0

Build Rate, MW/yr

0 0 0


Limiting factors

Projects will take many years to construct.

Strongly dependent on government support for major projects. Also dependent on EIA.

As for 2020. Limited sites.


8000+ MW (Severn barrage)

9000 MW (Severn + Mersey + others)

Yes, Max Build Rate


What is enabler

ROC banding or feed-in tariff, strong government support.

As for 2020.

118

Marine: Tidal Lagoon

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

£2000

£2000

£2000

Opex £/kW/yr

£10

£10

£10

Load Factor 38%

38%

38%

CO2 t/MWh emissions



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.

Tech reach, GW

0 – no projects currently committed to (47 MW if Oldbury goes ahead, 60 MW for Swansea Bay).

500 MW 3000 MW ??

Build Rate, MW/yr

0 100 MW 250 MW ??

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? Limiting

factors

Strongly dependent on banding of ROCs, and capital grants or feed-in tariffs. Consenting and grid access are also serious issues.

As for 2020. This is very hard to predict and depends on a number of very uncertain factors.


100 MW

2000 MW 10 GW !

Yes, Max Build Rate

300 MW 1 GW ?


What is enabler

ROC banding or feed-in tariff.

As for 2020.

PTech reports, BD1454 and BC1068 – critical analysis of Atkins figures for Swansea, inc 10% contingency.

119

Marine: Tidal Stream

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

£2200

£1300 £1000

Opex £/kW/yr

£300

£100 £100

Load Factor 30%

30%

30%

CO2 t/MWh emissions

Only in construction / installation.


Flexibility comment

The power output will be variable but highly predictable.

Tech reach, GW

12 MW

400 MW 3000 MW ??

Build Rate, MW/yr

5 100 MW 250 MW ??


Limiting factors

Ability of technology developers to produce successful commercial devices.



No, why? Not much – most major projects will take around 3 yrs to deployment, so this is based on current proposals.

Yes, Max reach

1000 MW 4000 MW ?

Yes, Max Build Rate

200 MW 300 MW ???


What is enabler


As for 2020.

120

Marine: Wave

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

£3000 £1300 £1000

Opex £/kW/yr

£300 £100 £100

Load Factor 30% 30% 30% CO2 t/MWh emissions

Only in construction / installation.


Flexibility comment

The power output will be variable and highly seasonal, although more predictable in the short term than wind.

Tech reach, GW

10 MW

300 MW 2000 MW ??

Build Rate, MW/yr

5 80 MW 150 MW ??


Limiting factors

Ability of technology developers to produce successful commercial devices.



No, why? Not much – most major projects will take around 3 yrs to deployment, so this is based on current proposals.

Yes, Max reach

1000 MW 3000 MW ?

Yes, Max Build Rate

200 MW 200 MW ???


What is enabler


As for 2020. Needs improvement in capes and opex.

121

Biomass: Co-Firing

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW

25-35

Opex £/kW/yr

15-35

Load Factor 20%-60% CO2 t/MWh emissions

0 to +0.2 -2 to +0.2


Flexibility comment

Variations in above values dependent on fuels used and carbon accounting.

Tech reach, GW

1 2-3

Build Rate, MW/yr

150-200 150-200


Limiting factors

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

Yes, Max Build Rate

500-1000 500-1000


What is enabler

No LCPD shutdowns Increased guaranteed revenue support for co-firing. High CO2 and ROC prices

<= Ditto + development of supply infrastructure.

122

Biomass: Dedicated Fluidised Bed

Combustion (FBC)

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW 1800-2400 1800-2400 1800-2400 Opex £/kW/yr

20-30 20-30 20-30

Load Factor 80% 80% 80% CO2 t/MWh emissions

-2 to +0.2 -2 to +0.2 -2 to +0.2


Flexibility comment

Tech reach, GW

1 1 1

Build Rate, MW/yr

200


Limiting factors

Reliant on grant support. Fuel availability. Many regulations prevent biomass build

No, why? Reach limit of fuel supply?

Yes, Max reach

1.5 GW 2.2-2.5 GW 2.2-2.5 GW

Yes, Max Build Rate


What is enabler

Larger capital grant pot and garanteed revenue support Infrastructure grant scheme Relaxation of waste regs Allow build on existing generation sites

123

Heat: Biomass

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW 150-1000 Opex £/kW/yr#

5-20

Load Factor 50%-90% CO2 t/MWh emissions

0-1 -1.5-+1


Comment Huge variation in costs due to variation in scheme sizes and types and treatment of emissions and access to CCS

Post 2006 installations, MW

0.25

Installation Rate, kW/yr

100-200

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?

Limiting factors

Capital grant Fuel costs (lack of revenue support) Supply infrastructure Low gas price – ease of access to gas grid.

No, why? Yes, Max reach, MW

0.5 2.5

Yes, Max Build Rate kW/yr

100-500 100-500


What is enabler

?Heat revenue support + increase in gas price.

124

Domestic Heat: Biomass pellet boiler

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/house

4,000

Opex £/kW/yr#

Average output MWh/year

18

CO2 t/house savings

3.8


Comment Only 150 existed in 2004 so still a new technology. Looks good in terms of £/tCO2 abated but not cost effective for householder.

Post 2006 installations, M

0.013 0.052

Installation Rate, houses/yr

5,000 5,000


Limiting factors

Only competitive against all electric heating

No, why? Yes, Max reach, M houses

0.027 0.39

Yes, Max Build houses/yr

10,000 50,000


What is enabler

Grants to make it competitive against other heating systems. Still unlikely to beat gas on price

125

Domestic Heat: Solar thermal

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/house

2625

Opex £/kW/yr#

Average output MWh/year

1.4

CO2 t/house savings

0.32


Comment One of the least cost effective measures, but high “show” value

Post 2006 installations, M

0.004 3.6


2,000 400,000


Limiting factors

Cost. Ultimately could be applicable to 75% of dwellings

No, why? Yes, Max reach, M houses

0.008 3.7

Yes, Max Build houses/yr

4,000 400,000


What is enabler

Slightly earlier take up of measure, but unlikely to effectively compete with other low carbon technologies in UK so little overall improvement.

126

Domestic Heat: Ground Source Heat Pump

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/house

4500 4000 3000

Opex £/kW/yr#

Load Factor CO2 t/house/yr savings

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)


Comment 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

Post 2006 installations (M), and savings

0.0020.003 Mt CO2

0.17 0.6 Mt CO2

0.52.1 Mt CO2


500 15,000 50,000


Limiting factors

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.

No, why? Too late to effect change here

Yes, Max reach

0.34 1.2 Mt CO2

1.04.2 Mt CO2

Yes, Max Build Rate

30,000 100,000


What is enabler

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).

127

Micro generation: Wind

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW 1500 1300 1000Opex £/kW/yr#

Load Factor 10% 10% 10%CO2 t/house/yr savings

0.26 0.24 0.13


Comment Assuming 1.5 kW per house, total cost based on DEFRA Post 2006 installations, MW

1.7 73 930


500 10,000

130,000


Limiting factors

Expensive relative to other demand side measures. EEC3 expects 500-3000 installations by end of 2011.

No, why? Unlikely to be able to change support much before 2010

Yes, Max reach, MW

150 3000


20,000 500,000


What is enabler

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.

128

Micro generation: PhotoVoltaic

2010 2020 2030 Capex £/kW 3750 1700 1100Opex £/kW/yr#

0 0 0

Load Factor 8% 8% 8%CO2 t/house/yr savings

0.75 0.70

0.44


Comment Assume 2.5 kW peak module per house. Note low load factor for UK climate, assumed to not have active tracking.

Post 2006 installations, MW

1 4 200


500 500

2000


Limiting factors

One of the least economic forms of generation so only for enthusiasts, or small off-grid applications.

No, why? Too soon Yes, Max reach, MW

70

10,000



What is enabler

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

129

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

130

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.

131

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

TOTAL ROC-accredited 4,093,736 932

Renewable generating stations accredited under the CCL only

Energy from Waste 349,829 19

Total 4,443,565 951

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.

132

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 well-documented 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

133

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 building-integrated 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:

134

• 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.

135

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.

136

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 pre-commercial 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.

137

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

138

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 PIU Report, 2002 26 Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Costs of electricity production, April 2007, Ernst and Young

139

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

140

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

141

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

142

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

143

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.

144

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 2015-2025, 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.

145

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 micro-generation 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

146

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

147

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.

148

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.

149

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

150

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.

151

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

152

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 30 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

153

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/

154

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

155

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

156

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 re-grow, 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

157

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.

158

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 34DTI/Ofgem Review: Distribution Generation Call for Evidence – London Climate Change Agency Submission of Evidence www.dti.gov.uk/files/file36363.pdf

159

London Climate Change Agency Ltd London Development Agency July 2007

160

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

161

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. 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

Scal

e up

and

com

mer

cial

isat

ion

Technical maturity

Figure 1: Scale-up, commercialisation and technical maturity of

energy storage technologies suitable for use with renewable generation

162

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.

163

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.

164

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

165

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

166

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

167

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”.

168

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.

169

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

170

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 energy-generation 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.

171

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

172

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:

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.

173

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 well-

established – 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:

cost reductions through mass manufacture; very high levels of reliability in the field; extensive and customer friendly supply chains; and 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:

public awareness raising, information, advice and support, skills development and training, especially for installers, and 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

174

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:

the Energy Technologies Institute is not yet established, but is likely to focus on R&D rather than nearer market support

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,

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

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.

175

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:

targeted technical support, marketing support, training, and 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

176

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 energy-generation technologies then decisions on deployment need to be made soon.

177

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

178

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

179

“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 ‘Quantification of the potential energy from residuals (EfR) in the UK’, Oakdene Hollins, March 2005 48 ‘Evaluating the sustainability of co-firing in the UK’, Themba Technology, September 2006

180

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 re-orientation 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

181

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.

182

Output Contribution to

TWh Mtoe Transport Heat Power Total Transport 689.5 59.249 100.0% 37.1% Heat 821.950 70.6 100.0% 44.2% Power 345.951 29.7 100.0% 18.6% Total 1857.352 159.5 100.0%

Transport 5.0% Heat 17.8% Power 56.0% Renewables Total 20.2%

Biofuels 34.553 3.0 5.0% 1.9% Hydro 15.854 1.4 4.6% 0.9% Biomass 58.055 5.0 7.1% 3.1% Bioenergy CHP 73.0 6.356 6.3% 6.2% 3.9% Wind 80.057 6.9 23.1% 4.3% Marine 47.058 4.0 13.6% 2.5% Geopressure 6.159 0.5 1.8% 0.3% Microrenewables 60.560 5.2 4.5% 6.8% 3.3% Fossil61 95.0% 82.2% 44.0% 79.8%

49 http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/ecuk1_4.xls - final energy consumption for transport 50 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-e-a.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.

183

5.0% 4.6%7.1%

6.3%6.2%

4.5%6.8%

23.1%

1.8%

13.6%

95.0%

82.2%

44.0%

Transport Heat Power

FossilMarineGeopressureWindMicrorenewablesBioenergy CHPBiomassHydroBiofuels

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?”.

184

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 63 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

185

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

186

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 low-carbon 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

187

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

188

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

189

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 re-thought 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 re-emergence, 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.

190

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. 67 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.

191

regulating against inefficient products; and limiting generating stations waste heat

o 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

o Incentives for large scale CHP and renewable heat o Measures to deliver biomass strategy o Appropriate R,D and D for developing technologies o Planning difficulties improved as a result of the feed-in tariff but also

with positive planning such as Merton Rule o 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

o Renewable Transport Fuels supported effectively o Zero carbon homes supported

Strong building regulations for new homes 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

192

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

193

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 cost-

194

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

195

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

196

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

197

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; Business support Enterprising communities Skills Innovation International trade and inward investment Environment Property Tourism and culture Rural development 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

198

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; Raising Productivity: recognising the benefits to our businesses in both

developing and exploiting as well utilising new energy technologies 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

199

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 bio-

fuels (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); Low Carbon and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies Biomass Markets Analysis Energy Investment Prospectus 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.

200

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”

201

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).

202

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

203

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:

204

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.

205

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 key is to move space

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

206

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.

207

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.

208

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 power."73

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

209

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 "fly-around 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.

210

During the next major unmated operation (Scenario 7-1), ASTRO will depart NextSat to a range of four kilometers before approaching the client spacecraft and performing a free-fly capture using its robotic arm.74

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

211

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.

212

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.

213

SSP Yes Yes Yes Yes

26.

214

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. 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. 2. 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

215

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

216

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.

217

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

218

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);

219

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 hydrogen-powered 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

220

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.

221

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

222

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

223

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.

224

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.

225

Institute of Hazard and Risk Research

Institute of Plant and Microbial Science

Durham Centre for Renewable

Centre for

Research in Earth Energy

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURES

226

Thin film solar array at St Asph in Wales. CIGS cells from Shell Solar. Some of the PV-21 team members are shown. Supergen PV-21 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 developed for domestic use with DCRE. Copyright 2006 Rugged Renewables

Arabidopsis thaliana, used as a model to study oil, starch, plant responses to the environment for biomass by Durham IPMS. Copyright 2007 Keith Lindsey

Compact energy efficient generator developed by DCRE. Copyright 2005 Cummins International

Wind tunnel used for testing wind turbine developments. Copyright 2006 R G Dominy

227

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

• Photovoltaic materials, • Wind energy, • Wave energy, • Thermodynamic and electrical energy conversion, • Microgeneration and networks • Social implications of new energy sources.

5.1.2. Centre for Research on Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) Director Prof R Davies, Sciences, Engineering, Mathematical Sciences, Computer Sciences, Chemistry Depts

• 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,

5.1.3. 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 micro-

organisms. • 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)

• 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/

5.2.2. GeoPressure Technology (GPT)

228

• 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

5.2.3. Geospatial Research Ltd (GRL)

• 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

5.2.4. 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.htm

229

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, energy-related 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.

230

o 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).

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

231

o Prof Lindsey (IPMS) advises the Swiss National Science Foundation funding panel on GM crops.

o Prof Hussey (IPMS) advises the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology ZMBP at the University of Tübingen, and the Canada Board for Research Chairs.

o Prof Hudson (IHRR) is a collaborator to the MATISSE European Framework Programme assessing sustainable development and energy issues at the EU-level.

o Prof Hudson (IHRR) has international collaborations with the Jordanian and Saudi governments concerning sustainable energy policies.

o Prof Tavner (DCRE) is Technical Adviser to FKI plc an international manufacturing company for the energy industry.

232

7. APPENDIX III RESEARCH FUNDING

List of Research Funding totalling £23M at Durham provided by ETI Industrial, Regional & Research Partners in the energy area:

235

8. APPENDIX IV STAFF

Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) Name Position/Role Department Principal Research Interests Richard Davies Professor

Director of CeREES Earth Sciences Global Petroleum Systems and Processes

Bob Holdsworth Professor, Coordinator, Deputy Director

Earth Sciences Basin structures and 3-D visualisation Chairman, Geospatial Research Ltd

Mark Allen Reader, Deputy Director Secretary

Earth Sciences Global to regional basin tectonics and stratigraphy

David Toll Senior Lecturer Deputy Director

Engineering Geotechnical engineering systems and geo-mechanical properties

Michael Goldstein Professor Deputy Director

Mathematical Sciences

Bayesian statistical analysis & uncertainty analysis for physical models

Malcolm Munro Professor Deputy Director

Computer Sci/ e-Sciences Inst

Visualisation; Software Development, Maintenance and Evolution

Maurice Tucker Professor Earth Sciences Carbonate systems and basins Roger Searle Professor Earth Sciences Marine geophysics & ocean-floor

geomorphology& tectonics Neil Goulty Professor Earth Sciences Applied geophysics & overpressure Brian Straughan Professor Mathematical

Sciences Fluid flow modelling

Jas Pal Badyal Professor Chemistry Surface chemistry and petroleum Refining

Richard Swarbrick Reader Chairman & MD of Geo-pressure Technology Ltd

Earth Sciences Overpressure in sedimentary basins, mud-rock compaction and basin modelling

Christine Peirce Reader Earth Sciences Marine geophysics, seismic acquisition Daniel Donoghue Reader Geography Geographical Information Systems David Petley Reader Geography Landslides and geotechnical processes Fred Worrall Senior Lecturer Earth Sciences Carbon dioxide sequestration Ken McCaffrey Senior Lecturer

Director of Geospatial Research Ltd.

Earth Sciences Basin structures, 3-D visualisation and Digital Geological Mapping

Howard Armstrong Senior Lecturer Earth Sciences Palaeontology and palaoenvironments David Wooff Senior Lecturer Mathematical

Sciences Bayesian statistics

Allan Seheult Senior Lecturer Mathematical Sciences

History matching and prediction. Robust analysis of variance.

Jonathan Imber Statoil Lecturer in Petroleum Structural Geology

Earth Sciences Offshore tectonics, seismic interpretation & numerical modelling

Dougal Jerram Total Lecturer in Petroleum Geosciences

Earth Sciences Volcanic rifted margins, quantifying rock textures and 3-D visualisation

Stuart Jones Lecturer Earth Sciences Clastic systems and basins; landscape evolution

Moyra Wilson Lecturer Earth Sciences Carbonate systems and basins David Selby Lecturer (from 09/05) Earth Sciences Petroleum systems geochemistry

Steve Parman Lecturer Earth Sciences High pressure experimental geochemistry

Colin Macpherson Lecturer Earth Sciences Stable Isotopes & geochemistry Glenn Milne Lecturer Earth Sciences Modelling sea-level change & global

geophysics James Casford Lecturer Geography Marine sedimentology and palaeo-ecology

Peter Craig Lecturer Mathematical Sciences

Bayesian statistics & statistical analysis of computer models

Djoko Wirosoetisno Lecturer Mathematical Sciences

Modelling fluid dynamics

Nick Holliman Lecturer Computer Sci/e- 3-D visualisation technology, applications &

236

Science Inst. display systems Shamus Smith Lecturer Computer Sci Hazard analysis & safety Charles Augarde Lecturer Engineering Numerical modelling of sub-surface

processes Richard Hobbs NERC Senior Research

fellow E-Sciences Seismic processing, imaging & modelling 3-

D visualisation Richard Jones Research Fellow

MD of Geospatial Research Ltd

E-Sciences Digital characterisation of sub-seismic structures, 3-D visualisation, software development, quantification of uncertainty

Anthony Mallon Research Fellow Earth Sciences Compaction & sealing of fine-grained sediments

Durham Centre for Renewable Energy (DCRE) Name Position/Role Department Principal Research Interests

Ken Durose Professor, Director of DCRE Physics Solar energy materials and device

research

Karen Bickerstaff Lecturer Geography Public response to risk / Social factors in energy

Andy Brinkman Reader Physics Crystal growth, thin film deposition

Harriet Bulkeley Lecturer Geography Urban sustainability / social factors in energy

Jim Bumby Reader Engineering Electrical machines and systems, Hybrid electrical vehicles

Karl Coleman Royal Society University Research Fellow Chemistry Carbon nano-materials

Alan Craig Senior Lecturer Mathematics Mathematical modelling and numerical analysis

Antje Danielson Sustainable Energy Advisor Earth Sciences Sustainable Energy Advisor / carbon

sequestration Danny Donoghue Reader Geography Remote sensing and costal monitoring

Rob Dominy Reader Engineering Aerodynamic flow around vehicles and wind generators

Ivana Evans EPSRC Advanced Fellow Chemistry Inorganic materials and structure –

physical property relationships John Evans Reader Chemistry Solid state chemistry and new materials Li He Professor Engineering Computational fluid dynamics

Douglas Halliday Senior Lecturer Physics Luminescence spectroscopy of energy materials

Ray Hudson Professor, Director of the Wolfson Research Institute

Wolfson Research Institute

Sustainable development and sustainable energy strategies

Michael Hunt Lecturer Physics Surface science / carbon nanotubes Keith Lindsey Prof Biological Sciences Oil bearing plants

Khamid Mahkamov Lecturer Engineering Stirling engines, Solar thermal power, Micro CHP

Mike Petty Professor Engineering Organic electronics

Li Ran Lecturer Engineering Power electronics; machine and power system control

Tim Short Lecturer Engineering Solar power implementation David Sims-Williams Lecturer Engineering Solar car / power implementation

Ed Spooner Emeritus Professor, MD of Evolving Technology

Engineering Machines of unusual topology for power extraction from renewable sources

Peter Tavner

Head of School of Engineering, Technical Director FKI Energy Technology

Engineering Electrical machines, wind power, connection to network, condition monitoring

Phil Taylor Lecturer, Director of EConnect Engineering

Integration of Renewable Energy in Electrical Networks / MSc course leader in New and Renewable Energy

237

Institute of Hazard and Risk Research (IHRR) Name Position/Role Department Principal Research Interests

Phil Macnaghten Professor, Director of IHRR Geography

Public attitudes, cultural dimensions of environmental and innovation policy, Public engagement with emerging technologies.

Ash Amin Professor Geography Economic and political geography; cities and regions in Europe.

Louise Amoore Lecturer Geography

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.

Sarah Atkinson Reader Geography Health and risk.

Karen Bickerstaff Lecturer Geography Public understanding of environmental and technological risk.

Harriet Bulkeley Lecturer Geography The multi-scale politics of climate change; environmental policy processes.

Alex Densmore Reader Geography Tectonics and topography of mountains.

Danny Donoghue Reader Geography Remote-sensing of vegetated terrain; hillslope geomorphology; computer aided learning techniques.

Christine Dunn Senior Lecturer Geography Geographical Information Systems, with particular reference to use in Low Income Countries.

Rob Ferguson Professor Geography

River channels, sediment yield, meltwater hydrology, water chemistry, hillslope, glacial, and aeolian geomorphology.

Ray Hudson Professor, Director of the Wolfson Research Institute

Geography Sustainable development and sustainable energy strategies.

Matthew Kearnes RCUK Fellow Geography Technology and risk.

Stuart Lane Professor Geography

Geomorphological surfaces, computational fluid dynamics, sediment transport, in-stream ecology, water quality, hillstream hydrology.

Antony Long Professor Geography

Coastal dynamics; sea-level and crustal movements on active and passive coastal margins; Late Quaternary Greenland ice sheet history.

Rachel Pain Reader Geography

Social identities and exclusions in urban space, especially violence, fear of crime and community safety. Geopolitics of fear and everyday experience. .

Dave Petley Professor, Wilson Chair in Hazard & Risk Geography Landslides and geotechnical

processes.

Sim Reaney RCUK Fellow Geography Risk based modelling of diffuse agricultural pollution.

Jonathan Rigg Reader Geography Problems, tensions and potentialities of development in the Southeast Asian region.

Nick Rosser RCUK Fellow Geography Slope failure.

Ian Shennan Professor Geography Sea-level, coastal and environmental change, including future changes and impacts.

238

Ian Simmons Emeritus Professor Geography Human-environmental relations, past and present.

Susan Smith Professor Geography

Geographies of inequality, geographies of housing policy, personal finance and community safety.

Jeff Warburton Reader Geography

Hydrology and geomorphology of gravel-bed rivers and mountain streams; peat erosion; geocryology; experimental geomorphology.

Yongqiang Zong Senior Lecturer Geography

Past and future coastal evolution, natural hazards, environmental monitoring and management using GIS and remote sensing technologies.

Catherine Panter-Brick Professor Anthropology

Critical risks to health and well-being; interdisciplinary studies of vulnerablity and resilience with exposure to adversity.

Di Bailey Reader Applied Social Sciences

Interdisciplinary risk assessment, planning and management in health and social care.

Institute of Plant and Microbial Sciences (IPMS) Name Position/Role Department Principal Research Interests

Brian Huntley

Professor, Director of IES

Biological & Biomedical Sciences

Response of organisms, especially higher plants, to changing environment forecasting impacts of future change, with ecological and biogeographical consequences.

Ralf Ohlemüller RCUK Fellow


Climate and ecology.

Steve Lindsay Professor


Climate change impacts upon vector-borne diseases including malaria and West Nile Virus.

Bob Baxter Senior Lecturer Biological & Biomedical Sciences

Climate change impacts upon ecosystem structure and function in the Arctic.

Martyn Lucas Lecturer


Impacts of environmental change upon river ecosystems and their biota.

Steve Willis Lecturer Biological & Biomedical Sciences

Modelling climate change impacts upon species and biodiversity, especially butterflies and birds.

Jon Davidson Professor Earth Sciences Volcanic hazards.

Richard Davies

Professor Director of CeREES

Earth Sciences Global petroleum systems and processes.

Bob Holdsworth Professor Earth Sciences Landslides and the application of laser

scanning to map surfaces in 3-D. Claire Horwell RCUK Fellow Earth Sciences Potential health hazards of volcanic dust.

Glenn Milne Lecturer Earth Sciences Future climate change and sea-level rise.

Fred Worrall Senior Lecturer Earth Sciences

Environmental risk assessment of new chemicals, vulnerability assessment of ground and surface waters to contamination, drought assessment.

Joy Palmer-Cooper Professor Education The origins and development of

environmental knowledge.

Charles Augarde Senior Lecturer Engineering

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 Electrical machines, wind power, connection to network, condition monitoring.

239

Technology

Francisco Klauser RCUK Fellow

School of Government & International Affairs

Security and risk.

Rachel Casiday Research Fellow School for

Health Risk and public engagement with science in the School for Health.

Frank Coolen Professor Mathematical

Sciences

Generalized methods for uncertainty and risk (e.g. interval-valued probability) in combination with statistical inference.

Michael Goldstein Professor Mathematical

Sciences

Bayesian/subjectivist approaches to statistics, the synthesis of expert judgements and experimental data under partial prior belief specification.

James Stirling Professor Physics Particle physics.

Roy Boyne Professor Sociology Cultures of risk, risk and reflexivity. Prepared by P J Tavner, Engineering

July 2007

240

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

241

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 long-term 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) Annex A Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Annex B Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Annex C Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Annex D

Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) 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

242

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

243

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

Geothermal £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

Total £8,356 £10,318 £10,795 £12,072 £13,218 £15,822 £18,802

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 77 www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/sustaineconomy/ 5 www.ukerc.ac.uk

244

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

245

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

246

• 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.

247

• 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 cost-effective 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 www.supergen-wind.org.uk/ 82 www.ukerc.ac.uk/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,550/

248

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 cost-reduction 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 http://www.bath.ac.uk/chemistry/supergen-ESC/ 84 http://www.pv21.org/

249

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 thick-film 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/ 86 http://www.biologicalfuelcells.org.uk/ 87 http://www.uk-shec.org/

250

• 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 renewable-

energy 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/

251

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 bio-technologies 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:

• 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

89 www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=21&documentID=25 90 http://www.supergen-bioenergy.net/ 91 www.tsec-biosys.ac.uk/

252

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

253

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 short-rotation-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 http://www.supergen-hdps.org/ 93 http://www.supergen-networks.org.uk/ 94 www.ukerc.ac.uk/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,550/

254

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/

255

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 micro-generation (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:

• 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;

96 www.sustainabletechnologies.ac.uk/final%20pdf/online%20version.pdf

256

• 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 'leap-frogging' of fossil fuelled electricity.

65. A number of NERC’s research centres are employing renewable energy-generation 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 www.joulecentre.org/ 98 www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/river_flow_data.html

257

Britain and abroad that provide interpretation and advice on the suitability of sites for different styles of turbine.

Research Councils UK July 2007

258

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.

259

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.

260

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

261

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-economy-based technology platform, with a particular focus on bioethanol.

262

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 micro-generation 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%20Unlocking%20Report.pdf

263

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

264

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

Project Students

CTA/ DTA Studentships

Wind 0 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 Primary

Sector Birmingham Sustainable Energy Materials Power Cardiff Sustainable Energy Power Cranfield Offshore Technologies: Masters Level Courses for

the Offshore and Ocean Industries Power

Edinburgh Sustainable Energy Systems Power Heriot Watt Flexible Learning Adv. Master in Energy Power Lancaster Decommissioning and Environmental Clean-up Power Leeds Sustainable Energy Engineering Power Loughborough Renewable Energy Systems Technology Power Newcastle Energy systems Power Newcastle Renewable Energy Power Newcastle Renewable Energy: Biomass & Waste Technology Power

265

University (Training package) TITLE / NAME Primary Sector

Northumbria Electrical Power Engineering 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.

SUPERGEN Consortium Funding (Commitment)

Bioenergy £6.4M

UK Sustainable Hydrogen Energy £6.0M

Marine Energy £5.5M

Future Network Technologies £7.0M

PV Materials for the 21st Century £3.1M

Conventional Power Plant Life Extension £2.1M

Fuel Cells £2.1M

Highly Distributed Power Systems £2.6M

266

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.

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

267

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/

268

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.

269

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 high-resolution 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.2007-04-26.4666579306/?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/

270

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 short-rotation-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/ 106 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

271

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 Under the Small-Business Research Initiative 112 www.supergen-bioenergy.net/

272

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/

273

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 115 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

274

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/ 119 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.

275

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/ 123 http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/ERA001.html 124 www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/epms/AngusGarbutt.htm 125 www.ceh.ac.uk/birds/Default.asp

276

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 tidal-energy 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 127 www.sams.ac.uk/research/departments/ecology/ecology-projects/marine-renewables/researchproject.2007-05-10.5255803228/?searchterm=energy

277

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 cross-Council 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 small-scale demonstration where appropriate, while the Research Councils' work remains more focused towards earlier-stage research.

278

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/ 129 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

IET Evidence to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee Inquiry on Renewable-Generation Technologies – June 2007

279

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.


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.


280

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


281

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.


282

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.


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


283

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.

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).

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


284

and focus funding resources for demonstration and deployment (see §21). It will be essential for Parliament to monitor and guide their remit and activities.

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.

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 long-term 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.


285

• 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.


286

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/ERP-Skills-Brochure.pdf

287

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-market technologies exist for recovering energy from waste.

Electricity generation from landfill gas is the most widely used.

Significant potential, depending on local circumstances.

Potential for landfill gas restrictions on landfill.

Planning consent for therto energy plants.

On-shore wind power

Technology is mature and economical with current policies.

Gradual expansion of capacity (over 15GW of potential wind capacity has been applied for in Scotland alone).

Objections under planning

Transmission grid capacity

Increasing costs due competition for raw matequipment.

Concerns about managingfor increased wind capacity

Off-shore wind power

Fundamental technology is mature but uneconomic under current policies.

Deployment offshore will continue to bring technological and operational challenges.

Potential for large scale development.

High capital cost - increasglobal competition for rawand equipment.

Transmission grid capacity

Transmission/distribution expansion.

Concerns about managingfor increased wind capacity

Hydroelectric power

Mature technology. Future potential limited; most natural resources already exploited.

Tidal power

Several technologies exist in prototype, in need of full-scale demonstration and commercialisation.

About 10-15 years from full commercialisation.

Sizeable natural resource to be exploited in UK.

Potential for technology export.

Risk/cost of demonstration

High initial costs and operating lifetimes.

Wave power

Several technologies exist in prototype, in need of full-scale demonstration and commercialisation.

About 10-15 years from full commercialisation.

Sizeable natural resource to be exploited in UK.

Potential for technology export.

Risk/Cost of demonstration

Photovoltaics

Mature but costly technology, currently used mainly in niche and ‘showcase’ applications.

Limited potential for improvement of current (first and second generation) technology but some scope to improve production costs through

High capital cost.

Competition for raw (silicon) resulting in high co

137 For further details on renewable technologies, see the IET Factfiles: http://www.theiet.org/publicaffairs/energy/renewable.cfm

288

Where are we?

What can be achieved? What is holding it back?

improved manufacturing processes.

Higher efficiency and more flexible materials currently in development could result in lower-cost, higher-efficiency applications.

Mass deployment has been achieved where government support has been substantial (e.g. Germany, Japan).

Lack of skilled installers.

Lack of information and acschemes.

Solar thermal energy

Technology is mature and relatively cost-effective.

Large potential for domestic use, both retrofit and new build.



Integration with building sto

Biomass

Technologies using ‘first generation’ biomass resources for heat, power generation and transport are fairly mature but relatively costly.

Higher-yield ‘second generation’ biofuels are being researched but are at least 10-15 years from commercialisation.

Biomass for heat and power generation could be more widely used in parts of the country.

Potential limited by other demands for land use, especially food crops.

Lack of supply chain coord



Geothermal

Mature but costly technology. High cost of installation.



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.

289

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=234 139 Further details can be found on the SDC website at http://www.sd-commission.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

290

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. 143 143 UKERC (2006). The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/258/852

291

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 large-scale 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

292

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 evidence-based 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

293

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 pre-privatisation, 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 147 UNIVERSITY OF SURREY/UNIED UTILITIES AA TTOOOOLL TTOO AANNAALLYYSSEE TTHHEE RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY IINNCCEENNTTIIVVEESS OONN AA DDIISSTTRRIIBBUUTTIIOONN NNEETTWWOORRKK OOPPEERRAATTOORR AATT AA PPRROOJJEECCTT LLEEVVEELL ((22000077))

294

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

295

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 low-carbon 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

296

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).

297

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.

298

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

299

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. 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.

2. 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.

300

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

301

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

302

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.

303

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

304

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

Funding of renewable energy is increasing, which is welcome

Co-ordination of research has improved over recent years, but there is potential for further improvement

The research landscape and funding structures continue to undergo disruptive change, which is counterproductive; a consistent approach should be pursued

There is a need to improve funding in bioenergy systems, particularly biofuels

The focus for large scale wind energy research should be on operational issues

The challenge remains in producing viable cost effective PV systems

Fuel cell research also faces considerable barriers, but the UK has a good position which should be maintained

The UK has a leading position in marine renewables, but it is still far from commercial deployment

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:

Wind

Photovoltaics

Hydrogen and fuel cells

305

Marine renewables

Bioenergy

Groundsource heat pumps

Microgeneration


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 calendar years (£million)

Current installed capacity

Wind - offshore 304 MW

Wind - onshore

2.9 in 2007 4.4 in 2006 1.4 in 2005 0.7 in 2004

1,872 MW

Photovoltaics 4.6 in 2007 3.9 in 2006 3.0 in 2005 1.9 in 2004

10.9 MW152

Hydrogen & fuel cells 7.5 in 2007 6.8 in 2006 5.4 in 2005 6.3 in 2004

Wave Shoreline wave - 0.5153

Tidal - barrage

Tidal - current

8.5 in 2007 11.2 in 2006 6.0 in 2005 2.6 in 2004

The installed capacity of tidal power reached 3,836MW in 2005154

Bioenergy - biofuels155 0.9 in 2007 0.4 in 2006 0.4 in 2005 0.3 in 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 Unless stated otherwise, data is from the UKERC Research Register 152 2005 data from IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme 153 DTI, DUKES 2006 154 Variability of UK marine resources, 2005 155 Biofuels designates liquid fuels derived from biomass including dedicated energy crops

306

2.1 in 2005 1.5 in 2004

in 2005 was 4850 MW.

Ground source heat pumps

3.2 MWth158

Microgeneration159 0.22 in 2007 Not available

Energy storage 1.6 in 2007 1.1 in 2006 0.5 in 2005 0.2 in 2004

Not significant

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

307

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

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

160 UKERC report: Investment in electricity generation – the role of costs, incentives and risks (May 2007)

308

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.

309

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 40-50 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.

310

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 landscape-scale 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

311

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 micro-generation, house by house. Research is required to explore this new opportunity.


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

312

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

313

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.

314

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

315

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.

316

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/DistrictCouncilsLondonBoroughsUnitaryAuthoritiesandNationalParkAuthorities_id1505050.pdf 167 http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file32017.pdf

317

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

318

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.

319

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-

320

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 post-MRDF 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.

321

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

322

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

323

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 2005-2010, 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

324

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.

• Investment in development of platform PBR and PSB technologies including establishment of pilot and demonstration facilities.

170 Donohue & Cogdell (2006). Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 800 171 House of Commons Upper Waiting Hall: Photobioreactor Demonstration: 29th Jan – 1st Feb 2007

325

• 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

Methane 55-75 54 95 80Carbon dioxide 25-45 42 0.7 TraceCarbon monoxide 0-0,3 0-0.1 Trace 0Hydrogen 0-3 0-1 Trace 18Hydrogen sulfide 0.1-0.5 0.1-1 Trace 0Chlorine (total Cl) Trace 22 mg/ m³ 0 Trace

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 www.nsca.org.uk/assets/biogas_as_transport_fuel_june06.pdf 173 www.nsca.org.uk/assets/biogas_as_transport_fuel_june06.pdf

326

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.

ORGANICMATTER

ORGANICSLUDGES

BACTERIALOXIDATION

AMMONIAPHOSPHATE

CARBON DIOXIDE

DISSOLVEDOXYGEN

RAWSEWAGE ENERGY

DISHCHARGE/EMISSIONS

ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS

SEWAGESLUDGE

ORGANICMATTER

ORGANICSLUDGES

BACTERIALOXIDATION

AMMONIAPHOSPHATE

CARBON DIOXIDE

DISSOLVEDOXYGEN

ALGALPHOTOSYNTHESIS

ALGAE(BIOFUEL)

RAWSEWAGE

CARBON DIOXIDE

OXYGEN

ALGAL/BACTERIAL CONSORTIA SEWAGE TREATMENT

SUNLIGHT

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.

PBR + AUTOFLOCCULATING

MICROALGAL CONSORTIA

Power stationCO2

Emissions

Combined cycle gas

power station

AnaerobicDigester

Low QualityMethane

CO2Biogas

PBR +PHOTOSYNTHETIC

ANAEROBECONSORTIA

HIGHQUALITY

METHANE/HYDROGEN

BIOGAS

FLOCCULATEDMICROALGAL

CONCENTRATE

MainsGas

SolarEnergy

OXYGEN (OXY-FUEL COMBUSTION)

O2

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 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Postnote No. 282 April 2007 175 www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/ian-pearson/ip070426.htm

327

bioenergy byproducts such as fats, oils, sugars and functional bioactive compounds. Many species are rich in lipids and hydrocarbons suitable for direct use as high-energy 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 Banerjee, B, Sharma, Chisti Y, Banjeree UC. 2002: Critical reviews in Biotechnology 22(3) 245-279. 177 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/40352.pdf

328

Table 2: (PML predictions) Bioenergy Route Feasibility

% Cost Timescale Reliability

% Carbon footprint

1 Biogas Upgrade 85 Low/Medium 2-5 75 Low

2 Low energy sewage treatment

95 Low 2-5 95 Low

3 Power station flue gas to biogas

85 Medium 2-5 75 Low/Medium

4 Power station flue gas to biodiesel

70 Medium/High 7-10 55 Medium

5 Biogydrogen from ligno cellulose

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 microbial-based 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

329

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

330

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)

331

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 treatment of wastewater.183 184 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 National Geographic, March 1994 180 New Scientist-Blooming Sewage 2nd October 1993 181 Skill & Robinson (1991), Department of the Environment Select Committee. Evidence submission. 182 Patent: Skill & Robinson (2002), Photoreaction. US6370815 183 Patent: Skill (1998), Culture of Microorganisms. WO9824879 184 Patent: Skill & Robinson (2004), Purification of Contaminated Water. WO2004046037

332

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

333

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/documents/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.

334

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

335

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 so-called '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.

336

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

337

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 semiconductors 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

338

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 low-carbon 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

339

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.

191 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 DTI Wave and Tidal-stream Energy Demonstration Scheme - www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/business-investment/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/Business-Industry/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/ukbiomassstrategy-0507.pdf

340

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.

341

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,

342

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.html

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.

343

• 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).

344

Annex B Proposed Future Support Levels in a Banded Renewables Obligation Band Technologies Support

Level (ROCs per MWh)

Established Sewage gas; Landfill gas; Co-firing of non-energy crop (regular) biomass

0.25

Reference Onshore wind; Hydro-electric; Co-firing of energy crops; Energy from Waste with CHP; Other not specified

1

Post-Demonstration Offshore wind; dedicated regular biomass 1.5

Emerging Technology

Wave; tidal stream; ACTs; dedicated biomass with energy crops; dedicated biomass CHP; solar PV; geothermal

2

Current and Projected Supply

2015 Projected Supply TWh

Technology 2006 Supply193 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

Energy from Waste with CHP

0 1.1 0.9

Hydro-electric 2.3 2.9 2.8

Offshore Wind 0.7 8.4 16.7

Dedicated Biomass (regular)

1 2.6 2.8

193 These figures only represent the electricity supply on which RO Certificates have been claimed. 194 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

345

Dedicated Biomass (energy crops) & Biomass CHP

0 0 0.6

Wave and Tidal Stream

0 0 0.3

Anaerobic Digestion/ Gasification / Pyrolysis

0 0 0.1

Solar PV 0 0 0

TOTAL: 14.2 39.3 46.7195

195 Totals in excess of sum of figures due to rounding.

346

ANNEX C Commercialisation and Carbon Foot Print of Renewable Technologies (identified in Terms of Reference of the Inquiry) Technology Feasibility Costs (2006 prices

and costs) Time to market Reliability Carbon footprint

Onshore Wind

Proven technology. 1.8 GW deployed.

Large high wind -£62/MWh Large low wind -£74/MWh196

Being deployed.

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 months198

Offshore Wind

Currently only commercially viable with extra support via the RO and continued support to drive down costs. 304MW deployed.

£91/MWh199 Early deployment.

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 months201

196 Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007 197 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

347

Technology Feasibility Costs (2006 prices and costs)

Time to market Reliability Carbon footprint

Photovoltaics

Proven technology but needs high levels of support for commercial operation. 14MW deployed 202

£635/MWh203 Being deployed, but “new” products required for mass market on commercial terms

Capacity factor204: 16%

The energy payback of PV has been estimated at 3-4 years205.

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

Technical feasibility has been demonstrated, but significant techno-economic barriers need to be overcome. This requires R&D breakthroughs – it is not just a question of economies of scale.

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.

Niche applications – 1 – 2 years; Stationary (distributed) power generation/CHP – from 2010 ;Transport (internal combustion engine) replacement –from 2020

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.

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

Early stage demonstration not yet commercially proven at large-scale

£199/MWh206

Small scale arrays planned. The long-term

Capacity Factor: 30%207 Dependent upon individual device but expected to be relatively short.

202 IEA PVPS Annual Report 2006 203 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

348



commercial prospects still uncertain.

Tidal-stream

Early stage demonstration not yet commercially viable.

£181/MWh208 The long-term commercial prospects still uncertain. But MW scale tidal-stream protégés planned to be installed in 2007.

Capacity Factor: 35%209 Dependent upon individual device but expected to be relatively short.

Bioenergy

Proven technology. Commercially viable under current regime where affordable fuel supplies are available.

Co-firing regular -£90/MWH Co-firing energy crop -£67/MWh Biomass regular -£90/MWh Biomass energy crop -£122/MWh Biomass CHP -£135/MWh210

Being deployed. Although research and development still required for advanced conversion technologies and second generation

Capacity Factor211: Co-firing regular – 90% Co-firing energy crop –90% Biomass regular – 80% Biomass energy crop –80% Biomass CHP – 80%

This is dependent on the type of biomass used, the conversion efficiency, the end use and any co-products involved.

206 Medium levelised costs (real) Impact of banding the Renewables Obligation – Cost of electricity production – March 2007 207 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

349



biofuels,

Ground Source Heat Pumps

Proven technology. £800 - £1300 per kW depending on geology and building application212

Being deployed No comparable data available.

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 211 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

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 “The Severn Barrage Project, General Report” Energy Paper 57, HMSO1989.

2 The Severn Barrage—definition study for a new appraisal of the project “STPG http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file 155363.pdf

July 2007