This snapshot taken on 07/08/2007, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
 

Distributed Energy: Consultation Responses - A to E

Andrew Ferrand Stobard & Associates
Berkeley Group PLC
Biffa Waste Services Ltd
Building Research Establishment (BRE)
Business Taskforce/Cambridge University
CE Electric UK
Compass Environment and Sustainability Group (CESG)
Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
Davies, P
Doug Marriott Associates
EDF Energy
Energy Networks Association (ENA)
Energy Saving Trust
energywatch
Engineering Forum for Energy (EFE)
E.ON UK

Andrew Ferrand Stobard & Associates

Response from Andrew Ferrand Stobart & Associates Economics & Engineering Response from Andrew Ferrand Stobart & Associates Economics & Engineering - spreadsheet

Two additional items:

1/ A diesel fuel version of the "Whispergen" is now available, see website below and brochure attached.  This opens the way for all buildings not connected to a gas main to install "mini chp". And once Biofuels are fully available for automotive use, to use this fuel instead of petroleum based diesel (see http://www.whispergen.com/main/dcwhispergen/)

This should be especially beneficial to rural areas, which in principle could become self sufficient in heating and electrical energy to a large extent. given a local source of biofuels.

The standard gas powered Whispergen should be able to be adapted to run off the methane gas which can be produced from farm manure and slurries.

2/. Identifying the best DG opportunities.[Your Question No. 1]

Technical excellence aside, it is suggested that the best opportunities as those which are most capital cost effective. Here one should take into account the fiscal treatment of capital equipment installations, and their maintenance costs, plus the anticipated inflation of fuel/electricity costs from conventional sources. The "fuel" cost of much DG equipment being essentially free.

Two approaches can be considered.

The first based on money and the attached program SUSTENG.xls offers a calculation method for this This applies to trading concerns only, and not to "non profit" organisations, communities [unless trading] and householders.

Also attached is a diagram of a possible outcome based on a Solar PV installation in S.Wales:

Response from Andrew Ferrand Stobart & Associates Economics & Engineering - Graph
The second approach is to calculate the anticipated energy output per kg. of installation per annum. Including supports/foundations where appropriate And to compare this to known technologies such as car engines.  This will of course not include the "on costs" of planning and installation of the equipment, but may be useful for technological comparisons generally.

Comparisons of electrical output between DG and [say] Nuclear or remote wind farms for instance should allow for the line losses from the distribution of the electricty from these, which are not present if DG power is used "on site" or close to it.

Berkeley Group PLC

We are pleased to attach our Response to the Call for Evidence for the review of barriers and incentives to distributed electricity generation.

As the leading urban regeneration company of brownfield land in the South-East, we are keen to put forward the developer's perspective. We are currently working on a number of mixed-use development schemes where combined heat and power, tri-generation or renewable technologies are to be used, or are being actively considered, totaling in excess of 5,700 residential units. Our experience is that the present regulatory, planning and competition regimes and the commercial imperatives of development do not always sit comfortably together. Notwithstanding this, we recognise the importance of the development of distributed energy to addressing climate change and security of energy supply.

We fully support this debate and our Group Chief Executive, Tony Pidgley, is keen to meet with representatives of the DTI and Ofgem to discuss further, at strategic level, the issues we have highlighted in our Response.

Response from the Berkeley Group Plc

Biffa Waste Services Ltd

Response from Biffa Waste Services LtdResponse from Biffa Waste Services Ltd - Appendix 1

Building Research Establishment (BRE)

Response from Building Research Establishment (BRE)

Business Taskforce/Cambridge University

Response from Business Taskforce/Cambridge University

CE Electric UK

Response from CE Electric UK

Compass Environment and Sustainability Group (CESG)

Response from Compass Environment and Sustainability Group - A (CESG)Response from Compass Environment and Sustainability Group - B (CESG)

Country Land and Business Association (CLA)

Response from Country Land and Business AssociationResponse from Country Land and Business Association - Complementary answer to question 3

Davies, P.

Response from Phil Davies

Doug Marriott Associates

Response from Doug Marriott Associates

EDF Energy

Response from EDF Energy

Energy Networks Association (ENA)

Response from the Energy Network Association (ENA)

Energy Saving Trust

Response from the Energy Saving Trust

energywatch

Response from energywatch

Engineering Forum for Energy (EFE)

Response from the Engineering Forum for Energy (EFE)

E.ON UK

Response from E.ON UK