Results: Searching for 'Transport Energy Efficiency'

This workshop was the first in a series of technical workshops under the Energy Systems Modelling Theme (ESMT) of the UKERC. The overall goal of these workshops is to enhance the links between UK energy modelling practitioners, and to learn about different methodologies and analytical techniques. The specific goals of this 1 st ESMT workshop on transport modelling was to bring together energy-economic and transport modellers to learn about each others models, their synergies, and to develop potential collaborations in terms of data, insights and projects. The envisaged workshop outputs were:

• An understanding and typology of various energy/transport models
• Opportunities for sharing data and insights
• Opportunities for collaborative ventures

• Market, policy and regulatory frameworks
• Business models and customer offerings
• Integrated vehicle and infrastructure systems and technologies using electricity, liquid fuel and hydrogen
• Consumer and fleet attitudes to adoption and usage behaviours

• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) have the potential to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over the well-to-motion pathway by 13% (LNG) - 20%(CNG) for dedicated engines and 16% (LNG) - 24%(CNG) for High Pressure Direct Injection engines per vehicle in the 2035 timeframe in comparison to the reference baselinediesel pathway.
• Cycle specific powertrain technology selection and pathway optimisation are key to providing GHG emission benefits over given usage cycles, with High Pressure Direct Injection and Dedicated gas engines providing the highest benefit.
• Retrofit dual fuel engines have been shown to have high methane emissions, often being worse than baseline diesel powertrains on a GHG emission basis. Effective testing procedures and legislative certainty are required to ensure emissions conformity and facilitate market development
• Providing methane catalysis at real world operating temperatures, i.e. below 350°C, is essential to prevent uncombusted methane making its way out of the tailpipe in powertrains that cannot control methane slip and is a key technology that enables a pathway benefit.
• Employing ‘best practices’ at LNG, CNG and L-CNG stations is a key driver to providing pathway benefits. Vapour recovery systems should be implemented at all LNG stations and the economic proposition and expected utilisation should be aligned. CNG stations should be connected to the highest pressure tier of the grid where possible or employed in combination with a L-CNG station as an easy step to reduce emissions associated with compression, at least until the carbon intensity of the grid is significantly lower than today.
• The economic proposition for natural gas in the HGV fleet hinges upon the fuel duty differential and currently only the long haul segment is economic in the near term. Fuel duty tax stability is key to enable market confi dence to invest in natural gas vehicles and the necessary supporting infrastructure.

• Light Vehicles in the UK
• Plug-in vehicle sales
• Vehicle life
• Vehicle usage
• Consumer attitudes to plug-in vehicles
• Where to support charging
• Meeting vehicle charging requirements
• Network reinforcement costs
• Consumers, Vehicles and Energy Integration (CVEI) project
  • Consumer adoption: understanding the mass-market
  • Outputs –Modelling capability
  • Interim findings
  • Roadmap for efficient ULEV uptake and use
  • Trials will deliver further robust evidence

• Systematic review of the existing literature
• Qualitative interview data was collected from 11 long-term users of plug-in vehicles, 40 mainstream consumers (each of which were loaned a vehicle for around six days) and 20 fleet managers.
• These tasks informed a large-scale survey of mainstream consumers (2,729 responses) about their attitudes and opinions regarding plug-in vehicles.
• The resulting data was used to produce a segmentation of mainstream consumers, in terms of their likelihood of purchasing a plug-in vehicle and the various factors underlying this likelihood.
• Factors examined included
  • demographics,
  • attitudes towards perceived functional, instrumental, symbolic and affective characteristics of plug-in vehicles,
  • personality variables, and
  • reported responses to incentives.
• Alongside the survey of mainstream consumers, a choice experiment was implemented to test the complex trade-offs consumers make between factors (e.g. price, range, infrastructure availability, etc).

1. 1. Evaluate the potential role and economics of plug-in vehicles in the low carbon transport system: generate a quantified understanding of the market potential, cost models and carbon benefits case under defined scenarios of infrastructure investments, government intervention packages and financemodel options across a number of key plug-in vehicle type/size/capability points;
2. 2. Develop the technology tool-kit for delivering an intelligent infrastructure: create a verified open interoperability architecture and generate information to aid infrastructure planning (e.g. to indicate how many recharging points are needed and where they should be located, what mix of power levels are required, how the impact of plug-in vehicle recharging on the electricity distribution network should be managed, how the overall system can be simplified for consumers, etc).

• Overview of consumer choice modelling
• Design of the choice experiment
• Analysis of the results 
• Development of the coefficients of consumer choice for the model
• Key parameters of consumer choice are quantified against the eight market segments developed in the ‘Identification of Relevant Consumer Segments’ report. The key parameters presented quantify the effect various factors have on the price consumers are willing to pay for plug-in vehicles. These factors include:
  • availability of infrastructure,
  • vehicle acceleration,
  • electric range and
  • whether the choice is for a first or second car in the household.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Project aims
• Project structure
• Modelling framework
• Narratives (scenarios)
• Stage 1 initial analysis indications
• Stage 1 research with consumers
• Stage 1 research with fleets
• Stage 2

• Vehicle electrification
• The project requires a broad range of expertise
• Modelling capability
• Scenarios have been developed to test further factors
• Interim findings
• Roadmap for efficient ULEV uptake and use
• Trials will deliver further robust evidence

• The Consumers, Vehicles and Energy Integration project is seeking to address the challenges involved in transitioning to a secure and sustainable low carbon vehicle fleet
• An integrated modelling toolset has been developed able to examine the implications for energy supply, infrastructure, vehicles, users, policy and commercial models – and with it, it is possible to test a wide range of scenarios
• Findings from several areas are already available and have been incorporated into a roadmap for delivering efficient vehicle decarbonisation
• Upcoming trials will deliver further robust evidence on how consumers respond to different charging propositions and attitudes to ULEV adoption

• CVEI project overview
• Project structure
• Analytical framework
• Accounting for trends and developments elsewhere
• Consumer adoption: understanding the mass-market
• Interim findings
• Dissemination of outputs

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low- carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
• Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with private vehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed charging options.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low- carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
• Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with private vehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed charging options.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

1. Customer Proposition(CP)–what the customer sees at the point interacting with a ULEV e.g. is the customer buying or leasing the vehicle
2. Physical SupplyChain(PSC)–the technologies and infrastructure required to deliver the vehicles and their energy requirements
3. Commercial Value Chain(CVC)–the commercial entities (and their business models) that sit across one or more parts of the PSC to collectively deliver the CP that the consumer sees –e.g. an electricity retail supplier
4. Market and Policy Framework (MPF)–Government intervention in the form of setting the overarching market framework for commercial entities (e.g. regulated monopolies for network infrastructure) or more direct policy intervention (e.g. in terms of taxes or subsidies on commercial entities or directly at the point of the consumer

• OEM innovation
  • To what extent is incremental/organic improvement delivered primarily via OEMs, with limited Government support, sufficient to deliver mass uptake and use of ULEVs?
  • To what extent does this complicate the delivery of new large-scale supporting infrastructure, in particular with respect to the role of hydrogen?
• City led
  • What is the value of a partial shift towards delivering mobility as a service in urban areas where this appears more viable (e.g. in terms of requiring fewer vehicles with higher utilisation)?
• ULEV enabled
  • To what extent does a more coordinated, but technology neutral, push for ULEVs facilitate their uptake and use?
  • What are the additional costs and broader requirements for providing a meaningful hedge such that mass rollout of either PIVs and/or hydrogen vehicles could both be undertaken in the later stages of the pathway to 2050?
• Hydrogen push
  • How effective is a coordinated push towards hydrogen as the primary ULEV route, given that this mirrors many of the current aspects of the customer proposition (e.g. owning asset, no range issues, ‘hub’ refuelling) as current ICEs and liquid refuelling infrastructure?
  • Is this route materially more expensive compared to other Narratives (such as City-led and Transport on demand) which tend towards electric vehicles and where does this cost difference materialise (e.g. fuel production versus additional infrastructure), and how effectively does early coordinated action reduce these costs?
• Transport on demand
  • What is the value of a systemic, coordinated shift towards delivering mobility as a service, going significantly beyond that in the City-led Narrative (e.g. in terms of requiring fewer vehicles with higher utilisation)?
  • How significant are the implications likely to be for consumers as part of this shift and can the savings from better integrated services be used to compensate for any perceived or material reduction in an individual’s ‘transport utility’ (e.g. less convenience)?

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Customer Proposition.
• Physical Supply Chain.
• Commercial Value Chain.
• Market and Policy Framework.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
• Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with private vehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Customer Proposition.
• Physical Supply Chain.
• Commercial Value Chain.
• Market and Policy Framework.

• Essential – these actions have been clearly identified as good, and found tobe robust to different circumstances explored through the Sensitivity analysis. They are considered to be no or low regret actions.
• Desirable – actions for which a strong case exists and which are likely to have a positive impact under most circumstances. However, a failure to employ these actions is unlikely, by itself, to lead to a failure to achieve mass uptake and use of ULEVs. Additional evidence or reduced uncertainty may also be desired by individual actors before a decision to implement them.
• Provisional – an additional categorisation implying actions for which a positive case may exist, but for which the extent or timing of deployment is likely to depend on reduction of uncertainty in the basis of analysis. This may occur through the passing of time and, for example, realisation of outturn costs. It may alternatively occur through obtainment of additional or expanded evidence from trials or initial pilot scale deployment.

• To what extent users engage and how they respond to new electricity charging tariffs and what this means for charging behaviour, e.g.via some load shifting in response to ToU tariffs as part of User-Managed Charging, or more optimal load shifting through Supplier-Managed Charging.
• Indirect factors affecting the decision to purchase a ULEV over a conventional vehicle,such as uncertainty over the variability of costs of electricity charging at non-home locations, and other ‘components’ that were identified in the four keyareas but not quantified in Stage 1.
• An overarching lack of understanding about the conditions required to enable a shift towards mobility as a service (e.g. what level of financial compensation might be required for any perceived loss of convenience, status and how this varies across different consumer groups.)

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Part 1: Overview of Stage 2,
• Part 2: Consumer Uptake Trial,
• Part 3: Consumer Charging Trial,
• Part 4: Fleet Study,
• Part 5: Analytical Tool,
• Part 6: Commercial Submission.

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• understanding of consumer attitudes towards ULEV adoption including detail of existing and new barriers to adoption;
• to capture and discuss lessons learnt from previous consumer trials to identify risks and develop recommendations to mitigate the risks; and to
• qualitatively explore consumer attitudes to managed charging scenarios (with consumers who have experience of a BEV or PHEV).

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• Stage 1 aims to characterize market and policy frameworks, business propositions, and the integrated vehicle and energy infrastructure system and technologies best suited to enabling a cost-effective UK energy system for low-carbon vehicles, using the amalgamated analytical toolset.
•  Stage 2 aims to fill knowledge gaps and validate assumptions from Stage 1 through scientifically robust research, including real world trials with privatevehicle consumers and case studies with business fleets. A mainstream consumer uptake trial will be carried out to measure attitudes to PiVs after direct experience of them, and consumer charging trials will measure mainstream consumer PiV charging behaviours and responses to managed harging options

• A ‘first principles’ view of the key components or Building Blocks (BB) that are considered as part of understanding what technology/physical, actors/commercial, market/policy, and Customer Proposition structures are most effective in enabling mass deployment and use of ULEVs, and their relative importance.
• A systematic allocation of the BBs to the Narratives, in such a way as tofocus the framework on the areas of highest materiality, providing the basis for the analysis reported in the separate D1.3 Market Design and System Integration Report.

• Why is HDV efficiency so important?
• Ship Construction and Lexicon
• Marine Program Structure
• What is our UK Fleet?
• Selected Vessels to represent the HDV Marine Fleet
• What do Ships use for Power today?
• Innovations for Ships
• Technology Impact
• Improved Performance
• Waste Heat Recovery
• High Efficiency Propulsion System Project (HEPS)
• Flettner Rotor System

• Shipping emits substantial amounts of CO₂ which, without significant intervention, will rise as a proportion of our national emissions as we become less carbon dependent in other industry sectors
• Ocean voyaging ships have the biggest impacts on CO₂ emission due to the length and speed of their voyages and the current calculation method1 underplays the UK’s share of international shipping carbon emissions
li>There are economic advantages to emitting less carbon (and the economics of such are more cost-effective than some other carbon abatement opportunities in marine and other sectors)Using non-fossil fuels such as nuclear or high levels of biomass does not appear credible in the timeframe assessedIn the medium to long term (to 2050), the best potential to achieve substantial CO₂ reduction is by fuel consumption reductionli>ETI modelling has shown that a 30% fleet fuel consumption reduction can be achieved using innovative technologies with an economic payback period of around two years and a fuel price of $720/Tonne
• For the opportunity to materialise, fuel-saving technology demonstration is needed to give confidence to stakeholders and overcome market barriers

The UK Government has been seeking views on bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible. In this joint UKERC/CREDS consultation response we provide views on the following aspects:

• the phase out date,
• the definition of what should be phased out,
• barriers to achieving the above proposals,
• the impact of these ambitions on different sectors of industry and society, and
• what measures are required by government and others to achieve the earlier phase out date.

A phase out date of 2035 or earlier is sensible yet it might not be enough. Our research, recently published in the journal Energy Policy, has found that neither existing transport policies nor the pledge to bring forward the phase out date for the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 or 2040 are sufficient to hit carbon reduction targets, or make the early gains needed to stay within a Paris compliant carbon budget for cars and vans.

Our research has shown that deeper and earlier reductions in carbon emissions and local air pollution would be achieved by a more ambitious, but largely non-disruptive change to a 2030 phase out that includes all fossil fuel vehicles. This would include all vehicles with an internal combustion engine, whether self-charging or not. However, only the earlier phase outs combined with lower demand for mobility and a clear and phased market transformation approach aimed at phasing out the highest-emitting vehicleswould make significant contributions to an emissions pathway that is both Paris compliant and meets legislated carbon budgets and urban air quality limits.

The proposed policy will involve high levels of coordination, intention and buy-in by policy makers, business and wider civil society. By far the biggest barrier to change will be the incumbent industries the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). They have a well-known track record of pushing back against EU vehicle regulations on the grounds of cost. In the case of electric powertrains, this push back is evident, with added resistance on the base of restricted supply chains and time to alter production processes. We suggest this is all the more reason to publish and implement a market transformation strategy now so that early wins which do not rely on supply chains or large transformations to the production line can mitigate against any later genuine supply-side constraints. Such a clear policy steer from the UK government is needed in order to ensure that UK consumers have more choice of cars than they may otherwise get if the OEMs restrict their sales of the most efficient vehicles into the UK market once out of the EU regulatory regime.

UKERC research into various phase-out policies has looked at how disruptive they would be for key stakeholders of the transport-energy system, and how much coordination would be needed to achieve the policy goals. This research has shown that in the Road-to-Zero ICE phase out by 2040 the main actors of the road transport and energy system are unlikely to undergo disruptive change. This is due to the relatively slow and limited evolution of the fleet towards unconventional low carbon fuels, the continuation of fuel duty revenue streams well into the 2040s and little additional reductions in energy demand and air pollutant emissions.

However, in the earlier (2030) and stricter (in what constitutes an ultra-low carbon vehicle) phase-outs we can expect some disruption for technology providers, industry and business in particular vehicle manufacturers, global production networks, the maintenance and repair sector as well as the oil and gas industry. There will also be localised impacts (some potentially disruptive) on electricity distribution networks and companies, even with smart charging.

Ending the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans earlier, coupled with the electrification of road transport should form a key part of long term decarbonisation policy, but it is not a panacea. First, an earlier phase out date of 2030 implies we have 10 years to plan for and implement a transition away from fossil-fuel ICE cars and vans. As we discussed in our response, our research suggests that this is achievable without significant disruption to the transport-energy system, but it needs to be linked to accelerated investment in charging networks, battery development and deployment, increased market availability of zero-emission vehicles, and equivalent-value support by the Government to level the playing field with the incumbents. Second, our research has shown multiple times that further and earlier policy measures that impact the transport-energy system are needed, including a clear and phased market transformation approach that targets high-emitting vehicles, access bans in urban areas, and dynamic road pricing that could fund an order of magnitude increase in investment in sustainable transport modes.

We support bringing the phase-outdate forward and urge it to be earlier than 2035 and include phasing out any non-zero tailpipe vehicles using a market transformation approach. We strongly believe Government has a crucial role to play in leading the way to decarbonise transport, going well beyond the proposed policy change of bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans from 2040 to 2035 or earlier.

Commencing in 2016, the Financing Community Energy project provides a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the role of finance in the evolution of the UK community energy sector. This report presents the third of four case studies of UK community energy organisations, exploring how these organisations have sought to finance their projects against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

Gwent Energy (Wales) was formed in 2009 to deliver environmental benefit and cost savings to its local community. It aims to help local consumers save money on their energy bills through a combination of renewable energy, efficiency, storage and electric vehicle charging interventions, whilst simultaneously generating a surplus to fund local community initiatives.

• Flettner Rotors
• Wing sails
• Soft-sails

• Demand for On Highway Heavy Duty Vehicles will grow from 3.34m vehicles in 2015 to 4.24m vehicles in 2030 (in the 6 large markets studied).
• The majority of this growth will be in the >7.5 ton vehicle sector, as the Chinese and Indian road transportation markets mature from an “owner operator” model towards a “fleet operator” model. The increase in vehicle weight will increase demand for larger displacement engines (>6 litres) and also encourage further uptake of Automatic Manual Transmissions (AMT) at the expense of manual transmissions.
• Diesel will remain as the dominant fuel type for HDVs with ~85% HDVs powered by Diesel Internal Combustion Engines in 2030.
• It is expected that City Buses will have greater levels of hybridisation and there will be a variety of technical solutions for City Buses, including fully electric, as inner city air quality concerns and legislation increases.
• Emissions legislation will continue to develop in the various regions, with increasing harmonisation between the standards. There is a trend towards increasing number of regulated pollutants, over a larger number of tests and an increased duration (life) that the vehicle must meet the targets. Some regions are beginning to use CO₂ / fuel efficiency regulations and it is expected that this trend will spread to other regions over time

• HDVs represent an opportunity to cost effectively decarbonise the UK energy system across a range of abatement and cost levels
• In the first instance, the ETI’s efficiency projects have shown that a 30% reduction in fuel efficiency across the UK fleet can be achieved with reasonable payback periods
• Properly sourced and managed natural gas when coupled to a low methane slip powertrain can provide further CO₂(equivalent) benefits
• As the UK transitions to a very low CO₂ energy system (circa 2040 to 2050), further ‘carbon priced’ HDV options could become attractive
• The marginal carbon price will be a function ofthe other technologies deployed in the energy system (e.g. CCS versus no CCS), but thresholds can be set using the ETI’s ESME tool
• Barriers exist in the uptake of fuel efficiency technologies and new tools, techniques and policies are required to overcome them –a subject for future work

The brief discusses the contextual nuances of staff travel choices and the potential of policy interventions to encourage sustainable travel modes. Through a detailed review of NHS parking policies and broader academic literature on transport practices. It underscores the need to develop comprehensive trave

There is increasing concern that future supply of some lesser known critical metals will not be sufficient to meet rising demand in the low-carbon technology sector. A rising global population, significant economic growth in the developing world, and increasing technological sophistication have all contributed to a surge in demand for a broad range of metal resources. In the future, this trend is expected to continue as the growth in low-carbon technologies compounds these other drivers of demand. This report examines the issues surrounding future supply and demand for critical metals - including Cobalt, Gallium, Germanium, Indium, Lithium, Platinum, Selenium, Silver, Tellurium, and Rare earth Metals.

The paper investigates the importance of governance for energy system change and specifically investigates some of the areas where the UKs net zero target implies significant infrastructure change or expansion, namely in industry and associated with buildings and transport.

• Energy Vectors for HDV
• The Project
• Structure
• Well-to-Terminal
• Terminal-to-Tank
• Tank-to-Motion
• Pathway Analysis
• The Model
• Uptake Scenario
• Fleet Uptake
• Infrastructure
• HMRC Fuel Duty – Cost to the Fleet
• Overall Conclusions

This working paper explores what people may need to know, learn and have if aPersonal Carbon Allowances (PCA) scheme was implemented, and suggests ideas forpolicies, programmes and initiatives that could support them. A PCA scheme impliesthat individuals would have a personal budget of carbon credits, which they wouldneed to manage, to some extent, in order to stay within its limits, and in the bestcase scenario earn some money by selling not-needed carbon credits. Thus, thispaper looks at the budgeting process from the carbon account holders view pointand applies insights from how people budget under monetary and non-monetaryconstrains to the study of PCA. It also highlights related policy design issues.

The paper is composed of two sections. The first sets PCA in the policy contextalongside other existing and proposed emissions reduction policies. Next it explainsthe mechanisms through which PCA supposes to change energy demand behaviourand then describes the current discourse surrounding PCA in the UK. The secondsection lays out the rational for examining PCA through the lense of budgeting andpoints at questions arising from the concept of living within a carbon budget. It then discusses in detail the prerequisites for carbon budgeting, which include: setting the budgetary limits; knowing personalised carbon income and expenditure; having low carbon alternatives; having the opportunity to perform low carbon choices; receiving advice and support; and learning how to trade. This is followed by a short concluding section.

A recent Government study into personal carbon trading1 (PCT) concluded that as a policy instrument PCT has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change, but is essentially ahead of its time and expected costs for implementation are high.2 . Yet, at the same time Defra has recognised that further research is being taken forward by academics and research institutions outside of Government, and Defra will keep a watching brief on their progress3 . PCT related research studies being undertaken in different universities and institutions across the UK, or overseas, have not yet been brought together in a coherent way and interaction between researchers has been limited. In addition, the Defra studies have highlighted some areas for further research. Thus, the key aims of the workshop were to:

1. Map the field of PCT research: learn what each of us is doing and our respective research focus;
2. Determine where we have got so far, in terms of knowledge and understanding of PCT and its related issues;
3. Discuss future research directions with regard to funding opportunities;
4. Create a PCT researchers network; and
5. Discuss and agree the process for publishing a PCT edited volume through the Climate Policy journal that provides a comprehensive, state-of-the-art review of PCT research to date.

These key aims have largely been met. In the Appendix of the main report is a document setting out the research interests of the workshop participants, giving a flavour of who is doing what where. The Climate Policy journal has expressed interest in publishing a special issue on PCT in early 2010. Papers for this special issue are now being coordinated by the Environmental Change Institute of the University of Oxford.

A recent Government study into personal carbon trading1 (PCT) concluded that as a policy instrument PCT has potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change, but is essentially ahead of its time and expected costs for implementation are high.2 . Yet, at the same time Defra has recognised that further research is being taken forward by academics and research institutions outside of Government, and Defra will keep a watching brief on their progress3 . PCT related research studies being undertaken in different universities and institutions across the UK, or overseas, have not yet been brought together in a coherent way and interaction between researchers has been limited. In addition, the Defra studies have highlighted some areas for further research. Thus, the key aims of the workshop were to:

1. Map the field of PCT research: learn what each of us is doing and our respective research focus;
2. Determine where we have got so far, in terms of knowledge and understanding of PCT and its related issues;
3. Discuss future research directions with regard to funding opportunities;
4. Create a PCT researchers network; and
5. Discuss and agree the process for publishing a PCT edited volume through the Climate Policy journal that provides a comprehensive, state-of-the-art review of PCT research to date.

These key aims have largely been met. In the Appendix of the main report is a document setting out the research interests of the workshop participants, giving a flavour of who is doing what where. The Climate Policy journal has expressed interest in publishing a special issue on PCT in early 2010. Papers for this special issue are now being coordinated by the Environmental Change Institute of the University of Oxford.

This paper argues that reducing the impacts of aviation should be treated as a priority by those interested in averting climate change, and that the scale of reduction needed can only be achieved through demand restraint i.e. discouraging people from flying. Economic policy potentially has a key role to play in this process. The UK Government has the power to introduce a number of economic measures to complement the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and these measures probably offer the best hope of starting to restrain demand in the immediate future.

The 2006 Energy Review stated that the Government intended to raise awareness of transport and climate change issues, and the approach would include, “developing initiatives on eco-safe driving”.1 This proposed Quick Hit would see energy-efficient driving, also known as eco-driving or eco-safe driving, incorporated into the practical driving test, to reinforce advice currently covered by the theory test. Furthermore, it would inform drivers about alternative fuels and efficient vehicle technology, and incorporate this new information into the theory test. While knowledge of issues such as alternative fuels would not affect the ability of a person to drive, driving lessons and the driving test present a suitable opportunity to raise awareness amongst drivers and positively influence their choices before habits are formed.

This Quick Hit outlines how limiting the speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways to 60 mph or even merely better enforcing the current 70 mph limit could be one of the most equitable, cost-effective and potentially popular routes to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. If implemented, it could also have the potential to slow traffic growth and influence the vehicle market with further carbon reduction benefits, in addition to optimising current road network capacity and bringing significant safety benefits.

The replacement of incandescent lamps with LED (light emitting diode) lights in traffic signals in the UK could reduce the demand for electricity by up to 70%. Additionally, the move could also offer substantial savings to highway authorities through less frequent replacement of lamps and, consequently, staff maintenance time.

The UK has an estimated 420,000 traffic and pedestrian signal heads, installed and managed by individual highway authorities. Each head contains two, three, or four 50W lamps, although for the majority of the time only one of these is lit up. These traffic signals currently use an estimated 101.7m kWh of electricity per year and cause the release of nearly 14,000 tonnes of carbon (around 50,000 tonnes of CO2). The number of traffic signals in the country continues to grow at around 3% a year – Transport for London estimated an increase of 17.5% in the capital alone between 2000 and 2005.

Quick Hits are a series of proposed initiatives developed by the Demand Reduction theme of the UK Energy Research Centre (www.ukerc.ac.uk). They are intended to make a useful contribution towards reducing carbon emissions by 2010, and are designed to be relatively easy for the Government or local authorities to implement. Legislative changes or expenditure needed would be small in nature, hence the title Quick Hits.

Car-sharing using car clubs is a successful way of reducing vehicle usage and ownership amongst those who join, and has proven to be effective in several countries. This proposed Quick Hit would reduce carbon emissions from vehicle use through the creation of a coherent, national network of car clubs, ensuring that in the long term there is at least one in every large town and city in the UK. Data collected from existing car clubs suggests that me

• Vehicle electrification
• Users and Vehicles
• Energy supply
• Project aims
• Project structure
• Modelling framework
• Narratives (scenarios)
• Stage 1 initial analysis
• Stage 1 research with consumers
• Stage 1 research with fleets
• Stage 2

• Substantial challenges associated with widespread roll-out of low carbon vehicles; shift from a “problem for the network” to an “opportunity through integration of vehicles as part of a wider system” can yield benefits for all actors in the system, including:
  • increased uptake of low-emission vehicles, managing charging and refuelling, and optimising the system design
• Analysis and solutions must be holistic (considering all parts of the system together, including users)
• Robust trials in Stage 2 will generate data to test solutions and inform analysis, and will add unique value:
• Trial with mass-market users (i.e. people from the majority of the vehicle user and fleet operator markets)
• Addressing widely-applicable plug-in vehicles (BEVsand PHEVs) suitable for wide range of users
• Holistic system design

UKERCs 2017 Review of Energy Policy, appraises energy policy change over the last 12 months, and makes a series of recommendations to help meet the objectives of the governments Clean Growth Plan.

Our main recommendations are:

1. ‘Develop a strategy to avoid ‘cliff edges’ for the energy sector due to Brexit, including effects on interconnectors, the single electricity market for the island of Ireland, and nuclear power.
2. A White Paper that includes stronger incentives for energy efficiency across the economy, and an enhanced programme of low carbon heat demonstration and evaluation.
3. Learn from the success of offshore wind by extending competitive auctions in the power sector.
4. Minimise the costs of electricity system change and renewables integration by increasing incentives for flexibility.
5. Complement the additional funding for CCS innovation with a new strategy for deployment in the industrial and power sectors.
6. Ensure that vehicle taxation and other incentives are compatible with the target for phasing out new conventionally fuelled cars and vans by 2040. This should be complemented by a wider strategy for mobility that takes into account anticipated new services and business models.
7. A more comprehensive programme of action to involve citizens and communities in the clean energy transition, building on ‘Green Great Britain Week’.
8. Identify opportunities for energy policy learning across the UK – particularly in the areas of heat, engagement and energy efficiency.

1. The transition to net-zero will affect the whole economy. Investment and policy decisions by all government departmentmes need to be compatible with this transition.
2. Policies to support renewable electricity generation should be more ambitious, building on deployment and cost reduction successes. Action is also needed to ensure electricity market rules are fit for a fully decarbonised power sector.
3. Decisions by the energy regulator, Ofgem, should also be compatible with net-zero. This includes enabling investment in local electricity networks to facilitate heat and transport decarbonisation, and ensuring more active use of existing networks.
4. Local energy systems could play a significant role in achieving net-zero, particularly in the integration of electricity, heat and transport. More resources and greater powers for Local Authorities will help to ensure the potential for local action is realised.
5. A clear plan is required for upgrading the UK housing stock. A heat and energy efficiency White Paper must include policies for widespread deployment of low carbon heat (including demonstrating hydrogen at scale) and for prioritising low income households.
6. Whilst the decarbonisation of industry is receiving more attention, policy initiatives are not joined up. Funding for specific projects and industrial clusters should be complemented by market creation policies, including for carbon capture and storage.
7. Our analysis shows that achieving net-zero requires the phase out of fossil-fuelled vehicles to be brought forward to 2030. Immediate action is also required to counter the rapid increase in sales of larger cars (including SUVs).
8. Plans to meet net-zero should maximise environmental co-benefits. Potential negative impacts on ecosystems should be assessed and mitigated.
9. Continuing uncertainty about the UK’s changing relationship with the European Union has already affected decarbonisation plans. Whatever the outcome, close co-operation with the EU is likely to make it easier to achieve net-zero.
10. The transition to net-zero should not compromise energy security. In light of the events on August 9th, responsibilities for ensuring system resilience need to be clarified and applied in a more rigorous way.

In this issue of UKERCs annual Review of Energy Policy, we discuss some of the effects of COVID-19 on the energy system and how the unprecedented events of 2020 might impact energy use and climate policy in the future.

Focusing on electricity demand, transport, green jobs and skills, Brexit, heat, and societal engagement, the Review reflects on the past year and looks forward, highlighting key priorities for the Government.

Key recommendations

Electricity

The scale of investment in the power system required over the coming decade is huge. A big challenge is market design. We need a market that can incentivise investment in low carbon power and networks at least cost whilst also providing incentives for flexibility. Output from wind and solar farms will sometimes exceed demand and other timesfallto low levels. The right mix of flexible resources must be established to deal with variable output from renewables, with the right market signals and interventions in place to do this at least cost.

Mobility

The end of the sale of fossil fuel cars and vans by 2030 must be greeted with enthusiasm. Yet if this is to play its part in a Paris-compliant pathway to zero emissions, it must be one of many policy changes to decarbonise UK transport. Earlier action is paramount, and we recommend a market transformation approach targeting the highest emitting vehicles now, not just from 2030. Phasing-in of the phase-out will save millions of tons of CO2 thus reducing the need for radical action later on. The forthcoming Transport Decarbonisation Plan has a lot to deliver.

Green jobs and skills

COVID-19 recoverypackages offer the potential to combine job creation with emissions reduction. A national housing retrofit programme would be a triple win, creating jobs, reducing carbon emissions and make our homes more comfortable and affordable to heat. However, UKERC research finds that there are significant skills gaps associated with energy efficient buildings and low carbon heat. UKERC calls for a national programme of retraining and reskilling that takes advantage of the COVID downturn to re-equip building service professions with the skills needed for net zero.

Brexit

As the UK leaves the EU on the 1st January it will lose many of the advantages of integration. With new regimes for carbon pricing, trading, and interconnection yet to be agreed, there will be a high degree of uncertainty in the near to medium term. Given upward pressure on energy costs,delays to policy, and this uncertainty surrounding new rules, the overall effects of Brexit are not positive for UK energy decarbonisation.

Heat

UKERC research calls for action on heat to deliver the net zero technologies that we know work - insulating buildings and rolling out proven options. We need to end delay or speculation about less-proven options. Analysis is consistent with recent advice from the CCC that heat policy should focus on electrification whilst exploring options for hydrogen. We need to break the pattern of ad hoc and disjointed policy measures for heat and buildings, and develop a coherent, long-term strategy. This would be best achieved as an integral part of local and regional energy plans, involving local governments as coordinating agents. The aspirations for heat cant be realised unless we also take actionon the skills gap.

Societal engagement with energy

Achieving net zero in 2050 will entail significant changes to the way we live, what we eat and how we heat our homes. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that when faced with a threat, society can change rapidly. Engaging society with the net zero transition also needs to change, it needs to be to be more ambitious, diverse, joined-up and system-wide, and recognise the many different ways that citizens engage with these issues on an ongoing basis.

With a focus on gas and the UK continental shelf, industrial decarbonisation, heat, mobility and the environment, we look at developments both at home and internationally and ask whether the UK is a leader in decarbonisation, and if the transition is being managed as well as it could be.

As we reach the end of 2018, the scorecard for UK energy policy is mixed. Optimists can point to rapid emissions reductions, cost falls in renewables and the centrality of clean energy within the Industrial Strategy. Ten years after the Climate Change Act was passed, UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 43% from the level in 1990. The UK is on the way to meeting the first three carbon budgets, and a transformation of the power sector is well underway.

However, if we turn our attention from the rear view mirror, the outlook is more pessimistic. As the Committee on Climate Change pointed out in June, there are an increasing number of policy gaps and uncertainties. If not addressed promptly, meeting future carbon budgets will be much more challenging. For some of these gaps, there is a particularly clear and immediate economic case for action.

Key recommendations:

The government needs to take urgent action to ensure that the UK continues to meet statutory emissions reduction targets, and goes further to achieve net zero emissions. This not only requires new policies to fill looming gaps in the portfolio, it also requires much greater emphasis on sharing the benefits and costs of the low carbon transition more equitably. Our main recommendations are:

1. We repeat our call for a heat and energy efficiency White Paper, and recommend that the Industrial Strategy mission to reduce building energy use is extended to existing buildings.
2. A better, more targeted approach to the energy needs of low-income households is required. Energy efficiency investment for these households should be funded via general taxation.
3. Urgent large-scale trials of heat decarbonisation using hydrogen are required to understand whether it could be technically, economically and socially viable.
4. A dashboard of indicators is needed to monitor gas security during the energy transition. The current one dimensional approach is not sufficient.
5. Future electricity policy should build on the Electricity Market Reform policies that have worked well, and adapt them in the light of changes in technologies and costs.
6. Changes in incentives for ‘black start’ and other ancillary services are necessary to ensure that the electricity system remains resilient as it changes.
7. The target for phasing out conventionally fuelled vehicles is inadequate and does not fit with our emissions targets. The 2040 date should be brought forward and linked to accelerated investment in networks and charging.
8. The Industrial Strategy needs to be strongly linked to market creation policies for low carbon technologies. Carbon capture and storage is in particular need of such policies to progress beyond its current holding pattern.
9. To ensure widespread support for the energy transition, there needs to be more focus on equity and justice. The UK government should consider setting up a process similar to Scotland’s Just Transitions Commission to achieve this.
10. Continued vigilance is required to mitigate any negative impacts of Brexit, particularly those that could affect integration with European energy markets.

This review takes stock of UK energy policy ahead of the Autumn Statement, Industrial Strategy and new Emissions Reduction Plan. Its main recommendations are:

1. An integrated, evidence based approach to the new Industrial Strategy and Emissions Reductions Plan. The Industrial Strategy should set out clear priorities and the mechanisms for realising benefits for the UK
2. A new White Paper on Heat and Energy Efficiency
3. A Gas by Design approach to the future of gas that is compatible with carbon budgets and targets
4. A new approach to CCS commercialisation and deployment, in response to the Oxburgh report
5. An extension of the Levy Control Framework beyond 2020, and plans for auctions that include most large-scale electricity technologies and demand reduction in a single auction
6. Reform of the Capacity Mechanism so it gives equal

Energy System Demonstrators are physical demonstrations testing new technologies for low-carbon energy infrastructure.

A review of energy systems demonstrator projects in the UK was undertaken for UKERC by the Energy Systems Research Unit (ESRU) at the University of Strathclyde. The review encompassed 119 demonstrators and consisted of two phases: 1) the identification of demonstrator projects and 2) an analysis of projects and their outcomes.

Energy demonstrators

The review defined an energy system demonstrator as “the deployment and testing of more than one technology type that could underpin the operation of a low-carbon energy infrastructure in the future”. Only demonstrators that post-date the 2008 Climate Change Act were included and that included a physical demonstration at one or more UK sites. 119 projects were identified that met the search criteria.

There were two phases of review activity. Phase 1 involved identification and documentation of demonstration projects, involving a systematic search to identify and record the details of projects. Phase 2 was a review of project outcomes and outputs, particularly end-of-project evaluations, covering technical, economic and social outcomes where available.

The review outputs (available here) are a final report summarising the findings, 119 demonstrator project summaries (the Phase 1 reports), 119 demonstrator output analyses (the Phase 2 reports) and a GIS (Geographic Information System) map and database showing the locations and project details of the demonstrators.

The final report, attendant project summaries and GIS data are intended to provide policy makers and funding bodies with an overview of the existing demonstrator “landscape”, enabling decisions on future demonstrator calls and the focus of those calls to be made with a clearer knowledge of what has already been done.

Project files

• Access the demonstrators GIS map here.
• Access the Phase 1 summaries here.
• Access the Phase 2 summaries here. 

Evidence breifing from ESRC drawing upon research from the UK Energy Research Centre, outlined in the paper Modelling the uptake of plug-in vehicles, examines the timing, scale and impacts of the uptake of plug-in vehicles in the UK car market from a consumer perspective. The results show the importance of accounting for the varied and segmented nature of the car market, social and environmental factors, as well as considering how different uptake scenarios affect wider lifecycle emissions.

This workshop set out to address four key questions, a) to d), identified prior to the event. Experts were invited to tackle these questions through means of a preworkshop briefing paper. These papers were circulated to participants in advance of the workshop. The authors presented a brief summary of their paper during the workshop and participants were invited to discuss the issues raised by the paper and any other related issues. The briefing papers are available in the Appendices of the full report, which can be downloaded from the UKERC website.

The overall objective of this research was to determine whether the operation of the CRAGs movement, and the experiences of individuals involved, can offer any useful information about the process of individual/household level carbon footprint reductions, the psychological effects of having a carbon allowance and trading system, and therefore any issues for consideration in the design of a Personal Carbon Trading policy. The specific aims were therefore:

• to obtain factual information about CRAGs, such as details of the carbon allowances set, accounting procedures and trading systems;
• to learn about the experiences of individuals involved, such as whether they have made behavioural changes and cut their CO2 emissions, and if so how, what they have found easy or difficult in their attempts to live a lower-carbon lifestyle;
• to elicit the opinions of CRAG members on their motivations for involvement in the movement, on personal carbon trading, and on the benefits and limitations of CRAGs;
• to attempt to discover what role, if any, being part of a group plays in demand reduction, given that the behavioural changes themselves are at the individual/household level.

This paper comprises a review of technology roadmaps on sustainable energy use for transport, including road, rail, shipping and aviation. The paper summarises the environmental impacts of ‘renewable’ energy use for transport and the advances in knowledge and technology required to mitigate negative environmental impacts and to ensure environmental sustainability. It will assess the extent to which these issues are addressed by roadmaps from both Europe and North America (roadmaps are indicated by number in parenthesis) and will highlight omissions and apparent gaps in knowledge.

The transport sector remains at the centre of any debates around energy conservation, exaggerated by the stubborn and overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels by its motorised forms, whether passenger and freight, road, rail, sea and air.

The very slow transition to alternative fuel sources to date has resulted in this sector being increasingly and convincingly held responsible for the likely failure of individual countries, including the UK, to meet their obligations under consecutive international climate change agreements.

Electrification of transport is largely expected to take us down the path to a zero carbon future (CCC, 2019; DfT, 2018). But there are serious concerns about future technology performance, availability, costs and uptake by consumers and businesses. There are also concerns about the increasing gap between lab and real world performance of energy use, carbon and air pollution emissions. Recently, the role of consumer lifestyles has increased in prominence (e.g. IPCC, 2018) but, as yet, has not been taken seriously by the DfT, BEIS or even the CCC (2019).

Developed under the auspices of UKERC the Transport Energy Air pollution Model (TEAM) has been designed to address these concerns and uncertainties in exploring pertinent questions on the transition to a zero carbon and clean air transportation future.

TEAM is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts systems model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon and local air pollutant emissions and external costs.

TEAM is a major update of UK Transport Carbon Model of 2010. To use the updated model for research purposes, please contact Christian Brand, noting that due to its size (the complete suite of modelling databases uses about 500MB of storage space) the model can only be made available by request.

The transport sector remains at the centre of any debates around energy conservation, exaggerated by the stubborn and overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels by its motorised forms, whether passenger and freight, road, rail, sea and air.

The very slow transition to alternative fuel sources to date has resulted in this sector being increasingly and convincingly held responsible for the likely failure of individual countries, including the UK, to meet their obligations under consecutive international climate change agreements.

Electrification of transport is largely expected to take us down the path to a zero carbon future (CCC, 2019; DfT, 2018). But there are serious concerns about future technology performance, availability, costs and uptake by consumers and businesses. There are also concerns about the increasing gap between lab and real world performance of energy use, carbon and air pollution emissions. Recently, the role of consumer lifestyles has increased in prominence (e.g. IPCC, 2018) but, as yet, has not been taken seriously by the DfT, BEIS or even the CCC (2019).

Developed under the auspices of UKERC the Transport Energy Air pollution Model (TEAM) has been designed to address these concerns and uncertainties in exploring pertinent questions on the transition to a zero carbon and clean air transportation future.

TEAM is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts systems model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon and local air pollutant emissions and external costs.

TEAM is a major update of UK Transport Carbon Model of 2010. This report contains the detailed appendices relating to TEAM :

• Appendix A: Vehicle Stock Model Variables and Data Tables
• Appendix B: Direct Energy and Emissions Model Data Tables
• Appendix C: Life Cycle and Environmental Impacts Model further specifications

To use the model for research purposes, please contact Christian Brand, noting that due to its size (the complete suite of modelling databases uses about 500MB of storage space) the model can only be made available by request.

The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current and potential future contribution that the transport sector makes to the UK’s emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The aim is to develop an understanding of:

• The scale, composition and security of official baseline and projected figures for CO2 emissions from the transport sector to 2010 and beyond.
• The source of the official emissions projections, the assumptions currently used to calculate these figures and the uncertainty associated with them.
• The research needed to identify appropriate policy packages and CO2 emission targets for the UK transport sector for 2050.

The focus of this paper is on UK surface transport, although the discussion on emissions projections includes aviation. Aviation has also been discussed in a previous UKERC seminar.

• Targeted a 3-4% fuel efficiency benefit and hence green house gas benefit from this project whilst exceeding emissions standards
• SCR fitted to every truck and large off-highway machine sold in the EU and many newer cars
• ETI requested a SCR system capable of achieving a 98% reduction in NO_x whilst not exceeding the space requirement and delivering a superior cost to own to the end use
• SCR technology must be applicable across a range of vehicle types and usage cycles
• Light usage vehicles and machines are the most challenging
• Lots of developmental solutions –little science based engineering.
• Achieved project objectives(3-4% GHG benefit at acceptable cost and package size) – applicable to any diesel engine!
• And many side benefits...

Bridging the gap between short-term forecasting and long-term scenario models, the UK Transport Carbon Model (UKTCM) is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon emissions and external costs.

Developed partly under the auspices of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) the UKTCM can be used to develop transport policy scenarios that explore the full range of technological, fiscal, regulatory and behavioural change policy interventions to meet UK climate change and energy security goals.

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in energy efficiency (transport)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: ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRANSPORT

• 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

The introduction of Electric Vehicles (EVs) into the passenger vehicle market has, in recent years, become viewed as a primary solution to the significant carbon emissions attributed to personal mobility. Moreover, EVs offer a means by which energy diversification and efficiency can be improved compared to the current system which is dominated by internal combustion engines powered by oil based fuels. The UK and EU Governments have played an active role in steering the development and market introduction of EVs. Policies have been formulated and introduced to engage the consumer by raising awareness of these alternative options, incentivise adoption through fiscal measures and establishing the necessary infrastructure. However, a great deal of uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of these policies and the viability of the EV technology in the mainstream automotive market.This paper investigates the prevalence of uncertainty concerning demand for EVs. This is achieved through the application of a conceptual framework which assesses the locations of uncertainty. UK and EU Government policy documents are assessed through a rapid evidence review alongside contributions from academia to determine how uncertainty has been reduced.

This assessment offers insights to decision makers in this area by evaluating the work done to date through a landscape analysis. Results from the analysis identified six different locations of uncertainty covering (1) consumer, (2) policy, (3) infrastructure, (4) technical, (5) economic and (6) social.

Scope of the Call for Evidence and objectives in respect of flexibility

We welcome the attention being paid by Ofgem and BEIS to the need for flexibility in Britain’s electricity system. In our view the main reason to support electricity system flexibility is that it can help minimise the costs of meeting the UK’s statutory climate targets whilst ensuring that system security is not compromised. The electricity system’s ability to adapt to changing demand in timescales of years down to minutes and varying availability of power from different resources will be extremely important to meeting these policy goals. Furthermore, action is needed so that those consumers that are best able to adapt their patterns of use of electricity have sufficient incentives and rewards for doing so. One manifestation of the main goal in accommodating future generation and demand is an objective to maximise the utilisation (across each year of operation) of electricity system assets, i.e. generators, network components and storage facilities.

Whilst the title of the call for evidence focuses on ‘a smart, flexible energy system’, most of the raised relate to the electricity system. We have therefore focused most of our responses on electricity rather than the energy system as a whole. Our responses are selective. We have only answered those questions where we can offer relevant evidence, based on our research and expertise.

• Energy Storage
• Flexible Demand
• Pricing and tariffs
• Procurement of System Services
• Interactions between transmission and distribution
• Industry Leadership
• Roles in planning and operating the future power system
• Evidence and access to data

Scope of the Call for Evidence and objectives in respect of flexibility

We welcome the attention being paid by Ofgem and BEIS to the need for flexibility in Britain’s electricity system. In our view the main reason to support electricity system flexibility is that it can help minimise the costs of meeting the UK’s statutory climate targets whilst ensuring that system security is not compromised. The electricity system’s ability to adapt to changing demand in timescales of years down to minutes and varying availability of power from different resources will be extremely important to meeting these policy goals. Furthermore, action is needed so that those consumers that are best able to adapt their patterns of use of electricity have sufficient incentives and rewards for doing so. One manifestation of the main goal in accommodating future generation and demandis an objective to maximise the utilisation (across each year of operation) of electricity system assets, i.e. generators, network components and storage facilities.

Whilst the title of the call for evidence focuses on ‘a smart, flexible energy system’, most of the raised relate to the electricity system. We have therefore focused most of our responses on electricity rather than the energy system as a whole. Our responses are selective. We have only answered those questions where we can offer relevant evidence, based on our research and expertise.

This document only answers questions 28 -32 inclusive. Another document is available http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/UCAT/PUBLICATIONS/Response_to_Ofgem-BEIS_call_for_evidence-smart_flexible_energy_system.pdf which gives answers to other questions in the consultation.

• There are extremely ambitious technology deployment rates (for example for CCGT, heat pumps and electric vehicles) within some scenarios that could be challenging in reality and should therefore be subjected to stress testing.
• In addition to the need for appropriate investment signals, analysis should address the incorporation of a very active demand side and if the current arrangements can handle large amounts of intermittent generation supplying an elastic demand side.
• UKERC recommends that Ofgem consider a stress test that examines the loss of Norwegian gas supplies.

• Light Vehicles in the UK (age, emissions, life, mileage etc)
• Plug-in vehicle sales
• Consumers, Vehicles and Energy Integration (CVEI) project

• Innovation opportunities exist in fuel cell system designs and production methods
• Innovations are also being pursued in hydrogen storage to enable use in large, long-range vehicles
• Opportunities to reduce fuel consumption by up to 35% through improved vehicle design (unrelated to engine) have been explored for trucks in the US
• Further design and demonstration work should be carried out on zero emission trucks, particularly on larger, long-range configurations