1. CRed carbon reduction Energy Science Director: HSBC Director of Low Carbon Innovation School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia Master Class: 16 th June 2012 Keith Tovey ( ) M.A., PhD, CEng, MICE, CEnv CRed Recipient of James Watt Gold Medal 5 th October 2007 Presentation available at: www2.env.uea.ac.uk/cred/cred.htm www.uea.ac.uk\~e680\cred\cred.htm 1 Low Carbon Strategies at the University of East Anglia

2. Low Energy Buildings and their Management Low Carbon Energy Provision –Photovoltaics –CHP –Adsorption chilling –Biomass Gasification The Energy Tour Energy Security: Hard Choices facing the UK Low Carbon Strategies at the University of East Anglia Low Energy Buildings and their Management 2

3. 3 Original buildings Teaching wall Library Student residences

4. 4 Nelson Court Constable Terrace 4

5. 5 Low Energy Educational Buildings Elizabeth Fry Building ZICER Nursing and Midwifery School Medical School 5 Medical School Phase 2 Thomas Paine Study Centre

6. 6 Constable Terrace - 1993 Four Storey Student Residence Divided into houses of 10 units each with en-suite facilities Heat Recovery of body and cooking heat ~ 50%. Insulation standards exceed 2006 standards Small 250 W panel heaters in individual rooms.

7. 7 Educational Buildings at UEA in 1990s Queens Building 1993 Elizabeth Fry Building 1994 Elizabeth Fry Building Employs Termodeck principle and uses ~ 25% of Queens Building

8. 8 Elizabeth Fry Binası - 1994 Cost ~6% more but has heating requirement ~20% of average building at time. Significantly outperforms even latest Building Regulations. Runs on a single domestic sized central heating boiler. Maliyeti ~%6 daha fazla olsada, ısınma ihtiyacı zamanın ortalama binalarının ~%20si. En son Bina Yönetmeliklerini bile büyük ölçüde aşmaktadır. Tek bir ev tipi merkezi ısıtma kazanı ile çalışmaktadır. The Elizabeth Fry Building 1994

9. 9 Conservation: management improvements Koruma: yönetimde iyileştirmeler Careful Monitoring and Analysis can reduce energy consumption. Dikkatli İzleme ve Analiz, enerji tüketimini azaltabilir..

10. 10 Comparison with other buildings Diğer Binalarla Karşılaştırma Energy Performance Enerji Performansı Carbon Dioxide Performance Karbon Dioksit Performanı

11. Non Technical Evaluation of Elizabeth Fry Building Performance Elizabeth Fry Bina Performansının Teknik Olmayan Değerlendirmesi thermal comfort +28% air quality +36% lighting +25% noise +26% User Satisfaction A Low Energy Building is also a better place to work in. Isıl rahatlık +%28 Hava kalitesi +%36 aydınlatma +%25 gürültü +%26 Kullanıcı memnuniyeti Bir Düşük Enerji binası ayrıca içinde çalışmak için de daha iyi bir yerdir. 11

12. ZICER Building Heating Energy consumption as new in 2003 was reduced by further 57% by careful record keeping, management techniques and an adaptive approach to control. Incorporates 34 kW of Solar Panels on top floor Won the Low Energy Building of the Year Award 2005 12

13. The ground floor open plan office The first floor open plan office The first floor cellular offices 13

14. The ZICER Building – Main part of the building High in thermal mass Air tight High insulation standards Triple glazing with low emissivity ~ equivalent to quintuple glazing 14

15. Operation of Main Building Mechanically ventilated that utilizes hollow core ceiling slabs as supply air ducts to the space Regenerative heat exchanger Incoming air into the AHU 15

16. Air enters the internal occupied space Operation of Main Building Air passes through hollow cores in the ceiling slabs Filter Heater 16

17. Operation of Main Building Recovers 87% of Ventilation Heat Requirement. Space for future chilling Out of the building Return stale air is extracted from each floor The return air passes through the heat exchanger 17

18. Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures Heat is transferred to the air before entering the room Slabs store heat from appliances and body heat. Winter Day Air Temperature is same as building fabric leading to a more pleasant working environment Warm air 18

19. Heat is transferred to the air before entering the room Slabs also radiate heat back into room Winter Night In late afternoon heating is turned off. Cold air Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures 19

20. Draws out the heat accumulated during the day Cools the slabs to act as a cool store the following day Summer night night ventilation/ free cooling Cool air Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures 20

21. Slabs pre-cool the air before entering the occupied space concrete absorbs and stores heat less/no need for air-conditioning / Summer day Warm air Fabric Cooling: Importance of Hollow Core Ceiling Slabs Hollow core ceiling slabs store heat and cool at different times of the year providing comfortable and stable temperatures 21

22. Good Management has reduced Energy Requirements 800 350 Space Heating Consumption reduced by 57% kWh/ 22

23. 209441GJ 384967GJ 221508GJ Life Cycle Energy Requirements of ZICER compared to other buildings ZICER Materials Production Materials Transport On site construction energy Workforce Transport Intrinsic Heating / Cooling energy / Functional Energy Refurbishment Energy Demolition Energy 28% 54% 34% 51% 61% 29% 23

24. Life Cycle Energy Requirements of ZICER compared to other buildings Compared to the Air-conditioned office, ZICER as built recovers extra energy required in construction in under 1 year. 24

25. Low Energy Buildings and their Management Low Carbon Energy Provision –Photovoltaics –CHP –Adsorption chilling –Biomass Gasification The Energy Tour Energy Security: Hard Choices facing the UK Low Carbon Strategies at the University of East Anglia 25

26. Mono-crystalline PV on roof ~ 27 kW in 10 arrays Poly- crystalline on façade ~ 6.7 kW in 3 arrays ZICER Building Photo shows only part of top Floor 26

27. Load factors Façade: 2% in winter ~8% in summer Roof 2% in winter 15% in summer Output per unit area Little difference between orientations in winter months Performance of PV cells on ZICER 27

28. All arrays of cells on roof have similar performance respond to actual solar radiation The three arrays on the façade respond differently Performance of PV cells on ZICER 28

29. 120 150 180 210 240 Orientation relative to True North 29

30. 30

31. 31 Arrangement of Cells on Facade Individual cells are connected horizontally As shadow covers one column all cells are inactive If individual cells are connected vertically, only those cells actually in shadow are affected. Cells active Cells inactive even though not covered by shadow 31

32. Use of PV generated energy Sometimes electricity is exported Inverters are only 91% efficient Most use is for computers DC power packs are inefficient typically less than 60% efficient Need an integrated approach Peak output is 34 kW 34 kW 32

33. Actual Situation excluding Grant Actual Situation with Grant Discount rate 3%5%7%3%5%7% Unit energy cost per kWh (£) 1.291.581.880.841.021.22 Avoided cost exc. the Grant Avoided Costs with Grant Discount rate 3%5%7%3%5%7% Unit energy cost per kWh (£) 0.570.700.830.120.140.16 33 Grant was ~ £172 000 out of a total of ~ £480 000 Performance of PV cells on ZICER Cost of Generated Electricity

34. Peak Cell efficiency is ~ 9.5%. Average efficiency over year is 7.5% 34 Mono-crystalline Cell Efficiency Poly-crystalline Cell Efficiency Efficiency of PV Cells Peak Cell efficiency is ~ 14% and close to standard test bed efficiency. Most projections of performance use this efficiency Average efficiency over year is 11.1% Inverter Efficiencies reduce overall system efficiencies to 10.1% and 6.73% respectively

35. Life Cycle Issues for PV Array on ZICER Building Embodied Energy in PV Cells (most arising from Electricity (~80%) use in manufacture) - SPAIN 1260155710731326 Array supports and system connections - GERMANY 135 On site Installation energy (UK)52 Transportation between manufacture and UEA 6 trips @400 km 1132411324 Total tonnes CO 2 / kWp 1.561.741.371.51 Mono-crystalline CO 2 (kg/ kWp) Poly-crystalline CO 2 (kg/ kWp) As manu- factured UK manu- facture As manu- factured Carbon Factors for Electricity Production Spain ~ 0.425 kg / kWh UK and Germany ~ 0.53 kg/kWh Energy Yield Ratios Life time of Cells Mono-crystalline Cells202530 As add on retro-fit3.23.84.6 Integrated into design3.54.25.4

36. Engine Generator 36% Electricity 50% Heat Gas Heat Exchanger Exhaust Heat Exchanger 11% Flue Losses3% Radiation Losses 86% Localised generation makes use of waste heat. Reduces conversion losses significantly Conversion efficiency improvements – Building Scale CHP 61% Flue Losses 36% 36

37. UEAs Combined Heat and Power 3 units each generating up to 1.0 MW electricity and 1.4 MW heat 37

38. 38 Conversion efficiency improvements 1997/98 electricitygas oilTotal MWh198953514833 Emission factorkg/kWh0.460.1860.277 Carbon dioxideTonnes91526538915699 ElectricityHeat 1999/ 2000 Total site CHP generation exportimportboilersCHPoiltotal MWh204371563097757831451028263923 Emission factor kg/kWh -0.460.460.186 0.277 CO 2 Tonnes -44926602699525725610422 Before installation After installation This represents a 33% saving in carbon dioxide 38

39. 39 Conversion efficiency improvements Load Factor of CHP Plant at UEA Demand for Heat is low in summer: plant cannot be used effectively More electricity could be generated in summer 39

40. A typical Air conditioning/Refrigeration Unit Throttle Valve Condenser Heat rejected Evaporator Heat extracted for cooling High Temperature High Pressure Low Temperature Low Pressure Compressor 40

41. Absorption Heat Pump Adsorption Heat pump reduces electricity demand and increases electricity generated Throttle Valve Condenser Heat rejected Evaporator Heat extracted for cooling High Temperature High Pressure Low Temperature Low Pressure Heat from external source W ~ 0 Absorber Desorber Heat Exchanger 41

42. A 1 MW Adsorption chiller 1 MW Reduces electricity demand in summer Increases electricity generated locally Saves ~500 tonnes Carbon Dioxide annually Uses Waste Heat from CHP provides most of chilling requirements in summer 42

43. The Future: Biomass Advanced Gasifier/ Combined Heat and Power Addresses increasing demand for energy as University expands Will provide an extra 1.4MW of electrical energy and 2MWth heat Will have under 7 year payback Will use sustainable local wood fuel mostly from waste from saw mills Will reduce Carbon Emissions of UEA by ~ 25% despite increasing student numbers by 250% 43

44. 44 Low Energy Buildings Effective Adaptive Energy Management Photovoltaics Combined Heat and Power Absorption Chilling Advanced CHP using Biomass Gasification Worlds First MBA in Strategic Carbon Management Low Energy Buildings Photo-Voltaics Efficient CHP Absorption Chilling Trailblazing to a Low Carbon Future Low Energy Buildings

45. 45 Photo-Voltaics Advanced Biomass CHP using Gasification Efficient CHP Absorption Chilling Trailblazing to a Low Carbon Future

46. 46 19902006Change since 1990 2010Change since 1990 Students557014047+152%16000+187% Floor Area (m 2 )138000207000+50%220000+159% CO 2 (tonnes)1942021652+11%14000-28% CO 2 kg/m 2 140.7104.6-25.7%63.6-54.8% CO 2 kg/student34901541-55.8%875-74.9% Efficient CHP Absorption Chilling Trailblazing to a Low Carbon Future

47. Low Energy Buildings and their Management Low Carbon Energy Provision –Photovoltaics –CHP –Adsorption chilling –Biomass Gasification The Energy Tour Energy Security: Hard Choices facing the UK Low Carbon Strategies at the University of East Anglia 47

48. 48 Import Gap Energy Security is a potentially critical issue for the UK On 7 th /8 th December 2010: UK Production was only 39%: 12% from storage and 49% from imports Prices have become much more volatile since UK is no longer self sufficient in gas. Gas Production and Demand in UK UK becomes net importer of gas Completion of Langeled Gas Line to Norway Oil reaches $140 a barrel

49. 49 Per capita Carbon Emissions UK How does UK compare with other countries? Why do some countries emit more CO 2 than others? What is the magnitude of the CO 2 problem? France

50. 50 Carbon Emissions and Electricity UK France

51. Coal ~ 0.9 kg / kWh Oil ~ 0.8 kg/kWh Gas (CCGT) ~ 0.43 kg/kWh Nuclear 0.01 kg/kWh Current UK mix ~ 0.53 kg/kWh 2008/92009/10 Coal44%34% CCGT36%46% Nuclear15%17% Electricity Generation Carbon Emission Factors

52. r 52 Electricity Generation i n selected Countries

53. Carbon sequestration either by burying it or using methanolisation to create a new transport fuel will not be available at scale required until mid 2020s if then 53 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers Energy Review 2002 9th May 2011 (*) Gas CCGT 0 - 80% (at present 45- 50%) Available now (but gas is running out) ~2p + 8.0p [5 - 11] nuclear fission (long term) 0 - 15% (France 80%) - (currently 18% and falling) new inherently safe designs - some development needed 2.5 - 3.5p 7.75p [5.5 - 10] nuclear fusionunavailable not available until 2040 at earliest not until 2050 for significant impact "Clean Coal" Coal currently ~40% but scheduled to fall Available now: Not viable without Carbon Capture & Sequestration 2.5 - 3.5p [7.5 - 15]p - unlikely before 2025 * Energy Review 2011 – Climate Change Committee May 2009 Nuclear New Build assumes one new station is completed each year after 2020. ?

54. 54 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Future prices from * Renewable Energy Review – 9 th May 2011 Climate Change Committee 1.5MW Turbine At peak output provides sufficient electricity for 3000 homes On average has provided electricity for 700 – 850 homes depending on year ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) * On Shore Wind ~25% [~15000 x 3 MW turbines] available now for commercial exploitation ~ 2+p

55. 55 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) * On Shore Wind ~25% [~15000 x 3 MW turbines] available now for commercial exploitation ~ 2+p Scroby Sands has a Load factor of 28.8% - 30% but nevertheless produced sufficient electricity on average for 2/3rds of demand of houses in Norwich. At Peak time sufficient for all houses in Norwich and Ipswich Climate Change Committee (9 th May 2011) see offshore wind as being very expensive and recommends reducing planned expansion by 3 GW and increasing onshore wind by same amount Off Shore Wind25 - 50% some technical development needed to reduce costs. ~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5

56. 56 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) * On Shore Wind ~25% [~15000 x 3 MW turbines] available now for commercial exploitation ~ 2+p Off Shore Wind25 - 50% some technical development needed to reduce costs. ~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5 Micro Hydro Scheme operating on Siphon Principle installed at Itteringham Mill, Norfolk. Rated capacity 5.5 kW Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Hydro (mini - micro) 5% technically mature, but limited potential 2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW projects

57. 57 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) * On Shore Wind ~25% [~15000 x 3 MW turbines] available now for commercial exploitation ~ 2+p Off Shore Wind25 - 50% some technical development needed to reduce costs. ~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5 Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Hydro (mini - micro) 5% technically mature, but limited potential 2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW projects Climate Change Report suggests that 1.6 TWh (0.4%) might be achieved by 2020 which is equivalent to ~ 2.0 GW. Photovoltaic <<5% even assuming 10 GW of installation available, but much further research needed to bring down costs significantly 15+ p 25p +/-8

58. 58 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) * On Shore Wind ~25% [~15000 x 3 MW turbines] available now for commercial exploitation ~ 2+p Off Shore Wind25 - 50% some technical development needed to reduce costs. ~2.5 - 3p 12.5p +/- 2.5 Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Hydro (mini - micro) 5% technically mature, but limited potential 2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW projects Photovoltaic <<5% even assuming 10 GW of installation available, but much further research needed to bring down costs significantly 15+ p 25p +/-8 Transport Fuels: Biodiesel? Bioethanol? Compressed gas from methane from waste. To provide 5% of UK electricity needs will require an area the size of Norfolk and Suffolk devoted solely to biomass Sewage, Landfill, Energy Crops/ Biomass/Biogas ??5% available, but research needed in some areas e.g. advanced gasification 2.5 - 4p 7 - 13p depending on technology

59. 59 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) On Shore Wind~25% available now ~ 2+p ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Off Shore Wind 25 - 50% available but costly ~2.5 - 3p12.5p +/- 2.5 Small Hydro5% limited potential2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW projects Photovoltaic<<5% available, but very costly 15+ p25p +/-8 Biomass??5% available, but research needed 2.5 - 4p7 - 13p Wave/Tidal Stream currently < 10 MW may be 1000 - 2000 MW (~0.1%) techology limited - major development not before 2020 4 - 8p 19p +/- 6 Tidal 26.5p +/- 7.5p Wave

60. 60 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) On Shore Wind~25% available now ~ 2+p ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Off Shore Wind 25 - 50% available but costly ~2.5 - 3p12.5p +/- 2.5 Small Hydro5% limited potential2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW projects Photovoltaic<<5% available, but very costly 15+ p25p +/-8 Biomass??5% available, but research needed 2.5 - 4p7 - 13p Wave/Tidal Stream currently < 10 MW may be 1000 - 2000 MW (~0.1%) techology limited - major development not before 2020 4 - 8p 19p +/- 6 Tidal 26.5p +/- 7.5p Wave

61. 61 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) On Shore Wind~25% available now ~ 2+p ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Off Shore Wind 25 - 50% available but costly ~2.5 - 3p12.5p +/- 2.5 Small Hydro5% limited potential2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW projects Photovoltaic<<5% available, but very costly 15+ p25p +/-8 Biomass??5% available, but research needed 2.5 - 4p7 - 13p Wave/Tidal Stream currently < 10 MW may be 1000 - 2000 MW (~0.1%) technology limited - major development not before 2020 4 - 8p 19p +/- 6 Tidal 26.5p +/- 7.5p Wave Severn Barrage/ Mersey Barrages have been considered frequently e.g. pre war – 1970s, 2009 Severn Barrage could provide 5-8% of UK electricity needs In Orkney – Churchill Barriers Output ~80 000 GWh per annum - Sufficient for 13500 houses in Orkney but there are only 4000 in Orkney. Controversy in bringing cables south. Would save 40000 tonnes of CO 2 Tidal Barrages5 - 15% technology available but unlikely for 2020. Construction time ~10 years. In 2010 Government abandoned plans for development 26p +/-5

62. 62 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) On Shore Wind ~25% available now ~ 2+p ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Off Shore Wind 25 - 50% available but costly ~2.5 - 3p12.5p +/- 2.5 Small Hydro5% limited potential2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW Photovoltaic<<5% available, but very costly 15+ p25p +/-8 Biomass??5% available, but research needed 2.5 - 4p7 - 13p Wave/Tidal Stream currently < 10 MW ??1000 - 2000 MW (~0.1%) technology limited - major development not before 2020 4 - 8p 19p Tidal 26.5p Wave Tidal Barrages5 - 15% In 2010 Government abandoned plans for development 26p +/-5 Geothermal unlikely for electricity generation before 2050 if then -not to be confused with ground sourced heat pumps which consume electricity

63. 63 Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable Future prices from Climate Change Report (May 2011) or RO/FITs where not otherwise specified Potential contribution to electricity supply in 2020 and drivers/barriers 2002 (Gas ~ 2p) May 2011 (Gas ~ 8.0p) On Shore Wind ~25% available now ~ 2+p ~8.2p +/- 0.8p Off Shore Wind 25 - 50% available but costly ~2.5 - 3p12.5p +/- 2.5 Small Hydro5% limited potential2.5 - 3p 11p for <2MW Photovoltaic<<5% available, but very costly 15+ p25p +/-8 Biomass??5% available, but research needed 2.5 - 4p7 - 13p Wave/Tidal Stream currently < 10 MW ??1000 - 2000 MW (~0.1%) technology limited - major development not before 2020 4 - 8p 19p Tidal 26.5p Wave Tidal Barrages5 - 15% In 2010 Government abandoned plans for development 26p +/-5 Geothermal unlikely for electricity generation before 2050 if then -not to be confused with ground sourced heat pumps which consume electricity

64. 64 Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind and biomass?. Photovoltaics, tidal, wave are not options for next 10 - 20 years. [very expensive or technically immature or both] If our answer is NO Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power ? Are we happy with this and the other attendant risks? If our answer is NO Do we want to return to using coal? then carbon dioxide emissions will rise significantly unless we can develop carbon sequestration within 10 years UNLIKELY – confirmed by Climate Change Committee [9 th May 2011] If our answer to coal is NO Do we want to leave things are they are and see continued exploitation of gas for both heating and electricity generation? >>>>>> Our Choices: They are difficult

65. 65 Our Choices: They are difficult If our answer is YES By 2020 we will be dependent on GAS for around 70% of our heating and electricity imported from countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria Are we happy with this prospect? >>>>>> If not: We need even more substantial cuts in energy use. Or are we prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global Warming? - the North Norfolk Coal Field? Do we wish to reconsider our stance on renewables? Inaction or delays in decision making will lead us down the GAS option route and all the attendant Security issues that raises. We must take a coherent integrated approach in our decision making – not merely be against one technology or another

66. 66 Our looming over-dependence on gas for electricity generation Data for modelling derived from DECC & Climate Change Committee (2011) - allowing for significant deployment of electric vehicles and heat pumps by 2030. Existing Coal Existing Nuclear Oil 66 Data for modelling derived from DECC & Climate Change Committee (2011) - allowing for significant deployment of electric vehicles and heat pumps by 2030. Existing Coal UK Gas Imported Gas New Nuclear New Coal Existing Nuclear Other Renewables Offshore Wind Onshore Wind Oil 1 new nuclear station completed each year after 2020. 1 new coal station with CCS each year after 2020 1 million homes fitted with PV each year from 2020 - 40% of homes fitted by 2030 15+ GW of onshore wind by 2030 cf 4 GW now Data for modelling derived from DECC & Climate Change Committee (2011) - allowing for significant deployment of electric vehicles and heat pumps by 2030. No electric cars or heat pumps Version suitable for Office 2003, 2007 & 2010

67. 67 Sustainable Options for the future? Energy Generation Solar thermal - providing hot water - most suitable for domestic installations, hotels – generally lees suitable for other businesses Solar PV – providing electricity - suitable for all sizes of installation Example 2 panel ( 2.6 sqm ) in Norwich – generates 826kWh/year (average over 7 years). The more hot water you use the more solar heat you get! Renewable Heat Incentive available from 2012 Area required for 1 kW peak varies from ~ 5.5 to 8.5 sqm depending on technology and manufacturer Approximate annual estimate of generation = installed capacity * 8760 * 0.095 hours in year load/capacity factor of 9.5%

68. 68 House in Lerwick, Shetland Isles with Solar Panels - less than 15,000 people live north of this in UK! It is all very well for South East, but what about the North? House on Westray, Orkney exploiting passive solar energy from end of February

69. 69 Conclusions Hard Choices face us in the next 20 years Effective adaptive energy management can reduce heating energy requirements in a low energy building by 50% or more. Heavy weight buildings can be used to effectively control energy consumption Photovoltaic cells need to take account of intended use of electricity use in building to get the optimum value. Building scale CHP can reduce carbon emissions significantly Adsorption chilling should be included to ensure optimum utilisation of CHP plant, to reduce electricity demand, and allow increased generation of electricity locally. Promoting Awareness can result in up to 25% savings The Future for UEA: Biomass CHP Wind Turbines? Lao Tzu (604-531 BC) Chinese Artist and Taoist philosopher "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading."