close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Презентация

код для вставкиСкачать
London needs to be more like
Copenhagen
Bob Fiddik
Team Leader – Sustainable
Development & Energy
19th March 2012
Why…Copenhagen?
The 3 objectives of UK
energy policy objectives :-
low carbon
secure, diverse
affordable
• 98% of city supplied via DH
• 40% carbon reduction against
individual gas boilers
• 35% CHP heat from waste or
biomass
• hot water - flexible energy carrier
• plant – 36% gas, 31% multi-fuel,
21% coal/oil, 12% waste – all CHP
• DH heat 44% below cost of
individual gas boiler
• Authority owned heat companies
A long, and frustrating tale
Post oil-crises
1979
• Heat supply law passed
• Local authorities to
undertake heat planning
• Authorities given power to
oblige connections to DH or
natural gas
• Must demonstrate economic
advantage to consumer
• Ban on electric heating
• Marshall reports on potential
of district heating/CHP
• 30% high density urban
areas could be supplied via
DH/CHP
• Recommend heat strategy &
set up of “heat board” to
oversee development
North sea gas,
energy privatisation
But district heating is costly...?
Pay for CHP energy plant
But have some
ready...and have to
build new plant
anyway
Need whole new
infrastructure
Pay for heat exchangers...but similar to
individual boiler cost
The “all electric” orthodox plan...
Pay for these & untested CCS
Pay for these to be
there but not do much
Upgrade these
Install lots of
these
Do lots of this
But getting started is tough...
Croydon drivers for town centre
DH/CHP scheme
Council
• Helping regeneration happen
• Improve environmental standard of
existing 70s stock
Developers
• Meet council’s Code Level 4 &
BREEAM “Excellent” at lower cost
Occupants
• Lower heat costs
• Low carbon, no CRC (for corporates)
Commercial modelling
Phase 1
IRR = 10.8%
new build + cluster of
existing public buildings
Full scheme all new build + 25%
existing over 1,000 m2
IRR = 18%
Someone has to bear the risk
Constraint
ESCo mitigation
Heat
revenues
Initial oversizing of energy centre &
heat pipes to supply full scheme
Phase energy
plant investment
Construction
phasing
Funding gap circa ВЈ3- 4 m : ESCo would need a
combination of ...
• underwriting of income from phased development
• Up-front capital contribution
• access to low public sector borrowing rates
Must be lower than
meeting targets via
onsite measures
Recover capital investment
via connection charges
Occupancy :
use of heat
new build
Occupancy :
use of heat
existing
Operating costs
follow heat demand
Heat charges must be
no more than having
own system
So what does the wish list look like...?
Policy, regulation & taxation
• Danish example is long-term stability & rational energy planning
(ministry still employs “experts”)
• UK constantly re-invents energy policy, complex market with complex
carbon “tweaks” – politically unstable (e.g FITs, “Zero-Carbon”)
For DH/CHP address the heat off-take risk
• Danish obligation to connect is most cost effective – but in UK?
• Anchors – oblige public sector connections (but estates are shrinking)
• Existing buildings - new Building Regulation obligation on boiler
replacement
• Loan funds at public sector rates – help make connections attractive
• Supply side – taxation + incentives for all thermal plant to operate in
CHP mode
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
6
Размер файла
2 412 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа