You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'utilities' category.
The mighty triumvirate has received royal assent: the climate change bill (excellent), the energy bill (excellent), and the planning bill (frightening) have now become acts. So now the UK is legally bound to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 with interim targets along the way. Within a year we’ll see feed in tariffs for distributed energy up to 5MW. And ironically, the planning bill may be used to railroad through airport expansion and new coal fired power - but let’s ignore that for now.
There have been further amendments to the Energy Bill in the Lords in connection with feed-in-tariffs. The one year implementation deadline is back in. Excellent news as the detail of how FiTs are implemented will almost inevitably be bogged down in long discussions between government and power suppliers - a one year limit should focus minds.
Also, the 50kW limit on capacity of gas CHP has been lifted. This means Read the rest of this entry »
Prompted by a conversation Nick and I were having this morning, it’s worth pointing out that the 28 day rule originally brought in with NETA has been switched off on a trial basis. On the assumption that consumers are now more savvy and able to look out for themselves, it’s now possible to lock yourself into an agreement with an energy supplier without the ability to switch for the term of the contract. Longer contracts and more certainty means that suppliers can potentially offer more attractive terms but of course caveat emptor still applies.
Yesterday BERR and OFGEM released proposals for changing the way the electricity regulations work with regard to distributed energy generation. This is particularly important because it’s BERR’s first public reaction to the Citiworks ruling by the European Court of Justice two weeks ago.
From out of nowhere, twice in one week, there have been indications that a feed in tariff is on the way. First, at Tuesday’s PRASEG (Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group) meeting, BERR and DEFRA both hinted that a feed in tariff would replace the renewables obligation for installations under 50kW. Then on Thursday at Think08, Hillary Benn delivered the same message (thanks to Phil for pointing that out).
So how soon might this happen? Probably not as quick as we’d like as it’s likely to require a change to the RO legislation. But until then hopefully small generators will be able to console themselves with double ROCs.
If you build to Passivhaus standard, there’s no point in putting in a wet heating system. In fact, the key to the economics of Passivhaus design is that a conventional heating system is rendered redundant: you’re supposed to use the resulting savings to help fund the efficiency measures. Instead of a boiler and radiators you might only need a small electric heating coil in your mechanical ventilation system.
Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes is modelled on the Passivhaus standard. As a result, until the Code changes, you’re likely to see more and more developers trying to move towards electric heating systems. You might argue that given the quantities of electricity we’re talking about (15 kWh/m2.yr), even if you source the electricity from the grid, it’s no carbon catastrophe. Unless you consider the bigger picture.
Making new buildings zero carbon is an excellent requirement, but by focusing our efforts (and a hell of a lot of money) on ratcheting down the heat demand from new buildings, we throw away the huge opportunity of using new developments to slash emissions from existing stock. Read the rest of this entry »
At work I’m helping a large housing association upgrade their existing heating networks to save carbon and reduce costs to occupants. There are various steps to take: upgrading boilers, re-insulating distribution pipework, considering CHP, and so on. But the single most effective thing you can do on these schemes is to install heat meters.
Doing some background research, I rang up the very friendly and forthcoming Dick Bradford, the driving force behind the hugely successful biomass community heating schemes in Barnsley, to ask him what effect installing heat meters had had on his schemes. He told me that following the installation of heat meters, heat consumption dropped by 50%. I was gobsmacked.
My first day back in London and I’ve spent the morning schmoozing at a publication launch just off the Mall. Five minutes out of my cattle stall and I’m already moving and shaking. It was an event to publicise the TCPA’s new document, Community Energy: Urban Planning for a Low Carbon Future, and it attracted quite a crowd including MPs Nick Hurd and Keith Hill.
During the presentations and panel discussion, most people in the room seemed to feel that local authorities have the pivotal role to play in the creation of low carbon distributed energy networks. I totally agree, but I think we were missing part of the picture.
I’ve been spending some quality time with spreadsheets and have an update on the way building regs for housing treats CHP. It’s not as simple as I thought here, although the result is similar. The incorrect method I wrote about a few weeks back is still in use, but it’s different from what’s happening in SAP 2005. Here’s a breakdown:
Martin at isite has got in touch to urge us to wear blue on Earth Day (April 20th) to signify opposition to new coal.
We’re with you, Martin. Time to break out the body paint.
Today Lord Turner’s panel met for the first time to discuss a concrete strategy for fufilling the UK’s commitment to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050 (and to consider upping the target to 80%). With around a third of UK emissions coming from housing, this sector will inevitably play a key role in their strategy. You might think we could rely on the Code for Sustainable Homes to get us there - after all, if all homes from 2016 are Code level 6 then there will be no net emissions from new housing. But unfortunately new homes are only a small part of the problem.
The graph below illustrates the predicted emissions from the housing sector by age of housing stock for the period 2002 to 2050. It shows that the overwhelming proportion of emissions will continue to come from houses built before 2002. The dotted lines represent the emissions from all housing required to achieve a 60% and 80% reduction in emissions vs 1990 levels. Emissions from each band decreases over time due to demolition.
Figure 1. Carbon emissions from housing sector by age of housing stock, 2002 - 2050
Greenpeace has created their version of a model town, stitching together examples from all over the UK. It’s a very cool combination of flash pages with lots of case studies, animations, and videos. Worth a wander.
At first glance, the green credentials of ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) look unquestionable: because you’re harvesting free heat from the ground, you can get up to four times more energy out of the system than you put into it. Sure, it runs on electricity, which is more carbon intensive than gas, but because of this favourable ratio of output-to-input (called the COP for coefficient of performance) the system should still emit less carbon than a gas boiler - in theory.
But the claimed benefits are reliant on incorrect assumptions. A new house will emit about the same carbon using a ground source heat pump as with a new gas boiler. Here’s why:
[update March 20: I've looked further into how SAP treats CHP and written it up here. So while the method described below is being used elsewhere in the industry, the criticism doesn't apply to SAP.]
I’ve written on this topic before but maybe I didn’t succeed in making clear just how far off the mark the standard method is when estimating carbon emissions from CHP. Why does it matter? Here are some reasons:
-
Right now, big developers and the Housing Corp are assuming CHP can get them to level 4 under the Code for Sustainable Homes and this may not be true.
-
These emissions figures can determine whether or not a scheme gets planning permission or passes building regs.
-
The nascent micro-CHP industry (expected to be worth £2billion per year across Europe) is using this flawed method to back up its sustainability claims. Changing from a commonsense approach to the much more forgiving “standard” approach explains why the first Carbon Trust interim report on the micro-CHP field trails was so bleak and the second was so rosy.
There’s a good chance that, if I’m right and the standard approach is flawed, when the CLG and BRE realise their mistake, the rules will change, leaving public and private sector developers and the micro-CHP industry with a very costly mess to clean up. Read the rest of this entry »
If the government backs up Medway Council’s inane decision to allow a new coal fired power station in Kent, I’m going to pack it in. The superfluous runway at Heathrow is bad enough, but new coal? The squabbling we all do over saving a tonne of CO2 here and a tonne of CO2 there - and Gordon Brown is going to give us the first new coal plant in 30 years?
Seriously, I’m going to put my feet up, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe, and join the national guard. Who knows, I might even become the next prime minister.
Much later than planned, but here it is. In summary, micro-CHP saves 5% to 10% of carbon in large inefficient houses but only if you use a flawed methodology and give yourself extra-extra credit for displacing grid electricity. A few of the key findings:
- The trial has demonstrated that the carbon and cost savings from Micro-CHP are generally better for buildings where they can operate for long and consistent heating periods.
- In small commercial applications, the field trial has shown that Micro-CHP systems can provide typical carbon savings of 15% to 20% when installed as the lead boiler in appropriate environments.
- The domestic Micro-CHP systems monitored in the trial have the potential to provide typical carbon savings of 5% to 10% for older, larger houses with high and consistent heat demands (over 20,000kWh/yr).
So since the last report, the Carbon Trust has toed the industry line that the 0.568 figure should be used.
There’s some very interesting output from the boiler field trials in the report as well. In particular, the boilers they’re monitoring are generally performing 4% to 5% below their SEDBUK rating.
[Update March 20 - while it's true that SAP gives misleadingly high emissions savings for CHP, I got the methodology wrong. See an updated post here. Points 3 and 4 below are still valid.]
The SAP results for dwellings using CHP are badly skewed. This may cause large developers to formulate strategies for meeting the Code for Sustainable Homes which fall well short of the targets.
Doing some research this week, I read the Housing Corporation’s report on the estimated costs of meeting various levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes. It’s an interesting document, but at a certain point I was confused by their claim that you can meet the carbon reductions required by code level 4 (i.e. a 44% reduction in DER relative to TER) just by using gas CHP. In fact, when I looked closer I found that in some cases, they were claiming an emissions reduction of over 50% - an extremely high figure. Something closer to 10 and 15% is much more reasonable, unless you want to get Orchardesque.
The source of these wild claims is the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for dwellings - SAP 2005. As hinted at in the CHP debate running in the BSJ over the summer, SAP does some funny things when it comes to CHP. Have a closer look at the SAP worksheets and you find that SAP:
Rather than taking action to meet its commitments on renewable energy, Brown’s government is actively wriggling out of them. Even more pathetically, it’s trying to persuade other governments to soften their line, let the targets slide a bit, don’t worry so much about climate change. Why? Because in the view of Brown’s advisers (in which we might include the CBI), the targets just aren’t realistic. We’ve done all we can and it just won’t work.
Over a year ago, the Carbon Trust were sending up warning signals about the inefficiency of the Renewables Obligation (RO), the Government’s primary method for supporting renewable energy technology. They found that the RO is the worst of all possible options. Yep, of the methods they considered, the RO is the least practical and cost effective method of achieving renewables targets and carbon reduction. And the best? Feed in tariffs similar to those that sparked the PV boom in Germany and that you find in Italy, Spain, Greece, and other countries.
So why does the UK stick to a doomed policy? Probably a number of things: Government inertia, the nuclear lobby feverishly presenting themselves as a silver bullet, utilities hoping to maintain current margins. But little in the way of valid argument. There’s no excuse for shirking responsibility on this issue.
Over the summer there was a debate between some big names in engineering over whether combined heat, cooling, and power (CHCP) using absorption chillers actually saves carbon. The theory goes that because engine size is usually dictated by the base summer heat load, the additional heat load from the chillers allows you to upsize your engine and generate more low-carbon electricity throughout the year.
However on a current project, we’re looking at the feasibility of installing a district heating and cooling network, including installation costs. And one thing is clear: regardless of whether CHCP saves carbon, the capital cost of cooling is unaffordable.
What’s going on?
There’s been a fierce debate among energy bods this summer over the environmental effectiveness of combined heat and power (CHP) and CHP with cooling (CCHP) – a debate closely tied to assumptions about the carbon emissions associated with grid electricity in the UK.
What happened?
As noted in this blog in May, Arup associate director James Thonger opened up with a broadside aimed at the GLA policy of requiring CHP and CCHP on new developments. In particular he refuted LCCA claims that gas CHP saves 54% of carbon relative to grid electricity. The LCCA is headed up by Allan Jones, former green god of Woking and now darling of the London Mayor, who didn’t take the criticism lightly.
Just heard from the folks at the Carbon Trust who are doing the micro-CHP field trials. The release date for the next interim report has been pushed back to the end of August with the methodology to follow some time after. Advise not holding breath.
After I mocked Italy’s efforts to combat climate change, it turns out their funding for microgen (in particular photovoltaic panels) makes the UK’s policy look even more pathetic. If that were possible. Read the rest of this entry »
A London borough used thermal imaging from the air to help identify properties with high heat loss and they’ve put the results online for anyone to see. Here’s the article in the The Times. And here’s the map showing the results.
I think it’s fantastic, provided the council follow it up with constructive advice to the worst homes and other buildings. Now what we need is a thermal version of Google Earth.
Found on the back of our electricity bill:
When we moved into the house in October of last year there were bare incandescent bulbs hanging from the walls. We didn’t get around to putting in low energy bulbs (CFLs) until December, when we replaced about half. At that point, our average daily electricity consumption dropped 16%. In February we replaced the rest of the incandescents and suddenly we were using 32% less electricity than when we moved in. Read the rest of this entry »
Recent Comments