Memorandum 72
Supplementary evidence from the British
Wind Energy Association (BWEA) following the evidence session
on 23 January 2008
The following comments are in response to some
specific questions from the IUS Committee following the evidence
session of 23 January 2008.
With regards to particular R&D needs relevant
to undersea cables and offshore renewables, generally speaking
the cable requirements of this sector are no different from any
other use of offshore power cables, and therefore specific R&D
is not necessary. Manufacturers are developing products specific
to this market, since the size of cable required is generally
larger than for other applications, but this does not entail basic
R&D. However, the increase in offshore wind in both number
and size of arrays may lend itself to innovative substation and
offshore network design. The combining of a North Sea interconnector
with the offshore wind transmission is a interesting possibility,
but one where a technical solution could be examined. The transmission
losses experienced with developing projects further out to sea
could be addressed by using a Direct Current (DC) system, but
would result in its own technical challenges.
The potential of the Pentland Firth for tidal
stream generation is unquestionably massive: estimates vary as
to the proportion of the UK's total tidal stream resource it represents,
but it is by far the single most energetic site in this country.
It would present some significant practical challenges in exploiting
this potential, however. It will take some time to develop the
technological solutions for tidal stream power generally, and
until this is done it will not be possible to be definitive about
the scale of energy production that the Firth will be able to
deliver. The Firth is an important navigation route, and hence
any tidal generators would have to be carefully sited. The most
energetic flow in the Firth is where it is at its deepest, and
generators would have to be placed on the sea bed to exploit this:
there would be some issues of access to these sites, and due to
the strong currents, maintenance might be problematic. Lastly,
the challenge of providing significant new grid capacity to the
far north of Scotland may limit the amount of energy that can
be extracted, or at least considerably delay the time at which
full exploitation may be possible.
None of these issues should be insurmountable,
given time; in the long term therefore, the Pentland Firth can
be a significant contributor to UK electricity supplies. The Sustainable
Development Commission's report "Turning the Tide: Tidal
power in the UK"[255]
estimated that tidal stream energy could provide 5% of UK power
in the long run, including the Pentland Firth: BWEA would regard
the SDC's estimate as conservative, though the technical challenges
faced in developing this brand new form of energy should not be
underestimated.
The focus of the MRDF on early demonstration
multi-device projects has been entirely appropriate. What has
been the issue for companies coming forward to take up the Fund
has been their ability to fulfill the application criteria, most
notably the requirement that full-scale prototypes need to have
three months of continuous operation before a technology can access
the MRDF. The new report on the subject from the Renewables Advisory
Board[256]
describes in some detail why there has been this delay, and the
Committee should consider its findings. Additional funding for
the development of marine technologies up to the point where MRDF
funding might be sought would be welcome, but it should be noted
that there are also some structural changes that might be just
as helpful as more money being made available. The rolling of
the MRDF into the Environmental Transformation Fund, and the "banding
up" of wave and tidal to 2ROC/MWh under the reform of the
Renewables Obligation, give an opportunity to refine the entry
criteria and dovetail them more closely with R&D programmes
that feed into it. The Committee should also note that marine
renewable technology developers need some certainty as to what
will be available to them in terms of continued development funding
after the MRDF if they are not to enter the "valley of death"
referred to in the oral evidence session: each device developer
is only allowed one bite at the MRDF cherry, and at the moment
there is no support on offer beyond that except for the 2ROC/MWh,
which is insufficient to fund post-MRDF development.
Environmental Impact Assessment can be a significant
burden for companies attempting to develop pioneering marine renewables
projects. These are small developments, using technologies that
are new. The latter feature leads to demands for comprehensive
surveying and monitoring to assess what is and is not an issue,
which makes them particularly burdensome on pilot projects of
one or a handful of devices. A proportional approach by statutory
conservation consultees would be welcome to reduce this burden
to the absolute minimum required, and extra help from Government
in carrying out such surveys and monitoring required would also
be very helpful. Other Government departments and bodies, such
as BERR, DEFRA, DfT, MoD and the Crown Estate have a direct interest
in this area: there are already some pieces of work going on around
this subject, bringing these bodies together. A coordinated approach
to consenting, and research on consenting, will be beneficial
to industry.
For other renewable technologies, the burden
of EIA is less in that the issues are better known, and thus some
work can be "scoped out" at an early stage, and projects
are bigger, so the EIA work is less as a proportion of project
cost. There is still progress that could be made, however, particularly
in offshore wind: BWEA is pleased that industry's calls for more
urgency in feeding back the conclusions of monitoring required
by the Food and Environment Protection Act into the consents process
are beginning to be heard. There is an opportunity to develop
this further for both current and future projects. BWEA also perceives
reluctance in some quarters to accept the results of research
into the impacts of offshore wind projects outside the UK, most
notably the thorough programme of research conducted around the
Horns Rev and Nysted projects in Denmark. Government should seek
to include all evidence on impacts in assessing what is required
of developers in the EIA process, regardless of where it has been
collected. BWEA is pleased, therefore, that the UK is hosting
a major scientific conference in June on marine renewable energy
and the environment, aimed at sharing data across Europe.[257]
8 February 2008
255 www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Tidal_Power_in_the_UK_Oct07.pdf Back
256
Downloadable from www.renewables-advisory-board.org.uk/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=126 Back
257
www.maree2008.org.uk Back
|
