TV bullet points
From Energy-Experts
Run-of-River microhydro could generate 3.5% of the UK electrical need Consistently ignored by all parties
An example of how the Government does not understand run-of-river micro hydro The recent announcement from BERR (see http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43545.pdf page 13) to award double ROCs to all micro generation, gives microhydro a problem. Based on OFGEM's definitions, the policy is defining microgeneration as being 50kW or less. For microhydro, this leaves a gap between 51kW and about 85kW, which will be on single ROC. Above 85kW commercial organizations start to show interest. The cut-off at 50kW creates an extraordinary disincentive for the 51kW to 85kW sites to harness the full potential of their high load factor and carbon free energy.
For example with Tellisford's Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 55kW we will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, on which the income including its single ROC would be about £26,600. Yet a similar site with DNC of 50kW would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, on which including double ROCs it would earn about £33,500. Thus a mill generating 17% less electricity would receive 26% more money.
Such discrepancies mean that instead of encouraging mill owners to make the best use of each site's potential, the new rules will discourage the maximization of renewable energy output for sites that could generate more than 50kW (but less than the commercially attractive output of 85+kW).
MPG has 6 more mill owners on the Frome who are very keen to install microhydro. Like us, their maximum will be about 55-60 kW, giving a total of about 1,500mWh per year. However with the new rules it is extremely unlikely that any of them will install to full capacity; thus approximately 400mWh per year will be lost for the next 30 to 50 years (we know microhydro turbines are long lived).
Logic suggests that the gap between what BERR is proposing and the level where commercial interests come in should be closed by increasing the threshold for double ROCS from 50kW and below to at least 85kW. This will encourage maximum generation for ALL sites that are below the threshold for commercial company investment. With the present limit set at 50kW the government's policy, far from optimizing the potential for microhydro, is going to limit the most attractive sites. Extrapolated to the rest of the country, thousands of mWh are going to be lost by people limiting capacity so they can earn double ROCs.
Anthony Battersby
a) There is the beginning of a trend for the countries who have oil, gas etc to not put it all out on the open market, but to look after their own citizens first: this is adding to the decline in supplies already mentioned. Whether or not it is 'fair' is irrelevant, we're just going to have to live with it.
b) There's also a kind of inertia in the way we build things: roads and airports for example are still being added to, in spite of Roger's point (1) which should be common knowledge within government by now. Candy
No amount of individual effort, “saving the planet” or “going green” will make the slightest difference, we need co-ordinated government driven approach derived from a sound independent forum
1. Rapid fall in useful energy gained per unit of energy recovered will soon occur
2. At IEA projected rates we will try to consume, in the next 28 years, more oil than we have used in the last 150.
3. The skills base within Western Economies is insufficient to solve their own problems
4. The global skills base and ingenuity is insufficient to supply the exponential growth in requirement in the time available
5. We can only reduce the scale of requirement to buy time - or it will be done for us by Nature - soon.
6. Issue tin hats and lots of wolley jumpers.
Derek D
Hi Dave,
I think the issues are:
1 The imminent peak in oil supply (The EIA data actually suggests it was in 2005!)
2 The looming peak in natural gas supply
3 The UK’s approaching cliff in electricity generation
4 The inability of coal to make any significant contribution to future UK electricity generation
To catch the imagination of the public: 1) The UK’s disappearing filling stations – Bath down from 12 to 3 in, what, 7 years? Lots of scope for good shots of abandoned filling stations and interviews with oil company execs explaining why…
2) The consistent failure of oil company and other ‘economists’ to be able to predict oil prices a year or more in advance; from the famous Economist article in, was it 1999?, predicting prices falling from $10 to $5 a barrel when they promptly shot up to $25!
Roger Button
Dave
1) The issues as I see them are not that hard to recognise at all. Why do we keep saying they are?
2) Everyone knows about them, everyone knows what they can do about it, but they do nothing. why?
3) This applies across the spectrum of society, individuals, organisations, government. All sectors behave the same way
4) The technical problems are already resolved in the short to medium term
4) Long term technology will come about once we have tried everything on a large scale without prejudice
5) The rubbish will fall out naturally (this could be politically influenced which is not wrong)
5) Action will come about when we have finally got over our prejudices and special interests (we all have them)
6) So this is a people problem not a technical one
7) Attempting to resolve it with our own preferred technology or science will fail and is highly irresponsible
8) See here for my thought process on this: http://gco2e.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute Robin Smith
David
I would like to add the following bullet point: "Contrary to frequent misconception, renewable energy can be stored in various ways. The UK should prioritize renewable energy storage to aim at raising renewable energy electricity delivery to 100%, sooner rather than later" Regards, Peter R
A very small addition:
At the same time that we introduce more sustainable forms of generation we have to understand that energy should not be wasted, not just in homes, offices and factories but in the pointless lighting that is left on all night, right across the globe, for cleaners, for advertising or for whatever silly excuse and that governments need to legislate to prevent the manufacture of all the energy saving gadgets that use electricity for that which we have been able to do by hand for centuries.
Also, do we need a wet wipe to be manufactured for every spill and every surface, are electrically lit and rotated adverts essential for western civilisation to continue and do we really have to have electrically heated room re-oderisers? In short, what's the point of my changing a light bulb when I'm surrounded by all this energy consuming garbage?
Roy T.
Dave
I think the most common misconceptions are about being able to cover the energy needs with renewables.
Just heard one morning on the radio (BBC 2 or 4?) something like “the government/EU/or whatever is setting the targets on how much energy we shall get from renewables…. but scientists say hard to reach…. or just about possible People still think renewables can’t make it!!!!! Then the whole nuclear business… people don’t know what to think. Then the urgency!! It still looks normal….. people are still buying new cars!!! So the points: 1) We really are running out of fossils fuels a Implications for economy b Implications for geopolitics c Possible scenarios 2) Nuclear is not the answer...... a Cost and time for building b Waste management c Uranium availability d Security e If we invest here we won't be able to invest in other sectors
3) Renewables can make it a No new magic technology is going to come up to save the world in time, we have to do with what we have b The solution is not in a particular technology, but a way of thinking. Energy will have to come from multiple sources, many of them locally engineered on the basis of what the specific area has to offer. And we will have to use less of it... more efficiently... each time we want to do something we have to think in terms of "where are we going to get the energy for that"..... energy is not a plug in the wall anymore.... c The matter with renewables is not that knowledge is in early stage or other impediments but just need for investment and political will. See CSP, wind, storage sytems etc etc…. 4) The MARKET is not going to take us anywhere sensible! First we (our institutions) decide where to go and then we let the dogs run and help us hunting!!! 5) We have to act now when the relatively cheap price of oil still enables us to build
6) The way we will live is going to be different but not necessarily worse, hopefully better
a The growth paradigm has to be modified… it’s a fairly recent invention… as it came it CAN go…. there are other economic models… there are other equations… very useful ones are based on equilibrium not growth, the principle of: “that much in, that much out”…. works with nature… should work in economy as well…. HARVEST not EXPLOIT
Until the last century politicians were advised by historians not by economists….. best raffa
The World Economic Forum is now in session at Davos in Switzerland. This country is wealthy in great measure due to much of it's energy supplies coming from renewables [Hydropower]. They used heat pumping with the Rhine as the heat source as far back as 1932
What all need now to realise is that renewable energy is counter inflationary in that it's value rises in line with price inflation, but once the initial investment costs have been met [which can be written off against depreciation allowances] the cost of collection does not rise.
Andrew Stobart 23/01/08
The current flagship European carbon reduction plan - the Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is increasing prices for the general public, the NHS and universities while increasing profits for large energy users who simply pass the costs on. This is economically inefficient, unsustainable and inequitable. Therefore it needs to be quickly redressed.
At present the European Union are GIVING Business the right to emit carbon. But the public surely have more right to emit than business, so why are they having to pay when business gets it free? The ETS caps carbon but these limits are so high for several countries it allows them to increase over current emissions!
Having a real price on carbon will allow business to move quickly to decarbonise. The revenue generated can be given back to individuals so they can afford the ever increasing cost of living due to increased energy prices by for example in investing in energy efficiency, more insulation, etc.
Martin Kemp
