Results: Search for Economic Factors

This spreadsheet model was produced as part of the CCS Capture Benchmark Refresh Study, and provides a techno-economic analysis of the performance of a state-of-the art CCGT with and without amine capture at 90% capture rate. The spreadsheet enables 'what if' calculations of costs for the following designs: CCGT with and without capture, at 100% and 40% load; CCGT with and without capture, with 38% and 18% exhaust gas recycle rates, at 100% and 40% load; CCGT with an independent capture plant, generating its own power and steam, at 100% load; CCGT with an independent capture plant, generating its own steam only, at 100% load CCGT with retrofitted capture plant, at 100% load. Outputs include capital costs, operating costs, cost of capture and levelised cost of electricity. The spreadsheet concentrates on power generation, capture and compression, but allows manual input of transport and storage costs to provide overall figures. These cases are covered in Benchmark Refresh reports D2.1 (refresh of CCGT benchmark and EGR) and D7.1 (Independent Capture Plant). It should be noted that the underlying capture plant designs were reviewed as part of the Independent Capture Plant work, so the results given by this spreadsheet for the earlier cases may not precisely match those presented in Report D2.1.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading could help address grid management challenges in a decentralizing electricity system, as well as provide other social and environmental benefits. Many existing and proposed trading schemes are enabled by blockchain, a distributed ledger technology (DLT) relying on cryptographic proof of ownership rather than human intermediaries to establish energy transactions. This study used an online survey experiment (n = 2064) to investigate how consumer demand for blockchain-enabled peer-to-peer energy trading schemes in the United Kingdom varies depending on how the consumer proposition is designed and communicated. The analysis provides some evidence of a preference for schemes offering to meet a higher proportion of participants energy needs and for those operating at the city/region (as compared to national or neighbourhood) level. People were more likely to say they would participate when the scheme was framed as being run by their local council, followed by an energy supplier, community energy organization, and social media company. Anonymity was the most valued DLT characteristic and mentioning blockchains association with Bitcoin led to a substantial decrease in intended uptake. We highlight a range of important questions and implications suggested by these findings for the introduction and operation of P2P trading schemes.

The data were gathered through a survey undertaken as part of the Financing Community Energy research project with the aim of improving understanding of the business models and financial characteristics of community energy projects in the UK. Data from individual projects have been aggregated into multi-project records in accordance with confidentiality undertakings made to survey participants. The survey formed part of the Financing Community Energy research project, itself part of the UK Energy Research Centre research programme. An analysis of the data has been published in Nature Energy (February 2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0546-4.
This project was led by Professor Carly McLachlan of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, and funded as part of the UKERC research programme. It involved researchers from the University of Manchester, University of Strathclyde, and Imperial College. The researchers involved with the survey were Carly McLachlan, Sarah Mander, Maria Sharmina, Ed Manderson and Tim Braunholtz-Speight (University of Manchester); Matthew Hannon (University of Strathclyde); and Jeff Hardy (Imperial College). Christina Birch and Christopher Walsh (University of Manchester) also provided some research assistance to the survey. Some data from Community Energy Englands (CEE) 2017 State of the Sector survey was also used, by agreement with CEE.
The survey covered characteristics of community energy organisations, and of the projects they run. With regard to organisations, it included legal structure, annual turnover, numbers of paid staff and volunteers, and numbers of members. In relation to each project, topics included: energy activities (including electricity or heat generation, and energy efficiency); ownership (sole or partnership type); financing (details of each instrument type, value, terms etc.); resources employed (including sites, technical, financial and legal services, general administration); costs (operating and financing); revenues (values and sources); value propositions (a range of economic, social and environmental propositions); customers (types, rates paid, etc.); and other beneficiaries.

Statistics relating to the demographics of fuel poverty in England, where fuel poverty is defined by the Low Income / High Costs balance, which considers a household to be in fuel poverty if: (i) the household has required fuel costs above average (national median level) and (ii) was the household to spend that amount it would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. The key drivers behind fuel poverty are:
The energy efficiency of the property (and therefore, the energy required to heat and power the home);
The cost of energy;
Household income.
Registration with the UK Data Archive is required before data can be accessed

Impact is a parish-level carbon emission estimator which tells you how people in the parish travel and heat their homes, and other activities in the area that contribute to the local carbon emissions total. It shows territorial and consumption based emissions calculations. Graphical data charts and csv download are available.

Interviews with actors concerned with local transport decarbonisation in the UK, including challenges related to finance, governance arrangements, and public support. Data were collected using a series of 54 interviews, spread equally across three case study sites: 18 Nottingham, 18 Leeds, and 18 Oxford. Of those, 12 of the Nottingham interviews, all 18 of the Leeds interviews, and 8 of the Oxford interviews are shared in this data deposit (the rest did not give permission for their data to be deposited). The interviews were designed to reveal different local perspectives on areas recent attempts to decarbonise their transport system. The initial introduction to each participant was facilitated by pre-existing professional contacts, after which subsequent participants were identified by snowballing (i.e. feedback from interview participants) in combination with criteria-specific identification (i.e. from a review of published local authority documents

The Ofgem Energy Company Obligation (ECO) Eligibility System is a tool for confirming which postcodes are eligible for the Home Heating Cost Reduction Obligation (HHCRO). See https://eco.locationcentre.co.uk/help.aspx for more details.

Modelling of the costs, efficiencies and greenhouse gas emissions of biomass supply chains with and without significant pre-processing.

The TEAB project compares the costs, efficiencies and GHG emissions of biomass supply chains with and without significant pre-processing, to assess whether and how pre-processing steps can benefit UK bioenergy supply chains.

Ten supply chains were selected for modelling and analysis in the project, two of which generate heat, and eight generating power. These are compared in groups according to their shared conversion technology, and all the chains are able to use a blend of Miscanthus and woody feedstocks (from 0-100%).

Available here are gPROMS and Excel models describing bioenergy supply chains, and project reports. Further README files in the models and reports sub-directories describe the contents further.

These files are the core subset of the updated and expanded versions of the data originally collated for the UKERC "Costs and Impacts of Intermittency - 2016 update" project, see https://ukerc.ac.uk/project/the-intermittency-report/. This dataset includes the references, costs and impacts from this systematic review of the evidence on the costs and impacts of intermittent electricity generation technologies. These files are the core subset of the updated and expanded versions of the data originally collated for the UKERC "Costs and Impacts of Intermittency - 2016 update" project, see https://ukerc.ac.uk/project/the-intermittency-report/.
The dataset was further updated and expanded for a 2020 paper in Nature Energy "A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids" - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00695-4