Agenda item

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Matthew Morris who worked for Kent Downs AONB Unit as their wood fuel development manager.

 

(2)          Mr Morris explained that Kent Downs AONB was a part of KCC but is governed by its own advisory committee and is responsible for raising almost all of its income (mainly from EU funding sources).  He had been employed by Kent Downs AONB in 2011 to implement a European Interreg project, this was initially a two year project but two additional years had been added.  His current contract is due to expire at the end of March 2016.  These projects related to activity in the forestry sector and the enhanced production, and use of wood fuels and renewable heat technologies such as biomass boilers.  He also advised on other forms of energy and their use in protected landscapes such as the Kent Downs AONB. 

 

Q – What scope is there to increase the use of woodland for fuel?

 

(3)          Mr Morris replied that only half of woodland in Kent was managed therefore the rate that this could increase was significant. The AONB Unit has, with the Forestry Commission, estimated the maximum sustainable annual yield from woodland in Kent (approximately 144,000 m³ per annum).  In energy terms this is around 246,000 MWh – equivalent to around 25M litres of oil.  The main drivers of woodland management in Kent at the moment are fire wood and fencing.  Other drivers include sport, recreation and conservation.   Use of timber from Kent’s woodland is currently nowhere near as high as it had been historically when the mining and paper making industries were still present.  Therefore there was a lot of untapped potential.

 

Q – Is wood for fuel sourced Kent or outside of the area?

 

(4)          Mr Morris explained that he provided advice to owners of woodland on how to bring their woodlands into management.  He confirmed that wood chip was the most local of the biomass fuels (often less than 10miles from source to boiler).  However, KCC’s procurement processes do not always allow for local suppliers to be used.  Moreover, KCC has not done enough to take advantage of local woodfuel supplies by adopting suitable biomass boiler technologies.

 

Q – What about wood pellets?

 

(5)          Mr Morris confirmed that this was the most viable/refined wood fuel. There are several manufactures in the UK, two of which are close to Kent.  There are currently no large-scale pellet manufacturers in Kent (although this may change). Although it was possible to import wood pellets, he advocated the use of indigenous softwood for pellets, much of which comes from the Forestry Commission estate.

 

Q – Kent has a lot of woodland that is no longer managed, is there enough viability for organisations to manage woodland? Is there a big enough market for commercial operations?

 

(6)          Yes the energy content of wood fuels is high and it ca help displace the use of oil and lpg and heating fuels.  .  Wood fuel is valuable to heat users.  However an acre of farmland is worth £8 – 12K to the timber processor (for firewood or fencing) but only a few hundred for woodland owner (hence the financial motivation to owners who are not biomass boiler owners and who are not interested in wood fuels is often very marginal).

 

(7)          In response to a question on the turn around for a wood crop, Mr Morris stated that sweet chestnut (common in Kent) coppice took 10 – 15 years to mature into a viable crop (depending on end use); If unmanaged woodlands are brought back into ‘rotation’ and managed sustainably then the habitat often improves and becomes more productive.  This fast-growing timber crop is significant in Kent and an excellent source of renewable energy in Kent.

 

Q – An example of properly managed woodland is Torry Hill. Around Sevenoaks there are large woodlands and pieces of woodland which are all neglected, what is being done about this?  Is there someway that you or Kent Downs AONB could help bring more coppiced wood into the market? 

 

(8)          Mr Morris explained that there had been a series of initiatives to encourage land owners to manage their woodlands. .This had been successful but a lot more could be done.  He also referred to work that has focussed on KCC schools to encourage the use of biomass fuel.  In relation to the problem of Energy Security, woodland could do more to assist with this but the key was to create more demand, by promoting this as a local solution and by using the technology more within the school estate (along with other technologies such as solar PV which has only been deployed in around 10% of KCC schools)

 

Q – Is there an issue re emissions and cacogenics’ from wood fuel?

 

(9)          There are of course issues with all forms of combustion.  Whilst biomass boilers are very efficient at combustion care needs to be taken to ensure that biomass systems are designed properly.  It is important to note that the number of biomass boilers in Kent is very low (c. 200) compared to oil, gas and LPG boilers.  In terms of risk Mr Morris urged Members to be more concerned about the effect of emissions from diesel engines than from biomass boilers.

 

Q – As well as wood pellets there are also pallets imported into the country is it possible to use these for fuel?

 

(10)       Mr Morris confirmed that there was a well developed market in wooden pallets that includes manufacture, repair and recycling.  Clean waste wood is another valuable form of woody biomass and some companies in Kent are looking to convert clean waste wood diverted from landfill into a form of wood fuel. He expressed the personal view that the County could convert more waste to energy, particularly waste food that should be diverted into anaerobic digesters (of which there are only currently two in Kent with one under construction and one in the planning process).    The energy from waste (EFW) facility at Aylesford was not designed as an energy facility; it was an incinerator first and foremost.

 

Q – What is being done to encourage schools to be energy efficient?

 

(11)       There are 640 schools in Kent and the AONB Unit has undertaken extensive work to help those in rural areas (that are off gas network) to explore options for biomass heating.  Mr Morris indicated that any new schools, or those undergoing extensive alterations or enlargement, should priories renewable energy technologies to help create better energy security in the KCC school netwok.

 

Q – At what stage are you brought in by designers of new schools? How can we encourage consideration of the use of biomass at the design stage?

 

(12)       Mr Morris stated that there were a lot of disconnects between property management, design and refurbishment and environmental technologies.  He explained that in relation to the Building Schools for the Future programme, a series of biomass boilers were installed in schools – some of which have been successful (NB - for various technical and commercial reasons some biomass boilers in BSF schools have not performed well).   Work was done to help educate in relation to the advantages of installing biomass boilers in schools, however, the positive impacts of this technology was tainted by a handful of bad case studies in the South East.  The amount of evidence relating to the use of bo mass was thin compared to that for oil, gas and LPG, there was a culture embedded in fossil fuels within KCC.

 

Q – How important is government subsidy to support bio fuels?

 

(13)       Mr Morris noted that the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is an important part of the business case for renewable heat projects.  The RHI was introduced in 2011.  The rate of RHI subsidy has since reduced, although it still remains attractive and will be available until 2020 (albeit at a lower rate compared to when it was first introduced).  Woodland management, and afforestation, can, however, be a fairly marginal rural enterprise and the differences between the use of land for agriculture and forestry can hamper investment in woodlands.  In terms of growing more trees, the EU subsidies for farmland make it unlikely that good agricultural land would turned over to energy crops or new woodland. Anaerobic digestion, on the other hand, makes good use of farm and food waste and can also qualify for the RHI and Feed in Tariff (via tariffs for biogas and electricity production). He mentioned the anaerobic digestion facility at St Nicholas at Wade which used crop residue and the £10m food waste facility in Oxfordshire.  He stated anaerobic digestion had an enormous potential to produce a lot of electricity and heat.  KCC should do more in this area and joint commissioning with an industry provider would make a lot of sense.

 

Q – What can be done to raise awareness of the potential to use land in areas such as Romney Marsh as managed woodland?

 

(14)       Mr Morris explained that as the land in that area was grade 1 and 2 agricultural land it was unlikely to be used as manged woodland as its agricultural value would be greater. Although Romney Marsh was not a key area for forestation, he would always recommend that owners managed existing woodland.  He advocated the use of local species, trees that were climate matched and species adapted to future management.

 

Q – Wood fuel is a legacy technology but until subsidy arrangements change or there is support for landowners for the 10-12 years until the trees farmed it is unlikely that there will be any new take up, what potential is there in rotation of crops?

 

(15)       Mr Morris confirmed that the take up of the energy crops scheme had been low and that this scheme no longer existed. In relation to arable and poultry farming there was not a lot of farm waste materials produced in Kent compared to other counties.  Kent needs to secure sensible locations for anaerobic digestion that dovetail well with household and commercial waste food collection.  The long term waste contracts associated with waste in Kent need to be looked at so that anaerobic digestion opportunities are more fully realised. He considered that this was a good technology. It was important to scale this to take account of the supply chain.

 

 

Q – A lot Kent’s woodland would benefit from proper management, so it would be a win-win situation, what can be done to encourage landowners to unlock this benefit and does this apply to country parks?

 

(16)       Mr Morris stated that country parks were an exceptional resource and they were broadly doing what he was doing in the AONB.  It was important that demand increased in order to encourage increase in supply.  In 2011/2 research had been carried out by a consultant on demand in relation to biomass heating for schools in the county.  Unfortunately when this went out to procurement we did not get this right, we wanted to recruit an external supplier to develop tailored, variable packages for schools but what happened was procurement for a load of biomass boilers, the scope for the procurement was not correct and one leading supplier did not feel able to respond.  The problem with schools that that Kent does not know on a day to day basis which are going to be kept and which are going to become academies.  In the period of this business case the subsidy for renewables got worse.  In relation to schools work undertaken by Mr Morris indicated that schools could be financially better off from day one with a biomass heating system, although the strength of the business case has undoubtedly weakened since this work was completed..  Suffolk County Council was good at procuring biomass boilers.  The public sector generally has got to get to grips with biomass heating, although the golden opportunity has undoubtedly been missed now. A key barrier to this is the fact that public sector energy procurement is ‘excellent’ – able to secure energy for councils at very low costs. Therefore any attempt to install biomass in the public sector has to battle against the already low cost of conventional energy. One of the issues in relation to procurement the comparison made between biomass and the low cost of oil and electricity.

 

Q – Schools often have arrangements where they pay a fixed fee for their energy and therefore it doesn’t matter to them how much they use, there is no incentive for them to save energy.  What is your view of this?

 

(17)       Mr Morris stated that the school’s priority was to teach. It was important to get to speak to the head teacher and possibly governors about the long term implications of using renewable energy.

 

Q – There is view amongst some officers that there is no point in investing in renewable energy for schools as they will just become an academy and the long term savings will be lost to the County Council.  What is your view of this?

 

(18)       Mr Morris stated that he did not see this as a rational strategy.  One of the solutions would be for the County Council to create an investment vehicle and invest in these technologies itself. In cases where the school had become an academy, then perhaps the Council would need to set itself up as a business, and approach the academy as such. There was a need to produce a positive business case bearing in mind that the horizon for financial benefit would be over 20 years as the payback for renewable energy technologies takes longer than more conventional systems.

 

Q – The Government are saying that all schools will be academies by 2020 and therefore it is not just the view of property officers, this is something that KCC has no control of and must be mindful of, what is your view?

 

(19)       Mr Morris stated that aside from who owned the school building, there was still the need to reduce the demand for energy and for example putting solar panels on school roofs was a means of doing this.  The point is that school buildings are used intensively over many decades and as such they often represent excellent opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

 

Q - In relation to waste to energy is there scope for communities to benefit from this?

 

(20)       Mr Morris explained that the main product of waste to energy was electricity which tended to go to the national grid (with income going to the operator). However another possibility was for the heat generated to be used for nearby homes – although this rarely happens as the UK is not that good at distributed heating.  New waste to energy facilities could provide some form of community benefit, particularly where nearby residents and businesses are adversely impacted by the development.

 

Q – Regarding energy security, what percentage could renewable energy such as anaerobic digestion and biomass contribute to the energy needed in Kent?

 

(21)       Mr Morris explained that renewable electricity from wind turbines contributed 11% of the nation’s power needs in 2015.  Overall, renewable energy accounted for 31% of the share of total electricity generation.  In theory renewables could deliver in excess of 100% of our electricity needs.  However, on an hour-by-hour basis this will vary according to weather conditions and the time of day.

 

Q – One of the academic witnesses that we have said stated that it would be possible to supply 100% of Kent’s energy from renewable sources, you are saying nationally it currently 15% what should we be aiming to achieve?

 

(22)       KCC has to look at its own estate and see what opportunities there are for sustainable energy.  Schools represent a huge opportunity regarding energy security but the difficulty is novation.  The culture of the County Council needs to take a step change and understand the opportunities. 

 

Q – How can we overcome public perception in relation to anaerobic digesters and waste to energy facilities being established in their areas?

 

(23)       Mr Morris suggested that developers could be asked to contribute a minimum of 10%-20% of energy needs from renewables as well as making buildings more energy efficient. Opportunities were presented by school refurbishments and extensions, also use could be made of solar thermal, and Biomass was the only alternative to oil in gas free areas.  In relation to public perception – there is some evidence from the introduction of wind turbines and solar farms that if communities can see an identifiable benefit to their community then they are more accepting.

 

Q –I went on a forestry commission visit to Austria 5 years ago to look at a biomass facility, they are a long way ahead of us regarding renewable energy, is there anyway of promoting a national strategy which supports this concept of local generation of energy even if that energy is fed into the national grid rather than used by the community?

 

(24)       Mr Morris stated that he had spoken to a number of organisations, there was a lack of rural policy in Kent and there needs to be a link between energy security and support from locally based organisations such as the Kent Association of Parish Councils and the Council for the Protection of Rural England to draw this together.   KCC could provide the lead on this to make the connection between rural communities and their potential to contribute to energy security.    KCC could establish an investment vehicle and buy into these projects. 

 

Q - There was a need for KCC to look at what can be done in relation to schools and renewable energy particularly where there is a KCC school and an academy on a shared site, would this provide a greater potential for the schools to invest in renewable energy?

 

(25)       Mr Morris stated that there was a need for a consistent legal view on the legal status of the buildings and the land in this type of situation.  Mr Morris confirmed that 40 schools had solar pv roof panels out of 640 schools in Kent, this was a good start but there was still a lot of work to be done to encourage more schools to embrace renewable energy.

 

(26)       The Chairman thanked Mr Morris for attending and answering questions from Members