Renewable Energy Report

St Margaret's at Cliffe, Dover, Kent
Energy Strategy
Produced for: St Margaret's at Cliffe Parish Council

Period of Work: April 2009
Report Compiled by
Jae Mather BA GEOG, PGradDip EDM,

AIEMA
Anthony Morgan
BEng (Hons), Chief Eng III/II (Mar)
Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553
I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Executive Summary
Overview of St Margaret's Bay
II Recommendations
2
Reduce the need
Wind Power
11
Biomass Power
14
Anaerobic Digestion
19
Voltage Power Optimisation
20
Micro Generation
21
Other potential systems
25
III Operations
9
Methods of financing community systems
26
10
Systems of ownership and management
27
IV CONCLUSIONS, DISCLAIMER AND CONFIDENTIALITY

11
Conclusions
28
This report has been commissioned by St Margaret's at Cliffe Parish Council to provide guidance on what
the most appropriate forms of renewable energy are for the village. The report has been designed to
evaluate systems (or combinations of systems) that would be able to provide at least as much electricity
as the entire village is currently consuming. As such district solutions are the main focus. In addition to
this some technologies have been identified that can be implemented on an individual building basis as
there are often early adaptors that are interested in beginning the process of self sufficiency in their own
dwelling initially. This report also discusses some potential financing options and ownership /
management structures as well. The funds to create this report have come from the Parish Council, with
additional support from Kent County Council and through a Members Grant.
1.0
Overview of St Margaret's at Cliffe
St Margaret's is a seaside village set on the White Cliffs of Dover in Kent; it is located 3 miles from the
town of Dover. It is the closest part of England to the European mainland and only 21 miles separates it
from France. The parish includes St Margaret's at Cliffe, the inland settlement, and St Margaret's Bay,
which reaches down to the sea.
The village has approximately 3000 permanent residents with around 1370 households (based upon
information from the Parish Council). In addition there are a number of local farms, 3 hotels, 3 Bed and
Breakfasts, 3 pubs, 2 hairdressers, 1 doctor, 2 estate agents, a post office, a village shop, a stationery
store and 3 churches, a school, an accountant, 2 tea rooms, a community hall, the Pines Calyx
conference centre with its adjoining cafe and a large Holiday Park.
The estimated total electricity consumption for the St Margaret's Bay community is 8,300,000 kWh/yr.
This is based upon:
1370 households with an average annual consumption of 5000 kWh/yr = 6,850,000 kWh/yr.
The businesses: 3 hotels (typical consumption 20,000 kWh/yr), 3 bed and breakfasts (typical
consumption 7,000 kWh/yr), 3 pubs (typical consumption 15,000 kWh/yr), 1 restaurant (typical
consumption 6,000 kWh/yr), 2 hairdressers (typical consumption 3,000 kWh/yr), 1 doctor (typical
consumption 2,000 kWh/yr), 2 estate agents (typical consumption 2,000 kWh/yr), 1 post office (typical
consumption 5,000 kWh/yr), 1 village shop (typical consumption 15,000 kWh/yr), 1 stationary store
(typical consumption 2,000 kWh/yr), 3 churches (typical consumption 5,000 kWh/yr), a school (typical
consumption 150,000 kWh/yr), an accountant (typical consumption 2,000 kWh/yr), 2 tea rooms (typical
consumption 5,000 kWh/yr), a community hall (typical consumption 80,000 kWh/yr), 1 Conference
centre (typical consumption 90,000 kWh/yr), 1 holiday resort (approx 700,000 kWh/yr) for an estimated
total consumption from businesses of 1,213,000 kWh/yr.
Typically agriculture's electricity consumption is 3.46% of the domestic electricity consumption*. This
has been estimated to be 237,000 kWh/yr.
*http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/source/electricity/page18527.html
Estimated base load of the town 947 kW.
tonnes per year * (based on UK average emissions of 0.48 KG CO2 per kWh).
*http://www.electricityinfo.org/supplierdataall.php?year=latest
Emissions from households: 3288 Tonnes
Emissions from Businesses: 582 Tonnes
Emissions from agriculture: 114 Tonnes
If the community consumes around 8,300,000 kWh of electricity per year then it is spending
approximately 913,000 per year currently for electricity (based upon an average price of 11p per kWh).
It is estimated that the total electricity consumption for the community could easily be reduced by 20%
through measures identified in section 2.
II Recommendations
2.0
Reduce the Need
The first step in any pursuit of energy, heat or water savings is always to reduce the need. It is much
more cost effective to improve the performance of buildings, reduce wastage and change behaviour
than it is to produce energy from renewable measures. As such this section details some of the main
ways to accomplish this.
The most important rule to keep in mind is that alternative energy sources come at a cost. Promoting
change in the habits of homeowners is a low cost starting point that communities must promote in
conjunction with applying resource to large community based energy schemes. It is essential that
individual households and businesses taking responsibility for their own energy consumption. With the
suggestions below in section 2.1 it should be possible to reduce the entire community's energy
dependency by up-to 25%. Simple devices such as energy monitoring systems can cost as little as 30
per dwelling and provide a very visual reminder that the TV has been left on standby!
2.1: Good Housekeeping

Good Housekeeping refers to simple measures which taken together can help to reduce energy costs.
Good Housekeeping Measures
LIGHTING
Use natural day lighting when levels are satisfactory
Switch off lighting when not required, if leaving a room for more than 15mins
Agree a maintenance schedule for replacing and cleaning lamps

External lighting, such as for car parks, should be used only when necessary
Agree a schedule for cleaning windows
HEATING AND HOT WATER

Only heat those areas that require heating
Ensure heating controls are set at levels appropriate to the area requiring heating
Report faulty heating and hot water controls
AIR CONDITIONING
Minimise the use of air-conditioning
WATER
Optimise the use of water when cleaning
Refrigeration
Try to ensure that fridges/freezers are kept as full as possible
SPECIFIC ACTION FOR ADMINISTRATION AREAS

Don't switch on equipment until first required for use each day
Check that office PCs are switched off at the end of the working day
Switch off computer monitor if computer is required to be 'on'
Activate and use standby facilities on PCs, printers and photocopiers
Switch off office equipment that is not in use
Restrict the use of electric fires and kettles
2.2: All new white goods should be A rated and all replacements should also be A rated as standard.
"A" rated white goods (dishwashers, fridges, cookers, computers etc.) use significantly less energy and
as such they should become standard when ever purchasing new or replacement items. Often A rated
goods do not cost any more than B-E rated white goods and they provide the added advantage of
significantly reduced running costs.
Appliance assumptions
Savings assume replacing an average appliance purchased new in 1998 with an Energy Saving
Recommended model of similar size and an electricity cost of 13.95p/kWh.
Appliance
EU Energy
rating
Fridge freezer
Saving a year (up to) CO

to)
39
A+ or A++
Upright/ Chest Freezer
23
A+ or A++
Refrigerator
13
A+ or A++
Washing machine
11
A
Dishwasher
23
A
Integrated digital televisions
saving a year (up
142 kg
85 kg
48 kg
45 kg
90 kg
24 kg
Source http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-saving-assumptions
Savings are difficult to predict but this is a no cost measure, on the assumption that the goods are
replaced when beyond economical repair. However, an assessment of the future running costs should
be taken into account when considering repairs v. replacement.
Carbon Savings will vary with each white good but typically they are 30-70% less than conventional
equivalent equipment.
2.3: Toilet Cistern Volume Adjusters

Water is precious resource and should be conserved. Water companies are the second biggest users of
energy in the UK due to pumping stations for water distribution.
Per Month
Per Year
371
4452
339
4063
0.1
1.21
Consumption (Cubic Metres)

Cost
* CO2
All statistics are based upon averages over the last year and are based upon supplied water only as
sewage water is treated on site.
*Based on CO 2 calculation from Water UK Sustainability Indicators 2006/7 publication where supply of 1
cubic metre of water = 0.271 KG CO2
Cistern volume adjusters (Water saving systems)
It is recommended to fit water saving devices into the cisterns in the ladies and gents toilets. Standard
toilets pre 1993 have cisterns that contain around 9 Litres of water where modern cisterns hold 6 litres.
The older systems were oversized and thus fitting water saving devices such as hippos into the cistern
will conserve around 3 Litres of water per flush.
For prices see:
http://www.hippo-the-watersaver.co.uk/forworkplace.html
http://www.save-a-flush.co.uk/size800/products.html
A hippo is essentially a plastic bag that is placed inside the cistern; it fills up with around 3l of water,
which prevents this volume being flushed away. Some of the cisterns on the site would benefit from
hippos, as they are the older type, flush hogs save one litre of water and are used for non dual flush post
1993 toilets.
If each pre 1993 toilet is used 10 times per day the use of hippos would save around 30 Litres per day
per toilet and 10,095 Litres per year per toilet. If the newer 6 Litre toilets were to be fitted with a Savea-Flush system this would save around 10 Litres of water per day or 3650 Litres of water per year.
newer 6 Litre flush toilets the savings would be 3.28 per annum. There would also be savings in
sewage costs as well (Based on Southern Water June 2008 Water supply charges of 0.899 per m3).
Payback period: From 1-2 years.
2.4: Replace conventional light bulbs with low energy alternative lamps.
Although many households have begun to change conventional light bulbs to high efficiency low energy
alternatives there are often a huge number of older conventional bulbs still in most households.
Due to the massive increase in efficiency of low energy light bulbs it is not cost effective or
environmentally friendly to wait for the old bulbs to burn out before they are replaced. There are now
low energy light bulbs that can fit any conventional fitting with the same light outputs as conventional
bulbs so there is no longer any reason to delay in switching bulbs. A typical conventional light bulb has a
life span of around 1000 hours while low energy light bulbs typically have life spans of 5 to 15 times that
amount. It is suggested that all conventional bulbs be replace as soon as possible.
Typical 50 Watt halogen bulbs only have an average of 500 hour life span, they can be replaced with
flush fitting LED bulbs which produce approximately 90% of the light that the halogens currently do but
they only consume 5 Watts of energy per hour and they have an average of a 15,000 hour life span. This
equates to roughly 13.5 years when used for 8 hours per day or 8.7 years when used for 12 hours per
day. Typically the payback period for replacing conventional light bulbs with low energy bulbs is 1-3
years.
Deltech Mark 5
5w GU10 Triple
High Power LED
Warm White
All of the other low energy bulbs listed below are the same size as the existing bulbs and they produce
the same amount of light. The expected life span of these bulbs is also 10,000 hours.
*Note it is essential that all bulb types are assessed before ordering high efficiency replacements as
some are pin (B22) and others are screw (E14) based.
Megaman 11w
Classic B22
Megaman 9w
Candle B22
Megaman 9w
Classic B22
If a conventional 60 Watt bulb is on for an average of 6 hours per day it would cost around 14.45 per
year in energy costs and be responsible for 63 KG of CO2 emissions per year. If the bulbs are on for an
average of 8 hours per day it would cost 19.27 per year in energy costs and be responsible for 84 KG
of CO2 emissions per year. All of amounts listed above exclude any cost for the replacement bulbs,
the maintenance costs associated with replacing them.
2.5: Increase insulation in lofts to 300mm and install cavity wall insulation where ever possible.
Installing 300mm of loft insulation will improve the thermal performance significantly. Up to 35% of a
buildings entire heat can be lost through an un-insulated loft space. For the purposes of this study we
are assuming that the introduction of 300mm of insulation will reduce the heating requirements by 20%.
Grants are available to certain households on a relevant means tested benefits to carry out heating and
insulation works. Interest free loans are also available to owners with an income of less than 30,000 to
carry out heating and insulation works. see
http://www.doverdc.co.uk/housing/private_sector_housing/grants_and_loans.aspx
As much as a 20% reduction in heating costs Costs: Vary but some households qualify for grants or
interest free loans for insulation
Payback period: From 1.5-5 years.
2.6: Replace poor performance windows with high performance glazing.

While they let light in, doors and windows now have another role - to keep energy in.
The replacement of ordinary glazing, either single or double, to 'low-E' double or triple glazing leads to
CO2 reductions and cost savings. Most performance glazing products available on the market today
have pay back times on investment of under 3 years, so the sooner the replacement of ordinary glazing
occurs the sooner results are realised. It is therefore recommended that homes and businesses replace
their ordinary glazing with high performance energy saving low-E double or, triple glazing to significantly
reduce CO2 emissions and save cost.
towards zero carbon homes. Items such as triple glazing, full thermal breaks and super spaces will
become standard as we will be required to use super efficient windows with a U-value of at least
1W/m2K in order to reduce the CO2 output of our homes.
When it comes to energy efficiency and the need to meet the varying levels of the Code for Sustainable
Homes, significant increase in the demand for high performance timber and aluminium clad timber
windows are required.
Manufacturers have sought to be innovative by improving the insulation of their windows by providing
composite windows and by using revolutionary new silicon spacers in triple glazing systems. By replacing
the traditional aluminium bar with silicon spacers, thermal efficiency is enhanced and the risk of
condensation is decreased. Whilst the UK standard is currently 1.8W/m2K and the EU is recommending
that U-values in windows be reduced to 1.5, however, new triple glazed window have U-value of below
0.7 with insulated frames and triple glazed sealed units with low emissivity coated glass which provides
a 54% reduction in energy loss.
Timber is the only truly renewable material for windows and doors that produces much less waste
material and at the end of its lifespan wood can be recycled. Use of timber windows helps developers
meet their sustainability requirements as growing trees take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
and lock it up for the lifetime of the timber. Utilising external aluminium skins the timber windows
lifespan can easily exceed over 25 years.
The cost associated with high performance double or, triple glazing has greatly reduced over the last
couple of years, and surprisingly there are products on the market that compete with the UK timber
frame double glazing market with efficiencies of nearly double that of the competition.
Installing double glazing can cut your heating bills by around 140 a year as well as 720 kilograms of CO 2
- that's equivalent to 4 double decker buses full of CO 2 each year. See
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-saving-products/Glazing
10
grants or interest free loans

Payback period: From 3-5 years.
3.0:
Large Scale Wind
Wind power is currently one of the cheapest ways to produce electricity in conditions where uninterrupted
wind flows at fairly high speeds. The main rule of thumb for wind is the bigger the better. Micro turbines
(those that produce less than 5 kW of electricity in optimum conditions) can cost between 4-6,000 per
installed kW. Medium scale turbines (those that produce between 5 and 50 kW of electricity in optimum
conditions) cost between 1,800-3,000 per installed kW. Large scale turbines (those that produce over 50 kW
of electricity in optimum conditions) can cost as little as 900 per installed kW for the very large systems.
Although a planning application for 5, 2 MW 140 Metre tall turbines was recently turned down in West
Langdon, wind power is still a financially viable option for electricity generation at St Margaret's at Cliffe.
Both of the suggestions below involve the use of much smaller turbines than those that were proposed for
West Langdon. They have been suggested because of their smaller profile and decreased noise levels.
The site's characteristics are particularly advantageous for wind power, the NOABL wind speed
database, which states that at 45m in height the wind speed on the site is 7.1m/s.
3.1
4 E48 800 kW wind turbines mounted on 50 Metre masts
It is recommended that you consider installing 4 E48 800 kW wind turbines that would be mounted on the
short 50 Metre masts thus providing minimal visual impact on the countryside while generating significant
energy (note that the image below is of a turbine that is mounted on a 76 metre tower). They would then
ideally be installed on the most advantageous site in the community. The ideal site would be based upon the
highest average wind speed, distance from households, visual effect on the local area and degree of interest
from land owners.
Electricity that is generated through renewable means and then exported to the grid qualifies for ROC's
(Renewable Obligation Certificates) which in essence are European grants that the government is obligated to
pay producers. Certain electricity providers will also pay for the electricity exported as well. The price paid per
ROC is currently 5.396p/kWh. Good Energy is currently offering one of the best financial deals in this regard.
The net effect of this would be that the turbine would generate energy and then export it to the local grid.
Estimated electricity production has been supplied by the turbine manufacturer.
The time required to purchase these turbines is typically 16 months. The time required for planning
permission and grid connection can range significantly. This can sometimes be an additional 2-3 years.
4 E48 800 kW wind turbines
Estimated total Cost of 4 turbines and installation: 4 million (this includes typical installation and grid
connection costs)
Estimated Electricity Generated per year: 8,000,000 kWh
11
349,760
Estimated ROC income per year (Good Energy pay's, ROC's at 5.396p/kWh): 431,680
Estimated total value of energy generated on site per year: 781,440
Maintenance costs per year (based on a 12 year contract): 80,000
Total income estimated per year: 710,440
Estimated payback period: 5.7 years (at 0% interest)
Estimated return on investment: 17.5%
Estimated CO2 savings (based on offsetting 0.48 KG CO2 from electricity production): 3840 Tonnes per year.
Cost per household: 2920
Annual Income per household: 519
E48 800 kW
turbine mounted
on 76 Metre mast
E48 800 kW turbine
12
village could be expected to drop by 20% from its current estimated level of 8,300,000 kWh/yr to 6,640,000
kWh/yr. As such these turbines would produce 20% more energy per year that the community would
require.
Cost: 4 million
Savings/Revenue: 710,440
Payback period: 5.7 years
Return on Investment: 17.5%
Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 3840 Tonnes per year.
3.2
2 E70 2.3 MW wind turbines mounted on 64 Metre masts
Another option is to install 2 larger 2.3 MW turbines on 64 metre masts. In essence these systems would
produce 40% more electricity per year than the 4 smaller 800 KW turbines mentioned in section 3.1. These
turbines are slightly more expensive but due to the increased electricity outputs they have a more favourable
payback period.
Electricity that is generated through renewable means and then exported to the grid qualifies for ROC's
(Renewable Obligation Certificates) which in essence are European grants that the government is obligated to
pay producers. Certain electricity providers will also pay for the electricity exported as well. The price paid per
ROC is currently 4.862p. Good Energy is currently offering one of the best financial deals in this regard. The
net effect of this would be that the turbine would generate energy and then export it to the local grid.
Estimated electricity production has been supplied by the turbine manufacturer.
The time required to purchase these turbines is typically 20 months. The time required for planning
permission and grid connection can range significantly. This can sometimes be an additional 2-3 years.
2 E70 2.3 MW wind turbines

Estimated total Cost of 2 turbines and installation: 4.6 million (this includes typical installation and grid
connection costs)
Value of the electricity generated (Based on Good Energy quote for electricity value of 4.372p/kWh):
489,664
Estimated ROC income per year (Good Energy pay's, ROC's at 5.396p/kWh): 604,352
Estimated total value of energy generated on site per year: 1,094,016
Maintenance costs per year (based on a 12 year contract): 112,000
Total income estimated per year: 982,016
Estimated payback period: 4.7 years (at 0% interest)
Estimated return on investment: 21%

13
produced during periods of peak demand (between 7 am and 7 pm Monday to Friday and for electricity
produced during the winter). This could typically increase incomes by 10% but due to the variability of
wind power, this value can only be calculated afterwards.
E 70 2.3 MW
Turbine mounted on
113 meter mast
Cost: 4.6 million
Savings/Revenue: 982,016
Return on Investment: 21%
4.0:
Biomass
Large scale biomass electricity generator.

It is recommended that a wood chip/Miscanthus/waste agricultural Biomass system be installed in the
community. Two systems are listed below, a 1 MW system and a 4 MW system. The 1 MW system produces
slightly more energy than the community is currently using. The 4 MW system would produce almost 5 times
as much energy as the community currently uses. The reason for listing the 4 MW system is the economy of
scale that comes from the larger system which only costs 2.5 times as much as the much lower output 1 MW
system. As such the return on investment is much greater and it would allow for the community to much
14
larger system would allow for the community to become more than carbon neutral as it would also help offset
some of the emissions from neighboring communities.
Ideally the fuel supply would come from local sources through a local grower group. This way energy
security can be established from the local land, with local people. It is important that food producing
land is not reduced for the purposes of fuel production. This can be easily accommodated by growing
Biomass on set aside land. The highest output Biomass crops in the UK generally include Miscanthus and
short rotation willow. Other waste materials including stalks from food crops and wood chip from
existing Sweet Chestnut could also be integrated. The main issue with Biomass is that it meets certain
criteria in regards to contamination (sand, dirt, other materials etc.) and moisture content (typically not
in excess of 40%). The costs for the systems below include provision for fuel baling, storage and drying.
Either system would require permanent staff on site for security and safety purposes. The 1 MW plant
would require around 5 staff and the 4 MW plant would require around 6 staff. Maintenance would be
carried out on site by the plant operators.
Biomass plants produce ash as a waste product. This typically amounts to 1-2% of the volume of
Biomass burned in the plant. The ash is a very good soil improver / fertilizer and it can then be taken
back by farmers to improve their own land. It can also be used by other local farmers for the same
purpose.
It is recommended that all electricity generated is exported to the national grid via a contract with an energy
supplier. Good Energy has been used for the purposes of this study due to the favourable rates that they pay
for renewable energy. Good Energy is also the only current energy supplier in the UK that sources 100% of its
energy from renewables.
The lead time for installing the plant is approximately 18-24 months (this excludes the time involved with
planning applications and grid connection). Either of the two systems would require approximately 1 acre of
space for the plant and fuel storage (see image below for an example of a 2.8 MW plant).
1 MW Biomass plant
Estimated Cost of 1 MW Biomass plant including installation: 4,000,000
Estimated chip requirement per year: 10,000 Tonnes per year
Estimated cost of chip (at 15 per Tonne): 150,000per year
411,632
Estimated ROC income per year (based on dedicated Biomass ROC's with a weighting of 1.5 times. Good
Energy pay's 8.094p/kWh): 709,034
Estimated Triad income per year (based on 17.75% electricity being generated from 0700-1900 Monday to
Friday and 17.75% of the electricity also being generated in the winter October to March): 125,510
Maintenance costs per year: 50,000
Estimated running costs including 5 staff: 150,000
Total income estimated per year (minus maintenance and running costs): 1,046,176
Payback Period: 3.8 years
Estimated CO2 savings (based on offsetting 0.48 KG CO2 from electricity production and adding in 0.007 KG
CO2 per kWh of chip): 4143 Tonnes per year.
15

It is estimated that approximately 2.5% of the set aside land within 20 miles of St Margaret's Bay would be
required for the growth of 10,000 tonnes of fuel per year. Set aside land is used so that primary agricultural
food producing land is not sacrificed.
4 MW Biomass plant
Estimated Cost of 4 MW Biomass plant including installation: 10,000,000
Estimated chip requirement per year: 40,000 Tonnes per year
Estimated cost of chip (at 15 per Tonne): 600,000per year
1,646,530
Estimated ROC income per year (based on dedicated Biomass ROC's with a weighting of 1.5 times. Good
Energy pay's 8.094p/kWh): 2,836,138
Friday and 17.75% of the electricity also being generated in the winter October to March): 510,000
Total income estimated per year (minus maintenance and running costs): 4,592,668
Estimated CO2 savings (based on offsetting 0.48 KG CO2 from electricity production and adding in 0.007 KG
CO2 per kWh of chip): 16,574 Tonnes per year.
It is estimated that approximately 5% of the set aside land within 40 miles of St Margaret's Bay would be
required for the growth of 40,000 tonnes of fuel per year. Set aside land is used so that primary agricultural
food producing land is not sacrificed.
In the UK there is already an existing community that is being supplied by a similar 2.6 MW Biomass
system. See http://www.eccleshallbiomass.co.uk/?page=howItWorks. This system was set up in 2005 by
a private landowner with all of the electricity generated being exported to the grid for profit.
The project requires 25,000 Tonnes of Biomass per year and this is all supplied by the planting of 2000
hectares within 25 miles of the power plant. This required 3% of the total set aside land within 25 miles
of the plant. Long term contracts were established with local farmers in order to create an element of
security both in regards to supply and income for the local farmers.
Both the assessments above are based upon typical chip costs of 15 per tonne which is the typical price
in the UK, but even if chip prices were to be double or triple that rate, both plants still would offer very
good payback periods and return on investments.
Miscanthus 5% ash content, Wood Chip 0.5-1% ash content.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/a-versatile-solution-growingmiscanthus-for-bioenergy-51557
16
17
1 MW Plant Cost: 4 million

Revenue: 1,046,176
4 MW Plant Cost: 10 million
Revenue: 4,592,668 yr
1 MW plant Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 4143 Tonnes per year.
4 MW plant Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 16,574 Tonnes per year.
18
100 kW Anaerobic Digestion System (AD) for organic waste from food, newspaper and cardboard from
households and businesses.
An AD system works by digesting the materials listed above in special reaction tanks (see images below)
which are buried in the ground. The system would consist of 6-8 x 80,000 litre tanks. The outputs of the
AD system include Biogas and compost. The Biogas is then burned in a 100Kw generator to produce
electricity.
The lead time for installing the plant is approximately 6-12 months (this excludes the time involved with
planning applications and grid connection). The system would require approximately 1/2 acre of space for the
plant and fuel storage. A waste management licence would need to be secured from the Environment Agency;
this would incur an annual cost.
Estimated waste volumes:
Agriculture
Households
Businesses
Unknown but highly promising

155 Tonnes of Dry Matter from food waste per year
253 Tonnes of Dry Matter cardboard and newspaper per year
140 Tonnes of Dry Matter from food waste per year
97 Tonnes of Dry Matter cardboard and newspaper
Estimated total production: 344,268 cubic meters of Biogas per year.

100 kW Anaerobic Digestion System
Estimated total Cost of AD system, macerators, generator, grid connection, electric waste collection vehicle
and tanks including installation: 540,000
Estimated Electricity Generated per year: 876,000 kWh
Value of the electricity generated (Based on Good Energy quote for electricity value of 4.699p/kWh): 41,200
Estimated ROC income per year (based on dedicated Biomass ROC's with a weighting of 2 times. Good Energy
pay's 10.792p/kWh): 94,500
Friday (at 3.7p/kWh) and 17.75% of the electricity also being generated in the winter October to March (at
4.5p/kWh): 12,750
Estimated total value of energy generated on site per year: 148,450
Total income estimated per year (minus maintenance and running costs): 83,450
Note that there would also be huge climate change benefits from using an AD system to digest the organic
waste that would have otherwise gone to landfill as that would have broken down to produce methane which
is 21 times more impacting than carbon dioxide when it come to warming.
19
cardboard/newspaper, and food waste.

As the community is currently consuming around 8,300,000 kWh per year of electricity this system would
provide approximately 10% of the entire communities current electricity requirements, and assuming the
recommended low cost/no cost measures outlined in section 2 are carried out the system would then
provide approximately 13% of the entire site's electricity.
Cost: 540,000
Savings/Revenue: 83,450p.a.
6.0: Install power Perfector Voltage Optimisation system throughout the town.
Optimising voltage with power Perfector brings the supply voltage to the "higher efficiency" operating
range of all electrical equipment on site and in homes. Without this, the 'raw' supply voltage to the
village is likely to be at the top end of the range of voltages that electrical equipment can tolerate. As well
as reducing energy consumption, voltage optimisation reduces the strain on all electrical equipment,
extending its lifespan. Power quality is improved, and the lifetime of all electrical equipment is thus
extended, reducing maintenance costs. The exact saving is difficult to quantify, but it is estimated that it
will give you a 10%+ reduction of maintenance and capital replacement costs.
For a community wide scheme agreements would need to be established between the community and
the local power supplier EDF as the systems would need to be located beside the local sub stations.
A power Perfector makes an electrical supply more robust, and the entire site better protected.
Transients - which are very brief surges in voltage from the grid - are eliminated provided they are less
than 25,000V.
The power Perfector is able to filter harmonics on the mains incomer. Harmonic distortion is on the
increase, leading to apparently random failures of electronic equipment.
The technology comes with a 10 year warranty and a 3 month money back guarantee (including
installation costs).
20
Estimated Cost of installing voltage optimisation: 365,000

Estimated electricity saved per year: 830,000 kWh
Value of the electricity saved per year (based on 11p per kWh): 91,300
Estimated payback period: 4 years
Estimated return on investment: 25%
Carbon Emissions saved = 398 Tonnes per year
Annual electrify savings per household: 66.64
NOTE: This technology is eligible for the 5 year, interest free Carbon Trust Loan.
Savings: 91,300 p.a.

Payback period: 4 years
Costs: 365,000
7.0: Early Adapters Micro Generation

In addition to community wide schemes, individuals may be interested in installing renewable systems
into their own buildings. Listed below are some examples of some of the most cost effective
technologies currently available. The Pines Calyx is currently looking at installing its own renewable
systems so that it can generate its own heat and electricity.
21
What is a PV-T (hybrid) collector?
A PV-T collector is a combined assembly of a PV module - for the conversion of electrical energy and a
solar heat exchanger - for the conversion of thermal energy
Due to the fact that photovoltaics are semiconductors they have one drawback, degradation in
performance due to temperature. In the UK on a usual sunny midsummer day, when electricity generation
is expected to be the highest, array panel temperatures may reach over 100C. At this temperature the
system will produce less than10% of its maximum output rendering it useless for a large part of the day.
By regulating panel temperature using a fluid cooling system this situation can be overcome and a
balanced system can be produced trading off between PV efficiency and Thermal Output. Using this
principle it is possible to obtain a higher electrical yield. (Up to 40%)
What can be achieved with a PV-T collector?
With PV-T collectors you can setup a so-called "Total Solar Energy System", for both electric and thermal
energy generation. Also because of its cooling-effect on the PV module this system has a higher
efficiency at a much lower cost price than separate systems "Good Price / Performance". In combination
22
homes with relatively high hot-water and heat usage. Paybacks are generally 12-15years.
Savings: Varies with the size of the system Costs: For a typical 3 bed house approximately
35,000
Payback period: 15 years
Return on investment: 6.7%
Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: This will be dependent on the amount of PV-T installed.
7.2 Micro Wind

There are two types of Micro Wind Turbine on the market, the normal horizontal type
which most people are familiar with and Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. There has been a
lot of bad press surrounding Micro Wind generation, most notably that surrounding
the B&Q's Windsave Wind Turbine.
23
claims about their products. Only a few have been independently tested and as such the micro wind
market can be very difficult to understand when it comes to finding the best solution.
In many circumstances micro wind is not a viable option for electricity generation due to poor wind
speeds, turbulence or visual impact but given the right conditions it can be a very cost effective way to
reduce an individual buildings carbon footprint and energy costs. In most urban, wooded or hilly
environments, normal (horizontal axis) micro wind turbines have limited efficiency at relatively high
cost, generally not making them an efficient way of producing energy for homes or businesses.
However, in the right situation they do have their place.
Vertical Axis Wind Turbines may prove a better

solution for micro-generation in St Margaret's
Bay. VAWTS have been designed for the urban
environment and areas with turbulent wind
patterns (such as anyone situated on a cliff
top!). VAWT's have been specifically designed
to use the vortices to their advantage. An initial
survey, using an anemometer would be carried
out and this is left on site to determine wind
speeds for a period of time. This will assist in
providing the correct system and size of
generator pertinent to a specific installation.
Depending on the type and model of VAWT, or
normal micro wind generator, system can be
roof mounted or pylon mounted dependent on
specific requirements and often do not require
planning permission.
Advantages of VAWT's over Horizontal Axis
Low environmental impact

Low start speed
Insensitivity to the direction of the wind
Insensitivity to the speed of the wind
Easy integration
Low noise level
High safety
Reduced maintenance
Savings: Varies with the size of the system Costs: For a typical 3 bed house approximately 1520,000
Payback period: 10-12 years
Return on Investment: Typically 8-10%

24
conditions of each site.
8.0: Other potential energy production systems

During the investigations undertaken for this study we also considered Tidal lagoon and pumped lake
power.
Tidal (Lagoon)
Tidal lagoon was discounted due to the limited tidal range in the Dover Straights. For such a system to
be economically viable an average 5m tidal range would be required, the tidal range at St Margaret's is
3.2m making such a scheme uneconomical.
Water pump/storage and electricity production
To use excess wind energy during times of low energy usage, to pump sea water up to a man made lake
at the top of the cliff that would be then released at times of peak energy usage or low wind. The
advantages of this would be to stabilise the supply of electricity to the community.
The concept was discounted on the grounds of cost verses return, approximately 40% of the energy
generated by the wind turbines would be lost by the process. There would be additional revenue to be
earned by selling the electricity at times of peak load accounting for approximately an additional 42%
25
the impact on the local environment would seriously impede on the success of such a scheme.
9.0: Financing Models

Funding sources for the programme of works outlined could include:
a) Asset financing: typically a 25% deposit is required and then the remaining fund is then paid off over a 5
year period. This does not appear to suit this scheme as a whole because it would increase the costs beyond
their present annual price. We do however encourage you to explore this option for smaller aspects of the
scheme.
b) Mortgage Finance: Typically finance would be provided over a 10-15 year period. This would immediately
reduce the costs from of the building in question and offer the opportunity to not only insure against future
price increases in the oil, gas and electricity markets but also ensure a level of self sufficiency. This model
would be a suitable method of financing the renovation and refurbishment of public and community buildings
such as the village hall.
c) Grants: There are numerous grant schemes that could potentially be applicable to various solutions
identified above. The Low Carbon Building Program offers some grants but often they are limited to a select
list of products that offer poorer pay back periods and return on investment than those identified in this
report. We encourage you to keep an eye on community related grant schemes and other charity, NGO,
Government and private grant schemes to see if any would potentially be applicable as well. It is worth
speaking with the funding officer at Dover District Council, South East England Development Agency, the
Department of Communities and Local Government, the Homes and Communities Agency, Kent County
Council, Defra and the European Union for potential funding streams. Also see http://www.grantfinder.co.uk/
for potential funding streams.
D) Private financiers/Parish Council/Local Trust or Charity: Ironically it is easier to obtain funding for larger
scale schemes than it is for smaller lower value projects. It should be a relatively easy task to find a private
financier to fund between 4M and 10M for a community project of this scale. The return on investment for
any of the schemes illustrated within this document would be around 25%, making them an attractive
proposition for any financier.
If private finance was used to deliver a community project of this scale the suggestion would be that the
financier would be obliged to create an ESCO (Energy Services Company, see details below) and offer 75% of
the shares back to the community. The community members would be invited to obtain shares at a
predetermined value based upon the individual buildings value.
Taking the 4MW Biomass solution as the preferred choice for the model, the investor provides the finance to
implement the scheme at 10,000,000. 7,500,000 pounds worth of shares are sold to the community directly
linked to the dwelling with a clause that if the home owner moves from the community the shares are sold
with the building ensuring the shares remain in the community. Hypothetically if 75% or 1050 of the property
owners buy into the scheme, at an average cost of 7,413, the level of investment will provide the home
owner with an income of 4,374/year. If these shares were funded by a loan at an 11% interest rate and then
repaid over 3 years the annual repayment would be 2,743.00. After repayment of the loan the return from
the scheme will provide revenue from year 1 of 1,631.00 until year 3, at year 4 the entire 4374 income from
26
including ROC's, Triads and renewable electricity generation value).

With this level of revenue generation, the onus would be on the householder to implement further energy
saving measures to their individual properties, providing them with further revenue and protecting them from
any future energy price increases in their own dwelling. Any properties that were to buy shares in a scheme
that provides income could also benefit from increased property value as well.
It is worth adding that if this scheme was run by a local trust, or charity the revenue generated from the profit
could then be used to fund further community projects.
NOTE: The sound financial returns on the range of larger capital expenditure items opens up the
opportunity for appropriate financing solutions from a range of banks and finance houses.
10.0: Structure/Ownership models

There are a variety of ways that any of the schemes above could be set up, owned and managed. Listed
below are some of the options:
Energy Services Company (ESCO)
An energy service company (acronym: ESCO or ESCo) is a professional business providing a broad range
of comprehensive energy solutions including designs and implementation of energy savings projects,
energy conservation, energy infrastructure outsourcing, power generation and energy supply, and risk
management. The ESCO performs an in-depth analysis of the property, designs an energy efficient
solution, installs the required elements, and maintains the system to ensure energy savings during the
[1]
payback period The savings in energy costs is often used to pay back the capital investment of the
project over a five- to twenty-year period, or reinvested into the building to allow for capital upgrades
that may otherwise be unfeasible. If the project does not provide returns on the investment, the ESCO is
often responsible to pay the difference.
Multi Utility Services Company (MuSCo)
A MuSCo is essentially the same as an ESCO except that it also includes other utilities including heat,
water, waste etc.
Local Parish Council, trust or charity
The local Parish Council or a local trust or charity could potentially take on the primary leadership of any
of the options in this report. In addition a new body could be created by the local community that could
take on the role either as the main manager of the project or as a shareholder in a privately financed
option. This way a percentage of the profits could be recycled back into the community in perpetuity
with some of or all of the funds being earmarked for sustainable improvements in the local area.
Community Interest Company (CIC)
Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited companies, with special additional features, created
for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not
purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which
ensures that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits, are dedicated to
27
continuing monitoring and enforcement role.

Private Company
A private company could be set up through independent finance with shares being sold either to the
open market or they could be set aside for local purchase.
11.0: Conclusion
Due to the financial and environmental benefits it is recommended that energy reduction (Section 2) is
the first step in the process of becoming self sufficient in energy, and then followed by the installation of
voltage optimisation (Section 6) and Bio-Mass (Section 4). It is important to note that the larger the BioMass system the better the return on investment and thus payback period. The main point to consider
with any of the Bio-Mass systems is the effort required to secure the fuel supply locally, this will take
some time at the beginning but the benefits from establishing these strong links with local farmers and
land owners could be immensely improved links for the local community.
While the 1 MW Bio-Mass plant would produce more than the current electricity consumption of the
community, electricity is typically responsible for around 25% of the total carbon emissions of a
household (and thus community). The other 75% of carbon emissions comes from heating (which has
not been assessed in this study), transport, food and other consumption (this is based on estimated
values, for more accurate assessments see www.energysavingtrust.org.uk). As such the 4 MW Bio-Mass
plant would produce more than enough energy to offset the remaining emissions of the community.
Thus the 4 MW Bio-Mass plant has the potential capacity to make the entire community carbon neutral,
which would be amongst the first of its kind in the UK. The capacity for the 4 MW Bio-Mass plant to
reduce over 16,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year is approximately equivalent to saving just over
12% of the electricity emissions of the entire Dover District's 45,000 households.
Wind can often be challenging due to the many people who object to turbines in their local area.
Interestingly a number of wind surveys have shown that more often than not those people who are the
most against wind turbines are those who live the furthest away from them, while those that live close
by tend to be great supporters of them. This suggests that there is a great deal of perceived negatives
from wind that is not necessarily the true case when turbines are actually constructed. What is
interesting about this study is that the community is being considered from the beginning as
stakeholders. This is very important for a project to succeed. Interestingly the payback periods and
return on investment for both wind turbine options are still very favourable even when mounted on the
short masts. As such, wind should not be excluded as an option for the community as well. There are a
number of examples of community owned wind installations across the UK and Europe with great levels of
success.
This report is very significant in that it is one of the few examples of a local community taking the initial
steps towards understanding what it would take to become self sufficient in regards to energy
production. This is a key step in the transition towards becoming a sustainable community. Currently
there are few examples of communities taking such a lead. The suggestions outlined in this report could
enable the entire village to take a lead both in the UK and globally in energy self sufficiency. This would
then in turn bring huge benefits politically as other towns, villages, communities and even cities look
towards St Margaret's at Cliffe for leadership and demonstration of best practice. In addition there
could be great benefits when it comes to Public Relations and for tourism.
28
supplier. The electricity would not then be exclusively used by the local community but in reality those that
are closest to the point where the electricity is fed into the grid will be the first to use it. Good Energy has been
used for the purposes of this study due to the favourable rates that they pay for renewable energy. Good
Energy is also the only current energy supplier in the UK that sources 100% of its energy from renewables. It is
recommended that a number of quotes from different energy suppliers are acquired to ensure that the
optimum price is being achieved for any energy generated by the village.
The current system in the UK of paying out funds for renewable energy generated, ROC's and Triads may
change in the future. The government has begun the process of re-evaluating the European model of feed in
tariffs and it is possible that they may be introduced to replace the current system. That said the UK currently
has one of the least favourable payment schemes for renewables and the introduction of feed in tariffs is likely
to improve the financial outlook of the systems identified in this report significantly. Regardless of this the
return on investment and payback periods identified all very favourable.
If St Margaret's at Cliffe were to implement any of the suggestions outlined in this report it would help
to insulate your community from future energy supply reliability issues which are highly likely in the not
so distant future. The national grid's energy supply is becoming over stretched both by aging
infrastructure and a number of power stations that are coming close to the end of their useful life spans.
Energy security is also another issue to become concerned with as we are becoming ever more
dependent on foreign gas and oil supplies. This also opens everyone up to the risks involved with
increases in the costs associated with electricity.
This volatility in combination with the threats of climate change and the various government
commitments to reduce the UK's carbon emissions all lead to the increasing desire of individuals and
communities to take control of their own energy supplies. If the community were to take a lead then
there are ample opportunities for benefit. These can come from security of supply, financial insulation
against future cost increases, significant economic gains for the community itself and huge
environmental benefits as well. The suggestions outline in this report come down to good common
sense with great financial rewards. This is just good business sense.
DISCLAIMER
All estimated costs of measures, resulting savings and payback periods
should be viewed as indicative of standard expectations. Further survey
work, as part of establishing a fully costed Renewable Energy Strategy,
would be necessary to provide definitive data for your site.
Also, whilst every effort is made to provide robust data, the recommendations contained
in this report should also be followed up in more detail with specialist local contractors
or installers. This work would normally form part of further assessments within
establishing the Renewable Energy Strategy.
Please note that all prices are listed without VAT which would need to be added at the
current rate.
30

Renewable Energy Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Renewable Energy Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

St Margaret's at Cliffe, Dover, Kent

Produced for: St Margaret's at Cliffe Parish Council

Jae Mather BA GEOG, PGradDip EDM,

BEng (Hons), Chief Eng III/II (Mar)

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Overview of St Margaret's Bay

Reduce the need

Voltage Power Optimisation

Other potential systems

Methods of financing community systems

Systems of ownership and management

IV CONCLUSIONS, DISCLAIMER AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

Overview of St Margaret's at Cliffe

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

Reduce the Need

2.1: Good Housekeeping

Agree a maintenance schedule for replacing and cleaning lamps

HEATING AND HOT WATER

SPECIFIC ACTION FOR ADMINISTRATION AREAS

Saving a year (up to) CO

Integrated digital televisions

saving a year (up

2.3: Toilet Cistern Volume Adjusters

Consumption (Cubic Metres)

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

2.6: Replace poor performance windows with high performance glazing.

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

grants or interest free loans

Large Scale Wind

4 E48 800 kW wind turbines mounted on 50 Metre masts

E48 800 kW turbine

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

Payback period: 5.7 years

Return on Investment: 17.5%

Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 3840 Tonnes per year.

2 E70 2.3 MW wind turbines mounted on 64 Metre masts

2 E70 2.3 MW wind turbines

Cost per household: 3358

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

Cost: 4.6 million

Payback period: 4.7 years

Return on Investment: 21%

Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 5376 Tonnes per year.

Large scale biomass electricity generator.

Annual Income per household: 764

1 MW Plant Cost: 4 million

4 MW Plant Cost: 10 million

Payback period: 2.2 years

Return on Investment: 46%

Unknown but highly promising

Estimated total production: 344,268 cubic meters of Biogas per year.

cardboard/newspaper, and food waste.

Payback period: 6.5 years

Return on Investment: 15.5%

Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 420 Tonnes per year.

Intelligent Sustainable Solutions, Jae Mather 07974224553

Estimated Cost of installing voltage optimisation: 365,000

Savings: 91,300 p.a.

Carbon Savings Tonnes per year: 398 Tonnes per year.

7.0: Early Adapters Micro Generation