Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/665572
NETWORK / 8 / APRIL 2016 thinking – but the debate is much wider and is engaging key groups across so-called energy vectors and oen well beyond the boundaries of traditional energy infrastructure planning. Councils, city councils and community energy groups – as well as large institutions looking to establish their own microgrids – for example, are all shaping an increasingly noisy conversation about "multi-vector" energy systems. The reason for their interest is obvious – according to the most fundamental law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. It seems absolutely logical therefore that if we can get better at shepherding energy to the point of greatest need, in a form that suits the end use, we can unlock untold potential for flexibility and value creation. Building a value case As part of its wider remit, including looking at the potential for multi-vector energy solutions, the ESC aims to create £6 billion of economic value add and 9,000 jobs in the UK by 2030. But more broadly, there is little evidence as yet to help us understand the size of the prize we will get through energy systems integration – just a feeling that by helping energy to flow across vertical market segments, there is a very real opportunity to reduce the overall cost – and increase the sustainability – of a decarbonised society. There is also huge scope for diminishing fuel poverty, say integration enthusiasts. So what might cross-vector energy shepherding look like? How hard will it be to create that evidence base and build the dream? In many cases, the technical processes for achieving integration are not, in themselves, ground breaking. Many industrial sites and institutional microgrids – run by hospitals and universities, for example – have for years dabbled in techniques to improve the overall efficiency of their processes and assets by capturing waste heat. Meanwhile, gas network leaders are quick to point out that using hydrogen in the gas grid was common practice back in the days of town gas – and that it is still used in mainland Europe today. Both of these approaches are key to broader systems integration. There are myriad untapped opportunities to recycle waste heat – a number of trials looking to capture and reapply heat given off by electrical transformers for example, could uncover cross-vector synergies that have been largely ignored in the past. Meanwhile, a growing interest in maximising the potential of renewables generation is driving projects which convert excess energy into hydrogen. However, in spite of these examples of integration interest, widespread and large-scale uptake of integration solutions has so far been stymied by several factors: the disruption they cause when retrofit is necessary; the timescales for return on investment; outdated standards and, not least, misaligned policy and market triggers. This array of barriers means that any attempt to push forward multi-vector energy approaches is likely to be attended by a period of disruptive and exhausting change – to market structures, commercial models, regulatory approaches and system administration. Such a prospect raises doubts, and not unsympathetic ones, about the will of government and industry to tackle such a lengthy "to-do" list – especially because all parts of the energy system are already well advanced in their efforts to implement sector-specific decarbonisation, asset renewal and consumer engagement. Taking action But assuming there is enough collective vigour to step out of these challenging but, relatively speaking, comfortable furrows, where should we start our efforts? Visualising the need Gas Stocks Coal Stocks Product Stocks Crude Stocks 36.6 41.0 5.0 28.0 NATURAL GAS 77.6 COAL 35.2 ELECTRICITY 19.5 OTHER IMPORTS 3.2 3.6 HYDRO & WIND 13.8 PETROLEUM 134.3 NUCLEAR 31.8 43.7 58.9 66.4 11.0 0.4 18.8 4.8 0.5 0.1 40.6 26.1 2.2 1.9 1.3 39.4 30.7 2.2 Primary Supply 201.0 Primary Demand 201.4 4.6 4.3 0.5 0.2 67.9 7.0 4.1 27.3 33.9 Coal Gas OIL REFINERIES POWER STATIONS OTHER TRANSFORMATION 19.3 31.9 25.0 31.9 19.3 19.2 CONVERSION LOSSES 43.7 ENERGY INDUSTRY USE AND DISTRIBUTION LOSSES 14.9 NON-ENERGY USE 7.6 EXPORTS AND MARINE BUNKERS 73.2 Primary demand 73.1 IRON & STEEL 1.4 OTHER INDUSTRY 22.6 TRANSPORT 54.2 DOMESTIC 38.2 7.5 4.3 1.5 0.9 52.6 0.4 23.9 0.4 2.6 0.2 1.7 8.3 1.5 OTHER FINAL CONSUMERS 19.0 0.5 0.5 Primary supply 72.8 5.4 1. Coal imports and exports include manufactured fuels. 0.3 2.3 DEEP MINED 0.4 Electricity 0.2 BIOENERGY 11.0 IMPORTS 2.0 7.9 10.7 10.7 0.4 Bioenergy 0.7 1.2 0.4 4.1 6.5 Natural Gas IMPORTS Coal IMPORTS 1 Electricity HYDRO, WIND, IMPORTS & SECONDARY ELECTRICITY Manufactured Fuels 3 Crude Oil and NGL IMPORTS Refined Products IMPORTS Petroleum IMPORTS Bioenergy 2 INDIGENOUS PRODU CTION AND IMPORTS 277.7 TOTAL FINA L CONSUMPTION 4 142.8 7.7 9.4 8.3 66.5 0.1 systems integration Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change Source: University of Sheffield Daily energy demand in Great Britain since 2014: The below charts demonstrate why the concept of energy system integration and increased interaction between energy vectors would be desirable Energy flow chart for 2014 (million tonnes of oil equivalent): 2013 Heat from natural gas Transport fuels Electricity GWh per day 2014 2015 →