Conference
Workshop: Energy
|
Conference
Workshop: Energy
|
|
Report produced by Dr Jane Roberts and Dr John Powell |
|||||||
|
Contextual summary Provocateur I Mark
Crowther, GASTEC at CRE Ltd Barriers are tariff-structures driven by regulatory framework - in for example Holland these have been overcome by more appropriate tariffs which reward efficient use of primary energy. Provocateur 2 Matt
Partridge, Development Manager, National Wind Power Ltd Onshore wind is technologically mature, in 1999 more wind capacity than nuclear was installed (globally). Abundant resource, substantial wind resource in south west. Independent surveys show 80% people living near wind farms are content with them. This technology also aids farm diversification (as do other renewables). In short-medium term on-shore wind will therefore make the major contribution: in medium to long term other technologies will overtake it. Offshore wind has massive potential; marine tidal currents - large UK resource without adverse environmental effects of barrages; wave power - but expense an impediment; photo-voltaic and direct solar heating. Provocateur 3:
W J Turner, British Energy 60% reduction of CO2 emissions needed to stabilise CO2 levels in atmosphere and even the most optimistic scenarios for the future do not achieve this. For the UK, climate change will mean changing demand. Warmer winters man reduction in gas use by households: warmer summers increases in cooling and therefore electricity demand. Rising sea levels make some estuarine energy sites (oil refineries, nuclear power stations) vulnerable. Renewables which are weather dependent will be affected by climate changes (wind patterns, cloud cover). Government support for renewable R&D is progressing. There is a growing recognition (e.g. recent climate change programme consultation and RCEP) of the extent to which nuclear power has assisted in enabling the UK to meet its CO2 emission reduction targets. Energy industries exist to meet the demand of the public for energy: it will be public demand that leads changes. Provocateur 4: Tony Robson, Environmental Advisor (Formerly Principal Engineer dealing with environmental impact assessment in the Electricity Sector, covering most (non-radiological) environmental topics for fossil, nuclear and renewable projects, including the Severn and Mersey tidal barrages) SOUTH- WEST REGION:
Small is beautiful but, right now, big is better 1 Current targets for combating climate change in the UK involve a 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 and a recommended reduction of 60 % from 1990 levels by 2050. The latter represents the worldwide effort needed to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 2 There is a massive demand in the UK for the comfort and security provided by electricity. In the main, the present generation stock comprises large scale developments, each providing 100's or 1000's of MW installed capacity. It is intended that much of this should be replaced by systems that are more climate friendly. Unfortunately, this will often involve technologies that are new and / or come in relatively small unit sizes. These will take longer to deliver the necessary amount of Megawatts than would be needed if larger scale and proven technologies were employed. In this case one of the economies of scale is time. Given the deadlines noted above time is something we cannot afford to waste. 3 A lot of effort is expended on projects that, for one reason or another, fail to make it beyond the drawing board or the early stages of project development. Schemes that survive this stage are then vulnerable to a variety of obstacles that arise in engineering, finance and other areas. In the environmental area, experience of environmental assessment and consent negotiations for projects ranging from single wind turbines to 2000 MW power stations, indicates that a 'big' project consumes less assessment and planning resources, overall, than would be needed for a large number of small projects with the same total annual output. Renewable energy tends to be a dilute resource, so the devices that trap it have to be spread over an area that is large in comparison with that needed for traditional plant. 4 For example, working on a greater number of projects means that more time has to be spent on desk and field surveys. In areas like ecology and noise, certain types of field survey need to be extended over at least a year to allow for seasonal factors. Derivation and agreement with a Local Authority of noise control criteria for a wind farm, can involve as much effort as that expended on a power station supplying a much bigger output. It would be regrettable if impact assessment standards were lowered to facilitate meeting targets via the application of new technologies. 5 The problems of delivering the technology needed to meet CO2 reduction targets on schedule appear to be poorly appreciated by policy makers and public alike. Every time opponents delay or squash a renewable project they add to this difficulty. The position will be worsened if energy conservation fails to make substantial in-roads. 6 On the other hand, CO2 concentrations continue to rise inexorably. Failure to take the problems of deliverability of new electricity generation stock into account amounts to gambling now with the welfare of society in years to come. Future plans need to include a significant proportion of large plant that can be delivered reliably. In present circumstances, small may be beautiful, but big is better. 7 The most notable large project in the SW is the Severn tidal barrage. This is capable of delivering, to a predictable pattern, about 7 % of electricity demand in England and Wales and clearly a larger proportion of the demand in the region. This is an enormous prize in terms of CO2 -free electricity. 8 The barrage fell out of favour around eight years ago due to escalating costs. The main problem was the requirement for capital to be paid back over 20 years, despite the plant having a projected life, with maintenance, of over a hundred years. Since then, there has been some progress in the UK along the lines of joint private / public funding of beneficial major projects. Under current circumstances, this is an area well worthy of re-evaluation. 9 At the time the project was shelved, the environmental impact assessment studies had not been completed but, at that stage, no insurmountable barriers had been identified. Claims regarding the certainty of dire consequences were premature. The incomplete areas of work related, in the main, to the question of how seriously food supplies of the wildfowl and wading bird populations would be affected by predicted changes in the estuary's water chemistry and sediment patterns. The birds stand to lose about half of the area they feed on but, on the other hand, the biological productivity of the waters enclosed within the barrage would rise significantly, as they become much less murky and less hostile to life. 10 These projects can be extended to complete the environmental analysis. The issue is complex however and it is difficult to be fully certain about how long it would take to finalise the analysis. There is another approach that can be adopted as well, as an insurance against unforeseen delays. This is the concept of creative conservation, introduced by the then Nature Conservancy Council. It allows for 'lost' areas of habitat to be replaced by similar areas, suitably located and with no net decrease in size. 11 It is essential in such cases that everyone can be confident that the conservation exercise will work. To do this, it is necessary to carry out pilot projects and these need to be done as early as possible. Such projects clarify whether or not the approach proposed is viable and ways in which it might be integrated into the civil engineering works. 12 Nothing along these lines has been done to date in the case of the Barrage (something which I, as a member of the panel guiding the studies, with hindsight regret). The birds at risk congregate at a limited number of locations around the estuary and conservation efforts will need to focus on these habitats. Previous work for the electricity industry on the design and field testing of large scale creative conservation projects has been done independently, for instance, by Southampton University on lagoon design, by UEA on lowland heath restoration from farmland and by Sheffield University on habitat creation and the transfer of crested newts. Independent agencies such as the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology or Groundwork Trust also have an interest in this area . 13 This sort of work is expensive in ecology study terms, but small fry in relation to the costs of an electricity supply project of this size. At the time studies were halted, It was estimated that the barrage would take about 14 years to build, including final planning and completion of the environmental analysis. The industry has shown, eg at Sizewell, that large projects can be completed to schedule. 14 In present circumstances, where timescale is an important a factor, I suggest that, as a contingency measure, a pilot study to establish the prospects for creative conservation, should it ever be needed for a Severn barrage, ought to be put in hand as a matter of urgency. A successful field study would increase confidence that a barrage can be built to the necessary timescale and in a manner that is environmentally acceptable. We know the generation technology is reliable from long running scheme, like the barrage at La Rance in France. 15 A Severn barrage would be expected to bring significant economic and other benefits to SW England and S Wales, while making a massive contribution to regional and national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is important that the timescales specified for meeting these targets are met. Revival of a Severn barrage project, for which a great deal of work has already been carried out, would increase confidence that this can be done. Given a successful environmental assessment, it would provide a high profile keystone to a SouthWest Region strategy for meeting our share of the action needed to solve the challenges set by climate change. Workshop Discussion 1 There was a plea at the beginning to avoid entrenched positions and this was accepted by the group: workshop agreed to adopt open-minded approach and to consider all technologies as worthy of further investigation and evaluation. Evaluation to include: deliverability (short-term, medium term, long-term); appropriate scale (and related to that scale and particular location); impact on demand of changing population patterns; costs: social costs; financial cost; fiscal and regulatory considerations; costs imposed on the future. Further discussions concentrated on mitigation - this is unsurprising given the key role of energy in the generation of greenhouse gases. Education for change of citizens, consumers, decision-makers, businesses re: landscape issues a priority. There was debate about the extent to which ownership (both literal and metaphorical) of schemes which were intrusive on the landscape affected their acceptability by local people. Demand reduction is the primary "no-regrets" strategy: economically and environmentally beneficial. Some very simple measures could have a big impact on demand (eg energy efficient lighting): other measures would take much longer to be implemented due to capital requirements (new manufacturing plant; building fabric) or due to land use issues (transport patterns). More decentralisation and rationalisation of energy supply was suggested as offering advantages; but the need for spatial flexibility between supply and demand was also noted. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 - mitigation arises if landfill gas is tapped and used as an energy source but direct use of waste (incineration; gasification) as an energy source is a more effective mitigation measure than landfill gas extraction. Possible pollution problems from these processes noted. Severn tidal barrage mentioned as one potential renewable energy source for the south-west. Workshop Discussion 2 Mitigation It was the view of the meeting that the energy sector should concentrate on appropriateness in considering how to mitigate the effects of climate change. This approach would hopefully prove more effective in the take up of policies that could respond to particular circumstances, rather than generic, universal policies. The range of factors that might be considered would include:
Adaptation Three themes were identified as important in developing strategies for adaptation to climate change. These were:
Barriers/solutions Three main issues were identified which represented barriers to the development of effective change in energy supply management etc
Future The groups were divided in their view on energy strategies. Some believed that all energy production types should be used, whilst others wished to exclude the nuclear option. It was considered important, however, to build in long-term social/environmental/economic costs in energy planning for the future.
Cheltenham & Gloucester
College of Higher Education |
|||||||