Results: Browse all publications

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

• To investigate the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030.
• To make projections on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to the electricity market arrangements in place today
• To focus in particular on the hourly variation and seasonal shape of supplier costs

• To investigate the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030.
• To make projections on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to the electricity market arrangements in place today
• To focus in particular on the hourly variation and seasonal shape of supplier costs

• This study investigates the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030
• Projections are made based on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to today’s electricity market arrangements
• Particular focus is given to the hourly variation and seasonal shape of costs faced by suppliers
• Hourly retail cost stacks in 2030 are modelled for the average domestic electricity consumer in the East Midlands

1. National Grid Two Degrees (NG 2 Degrees): A relatively high demand scenario, with relatively high renewables, nuclear and imports, but reduced levels of CCGT
2. ETI Long-Term Role of Gas (ETI LT ROG): The highest-demand scenario modelled, with high levels of renewables, CCGT and storage, but reduced nuclear capacity
3. ETI Consumers, Vehicles and Energy Integration (ETI EVEI): With demand the lowest of the three, this scenario has the highest levels of nuclear, but the lowest levels of renewables and storage

1. Trends in supplier costs that might occur between 2017 and 2030 if market arrangements remain unchanged
2. Differences between scenarios that can be seen, reflecting different technology and market assumptions
3. Issues that could result if arrangements remain unchanged over horizon to 2030

• A word document providing interpretation of the findings in this slide deck
• A high level viewpoint for senior stakeholders summarising the work, results and insights
• An Excel workbook containing the key inputs and a
  full set of hourly outputs by scenario

• To investigate the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030.
• To make projections on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to the electricity market arrangements in place today
• To focus in particular on the hourly variation and seasonal shape of supplier costs

• High Electricity: a world in which electricity becomes the dominant energy vector requiring upgrading of related electricity infrastructure. This test case assumes a predominantly centralised approach to generation and transmission.
• High Heat: a world in which there is considerable progress in rolling out heat networks in urban centres, with the mix of energy vectors otherwise being similar to today. The test case suggests a more decentralised infrastructure with more localised forms of generation.
• High Hydrogen: a world in which a transmission and distribution network for hydrogen is developed.

1. A summary of economic modelling findings
2. Identification of key technical, commercial and regulatory barriers across Case Studies
3. Classification of the barriers identified, based on:
   • Impact – the scale of potential system benefit of multi vector operation
   • Risk – the extent to which these barriers are surmountable
4. Discusses the innovations that might mitigate these barriers, comprising the necessary technical capabilities, and the required regulatory and commercial frameworks.
5. Assesses the additional work for multi vector operation to achieve commercialisation at scale, comprising:
   • Investment
   • Timescales and necessary uptake rates
   • Skills gaps, required operational transformation and strategic considerations

• Case 1: Retention of the gas network to meet peak heating loads in a future where heat decarbonisation is achieved by high electrification
• Case 2: Gas-fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and electric heat pumps supplying heat networks
• Case 3: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles switching between electric and liquid fuel running modes at times of tight electricity supply margins
• Case 4: Renewable Energy Sources (RES) electricity generation to gas (hydrogen or methane) for injection into the gas system
• Case 5: Grid electrolysis to produce hydrogen for a hydrogen distribution system
• Case 6: Renewable Electricity Connection Constraint Mitigated by Domestic Thermal Demand
• Case 7: EfW Flexing Between Producing Electricity and Gas for Grid Injection

• For each case, agree the system configurations of multi-vector (MV) and single-vector (SV) instances
• Discuss the degrees of freedom available in each case that can be used to optimise the MV and SV configurations
• Agree the expected outputs from the modelling that will be used to calculate the multi-vector case benefit
• Discuss the inputs required for each case and for the “global scenarios” and the data sources tobe used
• Agree the exogenous parameters of interest for each MV solution model

1. Domestic scale heat pumps and peak gas boilers.
2. Gas CHP and Heat Pumps supplying district heating and individual building heating loads.
3. PHEV switching fuel demand from electricity to petrol or diesel.
4. RES to H₂/RES to CH₄
5. RES to DH and Distributed Smart Heating (“virtual” DH networks)
6. Anaerobic Digestion/Gasification to CHP or grid injection

• Description of the methodology used to map and classify multi-vector interactions
• An initial assessment of each case, describing the system, the issues addressed, the current situation and the likely ‘materiality’ for the UK energy system
• The process used to filter and prioritise the cases, and the agreed shortlist
• A recap of the subsequent work to be undertaken in Work Packages 2 and 3

• electricity,
• gas,
• hydrogen,
• district heating,
• liquid fuels

• peak avoidance,
• flexibility using multiple vectorsto supply the same load,
• overcoming a generation capacity constraint,
• avoiding curtailment of a generation asset, and
• backing up an energy source

1. Domestic scale heat pumps and peak gas boilers.
2. Gas CHP and Heat Pumps to supply district heating and individual building heating loads
   1. CHP and heat pumps operating to supply heat to district heating
   2. CHP supplying district heating, with co-generated electricity used to power individual dwelling heat pumps
3. PHEV switching fuel demand from electricity to petrol or diesel.
4. RES to H₂/RES to CH₄
5. RES to DH and “virtual” DH networks
6. Anaerobic Digestion/Gasification to CHP or grid injection

This project uses the global TIMES Integrated Assessment Model in UCL (‘TIAM-UCL’) to provide robust quantitative insights into the future of natural gas in the energy system and in particular whether or not gas has the potential to act as a ‘bridge’ to a low-carbon future on both a global and regional basis out to 2050.

We first explore the dynamics of a scenario that disregards any need to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such a scenario results in a large uptake in the production and consumption of all fossil fuels, with coal in particular dominating the electricity system. It is unconventional sources of gas production that account for much of the rise in natural gas production; with shale gas exceeding 1 Tcm after 2040. Gas consumption grows in all sectors apart from the electricity sector, and eventually becomes cost effective both as a marine fuel (as liquefied natural gas) and in mediumgoods vehicles (as compressed natural gas).

We next examine how different gas market structures affect natural gas production, consumption, and trade patterns. For the two different scenarios constructed, one continued current regionalised gas markets, which are characterised by very different prices in different regions with these prices often based on oil indexation, while the other allowed a global gas price to form based on gas supply-demand fundamentals. We find only a small change in overall global gas production levels between these but a major difference in levels of gas trade and so conclude that if gas exporters choose to defend oil indexation in the short-term, they may end up destroying their export markets in longer term. A move towards pricing gas internationally, based on supply-demand dynamics, is thus shown to be crucial if they are to maintain their current levels of exports.

This briefing is based on two propositions.

First, that gas security matters, because today in the UKgas plays a dominant role in the provision of energy services, accounting for almost 40% of total inland primary energy consumption in 2017. Thus, a shortrun failure of gas security would undoubtedly have significant political and economic consequences.

Second, that the current measure is far too narrow to offer a comprehensive assessment of UK gas security, particularly in a post-Brexit context. Discussions at the Gas Security Forum suggested that:the measure of gas securityfocuses only on infrastructure capacity and not supply (capacity does not equal flow); it fails to take account of the time-lag for gas delivery; it does not measure diversity or spare capacity; it ignores the impact of multiple asset failures; and, does not consider the costs associated with ensuring greater security.

It is in this context that this paper seeks to address the following questions:

• What are the constituent factors to consider in assessing gas security?
• What alternative measures exist?
• What potentially threatens gas security in the UK?
• What would a better approach to gas security look like?

The thinking behind this paper is that a more extensive approach to measuring UK gas security is needed to address the less dramatic challenges that face UK gas security, as well as the chance of managing a Black Swanevent.

A review funded by HubNet and UKERC, and written by the University of Strathclyde's Damien Frame, Keith Bell and Stephen McArthur, argues that RD&D activity by Britains electricity distribution network operators has significantly revived; this revival is linked to Ofgem's 500m Low Carbon Network Fund investment.

The principal aims of this paper are to examine the range of reported unit costs for major generating technologies, show the range of estimates, explain where possible the reasons for the range, and show to what extent there is any clustering around central values. In addition, the paper explains the components of unit cost calculations and discussed what is, and is not, included in these calculations.

This document provides a road map for Photovoltaics (PV) research in the UK. It covers PV materials, cell and module design and manufacture and applications including BOS components. It is specific to the UK and reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the research base in the UK, although it is compatible with the roadmaps of other countries, particularly the one recently developed for the European Community. Its primary aim is to identify priority areas for UK PV research and assist the research funding agencies, particularly EPSRC, DTI and the Carbon Trust, in developing their research programmes, but it also considers the need to develop UK capacity, both in terms of expertise and research facilities.

Research cannot take place in a commercial vacuum, and although not its primary function, the road map will outline the context for PV research in the UK. The potential for market growth in the UK and more widely is outlined and the need for market stimulation in the UK discussed.

The road map reflects the outcomes of a two day PV road mapping exercise, organised by the UKERC Meeting Place, that took place in Edinburgh in July 2006, together with inputs from a number of the attendees over the following weeks and subsequently contributions from the wider researcher community in response to an initial draft. The road map has also been subject to international peer review, and we indebted to these reviewers for their input.

The role of the UK Energy Research Centre Marine Energy Research Network in developing a route map for marine renewable energy research is described and put into the context of previous and current marine energy research at a national and EU level. A summary of the route mapping process is given based upon the Batelle approach. Justification is provided for route mapping in terms of encouraging cooperation and collaboration within the community to develop a coherent reseach, development and demonstration strategy, which will be used to inform policy makers and funding bodies. Some preliminary outputs from the network are presented in the paper to encourage discussion.

• What we do
• The areas we work in
• The outcomes
• Commercially available products
• Who we have worked with

This report assesses the currently available evidence on the size of unconventional gas resources at the regional and global level. Focusing in particular on shale gas, it provides a comprehensive summary and comparison of the estimates that have been produced to date. It also examines the methods by which these resource estimates have been produced the strengths and weaknesses of those methods, the range of uncertainty in the results and the factors that are relevant to their interpretation.

This working paper considers the risks and opportunities posed to UK heat sector businesses by a potential transformation towards a low-carbon heat system in the UK. It is an output from the Heat, Incumbency and Transformations (HIT) project which is part of the UK Energy Research Centre programme.

The HIT project is investigating the idea of incumbency, considering what the term means, how it is present in the UKs heat sector and what the implications of incumbency are for the UKs potential transformation from a high carbon heat system to a low-carbon heat system.

The previous working paper developed a working definition of incumbency (Loweset al., 2017). This working paper forms the second phase of the project, exploring who the incumbents are in the UK heat system and the implications of the potential transformation for incumbents.

An online m

• Energy System Analysis –the importance of CCS
• UK Power System –the value of CCS
• CCS in the UK –some recent history and development of the ETI’s current programme
• Addressing the credibility of the cost base: the ETI’s Thermal Power with CCS - Generic Business Case Project
• Conclusions and next steps

This report, commissioned by the Aldersgate Group and co-authored with Vivid Economics, identifies out how the government can achieve a net zero target cost-effectively, in a way that enables the UK to capture competitive advantages.

The unique contribution of this report is to identify the lessons from successful and more rapid historical innovations and apply them to the challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK.

Achieving net zero emissions is likely to require accelerated innovation across research, demonstration and early deployment of low carbon technologies. Researchers analysed five international case studies of relatively rapid innovations to draw key lessons for government on the conditions needed to move from a typical multi-decadal cycle, to one that will deliver net zero emissions by mid-Century.

The case studies include:

• The deployment of the ATM network and cash cards across the UK;
• Roll out of a gas network and central heating in the UK;
• The development of wind turbines in Denmark and then the UK;
• Moving from late-stage adoption of steel technology in South Korea to being the world leading exporter; and
• The slower than expected development of commercial-scale CCUS to date across the world. 

The report also sets out which low carbon technologies are likely to have wider productivty and growth benefits in other industries for the UK. These include carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS); heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); wind energy; biofuels and batteries. These areas should be prioritised by the government’s innovation strategy going forwards.

• The UK needs innovation to meet its carbon targets and for this process to beeffective and rapid – with several critical components:market confidence, finance,public policy and thecapability to innovate
• Collaboration and shared understanding is required – involving interactions across science, business and government to facilitate knowledge transfer and learning – it is easier to achieve a transition with a shared understanding of the drivers of new low carbon energy technologies
• The slower the pace of energy innovation, the less time the UK will have to transition to a low carbon economy and the more expensive it will be to do so
• Successful innovation systems often involve open and iterative processes, which are complex. They depend on multiple interactions between different actors
• Policy interventions are required to drive innovation in energy and low carbon – business needs certainty so policy stability matters
• Industry and government should work together to set strategic priorities – low carbon markets are almost entirely driven by public policy but delivered by private sector firms
• Successful innovation in low carbon energy requires new technology capabilities, new markets, new business models together with appropriate changes to the regulatory framework

This workshop had several aims:

1. To increase understanding of the different approaches to ABM and their applicability to informing energy and other policy intervention design
2. To identify policy areas where ABM techniques could be usefully applied and to examine how they could be incorporated into the policy making process.
3. To develop joint research proposals aimed at relevant research funding bodies.
4. To develop relationships between key researchers in this emerging area.

• 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

• NET Power technology has the potential to be a gamechanger.
• Modelling analysis confirms that NET Power’s supercritical CO₂ power cycle has the potential to deliver carbon capture at efficiencies higher than conventional amine solutions.
• Some unpublished innovations which NET Power are protecting as trade secrets are needed to make the technology as cost efficient as an unabated CCGT, which is still improving rapidly.
• The technology is immature and has multiple development hurdles to overcome and therefore it is likely to take several years before it is commercially available at scale. It is therefore likely to be best suited for deployment once other elements of CCS have been de-risked (i.e. transport and storage) rather than in a First of a Kind full scale development.

• UK-grown biomass can deliver genuine, system-level, greenhouse gas savings.
• Planting around 1.4 Mha of second generation (non-food) bioenergy crops, such as Miscanthus, Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow and Short Rotation Forestry (SRF), by the 2050s would make a signifi cant contribution to delivering a cost-effective, low carbon energy system. This is equivalent to ~7.5% of the total agricultural area of the UK.
• Steadily increasing the area of bioenergy crops in the UK (averaging around 30-35 kha/yr of new planting out to the 2050s) would allow the sector to ‘learn by doing’ and develop best practices, as well as monitor and manage impacts on other markets and the wider environment.
• Delivering a substantial energy crops sector whilst balancing the demand for land from other sectors will require an increase in land productivity and a reduction in food waste throughout the supply chain.
• The market for second generation energy crops is nascent.
• As the UK prepares to leave the European Union, there is an opportunity to restructure farming support in a way which provides long-term clarity and support to farmers and encourages the sustainable growth of the UK biomass sector

• Offshore Wind
  • Is a proven technology that is being deployed commercially with a credible path to becoming competitive with the lowest cost low carbon technologies
  • The focus for technology development is now on – improving yields, reducing capital & operational costs and achieving wider deployment
  • A stable policy and funding environment into the medium term would accelerate the achievement of energy cost competitiveness
• Tidal Stream Energy
  • Is at a much earlier stage in the innovation chain
  • Its innovation needs are known and the challenge is one of how to put the component parts together in deployable systems rather than having to reinvent the technology
  • MeyGen’s Inner Sound project, the world’s first tidal stream array is pivotal to advancing the technology and developing supply chain capability

• 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.

• Planting 30 - 35 kha/yr of second generation crops (Miscanthus, Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow and Short  Rotation Forestry (SRF)) would keep the UK on the trajectory to deliver a bioenergy sector of the scale needed to help cost-effectively decarbonise the UK energy system.
• Due to the seasonal nature of bioenergy crop planting, management and harvesting, the majority of job opportunities will be part-time, but are complimentary to the seasonal demands of other roles in the agricultural and forestry sectors, particularly arable farming.By 2032, a 30 kha/yr planting rate could create around 8,100 job opportunities in the busiest months (or 4,300 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs when averaged across the year). By the 2050s, around 16,700 opportunities could be created during peak periods (9,100 FTE jobs across the year).
• The UK is not currently in a position to deliver a planting rate of 30 kha/yr – the total planted area of Miscanthus and SRC willow has remained at around 10 kha in recent years with a limited number of players in the market. Investment is needed in the production of plant breeding materials, including research into new establishment techniques to reduce costs. Investment is also needed in training and specialised equipment for planting and harvesting.
• As the UK prepares to leave the European Union, there is an opportunity to restructure farming support in a way which encourages the sustainable growth of the UK biomass sector. This could place a value on the wider environmental benefits growing second generation energy crops can make to the farming landscape.

• Respondents have consistently supported government-led action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. In 2017, over half of respondents (58%) thought that the government should do more to reduce emissions, with only 6% believing that the government should reduce efforts to lower emissions.
• Support for producing bioenergy from both biomass and waste has been consistently strong across all three surveys with the highest levels of support recorded in the most recent survey. Across the three surveys between 72% and 77% of respondents supported the use of biomass, and 81-84% supported the use of waste for bioenergy production.
• Bioenergy is associated with several positive features. The ability to generate energy from waste has consistently been the positive feature most selected by respondents. The ETI’s broader analysis highlights the importance of using waste feedstocks effectively to deliver emissions savings. In order to help achieve this, the ETI is investing in a 1.5 MWe waste gasifi cation demonstration plant with syngas clean-up.
• In all three surveys, competition for land and having to import biomass because not enough is produced in the UK have been perceived by respondents as the main negative features of bioenergy. Our 2016 report explored these views in more detail and concluded that using a mix of imported and domestic feedstocks could be publically acceptable, such that the UK is not overly reliant on imports and can maintain at least current levels of food self-sufficiency
• The government has consistently been the most popular choice to lead the development of the bioenergy sector, but a greater number of respondents trust scientists/academics or experts in the field, independent consumer or industry watchdogs, and environmental interest groups to provide reliable information on the sector. This suggests it will be crucial for different groups to work together to increase awareness and understanding of bioenergy while developing the sector in the UK.

• The UK can implement an affordable (approximately 1% of GDP) 35-year transition to a low carbon energy system by developing, commercialising and integrating known – but currently underdeveloped solutions
• There is enormous potential and value in CCS and bioenergy in delivering alow carbon future
• The ability (or failure) to deploy these two technologies will have a huge impact on the cost of achieving the UK climate change targets and the national architecture of low carbon systems and future infrastructure requirements
• To avoidwasting investment, crucial decisions must be made about the design of the future UK energy system, driven by choices on infrastructure
• The next decade is critical in preparing for transition
• Preparation will require major investments in developing and proving key technology options by the mid 2020s
• Preparation creates options, demonstrates leadershipand provides scope for economic advantage in a global market place
• Planned UK spend is probably sufficient, if it is targeted to develop genuine deployment readiness of the most strategically valuable options on the pathway to 2050
• Significant policy intervention will be required to support key technologies with characteristics that make a pure market approach difficult (e.g. CCS, bioenergy, nuclear, offshore wind, heat networks

• Low cost sensors that enable many things to be measured – for example all the information that cars now have available.
• Communications infrastructure that enables data to be transported almost anywhere on the planet.
• Relatively low cost storage and processing power that is scalable, so you mostly only pay for what you need.
• Software tools that enable data to be transformed to produce information and insight that can be displayed in a way that people can easily grasp.
• Social and business ecosystems that set expectations and enable us to share and transact without relying on a single point of control.
• Rating sites such as TripAdvisor, blogs, PayPal and social media channels all provide social and commercial models that increase individual knowledgeand empowerment.

These elements have only just started to penetrate energy, which has been held back significantly by the current governance structures. Energy presents similar challenges to those of finance where changes which should benefit consumers come with new risks. However, giving people more freedom in how they buy and use energy should carry less risk than giving them freedoms over their pensions and other investments.

• 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

This note provides an overview and guide to a process of assessment being undertaken by the UK Energy Research Centre Technology and Policy Assessment function (TPA), with support from the Carbon Trust.

The UKERC has consulted widely on the topics that the TPA needs to consider. It has chosen its preliminary topics carefully, in consultation with stakeholders and in accordance with defined criteria. Intermittency – used herein as shorthand for a range of issues that relate to the costs and electricity system impacts of the intermittent electrical output from wind, solar and some other forms of grid connected renewable generation – has emerged as one of two initial TPA assessment topics.

The TPA will undertake meta-analysis of existing work in order to seek gaps in knowledge, examine different modelling assumptions, and consider how well different pieces of work fit together. The assessment will seek to make clear where and why differences arise in terms of models, assumptions, scenarios and interpretation of findings. It will identify research gaps and provide a clear statement of the nature of the questions that remain.

A key goal is to achieve high standards of rigour and transparency. We have therefore set up a process that is inspired by the evidence based approach to policy assessment undertaken in healthcare, education and social policy, but that is not bound to any narrowly defined method or techniques. The approach entails tight specification of the means by which we will consult stakeholders and solicit expert input, highly specified searching of the relevant literature, and clear and transparent criteria against which relevant findings will be assessed. It is described in the Review Protocol, below.

An introduction to the subject matter and description of assessment activities are provided in this scoping note and protocol.

The note is aimed at informed commentators and therefore takes some knowledge for granted – for example of terminology, recent literature and the principal concepts. Its focus is on why and where opinions differ, and the objective is to highlight questions and disagreements, but not answer or resolve either. A more general introduction to the subject is provided in the project scoping note and protocol.

Feedback and comment is invited on all of what follows, and in particular on the set of summary questions at the end of this note.

The remainder of this note covers the following topics:

• Identification of key issues
• Capacity values
• System balancing
• Allocating costs
• Framing questions

The energy system is highly complex and its future is uncertain due to unexpected changes and contrasting values. The complexity of the system may be defined by, for example, changing politics, technologies, finance and demographics. Under these conditions, decision-makers may struggle to confidently assess their future needs. However, decisions must be made so that organisational objectives are achieved, energy supply is secure and directives are met. For high-level decisions (e.g. strategic decisions reaching far into the future) it is unlikely that more time and better data will reduce uncertainty, and as a result, decisions must be made with existing information. Techniques like scenario analysis are useful for gathering this type of disparate information.

Deliberative techniques (e.g. scenario analysis) are used under conditions of high decision complexity and uncertainty. These techniques may interrogate multiple decision options under various future conditions, thus providing a first-step in understanding inherent risks and uncertainties. In this report we used scenario analysis to assess a set of risks under two plausible future energy scenarios. The studied scenarios included an energy system on a trajectory of development that did not deviate from its current projection (status quo) and a low carbon scenario whereby energy generation was largely provided by non-carbon (e.g. renewable) sources. Energy system experts were used to qualify the different risks and provide industrial insight.

The study analysed a suite of nineteen unique risks. These included political (international agreement, geopolitical issues, UK political issues), economic (project capital costs, investor trust in government, commodity pricing, electricity pricing), social (behavioural change, public perception, democratization of process), technical (rate of innovation vs implementation, energy supply chain, project risks, transport infrastructure), legal (end of life and stranded assets, pre/post operational governance, UK planning and licensing), and environmental (cumulative environmental factors, accidents and climactic events) issues.

The results of this study suggest that political and economic drivers pose the greatest risk, or barrier, to future energy system development. Though these two themes were perceived as being most risky, the character of the risks varied for each scenario. For example, political drivers (i.e. geopolitical) and the impact they may have on hydrocarbon prices posed the greatest risk to an energy system reliant on fossil fuels (i.e. status quo). This was in contrast toa low carbon scenario where the character of political risk (i.e. UK politics) focussed around long-term national policy-making, which in turn highlighted issues about investor confidence. Regardless the differences in character, experts perceived political consistency as being vital for improving confidence in their decision-making. Overall, experts consistently rated risks associated with a low carbon scenario higher than those for the status quo.

Our report provides a snapshot of current industrial thinking about the risks associated with different future pathways that the UK energy system may follow. In addition to identifying perceived risk priorities, this analysis also provides an indication of where gaps in knowledge and understanding about risk may exist. Strategies for addressing these gaps may include improved communication (e.g. between industry, government and academia) or targeted research. In either instance, the ultimate aim is to reduce uncertainty and improve conditions for long-term decision-making in the UK energy system.

• Value of brine production: Lifetime T&S unit costs tend to increase with brine production for a given injection scenario (although some minor savings are observed for some of the units examined); however, more importantly, more injection scenarios with higher storage capacities become feasible with brine production.
• Cost effectiveness of brine production: Brine production allows significant increase in storage capacity at similar unit costs. In addition to achieving more CO₂ storage capacity with reasonable costs, a lower unit T&S cost is achieved with brine production at Firth of Forth and Tay.
• Optimal development/configuration plans: As CAPEX of clean water discharge infrastructure on platform is negligible, sub-sea brine production does not lead to significant savings in water treatment CAPEX. However, significant savings can be achieved in injection facility CAPEX (if high costs of installing platforms can be avoided with subsea brine production – e.g. if subsea facilities connected to a hub is the most cost-effective configuration for an injection scenario).

• Value and cost of brine production: Examination of potential impact of brine production on gas fields
• Optimal development/configuration plans: Examination of further brine production scenarios that will be provided by HWU (e.g. more optimised injection/brine production scenarios if necessary) and examining different infrastructure configurations with brine production (e.g. using a central water treatment facility, which can be connected to subsea facilities or oversea platforms via brine distribution pipelines
• Informing CO₂Stored database: Reviewing learnings from the initial analysis to consider how we could model other storage units in the CO₂Stored database

• Trade-offs and co-benefits need to be actively managed if multiple environmental objectives are to be achieved and the low carbon transition is to enhance the natural ecosystems that are essential to prosperity and well-being. UKERCs research on environmental goals informs the answer to Q1.
• Energy efficiency and heat system retrofit in buildings offers an immediate triple-win in terms of economic stimulus, societal benefits and environmental goals. A strong long-term economic case can also be made to boost investment in all of those areas where the UK will need to build infrastructure and capacity in order to meet decarbonisation objectives. UKERC has examined the evidence on green jobs. We explore this in more detail in our answer to Q2.
• There are already skills gaps in the sectors relevant to energy efficiency retrofit and it is important to invest in addressing these, as we explain in the answer to Q3.
• Further action is needed to strengthen the industrial strategy. Ambition needs to go well beyond the aim to decarbonise one (or even all) of the UKs industrial clusters. Decarbonising all of industry will require research, development and demonstration support for breakthrough technologies and wider low-carbon infrastructure; market creation for products made via low carbon production processes; and promotion of resource efficiency and circular economy approaches. UKERC has published a number of reports highlighting where further action is needed, as detailed in Q4.
• Our research shows widespread low carbon ambition in local authorities but significant challenges in converting this to action. To change this, government could establish a new policy mandate for net zero carbon localities, institutionalise local net zero carbon planning and implementation through a new statutory power and devolved resources, and invest in local authority net zero teams. Q5 reviews a range of evidence on the role of local government.

• We welcome that a target of 600,000 heat pumps is included in the plan as this provides some clear direction for industry. However this is purely a target and it requires a thorough policy and governance framework to both support deployment and protect consumers.
• Despite the clear case for district heating, it is overlooked in the plan, and there is a lack of focus on energy efficiency despite the expected centrality of both of these technologies.

UKERC have submitted a reponse to the BEIS call for evidence on the future for small-scale low-carbon generation. This consultation sought to identify the role that small-scale low-carbon generation can play in the UK shift to clean growth by further understanding: 

• The challenges and opportunities from small-scale low-carbon generation in contributing to government’s objectives for clean, secure, affordable and flexible power; and
• The role for government and the private sector in overcoming these challenges and realising these opportunities.

In our submission we responded to the individual points raised in the call, drawing on two streams of work undertaken as part of the UKERC research programme. The first stream concerns community energy, drawing primarily on data from the UKERC Financing Community Energy project. This project has collected and analysed data from a number of sources:

• Quantitative data gathered as part of a UK-wide survey of community energy finance and business models. This dataset covers 145 community energy projects run by 48 different community energy organisations.
• Qualitative data on community energy organisations’ suggestions for changes in public policy and industry practice, and their plans for the future, gathered as part of the same UK-wide survey.
• Further qualitative data on community energy organisations’ views on pathways to future decentralised energy business models, gathered at workshops held as part of the Manchester Mayor’s Green Summit process, and the Community Energy England annual conference 2018.
• A wide range of other data and literature, including access to the dataset collected for Community Energy England’s 2017 State of the Sector Survey, covering 220 community energy organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The second stream draws on a number of recent UKERC publications on electricity systems and networks :

• Developing low carbon networks for a low-carbon future
• Security of electricity supply in a low-carbon Britain
• The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency
• Delivering a highly distributed electricity system: Technical, regulatory and policy challenges. 

• Energy balancing is critical and extends beyond the electricity system
• Numerous opportunities to achieve balancing include:
  • Energy storage
  • Demand side flexibility
  • Vector integration
• Key decisions that lead to new energy systems will affect how much and what type of flexibility is needed.
• There is a huge amount of potential that we do not currently understand about balancing within a whole energy system.
• It is possible to assess the requirements for future flexibility – tools and evidence are being developed to help with this.

What policies and other factors have driven change/transformation in heat delivery technologies, fuels and infrastructure? The Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) Theme of UKERC have published a scoping note outlining their ongoing investigation into this topic.

Part of the Energy-PIECES project, this report was developed during a secondment at the Energy Savings Trust.

• All three case studies demonstrate that planting energy crops can increase the profitability of the land over a 23-year lifetime. Initial investment costs are expected to be paid back within the first six to seven years.
• When optimising the use of land across the farm, impacts on food production can be minimised or avoided. in two case studies, food impacts were minimised by using land which delivered poor arable yields, and by minimising the reduction in sheep numbers through higher stocking densities (the number of sheep per hectare). in the third case study, the crop was planted on unused land so no food production was displaced.
• Land which is less suitable for food production or grazing can be suited to energy crops as they can be successfully planted on poorer quality soils, and land which is more prone to waterlogging or weed problems. They are also suited to less accessible fields as they require less intensive management than arable crops.
• The farmers in these case studies chose to grow energy crops for a variety of reasons - making better use of difficult or underutilised land, diversifying income and reducing workload. In addition, all farmers cited the importance of obtaining secure fixed-term contracts with buyers in their decision making. This reinforces findings from previous ETI work on enabling UK biomass.
• Discussions with land agents suggest that land used to grow biomass crops should not be valued differently to other agricultural land, as land should be valued on its productive capacity. however, the specific price offered by a buyer will be affected by their objectives in buying the land and their understanding of bioenergy crops. The presence of a profitable contract for the crop and a willingness from the buyer to continue with bioenergy cropping may have a beneficial impact on the land value. If the buyer wishes to change the land use, is uncertain how to manage a bioenergy crop, or if there are limited market outlets for the crop, the land value may be lower than if it weren’t planted with a bioenergy crop.
• Qualitative evidence from the Miscanthus farmers indicate an increase in wildlife, particularly birds, since growing the crop. In the Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Willow case study, the farm carried out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) before planting.

The two-day residential workshop brought together experts from the bioenergy community to explore bioenergy research opportunities which could benefit from financial support from the Carbon Trust using its new directed research approach.

This UKERC TPA working paper has been prepared to support the Committee on Climate Change’s advice to the UK government on the implications of the Paris Agreement on its long-term emissions reduction targets. In their recent reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have highlighted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR), defined as any anthropogenic activity that results in the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, is critical to meeting the Paris Agreement target.

This review addresses two technological CDR solutions that have been demonstrated: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). The overarching questions which this review addresses, for both BECCS and DACCS, are:

1. What is the potential contribution that these technologies could make to CO2 removal and potentially CO2 emissions reductions to achieve net zero emissions in the UK?
2. What are the current and projected costs, globally and in the UK, of these technologies and how plausible are projected cost reductions (including evidence for the benefits to be derived from economies of scale/technology learning)?

• Despite new entrants, the supply chain is very fragamented.
• There are a number of planned network logistics investments which have the potential to benefit the sector.
• There are lessons that can be learned from established supply chains in other comparable industries
• Confidence in the sector is much needed to attract further investment in supporting infrastructure and supply chain synergies.
• Rail is vital to the UK’s economic prosperity. Rail links with ports and airports are essential to support the transportation of goods
• The extent to which rail transport and freight specifically will be a constraint to the biomass logistics supply chain is dependent upon a range of factors; primarily the Government’s energy policy on biomass, willingness of the Government to protect capacity and promote rail freight growth on the network, the extent to which biomass will replace coal and the cost efficiency of using imported fuel sources and rail haulage, as opposed to local fuel supplies and other transport modes

• ensure a wider, more detailed representation of possible bioenergy pathways
• raise the overall data quality and level of confidence in the model
• improve the user interface
• increase the options for use cases and scenarios

• 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 paper explores the sensitivity of energy system decarbonisation pathways to the role of afforestation and reduced energy demands as a means to lessen reliance on carbon dioxide removal. 

Large uncertainties surround the viability of carbon dioxide removal

The stringency of climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement has placed strong emphasis on the role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over this century. However, there are large uncertainties around the technical and economic viability and the sustainability of large-scale CDR options. These uncertainties have prompted further consideration of the role of bioenergy in decarbonisation pathways and the potential land-use trade-offs between energy crops and afforestation. The interest in afforestation is motivated by its potential as an alternative to large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), with its arguably lower risk supply chains, and multiple co-benefits. Furthermore, doubt over the viability of large-scale CDR has prompted a renewed examination of the extent to which their need can be offset by lowering energy demands.

Testing the impacts of reduced demands and afforestation

A global optimisation model (TIAM-UCL) was used to examine decarbonisation pathways for the global energy system. Based on core assumptions, where energy demands follow business as usual trends and degraded land is used for energy crops, the model was unable to find a solution for a 1.5°C target. Over the period 2020-2100, the carbon budget of GtCO₂ is exceeded by 332 GtCO₂.

Scenarios where also run to examine how the least-cost decarbonisation pathway changes if i) energy demands are significantly reduced, or ii) degraded land is used for large-scale afforestation instead of energy crops. Each option on its own reduced the CO₂ budget exceedance but both were required to allow the model to meet the 1.5°C target.

Impacts on the energy system

Under the 2°C target, afforestation reduced the reliance on BECCS by 60%. Under the 1.5°C target, the system still used all of the biomass available, as the target is so ambitious. When the energy demands were lower, the effect of afforestation on biomass use was dependent on the climate target. Under the 2°C target, less biomass was used across all economic sectors, whereas under the stringent 1.5°C target, all the available wood and crop biomass was exploited, but its use shifted away from the production of liquid fuels towards use in power generation.

Lowering energy service demands had a larger effect on the energy mix than large-scale afforestation. This is because demands are lowered differently across the sectors according to their economic drivers. However, afforestation had a bigger impact on the marginal cost of climate change mitigation, as it substantially decreases the scale and pace of change required by the energy system, especially in the 2°C case.

Given its key role, afforestation should be considered more in deep decarbonisation scenarios, as should lower demand scenarios.

Lowering energy demand and introducing large-scale afforestation both present significant challenges and opportunities. Further work should focus on factors affecting the carbon sequestration potential of afforestation, along with an interdisciplinary research agenda on the scope for large scale energy demand reduction. Research on the social, technical and economic factors that affect the potential for converting abandoned agricultural land to energy crops or new forest would be beneficial. An interdisciplinary research agenda is needed that brings together techno-economic modelling and qualitative scenario development with research on the social change that could lead to large reductions in energy demand

This Meeting Report gives an overview of the 'Breaking the Deadlock in Climate Change Communication' event, which was held on 12 March 2014 at the Church House Conference Centre.

This briefing paper examines how renewables in Scotland are shaped by decisions taken by the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the EU. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders, it explores the potential impact of Brexit on Scottish renewables.

Brexit has the potential to disrupt this relatively supportive policy environment in three ways in regulatory and policy frameworks governing renewable energy; access to EU funding streams; and trade in energy and related goods and services.

Our briefing identifies varying levels of concern among key stakeholders in Scotland. Many expect policy continuity, irrespective of the future UK-EU relationship. There is more concern about access to research and project funding, and future research and development collaboration, especially for more innovative renewable technologies. The UK will become a third country forthe purposes of EU funding streams, able to participate, but not lead on renewables projects, and there is scepticism about whether lost EU funding streams will be replaced at domestic levels.

While there is no real risk of being unable to access European markets even in a No-Deal Brexit scenario, trade in both energy and related products and services could become more difficult and more expensive affecting both the import of specialist labour and kit from the EU and the export of knowledge-based services. Scotlands attractiveness for inward investment may also be affected.

This Working Paper presents key findings from research conducted within the Energy and Environment theme since 2009, when the second phase of UKERC activity began. Research within this theme has investigated the impacts associated with a range of marine and land-based energy production and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation technologies including bioenergy, wind, tidal, gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The carbon and water footprints of these technologies have been investigated as have their social, economic and environmental impacts and their impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystem services.

This briefing note summarises initial findings from qualitative research undertaken as part of a major project investigating public values, attitudes and views on whole energy system change.

A key objective of the project is to identify degrees of public acceptability relating to various aspects of whole energy system transformation and the trade-offs inherent in such transitions. This research has relevance as a research evidence base for informing development of future energy systems, as well as for understanding processes of and potential obstacles to delivery of such transitions.

• This deliverable is number 2 of 7 in Work Package 2.
• It presents the initial approach to the costing methodology for thermal efficiency improvements to be employed by the project and incorporated into the computer model being developed.
• Accurate cost information for retrofit interventions is key to ensuring the identification and development of the optimum solutions for each housing archetype previously identified in deliverable D2.1.
• Costs of two types are considered:
  • Unit costs
  • Other fixed costs
• Costs are input for:
  • Loft insulation
  • Cavity wall insulation
  • Hot water tank insulation
  • Floor insulation
  • Replacement windows

• Pre-1919 detached houses
• Pre-1919 mid-terraced houses
• Pre-1919 converted flats
• 1919-1944 semi detached houses
• 1945-1964 semi detached houses

• To address the needs and requirements from a broad range of stakeholders in the national retrofit process
• To formulate a preliminary hierarchy of value of ‘home thermal efficiency’ for stakeholders
• To understand the various barriers and obstacles to the success of a national retrofit implementation plan
• To capture views from the participants and propose a strategy for capturing responses from other under-represented groups.
• To translate the outputs of the workshop into a framework for future deliverables to use as measures of success

1. To cover a sufficient range of house types to gain a good picture of the issues involved with implementing a mass retrofit programme
2. To take the whole house solutions in WP3.3 and examine them with regards to buildability, cost, carbon effectiveness and customer acceptance
3. To test out whole house solutions proposals on the most frequently occurring house types across the UK, focusing on the variations in construction and housing typology in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales

1. 1) Preparation to 2020
2. 2) Retrofit rollout 2020 to 2030
3. 3) Future scenarios 2030 to 2050.

• The 4 hour detailed survey with 2 people is possible (even for the most difficult house) and there is scope to reducethis further.
• It has been shown to be possible to retrofit the two levels of intervention, Retro Fix and Retro Plus, across the modelled house types in 10 elapsed days or less (depending on property size/ complexity and weather permitting) using a team of 4 poly-competent retrofitters.
• Increasing competencies will be vital to deliver retrofit brilliantly and at scale - new training systems are required to provide an up-skilling route for people wishing to enter the retrofit industry.
• New or simplified accreditation and warranty systems are needed for retrofit
• Standard retrofit solutions will help generate efficiency gains and simplify the provision of materials.
• Progress has been made to understand how cost is built up within the supply chain but further work is needed to allow key players to share cost information.
• Retrofit cost of under£10,000 for most house types is feasible but challenging for most house types based on our understanding of how cost is built up within the supply chain. More specific cost data will be generated for common house archetypes; these will be presented in follow up reports for this work package.

1. the individual building level, and
2. the UK housing stock level.

• A stock model that uses a simplified energy model as its calculation engine.
• A simplified model for individual dwelling calculations (the same model as used in the stock model).
• A detailed simulation model (or models) for individual dwelling modelling in situations where such a model is necessary.

• Develop a multi-skill site approach which enables seamless, cost-effective site work with minimal disruption to householders; instead of a series of trade based activities.
• Develop factory prepared kits, ready to fit, with short leadtimes; which speed up installation, minimise disruption and give assured quality performance.
• Generate supply solutions that treat retrofit as a System solution instead of a series of bolt on interventions. With product and service providers acting together there will be more potential to improve overall thermal performance, reduce cost and minimise householder disruption.

• a summary of 52 semi-structured interviews with householders who have experienced a building retrofit
• interviews were held with both owner occupiers and with tenants of social housing
• key conclusions from the interviews include
  • need to design out delays from the retrofit process,
  • provide suitable advice as and when the householder wants it,
  • consider the reduction of VAT from retrofit works and
  • design solutions which allow for the use of local tradesmen
  • minimal levels of maintenancegoing forwards.

• 15 one to one interviews,
• 10 focus groups and
• a survey of 20,000 people (932 responses) carried out by the consortium.

• A: Detailed Survey Methodology
• B: Survey Questionnaire
• C: Postal Survey Covering Letter with Glossary
• D: Email covering letter
• E: Survey Responses
• F: Focus Group Structure
• G – Example Focus Group Screener
• H – Virtual Retrofit Interview Script
• References

• The need for a major programme of training and skills development;
• Legislation to help bring the private rental sector into retrofit;
• Consolidation of advice, funding and policy streams;
• Focus on developing a link between asset value and energy performance
• Roles for a project manager or single-point-of-contact liaison officer would help ensure retrofit packages meet customer expectations.

• the existing methodologies available
• the choice of the Experian Mosaic-Green system.
• the ten customer segments are discussed along with their geographic distribution
• A first draft of the metrics is shown
• Further development of the segmentation model is discussed
• Appendices:
  • A: Extract of Micro DE 1.3 Report
  • B: Key datasets

• A summary of the Work Package and its deliverables;
• A final summary of the customer segmentation with segment profiles;
• A detailed summary of potential early adopter segments;
• Synthesis conclusions and recommendations;
• Evaluation of the deliverable and suggestions for future work.

• Validation of House Type and Customer Type Combinations
• Profiles of early adopters terms
  
  • Older Established
  • Stretched Pensioners
  • Transitional Retirees
  • Early Entrepeneurs

1. demographic profile
2. top house types
li>attitudes to refits
3. energy perceptions and behaviours

• A summary of the Work Package and its deliverables;
• A final summary of the customer segmentation;
• The early adopter segments;
• Synthesis conclusions and recommendations;
• Evaluation of the deliverable and suggestions for future work.

• existing methodologies
• choice of Experian Mosaic-Green
• work with Experian to refine the customer segments from their model in this specific context
• summarises the ten resulting customer segments
• presents a diagram showing their relationship to age and affluence
• describes the further work to be done

• English housing stock has been split into 36 different archetypes based on the dates of construction and the dwelling configuration.
• This is to support the analysis of retrofit interventions identified on an individual dwelling basis, and their subsequent extrapolation to the entire English housing stock.
• Data on key characteristics relevant to thermal efficiency or the costs of improvement are presented for each of the housing archetypes.

• Frequency
• Current notional CO₂ emissions
• Predominant wall type & presence of wall insulation
• Roof type
• Percentage of glazing
• Type of glazing
• Presence of bay windows
• Floor area
• Wall area
• Roof area
• Existing loft insulation thickness
• Notional CO₂ reductions following EPC recommended measures
• Presence of ‘additional part’ (an extension or extension-like area)
• Wall finish

1. Splitting the retrofit process into delivery steps and supporting activities, adding a description / specification at each step for the future state, this future state is documented in deliverables 4.3 and 4.4.
2. Add the current state for the existing supply chain
3. Identify the transformation route from current state to desired future state, the participants required to take action, prioritisation and the likely costs / timeframes. The goal is the capacity to achieve 400,000 retrofits per year by 2020. The result of this activity is the transformation plan identified in this deliverable.

• Transformational roadmap, plan and high level budget
• Stakeholder review
• Commercial drivers
• Obstacles & Risks
• Geographical Considerations
• Material and Process Change Requirements

• Householders want to limit the number of people in their home for retrofit work:
• A systems approach to design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of retrofitis likely to deliver significant benefits in cost, speed and efficiency.
• Integration of the whole spectrum of retrofit activities from survey, through design, product manufacture and installation is needed to retrofit of 26 million UK homes before 2050.
• Changes in incentives, accreditation and possibly legislation will be needed to allow required changes to working methods and systems of retrofit delivery to be successfully employed.

• Busy Starters
• Early Enterprisers
• Greener Graduates
• Middle Grounders
• Urban Constrained
• Successful Ruralites
• Unconvinced Dependents
• Transitional Retirees
• Elderly Established
• Stretched Pensioners

• Appendix 1-Survey Process Map
• Appendix 2-Extenal Wall Process Map
• Appendix 3-Internal Wall Timings (not available)
• Appendix 4 - FMEA workshop summary results
  1. Survey Process
  2. Installation Process
• Appendix 5 – Workshop presentations and attendance
  1. Attendees (not available)
  2. 9th June
  3. 12th July
  4. 7th September
  5. 8th September
  6. 13th September