Agenda item

(1)           The Chairman welcomed Mr Joseph Grice who was the Energy Capital Projects Manager at London Borough of Islington.  Mr Grice gave Members a brief introduction and explained that his background was in engineering, his current role at Islington Council was to oversee capital projects developed by the wider Energy Services Team. 

(2)          Mr Grice explained that the Government’s Heat Network Delivery Unit (HNDU) had funding available for feasibility projects – London Borough of Islington had been successful in obtaining funding for the London Underground schemes in other areas. 

(3)          London Borough of Islington used a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) network which converted gas generating power and heat as a by-product.  The heat was recovered and used to heat council and private homes, leisure centres and private buildings, and the heat network was 75-80% efficient due to the heat recovery which would ordinarily be wasted.  The network was producing power which was sold back to the national grid for a profit.  The heat which was recovered was sold onto residents at a cheaper rate because it was subsidised through the money received from the national grid.  Islington had used the CHP network since 2012, it was considered a forward thinking authority and the focus of the project was on helping poorer residents.

Q. How could this system work in Kent?

(4)          Mr Grice explained that the system worked best in areas of high heat density, town centres for example.  Mr Grice offered to provide examples of other authorities doing similar schemes.  Where Industrial buildings were producing heat the waste heat could be harnessed and used productively circulating it to housing estates or hospitals for example. 

Q.  How was the scheme financially viable?

(5)          Mr Grice explained that Members had been guaranteed a minimum 10% reduction in the cost of the heating to residents.  The exact figures could be provided to Members if requested. 

(6)          Mr Grice was asked to discuss with Members the scheme using excess heat from the London Underground.  The underground system had an ambient temperature of 18-30degrees, this waste heat would be converted to useful heat in a heat pump and would be boosted and put back into the network.  IT was confirmed that any London Borough with an area above the London Underground could harness the heat as a power source.  There was an added benefit in the cooled water bring produced as a by-product of the power production, which was then used to help to cool the underground system, it was a reciprocal process. 

(7)          Members commented on the size differences between Kent and Islington, Kent having approx. 1.8million population and Islington 300,000. 

Q.  Had Islington investigated any other fuels to generate heat or was the Council satisfied with the current system?

(8)          Mr Grice explained that the Council would love to look at alternative heat generating systems such as biomass and biofuels, however space was difficult in central London, the CHP network was reliant on gas supply but the scheme had provided resilience for households in the case of boilers breaking down heating could still be provided through the CHP network.

Q. What challenges had been encountered when setting up the CHP system?

(9)          It was necessary to detail how much heat and power would be used, ideally the power would be sold on for a profit.  Planning permission was problematic, this was a flagship project and as mentioned previously Members were guaranteed a minimum return on the scheme.  This was not a ‘spend to save’ project; it was to alleviate fuel poverty.  Liaising with London Underground provided its own logistical challenges.  The initial feasibility study showed the size of the substantial contracts needed to complete the work on the underground, there was initially a lack of response from potential contractors.  This project was funded through Council Capital and an EU grant. 

Q. How much power did the generator produce?

(10)       The generator produced 2MW power (2000KW) and similar levels of heat.  It also had a thermal store, the generator was not allowed to run overnight and therefore the thermal store was filled and discharges overnight.  The grid paid for energy to be produced at key times throughout the day so there was a financial benefit to the Council.

(11)       Funding was available for other innovative projects, a possibility for London Borough of Islington was to use the Regents’ Canal with a water source heat pump, this was not currently financially viable but if it could be proved to be innovative it could be pursued. 

(12)       Members briefly discussed the use of tidal power as this was the main alternative source in Kent.  Mr Grice confirmed that the London Mayor had some water source heat pumps in the Thames which was also tidal. 

Q.  How did the Council engage with the local communities?

(13)       There were challenges when the network was being expanded but the Council worked with the community to demonstrate the benefits and how the scheme would be successful.  Small projects using Solar PV had been used in Islington as invest to save measures; these had been installed on a waste transfer centre with a payback of 6-7years return on investment.

Q. How could energy security be promoted across Kent?

(14)       Fuel poverty advice and guidance on energy efficiency, health issues with damp etc. was issued to residents in Islington.  All North London Boroughs exported their waste to incinerators so unfortunately the boroughs didn’t see the benefits locally.  The Heat Network Delivery Unit provided support and funding for local authorities to realise projects such as the London Underground project.  Ms McKenzie (KCC’s Head of Sustainable Business and Communities) was also present at the hearing and confirmed that KCC had realised some funding for projects from the Heat Network Delivery Unit. 

(15)       Members thanked Mr Grice for attending the hearing and explaining the schemes used in London Borough of Islington and for answering Members’ questions.