The next regular meeting will be on Thursday 31 August 2023 at 16:30 – 18:00 (and every 4 weeks thereafter).
This will be the usual zoom https://us06web.zoom.us/j/3684268674
We carried on with agenda items from last time and a few new ones.
Retrofit (heat pump case study and more):
It was worth elaborating further on this case study as it is based on some detailed data collection/analysis. A draft version is available here, see section 5.3 .
This further confirms the rule-of-thumb advice ACT has been using when advising people on when to fit a heat pump. The 50-100 kWh/m2/year heat energy demand, how to work this out and how to use it, will be added to our list of actions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Note also the importance of correct heating system setup and controls mentioned in the case study.
I forgot to say that DCC’s sponsored Devon Retrofit Guide is now officially released. This is a detailed, yet accessible resource well worth a read. It of course includes a section on HPs.
Urban wind turbines:
Jules gave some background on new technologies for small scale urban wind turbines, a report is available here. Although there have been several designs trialled with some commercial versions available, there is still no practical solution for these to be deployed in urban settings.
Offsetting and greenwashing:
Offsetting our greenhouse gas emissions seems a reasonable option. It is something that has been available for some time with schemes becoming more transparent, publicising their ‘Gold Standard’ credentials. But what is offsetting and how effective is it?
There are two types of offsetting considered here:
- We can sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, by removing it using natural means (photosynthesis of plants) or engineered mechanical/chemical means referred to as Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS or just CCS). There is also Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2.
- We can generate low-carbon energy which is used by us or others to replace energy with higher greenhouse gas emissions. It is also possible to replace systems with more energy efficient ones (e.g. insulating buildings).
Both are valid, provided they:
- account for their full life-cycle emissions and demonstrate the time and
- accurately state the amount of ‘removed’ or ‘avoided’ emissions.
Too often offsetting schemes are presented either without a greenhouse gas impact analysis or one which only considers part of the total lifecycle emissions. Even more worrying is that technologies such as heat pumps and EVs are often ‘sold’ as low-carbon without stating the full life-cycle emissions to allow an informed decision. In other words, how much greenhouse gas do I reduce, at what cost and under what circumstances.
Worst of all is the accounting trick that quite a few offsetting schemes use, even some of the more ‘reputable’ ones. What they do is calculate a future or even the total ‘offset’ emissions over the life of the measure, but apply it to the year the offset payment was made. For example, planting a tree may well sequester ~50kg p.a. but this will not happen for several decades from when it was planted. Similarly, when investing in technologies with high embedded emissions such as PV and EV, the emission pay-back often does not happen for 5-15 years depending on use.
Then there is the marketing of so called ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ products and services, often referred to as greenwash. Luckily there are new regulations in place and additional ones being proposed, here is an article that compares some of these policies in the UK, US and EU.
Home battery:
We discussed the importance of ensuring that sufficient daily excess PV generation was available throughout the year to ensure financial and carbon pay-back is a realistic outcome when fitting a residential battery system. The use of batteries to benefit financially from lower tariff periods (e.g. off-peak night rate) needs further analysis and evidence, please contact Jules if you want to find out more about this.
The more granular the electricity consumption data is, the more accurate the analysis of whether and what size battery would pay back within its warranty period. If available, Half Hourly consumption data from a smart meter would be ideal. Monthly meter readings with typical daily consumption patterns can still give a reasonable assessment. The data required and methodology on how to do this analysis for both financial and carbon pay-back calculation can be found in the TECs Residential Battery guide.
Can local plans be a catalyst for mitigating climate change?:
Pauline shared a report from the CSE which includes 23 recommendations for improving the planning system’s ability to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation. This should be read by planning authorities like TDC who have a strong and clear climate mitigation mandate.
ACT had previously responded to the new Local Plan consultation, suggesting climate mitigation policies that are currently within planning rules, so don’t need to wait for the CSE recommendations to be reflected in the NPPF. We do not yet know if these will be adopted or why they wouldn’t given the council’s stated strategic objective.
Carbon capture, use and Storage (CCUS):
This is quite topical, so ACT is preparing a news item on this. Here is and early view on the topic from Jules.
First carbon -ve road (A382):
This was discussed a few meetings ago with several eyebrows raised! ACT has been contacted to explore options for getting involved with Devon County Council in the “early contract stage”. Several attendees expressed an interest in being involved, let me know if you have not already confirmed your interest and I’ll keep you updated.
Best wishes
Fuad
Coordinator for the ACT Energy group
covering energy, built environment and transport