APPENDIX
CARBON ROADMAPPING—TECHNOLOGY ASSUMPTION
SHEETS
The following sheets represent the best view
that is available within Power Technology of the main technical
characteristics and costs of renewable energy technologies. Some
of the information, particularly for the later years, is more
of a belief than it is hard fact.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
All money in £2007
Grid emission factors in tCO2/MWh (for demand
side savings) are taken from E4Tech report up to 2020 and estimated
for 2030 as follows:
2010 = 0.42, 2020 = 0.39, 2030 = 0.24, this
crudely assumes that all new build to 2020 is gas and all new
plant between 2020 and 2030 is zero emissions.
CO2 savings from the measures on these sheets
are not by any means additive. For example a high take up of zero
emissions centrally despatched plant will reduce "savings"
made by demand reduction. In some such cases savings from micro
generation could become negative. Also a high take up of one technology
(eg new build advanced CCGT) may compete with another technology
(eg IGCC + CCS) for common components such as steam turbines.
In particular the build rates for nuclear are the maximum across
all technologies because of competition for sites, skilled workforce
and large forged components. Furthermore it is unlikely that power
generation equipment for centrally despatched plant can be provided
at a rate that exceeds 4GW/year across all technologies.
The capital cost of nearly all these technologies
are dependent on the prices for basic commodities such as steel
and concrete, sometimes to a large extent. This document assumes
that current prices prevail throughout the period.
CONTRIBUTORS:
Hydro and Marine: Tony Barber
Biomass: Ben Goh
Heat: Ben Goh and Andy Boston
Micro generation: Andy Boston
|
| | Hydro: Low Head
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030 |
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW
Opex £/kW/yr
Load Facor
CO2 t/MWh emissions
| £2,000
£10
80%
Only in construction.
| £2,000
£10
80%
| £2,000
£10
80%
|
| Flexibility comment
| The power output will be seasonal but quite predictable and consistent.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW
Build Rate, MW/yr
Limiting factors
| 100 MW
10 MW |
300 MW
20 MW
Appropriate sites. ROCs
| 500 MW
20 MW
Appropriate sites. ROCs
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why?
Yes, Max reach
Yes, Max Build Rate
What is enabler
| Too soon |
500 MW
40 MW
Access and longevity of ROCs, or other funding mechanism.
| 500 MW is about the limit of potential UK capacity.
|
|
|
| | Wind: Onshore
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW
Opex £/kW/yr
Load factor
CO2 t/MWh emissions
| 1,400
25
28 |
1,200
25
30
|
1,100
25
31
|
| Flexibility comment
| Currently in a price rise due to high demand but continuing drive to bigger, and better engineered, turbines, should ultimately lead to a return to the "traditional" decrease in capital cost with time.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW
Build Rate, MW/yr
Limiting factors
| 2.5
500
Planning Permissions, Manufacturing lead times,
Changes expected to Renewables Obligation may make onshore wind farms less attractive economically.
Grid constraints
Market growth worldwide: manufacturer overload in short term
| 4
200
Need for new wind turbine technologies/design concepts
| 5
300
Limits to turbine size
Grid Stability
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach
| No, why?
Yes, Max reach
Yes, Max Build Rate
|
3 |
6
200
|
10
300
|
| and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| What is enabler | Government action to lever planning authorities to give planning permissions more readily.
Removal of grid constraints
|
|
BWEA (1GW capacity in June 05, 2GW in Jan 07 for all wind)
Also the "Windstats Newsletter", and experience.
|
| | Wind: Offshore
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW
Opex £/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh
| 1,800
30
35 |
1,800
30
38 | 1,800
30
38
|
| Flexibility comment
| Continuing drive to bigger turbines, counteracted by need to use more remote & difficult sites ... likely to maintain Capex
Load Factor affected by accessibility issues, which impact offshore plant operational availabilities.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW
Build Rate, MW/yr
Limiting factors
| 2
300
Permissions, Manufacturing lead times, Installation equipment (crane barges, etc)
Changes expected to Renewables Obligation may make offshore windfarms more attractive economically.
Grid constraints.
Market growth worldwide: manufacturer overload in short term
| 8
600
Need for new wind turbine technologies/design concepts
| 15
800
Limits to turbine size
Grid Stability
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and
| No, why?
Yes, Max reach
Yes, Max Build Rate
| Too short a timescale for offshore
|
12
1,000
|
18
1,000
|
| infrastructure changes? | What is enabler
| Improved government encouragement to offshore wind farms.
|
|
Info sources: BWEA, the "Windstats Newsletter",
and experience
|
| | Marine: Tidal Barrage
|
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW
Opex £/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh emissions
| £1,300
£10
25%
Only in construction.
| £1,300
£10
25%
| £1,300
£10
25%
|
| Flexibility comment
| The power output will be variable but highly predictable.
Note long construction period (7+ years) makes capex appear even more expensive.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW
Build Rate, MW/yr
Limiting factors
| 0
0
Projects will take many years to construct.
| 0
0
Strongly dependent on government support for major projects. Also dependent on EIA.
| 0
0
As for 2020.
Limited sites.
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why?
Yes, Max reach
Yes, Max Build Rate
What is enabler
| |
8,000+ MW (Severn barrage)
ROC banding or feed-in tariff, strong government support.
|
9,000 MW (Severn + Mersey + others)
As for 2020.
|
|
|
| | Marine: Tidal Lagoon
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW
Opex £/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh emissions
| £2,000
£10
38%
Only in construction.
| £2,000
£10
38%
| £2,000
£10
38%
|
| Flexibility comment
| The power output will be variable (although less so than tidal stream) but highly predictable and partially controllable. Capex is higher than barrage but lead times shorter, load factor is higher and environmental impact is lower.
|
Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW
Build Rate, Mw/yr
Limiting factors
| 0—no projects currently committed to (47 MW if Oldbury goes ahead, 60 MW for Swansea Bay).
0
| 500 MW
100 MW
Strongly dependent on banding of ROCs, and capital grants or feed-in tariffs. Consenting and grid access are also serious issues.
| 3000 MW ??
250 MW ??
As for 2020.
This is very hard to predict and depends on a number of very uncertain factors.
|
Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why?
Yes, Max reach
Yes, Max Build Rate
What is enabler
|
100 MW |
2,000 MW
300 MW
ROC banding or feed-in tariff.
|
10 GW !
1 GW ?
As for 2020.
|
|
PTech reports, BD1454 and BC1068—critical analysis
of Atkins figures for Swansea, inc 10% contingency.
|
| | Marine: Tidal Stream
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW
Opex £/kW/yr
Load Factor
CO2 t/MWh emissions
| £2,200
£300
30%
Only in construction / installation.
| £1,300
£100
30%
| £1,000
£100
30%
|
| Flexibility comment
| The power output will be variable but highly predictable.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW
Build Rate, MW/yr
Limiting factors
| 12 MW
5
Ability of technology developers to produce successful commercial devices.
| 400 MW
100 MW
Strongly dependent on banding of ROCs, and capital grants or feed-in tariffs. Consenting and grid access are also serious issues.
| 3,000 MW ??
250 MW ??
As for 2020.
This is very hard to predict and depends on a number of very uncertain factors.
|
Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why?
Yes, Max reach
Yes, Max Build Rate
What is enabler
| Not much—most major projects will take around 3 yrs to deployment, so this is based on current proposals.
|
1,000 MW
200 MW
ROC banding or feed-in tariff.
|
4,000 MW ?
300 MW ???
As for 2020.
|
|
|
| | Marine: Wave
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW | £3,000
| £1,300 | £1,000
|
| Opex £/kW/yr
| £300 | £100
| £100 |
| Load Factor
| 30% | 30%
| 30% |
| CO2 t/MWh emissions
| Only in construction/installation.
| | |
| Flexibility comment
| The power output will be variable and highly seasonal, although more predictable in the short term than wind.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW | 10 MW
| 300 MW | 2,000 MW ??
|
| Build Rate, MW/yr
| 5 | 80 MW
| 150 MW ?? |
| Limiting factors
| Ability of technology developers to produce successful commercial devices.
| Strongly dependent on banding of ROCs, and capital grants or feed-in tariffs. Consenting and grid access are also serious issues.
| As for 2020.
This is very hard to predict and depends on a number of very uncertain factors.
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? | Not much—most major projects will take around three yrs to deployment, so this is based on current proposals.
| | |
| Yes, Max reach
| | 1,000 MW
| 3,000 MW ? |
| Yes, Max Build Rate
| | 200 MW
| 200 MW ??? |
| What is enabler
| | ROC banding or feed-in tariff.
| As for 2020. Needs improvement in capes and opex.
|
|
|
| | Biomass: Co-Firing
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW | 25-35
| | |
| Opex £/kW/yr
| 15-35 | |
|
| Load Factor
| 20%-60% |
| |
| CO2 t/MWh emissions
| 0 to +0.2 | -2 to +0.2
| |
| Flexibility comment
| Variations in above values dependent on fuels used and carbon accounting.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW | 1
| 2-3 | |
| Build Rate, MW/yr
| 150-200 | 150-200
| |
| Limiting factors
| ROC support. Energy crop availability. LCPD.
| Consideration of biomass for CCS (-ve CO2 emissions = double credits?). ROC support. Fuel supply infrastructure.
| |
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? | No why?
|
| Yes, Max reach
| 2-3 | 5-6
| |
| Yes, Max Build Rate
| 500-1,000 | 500-1,000
| |
| What is enabler
| No LCPD shutdowns Increased guaranteed revenue support for co-firing. High CO2 and ROC prices
| Ditto + development of supply infrastructure.
| |
|
|
| | Biomass: Dedicated Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC)
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW | 1,800-2,400
| 1,800-2,400 | 1,800-2,400
|
| Opex £/kW/yr
| 20-30 | 20-30
| 20-30 |
| Load Factor
| 80% | 80%
| 80% |
| CO2 t/MWh emissions
| -2 to +0.2 | -2 to +0.2
| -2 to +0.2 |
| Flexibility comment
| | | |
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and build rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Tech reach, GW | 1
| 1 | 1
|
| Build Rate, MW/yr
| 200 | |
|
| Limiting factors
| Reliant on grant support. Fuel availability. Many regulations prevent biomass build
| | |
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? |
| | Reach limit of fuel supply?
|
| Yes, Max reach
| 1.5 GW | 2.2-2.5 GW
| 2.2-2.5 GW |
| Yes, Max Build Rate
| | | |
| What is enabler
| Larger capital grant pot and garanteed revenue support
Infrastructure grant scheme
Relaxation of waste regs
Allow build on existing generation sites
|
|
|
| | Heat: Biomass
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW | 150-1,000
| | |
| Opex £/kW/yr#
| 5-20 | |
|
| Load Factor
| 50%-90% |
| |
| CO2 t/MWh emissions
| 0-1 | -1.5-+1
| |
| Comment
| Huge variation in costs due to variation in scheme sizes and types and treatment of emissions and access to CCS
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and installation rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Post 2006 installations, MW
| 0.25 | |
|
| Installation Rate, kW/yr
| 100-200 |
| |
| Limiting factors
| Capital grant
Fuel costs (lack of revenue support)
Supply infrastructure
Low gas price—ease of access to gas grid.
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? | No why?
| | |
| Yes, Max reach, MW
| 0.5 | 2.5
| |
| Yes, Max Build Rate kW/yr
| 100-500 | 100-500
| |
| What is enabler?
| Heat revenue support plus increase in gas price.
|
|
|
| | Domestic Heat: Biomass pellet boiler
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/house | 4,000
| | |
| Opex £/kW/yr#
| | | |
| Average output MWh/year
| 18 | |
|
| CO2 t/house savings
| 3.8 | |
|
| Comment
| Only 150 existed in 2004 so still a new technology. Looks good in terms of £/tCO2 abated but not cost effective for householder.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and installation rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Post 2006 installations, M
| 0.013 | 0.052
| |
| Installation Rate, houses/yr
| 5,000 | 5,000
| |
| Limiting factors
| Only competitive against all electric heating
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? |
| | |
| Yes, Max reach, M houses
| 0.027 | 0.39
| |
| Yes, Max Build houses/yr
| 10,000 | 50,000
| |
| What is enabler
| Grants to make it competitive against other heating systems. Still unlikely to beat gas on price
|
|
|
| | Domestic Heat: Solar thermal)
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? Capex £/house
| 2,625 | |
| |
| Opex £/kW/yr#
| | | |
| Average output MWh/year
| 1.4 | |
|
| CO2 t/house savings
| 0.32 | |
|
| Comment
| One of the least cost effective measures, but high "show" value
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and installation rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Post 2006 installations, M
| 0.004 | 3.6
| |
| Installation Rate, houses/yr
| 2,000 | 400,000
| |
| Limiting factors
| Cost. Ultimately could be applicable to 75% of dwellings
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? |
| | |
| Yes, Max reach, M houses
| 0.008 | 3.7
| |
| Yes, Max Build houses/yr
| 4,000 | 400,000
| |
| What is enabler
| Slightly earlier take up of measure, but unlikely to effectively compete with other low carbon technologies in UK so little overall improvement.
|
|
|
| | Domestic Heat: Ground Source Heat Pump
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/house | 4,500
| 4,000 | 3,000
|
| Opex £/kW/yr#
| | | |
| Load Factor
| | | |
| CO2 t/house/yr savings
| 1.0 (vs gas)
3.6 (vs all elec)
| 0.95 (vs gas)
3.3 (vs all elec)
| 1.1 (vs gas)
2 (vs all elec)
|
| Comment
| Capex assumes wet heating system already exists or would need to be acquired anyway, ie competing with LPG or oil boiler installation to replace all electric. Savings based on gas fired boiler at 80% efficiency (improving 5%pts /decade) and GSHP with CP of 2.5 for 12.5 MWh pa heat
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and installation rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Post 2006 installations (M), and savings
| 0.002 0.003 Mt CO2 | 0.17 0.6 Mt CO2
| 0.5
2.1 Mt CO2 |
| Installation Rate, houses/yr
| 500 | 15,000
| 50,000 |
| Limiting factors
| Not competitive against oil or gas—may never be. Competitive against electric heating but then higher cost as radiators and pipework need installing as well. Only 1.2M homes are all electric heating.
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? | Too late to effect change here
| | |
| Yes, Max reach
| | 0.34
1.2 Mt CO
| 2 1.0
4.2 Mt CO2 |
| Yes, Max Build Rate
| | 30,000
| 100,000 |
| What is enabler
| Grants to cover capital cost. In very low carbon world where electricity has been decarbonised then GSHP could displace gas or oil heating. It is then applicable to the 17M homes which have gardens, soil may be conservative in this scenario.
|
|
Information sources: E4Tech study preliminary results (DCLG
2006 and DEFRA 2007).
|
| | Micro generation: Wind
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW | 1,500
| 1,300 | 1,000
|
| Opex £/kW/yr#
| | | |
| Load Factor
| 10%10% | 10%
| |
| CO2 t/house/yr savings
| 0.26 | 0.24
| 0.13 |
| Comment
| Assuming 1.5 kW per house, total cost based on DEFRA
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and installation rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Post 2006 installations, MW
| 1.7 | 73
| 930 |
| Installation Rate, kW/yr
| 500 | 10,000
| 130,000 |
| Limiting factors
| Expensive relative to other demand side measures. EEC3 expects 500-3,000 installations by end of 2011.
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? | Unlikely to be able to change support much before 2010
| | |
| Yes, Max reach, MW
| | 150 3,000
| |
| Yes, Max Build Rate kW/yr
| | 20,000
| 500,000 |
| What is enabler
| No planning needed, becomes fashionable, significant grants or feed in tariff made equal to import rate, access to ROCs and enough stability of support to drive volume manufacturing by 2015, little change before 2010.
|
|
Information sources: E4Tech study preliminary results (DCLG
2006 and DEFRA 2007). EST estimate for most of 2020-30 information.
|
| | Micro generation: PhotoVoltaic
|
| | 2010
| 2020 | 2030
|
|
| What are the cost (capex and opex) and fuel requirement and flexibility of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030?
| Capex £/kW | 3,750
| 1,700 | 1,100
|
| Opex £/kW/yr#
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
| Load Factor
| 8% | 8%
| 8% |
| CO2 t/house/yr savings
| 0.75 | 0.70
| 0.44 |
| Comment
| Assume 2.5 kW peak module per house. Note low load factor for UK climate, assumed to not have active tracking.
|
| Assuming current policy and infrastructure remain, what is the maximum technical reach and installation rate of these technology options in 2010, 2020 and 2030? What are the limiting factors?
| Post 2006 installations, MW
| 1 | 4
| 200 |
| Installation Rate, kW/yr
| 500 | 500
| 2,000 |
| Limiting factors
| One of the least economic forms of generation so only for enthusiasts, or small off-grid applications.
|
| Could this reach and build rate be improved through policy and/or infrastructure change? If yes, then what is maximum theoretical reach and build rate and what are those policy and infrastructure changes?
| No, why? | Too soon
| | |
| Yes, Max reach, MW
| | 70 |
10,000 |
| Yes, Max Build Rate kW/yr
| | | |
| What is enabler
| Only a technical breakthrough with a step change in production costs can give it a real boost. Either to make it much cheaper or easier to incorporate in existing building materials such as glass or roof tiles. Or policy is to subsidise this technology in particular to a large extent (eg like Germany). If so then 9M homes could be suitable for 2.5kW units by 2050, assume half installed prior to 2030
|
|
| Information sources: Defra 2006, DCLG, E4Tech 2007, EST 2006, DTI PV trial.
|
|
