Keith Tovey M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE

Energy Science Director

Low Carbon Innovation Centre

School of Environmental Sciences

Rotary Club of Wymondham

11th August 2003

Hard Choices Ahead

Future Global Warming Rates

Range of predicted

temperatures

Local impacts

• Norfolk in that part of the UK which is likely to be most impacted.

• Re-distribution of rainfall; lower summer rainfall.

• Landscape/agriculture changes• Lower summer riverflows; reedbeds

under stress

Government Response• Energy White Paper – aspiration for 60% cut in

CO2 emissions by 2050

• Will require unprecedented partnership activity in local communities to ensure on track by 2020s (– but no indication of how this will be undertaken)

“There will be much more local generation, in part from medium to small local/community power plant, fuelled by locally grown biomass, from locally generated waste, and from local wind sources. These will feed local distributed networks, which can sell excess capacity into the grid.’’

- Energy White Paper: February 2003

The CRed ambition

To engage, enthuse and empower a large, diverse community to debate, plan and execute a programme to

reduce carbon emissions by up to 60% by 2025•Can a local community take on the responsibility for starting to confront the challenge of climate change and make a difference?•Or will it continue to be - someone/somewhere else?•Can we encourage politicians/officials to be bolder on our behalf?•“exemplar for the world”

The CRed Community

• Participatory/inclusive• Partnerships• Modes of participation (targets/methods)• Matrix of modes of participation =

representative of real-world complexity • Spark imaginations• Centred on Norwich/Norfolk, but links across

the region, country, the world….

The right language?

5 hot air balloons full of CO2 per person per year

(4 million per year over Norfolk)

How do we know the CRed community represents our

region?Suffolk C. Council

Norwich Union

Liftshare

Eastern Heatpumps

Banham Poultry

Woody’s

Norfolk C.Council

NEWS

SMS

Strattons

Deepdale Farm

Camelot Craft

Alpha Schools

Jarvis

Farmers link

SERCO

LSI

R.Bilbie

AmicusAEEAC

Norwich 21

Global Commodities

Kingswood School

100 +

SLP Energy

Powergen

EDP

LEA

Diocese of Norwich

Norwich Colour Print May

Gurney

EEDA

BPSSth Norfolk D. C.

The Broads Auth.The RSPB

SUSTRANS

Yet to decide

Supporting Buildings TransportProcessEnergy Saving

Funding

Promotion & Awareness

Raising

AlternativeEnergyProjects

Local Government        

Large Business        

Small Business    

Schools            

Householders              

Farmers/ Landowners

           

Contruction/ Builders

           

Organisation            

Suffolk C. Council

Norwich Union

Liftshare

Eastern Heatpumps

Banham Poultry

Woody’s

Norfolk C.Council

NEWS

SMSStrattonsDeepdale

FarmCamelot Craft

Alpha Schools

Jarvis

Farmers link

SERCOLSIR.Bilbie

Amicus

AEEACNorwich 21

Global Commodities

Kingswood School

100 +

SLP Energy

PowergenEDP

LEA

Powergen

Norwich Colour Print

May Gurney

EEDA

BPS

Sth Norfolk D. C.

The Broads Auth.

The RSPB

SUSTRANS

Woodfordes

Anglia Rwys

Renewables East

Norwich Diocese

Nitex

RNAA

NFUIndividual Farmers

BRE

EST

Norfolk C.CouncilNorwich City

Maswood Jalil

LEA

Anglia Rwys

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020

- Non-Renewable Methods

potential contribution to

Electricity Supply costs in 2020

Gas CCGT0 - 80% (currently 40% and rising)

available now, but UK gas will run out within current decade

~ 2p +

nuclear fission (long term)

0 - 60% (France 80%) - (currently 20 - 25% and falling)

new inherently safe designs - some practical development needed

2.5 - 3.5p

nuclear fusion

unavailablenot available until 2040 at earliest

"Clean Coal"

Traditional Coal falling rapidly -

coal could supply 40 - 50% by 2020

Basic components available - not viable without Carbon Sequestration

2.5 - 3.5p

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - RenewableUltimate potential contribution to UK Electricity Supply after 2050

Projected costs in

2020

On shore Wind ~25%Available for exploitation now and cost effective

~ 2p

Off Shore Wind 25-50%

Technical developments needed- research to reduce costs - only 100 turbines in EU compared to 20 000 on shore.

3 - 5 p

Hydro 5%Technically mature but limited potential

2.5 - 3p

Photovoltaic 50%Available but much research needed to bring down costs

greater than 10p

Energy Crops/ Biomass

? 25%Available - research needed in some area - competition with crops for petrol/diesel substitutes

2.5 - 4 p

Wave/ Tidal Stream

~100%Technology limited - extensive development unlike before 2015 - 2020

4 - 8p

Tidal Barrages ~10%Technology available, costly, major environmental problems, unavailable before 2015 - 2020

not costed in Energy

Review

Geothermalunlikely for electricity generation before 2040+

GOVERNMENT EFFORTS to quadruple power generated from offshore wind farms by 2010 will fail because it is assuming unproven technology will deliver higher capacity turbines, contractors warned this week.

Despite Government announcements last month we still need significant development of onshore wind.

There have been many proposals in past (e.g. off Wells, 1988), but only Blyth has been completed, and only one other is under construction.

Offshore wind looses up to 8% of electricty compared to onshore.

New Civil Engineer: 17th July 2003

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable

Ultimate potential contribution to UK Electricity Supply after 2050

Projected costs in

2020

On shore Wind ~25%Available for exploitation now and cost effective

~ 2p

Off Shore Wind 25-50%

Technical developments needed- research to reduce costs - only 100 turbines in EU compared to 20 000 on shore.

3 - 5 p

Hydro 5%Technically mature but limited potential

2.5 - 3p

Photovoltaic 50%Available but much research needed to bring down costs

greater than 10p

Energy Crops/ Biomass

? 25%Available - research needed in some area - competition with crops for petrol/diesel substitutes

2.5 - 4 p

Wave/ Tidal Stream

~100%Technology limited - extensive development unlike before 2015 - 2020

4 - 8p

Tidal Barrages ~10%Technology available, costly, major environmental problems, unavailable before 2015 - 2020

not costed in Energy

Review

Geothermalunlikely for electricity generation before 2040+

Our Choices: They are difficultDo we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind and biomass.

If our answer is NO

Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power

• Are we happy on 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

which is unlikelyIf 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? >>>>>>

Our Choices: They are difficult

If our answer is YES

By 2020 we will be dependent on around 70% of our heating and electricity from GAS which will have to be 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 which could affect both industry and our ability to heat an light our homes in the future.

Unless we are prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global Warming

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.

WEBSITE

www.cred-uk.org/

This presentation is now posted on the WEB at

www2.env.uea.ac.uk/cred/creduea.htm