Master Class: 16th June 2012
Low Carbon Strategies at the University of East Anglia
Presentation available at: www2.env.uea.ac.uk/energy/energy.htm
www.uea.ac.uk/~e680/energy/energy.htm
Recipient of James Watt Gold Medal
5th October 2007
CRed
carbon reduction
Keith Tovey (杜伟贤) M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE, CEnv
Energy Science Director: CRed HSBC Director of Low Carbon Innovation
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
1
Low Carbon Strategies at the University of
East Anglia
• Low Energy Buildings and their Management
• Low Carbon Energy Provision
–
–
–
–
–
Photovoltaics
CHP
Adsorption chilling
Biomass Gasification
Coffee Break at 10:05
• The Energy Tour – Depart at 10:20
• Biomass Plant
• CHP
• ZICER
• Questions & Answers
• - Energy Security: Hard Choices facing the UK
2
Original buildings
Teaching wall
Library
Student
residences
3
Nelson Court楼
Constable Terrace楼
4
Low Energy Educational Buildings
Nursing and
Midwifery Thomas Paine Study Centre
School
Medical School Phase 2
ZICER
Elizabeth Fry
Building
Medical School
5
Constable Terrace - 1993
• Four Storey Student Residence
• Divided into “houses” of 10
units each with en-suite facilities
• Heat Recovery of body and cooking
heat ~ 50%.
• Insulation standards exceed 2006
standards
• Small 250 W panel heaters in
individual rooms.
Electricity Use
Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Constable Terrace
12%
21%
140
Appliances
120
Lighting
100
MHVR Fans
MHVR Heating
18%
Panel Heaters
Hot Water
18%
Kg/m2/yr
14%
80
60
40
20
0
17%
UEA
Low
Medium
6
Educational Buildings at UEA in 1990s
Queen’s Building 1993
Elizabeth Fry Building 1994
Elizabeth Fry Building Employs Termodeck principle and uses ~
25% of Queen’s Building
7
The Elizabeth Fry Building 1994
Elizabeth Fry Binası - 1994
Cost ~6% more but has heating requirement ~20% of average
building at time.
Significantly outperforms even latest Building Regulations.
Runs on a single domestic sized central heating boiler.
Maliyeti ~%6 daha fazla olsada, ısınma
ihtiyacı zamanın ortalama binalarının ~%20’si.
En son Bina Yönetmeliklerini bile büyük
ölçüde aşmaktadır.
Tek bir ev tipi merkezi ısıtma kazanı ile
çalışmaktadır.
8
2
Toplam Enerji Tüketimi (kWh/m /yıl)
Conservation: management improvements
Koruma: yönetimde iyileştirmeler
140
120
Heating/Cooling
Hot Water
Electricity
100
80
60
40
20
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Careful Monitoring and Analysis can reduce energy consumption.
Dikkatli İzleme ve Analiz, enerji tüketimini azaltabilir.
9
Comparison with other buildings
Diğer Binalarla Karşılaştırma
150
2
kWh/m /yıl
200
gas
electricity
CO2/m2/yıl
250
100
50
0
Elizabeth Fry
Low Energy
Average
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
electricity
gas
Elizabeth
Fry
low energy
average
Energy Performance
Carbon Dioxide Performance
Enerji Performansı
Karbon Dioksit Performanı
10
Non Technical Evaluation of Elizabeth Fry Building Performance
Elizabeth Fry Bina Performansının Teknik Olmayan
Değerlendirmesi
User Satisfaction
Kullanıcı memnuniyeti
thermal comfort +28%
Isıl rahatlık
+%28
air quality
+36%
Hava kalitesi
+%36
lighting
+25%
aydınlatma
+%25
noise
+26%
gürültü
+%26
A Low Energy Building is also
a better place to work in.
Bir Düşük Enerji binası ayrıca
içinde çalışmak için de daha
iyi bir yerdir.
11
ZICER Building
Won the Low Energy Building of the Year Award 2005
• Heating Energy consumption as new in 2003 was reduced by further 57% by
careful record keeping, management techniques and an adaptive approach
to control.
• Incorporates 34 kW of Solar Panels on top floor
12
The ground floor
open plan office
The first floor open
plan office
The first floor
cellular offices
13
The ZICER Building –
Main part of the building
• High in thermal mass
• Air tight
• High insulation standards
• Triple glazing with low emissivity ~
equivalent to quintuple glazing
14
Operation of Main Building
Mechanically ventilated that utilizes hollow core ceiling slabs as supply air
ducts to the space
Incoming
air into the
AHU
Regenerative heat
exchanger
15
Operation of Main Building
Filter
过滤器
Heater
加热器
Air passes through
hollow cores in the
ceiling slabs
空气通过空心的板层
Air enters the internal occupied space
空气进入内部使用空间
16
Operation of Main Building
Recovers 87% of Ventilation
Heat Requirement.
Space for future
chilling
将来制冷的空间
Out of the
building
出建筑物
The return air passes
through the heat
exchanger
空气回流进入热交换器
Return stale air is extracted from
each floor 从每层出来的回流空气
17
Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs
Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of
the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures
Warm air
Winter
Day
Warm air
Heat is transferred to the air
before entering the room
Slabs store heat from appliances
and body heat.
热量在进入房间之前被传递
到空气中
板层储存来自于电器以及人
体发出的热量
Air Temperature is
same as building fabric
leading to a more
pleasant working
environment
18
Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs
Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of
the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures
Cold air
Winter
Night
Heat is transferred to the air
before entering the room
Slabs also radiate heat back into
room
In late afternoon
heating is turned off.
热量在进入房间之前被传递到
空气中
板层也把热散发到房间内
Cold air
19
Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs
Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of
the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures
Cool air
Summer
night
Draws out the heat accumulated
during the day
Cools the slabs to act as a cool
store the following day
night ventilation/
free cooling
把白天聚积的热量带走。
冷却板层使其成为来日的冷
存储器
Cool air
20
Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs
Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of
the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures
Warm air
Summer
day
Slabs pre-cool the air before
entering the occupied space
concrete absorbs and stores heat
less/no need for air-conditioning
空气在进入建筑使用空间前被
预先冷却
混凝土结构吸收和储存了热量
以减少/停止对空调的使用
Warm air
21
Energy Consumption (kWh/day)
能源消耗（kWh/天）
Good Management has reduced Energy Requirements
Space Heating
Consumption reduced
by 57%
1000
800
800
600
400
350
200
0
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Mean |External Temperature (oC)
Original Heating Strategy
New Heating Strategy
原始供热方法
新供热方法
22
Life Cycle Energy Requirements of ZICER compared to other buildings
与其他建筑相比ZICER楼的能量需求
自然通风
221508GJ
54%
28%
51%
使用空调
384967GJ
34%
建造
209441GJ
Materials Production 材料制造
Materials Transport 材料运输
On site construction energy 现场建造
Workforce Transport 劳动力运输
Intrinsic Heating / Cooling energy
基本功暖/供冷能耗
Functional Energy 功能能耗
Refurbishment Energy 改造能耗
Demolition Energy 拆除能耗
29%
61%
23
Life Cycle Energy Requirements of ZICER compared to other buildings
300000
ZICER
250000
Naturally Ventilated
GJ
200000
Air Conditrioned
150000
100000
50000
0
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
80000
Years
GJ
60000
Compared to the Air-conditioned
office, ZICER as built recovers
extra energy required in
construction in under 1 year.
40000
20000
ZICER
Naturally Ventilated
Air Conditrioned
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Years
24
Low Carbon Strategies at the University of
East Anglia
• Low Energy Buildings and their Management
• Low Carbon Energy Provision
– Photovoltaics
– CHP
– Adsorption chilling
– Biomass Gasification
• The Energy Tour
• Energy Security: Hard Choices facing the UK
25
ZICER Building
Photo shows
only part of top
Floor
• Mono-crystalline PV on roof ~ 27 kW in 10 arrays
26
• Poly- crystalline on façade ~ 6.7 kW in 3 arrays
Performance of PV cells on ZICER
18
Façade
16
Roof
Output per unit area
Little difference between
orientations in winter
months
kWh / m 2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
Load factors
Façade:
2% in winter
~8% in summer
Roof
2% in winter
15% in summer
2005
16%
façade
roof
average
14%
12%
Load Factor
2004
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
2004
2005
27
Performance of PV cells on ZICER
Wh
%
100
100
Block1
90
90
Block 2
80
80
Block 3
70
70
Block 4
60
60
Block 5
50
50
Block 6
40
40
Block 7
30
30
Block 8
20
20
Block 9
10
10
Block 10
0
0
radiation
9
10
11
12
13
14
All arrays of cells on roof
have similar performance
respond to actual solar
radiation
15
Time of day
%
Wh
The three arrays on the
façade respond differently
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9
10
11
12
13
Time of Day
14
15
Top Row
Middle Row
Bottom Row
radiation
28
Elevation in the sky (degrees)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
120
8.00
9.00
150
10.00
180
210
12.00
13.00
14.00
Orientation relative to True North
11.00
15.00
240
16.00
29
Elevation in the sky (degrees)
25
January
May
September
P1 - bottom PV row
February
June
October
P2 - middle PV row
March
July
November
P3 - top PV row
April
August
December
20
15
10
5
0
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
Time (hours)
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
30
Arrangement of Cells on Facade
Individual cells are connected
horizontally
Cells active
Cells inactive even though
not covered by shadow
As shadow covers one column
all cells are inactive
If individual cells are connected
vertically, only those cells actually in
shadow are affected.
31
31
Use of PV generated energy
Peak output is 34 kW 峰值34 kW
Sometimes electricity is exported
Inverters are only 91% efficient
• Most use is for computers
• DC power packs are inefficient
typically less than 60% efficient
• Need an integrated approach
32
Performance of PV cells on ZICER
Cost of Generated Electricity
Actual Situation
excluding Grant
Actual Situation with
Grant
Discount rate
3%
5%
7%
3%
5%
7%
Unit energy cost per
kWh (£)
1.29
1.58
1.88
0.84
1.02
1.22
Avoided cost exc. the
Grant
Avoided Costs with
Grant
Discount rate
3%
5%
7%
3%
5%
7%
Unit energy cost per
kWh (£)
0.57
0.70
0.83
0.12
0.14
0.16
Grant was ~ £172 000 out of a total of ~ £480 000
33
Efficiency of PV Cells
Mono-crystalline Cell Efficiency
• Peak Cell efficiency is ~ 14% and
close to standard test bed efficiency.
• Most projections of performance use
this efficiency
• Average efficiency over year is 11.1%
Poly-crystalline Cell Efficiency
• Peak Cell efficiency is ~ 9.5%.
• Average efficiency over year is
7.5%
Inverter Efficiencies reduce overall system efficiencies to
10.1% and 6.73% respectively
34
Life Cycle Issues for PV Array on ZICER Building
Mono-crystalline
CO2 (kg/ kWp)
As manufactured
Poly-crystalline
CO2 (kg/ kWp)
UK manu- As manufacture
factured
Embodied Energy in PV Cells
(most arising from Electricity (~80%)
use in manufacture) - SPAIN
1260
1557
1073
1326
Array supports and system
connections - GERMANY
Transportation between
manufacture and UEA 6 trips
@400 km
On site Installation energy (UK)
135
135
135
135
113
24
113
24
52
52
52
52
Total tonnes CO2 / kWp
1.56
1.74
1.37
1.51
Energy Yield Ratios
Life time of Cells
Mono-crystalline Cells
As add on retro-fit
Integrated into design
20
3.2
3.5
25
3.8
4.2
30
4.6
5.4
Carbon Factors for
Electricity Production
Spain ~ 0.425 kg / kWh
UK and Germany ~
0.53 kg/kWh
Conversion efficiency improvements – Building Scale CHP
3% Radiation Losses
11%
61% Flue
Flue Losses
Losses
36%
86%
Gas
Localised generation makes use of
waste heat.
Reduces conversion losses
significantly
Exhaust
Heat
Exchanger
Engine
Heat Exchanger
Generator
36% Electricity
50% Heat
36
UEA’s Combined Heat and Power
3 units each generating up to 1.0 MW electricity and 1.4 MW
heat
37
Conversion efficiency improvements
Before installation
1997/98
MWh
electricity
gas
oil
19895
35148
33
Total
Emission factor
kg/kWh
0.46
0.186
0.277
Carbon dioxide
Tonnes
9152
6538
9
Electricity
After installation
1999/
Total
CHP export
2000
site generation
MWh 20437 15630
977
Emission kg/kWh
-0.46
factor
CO2
Tonnes
-449
15699
Heat
import boilers CHP
oil
total
5783
14510 28263 923
0.46
0.186
0.186 0.277
2660
2699
5257 256 10422
This represents a 33% saving in carbon dioxide
38
Conversion efficiency improvements
Load Factor of CHP Plant at UEA
Demand for Heat is low in summer: plant cannot be used effectively
More electricity could be generated in summer
39
绝热
Heat rejected
高温高压
High Temperature
High Pressure
节流阀
Throttle
Valve
Compressor
冷凝器
Condenser
蒸发器
Evaporator
低温低压
Low Temperature
Low Pressure
压缩器
为冷却进行热提
取
Heat extracted
for cooling
A typical Air conditioning/Refrigeration Unit
40
Absorption Heat Pump
外部热
Heat from
external source
绝热
Heat rejected
高温高压
High Temperature
High Pressure
吸收器
Desorber
节流阀
Throttle
Valve
冷凝器
Condenser
蒸发器
Evaporator
为冷却进行热提
取
Heat extracted
for cooling
低温低压
Low Temperature
Low Pressure
热交换器
Heat
Exchanger
W~0
吸收器
Absorber
Adsorption Heat pump reduces electricity demand
and increases electricity generated
41
A 1 MW Adsorption chiller
1 MW 吸附冷却器
• Uses Waste Heat from CHP
• provides most of chilling requirements
in summer
• Reduces electricity demand in summer
• Increases electricity generated locally
• Saves ~500 tonnes Carbon Dioxide annually
42
The Future: Biomass Advanced Gasifier/ Combined Heat and Power
•
•
•
•
•
Addresses increasing demand for energy as University expands
Will provide an extra 1.4MW of electrical energy and 2MWth heat
Will have under 7 year payback
Will use sustainable local wood fuel mostly from waste from saw
mills
Will reduce Carbon Emissions of UEA by ~ 25% despite increasing
student numbers by 250%
43
Trailblazing to a Low Carbon Future
Low Energy Buildings
Low Energy Buildings
Photo-Voltaics
• Low Energy Buildings
• Absorption Chilling
• Effective Adaptive Energy
Management
• Advanced CHP using
Biomass Gasification
• Photovoltaics
Efficient CHP
• Combined Heat and Power
Absorption Chilling
• World’s First MBA in
Strategic Carbon
Management
44
44
44
Trailblazing to a Low Carbon Future
Photo-Voltaics
Efficient CHP
Advanced Biomass CHP using Gasification
Absorption Chilling
45
45
45
Trailblazing to a Low Carbon Future
Efficient CHP
1990
2006
Students
Floor Area (m2)
5570
138000
CO2 (tonnes)
CO2 kg/m2
CO2 kg/student
Absorption Chilling
14047
207000
Change since
1990
+152%
+50%
2010
16000
220000
Change since
1990
+187%
+159%
19420
140.7
21652
104.6
+11%
-25.7%
14000
63.6
-28%
-54.8%
3490
1541
-55.8%
875
-74.9%
46
46
46
Low Carbon Strategies at the University of
East Anglia
• Low Energy Buildings and their Management
• Low Carbon Energy Provision
–
–
–
–
–
Photovoltaics
CHP
Adsorption chilling
Biomass Gasification
Coffee Break at 10:05
• The Energy Tour – Depart at 10:20
• Biomass Plant
• CHP
• ZICER
• Questions & Answers
• - Energy Security: Hard Choices facing the UK
47
Energy Security is a potentially critical issue for the UK
140
Gas Production and Demand in UK
Billion cubic metres
120
Only 50% now provided by
UK sources.
100
80
Import Gap
60
Actual UK production
40
Actual UK demand
Projected production
Projected demand
20
Warning issued on 17th April
2012 that over-reliance on
Norway and imported LNG
from Qatar will lead to price
rises by end of year
0
1998
2002
2006
2010
14
2014
Wholesale Electricity Prices
Langeled Line
to Norway
12
48
Oil reaches
$130 a barrel
UK no longer
self sufficient
in gas
8
Severe Cold
Spells
10
p/kWh
Prices have
become much
more volatile
since UK is no
longer self
sufficient in
gas.
2018
6
4
2
0
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
What is the magnitude of the CO2 problem?
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Developing
EU
Other OECD
UK
France
Transition
Oil Producing
Pakistan
India
Namibia
Brazil
Turkey
China
Mexico
Lithuania
Sweden
Switzerland
France
Ukraine
South_Africa
Libya
Norway
Italy
Greece
UK
Denmark
Japan
Germany
Russia
Netherlands
US
UAE
Qatar
tonnes/capita
How does UK compare with other countries?
Why do some countries emit more CO2 than others?
Per capita Carbon Emissions
49
Poland
India
Australia
Libya
China
Italy
800
Czech Republic
Other OECD
USA
Oil Exporting
Denmark
EU
Portugal
1000
Developing
Germany
UK
Netherlands
Japan
Spain
UAE
Qatar
Luxembourg
Belgium
Austria
France
600
Sweden
Switzerland
Norway
gms CO2 / kWH
Carbon Emissions and Electricity
Carbon Emission Factor in Electricity Generation
1200
UK
France
400
200
0
50
Electricity Generation Carbon Emission Factors
•
•
•
•
Coal ~ 0.9 kg / kWh
Oil ~ 0.8 kg/kWh
Gas (CCGT) ~ 0.43 kg/kWh
Nuclear 0.01 kg/kWh
Current UK mix ~ 0.53 kg/kWh
2008/9 2009/10
Coal
44%
34%
CCGT
36%
46%
Nuclear
15%
17%
Electricity Generation i n selected Countries
USA
Japan
coal
oil
r
UK
gas
nuclear
hydro
Germany
France
Poland
India
Sweden
China
Norway
other
renewables
Russia
52
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods
Potential contribution to electricity supply in
2020 and drivers/barriers
0 - 80% (at present 45- Available now (but gas
50%)
is running out)
Gas CCGT
nuclear fission
(long term)
Energy
Review
2002
9th May
2011 (*)
8.0p
[5 - 11]
~2p +
0 - 15% (France 80%) - new inherently safe
(currently 18% and
designs - some
2.5 - 3.5p
falling)
development needed
7.75p
[5.5 - 10]
Installed Capacity (MW)
notisavailable
earliest
Nuclearfusion
New Build assumes
one new station
completeduntil
each2040
year at
after
2020.not until
nuclear
unavailable
2050 for significant impact
14000
12000
New Build ?
[7.5 - 15]p
Available now: Not
Projected
Coal
currently
~40% but viable without Carbon
unlikely
"Clean10000
Coal"
2.5
3.5p
Actual
scheduled
to fall
Capture &
before 2025
-
?
8000
Sequestration
6000
Carbon sequestration either by burying it or using methanolisation to create a new
4000 fuel will not be available at scale required until mid 2020s if then
transport
2000
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
* Energy Review 2011 – Climate Change Committee May 2009
53
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply
in 2020 and drivers/barriers
On Shore Wind
~25% [~15000 x 3
available now for
MW turbines] commercial exploitation
2002
(Gas ~ 2p)
May 2011
(Gas ~ 8.0p) *
~ 2+p
~8.2p
+/- 0.8p
1.5MW Turbine
At peak output provides sufficient electricity for
3000 homes
On average has provided electricity for 700 –
850 homes depending on year
Future prices from
* Renewable Energy Review – 9th May 2011
Climate Change Committee
54
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in
2020 and drivers/barriers
~25% [~15000 x 3
available now for
MW turbines] commercial exploitation
some technical
Off Shore Wind
development needed to
25 - 50%
reduce costs.
On Shore Wind
May 2011
2002
(Gas ~ 2p) (Gas ~ 8.0p) *
~ 2+p
~8.2p
+/- 0.8p
~2.5 - 3p
12.5p +/- 2.5
Climate Change Committee (9th May 2011) see offshore wind as
being very expensive and recommends reducing planned
expansion by 3 GW and increasing onshore wind by same amount
Scroby Sands has a Load factor of 28.8% - 30% but
nevertheless produced sufficient electricity on average for
2/3rds of demand of houses in Norwich. At Peak time
sufficient for all houses in Norwich and Ipswich
55
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in
2020 and drivers/barriers
~25% [~15000 x 3
available now for
MW turbines] commercial exploitation
some technical
Off Shore Wind
development needed to
25 - 50%
reduce costs.
On Shore Wind
May 2011
2002
(Gas ~ 2p) (Gas ~ 8.0p) *
~ 2+p
~8.2p
+/- 0.8p
~2.5 - 3p
12.5p +/- 2.5
Micro Hydro Scheme operating
on Siphon Principle installed at
Itteringham Mill, Norfolk.
Rated capacity 5.5 kW
Hydro (mini micro)
5%
technically mature, but
limited potential
2.5 - 3p
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
11p for
<2MW
projects
56
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in
2020 and drivers/barriers
May 2011
2002
(Gas ~ 2p) (Gas ~ 8.0p) *
~25%
[~15000
x 3 that
available
now
for might be
Climate
Change
Report
suggests
1.6 TWh
(0.4%)
~ 2+p
On Shore
Wind
MW
turbines]
commercial
exploitation
achieved by 2020 which is equivalent to ~ 2.0 GW.
some technical
Off Shore Wind
development needed to ~2.5 - 3p
25 - 50%
reduce costs.
Hydro (mini micro)
Photovoltaic
5%
technically mature, but
limited potential
<<5% even
available, but much further
assuming 10 GW of research needed to bring down
installation
costs significantly
~8.2p
+/- 0.8p
12.5p +/- 2.5
2.5 - 3p
11p for
<2MW
projects
15+ p
25p +/-8
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
57
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in
2020 and drivers/barriers
~25% [~15000 x 3
available now for
On Shore Wind
Transport Fuels:
MW turbines] commercial exploitation
• Biodiesel?
some technical
Off Shore Wind
development needed to
25 - 50%
• Bioethanol?
reduce costs.
• Compressed gas from
Hydro (mini technically mature, but
methane from
waste.
5%
micro)
limited potential
Photovoltaic
Sewage, Landfill,
Energy Crops/
Biomass/Biogas
<<5% even assuming
10 GW of installation
??5%
May 2011
2002
(Gas ~ 2p) (Gas ~ 8.0p) *
~ 2+p
~8.2p
+/- 0.8p
~2.5 - 3p
12.5p +/- 2.5
2.5 - 3p
11p for
<2MW
projects
available, but much further
research needed
bring
Totoprovide
down costs significantly
p electricity
25p +/-8
5%15+
of UK
needs will require an area the size of
Norfolk and Suffolk devoted solely
to biomass
available, but research needed
in some areas e.g. advanced
gasification
2.5 - 4p
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
7 - 13p
depending on
technology
58
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and 2002 (Gas May 2011
drivers/barriers
~ 2p)
(Gas ~ 8.0p)
On Shore Wind
~25%
available now
~8.2p +/- 0.8p
~ 2+p
Off Shore
available but costly
25 - 50%
~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5
Wind
11p for
Small Hydro
5%
limited potential
2.5 - 3p
<2MW
projects
available, but very
Photovoltaic
<<5%
15+ p
25p +/-8
costly
available, but research
Biomass
??5%
2.5 - 4p
7 - 13p
needed
currently < 10
techology limited Wave/Tidal MW may be 1000
major development not
Stream
- 2000 MW
before 2020
(~0.1%)
4 - 8p
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
19p +/- 6
Tidal 26.5p
+/- 7.5p Wave
59
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and 2002 (Gas May 2011
drivers/barriers
~ 2p)
(Gas ~ 8.0p)
On Shore Wind
~25%
available now
~8.2p +/- 0.8p
~ 2+p
Off Shore
available but costly
25 - 50%
~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5
Wind
11p for
Small Hydro
5%
limited potential
2.5 - 3p
<2MW
projects
available, but very
Photovoltaic
<<5%
15+ p
25p +/-8
costly
available, but research
Biomass
??5%
2.5 - 4p
7 - 13p
needed
currently < 10
techology limited Wave/Tidal MW may be 1000
major development not
Stream
- 2000 MW
before 2020
(~0.1%)
4 - 8p
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
19p +/- 6
Tidal 26.5p
+/- 7.5p Wave
60
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and 2002 (Gas May 2011
drivers/barriers
~ 2p)
(Gas ~ 8.0p)
On Shore Wind
~25%
availableSevern
now Barrage/
~8.2p
+/- 0.8p
~ 2+p
Mersey
Barrages
Off Shore
available buthave
costlybeen considered frequently
25 - 50%
~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5
Wind
e.g. pre war – 1970s, 2009
11p for
Severn Barrage
5-8%
Small Hydro
5%
limited potential
2.5could
- 3p provide
<2MW
of UK electricity needs
projects
available, butInvery
Orkney –15+
Churchill
Barriers
Photovoltaic
<<5%
p
25p +/-8
costly
Output ~80 000 GWh per annum available, but research
Sufficient for 13500
Biomass
??5%
2.5 - 4phouses 7in- 13p
needed
Orkney but there are only 4000 in
currently < 10
technologyOrkney.
limited - Controversy in bringing
19p +/- 6
Wave/Tidal MW may be 1000
major development
not
4 - 8p
Tidal 26.5p
cables south.
Stream
- 2000 MW
before 2020
+/- 7.5p
Wave
Would save 40000 tonnes
of CO
2
(~0.1%)
technology available but unlikely for
2020. Construction time ~10 years.
Tidal Barrages
5 - 15%
26p +/-5
In 2010 Government abandoned
plans for development
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
61
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and 2002 (Gas May 2011
drivers/barriers
~ 2p)
(Gas ~ 8.0p)
On Shore
~25%
available now
~8.2p +/- 0.8p
~ 2+p
Wind
Off Shore
available but costly
25 - 50%
~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5
Wind
11p for
Small Hydro
5%
limited potential
2.5 - 3p
<2MW
available, but very
Photovoltaic
<<5%
15+ p
25p +/-8
costly
available, but research
Biomass
??5%
2.5 - 4p
7 - 13p
needed
currently < 10 MW technology limited Wave/Tidal
19p Tidal
??1000 - 2000 MW major development not
4 - 8p
Stream
26.5p Wave
(~0.1%)
before 2020
Tidal Barrages
Geothermal
5 - 15%
In 2010 Government abandoned
plans for development
26p +/-5
unlikely for electricity generation before 2050 if then -not to be
confused with ground sourced heat pumps which consume electricity
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
62
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and 2002 (Gas May 2011
drivers/barriers
~ 2p)
(Gas ~ 8.0p)
On Shore
~25%
available now
~8.2p +/- 0.8p
~ 2+p
Wind
Off Shore
available but costly
25 - 50%
~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5
Wind
11p for
Small Hydro
5%
limited potential
2.5 - 3p
<2MW
available, but very
Photovoltaic
<<5%
15+ p
25p +/-8
costly
available, but research
Biomass
??5%
2.5 - 4p
7 - 13p
needed
currently < 10 MW technology limited Wave/Tidal
19p Tidal
??1000 - 2000 MW major development not
4 - 8p
Stream
26.5p Wave
(~0.1%)
before 2020
Tidal Barrages
Geothermal
5 - 15%
In 2010 Government abandoned
plans for development
26p +/-5
unlikely for electricity generation before 2050 if then -not to be
confused with ground sourced heat pumps which consume electricity
Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not
otherwise specified
63
Our Choices: They are difficult
Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind
and biomass?.
Photovoltaics, tidal, wave are not options for next 10 - 20 years.
[very expensive or technically immature or both]
If our answer is NO
Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power ?
Are we happy with this and the other attendant risks?
If our answer is NO
Do we want to return to using coal?
• then carbon dioxide emissions will rise significantly
• unless we can develop carbon sequestration within 10 years
UNLIKELY – confirmed by Climate Change Committee
[9th May 2011]
If our answer to coal is NO
Do we want to leave things are they are and see continued
exploitation of gas for both heating and electricity generation?
>>>>>>
64
Our Choices: They are difficult
If our answer is YES
By 2020
• we will be dependent on GAS
for around 70% of our heating and electricity
imported from countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria
Are we happy with this prospect? >>>>>>
If not:
We need even more substantial cuts in energy use.
Or are we prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global
Warming? - the North Norfolk Coal Field?
Do we wish to reconsider our stance on renewables?
Inaction or delays in decision making will lead us down the GAS
option route and all the attendant Security issues that raises.
We must take a coherent integrated approach in our decision making –
not merely be against one technology or another
65
Sustainable Options for the future?
Energy Generation
•
Solar thermal - providing hot water - most suitable for domestic
installations, hotels – generally lees suitable for other businesses
•
Example 2 panel ( 2.6 sqm ) in
Norwich – generates 826kWh/year
(average over 7 years).
•
The more hot water you use the
more solar heat you get!
•
Renewable Heat Incentive available
from 2012
Overall Solar Energy Gain
•
•
kWh per day
•
5.0
Solar PV – providing electricity
- suitable for all sizes2007
of installation
2008
2009
4.5
2010
2011
2012
4.0
Area required for 1 kW peak
varies
from
~
5.5
to
8.5
sqm
3.5
depending on technology
3.0and manufacturer
2.5
2.0
Approximate annual estimate
of generation
1.5
1.0
= installed capacity * 8760
* 0.095
0.5
0.0in year
hours
load/capacity factor of 9.5%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
66
Our looming over-dependence on gas for electricity generation
TWH (billions of units (kWh))
Version suitable for Office 2003, 2007 & 2010
600
500
400
• 1 new nuclear station completed each year after 2020.
• 1 new coal station with CCS each year after 2020
• 1 million homes fitted with PV each year from 2020
- 40% of homes fitted by 2030
• 15+ GW of onshore wind by 2030 cf 4 GW now
• No electric cars or heat pumps
Oil
UK Gas
300
Offshore
Wind
Onshore
Wind
Imported
Gas
Existing Coal
200
Oil
Other
Renewables
Existing Nuclear
Existing Coal
New Coal
100
Data for modelling derived from DECC & Climate Change Committee (2011)
- allowing for significant deploymentExisting
of electric
vehicles and heat pumps by 2030.New Nuclear
Nuclear
0
1970
Data for modelling derived from DECC & Climate Change Committee (2011)
- allowing for significant deployment of electric vehicles and heat pumps by 2030.
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Data for modelling derived from DECC & Climate Change Committee (2011)
67 2030.
- allowing for significant deployment of electric vehicles and heat pumps by
It is all very well for South East, but what about the North?
House on Westray, Orkney exploiting passive solar energy from end of February
House in Lerwick, Shetland Isles
with Solar Panels
- less than 15,000 people live north
of this in UK!
68
Conclusions
• Hard Choices face us in the next 20 years
• Effective adaptive energy management can reduce heating
energy requirements in a low energy building by 50% or more.
• Heavy weight buildings can be used to effectively control energy
consumption
• Photovoltaic cells need to take account of intended use of
electricity use in building to get the optimum value.
• Building scale CHP can reduce carbon emissions significantly
• Adsorption chilling should be included to ensure optimum
utilisation of CHP plant, to reduce electricity demand, and allow
increased generation of electricity locally.
• Promoting Awareness can result in up to 25% savings
• The Future for UEA: Biomass CHP Wind Turbines?
"If you do not change direction, you may end up where
you are heading."
Lao Tzu (604-531 BC) Chinese Artist and Taoist philosopher
69