Agenda and draft minutes

Professor Gordon MacKerron (Professor of Science & Technology Policy & Co-Director of the Sussex Energy Group, University of Sussex) and Emily Cox (PhD Research Assistant, University of Sussex & Oxford) were in attendance for this item.

(1)          The Chairman welcomed the guests to the meeting and invited them to introduce themselves. Emily stated that she was a Research Assistant and PhD student at the University of Sussex; she also taught a Masters course on Energy Policy. Professor MacKerron stated that he was an economist specialising in the economics of electricity particularly nuclear power; he was currently researching the economics of new build nuclear power stations: waste and decommissioning; modelling climate change risk and reducing energy demand. 

Q – What is the future for Dungeness as a nuclear power site?

(2)          Professor MacKerron noted the Government’s recent announcement of £250 million funding for nuclear research into a small modular reactor. He stated that from reading the evidence published by the Government, he felt that there was very little interest in Dungeness being a future site due to the risk of coastal erosion and flooding. He reported that a small modular reactor would not be available for a minimum of 20 years.

(3)          Ms Cox explained that in terms of Kent, the output of a nuclear power station was 400 kV and went directly into the grid for distribution; the power was not retained in the local area. She noted that it may be possible for smaller reactors to connect to the lower voltage electricity network. 

Q - Should the UK have a root (big suppliers) or branch (small suppliers) system?

(4)          Ms Cox stated that it was difficult to say one was better than the other. She noted that the centralised National Grid was a key piece of infrastructure and it was pragmatic to work with that. She reported, however, that there was significant investment in distributed generation in mainland Europe particularly in Germany. She stated that Kent had one of the largest increases of distributed generation in the UK over the past year. She explained that distributed generation was produced by solar panels on houses, community energy projects and small windfarms; the electricity generated was connected to local distribution networks rather than the National Grid transmission network which had multiple implications for energy security.

Q – Following the announcement of China being allowed to develop nuclear power stations in the UK, is their technology as advanced as the UK?

(5)          Professor MacKerron explained that the development of Chinese nuclear power stations in the UK was part of a wider partnership deal between China and the UK. He stated that the UK had not had a nuclear capability for many years. The system proposed for Bradwell in Essex would be a Chinese design adapted from the American Westinghouse design. He reported that China had the intellectual property rights to the reactor design and there were no restrictions on the Chinese selling the reactor design. He noted that China would pay for a third of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Dr Melis and thanked him for agreeing to support the Select Committee process.

(2)          Dr Melis introduced himself, advising the Committee that he was a Senior Lecturer in the faculty of Engineering and Science at the University of Greenwich.  He was presently working on sustainable energy technology and how to improve their efficiency at a system level.

Question:  What are the challenges involved in Energy Storage?

(3)          Dr Melis explained that the need for effective storage was increased due to the inconsistent power generation of many renewable processes, for example solar and wind technologies being reliant on weather conditions.  Generation would peak during good conditions and drop at other times, requiring a good method of storing the excess energy to minimise the waste involved with such a peak / trough generation cycle. 

(4)          Dr Melis explained that a common problem was that energy storage was usually only developed on large-scale projects, such as hydro-dams.  This was further complicated by the fact that renewable generation could be set up more quickly than these large-scale storage systems could be put in place, leading to long periods of excess energy waste taking place prior to these storage systems coming online.

(5)          Dr Melis commented that batteries have long been considered the main alternative but they present their own problems given their limited lifecycle and disposal issues.  Batteries are also not necessarily suited to dealing with some of the large scale storage that is required.

Question:  How can Smart meters help?

(6)          Dr Melis advised the committee that Smart meters are beneficial in terms of informing energy consumers about their usage.  This form of communication between the supplier and consumer was an improvement as it replaced the quarterly bill with a process that allows consumers to easily monitor their usage and take action to minimise it for both financial and efficiency reasons.

(7)          Allowing the consumer to see their usage more real time increases the likelihood of more efficient energy use and greater uptake of efficiency measures such as insulation. However, the system as such had technical challenges that would not directly help the energy producers to more easily match generation and demand.

Question:  What is your view on fossil fuel generation?

(8)          Dr Melis provided an outline of the use of coal and gas, notably that coal achieves only 33% conversion to usable electrical power with the rest dissipated as waste heat.  Gas may achieve slightly higher levels, due to additional heat conversion processes able to minimise the wastage to bring overall efficiency for electricity generation up to around 60%.

(9)          Dr Melis acknowledged that coal and gas were still necessary at present but emphasised the need for reliable renewable alternatives to be identified.

Question:  How does government reconcile the expense of environmentally friendly forms of energy production with the high cost involved?

(10)       Dr Melis explained that as renewables represented a relatively new technology, the cost of such schemes still reflected more of the technology development costs.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Ms Karpetas to the meeting and thanked her for participating in the Select Committee process.

(2)          Ms Karpetas introduced herself as the Director of Community Energy South, which is an association of community energy groups across the Southeast of England which aims to support the transition to a distributed renewable energy network.

(3)          Sustainability Connections seeks to support sustainable renovation, energy efficiency and community owned renewable energy through sharing expertise and sourcing alternative financing.

Question:  How can community energy schemes help in Kent?

(4)          Ms Karpetas explained that these schemes were helping to reduce energy demand by improving consumer awareness, reducing personal costs and encouraging the conversion of existing housing stock to include more energy efficient facilities.  She commented that the resulting retrofitting required to bring older housing stock up to efficiency standards had knock on economic benefits by creating employment and opportunity.  These projects could hopefully include renewable energy generation on people’s homes (e.g. solar panels).

(5)          Ms Karpetas explained that there were challenges at present in light of the significant reduction in subsidies that we still needed for renewables projects given the high cost of technology.  While it was expected that the technology cost will drop over time as it becomes more mainstream, subsidies were still required.  An eventual reduction in technology costs would help promote the spread of community owned renewable energy farms.

(6)          Orchard Solar Farm at Iwade had accelerated the share offer in order to benefit from community investment tax relief for shareholders: 50% tax relief (SEIS) for investment in start-up costs and and 30% tax relief for project delivery. This tax relief was removed on November 30, 2015. The plans were to provide a 7% return on investment with £1m going into the community pot and potential for this to rise to £3m.  The farm is now examining the process of selling energy directly to the community rather to the grid, with a plan for it to have its own tariff by April 2016.

Question:  How can KCC help the situation following cuts to subsidies?

(7)          Ms Karpetas explained that the cut in subsidies, both in the Feed-in-tariff reduction and removal of social investment tax relief, had been sudden and significant. The project had always taken a long term view with alternative business models consistently being reviewed to ensure sustainability when circumstances changed.  Given the long term basis of renewables development, Ms Karpetas recommended that KCC consider the longer term view, show patience and maintain its commitment to energy efficiency.

(8)          This longer term and less reactionary approach was evidenced by the initial fierce opposition from Bobbing and Iwade Parish Council when the Solar Farm was being developed.  When the local community believed the project was a private development, opposition was very strong but once it was made clear that it was a community based project with local benefits over time, challenge to the scheme dropped significantly.  KCC’s support in promoting the local benefit of these schemes would assist in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.