Local impacts Norfolk in that part of the UK which is likely to be most impacted. Re-distribution of rainfall; lower summer rainfall. Landscape/agriculture changes Lower summer riverflows; reedbeds under stress
Government Response Energy White Paper – aspiration for 60% cut in CO 2 emissions by 2050 Will require unprecedented partnership activity in local communities to ensure on track by 2020s (– but no indication of how this will be undertaken) There will be much more local generation, in part from medium to small local/community power plant, fuelled by locally grown biomass, from locally generated waste, and from local wind sources. These will feed local distributed networks, which can sell excess capacity into the grid. - Energy White Paper: February 2003
The CRed ambition To engage, enthuse and empower a large, diverse community to debate, plan and execute a programme to reduce carbon emissions by up to 60% by 2025 Can a local community take on the responsibility for starting to confront the challenge of climate change and make a difference? Or will it continue to be - someone/somewhere else? Can we encourage politicians/officials to be bolder on our behalf? exemplar for the world
The CRed Community Participatory/inclusive Partnerships Modes of participation (targets/methods) Matrix of modes of participation = representative of real- world complexity Spark imaginations Centred on Norwich/Norfolk, but links across the region, country, the world….
The right language? 5 hot air balloons full of CO 2 per person per year (4 million per year over Norfolk)
How do we know the CRed community represents our region? Suffolk C. Council Norwich Union Liftshare Eastern Heatpumps Banham Poultry Woodys Norfolk C.Council NEWS SMS Strattons Deepdale Farm Camelot Craft Alpha Schools Jarvis Farmers link SERCO LSI R.Bilbie Amicus AEEAC Norwich 21 Global Commodities Kingswood School 100 + SLP Energy Powergen EDP LEA Powergen Norwich Colour Print May Gurney EEDA BPS Sth Norfolk D. C. The Broads Auth. The RSPB SUSTRANS
Trail-blazing a new approach e.g. renewables (wind) Major energy company and the CRed community Community involvement/ownership of electricity generation Community benefits – financial surplus for CRed community initiatives Data/observation transmitted directly to Schools Long-term relationship with Norfolk to significant local benefit (in areas of energy efficiency, biomass, etc)
View from Yare Valley Drive Turbines will be off to left and unlikely to be visible
Reduction in CO 2 emissions (yr -1 ) Each 1.5MW turbine: 1800 tonnes (1000 balloons) – avge. mix of generation 3900 tonnes (2167 balloons) – coal generation Each turbine will provide electricity for 1000 homes (e.g. whole of Cringleford). Or - both turbines would make UEAs consumption of electricity carbon-neutral.
Perception Survey done in June 2003 in Swaffham Before construction of 1st Turbine After construction of Turbine Reasons for Choice
Would you oppose further development in this area or an urban area? 62% of people said they would be more in favour if the community were directly involved and had a direct benefit. The responses to different benefits are shown above.
Swaffham - Attitudes to Wind Turbine with distance of house from turbine A few houses on Colney Lane ~ 500m Most houses in Cringleford are > 900m
Whilst the wind turbine is considered 'ugly' by some residents of Swaffham, most consider it a unique landmark and see it as an asset to the town. Most of the local population are proud of the turbine and it seems to have had a positive impact on the town in a number of ways. I do believe that were it not for the number of visitors to Swaffham, coming to see the turbine for whatever reason, we would not have such a high influx of buyers from out of the area. This has increased house prices, and the prosperity of the area.
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Non-Renewable Methods
Options for Electricity Generation in 2020 - Renewable
Our Choices: They are difficult Do we want to exploit available renewables i.e onshore/offshore wind and biomass. If our answer is NO Do we want to see a renewal of nuclear power Are we happy on 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 which is unlikely 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 If our answer is YES By 2020 we will be dependent on around 70% of our heating and electricity from GAS which will have to be 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 which could affect both industry and our ability to heat an light our homes in the future. Unless we are prepared to sacrifice our future to effects of Global Warming 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.
GOVERNMENT EFFORTS to quadruple power generated from offshore wind farms by 2010 will fail because it is assuming unproven technology will deliver higher capacity turbines, contractors warned this week. Despite Government announcements this week we still need significant development of onshore wind. There have been many proposals in past (e.g. off Wells, 1988), but only Blyth has been completed, and only one other is under construction. Offshore wind looses up to 8% of electricty compared to onshore. New Civil Engineer: 17 th July 2003
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.