Select Committee on European Union Twenty-Seventh Report


APPENDIX 6: VISIT TO BRISTOL—23 MAY 2008


The Members of the Committee that visited Bristol were Lord Freeman (Chairman), Lord Mitchell and Lord Whitty.

The visit consisted of three parts; a visit to the wind turbines at Avonmouth docks with Ecotricity and the Bristol Port Company, a meeting with Parsons Brinckerhoff and BERR, and a visit to renewable projects managed by Good Energy.

Avonmouth Docks

The Committee were met by Vince Dale, Managing Director and Madeline Carroll, PR Officer of Ecotricity and Patrick Kearon, Director of Public Affairs, Bristol Port Company.

Avonmouth docks are equipped with three 2MW wind turbines operating at a 32% load factor. These provide around 75% of the site's power needs. The site is connected to the grid network. The installation is owned and managed by Ecotricity who sell on the Renewables Obligation Certificates earned.

The issue of planning permission was discussed. For the Avonmouth docks installation planning permission was not a great problem as the turbines are on a brown field site. Mr Dale estimated that of Ecotricity's projects around one in ten on brown field sites will be sent to appeal. On green field sites appeal is more likely, around two out of three projects. Around 90% of Ecotricity's projects are successful in the planning system. On average Ecotricity take around three years to develop a project. This includes filtering out areas unsuitable due to various barriers (low wind speeds, housing, protected land etc …) Once a suitable site has been located Ecotricity must then negotiate with the owners of that land. Ecotricity have been working to develop projects close to existing grid infrastructure in order to reduce any grid connection problems.

Despite Ecotricity's success rate, Mr Vince was concerned that many planning applications get turned down at a local level regardless of evidence submitted. Ecotricity suggest moving planning of these kinds of projects up to County Council level in order to retain some democratic oversight whilst making a strategic and considered decision more likely. Both Mr Vince and Mr Kearon stated that the Planning Bill would not streamline the system for their projects as they do not meet the 50MW threshold. A further planning problem identified was objections from the Ministry of Defence (MoD). According to Mr Vince on a number of occasions the MoD have objected to projects but not continued that objection at planning appeal. He views this as an unnecessary delay to projects.

The building and maintenance of onshore turbines in comparison with offshore projects was discussed. In the case of the Avonmouth docks turbines, only two days of the year are lost to maintenance and the turbines are operational for over 95% (95.53% over 11 months of operation) of the time. Ecotricity are also aware of potential supply chain problems. Currently they have developed relationships with manufacturers in Germany for three years but beyond that they are unsure what arrangements they will have to come to.

The Committee discussed the proposed Severn Barrage with Mr Kearon. It has been suggested that a system of locks within the barrage would allow shipping to pass through it and to the docks. The Bristol Port Company believe that this would have an adverse effect on their business. Not only would a system of locks increase waiting times to get into the docks but the barrage would permanently reduce the depth of the Severn. Currently the River Severn runs deeper further into land than any other UK dock; this benefit would be lost if the barrage were built.

Parson Brinckerhoff (PB Power)

The Committee met Peter Kydd, Project Director of Severn Barrage Feasibility Study and Gary Shanahan, Deputy Director of Severn Tidal Power Unit, BERR.

PB Power have been appointed to carry out a feasibility study into the Severn Barrage project. The handout from this session can be found in the written evidence section of this report.

Good Energy

The Committee met Hugo House of Good Energy. He arranged for the Committee to visit two micro-generation projects Good Energy are involved with. The first was the house of Mr and Mrs Bannerman. The second was the house of Jackson Moulding and Anna Hope. Both of these homes have been fitted with solar photo voltaic panels for electricity generation and hot water. Many of the same themes were brought up at both projects.

In both cases the solar panels had been installed not on the expectation of making significant savings in energy bills but on a point of principle. Good Energy suggested that on average a payback period of 20 years is expected for the installation of solar panels.

Both parties stated that being able to easily see how much electricity was being generated and how much was being bought from their supplier (Good Energy) mean that their power use habits had changed. Although this may be evident only in small ways such as leaving lights off, recharging mobile phones during the day rather than overnight or only using the dishwasher on sunny days, the increased awareness of energy use is important.

Both witnesses stated that finding qualified companies to install or repair the panels is also a challenge. Although Jackson Moulding and Anna Hope carried out the installation work themselves any repairs to equipment required them to send parts away to companies in Germany or Denmark. Mr and Mrs Bannerman also noted that choosing a reliable installation company was relatively difficult as there is no universal accreditation system for installers equivalent to the CORGI registration for gas installers for example. Good Energy added that this has been addressed to some extent and there is now an online register of accredited installers.

The principal message from both projects was that without extra help from Government or energy companies micro-generation will not become more common. Not only are the parts expensive but the grants that are available were difficult to apply for and partnerships with energy companies were not easy to arrange. Good Energy pointed out that although the grant system has been simplified, the grants available have been reduced.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008