Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Summary of the First C-MADEnS Project Workshop
15th January 2016, Weetwood Hall, Leeds
Andrew J. Pimm1a, Peter G. Taylora, Catherine S. E. Balea, Tim T. Cockerilla,
Yulong Dingb, Monica Giuliettic, Paul Jenningsd, Jonathan Radcliffeb and Paul
Uphama
aThe University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
bThe University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
cLoughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom
dThe University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
Introduction
The Consortium for Modelling and Analysis of Decentralised Energy Storage (C-
MADEnS) has been awarded ~£1.1m of EPSRC funding through the SUPERGEN
Energy Storage Challenge to undertake a three year research project into the role of
decentralised energy storage within cities, focusing on Leeds and Birmingham. The
project team comprises academics at the universities of Leeds, Birmingham,
Warwick and Loughborough, and a large number of non-academic partners (see
www.c-madens.org for further details).
This report provides a summary of the first C-MADEnS project workshop, held in
Leeds on 15 January 2016. The day was structured as follows:
Brief introduction to the project
The energy challenges facing cities
Opportunities and challenges for city-scale energy storage
Introduction to project work packages
Summary of breakout sessions and next steps
The full agenda and attendee list are given at the back of this document.
1 Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]. Tel.: +44 (0)113 343 7557
2
The Energy Challenges Facing Cities
Leeds: Energy Storage Opportunities & Use Cases
Tom Knowland, Leeds City Council (LCC)
A feasibility study is being undertaken on a district heating scheme within Leeds,
which would take heat from Veolia’s new waste incinerator 2km south-east of Leeds
city centre (the largest wooden building in Europe), into the city. The private sector is
pushing for a heat network because there is an investment opportunity: LCC can
guarantee high demand for at least the next 20 years. Currently the only district
heating scheme in Leeds links the University of Leeds campus and Leeds General
Infirmary (from a ~20MW CHP plant). Now is very much the time to be considering
implementing heat storage within the heat network.
All fleets of council-owned vehicles will soon be electric. How can storage best be
utilised for transport applications such as these? Tom said that Leeds already has 12
refuse trucks running on biomethane, but Hydrogen is an alternative energy carrier
that could potentially be used in standalone (non-transport) applications.
There is a lack of formal national plans for storage, a lack of expertise within the
council, and low amounts of money to invest. However, LCC sees the importance of
developing cost-effective new strategies to decarbonise the city. The business case
for storage will depend very much on the policy that is put in place.
The council owns a lot of land and property (approximately a third of land in the city
is council-owned), and are keen to realise the commercial value of small parcels of
land in their ownership. These could be used for various energy-related purposes;
houses and buildings could implement smart meters and demand side response
behaviour (if financial incentives exist), for example. Tom encouraged developers
and researchers interested in using council-owned land for energy storage projects
to get in contact.
Energy storage could unlock the potential for community solar schemes within Leeds
by increasing the amount of solar energy that is consumed locally. LCC owns 50,000
homes, 1,000 of which have solar PV on the roof. Electricity storage could also be
used to support solar PV arrays at new park & ride sites, such as the Temple Green
Park & Ride being constructed at J45 of the M1.
Leeds has a big push on smart and open data, however no data on the energy
demand of each building in Leeds currently exists. However, Tom noted that demand
will have to be computed before any realistic simulation on Leeds can be run. Within
the C-MADEnS project, this will be accomplished through WP1 (modelling).
3
Birmingham’s Energy Challenges
Richard Rees, Birmingham City Council (BCC)
With a population of 1.1m living within 410,000 households, Birmingham is the UK’s
second largest city, and it has ambitions to become “a leading green city with a
sustainable green growth economy”. In so doing, BCC is aiming to reduce total CO2
emissions by 60% by 2027 against a 1990 baseline.
Population growth is expected to be 150,000 people over 2011-2031, reaching a
total of 1.22m. This will also mean 80,000 more homes and 100,000 extra jobs.
Significant regeneration is expected in several areas, including Paradise / HS2 /
Smithfield / Snow Hill / IPL / Langley Extension, amounting to over £2bn in
investment in the city centre alone. Now is therefore a good time to implement smart
solutions while the developments are being planned and constructed.
The total spend on energy in Birmingham is approximately £1.5-2bn per year. Most
of this energy is imported. In 2012, domestic energy use in Birmingham was 7,237
GWh, and commercial/industrial energy use was 5,927 GWh. 19% of residents live
in fuel poverty, the 2nd highest of all cities in England.
Birmingham District Energy Company is an energy services company (ESCO) led by
Engie since 2006. It has had £12m of investment and it runs a district heating
network in Birmingham city centre with six “energy centres”, 4 km of pipework, 56
MW of heating capacity and 12 MW of cooling capacity.
Birmingham also has the Severn Trent biomethane gas to grid system, comprising
16 anaerobic digestion plants, and Tyseley Energy Park, comprising a 25 MW
energy-from-waste plant and a 10.2 MW biomass gasification plant.
In 2016/17 a feasibility study will be carried out on the proposed Tyseley Heat
Network, taking various energy supply sources (including from an incinerator) in the
Tyseley area, 6 km from the city centre, and distributing the heat towards the city
centre, the airport, and the NEC. A waste contract due in 2019 also offers new
opportunities. The feasibility study and strategy development potentially offer a live
opportunity to the C-MADEnS project.
Looking forward, Birmingham has four energy priorities:
1) Develop a city strategy and long term vision with partners.
2) Develop evidence bases, feasibility and business cases for large heat
networks and recharging and refuelling infrastructure.
3) Develop capacity/delivery functions, including role, scope and scale.
4) Capture opportunities, and influence through procurement and planning
processes (waste contract, city growth and planning).
Richard highlighted several challenges that could be addressed by C-MADEnS:
consider the effects of decreasing, or even zero, subsidies for clean power.
4
look at future cities with multiple generation sources and various different
scales of consumer.
identify the storage technology options, scale for delivery, and how to embed
these options into live projects.
examine who will benefit from energy storage of different types, scales and
installations, and look at the wider socioeconomic impacts.
assess the role of local authorities as an enabler in policy (including
procurement, waste, housing, planning, and interaction with national policy),
and the potential opportunity presented by devolution of powers to cities.
Opportunities and Challenges for City-Scale Energy
Storage
Urban Energy and Storage
Ben Watts, ENGIE
ENGIE has a presence in close to 70 countries, employing over 150,000 staff and
having €75bn in annual revenues. It is the number one independent producer of
power in the world, with over 115 GW of installed capacity, and 22% of the group’s
power capacity comes from renewable sources including hydro, wind, solar, biomass
and biogas. It is the number one distributor of natural gas in Europe, the number one
vendor of gas storage capacity in Europe with a 1,296 TWh supply portfolio (120bn
m3), and the number one importer of LNG in Europe. Furthermore it is the number
one supplier of energy efficiency services in the world, runs 230 district heating and
cooling networks in 12 countries, and manages 140m m2 of space in the tertiary
sector. ENGIE is well-established in the UK, employing over 20,000 staff.
Within the UK, ENGIE operates nine district energy schemes, including in London
(inc. Olympic Park and Stratford Westfield), Birmingham (inc. New Street station),
Coventry, Leicester, and Southampton. The Southampton Geothermal Heating
Company is a city-wide district energy scheme generating over 70 GWh of energy
per year and reducing CO2 emissions by 11,000 tonnes per year. With 10 MW of
gas-fired CHP plant and 2.5 MW of geothermal power, it provides hot water, chilled
water, and electricity to over 45 commercial customers and over 800 residential
customers.
Implementation of energy storage can increase the efficiency of district energy
schemes. Coventry already has a thermal accumulator for its district heating
scheme, which is effectively a large cylindrical water tank employing a thermocline
as a means of reducing exergy destruction.
5
Coventry Thermal Accumulator
After his presentation, Ben was questioned about how much ENGIE consider district
cooling, and he said that the gains from district cooling within the UK are not as great
as those from district heating.
Liquid Air Energy Storage at City Scale
Emma Gibson, Highview Power Storage
Highview is a designer and developer of utility-scale energy storage and power
systems that use liquefied air as the storage medium. It has been active since 2005
and has secured more than £26m of private and public funding. It ran a
350kW/2.5MWh pilot plant hosted by SSE at a biomass plant in Slough, which was
fully integrated into the local distribution network and operated from April 2010 to
November 2014. The plant has since been moved to the University of Birmingham’s
Centre for Cryogenic Energy Storage for use in research.
A standalone LAES plant has a round-trip efficiency of approximately 60%, and
incorporates a hot thermal store and a high grade cold store. Integration with plants
normally emitting waste heat (e.g. incinerators) can raise the effective round-trip
efficiency to around 70%, and integration with plants with waste heat and cold (such
as LNG regasification facilities) can further raise the effective round-trip efficiency to
as high as 100%.
LAES uses existing mature components with proven performance, cost and life (in
excess of 25 years), and it is suitable for large stores >20MWh in storage capacity. It
also has the benefit of not being restricted by geography. Economics improve with
scale: a 50MW/200MWh plant costs <£1,000/kW and <£250/kWh, while a
200MW/1.2GWh plant costs <£900/kW and <£150/kWh. The system is ready for
deployment now.
6
A 5MW Highview LAES plant has been constructed at Viridor’s landfill gas
generation plant near Manchester. Highview was awarded >£8m of DECC funding
for this through the ‘Energy Storage Technology Demonstration Competition’. The
LAES plant will use waste heat from the landfill gas engines and ultimately use it in
the LAES discharge process. The LAES power recovery process has already been
tested at this plant, which is due to go live soon and which will be piloted for one
year. The system comprises ~150 tonnes of liquid nitrogen storage capacity (around
3 hours) and 5MW of turbine capacity, which will use waste heat from the landfill gas
engines to enhance the liquid nitrogen to power conversion efficiency. The plant will
operate for at least one year, in which tests will be carried out including STOR,
peaking, triad avoidance, and testing for the PJM regulation market (in the USA).
In recent years Highview has signed two licence agreements, one with GE Oil & Gas
to integrate LAES technology with its simple cycle peaker plants, and one with clean
coal technology specialists Advanced Emissions Solutions of Colorado, for grid-
connected LAES non-peaker plant in North America.
As well as learning from the Manchester demonstration plant and growing the
business through a larger scale (15-20 MW) demonstration, by supporting existing
licensees, and by getting licensees in new territories, Highview are looking towards
market reform which will enhance the value of storage.
Energy Superstore
Jonathan Radcliffe, The University of Birmingham
Energy Superstore is the name of the Supergen Energy Storage Hub, a £3.9m five-
year EPSRC-funded hub “to set the direction and development of research and
technologies in energy storage”. The hub is led by Professor Peter Bruce at the
University of Oxford, working alongside academics at the universities of Bath,
Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial, Southampton, and Warwick. The hub will address
a number of key issues facing the sector by doing the following:
1. Demonstrate and enhance the role of energy storage research in the UK
energy landscape, taking a whole systems approach.
2. Support areas of UK strength and national importance.
3. Champion energy storage research.
4. Engage and inform Government, NGOs and learned societies.
It has nine work packages, broken into six technology-specific WPs and three cross-
cutting WPs. Alongside these, the hub is developing a National Roadmap for Energy
Storage, thus setting the agenda for energy storage research in the UK and
developing a shared vision for energy storage innovation in the UK.
Wider research council support for energy storage currently exists in the form of:
Two Energy Storage Grand Challenge projects totalling £8.6m
7
Seven Energy Storage Challenge projects totalling £7.4m
Five capital grants totalling £30m
Five UK-China grid-scale storage projects totalling £5m
Five UK-India smart grid and storage projects totalling £4.9m
The Supergen Energy Storage Challenge II call is out now. Responsive mode grants
are also given.
8
Breakout Sessions
Modelling
In the modelling session, 5 broad questions were asked, and the responses to each
question are summarised here.
What would be useful outcomes from the modelling and validation?
It was pointed out that if local authorities are to have a greater role in energy
networks, modelling could provide an evidence base to support land-use allocations.
One participant asked which side of the meter energy storage devices will/should sit,
and noted that this should be recognised in the modelling. The potential of electric
vehicle batteries to be repurposed as second-life batteries should be investigated, as
should the locations of electric vehicles during the day and night (as they will tend to
surround industrial and commercial premises during the day, and surround dwellings
during the evening and night).
It is important to understand the impacts of storage on disruption (e.g. to traffic, etc.)
and fuel poverty (including health and other social impacts). We should consider
appliance usage (including growth in use of certain appliances, and introduction of
demand-side response behaviour).
The role of storage in alleviating distribution network constraints should be
investigated. We should also seek to understand what scales of storage are
appropriate to minimise cost to the UK and to maximise local value, with “scale”
including physical size, storage duration, and location (which will vary by feeder). We
should also investigate the trade-off between the value and cost of local load
balancing, and consider the practicalities of domestic electricity storage.
An important point, that was raised several times, was that when concentrating on
storage within a smaller area and at smaller scales, we should also consider the
effects on the whole system.
We should investigate the concept of converting electricity to heat and then storing
the heat, investigate what materials should be used for heat storage
(sensible/latent), whether heat storage can be integrated into the fabric of buildings,
and look at the impacts of lower temperatures in heating systems, and whether
storage is still useful.
Finally, we should look at the effects of long periods with low renewable resource,
and consider scenarios with certain levels of generation from nuclear, wind and solar
power, certain penetrations of storage and DSR, and certain interconnection
capacities.
9
Which technologies should we consider?
A common theme among the discussions around this question was the importance
of taking a technology-neutral approach. Outputs from the RESTLESS project
between UCL and Nottingham will be useful for C-MADEnS as it is developing
technology-neutral performance metrics for energy storage systems and finding
performance figures for each energy storage technology. People mentioned that not
only is cost and efficiency important, but so is the carbon emissions associated with
the manufacture or use of the storage. Choice of technologies is scale dependent,
and also depends upon whether they are supply side or demand side.
There was much discussion over whether we should consider electricity and
heat/cold storage. It was generally felt that ideally we should look at both, but a
simple approach would be to start off by considering just one. It should be possible
to get good results by just covering electricity and heat independently, though future
electrification of heat and transport should be considered.
We should take account of degradation mechanisms in the storage technologies,
and look at cutting edge technologies (such as phase change materials for heat
storage).
What city-scale usage/deployment scenarios should we model?
The following questions and points were raised here:
What if there is a battery (or other type of storage device) in every new home? Who
would operate the batteries… an individual / aggregator / DNO / someone else?
Does operation of storage in a city only affect the city, or does it affect nearby areas?
What does the interaction look like?
What about storage in transport (public / individual / fleets) and the cold chain?
What about hydrogen storage?
What usage/deployment scenarios should drive the technology validation?
Solar PV and solar thermal installation on houses should be considered, as should
use of batteries for vehicle to grid (V2G) and vehicle to home (V2H) applications.
Replacement of storage heaters for flats with units that incorporate ‘smart’
technology is a possibility.
We should look at the potential for storage to defer upgrades to the distribution grid,
and compare storage with demand response. Some international benchmarking has
already been carried out, which we should use.
We should look at sizing of storage and the inverter for discrete domestic battery
storage, and consider how the uptake and size of microgeneration units might
10
change with the uptake of storage, particularly post FiTs (e.g. will the average area
of solar PV installations reduce?). Also, it is important to understand how battery
temperatures change during charge/discharge, and how this will affect energy use
within the home.
Finally, we should trade-off the pros and cons of having a few large storage systems
within a city, or having a higher number of small systems.
What data is available?
Data is already available from various pilot projects, including LCNF projects such as
SSE’s Orkney Energy Storage Park and battery in Shetland, UKPN’s Leighton
Buzzard project (Smarter Network Storage), and SSEPD’s New Thames Valley
Vision project.
An energy storage testbed exists in Newcastle. There was also mention of the
capital funding for energy storage facilities as part of the Government’s investment in
eight great technologies.
Northern Powergrid have data on 30-minute industrial demand, substation loads,
and a LCN battery project.
Storage modelling has been carried out by Goran Strbac and his group at Imperial,
and demand modelling has been carried out by Thomson, Richardson and McKenna
at Loughborough, and Good and Mancarella at Manchester.
Leeds City Council have carried out work on housing quality and characteristics, and
the Leeds Data Mill website includes corporate energy consumption and vehicle fuel
consumption.
Arup have a virtual model of Leeds city centre.
There was also mention of the Birmingham pilot plant, Highview’s LAES
demonstration plant in Manchester, other DECC energy storage demonstrations, the
database of energy storage figures being generated in the RESTLESS project, Met
Office data, and the open database site Open Energy Modelling Initiative (OpenMod)
website.
Ofgem have smart metering data for over 14k households collected from Jan 2008 to
Sep 2010 through the Energy Demand Research Project (EDRP) conducted by UCL.
The UKERC research atlas could be useful.
An Enterprise level report with Sainsbury’s found savings of 28% at the Shipley site.
DS20/30 also through Ofgem looks at the potential effects of microgeneration on the
distribution network in 2030.
11
Northern Gas Networks might have data on gas distribution available. They see
massive interseasonal swings in gas demand.
George at Leeds City Council has half-hourly data.
Dave Stone at the University of Sheffield might be worth contacting.
Project ERIC, conducted by Oxford-Brookes University, is looking at the effects of
domestic storage on the local energy system. The researchers are monitoring
household demand and substation loads. Robin Morris works on Project ERIC.
Robin Morris also mentioned Project SWELL (Shrivenham, Watchfield and Longcot),
investigating smart use of storage heaters. They have survey data on the equipment
in each house available, as well as demand data.
Technology Validation
The discussions around the technology validation work package were very
stimulating and fruitful. One of the main questions asked of participants was “What
usage/deployment scenarios should drive the storage technology validation?”
Several people pointed out the need to carry out validation in houses with solar PV
and solar thermal installations. Vehicle to grid (V2G) and vehicle to home (V2H)
were also highlighted as being worth considering.
Participants mentioned that replacement or upgrading of electric storage heaters for
flats with smart technology is important. The pros and cons of storage should also be
compared with those of demand response, and bulk energy storage should be
compared with other grid management methods. The effects of avoiding expansion
and upgrading of the distribution grid should be considered.
One person suggested using international benchmarking that has already been
carried out. Sizing of storage and inverter for discrete domestic battery storage was
highlighted as being important, along with battery temperature during charge and
discharge. What does microgeneration size look like with storage post-FiT? It was
felt that PV installations may slow or become smaller. What does the optimal
distribution of storage look like with a city? Should there be a few large systems, or
many smaller systems?
12
Policy and Regulation
General points were made about defining what we mean by energy storage – clarify
the scale (which could include consumer batteries) and type (fossil fuel could be
included if it’s a general description).2 We also need to understand the objectives of
deploying energy storage into a local system – what is it there to achieve and how do
we distinguish energy storage from the wider energy system?
It was noted that LAs do not have powers to drive energy policy per se, but how it is
used can have an impact on their mandate. This note sets out: (i) which policies
energy storage could have an effect on, or be affected by, that do come under LA
control; (ii) the policy tools that LAs have that could enable the deployment; (iii) the
processes through which changes could be made.
Overarching policy objectives
Local authority policies relevant to the deployment of energy storage, as part of a
local energy system, include:
Health & Social welfare: improving lives of those in social housing, and in fuel
poverty in particular
Prosperity: attracting investment from business by supporting the development of
new technologies and demonstrating their application
Environmental: air quality – clean zones to reduce emissions of particulates in cities;
climate change goals of cities to meet CO2 targets
Efficiency: lowering Councils’ costs by saving money through more efficient delivery
of services, and own costs
Resilience/security: increasing energy security of the region, avoiding reliance on
imports, but that could lead to a tension with national policy priorities
Policy tools available
Two key policies allow LAs to have some influence over energy systems which could
help energy storage, planning, and management of their estate and procurement:
Planning can help determine the type of energy system built, in which energy
storage could play a role. Issues to consider include:
Objectives are set from Master planning and local development plans
2 My response: we are looking at stores of 1kWh+ (HW cylinder could be from 5kWh)
connected to a network, in the building or local area; we are concerned with storage
of secondary energy, i.e. after it has been converted from primary energy of
coal/gas/wind/fissionable material, etc.
13
Local planning needs coherence with national planning policy to reduce risk of
appeals
Enforcement, including of standards
Planning decisions need integration with building standards
Using permitted development rights for wider good
LAs have significant estate under their management, and procure goods and
services which can provide a market for new technologies. Issues to consider
include:
Coordination across governance structures is needed to access opportunities
Ownership of land and infrastructure can provide environment for test bed and
demonstration
Evaluation models to show how innovation can lead to better outcomes
Dependent on appetite of the LA to take on risk
How to do it
Ways in which change could happen, or can be facilitated:
Advocacy coalitions that enable policy change – co-benefits (Sabatier), find
beneficiaries
Describing what information is required
Understanding coevolution of technology and policy
Take advantage of destabilising factors
State rights and obligations of DNOs; questions on regulation of assets
Policy champions as change agents, policy entrepreneurs
Market-based instruments to incentivise policy change (mimicry)
Policy windows (Kingdon’s agenda setting theory)
There is a mismatch of LA and power/gas network boundaries which can
complicate matters
Devolution of winter fuel payments in future
Business Models
The objective of the breakout session on business models was to identify the factors
which were seen by local authorities and private investors as the main obstacles to
the development of commercially viable and sustainable business models for city
level energy storage.
The questions addressed in the discussion were:
Are there trade-offs between different revenue streams?
What the areas for successful public-private collaboration?
14
Are there national energy policy barrier to the development of successful
business models?
Because the discussion moved rather seamlessly between the three questions this
summary will present the main areas covered in the participants’ feedback and
comments without linking them to a specific question
One of the main challenges to the successful deployment of city level energy
systems was identified as the fact that different streams of ‘benefits’ (as opposed to
revenue) might have different owners and that actions might need to in order
coordinate the strategic decisions of different owners so that all the potential benefits
are identified and successfully exploited by the organisations involved in the
development and management of local energy systems. The identification of suitable
contractual arrangements would be a way of creating the conditions for exploitation
of the full set of private and social benefits.
Related to the previous point, subsequent discussion focussed on the fact that
typically project assessment and evaluations tend to consider mainly financial
factors, but the research work on business models should go beyond these to
consider other sources of value from storage activities, such as the ones associated
with environmental and social issues, particularly related to the objective of reducing
fuel poverty. It was however recognised that a monetary estimate of such values will
be difficult to achieve. Another element that is not often brought into the discussion
nor fully accounted for is the avoided cost of network upgrades, a cost element
which can be assessed and potentially captured by the relevant DNOs.
Some participants also highlighted the fact that different technologies need to be
treated differently in terms of the potential sources of revenue they can tap into,
particularly with respect to the provision of energy and flexibility services, as the
trade-offs between them can be different.
It was also recognised that local authorities have better expertise at the planning and
building regulation stages, while technical skills are more readily available in private
companies but there would be opportunities for cross fertilisation through
collaboration.
Among the potential areas of research relating to the nature of contractual relations
members of the audience mentioned the need for long term contract for third party
access to local energy system.
Grid level charges and the ‘double charging’ of storage plant when accessing the
grid were identified as areas of national energy policy that will have to be addressed
in order to promote the development of investment in this area. The key role of
Ofgem in delivering subsidies to support innovation in technology was recognised
considered a key success factor in the recent energy policy which might be subject
to changes. However it was recognised that financial support for innovation might not
15
always be of value for city scale developments unless they are used for
demonstration of unproven technologies.
Another potential source of regulatory change in the near future is the possibility that
business rates will be devolved to local authorities. This issue was mentioned but not
fully developed in the discussion due to the current uncertainty about the terms of
this type of devolution of powers.
Public Perception
The purpose of the discussion session on public perceptions was to: look for
possible case studies, identify data that could be used as prompt material in the
questionnaire and focus groups, and to note possible public perception issues to
explore through the research.
The following issues are roughly organised according to key socio-psychological
variables. They may be used as part of scenario narratives and/or question framing
in the data collection. They are not comprehensive, but rather those raised during
discussion. Many may have positive or negative dimensions.
Likely sample split dimensions
Scale (500 home, 500 neighbourhood)
Technology (2 types, 250 each)
Variables
Perceived control
o User interface
o Automation
o Ownership
Perceived utility and benefit
o Use for park and ride
o Use for public transport
o Use to address fuel poverty
o Use for electric vehicles
o Nuisance and loss of amenity (during installation; disruption of place
attachment; adverse aesthetics)
o Effect on council tax
o Effect on energy cost to consumer
16
Trust
o A function of knowledge
Distribution of benefits
o To commerce
o Employment
o To self & kin
o To stigmatised groups
Knowledge and familiarity
o Knowledge or experience companies involved
o Knowledge or experience of technologies involved
Perceived risk
Political ideology and socio/ecological orientation
Demographics & lifestyle
Through the focus group it was highlighted that we should explore alternative
framings, justifications and scenarios as well as some of the above.
In addition, possible case study sites and communities were suggested for the focus
groups. Visual, audio, technical, cost and performance data were offered for the
questionnaires and focus groups material via the stakeholder group.
17
Appendix A
Definitions and Scope
Various questions arose at the project workshop regarding the project scope and
definitions of some terms that are used in the project description. These are
addressed here.
Which technologies might we consider?
Some attendees questioned exactly which technologies we would be considering,
mentioning that storage in the form of batteries within portable electronic devices are
already ubiquitous, and that coal is a very good energy store.
In the case of electricity storage, the project team will consider methods of storing
electricity that can feasibly be built in configurations which can start producing
electric power in excess of 1 kW for at least 1 hour from within 24 hours of being
empty.
In the case of heat storage, the project team will consider methods of storing heat
that can be built in configurations which could feasibly reside within cities.
These are initial categorisations that may evolve as the project develops. The
research will evaluate energy storage technologies based not only on cost and
efficiency but also carbon emissions, and potential future carbon taxes.
Define the following terms: “decentralised”, “city-scale”.
“Decentralised storage”:
Energy storage capacity which comprises numerous small-scale units
distributed around the country and, for electricity storage, connected to the
low voltage distribution network. Contrast this with centralised storage, which
means a small number of large-scale units in the country, and likely connected to the
transmission network in the case of electricity storage. Decentralised and centralised
systems can certainly exist alongside each other, and indeed a mix of distributed
small-scale units and a smaller number of large-scale units is likely to emerge, in a
similar way that the renewable energy landscape now comprises a mix of large units
(e.g. nuclear plant, hydro plant, and wind/solar parks) sited in optimal locations, and
a larger number of smaller units (e.g. rooftop-mounted and farm-based solar panels
and wind turbines, and farm-based hydro units). Some would argue that small
storage units are not as cost-effective as larger bulk storage units (compare the
costs per unit of storage capacity of batteries with CAES and pumped hydro),
however small units require less investment capital, are more likely to be accepted
and useful within urban areas, and are more likely to be adopted by DNOs,
businesses and homeowners.
18
“City-scale storage”:
Storage technologies having characteristics (including, but not limited to,
physical size) that make their installation within a city worth considering. By
way of example, pumped hydro is highly unlikely to be considered for city-scale
storage as it requires significant height differences between the upper and lower
reservoirs to be economical, which are unlikely to be found in any UK cities at least.
Similarly, underground CAES would not be considered as the planning and health
and safety issues associated with installing and operating high pressure air storage
units (e.g. caverns or tanks) under a city or its suburbs would be considerable. In
several cases, including pumped hydro and CAES, the technologies are most
economical at large scales.
Consortium for Modelling and Analysis of Decentralised Energy
Storage (C-MADEnS)
Project Workshop
15 January 2016, Weetwood Hall Hotel, Leeds
09:30–10:00 Registration with refreshments
10:00–10.20 Introduction to project, Peter Taylor, University of Leeds
10:20–11:15 The energy challenges facing cities
Leeds Perspective, Tom Knowland, Leeds City Council
Birmingham Perspective, Richard Rees, Birmingham City Council
Discussion
11:15–12:30 Opportunities and challenges for city-scale energy storage
Ben Watts, Cofely
Emma Gibson, Highview Power Storage
Jonathan Radcliffe, University of Birmingham
Discussion
12:30–13:30 Lunch
13:30–14:00 Introduction to project work packages, Work Package Leaders
14:00–15:30 Breakout sessions to discuss work packages
Sessions on Technology validation, Energy storage modelling
Policy and regulation, Business models and Public perception
15:30–16:00 Summary of breakout sessions and next steps
16:00 Close
C-MADEnS Project Workshop, 15 January 2016
Attendee List
Alessandro Balata University of Leeds
Catherine Bale University of Leeds
Giorgio Castagneto-Gissey University College London
Tim Cockerill University of Leeds
Giuseppe Colantuono University of Leeds
Richard Cooper Tata Steel
Penny Cunningham University of Leeds
Lloyd Davies University of Leeds
Yulong Ding University of Birmingham
Phil Eames Loughborough University
Jacqueline Edge Imperial College
Gideon Evans SSEPD
Emma Gibson Highview Power Storage
Monica Giulietti Loughborough University
Nicholas Good University of Manchester
Glenn Goodall EPSRC
Chris Goodhand Northern Power Grid
Sanghyun Hong University of Birmingham
Paul Jennings University of Warwick
Tom Knowland Leeds City Council
Andrew MacDonell EPSRC
Keith MacLean Energy Research Partnership
Pat Maughan Hubbard Products
Robin Morris Moixa Technology
Solmaz Moshiri EDF
Jan Palczewski University of Leeds
Andrew Pimm University of Leeds
Jonathan Radcliffe University of Birmingham
Richard Rees Birmingham City Council
Steve Saunders Arup
Peter Taylor University of Leeds
Kotub Uddin University of Warwick
Paul Upham University of Leeds
Ben Watts Cofely
Neil Whalley Northern Gas Networks
Grant Wilson University of Sheffield