Results: Searching for 'Energy Generation Plants'

• D3.3: Parameterised sub-system models
• D3.4: Model requirements and specifications and modelling strategy
• D3.5: Model and sub-model user documentation

• T6 denotes dedicated biomass oxy-firing combustion
• T7 Biomass combustion, with CO₂ capture by post-combustion carbonate looping
• T8 Dedicated biomass chemical-looping-combustion using a solid oxygen carrier

This report explores ways of enhancing the resilience of the UK energy system to withstand external shocks and examines how such measures interact with those designed to reduce CO2 emissions. The concept of resilience explored and a set of indicators is developed to define quantitatively the characteristics of a resilient energy system. In the report we systematically test the response of the UK energy system under different scenarios to hypothetical shocks. These are all assumed to involve the loss of gas infrastructure. We then assess mitigating measures which can help to reduce the impact of these shocks and test their cost effectiveness using an insurance analogy.

A briefing paper Dr Christophe McGlade and Professor Paul Ekins, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources and UCL Energy Institute, University College London; Professor Michael Bradshaw, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick; and Professor Jim Watson, UK Energy Research Centre.

The research on which this brief paper draws was carried out by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). The views expressed are those of the authors, rather than of any institution to which they may be affiliated.

Two recently published reports (McGlade & Ekins (2015), McGladeet al.(2014)) examine possible futures for fossil fuels, with a particular focus on the bridging role that natural gas may be able to play during a transition to a global low-carbon energy system. A related report (Bradshawet al.2014) considers the UKs global gas c

• Power Plant Siting Study (PPSS) -delivered for the ETI by Atkins
• System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear Technologies (ANT) - deliveredfor the ETI by Mott MacDonald with technical support from Rolls-Royce
• In-house ETI energy system modelling and analysis incorporating the learning from the PPSS and ANT projects

• Low cost heat networks
• The use of syn-gas generated from EfW technologies to create fuels / chemicals 
• The use of pyrolysis to create transport fuels 
• The injection of bio-gas and syn-gas from EfW technologies into the gas grid 
• The injection of bio-gas and syn-gas from EfW technologies into the gas grid with CCS

• Applying forecast values for low to high waste availability and conversion efficiencies, the amount of useful energy from waste (both heat and power) which may be generated ranges from 5 to 230TWhrs.
• Projected achievable electrical generation is approximately 25TWhrs per year
• This equates to between 5% and 8% of the UK?s electricity demand
• For each of the technology and waste arisings scenarios, the deployment of advanced energy from waste technologies is projected to contribute to a net decrease in UK CO₂e emissions of between 5 and 10 MTCO₂e/year at midpoint technology conversion and waste arisings scenarios
• Greater emissions reductions are associated with high total conversion efficiency technologies, both to electricity and from utilising heat.

• The Technology Evaluation Criteria to allow the technologies assessed within the project to be compared;
• The financial modelling approach and key assumptions for the calculation of the benefits; and
• The definition of the existing market and baseline technologies to compare against the proposed optimisation and improvements.

• A - Summary of Work Packages
• D - Modelling user manual for WP4
• E - Task 4.1 Project framework deliverable
• F - Technology development opportunities for EfW
• G - Pre-treatment and gas cleaning
• H - Summary of technology readiness for use with wastes

• Biogas cleaning and compression (for gas grid or vehicle use) for Medium Scale AD plant applications generating around 300kW and 1500 kW of biogas (Type 2) applications
• Multi-stage AD plant for Type 2 applications
• Thermo-chemical pre-treatment of wastes to increase biodegradability of feedstock
• Single stageAD plant for dairy farms (Type 3)

• Single stage AD technology is relatively inefficient with respect to semi-solid waste, but will continue to be applied, with some modification, as it provides greater flexibility when feedstocks are prone to change from season to season or even daily.
• Multi-phase AD provides greater energy yield, but is relatively more costly (tankage, quality of digestate, high level of control etc).
• Pre-hydrolysis involving the use of chemicals or enzymes may prove too costly (the digestate will require different handling) to reach financial viability, but it will be important to keep abreast of the development with second and third generation biofuels, which look more promising.
• Hydrolysis of the hemicellulose and cellulose fractions of ligno-cellulosic materials is still at the development stage, although there are plans for demonstrations in the EU and USA. It is not clear whether this should be a priority for the UK at present, since the same feedstock could potentially be used in more efficient thermal processes such as gasification and pyrolysis.

1. The opportunity for Energy from Waste in the UK
2. Makes recommendations regarding Technology Development Opportunities needed to take advantage of the opportunities identified.

• WP1: UK Waste arisings
• WP2: Technology Assessment
• WP3: System Modelling

• Distributed scale advanced thermal integrated systems for wastes
• Cost effective gasification gas clean-up, in accordance with a system solution
• Low cost, high efficiency distributed scale integrated AD systems
• Integrated distributed energy from waste facilities incorporating: thermal and AD technologies to maximise resource efficiency.

• Options for hydrogen production
• Techno-economic definition of the selected hydrogen production options
• Characterisation of basic design requirements for a cost effective hydrogen store
• Requirements / options for hydrogen turbines
• Economics of hydrogen pipelines
• Effects of hydrogen purity

• Identification of potential salt cavern locationswithin UK and first 25 miles of UK Continental Shelf;
• Salt cavern cost structure;
• HSE challenges of cavern construction and operation;
• Managing loss of containment;
• Licensing and build timeline;
• Alternative cavern use; and
• Landscapingstudy of alternatives to salt caverns.

UKERC co-hosted a meeting last month with DECC and ETI to seek input and feedback on plans for the 300 million in heat network capital expenditures announced in the government's Spending Review.Amber Sharick, UKERC Business Engagement Manager, andJan Webb, UKERC Researcher & Professor of Sociology of Organisations, University of Edinburgh, report on the discussions.

• Introduction to ETI and ESME, ETI’s modelling tool integrating power, heat, transport and infrastructure providing national / regional system designs
• Energy System Scenarios
• Offshore Wind
• Water Depth
• Wind Resource and Water Depth Compared
• Offshore Wind Turbines
• What do we use for Offshore Wind today?
• Foundation Types
• Floating Wind
  • Tension Leg Platform
  • Engineering Design
  • Cost Study - CAPEX
  • LCoE Forecast
• Conclusions
  • Offshore Wind has a significant role to play in the UK 2050 energy mix
  • With a range of Fixed and Floating foundations, UK can optimise the offshorefleet LCoE
  • Floating Wind has potential to deliver costs at less than £85/MWh from mid-2020s, and further significant cost reduction afterwards
  • Further Work
    • Demonstration at full-scale
    • Geographical distribution and cost optimisation
    • Establish cost of energy potential for other floating technologies

• A series of tests will be conducted with one turbine located in a fixed position whilst the second turbine is moved longitudinally and laterally throughout the frame of the test platform.
• The tidal turbines fabricated for this project are 1.2 metre diameter (1:10th scale) and are being assembled by Ocean Flow Energy.
• A test platform is being constructed by Wave Barrier Ltd and this will provide the frame to which the turbines and survey instruments will be attached to.
• Following this deliverable, the test rig will be constructed and assembled with rotors, then installed in the EDF flume and calibrated

• Large Gas Turbines – prevalence and role in UK power
• Additional plant to add post combustion Carbon Capture and Storage
• Cost, scale and promoting industrial emissions capture
• Performance requirements as renewables increase - 2030
• Alternative oxy –fired and pre-combustion options

• Introduction
• Project Objectives
• Approach:
  • Overall
  • Designated Ecological Sites
  • Large Units
  • Small Units
  • Total Potential Capacity
• Conclusions:
  • Total Potential Capacity
  • Heat Networks Once Over
  • Dominant Criteria for Large Units
  • Satisfying Heat Networks
  • Progress Towards Operating Plants
• CCS and Nuclear
• Other Opportunities
• Technology Demonstrators

• indicate the capacity of nuclear power likely to be generated from anticipated Gen III+ nuclear plant designs developed at existing nuclear sites, anticipated thermal power station brownfield sites, and new greenfield sites;
• indicate the number of sites likely to be suitable for CCS and identify where there is likely to be a conflict of sites suitable for both technologies (CCS and nuclear);
• identify the individual siting constraints which have greatest impact on the three nuclear expansion scenarios identified;
• through a range of sensitivity studies, identify potential changes in site selection criteria which would be necessary to deliver sufficient sites for the nuclear expansion scenarios;
• make recommendations for the siting characteristics of alternative technologies to make good the shortfall from Gen III+ nuclear; these are expected to include a reduced requirement for cooling water;
• identify other issues, constraints or assumptions which may change over the next 35 years to make more sites available for Gen III+ nuclear capacity; and
• identify preferred locations for nuclear power technology demonstrator sites.

• Introduction to ETI and ESME, ETI’s modelling tool
• Conclusions from published ETI insights – role for nuclear in a low carbon energy system
• Further ETI Projects Relevant To UK SMRs
• Key Elements Of A UK SMR Development Programme
• Developer And Vendor – Typical Relationship From UK GW Reactor New Build Projects
• Approach To The ETI’s SMR Deployment Enablers Project
• Work Breakdown Structure In SDE Analysis
• The Critical Path Of A 2030 Schedule
• Integrated Schedule Leading To FOAK Operations By 2030
• Enabling Activities In The First 5 Years
• Services Required From A UK SMR
• SMRs For CHP – Analysis Of Impact Of Module Size and Thermal Efficiency
• CHP – Comparison With Earlier Work and Impact On Internal Rate of Return
• Exploiting The Economies Of Multiples –UK GDA and Coping With Variants
• Comparison Of Potential Early SMR Sites Using Ranking Factors
• Conclusions - Preparing for deployment of a UK SMR by 2030
• Backup Slides
  • Priorities for the UK energy system
  • Market led Schedule – First Operations 2040?
  • Licensing Preparations From Around 2021
  • Work Breakdown Structure In Detail
  • Economic Impact Of Air Cooling Condensers –Electricity Only and CHP

The following submission is preceded by a tabled summary of the current state of energy research and development and deployment in the UK, technology by technology. This is used as the basis for commentary on the technology potential of:

• Wind
• Photovoltaics
• Hydrogen and fuel cells
• Marine renewables
• Bioenergy
• Groundsource heat pumps
• Microgeneration
• Intelligent grid management
• Energy storage Finally,

UKERC offers its views on the research funding landscape. Recommendations are highlighted in bold.

• the activities comprising the first five years of a development programme for the UK deployment of a Small Modular Reactor
• a timeline with milestones to accompany this programme definition
• the necessary capability of the SMR utility/developer organisation during this phase of a UK SMR development programme

1. Implementation of an First OfA Kind (FOAK) SMR is possible without facilitative action by Government
2. Pre-FID investor confidence is of critical importance for achieving the 2030 timeline
3. For an effective programme to achieve FOAK SMR deployment, significant Governmentcommitment and facilitative action is required from the outset
4. It is insufficient for the first 5 years of the deployment schedule to focus on just GDAand RegulatoryJustification
5. A strong and early marriage is required between developer / operator and vendor
6. The notion of a developer / operator / vendor ‘boot camp’ is proposed as a near-term risk mitigation activity
li>Deployment of a FOAK SMR in the UK is achievable by 2030underthe bounding scenario considered by this study
7. The scale of the recruitment challenge to establish a Nuclear Baseline should not be underestimated, with staged planning essential
8. Regulators will need tobe able to resource-up without adverse influence on current UK nuclear safety activity
9. A co-ordinated public communications plan is required, led by the prospective Licensee, supported by the vendor and facilitated by Government
10. Bounding assumptions were judged to be sound in the context of a deployment schedule leading to a UK FOAK SMR operating by 2030
11. The evidence gathered forms the basis of a toolkit which could be used to test or assess the feasibility of specific scenarios for SMR Deployment in the UK

The schedule for UK FOAK deployment operations would depend upon the associated assumptions. Such options may include:

• A risk-averse deployment plan which focusses on completion of GDA and Regulatory Justification to establish a credible design before commencing work on site specific aspects and developing a credible nuclear operator. This may suggest a schedule with risk of delay to FOAK first operation beyond 2030.
• A deployment plan for a less technology/design ready SMR. GDA would not commence until later in the schedule with possible plans to complete manufacturing and construction in a shorter timeframe.This may suggest a schedule with risk of delay to FOAK first operation beyond 2030.
• Assessment of developer / operators with different characteristics and different working arrangements and modes of engagement with the vendor. For example,a developer with a mature and capable licensee organisation which may suggest an opportunity for an accelerated deployment schedule.
• FOAK deployment at a site identified as potentially suitable for nuclear development in the Nuclear NPS.This may again suggest an opportunity for an accelerated deployment schedule

• the activities comprising the first five years of a development programme for the UK deployment of a Small Modular Reactor
• a timeline with milestones to accompany this programme definition
• the necessary capability of the SMR utility/developer organisation during this phase of a UK SMR development programme

• the activities comprising the first five years of a development programme for the UK deployment of a Small Modular Reactor
• a timeline with milestones to accompany this programme definition
• the necessary capability of the SMR utility/developer organisation during this phase of a UK SMR development programme

1. Implementation of an First OfA Kind (FOAK) SMR is possible without facilitative action by Government
2. Pre-FID investor confidence is of critical importance for achieving the 2030 timeline
3. For an effective programme to achieve FOAK SMR deployment, significant Governmentcommitment and facilitative action is required from the outset
4. It is insufficient for the first 5 years of the deployment schedule to focus on just GDAand RegulatoryJustification
5. A strong and early marriage is required between developer / operator and vendor
6. The notion of a developer / operator / vendor ‘boot camp’ is proposed as a near-term risk mitigation activity
li>Deployment of a FOAK SMR in the UK is achievable by 2030underthe bounding scenario considered by this study
7. The scale of the recruitment challenge to establish a Nuclear Baseline should not be underestimated, with staged planning essential
8. Regulators will need tobe able to resource-up without adverse influence on current UK nuclear safety activity
9. A co-ordinated public communications plan is required, led by the prospective Licensee, supported by the vendor and facilitated by Government
10. Bounding assumptions were judged to be sound in the context of a deployment schedule leading to a UK FOAK SMR operating by 2030
11. The evidence gathered forms the basis of a toolkit which could be used to test or assess the feasibility of specific scenarios for SMR Deployment in the UK

• A risk-averse deployment plan which focusses on completion of GDA and Regulatory Justification to establish a credible design before commencing work on site specific aspects and developing a credible nuclear operator. This may suggest a schedule with risk of delay to FOAK first operation beyond 2030.
• A deployment plan for a less technology/design ready SMR. GDA would not commence until later in the schedule with possible plans to complete manufacturing and construction in a shorter timeframe.This may suggest a schedule with risk of delay to FOAK first operation beyond 2030.
• Assessment of developer / operators with different characteristics and different working arrangements and modes of engagement with the vendor. For example,a developer with a mature and capable licensee organisation which may suggest an opportunity for an accelerated deployment schedule.
• FOAK deployment at a site identified as potentially suitable for nuclear development in the Nuclear NPS.This may again suggest an opportunity for an accelerated deployment schedule

• The Energy Technologies Institute - what do we do?
• Scenario modelling around an affordable energy system transition
• Nuclear in a UK low carbon 2050 energy system
• Importance of investor confidence in nuclear power projects
• Potential schedule for deployment of a UK LWR SMR
• Potential implications regarding waste and spent fuel from moving to an advanced reactor technology
• Conclusions

1. the investability of the “power station project” and
2. the extent to which it will act as an exemplar for future power/CCS projects.

• Introduction to the ETI
• What is a Small Modular Reactor (SMR)?
• Benefits of deploying SMRs in the UK transition to a low carbon economy
• Understanding the steps towards potential deployment
• Update on Phase 1 of the UK SMR competition
• Conclusions

• Role: If SMRs do what proponents claim, SMRs could play a significant role in the UK’s future energy system
• Requirements: SMRs will need to achieve a number of functional and economic energy systems requirements e.g. costs
• Heat: Heatprovision to District Heating networks could be a major benefit to the UK energy system and SMR plant economics
• Role of Government: Deployinga fleet of UK SMRs is likely to require Government co-ordination and intervention
• Backup slides
  • What energy services could SMRs offer?
  • Target vs estimate: Extra-flex
  • IRRs based on estimated CAPEX
  • Technical development assessment framework
  • Non-kWh services

• Objective, Scope and Team
• Introduction to SMRs
• UK energy system to 2050
• Technical work-stream
• Economic work-stream
• Conclusionsul>
• Opportunities
• Challenges
• Economics
• Next Steps

• SMR heat supply (CHP) is technically feasible and easy to implement
• CHP solutions can provide flexible heat and power independently
• CHP improves SMR economics –costs are modest; revenues large
• Different SMRdesign philosophies (module size & efficiency) make little difference to CHP cost or performance
• Many international examples of heat supply to DH networks from large power plants, including nuclear
• Plant cooling technologies that use very little water are technically feasible and could be retrofitted

• Introduction to the ETI
• Developing the role for nuclear in a UK transition
• What could be the role for SMRs in the UK energy system
• A credible plan for deployment of a UK SMR by 2030
• Cost competitiveness of nuclear as a low carbon technology
• Conclusions

• Introduction to the ETI
• A UK emissions reduction plan and the challenge of decarbonising heat
• Recent projects undertaken by the ETI related to UK nuclear deployment
• The role for nuclear including SMRs in the UK transition to a low carbon economy
• Enabling activities to support UK SMR deployment
• Requirements for advanced nuclear technologies
• Conclusions

• Define the process scheme for the project.
• Provide sufficient input to location selection (plant footprint, inflow connections, out flow connections, utility connections), modelling (plant basis), and estimating (scope definition, contracting basis).
• Provide a convincing basis to a range of stakeholders.

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in coal combustion research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: COAL COMBUSTION

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Majorfunding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities ingeothermal energy - research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in hydropower research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: HYDROPOWER

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in marine renewable energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Researchand Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in nuclear fission research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: NUCLEAR FISSION

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities innuclear fusion - research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: NUCLEAR FUSION

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in solar energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: SOLAR ENERGY

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in wind energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: WIND ENERGY

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major fundingstreams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in oil and gas research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: OIL AND GAS

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

This document is a technology roadmap: it provides a guide for mobilising the wave and tidal energy community in the UK down a deployment pathway towards a target of achieving 2GW installed capacity by 2020.

The roadmap is aimed at providing a focused and coherent approach to technology development in the marine sector, whilst taking into account the needs of other stakeholders. The successful implementation of the technology roadmap depends upon a number of complex interactions between commercial, political and technical aspects.

Although this roadmap is technically focused it also considers policy, environmental and commercialisation aspects of the marine energy sector, in order to display and put in context these wider influences.

The roadmap is aimed at technology developers, project developers, policy makers, government bodies, investors (public and private)

This response is a concise summary of the UKERC view on the framework for the delivery of clean coal in the UK. It does not refer to specific questions within the consultation.