Summary of the First C-MADEnS Project Workshop

15th January 2016, Weetwood Hall, Leeds

Andrew J. Pimm1a, Peter G. Taylora, Catherine S. E. Balea, Tim T. Cockerilla,

Yulong Dingb, Monica Giuliettic, Paul Jenningsd, Jonathan Radcliffeb and Paul

Uphama

aThe University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

bThe University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom

cLoughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom

dThe University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom

Introduction

The Consortium for Modelling and Analysis of Decentralised Energy Storage (C-

MADEnS) has been awarded ~£1.1m of EPSRC funding through the SUPERGEN

Energy Storage Challenge to undertake a three year research project into the role of

decentralised energy storage within cities, focusing on Leeds and Birmingham. The

project team comprises academics at the universities of Leeds, Birmingham,

Warwick and Loughborough, and a large number of non-academic partners (see

www.c-madens.org for further details).

This report provides a summary of the first C-MADEnS project workshop, held in

Leeds on 15 January 2016. The day was structured as follows:

Brief introduction to the project

The energy challenges facing cities

Opportunities and challenges for city-scale energy storage

Introduction to project work packages

Summary of breakout sessions and next steps

The full agenda and attendee list are given at the back of this document.

1 Corresponding author. Email: a.j.pimm@leeds.ac.uk. Tel.: +44 (0)113 343 7557

2

The Energy Challenges Facing Cities

Leeds: Energy Storage Opportunities & Use Cases

Tom Knowland, Leeds City Council (LCC)

A feasibility study is being undertaken on a district heating scheme within Leeds,

which would take heat from Veolia’s new waste incinerator 2km south-east of Leeds

city centre (the largest wooden building in Europe), into the city. The private sector is

pushing for a heat network because there is an investment opportunity: LCC can

guarantee high demand for at least the next 20 years. Currently the only district

heating scheme in Leeds links the University of Leeds campus and Leeds General

Infirmary (from a ~20MW CHP plant). Now is very much the time to be considering

implementing heat storage within the heat network.

All fleets of council-owned vehicles will soon be electric. How can storage best be

utilised for transport applications such as these? Tom said that Leeds already has 12

refuse trucks running on biomethane, but Hydrogen is an alternative energy carrier

that could potentially be used in standalone (non-transport) applications.

There is a lack of formal national plans for storage, a lack of expertise within the

council, and low amounts of money to invest. However, LCC sees the importance of

developing cost-effective new strategies to decarbonise the city. The business case

for storage will depend very much on the policy that is put in place.

The council owns a lot of land and property (approximately a third of land in the city

is council-owned), and are keen to realise the commercial value of small parcels of

land in their ownership. These could be used for various energy-related purposes;

houses and buildings could implement smart meters and demand side response

behaviour (if financial incentives exist), for example. Tom encouraged developers

and researchers interested in using council-owned land for energy storage projects

to get in contact.

Energy storage could unlock the potential for community solar schemes within Leeds

by increasing the amount of solar energy that is consumed locally. LCC owns 50,000

homes, 1,000 of which have solar PV on the roof. Electricity storage could also be

used to support solar PV arrays at new park & ride sites, such as the Temple Green

Park & Ride being constructed at J45 of the M1.

Leeds has a big push on smart and open data, however no data on the energy

demand of each building in Leeds currently exists. However, Tom noted that demand

will have to be computed before any realistic simulation on Leeds can be run. Within

the C-MADEnS project, this will be accomplished through WP1 (modelling).

3

Birmingham’s Energy Challenges

Richard Rees, Birmingham City Council (BCC)

With a population of 1.1m living within 410,000 households, Birmingham is the UK’s

second largest city, and it has ambitions to become “a leading green city with a

sustainable green growth economy”. In so doing, BCC is aiming to reduce total CO2

emissions by 60% by 2027 against a 1990 baseline.

Population growth is expected to be 150,000 people over 2011-2031, reaching a

total of 1.22m. This will also mean 80,000 more homes and 100,000 extra jobs.

Significant regeneration is expected in several areas, including Paradise / HS2 /

Smithfield / Snow Hill / IPL / Langley Extension, amounting to over £2bn in

investment in the city centre alone. Now is therefore a good time to implement smart

solutions while the developments are being planned and constructed.

The total spend on energy in Birmingham is approximately £1.5-2bn per year. Most

of this energy is imported. In 2012, domestic energy use in Birmingham was 7,237

GWh, and commercial/industrial energy use was 5,927 GWh. 19% of residents live

in fuel poverty, the 2nd highest of all cities in England.

Birmingham District Energy Company is an energy services company (ESCO) led by

Engie since 2006. It has had £12m of investment and it runs a district heating

network in Birmingham city centre with six “energy centres”, 4 km of pipework, 56

MW of heating capacity and 12 MW of cooling capacity.

Birmingham also has the Severn Trent biomethane gas to grid system, comprising

16 anaerobic digestion plants, and Tyseley Energy Park, comprising a 25 MW

energy-from-waste plant and a 10.2 MW biomass gasification plant.

In 2016/17 a feasibility study will be carried out on the proposed Tyseley Heat

Network, taking various energy supply sources (including from an incinerator) in the

Tyseley area, 6 km from the city centre, and distributing the heat towards the city

centre, the airport, and the NEC. A waste contract due in 2019 also offers new

opportunities. The feasibility study and strategy development potentially offer a live

opportunity to the C-MADEnS project.

Looking forward, Birmingham has four energy priorities:

1) Develop a city strategy and long term vision with partners.

2) Develop evidence bases, feasibility and business cases for large heat

networks and recharging and refuelling infrastructure.

3) Develop capacity/delivery functions, including role, scope and scale.

4) Capture opportunities, and influence through procurement and planning

processes (waste contract, city growth and planning).

Richard highlighted several challenges that could be addressed by C-MADEnS:

consider the effects of decreasing, or even zero, subsidies for clean power.

4

look at future cities with multiple generation sources and various different

scales of consumer.

identify the storage technology options, scale for delivery, and how to embed

these options into live projects.

examine who will benefit from energy storage of different types, scales and

installations, and look at the wider socioeconomic impacts.

assess the role of local authorities as an enabler in policy (including

procurement, waste, housing, planning, and interaction with national policy),

and the potential opportunity presented by devolution of powers to cities.

Opportunities and Challenges for City-Scale Energy

Storage

Urban Energy and Storage

Ben Watts, ENGIE

ENGIE has a presence in close to 70 countries, employing over 150,000 staff and

having €75bn in annual revenues. It is the number one independent producer of

power in the world, with over 115 GW of installed capacity, and 22% of the group’s

power capacity comes from renewable sources including hydro, wind, solar, biomass

and biogas. It is the number one distributor of natural gas in Europe, the number one

vendor of gas storage capacity in Europe with a 1,296 TWh supply portfolio (120bn

m3), and the number one importer of LNG in Europe. Furthermore it is the number

one supplier of energy efficiency services in the world, runs 230 district heating and

cooling networks in 12 countries, and manages 140m m2 of space in the tertiary

sector. ENGIE is well-established in the UK, employing over 20,000 staff.

Within the UK, ENGIE operates nine district energy schemes, including in London

(inc. Olympic Park and Stratford Westfield), Birmingham (inc. New Street station),

Coventry, Leicester, and Southampton. The Southampton Geothermal Heating

Company is a city-wide district energy scheme generating over 70 GWh of energy

per year and reducing CO2 emissions by 11,000 tonnes per year. With 10 MW of

gas-fired CHP plant and 2.5 MW of geothermal power, it provides hot water, chilled

water, and electricity to over 45 commercial customers and over 800 residential

customers.

Implementation of energy storage can increase the efficiency of district energy

schemes. Coventry already has a thermal accumulator for its district heating

scheme, which is effectively a large cylindrical water tank employing a thermocline

as a means of reducing exergy destruction.

5

Coventry Thermal Accumulator

After his presentation, Ben was questioned about how much ENGIE consider district

cooling, and he said that the gains from district cooling within the UK are not as great

as those from district heating.

Liquid Air Energy Storage at City Scale

Emma Gibson, Highview Power Storage

Highview is a designer and developer of utility-scale energy storage and power

systems that use liquefied air as the storage medium. It has been active since 2005

and has secured more than £26m of private and public funding. It ran a

350kW/2.5MWh pilot plant hosted by SSE at a biomass plant in Slough, which was

fully integrated into the local distribution network and operated from April 2010 to

November 2014. The plant has since been moved to the University of Birmingham’s

Centre for Cryogenic Energy Storage for use in research.

A standalone LAES plant has a round-trip efficiency of approximately 60%, and

incorporates a hot thermal store and a high grade cold store. Integration with plants

normally emitting waste heat (e.g. incinerators) can raise the effective round-trip

efficiency to around 70%, and integration with plants with waste heat and cold (such

as LNG regasification facilities) can further raise the effective round-trip efficiency to

as high as 100%.

LAES uses existing mature components with proven performance, cost and life (in

excess of 25 years), and it is suitable for large stores >20MWh in storage capacity. It

also has the benefit of not being restricted by geography. Economics improve with

scale: a 50MW/200MWh plant costs <£1,000/kW and <£250/kWh, while a

200MW/1.2GWh plant costs <£900/kW and <£150/kWh. The system is ready for

deployment now.

6

A 5MW Highview LAES plant has been constructed at Viridor’s landfill gas

generation plant near Manchester. Highview was awarded >£8m of DECC funding

for this through the ‘Energy Storage Technology Demonstration Competition’. The

LAES plant will use waste heat from the landfill gas engines and ultimately use it in

the LAES discharge process. The LAES power recovery process has already been

tested at this plant, which is due to go live soon and which will be piloted for one

year. The system comprises ~150 tonnes of liquid nitrogen storage capacity (around

3 hours) and 5MW of turbine capacity, which will use waste heat from the landfill gas

engines to enhance the liquid nitrogen to power conversion efficiency. The plant will

operate for at least one year, in which tests will be carried out including STOR,

peaking, triad avoidance, and testing for the PJM regulation market (in the USA).

In recent years Highview has signed two licence agreements, one with GE Oil & Gas

to integrate LAES technology with its simple cycle peaker plants, and one with clean

coal technology specialists Advanced Emissions Solutions of Colorado, for grid-

connected LAES non-peaker plant in North America.

As well as learning from the Manchester demonstration plant and growing the

business through a larger scale (15-20 MW) demonstration, by supporting existing

licensees, and by getting licensees in new territories, Highview are looking towards

market reform which will enhance the value of storage.

Energy Superstore

Jonathan Radcliffe, The University of Birmingham

Energy Superstore is the name of the Supergen Energy Storage Hub, a £3.9m five-

year EPSRC-funded hub “to set the direction and development of research and

technologies in energy storage”. The hub is led by Professor Peter Bruce at the

University of Oxford, working alongside academics at the universities of Bath,

Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial, Southampton, and Warwick. The hub will address

a number of key issues facing the sector by doing the following:

1. Demonstrate and enhance the role of energy storage research in the UK

energy landscape, taking a whole systems approach.

2. Support areas of UK strength and national importance.

3. Champion energy storage research.

4. Engage and inform Government, NGOs and learned societies.

It has nine work packages, broken into six technology-specific WPs and three cross-

cutting WPs. Alongside these, the hub is developing a National Roadmap for Energy

Storage, thus setting the agenda for energy storage research in the UK and

developing a shared vision for energy storage innovation in the UK.

Wider research council support for energy storage currently exists in the form of:

Two Energy Storage Grand Challenge projects totalling £8.6m

7

Seven Energy Storage Challenge projects totalling £7.4m

Five capital grants totalling £30m

Five UK-China grid-scale storage projects totalling £5m

Five UK-India smart grid and storage projects totalling £4.9m

The Supergen Energy Storage Challenge II call is out now. Responsive mode grants

are also given.

8

Breakout Sessions

Modelling

In the modelling session, 5 broad questions were asked, and the responses to each

question are summarised here.

What would be useful outcomes from the modelling and validation?

It was pointed out that if local authorities are to have a greater role in energy

networks, modelling could provide an evidence base to support land-use allocations.

One participant asked which side of the meter energy storage devices will/should sit,

and noted that this should be recognised in the modelling. The potential of electric

vehicle batteries to be repurposed as second-life batteries should be investigated, as

should the locations of electric vehicles during the day and night (as they will tend to

surround industrial and commercial premises during the day, and surround dwellings

during the evening and night).

It is important to understand the impacts of storage on disruption (e.g. to traffic, etc.)

and fuel poverty (including health and other social impacts). We should consider

appliance usage (including growth in use of certain appliances, and introduction of

demand-side response behaviour).

The role of storage in alleviating distribution network constraints should be

investigated. We should also seek to understand what scales of storage are

appropriate to minimise cost to the UK and to maximise local value, with “scale”

including physical size, storage duration, and location (which will vary by feeder). We

should also investigate the trade-off between the value and cost of local load

balancing, and consider the practicalities of domestic electricity storage.

An important point, that was raised several times, was that when concentrating on

storage within a smaller area and at smaller scales, we should also consider the

effects on the whole system.

We should investigate the concept of converting electricity to heat and then storing

the heat, investigate what materials should be used for heat storage

(sensible/latent), whether heat storage can be integrated into the fabric of buildings,

and look at the impacts of lower temperatures in heating systems, and whether

storage is still useful.

Finally, we should look at the effects of long periods with low renewable resource,

and consider scenarios with certain levels of generation from nuclear, wind and solar

power, certain penetrations of storage and DSR, and certain interconnection

capacities.

9

Which technologies should we consider?

A common theme among the discussions around this question was the importance

of taking a technology-neutral approach. Outputs from the RESTLESS project

between UCL and Nottingham will be useful for C-MADEnS as it is developing

technology-neutral performance metrics for energy storage systems and finding

performance figures for each energy storage technology. People mentioned that not

only is cost and efficiency important, but so is the carbon emissions associated with

the manufacture or use of the storage. Choice of technologies is scale dependent,

and also depends upon whether they are supply side or demand side.

There was much discussion over whether we should consider electricity and

heat/cold storage. It was generally felt that ideally we should look at both, but a

simple approach would be to start off by considering just one. It should be possible

to get good results by just covering electricity and heat independently, though future

electrification of heat and transport should be considered.

We should take account of degradation mechanisms in the storage technologies,

and look at cutting edge technologies (such as phase change materials for heat

storage).

What city-scale usage/deployment scenarios should we model?

The following questions and points were raised here:

What if there is a battery (or other type of storage device) in every new home? Who

would operate the batteries… an individual / aggregator / DNO / someone else?

Does operation of storage in a city only affect the city, or does it affect nearby areas?

What does the interaction look like?

What about storage in transport (public / individual / fleets) and the cold chain?

What about hydrogen storage?

What usage/deployment scenarios should drive the technology validation?

Solar PV and solar thermal installation on houses should be considered, as should

use of batteries for vehicle to grid (V2G) and vehicle to home (V2H) applications.

Replacement of storage heaters for flats with units that incorporate ‘smart’

technology is a possibility.

We should look at the potential for storage to defer upgrades to the distribution grid,

and compare storage with demand response. Some international benchmarking has

already been carried out, which we should use.

We should look at sizing of storage and the inverter for discrete domestic battery

storage, and consider how the uptake and size of microgeneration units might

10

change with the uptake of storage, particularly post FiTs (e.g. will the average area

of solar PV installations reduce?). Also, it is important to understand how battery

temperatures change during charge/discharge, and how this will affect energy use

within the home.

Finally, we should trade-off the pros and cons of having a few large storage systems

within a city, or having a higher number of small systems.

What data is available?

Data is already available from various pilot projects, including LCNF projects such as

SSE’s Orkney Energy Storage Park and battery in Shetland, UKPN’s Leighton

Buzzard project (Smarter Network Storage), and SSEPD’s New Thames Valley

Vision project.

An energy storage testbed exists in Newcastle. There was also mention of the

capital funding for energy storage facilities as part of the Government’s investment in

eight great technologies.

Northern Powergrid have data on 30-minute industrial demand, substation loads,

and a LCN battery project.

Storage modelling has been carried out by Goran Strbac and his group at Imperial,

and demand modelling has been carried out by Thomson, Richardson and McKenna

at Loughborough, and Good and Mancarella at Manchester.

Leeds City Council have carried out work on housing quality and characteristics, and

the Leeds Data Mill website includes corporate energy consumption and vehicle fuel

consumption.

Arup have a virtual model of Leeds city centre.

There was also mention of the Birmingham pilot plant, Highview’s LAES

demonstration plant in Manchester, other DECC energy storage demonstrations, the

database of energy storage figures being generated in the RESTLESS project, Met

Office data, and the open database site Open Energy Modelling Initiative (OpenMod)

website.

Ofgem have smart metering data for over 14k households collected from Jan 2008 to

Sep 2010 through the Energy Demand Research Project (EDRP) conducted by UCL.

The UKERC research atlas could be useful.

An Enterprise level report with Sainsbury’s found savings of 28% at the Shipley site.

DS20/30 also through Ofgem looks at the potential effects of microgeneration on the

distribution network in 2030.

11

Northern Gas Networks might have data on gas distribution available. They see

massive interseasonal swings in gas demand.

George at Leeds City Council has half-hourly data.

Dave Stone at the University of Sheffield might be worth contacting.

Project ERIC, conducted by Oxford-Brookes University, is looking at the effects of

domestic storage on the local energy system. The researchers are monitoring

household demand and substation loads. Robin Morris works on Project ERIC.

Robin Morris also mentioned Project SWELL (Shrivenham, Watchfield and Longcot),

investigating smart use of storage heaters. They have survey data on the equipment

in each house available, as well as demand data.

Technology Validation

The discussions around the technology validation work package were very

stimulating and fruitful. One of the main questions asked of participants was “What

usage/deployment scenarios should drive the storage technology validation?”

Several people pointed out the need to carry out validation in houses with solar PV

and solar thermal installations. Vehicle to grid (V2G) and vehicle to home (V2H)

were also highlighted as being worth considering.

Participants mentioned that replacement or upgrading of electric storage heaters for

flats with smart technology is important. The pros and cons of storage should also be

compared with those of demand response, and bulk energy storage should be

compared with other grid management methods. The effects of avoiding expansion

and upgrading of the distribution grid should be considered.

One person suggested using international benchmarking that has already been

carried out. Sizing of storage and inverter for discrete domestic battery storage was

highlighted as being important, along with battery temperature during charge and

discharge. What does microgeneration size look like with storage post-FiT? It was

felt that PV installations may slow or become smaller. What does the optimal

distribution of storage look like with a city? Should there be a few large systems, or

many smaller systems?

12

Policy and Regulation

General points were made about defining what we mean by energy storage – clarify

the scale (which could include consumer batteries) and type (fossil fuel could be

included if it’s a general description).2 We also need to understand the objectives of

deploying energy storage into a local system – what is it there to achieve and how do

we distinguish energy storage from the wider energy system?

It was noted that LAs do not have powers to drive energy policy per se, but how it is

used can have an impact on their mandate. This note sets out: (i) which policies

energy storage could have an effect on, or be affected by, that do come under LA

control; (ii) the policy tools that LAs have that could enable the deployment; (iii) the

processes through which changes could be made.

Overarching policy objectives

Local authority policies relevant to the deployment of energy storage, as part of a

local energy system, include:

Health & Social welfare: improving lives of those in social housing, and in fuel

poverty in particular

Prosperity: attracting investment from business by supporting the development of

new technologies and demonstrating their application

Environmental: air quality – clean zones to reduce emissions of particulates in cities;

climate change goals of cities to meet CO2 targets

Efficiency: lowering Councils’ costs by saving money through more efficient delivery

of services, and own costs

Resilience/security: increasing energy security of the region, avoiding reliance on

imports, but that could lead to a tension with national policy priorities

Policy tools available

Two key policies allow LAs to have some influence over energy systems which could

help energy storage, planning, and management of their estate and procurement:

Planning can help determine the type of energy system built, in which energy

storage could play a role. Issues to consider include:

Objectives are set from Master planning and local development plans

2 My response: we are looking at stores of 1kWh+ (HW cylinder could be from 5kWh)

connected to a network, in the building or local area; we are concerned with storage

of secondary energy, i.e. after it has been converted from primary energy of

coal/gas/wind/fissionable material, etc.

13

Local planning needs coherence with national planning policy to reduce risk of

appeals

Enforcement, including of standards

Planning decisions need integration with building standards

Using permitted development rights for wider good

LAs have significant estate under their management, and procure goods and

services which can provide a market for new technologies. Issues to consider

include:

Coordination across governance structures is needed to access opportunities

Ownership of land and infrastructure can provide environment for test bed and

demonstration

Evaluation models to show how innovation can lead to better outcomes

Dependent on appetite of the LA to take on risk

How to do it

Ways in which change could happen, or can be facilitated:

Advocacy coalitions that enable policy change – co-benefits (Sabatier), find

beneficiaries

Describing what information is required

Understanding coevolution of technology and policy

Take advantage of destabilising factors

State rights and obligations of DNOs; questions on regulation of assets

Policy champions as change agents, policy entrepreneurs

Market-based instruments to incentivise policy change (mimicry)

Policy windows (Kingdon’s agenda setting theory)

There is a mismatch of LA and power/gas network boundaries which can

complicate matters

Devolution of winter fuel payments in future

Business Models

The objective of the breakout session on business models was to identify the factors

which were seen by local authorities and private investors as the main obstacles to

the development of commercially viable and sustainable business models for city

level energy storage.

The questions addressed in the discussion were:

Are there trade-offs between different revenue streams?

What the areas for successful public-private collaboration?

14

Are there national energy policy barrier to the development of successful

business models?

Because the discussion moved rather seamlessly between the three questions this

summary will present the main areas covered in the participants’ feedback and

comments without linking them to a specific question

One of the main challenges to the successful deployment of city level energy

systems was identified as the fact that different streams of ‘benefits’ (as opposed to

revenue) might have different owners and that actions might need to in order

coordinate the strategic decisions of different owners so that all the potential benefits

are identified and successfully exploited by the organisations involved in the

development and management of local energy systems. The identification of suitable

contractual arrangements would be a way of creating the conditions for exploitation

of the full set of private and social benefits.

Related to the previous point, subsequent discussion focussed on the fact that

typically project assessment and evaluations tend to consider mainly financial

factors, but the research work on business models should go beyond these to

consider other sources of value from storage activities, such as the ones associated

with environmental and social issues, particularly related to the objective of reducing

fuel poverty. It was however recognised that a monetary estimate of such values will

be difficult to achieve. Another element that is not often brought into the discussion

nor fully accounted for is the avoided cost of network upgrades, a cost element

which can be assessed and potentially captured by the relevant DNOs.

Some participants also highlighted the fact that different technologies need to be

treated differently in terms of the potential sources of revenue they can tap into,

particularly with respect to the provision of energy and flexibility services, as the

trade-offs between them can be different.

It was also recognised that local authorities have better expertise at the planning and

building regulation stages, while technical skills are more readily available in private

companies but there would be opportunities for cross fertilisation through

collaboration.

Among the potential areas of research relating to the nature of contractual relations

members of the audience mentioned the need for long term contract for third party

access to local energy system.

Grid level charges and the ‘double charging’ of storage plant when accessing the

grid were identified as areas of national energy policy that will have to be addressed

in order to promote the development of investment in this area. The key role of

Ofgem in delivering subsidies to support innovation in technology was recognised

considered a key success factor in the recent energy policy which might be subject

to changes. However it was recognised that financial support for innovation might not

15

always be of value for city scale developments unless they are used for

demonstration of unproven technologies.

Another potential source of regulatory change in the near future is the possibility that

business rates will be devolved to local authorities. This issue was mentioned but not

fully developed in the discussion due to the current uncertainty about the terms of

this type of devolution of powers.

Public Perception

The purpose of the discussion session on public perceptions was to: look for

possible case studies, identify data that could be used as prompt material in the

questionnaire and focus groups, and to note possible public perception issues to

explore through the research.

The following issues are roughly organised according to key socio-psychological

variables. They may be used as part of scenario narratives and/or question framing

in the data collection. They are not comprehensive, but rather those raised during

discussion. Many may have positive or negative dimensions.

Likely sample split dimensions

Scale (500 home, 500 neighbourhood)

Technology (2 types, 250 each)

Variables

Perceived control

o User interface

o Automation

o Ownership

Perceived utility and benefit

o Use for park and ride

o Use for public transport

o Use to address fuel poverty

o Use for electric vehicles

o Nuisance and loss of amenity (during installation; disruption of place

attachment; adverse aesthetics)

o Effect on council tax

o Effect on energy cost to consumer

16

Trust

o A function of knowledge

Distribution of benefits

o To commerce

o Employment

o To self & kin

o To stigmatised groups

Knowledge and familiarity

o Knowledge or experience companies involved

o Knowledge or experience of technologies involved

Perceived risk

Political ideology and socio/ecological orientation

Demographics & lifestyle

Through the focus group it was highlighted that we should explore alternative

framings, justifications and scenarios as well as some of the above.

In addition, possible case study sites and communities were suggested for the focus

groups. Visual, audio, technical, cost and performance data were offered for the

questionnaires and focus groups material via the stakeholder group.

17

Appendix A

Definitions and Scope

Various questions arose at the project workshop regarding the project scope and

definitions of some terms that are used in the project description. These are

addressed here.

Which technologies might we consider?

Some attendees questioned exactly which technologies we would be considering,

mentioning that storage in the form of batteries within portable electronic devices are

already ubiquitous, and that coal is a very good energy store.

In the case of electricity storage, the project team will consider methods of storing

electricity that can feasibly be built in configurations which can start producing

electric power in excess of 1 kW for at least 1 hour from within 24 hours of being

empty.

In the case of heat storage, the project team will consider methods of storing heat

that can be built in configurations which could feasibly reside within cities.

These are initial categorisations that may evolve as the project develops. The

research will evaluate energy storage technologies based not only on cost and

efficiency but also carbon emissions, and potential future carbon taxes.

Define the following terms: “decentralised”, “city-scale”.

“Decentralised storage”:

Energy storage capacity which comprises numerous small-scale units

distributed around the country and, for electricity storage, connected to the

low voltage distribution network. Contrast this with centralised storage, which

means a small number of large-scale units in the country, and likely connected to the

transmission network in the case of electricity storage. Decentralised and centralised

systems can certainly exist alongside each other, and indeed a mix of distributed

small-scale units and a smaller number of large-scale units is likely to emerge, in a

similar way that the renewable energy landscape now comprises a mix of large units

(e.g. nuclear plant, hydro plant, and wind/solar parks) sited in optimal locations, and

a larger number of smaller units (e.g. rooftop-mounted and farm-based solar panels

and wind turbines, and farm-based hydro units). Some would argue that small

storage units are not as cost-effective as larger bulk storage units (compare the

costs per unit of storage capacity of batteries with CAES and pumped hydro),

however small units require less investment capital, are more likely to be accepted

and useful within urban areas, and are more likely to be adopted by DNOs,

businesses and homeowners.

18

“City-scale storage”:

Storage technologies having characteristics (including, but not limited to,

physical size) that make their installation within a city worth considering. By

way of example, pumped hydro is highly unlikely to be considered for city-scale

storage as it requires significant height differences between the upper and lower

reservoirs to be economical, which are unlikely to be found in any UK cities at least.

Similarly, underground CAES would not be considered as the planning and health

and safety issues associated with installing and operating high pressure air storage

units (e.g. caverns or tanks) under a city or its suburbs would be considerable. In

several cases, including pumped hydro and CAES, the technologies are most

economical at large scales.

Consortium for Modelling and Analysis of Decentralised Energy

Storage (C-MADEnS)

Project Workshop

15 January 2016, Weetwood Hall Hotel, Leeds

09:30–10:00 Registration with refreshments

10:00–10.20 Introduction to project, Peter Taylor, University of Leeds

10:20–11:15 The energy challenges facing cities

Leeds Perspective, Tom Knowland, Leeds City Council

Birmingham Perspective, Richard Rees, Birmingham City Council

Discussion

11:15–12:30 Opportunities and challenges for city-scale energy storage

Ben Watts, Cofely

Emma Gibson, Highview Power Storage

Jonathan Radcliffe, University of Birmingham

Discussion

12:30–13:30 Lunch

13:30–14:00 Introduction to project work packages, Work Package Leaders

14:00–15:30 Breakout sessions to discuss work packages

Sessions on Technology validation, Energy storage modelling

Policy and regulation, Business models and Public perception

15:30–16:00 Summary of breakout sessions and next steps

16:00 Close

C-MADEnS Project Workshop, 15 January 2016

Attendee List

Alessandro Balata University of Leeds

Catherine Bale University of Leeds

Giorgio Castagneto-Gissey University College London

Tim Cockerill University of Leeds

Giuseppe Colantuono University of Leeds

Richard Cooper Tata Steel

Penny Cunningham University of Leeds

Lloyd Davies University of Leeds

Yulong Ding University of Birmingham

Phil Eames Loughborough University

Jacqueline Edge Imperial College

Gideon Evans SSEPD

Emma Gibson Highview Power Storage

Monica Giulietti Loughborough University

Nicholas Good University of Manchester

Glenn Goodall EPSRC

Chris Goodhand Northern Power Grid

Sanghyun Hong University of Birmingham

Paul Jennings University of Warwick

Tom Knowland Leeds City Council

Andrew MacDonell EPSRC

Keith MacLean Energy Research Partnership

Pat Maughan Hubbard Products

Robin Morris Moixa Technology

Solmaz Moshiri EDF

Jan Palczewski University of Leeds

Andrew Pimm University of Leeds

Jonathan Radcliffe University of Birmingham

Richard Rees Birmingham City Council

Steve Saunders Arup

Peter Taylor University of Leeds

Kotub Uddin University of Warwick

Paul Upham University of Leeds

Ben Watts Cofely

Neil Whalley Northern Gas Networks

Grant Wilson University of Sheffield