Wind turbines on the campus? Consultation meeting 4 by the CRed network of partners Trevor Davies...

Wind turbines on the campus?

Consultation meeting 4 by the CRed network of

partners

Trevor DaviesKeith Tovey

Future Global Warming Rates

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)

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods

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

potential contribution to

Electricity Supply in 2020

costs in 2020

Difficult Choices Ahead

Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - RenewableUltimate potential

contribution to Electricity Supply

cost in 2020

On Shore Wind

~25%available now for commercial exploitation

~ 2p

Off Shore 25 - 50%some technical development needed - research to reduce costs.

~2.5 - 3pGOVERNMENT 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.

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



cost in 2020

On Shore Wind


~ 2p


~2.5 - 3p

Hydro 5%technically mature, but limited potential

2.5 - 3p

Photovoltaic 50%available, but much research needed to bring down costs significantly

10+ p

Energy Crops 100% +available, but research needed in some areas

2.5 - 4



cost in 2020

On Shore Wind


~ 2p


~2.5 - 3p

Hydro 5%technically mature, but limited potential

2.5 - 3p

Photovoltaic 50%available, but much research needed to bring down costs significantly

10+ p

Energy Crops 100% +available, but research needed in some areas

2.5 - 4

Tidal Barrages 10 - 20%technology available but unlikely without Government intervention

not costed

Geothermalunlikely for electricity generation before 2050 if then

Our Choices: They are difficult

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 unlikely

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? >>>>>>

Do 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 YES

By 2020

• we will be dependent on around 70% of our heating and electricity from GAS

• 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?

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.


A diverse supply of renewables across the country will provide security.

• A diverse renewable supply will be local

• less prone to cascade power cuts

• Conventional generation is based on large units: 500 – 660 MW

• Failure of one of these requires much greater backup

• Localised generation reduces transmission/distribution losses

BUT:

Aren’t Renewables unreliable? – we need secure supply

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

Powergen

Norwich Colour Print May

Gurney

EEDA

BPSSth Norfolk D. C.

The Broads Auth.The RSPB

SUSTRANS

Trail-blazing a new approache.g. renewables (wind)

• Major energy company and the CRed community

• Community involvement/ownership of electricity generation

• Community benefits – financial surplus for CRed community initiatives

• Data/observation transmitted directly to Schools

• Long-term relationship with Norfolk to significant local benefit (in areas of energy efficiency, biomass, etc)

View from approach from Earlham Road - Viewpoint 3

View from across Broad - Viewpoint 2

Emphasised turbines – from Broad

View from View point 1

View from Yare Valley Drive

Turbines will be off to left and unlikely to be visible

Reduction in CO2 emissions (yr-1)Each 1.5MW turbine:1800 tonnes (1000 balloons) – avge. mix of generation3900 tonnes (2167 balloons) – coal generation

Each turbine will provide electricity for 1000 homes (e.g. whole of Cringleford).

Or - both turbines would make UEA’s consumption of electricity carbon-neutral.

Each Turbine will save as much carbon dioxide as persuading 12500 people to drive 500 miles less each year.

Perception Survey done in June 2003 in Swaffham

77.5%

22.5%

In Favour

Opposed

Before construction of 1st Turbine

39%

1%

60%

More in FavourLess in FavourNo Change

After construction of Turbine

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

per

cen

tag

e

flickerNoiseVisualProperty DevaluedOtherEconomic

RenewableLess CarbonAttractiveTourismEnviromentalProgress

Against In Favour

Reasons for Choice

0102030405060708090

100

LocalArea

UrbanArea

LocalArea

UrbanArea

perc

enta

ge

Oppose

Not Oppose

Would you oppose further development in this area or an urban area?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ReducedBills

LocalProject

Other Either

Pe

rce

nta

ge

62% of people said they would be more in favour if the community were directly involved and had a direct benefit. The responses to different benefits are shown

above.

0102030405060708090

100

500-750 750-1000 1000-1250 TOWN

distance from turbine (m)

Per

cent

in f

avou

r

Swaffham - Attitudes to Wind Turbine with distance of house from turbine

A few houses on Colney Lane ~ 500m

Most houses in Cringleford are > 900m

Whilst the wind turbine is considered 'ugly' by some residents of Swaffham, most consider it a unique landmark and see it as an asset to the town. Most of the local population are proud of the turbine and it seems to have had a positive impact on the town in a number of

ways.

I do believe that were it not for the number of visitors to Swaffham, coming to see the turbine for whatever reason, we would not have such a high influx of buyers from out of the area. This has increased house prices,

and the prosperity of the area.

WEBSITE

www.cred-uk.org/

Wind turbines on the campus? Consultation meeting 4 by the CRed network of partners Trevor Davies...

Documents

Transcript of Wind turbines on the campus? Consultation meeting 4 by the CRed network of partners Trevor Davies...