Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for the village of ...

Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for the village of Hollybush Prepared for: Sustainable Development Team Caerphilly County Borough Council March 2011

Report number 269 899

1 Renewable energy feasibility study for Hollybush

BRE report number 269 899 Commercial in confidence

© Building Research Establishment Ltd 2011

Prepared by

Name Caroline Weeks & Jonny Williams

Position Consultants – BRE Wales

Signature

Reviewed by

Name Colin King

Position Associate Director – BRE Wales

Date 18th March 2011

Signature

BRE Wales ECM2 Heol Cefn Gwrgan Margam Port Talbot SA13 2EZ T + 44 (0) 1639 864727 F + 44 (0) 1639 864762 E [email protected] www.bre.co.uk

This report is made on behalf of BRE. By receiving the report and acting on it, the client - or any third party relying on it - accepts that no individual is personally liable in contract, tort or breach of statutory duty (including negligence).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.bre.co.uk




Executive Summary BRE Wales were commissioned by Caerphilly County Borough Council (CCBC) to carry out a study to identify potential energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions for the village of Hollybush. The study included an element of community consultation and engagement as well as a technical assessment of suitable measures for the village. In addition this report incorporates an overview of appropriate funding mechanisms for the village of Hollybush and a summary of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects from individual to community energy project level. How the findings of the study in Hollybush might apply to other communities in Caerphilly has also been examined. The study was funded through the Welsh Assembly Government’s Heads of the Valleys regeneration programme.

Hollybush is a village in the Upper Sirhowy Valley, situated on the A4080 road approximately midway between Tredegar and Blackwood. There were 120 houses included in the study area, of which all but two are privately owned. The geographical area includes all of the main village as well as two farms on top of the hill to the West at Penyrheol Fawr and Penrhiwgwaith. Two businesses are also included. Of the 120 houses 82% (98) are solid wall, 17% (20) are 1970/80s cavity wall construction and 2% (3) are post 2003 construction. The fuel types are a mix of LPG, oil, electricity and solid fuel (either wood or coal).

Hollybush is currently not served by mains gas and local residents have previously made requests to consider extending the gas main to serve the village, as they feel their current energy supplies are becoming very expensive. Extension of the gas main has been investigated and is considered too costly to be viable, hence there is a drive to identify alternative options for the village that may help to reduce the running costs of local housing. A range of potential measures have been identified and modelled for a selection of representative house types in Hollybush, prioritised in accordance with the energy hierarchy.

These include:

• Wall insulation

• Loft insulation

• New windows

• Upgraded boiler systems

• Air source heat pumps (ASHPs)

• Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs)

• Biomass boilers

• District heating

• Photovoltaics (PV)

• Solar hot water (SHW)

• Wind power

• Hydro power

Of these measures, the most viable options are likely to be the insulation of solid wall dwellings, upgrading of heating systems either to more efficient oil or gas boilers where present or to air source heat pumps. Ground source heat pumps may also be viable for dwellings with more space available externally for ground works and internally to house the necessary equipment. Conditions also seem to be suitable for wind power on the elevated ridges of the valley. It is likely that this may be most appropriately implemented




as a community based scheme. Neighbouring villages could also become involved to widen the scope, if deemed appropriate. In particular, the nearby village of Manmoel could be linked with Hollybush for the implementation of such a project.

Two community consultation events were held, together with a postal survey which was followed up by door-to-door surveying with the help of staff from the Communities First Partnership. The first consultation was attended by 24 people and the second was run as an informal drop in session. The survey response rate was 40%.

Survey feedback has indicated that many households are not in a position to, or would not wish to outlay significant sums of money for measures that will not pay back in very short time-scales (i.e. less than approximately 5 years). It therefore seems inevitable that a range of funding options, as identified in this report, will need to be investigated to assess their applicability for the area in order to bring about short term benefits and cost savings to residents.

A range of funding options are identified by this report. These include individual means tested grants for energy efficiency measures, area based whole village energy efficiency grants and support available for community renewable energy projects through mechanisms such as the feed-in-tariff and external investors. Examples are given on how these different scales of project have been realised elsewhere and how similar ideas might be applied to Hollybush and other communities in the borough of Caerphilly.

It is hoped that through a combined approach from the whole community, the village will be able to benefit from measures that will make energy savings in the short terms as well as others that could ensure a longer term income from energy generation.




Contents 1 Introduction 6

1.1 Background 6 2 Policies & strategies and their relevance to Hollybush 9 3 Structure of the study 19

3.1 Approach to technical assessment 19 3.2 Survey approach and review 19

4 Modelled energy demand of the building stock 22 4.1 Assumptions 24 4.2 Discussion 25

5 Potential improvement options & suitability for Hollybush 27 5.1 The Energy Hierarchy 27 5.2 Measures to reduce energy demand 28 5.3 Use energy more efficiently 31 5.4 Renewable energy options 44 5.5 Specific comments about nearby farms 59 5.6 Sustainability of energy supply 61

6 Feedback from surveys 62 6.1 Survey Sample 62 6.2 Current energy practices 63 6.3 Current energy expenditure 63 6.4 Current energy-efficiency practices 64 6.5 Attitudes towards energy and the environment 65 6.6 Attitudes towards renewables 66

7 Likely ideal scenario for Hollybush 71 8 Implications for other off gas communities 73

8.1 Bute Town Caerphilly 73 8.2 Groes Faen 74 8.3 Manmoel 75

9 Funding options 76 9.1 Arbed Phase 2 76 9.2 National Fuel Poverty Scheme (NFPS) 78 9.3 Feed in tariff (FIT) 79 9.4 Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) 81 9.5 Energyshare Fund 83 9.6 Heads of the Valleys (HoV) Regeneration Programme 85 9.7 Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT), 86 9.8 Ynni’r Fro 86 9.9 Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) 88

10 Delivery mechanisms 90 10.1 Individual household self supported measures 90




10.2 Grant funded area based measures 92 10.3 Community based initiatives 93 10.4 Summary and Recommendations 97 10.5 Energy Tour 97

11 Conclusions 99 12 Recommendations 100




1 Introduction

BRE Wales were commissioned by Caerphilly County Borough Council (CCBC) to carry out a study to identify potential energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions for the village of Hollybush. This study was commission in response to the Upper Sirhowy Valley Community First Action Plan 2007 when the community identified energy costs and the lack of gas as being a key priority. There are approximately 120 properties in the village, which is located within the Upper Sirhowy Valley within the Heads of the Valleys Regeneration Area. Hollybush is currently not served by mains gas and local residents have previously made requests to consider extending the gas main to serve the village, as they feel their current energy supplies are becoming very expensive. Extension of the gas main was considered too costly to be viable, hence there is a drive to identify alternative options for the village that may help to reduce the running costs of local housing.

The purpose of this report is therefore to give an overview of the current situation in the village and the attitudes towards potential improvement solutions. The suitability of options to reduce energy demand or provide renewable sources of energy for the village are discussed, along with the potential savings and carbon emissions reductions that may consequently be achieved. Potential sources of funding and mechanisms for delivery are highlighted in the hope that the Council and locals may then be in a position to take actions that will benefit the community. The study also reflects on the applicability of the proposed measures for other off-gas communities in the area.

BRE would like to acknowledge the help and support provided by the Communities First team over the course of this project. Their input and participation has been extremely valuable.

1.1 Background

The village of Hollybush is within the Mid Sirhowy Valley Holistic Area Regeneration Plan (HARP) area of Caerphilly county borough. Reclaimed land and large areas of forestry and farmland surround the village. The A4048 trunk road runs north to south bisecting the village to provide access to Blackwood and Tredegar. The Sirhowy river runs parallel to the course of the road to the East side of the village at the base of the valley. There are no train links to the village and buses serving Hollybush are mainly the Tredegar to Blackwood routes. From discussions with the locals, it is very much a car-dependent community, with several stating that it is the only way they are able to go shopping in the larger nearby towns.

1.1.1 Fuel provision in the village The village is not served by the mains gas network. Information provided in December 2009 by Wales & West Utilities indicates that the nearest connection is 1km away in the neighbouring village of Markham, and that 1.7km of installed pipe would be required to serve the village. Community engagement made it apparent that this is a great frustration to the residents of Hollybush, as many believe that their household energy bills would be significantly reduced if mains gas was their primary fuel source. Instead, households utilise a range of alternatives, including coal, oil, LPG and direct electric heating.




Interestingly, due to the mining past of the valleys, some residents still receive an allowance of free coal (or a token payment in lieu of receipt of coal) as part of their pension from working in the coal mines. This will obviously influence the motivation of some villagers to potentially consider a change to their heating fuel. However, it is apparent that some elderly residents have given up their free coal allowance because they were finding their coal fires too difficult to manage and have switched to alternative fuels, even though it is inevitably more costly for them.

Apart from those utilising electric heating, all other properties will require deliveries of fuel. Anecdotal remarks made during consultation events in the village suggest that during recent bouts of very severe weather over the winter of 2010/2011 some residents were left without any fuel supplies as delivery vehicles could not physically reach the village. It is also apparent that many of the dwellings in the more northerly part of the village are somewhat difficult to access at any time of the year due to the very narrow access roads. Hence bottled gas seems to be favoured instead of larger LPG storage tanks, although the residents acknowledge that this results in their fuel costing more due to the lack of economies of scale that can be realised.

Although consideration has been given to extending the gas main to serve the village in 2009, the density of the village housing and forecasts of likely uptake mean that once the overall mains installation costs and individual dwelling connection costs are divided amongst those likely to switch to mains gas, this would represent a cost of £8,303 per dwelling, which would inevitably have to be paid by individual households. This is based on 43 properties taking up the option of mains gas. It should be noted that the quote for works from Wales & West Utilities only seem to extend as far as the main street of houses in the village (i.e. Glen View/ Llwynbach Terrace) and not as far as the dwellings to the North of the village (i.e. Railway Terrace), which would require a considerably longer length of gas pipe to be laid. Therefore approximately 60 houses are likely to be covered by the quote provided by Wales and West Utilities. Hence the whole village could not take advantage of this offer even if they wanted to. Additionally, the price quoted is simply for the gas connection and households would inevitably have to pay additional costs to cover the installation of a new gas heating system or adaptation to be compatible with existing systems if already using LPG. This is likely to cost in the region of £4000 extra. Extension of the gas main has therefore been deemed unviable at this time.

1.1.2 The building stock There are approximately 120 dwellings within the village and these are primarily in private ownership. Only a very small number (approximately 2 dwellings) are social housing. The village also includes a small community centre and a rugby club, which are evidently used by residents of Hollybush as well as others from surrounding villages. A number of farms surround the village, two of which have been included within the scope of this study – Penrhiwgwaith Farm and Penyrheol Farm. Additionally, there are two businesses that operate from the outskirts of Hollybush; a boarding kennels/ cattery – Pantymilah Farm/ Kennels and Jim Davies Civil Engineering and Plant Hire contractors. Other amenities that were once present in the village are unfortunately now absent, namely the local school and public house.

There are essentially two main construction types within the village. The majority of houses are traditional 1920’s solid wall terraced buildings. These run along the main road through the village and are also predominant at the North end of the village in Railway Terrace. The village has then more recently been extended in the 1970’s/ 1980’s into Banalog Terrace, which runs parallel to the main road. These dwellings are mostly detached and are of cavity wall construction and have a much larger footprint per dwelling than the terraced properties. Additional individual detached dwellings are also present throughout the village.




The majority of these appear to be relatively recently developed cavity wall dwellings (1980’s) although a few are solid wall dwellings built around the same time as the terraces. The nearby farm houses are also of solid wall construction.

There are a small number of dwellings built very recently (within the last 5 or so years), whose thermal performance is likely to be somewhat higher than the others in the village. One of these is a timber frame building present to the North of the village that has been built as an ‘Eco House’ with high consideration given to environmental impacts. There is also expected to be additional new development in the form of flats/ apartments on the site of the currently derelict school building. Apart from this, local Planners have indicated that there is no additional development anticipated within the village within the short to medium term.

1.1.3 The local demographic Surveys carried out in the village indicate that there is a mix of household types present. While many households comprise of retired couples who occupy their homes a considerable amount of the time, there are also a high number of working households who are away from their home for the majority of the day. There are also many families with children. Dwelling capacities are not necessarily representative of the actual occupancy rates, i.e. many of the larger, 3 or 4 bedroom dwellings in the village for which an occupancy of 4 or 5 people may be expected are actually only occupied by 2 people. It is therefore very difficult to accurately predict in-use energy demand patterns across the village. However, the consistent message from all residents is that energy prices are increasing at a worrying rate and many are concerned that they cannot afford it.




2 Policies & strategies and their relevance to Hollybush

Title:

Upper Sirhowy Valley Communities First Local Action Plan

Author:

Communities First

Published:

July 2007

Available:

http://www.uppersirhowyvalley.org.uk/USV%20LAP.pdf

Aims:

To provide a plan for community regeneration in the Upper Sirhowy Valley

Hollybush context:

The plan describes a number of important issues in the village of Hollybush:

• The Hollybush Community Centre was construction in 2006 at a cost of £170k.

• The Hollybush Inn public house has closed since 2007

• Lack of public transport and concern about speeding cars are identified as issues for the village

• Young people feel safe and secure in their village (when compared to Markham or Argoed)

• Hollybush was the birthplace of the writers of the Welsh National Anthem

• The lack of mains gas in Hollybush is recognised as a weakness

Discussion:

The mains gas issue is most relevant to this study. While it is clear that the lack of mains gas has been an important issues for residents in Hollybush, it is also clear from the costs of installing a gas main and of installing central heating systems that it is very unlikely that main gas will be introduced to Hollybush. This can be viewed both in terms of the significant cost of installing the mains (which ultimately is a business decision by Wales and West Utilities) but also in terms of the wider agenda of increasing gas costs, security of supply, and the desire of the UK government to decarbonise the national grid and double electricity supply in the medium term (see the DECC 2050 Pathways Analysis). Since Communities First Local Action Plan was produced, costs of installing a gas main have been identified, as referred to earlier.

http://www.uppersirhowyvalley.org.uk/USV%20LAP.pdf




Title:

Upper Sirhowy Valley Communities First Partnership Community Audit. Annex 4 of the Local Action Plan

Author:

Communities First

Published:

July 2007

Available:

Directly from Communities First or CCBC

Aims:

To provide a plan for community regeneration in the Upper Sirhowy Valley

Overview:

This appendix to the main report gives some useful information about Hollybush in relation to the four themes of the Caerphilly Community Strategy: regeneration, education for life, health and well-being, living environment. A wide range of sources have been used, both formal, e.g. Census data or the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, and informal such as community consultations and training needs assessments.

Hollybush context:

A community survey carried out by the Hollybush Residents Association in 2004 gained a high response rate: 73% from adults and 55% from young people. For the adult surveys, 34% of respondents were in the 40-59 years age bracket. Hollybush has a higher proportion of residents in the 65 years+ age bracket than other villages in the Argoed ward.

Title:

Holistic Area Regeneration Plan for Mid Sirhowy Valley

Author:

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Published:

December 2008

Available:

Directly from CCBC

Aims:

To provide a regeneration plan for the mid-Sirhowy Valley




Overview:

The HARP providing a succinct review of relevant strategy, summarising in relation to the area the One Wales document, the Wales Spatial Plan, Turning Heads: Heads of the Valleys 2020 and the Heads of the Valleys Spatial Strategy 2006-2021. The plan also references relevant local authority-based policies such as the Unitary Development Plan, the Local Development Plan, CCBC Community Planning Strategy and the Upper Sirhowy Valley Local Action Plan.

There is much analysis of how the Mid-Sirhowy based Argoed ward is placed in the Welsh Index of Multiple deprivation and of the ward’s spatial relationship to the larger economic centres of Blackwood, Oakdale and Bargoed. The main action of relevance in this document is the requirement to produce a renewable energy feasibility study in response to the ongoing lack of mains gas in Hollybush.

Hollybush context:

The document notes that in the overall Argoed ward, 66% of houses are owner occupied. This can be contrasted to the much higher level in Hollybush where only 2 out of 120 houses are social housing.

The justification for the Hollybush renewable energy feasibility study is put forward by this document. Essentially the ongoing lack of main gas is recognised as a serious issue and renewable energy could potentially be an alternative. A successful energy-based project would increase the profile of the village, the local area and the region, as well as providing a model for other villages off the gas network.

In conclusion, the report states that the renewable energy feasibility study will contribution to the One Wales strategic objectives of a prosperous society, living communities and a sustainable environment. Additionally, the study will contribute to the CCBC Community Plan themes of regeneration and a living environment.

Title:

Renewable Energy Route Map for Wales

Author:

Welsh Assembly Government

Published:

2008

Available:

http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabinetstatements/2008/ routemap/?lang=en

Aims:

To set out how Wales can become self-sufficient in energy terms

Overview:

This policy document is concerned mainly with renewable energy for both electricity and heat, but puts this is the broader context of energy efficiency across all sectors. Green jobs opportunities are also mentioned.

http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabinetstatements/2008/




Hollybush context:

In particular, the document gives a limited high level overview of biomass, hydro power and wind power. It is noted that small scale hydro power would seem to be the preferred option for the Welsh Assembly Government given the risk of environmental impacts from large scale hydro (i.e. damming of rivers and loss of habitat / communities).

Community engagement is referenced for all technologies discussed. The importance of locally grown biomass is mentioned. Small scale hydro power is described as potentially being ‘very good for community projects’ and is to be prioritised. (The introduction of the Ynni’r Fro funding scheme can be seen as an example of this pledge being put into practice. See section 9.8 for further information.)

Discussion:

This document sets out high level commitments, some of which are now starting to be realised through various forms of project support in Wales. In terms of Hollybush, there is an opportunity to capitalise on this forward looking policy framework.

Title:

National Energy Efficiency and Savings Plan: Consultation and Summary of Responses

Author:


Published:

March 2009

Available:

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/energy/efficiency/efficiencyplan/?lang=en

Aims:

A consultation document that sets out ways in which various organisations and agencies in Wales can reduce energy usage.

The three mains aims are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce fuel poverty and to support economic development.

Overview:

Although this is a consultation document, many of the proposals put forward reflect other strategic documents, in particular One Wales with its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 3% year on year from 2011 onwards.

Many of the outputs from this document and the consultation itself have since influenced WAG activity in Wales, e.g. the Arbed and Ynni’r Fro programmes very much follow the agenda set out by the National Energy and Savings Plan. (See section 9 on Funding options for more information.)

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/energy/efficiency/




Hollybush context:

The document recognises that private housing is often less energy efficient than social housing and that pockets of fuel poverty can often exist in areas that on the surface are otherwise reasonably affluent. (e.g. Hollybush is in the Argoed 2 lower level super output area (LSOA) subward and does not register in the bottom 20% of all Welsh LSOAs. In fact, Argoed 2 is in the top 20% most affluent areas based on current data sources).

Whole house and whole community based measures are encouraged, as are decentralised energy systems. Programmes such as the Arbed, Ynni’r Fro and Heads of the Valleys Regeneration can be seen to reflect such priorities. Community support and engagement is also recognised as key and some of the work carried out in for this study describes how this process has been started in Hollybush in relation to energy saving and renewables.

The need to maximise CERT funding is also mentioned, although this has somewhat been superseded by the widespread rollout of Arbed as a funding mechanism.

Microgeneration is viewed by the consultation as a viable option for older buildings in rural areas off the gas network, such as those found in Hollybush.

Title:

Climate Change Strategy: Consultation

Author:


Published:

July 2009

Available:

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/consultation/090116climate consultationen.pdf

Aims:

To support Wales in being a leading small nation in tackling the causes of climate change. In particular, to meet the Welsh target of 3% emission reductions year on year from 2011.

Overview:

The focus of this strategy is in 6 areas:

• Help communities make climate friendly choices

• Making the Welsh Assembly lead by example

• Improve energy efficiency and building skills and jobs as a result

• Using Wales’ natural resources to make it happen

• To maximise the economic opportunities through green jobs

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/consultation/090116climate




• Support social adaptation to climate change

Hollybush context:

The main area of relevance is summarised under a section on reducing emissions from the residential sector.

“The residential sector is responsible for about 25% of the emissions covered by the 3% target. We propose to support activity that will help reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency, supported by action to promote low carbon, local energy generation”

The document then builds on the policy aims listed above by mentioning area based energy efficiency programmes and community scale energy generation programmes.

Title:

A Low Carbon Revolution: Energy Policy Statement

Author:


Published:

March 2010

Available:

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/policy/100331energystatementen.pdf

Aims:

This Energy Policy Statement builds upon the Renewable Energy Roadmap for Wales by giving more specific technical information and a list of actions to be undertaken

Overview:

As well as building on previous WAG Policies this Policy Statement draws heavily on the work of Professor David Mackay and his book “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air”. Professor Mackay is now Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Energy and Climate Change, so has an influence on much of the policy originating from Westminster such as the 2050 Pathways report that is discussed in more detail below.

Hollybush context:

Picking the relevant recommended actions from the section on energy efficiency and small scale renewables, the following is deemed relevant to Hollybush:

• The development of Arbed (and now Arbed Phase 2) funding

• Working with energy supply companies to maximise the opportunity for Welsh communities from UK wide investment programmes (see CERT and CESP Section 9)

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/policy/100331energystatementen.pdf




• The roll out of smart meters, allowing householders to better manage their energy usage

• Supporting community energy projects via Ynni’r Fro

• Reforming the planning process requirements for renewable technologies in domestic applications

• Supporting the Feed in tariff and Renewable Heat Incentive schemes (see Section 9)

• Promote local energy generation

• Promote whole house integrated energy efficiency and energy generation

Title:

Fuel Poverty Strategy 2010

Author:


Published:

July 2010

Available:

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/publications/100723fuelpoverty strategyen.pdf

Aims:

To eradicate fuel poverty in Wales by 2018

Overview:

This strategy sets out how the Welsh Assembly Government work towards meeting this aim, despite fuel poverty in Wales increasing since 2004. Fuel poverty is recognised by WAG as being a key sustainable development indicator, as it is a social issue that affects those who are most in need. Reducing fuel poverty has economic benefits in terms of health, jobs and training, as well as reducing energy consumption.

Fuel poverty is defined as any home that spends more than 10% of its income (including housing benefit) on maintaining a satisfactory temperature of 23ºC in the living room and 18ºC in other rooms. Severe fuel poverty is defined at 20% of household income. WAG wish to focus efforts on households in severe fuel poverty. The Strategy also references a wide range of other WAG Strategy and Policy, including those listed above and The Strategy for Older People in Wales and the One Wales: One Planet strategy.

Key actions on fuel poverty as listed by this document are:

• To provide joined up support on fuel poverty

• To develop coordinated initiatives to tackle fuel poverty

• To provide a demand led all-Wales fuel poverty programme

• To ensure both demand led and area led funding streams support the most vulnerable households

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/publications/100723fuelpoverty




The demand led fuel poverty programme has since become the National Fuel Poverty Scheme (see Section 9.2 for more details)

Hollybush context:

From the surveys carried out for this study, it seems apparent that there are households in Hollybush that are likely to be in fuel poverty and/ or severe fuel poverty. It is likely that the fuel poverty argument will be a useful driver to lever funding through area based approaches (e.g. Arbed) and also through demand based approaches (e.g. Fuel Poverty Scheme).

Title:

Annual Energy Statement – Departmental Memorandum

Author:

Department of Energy and Climate Change

Published:

27 July 2010

Available:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/ aes/aes.aspx

Aims:

To summarise the energy policy of the Coalition Government and how the Government views its mission to support a transition to a low-carbon, affordable, secure and safe energy system in the UK.

Overview:

This document outlines how the Government will make decisions on the following topics:

• The Green Deal

• How to deliver secure energy for the UK

• How to manage our energy legacy

• How to drive change on climate change.

This high level document should be viewed alongside the DECC 2050 Pathways analysis.

Hollybush context:

Key actions points in relation to Hollybush are:

Action 1: The Government will develop the Green Deal which will allow householders to pay for energy efficiency measures through savings on energy bills. This is a market based mechanism that allows the private sector to work with local authorities and other organisation to delivery energy efficiency measures. A key point is that the finance package is linked to the property rather than the residents. The Green Deal is likely to be introduced in October 2012 and is currently going through the legislative process under the

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/




Energy Security and Green Economy Bill (first reading in the House of Commons on 15th March 2011). It is not clear how the Green Deal will function, how it will be implemented in Wales or what influence the Welsh Assembly Government will have over the implementation in Wales.

Action 2: The Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) will be extended to the end of 2010. (CERT is discussed more fully Section 9.7.)

Action 5: As part of the CERT extension, a “super-priority” group will be created to prioritise ‘the poorest, most vulnerable households’.

Action 14: A web-based resource – Community Energy Online – will be launched in autumn 2010 to support local authorities and communities who wish to develop local renewable energy sources.

Action 28: A new micro-generation strategy will be launched. This is currently out to consultation and available on the DECC website.

Discussion:

It is clear that many of the above action points taken from the Memorandum will have indirect effects on some of the short to medium term developments in Hollybush. Notwithstanding the Welsh policy and legislative context, many of the decisions made in Westminster, such as the Green Deal, have the potential to influence how CCBC react to the agendas for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in the Borough.

With regard to the CERT extension, the super-priority group may present opportunities for some residents in Hollybush.

The community energy online website has now been launched1.

NB: The Energy Share project takes a similar approach to supporting online community energy resources, but is led by community energy groups in partnership with the private sector rather than central government and also provides useful resources2.

Title:

2050 Pathways Analysis

Author:

Department of Energy and Climate Change

Published:

July 2010

Available:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/2050/ 2050.aspx

1 http://ceo.decc.gov.uk 2 www.energyshare.com

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/2050/

http://ceo.decc.gov.uk

http://www.energyshare.com




Aims:

To evaluate from a broad social, economic and technical perspective how the UK can meet its legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 against 1990 levels. Different pathways have been evaluated by examining the impact of different approaches of meeting this challenge.

Overview:

Each pathway looks at different levels of change from ‘no change’ to ‘extremely ambitious’ for different sectors of the economy. The report gives six illustrative pathways, varying from one pathway that includes equal effort across all sectors to ones that give more or less emphasis to sectors such as renewables, bioenergy, nuclear, carbon capture or energy efficiency.

Common themes include:

• “Ambitious per capita energy demand reduction is needed. The greater constraints on low carbon energy supply, the greater the reduction in demand will need to be”

• Significant electrification of heating, transport and industry

• Electricity supply will need to double and be decarbonised

• “A growing level of variable renewable energy generation increases the challenge of balancing the electricity grid”

An interactive 2050 Pathways tool is available that allows users to manipulate supply and demand factors for energy. This includes factors such as the levels of energy crops, nuclear power stations, solar panels, levels of widespread insulation3,4.

Hollybush context:

The 2050 Pathways Analysis shows that some small scale solutions such as heat pumps will make a crucial contribution to helping the UK meet the legal target of an 80% reduction in domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and that all can play some part in hitting the target of 15% renewable energy by 2020.

It is noted that small scale generation can bring benefits to individuals or communities and that it can be an important means of bringing about behaviour change in terms of energy usage. There are many examples of individuals who have very keenly managed their own energy usage following the installation of microgeneration technologies.

Discussion:

The 2050 Pathways report contains useful information about particular technologies and sectors of the economy that may be useful when considering the challenges for moving to a low carbon economy. In particular, the associated 2050 Pathways tools are a useful educational device to ‘bring to life’ some of these challenges.

3 http://my2050.decc.gov.uk 4 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/2050/calculator_on/calculator_on.aspx

http://my2050.decc.gov.uk

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/2050/calculator_on/calculator_on.aspx




3 Structure of the study

This study consists of two distinct parts:

• A technical assessment of the dwellings within the village, allowing the potential for renewable energy systems and efficiency improvement measures to be assessed

• Surveying of local residents to get an indication of their energy usage and their attitudes towards alternative energy sources

3.1 Approach to technical assessment

A range of building types have been modelled in order to present representative estimates of the level of savings that may be realised if householders within Hollybush were to consider a variety of measures to improve the efficiency of their homes. The majority of the modelling has been carried out using the Governments Standard Assessment Procedure software, 2009 version (SAP 2009). This allows the building types and the various measures to be compared in a standardised way, on the basis of energy use, cost and CO2 emissions. Additional software was used to model specific measures where necessary, including:

• Design Builder to estimate the typical non-regulated/ non-heating load in the dwellings

• PVSol to accurately forecast the performance of photovoltaic panels in the area

• RETScreen to model the output of various wind turbine options

The potential savings relative to a range of baseline house models are compared on the basis of percentage improvements. It is intended that even if the absolute energy performance of any individual dwelling was not exactly the same as the forecasts in this study, the relative percentage improvements would still be valid for the house type in question, thus making it as relevant as possible, both to individual home owners and the Council.

3.2 Survey approach and review

The consultation strategy combined a number of methods to engage with the community and collect the necessary data. These methods included door to door surveys, postal surveys, public consultation events and meetings with the Hollybush Resident’s Association and Upper Sirhowy Valley Communities First team. Overall this combination of methods was felt to have been a success in terms of the range of information that was gathered. Specific reflections on each of the methods are discussed below.

Door-to-door Surveys

The survey team received mixed reactions when surveying door-to-door. Some residents clearly appreciated the opportunity to talk to someone face to face about the project whilst others obviously preferred not to be disturbed. There were far less people at home during the daytime than had been expected, which led to far fewer surveys being collected by this means than initially anticipated. It was




difficult to continue surveying very long into the evenings due to the cold weather and the short window of time during which the team felt it was appropriate to disturb people.

Visits to the two local farms and the local boarding kennels/ cattery were made by arrangement. This was necessary to ensure that all house types in Hollybush were represented in the sample, as these premises were each somewhat unique compared to the bulk of the housing in the village. Although these were particularly time consuming, they revealed potential solutions that may have otherwise been missed; for instance one of the local farms has extensively researched options for renewable energy already (wind power, PV and heat pumps) and were open to the idea of having a combined approach with the local community in future.

19 surveys were collected by talking to people at their homes. This represents ~40% of the total number of surveys collected, so it was worth doing to increase the sample size. However, the survey was perhaps too long to be answered on the doorstep. Many residents kindly invited the surveyors into their homes to answer it. Whilst this allowed for a more in-depth conversation, it was ultimately more time consuming. Since it was felt to be most appropriate for surveyors to work in pairs, the total time spent doing door-to-door surveys was approximately 26 man hours.

Consultation Events

Two consultation events were held at the Community Hall – one in the early evening and one mid morning on different days. The evening event was attended by 24 people and was a good opportunity to answer questions and clarify some of the technical issues relating to our study. The feedback from the residents was generally very positive. The event opened at 5.00pm for a 5.15pm start, but in retrospect perhaps an even later start of 5.30pm or 6.00pm may have been better for people returning from work. 10 surveys were collected at the evening event, representing ~20% of the overall returns.

A morning drop-in session held to coincide with the local coffee morning at the Community Hall was less successful, as it was only attended by one or two people. This could be because many people that attend the coffee morning are not actually from Hollybush, but drive up from Markham and other villages. Many of the daytime door-to-door surveys had also been completed at this stage, so there was no need for people at home in the daytime to attend. Had there been a longer project time-span it would have been possible to give more notice of the events, which may have increased their attendance. It may also have been beneficial to hold one of the events in a different venue to appeal to different people in the village, e.g. the Rugby Club.

Postal surveys

It was seen to be very important to offer a postal survey option for people who could not attend events or take part in the door-to-door survey. However, it did leave the team uncertain of the number and timing of responses that might be expected. Surveys were sent out by post to all residents with a return envelope, arranged by Communities First and 19 were returned, representing ~40% of the overall returns.

Resident’s Association & Communities First

The Resident’s Association were very helpful in enabling us to access the Community Hall and in providing information on local resources. They also advised on the general feeling in the village and the key questions that we were likely to be asked, so that we could prepare appropriately for the consultation events. With a longer project time-span, the engagement with the Resident’s Association could have been enhanced in two ways. First, more information could have been provided in advance about the project




scope, aims and objectives so they knew what to expect from us. Second, they felt that with more notice of the dates of events they could have spread the word further and encouraged more people to attend.

The presence and assistance of the Communities First team was felt to be invaluable in collecting surveys and at the consultation event, as they had prior knowledge of the area and the community and were already known to residents. This brought an extra degree of credibility to the study and provided a ‘local face’ instead of just outside consultants for people to engage with.

3.2.1 Reflections on the survey approach The overall rate of return for the survey was 40%. There are several ways in which the survey approach could have been improved, some of which could unfortunately not be influenced during this project. It was anticipated that many residents would be out during the day, hence a higher postal return rate of survey questionnaires was expected from such people and/ or attendance at the evening community event. However, this proved not to be the case, which placed a higher reliance on door-to-door surveys. A large proportion of the village residents were not at home during the door-to-door visit times, even though an attempt was made to vary these as much as possible. If the surveys could have been carried out later in the year when the evenings are brighter it would probably have been more acceptable to continue surveying later into the evening.

Additionally, if more time was available to run the consultation period and hence more notice could be given to residents about the process and the events, there may have been a higher turn-out at the consultation events and a higher postal return response. While initially events were suggested at both the Community Hall and the local Rugby Club, Communities First suggested that the Community Hall would probably be a better venue and it could be tied together with events being held at the hall anyway. Feedback from residents later suggested the an event at the Rugby Club would have in fact been likely to attract a different audience. Also, it became apparent that many of the attendees at the regular activities in the Community Hall were in fact from the surrounding villages, not just Hollybush.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to truly determine whether the lower response rate that was ultimately achieved compared to what was anticipated is a consequence of the approach that was taken towards the surveying or a reflection of a degree of apathy towards the subject matter. Although it is acknowledged that there were some things that could have been done differently during the community engagement process and that the luxury of more time may have been a benefit, the range of ways in which the community were encouraged to take part was varied and plenty of opportunities were given to those that wished to be involved. Hence, it is suspected that the feedback rate reflects the level of interest in renewable energy in the village and that a notably higher feedback rate would therefore likely have been difficult to achieve under any circumstances.




4 Modelled energy demand of the building stock

The considerable majority of dwellings in the village of Hollybush are of traditional, pre 1920s solid wall construction in terraced arrangements (81 dwellings). A large portion of the remaining dwellings are of more recent (‘70s/’80s) cavity wall construction (20 dwellings). There are then several detached and semi-detached solid wall dwellings, including the outlying farm buildings (17 in total) and 3 more modern (post 2003) timber frame houses. In addition to this, it is anticipated that the site of the old school building will be redeveloped into flats/ apartments in the short term, which will add a small number of additional dwellings. Since these buildings will be of modern construction and will be required to comply with the latest Building Regulations, they will contribute a relatively small additional energy demand to the village and will obviously not offer scope for retrospective efficiency benefits as with the rest of the village. They are therefore not considered to a significant extent in this study.

While many individual houses display differences compared to their neighbours, for simplicity of reporting, the dwellings have been assigned into 5 categories for modelling purposes. Since the majority of the buildings in the village are of solid wall construction, these have been modelled in most detail; as 2 or 3 bedroom dwellings and either end- or mid-terrace. A single detached cavity wall dwelling has then been modelled to represent an average of the cavity wall buildings in the village. Timber frame dwellings would be expected to have similar performance to the Cavity wall baseline, since it is assumed that all cavity walls have been insulated. The assumed floor areas of these modelled buildings is given. If it is known that any individual building is larger or smaller, then the forecast energy savings or cost savings will be proportional to the variation in building footprint.

Modelling has been carried out using the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure, 2009 version (SAP 2009), as this contains the most up to date CO2 emission factors for fuels as quoted by UK Government and has been updated to take into account monthly climate patterns rather than seasonal, as was used in the 2005 version. However, costs assumed for energy have been amended for this study in order to more closely reflect likely current domestic fuel costs. The assumed costs are given in the following section. Table 1 shows the forecast baseline energy use, cost and CO2 emissions for each of the 5 reported dwelling types.

Additional modelling was also carried out using Design Builder software for comparative purposes to see if it would offer any additional modelling opportunities. Comparative modelling of these baseline house types showed good correlation with the SAP modelling when using climate data for an equivalent region to SAP (SAP assumes a central UK location, such as Manchester), although overall Design Builder forecasts slightly higher energy than SAP assumes. Design Builder was also used to approximate the likely un-regulated/ non-heating energy usage in the dwellings, as discussed later.




Table 1: Baseline modelled data for 5 typical house types within Hollybush

House type (a) Solid wall 2 bd End Terrace Floor area = 81m2 (b) Solid wall 2 bd Mid Terrace

Floor area = 81m2 Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year)

27267 27339 20850 30117 20759 19692 14669 22040

Estimated annual cost £1,457 £2,326 £1,581 £977 £1,129 £1,688 £1,128 £739

Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

7699 6926 10779 9246 5916 5053 7584 6815

CO2 (kg/m2/year) 95.05 85.51 133.07 114.15 73.03 62.38 93.63 84.14

House type (c) Solid wall 3 bd End Terrace Floor area = 95m2 (d) Solid wall 3 bd Mid Terrace


30914 31041 23686 34292 24853 24872 17894 26734

Estimated annual cost £1,650 £2,641 £1,797 £1,111 £1,344 £2,126 £1,372 £889


8724 7861 12246 10525 7063 6350 9252 8251

CO2 (kg/m2/year) 91.83 82.75 128.90 110.79 74.34 66.84 97.39 86.85

House type (e) Cavity/Timber wall 3 bd Detached Floor area = 180m2

Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year)

29740 28459 19716 31603

Estimated annual cost £1,620 £2,444 £1,532 £1,068


8483 7319 10193 9788

CO2 (kg/m2/year) 47.13 40.66 56.63 54.38




4.1 Assumptions

Heating systems

• Existing gas and oil boilers are assumed to be relatively old (installed ~ ‘80s/‘90s) with an efficiency of approximately 65%. More recently installed heating systems may be slightly more efficient. However, a modern A rated boiler system may be in excess of 90% efficient by comparison.

• The LPG prices assume bottled LPG is used, as many dwellings in Hollybush seem to rely on these. Where bulk LPG is provided via a storage tank the cost of energy bills is likely to be somewhat cheaper (approximately 30%) due to economies of scale when purchasing fuel. Many of the properties have very limited access to the rear of the properties so therefore bottled gas is the favoured option rather than the larger storage tanks and specialist access required for fuel deliveries. Street surveys also identified large numbers of bottled gas supplies and only one LPG tank.

• Coal heating is assumed to run from a closed room heater, such as a Rayburn, with a back boiler serving radiators and providing hot water. An individual open fire using coal (or other fuels) would not be assumed to heat more than one room, hence an alternative heating source would also inevitably be present, such as electric room heaters. In this instance, the Economy 7 scenario is likely to be a more appropriate reference

Fuel prices

The prices of fuel assumed during this study and the carbon emissions factors used are given in Table 2. Prices quoted are based on data from DECC Quarterly Energy Prices for December 2010. Electricity and mains gas prices are directly quoted for Cardiff at 13.85 p/kWh and 3.74 p/kWh respectively. Using the prices and usage assumptions quoted for Economy 7 electricity, it is approximated that peak and off peak tariffs are 16 p/kWh and 5.8 p/kWh respectively. Indices of relative price were given for other fuels, so the relative variation in cost between 2009 and 2010 data was applied to the default figures in SAP 2009 in order to approximate the uplift to 2010 (24.1% increase in oil and LPG, 0.7% decrease in coal). However, the uplift in LPG costs seemed to produce unrealistically high cost results compared to tenant feedback. The cost of LPG has therefore been left at the default SAP 2009 rates, as this produced energy costs more in line with those reported by householders. It should be noted that fuel prices have been very volatile recently, with all fuels experiencing relatively high price rises.

Table 2: Fuel prices and CO2 emission factors used in this study

Fuel Assumed price CO2 emissions factors Standard rate electricity 13.85 p/kWh 0.517 kg/kWh

Economy 7 electricity

Peak: 16 p/kWh Off peak: 5.8 p/kWh 0.517 kg/kWh

Oil 5.04 p/kWh (equivalent to ~59 p/litre) 0.274 kg/kWh

Bottled LPG 8.34 p/kWh (equivalent to ~62 p/litre) 0.245 kg/kWh

Coal 2.94 p/kWh (equivalent to ~£240/tonne) 0.301 kg/kWh

Insulation




Assumed insulation levels for the baseline house models are given in Table 3. All survey respondents indicated that their cavity walls were insulated, so this has been assumed for all cavity dwellings. While some households reported having high levels of loft insulation, many reported having relatively little. Hence an average has been assumed here at 150mm mineral wool equivalent loft insulation for all dwelling types. While the majority of survey respondents reported having double glazing, most stated that it had been installed prior to 2002. Hence an approximate U value for windows and doors has been assumed at 2.2 W/m2K. However, it is likely that many windows and doors may in fact be poorer performing than this, particularly if they are only single glazed.

Table 3: Thermal performance/ U values assumed for the baseline house types

Assumptions Solid wall Cavity wall

Wall U values 2.4 W/m2K Typical brick or stone walls

0.3 W/m2K Assumes insulated cavity wall

Roof U values 0.29 W/m2K

Assumes ~150mm mineral wool loft insulation

0.29 W/m2K Assumes ~150mm mineral wool

loft insulation

Floor U values 0.68 W/m2K Un-insulated solid floor

0.68 W/m2K Un-insulated solid floor

Window & Door U values

2.2 W/m2K Typical of pre 2006 double

glazing

2.2 W/m2K Typical of pre 2006 double

glazing

4.2 Discussion

Overall, the cheapest to most expensive fuel source in each case for the baseline properties is:

Coal < Oil < Economy 7 electric < Bottled LPG

However, in terms of CO2 emissions, the lowest to highest emission fuels are:

LPG < Oil < Coal < Electric

This sequence reflects the CO2 emission factors quoted in Table 2, but it is evident that CO2 emission levels do not bear any relationship to running costs. What is best for environment is not always best for the household.

The range of annual fuel bill costs provided by residents varied considerably, which inevitably reflects differences in lifestyle and occupancy patterns. Most residents that responded use LPG fuel, suggesting this is likely to be the primary mode of heating used across the village. Far fewer respondents use oil, Economy 7 storage heaters, or fewer still use coal. Annual fuel costs both higher and lower than the modelled estimates were reported for most house types (where sufficient data allowed comparison), suggesting that the modelled rates offer a reasonable approximation.

Even if householder bills are in fact somewhat higher or lower than indicated here, the percentage savings calculated throughout the study will still indicate the relative savings that could be made by householders. It should be remembered that variations in the assumed level of loft insulation, in the quality of the windows installed and the age of the heating system will all influence the overall real-life energy performance of a dwelling.




The energy use figures from Table 1 include energy for heating, hot water and lighting, but do not include additional electricity required for cooking and appliances in the home. Design Builder modelling forecasts an average energy use per household of approximately 3400 kWh per year. Therefore, it is appropriate that an additional cost uplift of approximately £476 should be added to the estimates in Table 1 per household.

Cavity wall dwellings have been modelled with a considerably larger floor area than the solid wall dwellings. This is an average based on the plan size of each dwelling in the village. They are also assumed to be detached, whereas the other dwellings are assumed to be terraced. This will contribute to a higher assumed energy use, as heat is lost through external walls and there is a higher ratio of external walls in a detached dwelling. Costs therefore seem similar to those for solid wall dwellings, but the emissions per m2 indicate a higher level of efficiency compared to solid wall dwellings.

Since it has been assumed that all cavity walls have been insulated, the performance of the timber frame dwellings, which are assumed to be insulated to the same degree, will be equivalent, with the exception of the timber ‘eco home’ at the North end of the village, which utilises a Ground Source Heat Pump for its primary heating demand. In this case, the emissions per m2 floor area are more likely to be in the region of ~15kg/m2/year. Running costs are reportedly around £1000 per year for the dwelling.

The main residential buildings at each of the nearby farms and kennels are understood to be of solid wall construction, hence the recommendations given in this report will be relevant to them, relative to the scale/ floor area of the buildings. Providing efficiency improvement recommendations for other buildings and structures at these sites is unfortunately beyond the scope of this study, although additional buildings and land may offer further scope for the installation of renewable systems, compared to other properties in the village. For example, additional buildings may offer a larger surface area for the installation of PV panels than the ‘average’ village house.




5 Potential improvement options & suitability for Hollybush

5.1 The Energy Hierarchy

There are various approaches to reducing the energy use and running cost of dwellings; essentially either by making efficiency improvements to the building fabric or through the installation of renewable or low carbon technologies. An energy hierarchy was conceived by the Local Government Association in 1998 and is advocated by the Carbon Trust5. It states that we should:

• Reduce the need for energy

• Use energy more efficiently

• Use renewable energy

• Any continuing use of fossil fuels should be clean and efficient

This is represented below:

Energy Hierarchy: - Reduce demand - Improve efficiency - Use a renewable supply - Clean use of fossil fuels

Reducing the need for energy, for example by improving insulation in a building, should always be the main consideration, as this will have the most significant impact overall, particularly on cost – you obviously do not pay for what you do not use. Also, more efficient use of energy, for instance by using a higher efficiency heating system, will result in a reduction in overall demand, thus further reducing costs and CO2 emissions.

Although renewable energy systems can reduce the carbon intensity of any energy supplied, performance improvements made to the fabric of a building and to the heating system will both reduce the overall energy demand and lead to a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions, hence providing a double benefit compared to renewable systems alone. So although renewable technologies can reduce emissions and potentially cut costs, this will be a wasted opportunity if the energy demand is not minimised before such measures are taken.

5 Carbon Trust, Technology Overview CTV010, ‘Renewable energy sources – opportunities for businesses’, November 2006

Pref

eren

ce




Energy efficiency measures are also often cheaper than renewable technologies and will outlast the anticipated lifespan of most renewable energy systems. The ideal scenario is therefore to maximise the efficiency improvements possible on a building to reduce energy demand, allowing a smaller and cheaper system to supply a higher proportion of the remaining demand (if not all of it) using renewable technologies.

This section is therefore structured with this in mind. In the first instance, fabric efficiency measures to reduce up front energy demand are discussed, then options for improving the efficiency of the heating system employed, then the potential use of renewable energy supplies to offset the demand for primary energy.

Each potential option is discussed along with its applicability to the village of Hollybush. In some cases, although a solution may not be suitable for Hollybush, it may prove to be suitable in other off-gas communities. In particular, the potential for Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHPs), Photovoltaics (PV) or Solar Hot Water (SHW) may be more favourable in other locations due to the availability of open land or the orientation of the dwellings respectively.

NB: Cost savings and CO2 savings are representative for the property types present in the village. Larger or smaller dwellings can expect proportionally higher or lower costs and/ or savings.

5.2 Measures to reduce energy demand

5.2.1 Wall insulation Since it is assumed that all cavity dwellings in Hollybush will already have been insulated, the main opportunity for wall insulation lies with the solid wall dwellings, which make up the majority of the village. However, if it is found that any cavity walls have not yet been insulated, this is a relatively cheap and effective means of reducing the energy demand of a dwelling, which should be prioritised.

External wall insulation

Insulation is applied to the external surface of walls and then protected with render or cladding. It is important that the walls beneath are structurally sound and in a good state of repair for the system to be effective. Cost will vary according to the cladding/ render system used - dry cladding systems tend to be more expensive than renders that are applied wet. Additional costs may arise depending on the required detailing and complexity of the dwelling, for instance, whether roofs will need to be extended to cover the additional insulation thickness. Care may also need to be given to the detailing around windows to ensure they can still be opened properly, around meter/ utility boxes where present and also to the addition of dedicated fixing points for television aerials and/ or satellite dishes. These could damage the external render system if not installed appropriately.

Unless a dwelling is already rendered, the application of external insulation will significantly alter the appearance of a property. Ideally adjoining properties would receive the same treatment so that property frontages would remain continuous and to prevent a negative impact on neighbouring un-insulated dwellings. Planning and listed building requirements may need to be considered if significantly altering the appearance of a property, or if the new footprint of the building will extend significantly onto a public highway, such as a pavement.

Although once installed the wall insulation is essentially maintenance-free, care should be given to ensure continual protection of the insulation by the external render or cladding. If this were to become damaged, it




may allow moisture to penetrate the insulation and reduce its effectiveness. It could also trap moisture against the walls and cause damp problems. It will therefore be necessary to carry out repairs to any damaged areas of render if the need arises.

Internal wall insulation

Insulation can either be applied in the form of insulated plasterboard products (often using rigid polymer-based insulation boards – commonly polystyrene, polyurethane or phenolic foam, though wood fibre boards are also available), or other types of insulation lined within a studwork frame. The latter is generally used for fibre-based types of insulation, where thicknesses in excess of 120mm are likely to be required to achieve best practice levels. Obviously, this will intrude into the useful floor area of the building and may therefore not be preferable in small dwellings, though high performance rigid products can often be installed at a reduced thickness for equivalent performance.

Internal insulation may also be preferred to external insulation if there is a wish to retain the original ‘look’ of the building. It is often the case that the front walls of dwellings display interesting features, such as decorative stone or brickwork, but the rear and/ or side walls of dwellings are simply rendered. In such instances, it is possible to internally insulate the front wall and externally insulate the remaining walls in order to minimise the loss of floor area within the dwelling.

The solid wall buildings have been modelled assuming an uplift in the wall U values from either external or internal wall insulation from 2.4 W/m2K to 0.3 W/m2K, in line with EST best practice recommendations for refurbishment6. While solid wall insulation is an expensive measure, it does bring about significant energy and carbon savings of up to 48% in end terrace dwellings. The cost of solid wall insulation may be funded under WAG’s Arbed funding scheme, or via the Government’s upcoming Green Deal scheme (discussed fully in Section 9).

While many households surveyed indicated that they would consider having solid wall insulation installed on their property, due to the high cost it seems unlikely that any would consider doing so unless some sort of grant scheme was on offer.

5.2.2 Loft insulation Since it is assumed that all loft spaces are already insulated to a moderate degree, the benefit of providing top up insulation is subsequently reduced. Also, to provide the highest levels of insulation, a thickness of around 300mm mineral wool insulation (or equivalent thickness of other insulation materials) would be required. This would typically be laid in two layers – one within the joists, then the second at right angles across the top of the joists. The potential for using loft space as additional storage would therefore be reduced, as placing floor boards down would squash the insulation and make the additional thickness ineffective. To retain storage space, the joists would need to be built up to accommodate the thicker insulation, which would be a more costly procedure.

In general, cost reductions of between only 1-2% may be realised by carrying out top-up loft insulation across the modelled building types. Although this is a relatively cheap measure at ~£100-200 per dwelling, it would probably still take between 2-5 years to payback the cost. Some utility companies may provide the insulation for free or at a very reduced cost, which would make it more worthwhile (see Section 9 on

6 EST, ‘CE83: Energy-efficient refurbishment of existing housing’, Energy Saving Trust, Revised November 2007




funding mechanisms). Since most households seem to have a reasonable amount of loft insulation present already, it seems unlikely that many would think it worthwhile to have additional insulation installed, unless the cost was being covered by the utility companies for instance.

Table 4: Modelled benefit of installing solid wall insulation to dwellings



16378 16234 10863 16820

14772 13949 9592 14946

Saving 40% 41% 48% 44% 29% 29% 35% 32% Estimated annual cost

£908 £1,400 £849 £586 £827 £1,210 £756 £531

Saving 38% 40% 46% 40% 27% 28% 33% 28% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

4716 4206 5616 5244

4276 3645 4959 4680

Saving 39% 39% 48% 43% 28% 28% 35% 31% CO2 kg/m2/year 58.22 51.92 69.33 64.74 52.79 45.01 61.22 57.77 Cost of measure £9,000 £5,300 Payback (years) 16.4 9.7 12.3 23.0 17.6 11.1 14.2 25.4



18255 18142 12219 18852

16672 16521 10984 17009

Saving 41% 42% 48% 45% 33% 34% 39% 36% Estimated annual cost

£1,012 £1,565 £956 £657

£932 £1,430 £866 £603


5255 4701 6317 5878

4821 4304 5679 5323


5.2.3 High performance double glazed windows Although the thermal performance of windows has improved significantly over the years – from single glazing to advanced double glazing – they generally do not offer significant energy savings to the home, relative to their price. Typically, they will only bring about savings, compared to existing, older, double glazed windows, of 2-3%. At a cost of ~£2500-3000 per dwelling, they will generally not pay back within an acceptable lifespan (well in excess of 25 years).




Often, the biggest energy impact from windows is not due to the performance of the window itself, but due to the quality of installation, i.e. how well the windows have been sealed into the surrounding openings. Often, draughts from windows will originate from around the actual window frame, rather than from any casement openings or from around the glass. This will offer pathways for heat to transfer out of the building. By reducing draughts around windows, the overall air-tightness of the building will be improved, which will bring about further energy savings, though probably still not to the extent that would allow windows – a relatively expensive measure – to pay back within a more reasonable time frame. Ensuring windows are adequately draught stripped – a relatively cheap measure by comparison – would be more economical.

New windows are generally installed for other reasons, such as for improved building aesthetics, to reduce the perception of draughts and/ or to reduce noise transmission from outside the house. It is therefore deemed unlikely that householders would consider installing new windows as a means of saving energy, unless their windows were due for replacement anyway for other reasons. It should be noted that new, well installed windows or improved draught stripping will reduce draughts but consequently will eliminate natural pathways through which moisture is removed from dwellings. Consideration should therefore be given to the level of ventilation in buildings, in particular in kitchens and bathroom areas, where a lot of moisture is released into the building from cooking and bathing respectively. The installation of mechanical extraction fans, if not already present, would be recommended to prevent damp building up within the house, to remove the need to open windows to vent moisture during periods of cold weather.

5.2.4 Summary of measures to reduce energy demand • It is assumed that all cavity walls are insulated, leaving limited potential for the thermal

improvement of cavity dwellings

• Applying solid wall insulation can bring about cost savings in the region of 21-47%. Funding may be available via WAG Arbed grants and the Green Deal initiative.

• Top-up loft insulation only brings about cost savings of ~1-2%

• Modern double glazing only brings about cost savings of ~2-3%

5.3 Use energy more efficiently

The impact of the following measures will vary considerably depending on the level of insulation that is already present within the dwelling. The relationship between the heating energy required and the level of insulation in a building is such that the benefits of improving each separately are not additive. Modelling every permutation of heating system and insulation level is beyond the scope of the study. However, a single example is run in section 5.3.2 for illustrative purposes.

5.3.1 Upgrade existing boilers (LPG and oil) As discussed in section 4.1, it is anticipated that existing boilers within the dwellings are likely to be relatively old and hence not as efficient as modern boilers. There is therefore potential to bring about reductions in energy use and hence savings in fuel costs through installing new A rated (90+% efficient) boiler systems. These cost/ payback scenarios assume that it is possible to retrospectively fit a new boiler to the existing distribution system in the house and fit new thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs). However, if a new distribution/ radiator system is required (for example if the old pipe work cannot support a higher pressure within the system), costs will inevitably increase, dependent on the number of radiators and extent of new pipe work needed (~£1300-1500). This would extend the payback periods quoted.




Table 5: Modelled benefit of upgrading oil and LPG boilers in dwellings

House type (a) Solid wall 2 bd

End Terrace Floor area = 81m2

(b) Solid wall 2 bd

Mid Terrace Floor area = 81m2

Primary fuel type Oil LPG Oil LPG Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 18807 18527

13748 13673

Saving 31% 32% 34% 31% Estimated annual cost £1,037 £1,596 £782 £1,191

Saving 29% 31% 31% 29% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

5398 4790

4012 3601

Saving 30% 31% 32% 29% CO2 kg/m2/year 66.64 59.14 49.53 44.46 Cost of measure £3,800 £2,300 £3,800 £2,300 Payback (years) 9.0 5.2 10.9 4.6

House type (c) Solid wall 3 bd


(d) Solid wall 3 bd


Primary fuel type Oil LPG Oil LPG Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 21155 21079

16808 16558

Saving 32% 32% 32% 33% Estimated annual cost £1,164 £1,815

£945 £1,437


6066 5443

4875 4336

Saving 30% 31% 31% 32% CO2 kg/m2/year 63.86 57.3 51.32 45.64 Cost of measure £3,800 £2,300 £3,800 £2,300 Payback (years) 7.8 2.8 9.5 3.3

House type (e) Cavity/Timber wall

3 bd Detached Floor area = 180m2

Primary fuel type Oil LPG Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 20334 20264

Saving 32% 29% Estimated annual cost £1,152 £1,765

Saving 29% 28% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

5923 5335

Saving 30% 27% CO2 kg/m2/year 32.9 29.64 Cost of measure £3,800 £2,300 Payback (years) 8.1 3.4




In particular, the payback periods for LPG appear very reasonable, ranging between 2.8 and 5.2 years across the modelled house types. Significant savings are forecast for upgrading heating systems, typically around a third for both carbon and cost. It should be noted that the savings are not as high as those from solid wall insulation, but the payback periods are somewhat shorter by comparison due to the capital cost of the measures. It still seems likely that householders may be reluctant to pay towards a new heating system unless it pays back within a short time period, e.g. less than 5 years. However, this should be ample motivation for households who were considering upgrading their boiler systems anyway.

Under certain circumstances, contributions towards boiler upgrades may be made under CESP funding. See section 9.9 for further information.

5.3.2 Combined benefit of insulation measures and new heating system For comparative purposes, the scenario in Table 5c has been re-modelled assuming the solid walls of the 3 bedroom, end terraced property has received external wall insulation as detailed in Table 4c as well as the boiler upgrade. The overall savings are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Combined benefit of solid wall insulation plus upgraded oil or LPG boilers

House type Solid wall 3 bd End Terrace Floor area = 95m2

Primary fuel type Oil + EWI LPG + EWI Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 11866 11785

Saving 62% 62% Estimated annual cost £696 £1,039

Saving 58% 61% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

3521 3166

Saving 60% 60% CO2 kg/m2/year 37.07 33.33 Cost of measure £14,200 £12,700 Payback (years) 14.9 7.9

It can be seen that the overall benefit achieved is not the sum of each of the individual improvement measures. This is because once the building has been insulated, the heating system does not need to work so hard to reach the desired temperatures, hence the heating system saves less energy compared to a more inefficient, un-insulated dwelling. Similarly, if the boiler system is improved, the overall energy demand is reduced. Hence there is less wasted energy to be saved by insulating the walls. The behaviour of the two measures is intrinsically linked and, in an ideal scenario, both would be carried out to achieve the greatest benefit.

5.3.3 Heat pumps Heat pumps are able to extract low temperature sources of heat for use as heating or hot water in buildings, i.e. from underground, from air or from water. They require electricity to operate a pump, which drives a water/ antifreeze mix throughout the system and a compressor, to condense the refrigerant and so raise its




useful temperature (like a refrigerator in reverse). Heat pumps provide more energy than they utilise (by 2- 4 times7, therefore reducing the emissions associated with the overall electricity delivered.

Heat from a heat pump is often delivered through a building using under floor pipes (for under floor heating), although it can be used to pre-heat a hot water supply. Since heat pumps operate most efficiently when low temperature heat output is required, such systems are most suited to applications in highly insulated dwellings using under floor or post air heating systems. Heat pumps do not usually require planning permission. However, the placement of air source heat pumps on flats typically do.

Air source heat pumps (ASHPs)

In the case of a typical air-to-air or air-to-water system, external air at ambient temperature is passed over a finned heat exchanger, extracting heat into the heat pump for use in heating and for hot water (it is possible to extract heat from air at temperatures as low as -15°C). No ground works are required for air source systems, so they can be used in areas where land space is restricted. Typically a system between ~8.5 kW to 14kW will be required depending on the size of the dwelling and the size of individual rooms within the dwelling. A fan unit will need to be placed within close proximity to the building, similar to that shown in Figure 1. Additional equipment, including a water tank, will also need to be accommodated within the dwelling, typically within an airing cupboard, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1: (a) 8.5kW external ASHP fan unit (left) and (b) 14kW external ASHP fan unit (right)

7 EST, ‘CE102 – New and renewable energy technologies existing housing’, Energy Saving Trust, September 2005




Figure 2: Associated ASHP equipment installed within a property, plus programmer unit (right)

Additional benefits compared to other fuels used in the village include:

• The heat pump can serve a fully controllable central heating system, which can be adjusted readily as required, unlike Economy 7 storage heaters, which will discharge their stored heat with relatively little degree of control.

• Since heat pumps run off electricity, there is no need for fuels to be delivered or stored. Hence, there is no risk of ‘running out’ of fuel in bad weather and no space is required for fuel storage tanks.

• There is less susceptibility to price fluctuations compared to delivered fuels such as oil and LPG, the price of which can be very volatile and can change from delivery to delivery. While electricity prices can still rise, changes tend to happen less frequently and it is easier to budget for the fuel costs through standard monthly or quarterly payments for instance.

It can be seen that considerable savings in kWh of energy use can be achieved by switching from each of the fuel types to an ASHP. Similarly, significant CO2 emissions reductions can be realised, ranging from a respectable 27% in the case of LPG to 55% compared to Economy 7 electric heating. However, despite this, because the costs of electricity per kWh is still relatively expensive, equivalent savings are unfortunately not experienced in running costs. In the case of a switch from coal, which is the cheapest of the fuel options considered, to an ASHP the running costs of each dwelling are actually forecast to increase.

It was anticipated that the cost of ASHPs would be subsidised by the introduction of the Government’s Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) this year. However unfortunately, according to the latest press releases from DECC8, ASHPs have been excluded from the short term arrangements for the RHI at this time. It therefore seems unlikely that home owners would consider switching to an ASHP in the short term unless they were intending to change their heating system anyway. Several households indicated that they may be interested in such systems (discussed in Section 6). 8 DECC, ‘Renewable Heat Incentive’, March 2011. Available at: www.decc.gov.uk/rhi

http://www.decc.gov.uk/rhi




Table 7: Modelled benefit of dwellings switching to ASHPs

House type (a) Solid wall 2 bd


(b) Solid wall 2 bd


Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 9316

6998

Saving 66% 66% 55% 69% 66% 64% 52% 68% Estimated annual cost £1,290 £969

Saving 11% 45% 18% -32% 14% 43% 14% -31% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

4817

3618

Saving 37% 30% 55% 48% 39% 28% 52% 47% CO2 kg/m2/year 59.46 44.66 Cost of measure £6,500 £6,500 Payback (years) 39.0 6.3 22.4 N/A 40.7 9.0 40.9 N/A

House type (c) Solid wall 3 bd


(d) Solid wall 3 bd


Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 10590

8429

Saving 66% 66% 55% 69% 66% 66% 53% 68% Estimated annual cost £1,467

£1,167

Saving 11% 44% 18% -32% 13% 45% 15% -31% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

5475

4358

Saving 37% 30% 55% 48% 38% 31% 53% 47% CO2 kg/m2/year 57.63 45.87 Cost of measure £7,500 £7,500 Payback (years) 41.0 6.4 22.7 N/A 42.4 7.8 36.6 N/A

House type (e) Cavity/Timber wall 3 bd

Detached Floor area = 180m2

Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 10360

Saving 65% 64% 47% 67% Estimated annual cost £1,435

Saving 11% 41% 6% -34% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

5356

Saving 37% 27% 47% 45% CO2 kg/m2/year 29.76 Cost of measure £7,500 Payback (years) 40.5 7.4 77.6 N/A




NB: For this modelling, it has been assumed that households would be on a standard rate electricity tariff. However, if dwellings were to switch from Economy 7 heating to an ASHP they may be inclined to retain their dual tariff electricity meters. Depending on the patterns of heating in the house (i.e. whether or not the heating is likely to be on during the 7 hour reduced tariff period overnight), this may work out cheaper overall than indicated here. However, if usage is primarily during the peak rate hours the cost may be higher.

Electricity generated from PV could offset some of the demand to run an ASHP. However, it is anticipated that this would only really be practical in dwellings with a very low energy demand and with sufficient roof space to install a larger PV system than that discussed later in Section 5.4.1, which would only offset between a third and half of the non-heating energy demand (i.e. for cooking and appliances), let alone any of the heating demand.

Discussions with ASHP installers has indicated that the systems should require virtually no maintenance. Hence, after the initial installation, there should be no additional costs incurred by households to maintain the system.

Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs)

Underground temperatures remain fairly constant, at between 10-14°C. GSHPs therefore generally have a higher coefficient of performance (CoP – the factor by which more energy is generated than is used to power the heat pump) than air source heat pumps, whose CoP tends to be lower and vary according to the temperature of the outside air. To tap the underground heat, pipes are either laid horizontally ~1.5m below ground level in trenches, or looped in vertical boreholes 15-150m deep. Vertical loop systems tend to be more expensive to install than horizontal systems due to the higher cost of drilling a borehole compared to digging a trench9,10.

Coils will need to be placed in dug trenches or boreholes. Additional equipment, including a water tank, will also need to be accommodated within the dwelling, typically within an airing cupboard, as shown in Figure 3. The necessary equipment for GSHPs can be quite space consuming and will require a relatively large area. Since the majority of dwellings in Hollybush are relatively small terraces, it is assumed that it will not be practical to install GSHPs; there will be insufficient land to lay coils and inevitably insufficient space within the dwelling for the remaining kit.

To demonstrate the performance compared to ASHPs and other heating systems, GSHPs have been modelled on a cavity wall dwelling as these dwellings are larger and tend to have more garden space (Table 8). However, realistically they are still unlikely to be suitable anywhere in the village other than at the nearby farms, where sufficient land and space internally may be more readily available. This is modelled and discussed further in Section 5.5. The cost savings are more substantial compared to ASHPs, however the cost of the systems themselves are considerably more expensive due to the required ground works.

9 EST, ‘CE102 – New and renewable energy technologies existing housing’, Energy Saving Trust, September 2005 10 EST, ‘Ground source heat pumps’, information provided on the Energy Saving Trust website: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/generate_your_own_energy/types_of_renewables/ground_source_ heat_pumps

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/generate_your_own_energy/types_of_renewables/ground_source_




Figure 3: Pipes laid within trenches externally (left) & typical GSHP equipment installed internally (right)

Table 8: Modelled benefit of switching to GSHPs in cavity dwellings

House type Cavity/Timber wall 3 bd



Saving 72% 71% 57% 73% Estimated annual cost £1,161

Saving 28% 52% 24% -9% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

4333

Saving 49% 41% 57% 56% CO2 kg/m2/year 24.07 Cost of measure £15,000 Payback (years) 32.7 11.7 40.5 N/A




As with ASHPs, the kWh energy savings and CO2 emission savings are significant. While the cost savings are again unfortunately less impressive, they are higher than with ASHPs, although it would still be more expensive than a coal system. Payback periods are still long because the up-front system costs are higher for GSHPs and ASHPs. However, GSHPs should be eligible for funding via the Renewable Heat Incentive as long as they have a coefficient of performance of 2.9 or above (further info in Section 9.4).

Virtually no maintenance of the system is required once it has been installed. As with ASHPs, electricity generated from PV could offset some of the demand to run the GSHP. However, it is anticipated that this would only really be practical in dwellings with a very low energy demand and with sufficient roof space to install a larger PV system than that discussed later in Section 5.4.1, which would only offset between a third and half of the non-heating energy demand (i.e. for cooking and appliances), let alone any of the heating demand.

5.3.4 Biomass Biomass fuels are those derived from forestry products or crops and used to provide energy, typically through burning. Since the biomass absorbs carbon dioxide when it is growing, when it is released during energy production it is considered carbon neutral. Some biomass sources are specially farmed, such as willow, as they grow rapidly and can be harvested relatively quickly.

Biofuels are typically available in chips, logs or processed into pellets, which are denser and therefore provide more energy than an equivalent amount of chips. The bulky nature of chips means that often the availability of sufficient storage space can be an issue. Also, quality control is particularly important to ensure that the fuels are dried sufficiently, as higher water contents will prevent wood from burning at its maximum efficiency (see Figure 4). These storage and management issues mean that biomass lends itself well to communal heating systems, where the system is centrally managed. However, wood burning stoves utilising pellets or logs are available for individual dwellings that can also provide hot water via a thermal store or accumulator tank.

The concept of carbon neutrality for biomass fuels is somewhat dependent on it being derived from sustainable local sources. Once the impact of transportation is taken into consideration, the carbon balance of such fuels skews away from being carbon neutral with increasing travel distances. Therefore to be truly neutral, the use of biomass should mainly be encouraged in areas with a good local supply.

Despite the surrounding woodland areas of Hollybush, the majority is not managed in such a way as to support moderate scale biomass uptake due to issues regarding access. Discussions with the local farm owners suggest that the conditions are not ideal on their land for the growth of energy crops, hence they would not be able to turn to biomass production. It seems likely, at least in the short term, that if local householders were to switch to biomass boilers they would need to source fuel from beyond the village. The cost of biomass fuels is generally linked to price fluctuations in other fuels, since ultimately prices will be demand and market led. As more people switch to biomass, there will be more demand for supplies and prices will inevitably increase.

Additional issues relating to the use of biomass include:

• Dry space will be required to store the fuel. Since it is quite a bulky fuel source, a relatively large storage area would be required to reduce the necessary frequency of deliveries. If houses already have coal stores, these could be used for the storage of biomass fuel.




Figure 4: Change in net calorific value of wood chip with moisture content11

• Depending on the feed mechanism for the boiler, the householder is likely to have to manually fill a feed hopper on a relatively frequent basis. For some residents, this will be an unwelcome task, particularly since many older residents have switched from using coal to other fuel sources because physically having to move coal and stoke fires etc. was becoming too onerous for them. For those still currently using coal, it is likely to be an equivalent burden.

• Solid fuel boilers inevitably require relatively frequent maintenance in order to prevent build-up of soot etc. and to allow the system to continue to run at its most efficient. It is therefore a relatively high maintenance option compared to other fuels. Householders will likely carry out a large degree of the maintenance and cleaning themselves, so despite the maintenance issues it may not actually be a costly process, just a burden of time.

• While the biomass boiler will provide hot water during the winter, it is likely that an additional electric immersion heater for water will be used in the summer so the boiler would not need to be fired up. This would be likely to cause discomfort to occupants from over-heating if the boiler was required to run just for the sake of the hot water. Use in combination with solar hot water heating may help to offset the use of the immersion heater by pre-heating water over summer months. Solar hot water is discussed further in Section 5.4.1.

• Planning permission is not normally needed – the addition of an outside flue would normally be considered a permitted development. However, building regulations apply; factors such as ventilation and noise will need to be taken into consideration, along with aspects of the work such as electrical installation and plumbing.

The cost of wood pellets may vary considerably depending on local supply and demand. Although some Hollybush residents have said that they already use wood fuel, typically this is in a multi-fuel stove rather than to feed a full central heating system. Many residents say that they use wood that they gather for free from their own land. The price per kWh of wood pellets assumed in SAP 2009 is 4.93p/kWh. (No uplift factor has been applied to this figure as DECC does not provide a reference for wood fuel.) This is 11 Tolfts. A, ‘Biomass fuel Assessment for the Z – squared Biomass CHP Plant’, BioRegional Development

Group, p4, 2006




approximately £260 per tonne. A typical 15kW wood pellet boiler, suitable for a 3 bedroom house, will cost approximately £5000. Analysis based on these assumptions is given in Table 9. A closed room heater with boiler that serves radiators and delivers hot water would need to be installed. The cost of the distribution system, if not back-compatible with the existing household distribution system, will inevitably be extra compared to the costs assumed here, which will influence the payback periods.

Table 9: Modelled benefit of dwellings switching to biomass fuelled heating systems


Floor area = 81m2 Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 26846

19353

Saving 2% 2% -29% 11% 7% 2% -32% 12% Estimated annual cost £1,460 £1,090

Saving 0% 37% 8% -49% 3% 35% 3% -47%


1499

1289

Saving 81% 78% 86% 84% 78% 74% 83% 81% CO2 kg/m2/year 18.5 15.91 Cost of measure £5,000 £5,000 Payback (years) N/A 5.8 41.2 N/A 129.9 8.4 133.0 N/A


Floor area = 95m2 Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 30524

23520

Saving 1% 2% -29% 11% 5% 5% -31% 12% Estimated annual cost £1,652

£1,307

Saving 0% 37% 8% -49% 3% 39% 5% -47%


1663

1467

Saving 81% 79% 86% 84% 79% 77% 84% 82% CO2 kg/m2/year 17.51 15.44 Cost of measure £5,000 £5,000 Payback (years) N/A 5.1 34.6 N/A 134.1 6.1 76.6 N/A




House type (e) Cavity/Timber wall 3 bd



Saving 5% 1% -43% 11% Estimated annual cost £1,567

Saving 3% 36% -2% -47% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

1737

Saving 80% 76% 83% 82% CO2 kg/m2/year 9.65 Cost of measure £5,000 Payback (years) 93.7 5.7 N/A N/A

Relatively little energy in terms of kWh’s consumed is saved by switching from most fuels to biomass. The boiler efficiency assumed by this modelling is approximately 63%. If more efficient, modern boilers are able to achieve higher efficiencies then the costs and payback periods would be reduced. In the case of Economy 7 electricity, the switch to biomass would actually consume more energy. However, the carbon emissions associated with burning biomass fuel are far lower than any of the other fuel types, bringing about savings in the region of 80%. Biomass therefore offers the most significant carbon emission savings compared to all other measures considered in this study. However, the costs are not particularly favourable compared to all but LPG fuel, although payback periods are still in the region of 5.1 to 8 years for LPG.

The Renewable Heat Incentive, when it comes into place in due course, is anticipated to support biomass boilers, which will drastically alter the financial argument towards biomass fuels as a means of reducing carbon emissions. The RHI is discussed in more detail in Section 9.4. However, without this incentive it seems unlikely that many householders would consider switching to biomass boilers unless they know they will be able to locate a cheap source of fuel (from their own land perhaps) or are considering upgrading their heating system anyway and do not mind having to arrange relatively frequent fuel deliveries.

5.3.5 District heating District heating provides heat in the form of hot water or steam from a central source to a number of buildings or dwellings through a network of insulated underground pipes. The production of heat from a central generating source could cater for multiple thermal loads more efficiently than a large number of small, de-centralised, (less efficient) installations. District heating is best suited to mixed use, dense urban communities, bordering commercial/public properties which can provide:

• A heat load

• Confidence in the district heating system (which is demonstrated locally)

• Often space to house energy plant

The greatest component of the up-front capital cost for district heat systems is the pipe network. The higher the density, the lower the capital cost per unit of heat demand. Thus ‘anchor’ loads are required in order to




provide more favourable returns. (High pipe costs relative to the volume of heat affect the project economics.)

Traditional central heating systems mean that boilers for individual premises must be sized for the coldest day in winter. However, with district heating sytems, heat demand is aggregated. Customers behave differently and thus the chance of their demand peaks coinciding is reduced. With a mix of domestic and commercial users the demand is spread more evenly, leading to better plant performance and thus total plant size is reduced and financial viability is improved.

Given the predominately lower density housing (and lack of any significant anchor loads) in the Hollybush area, the economic feasibility of a district heating system is low. Assuming an acceptable heat source is found (e.g. biomass) then connection costs for low density housing can generally be reduced in two key ways:

1. Routing the pipe work through roof spaces using only one network branch and one substation

Utilisation of common space in terraced housing could lower connection costs and reduce heat losses. Only one network branch and one substation would be needed for a group of houses. In Finland, the end house of a row of terraced houses was used to house the substation. Then use was made of the roof spaces in the terraced houses to install the heat distribution pipe work rather than for the heat main to be buried in the road with individual branches to each house. However in the UK there could be technical, legal and institutional limitations to such an approach. Significant regard would have to be given to the regulations for routing pipe work through one property to supply another. There are examples in the social housing sector where this has successfully been applied. However, routing through private households could be highly problematic. It could be quite complex logistically in order to allow for access for maintenance and to prevent one person being able to cut-off the supply to a neighbour, there would have to be legal covenants or wayleaves put in place.

2. Routing pipe work through front gardens – supplying houses on a row from a single connection to the road main

A second option could be to supply more than one house from a single connection laid through people’s gardens. Heat pipes would enter one front garden and then pass through the adjacent properties close to the house. This could be feasible for semi-detached or terraced properties. It would allow for reduced costs and also lower heat losses as there is only one branch connection.

The two options described here could lower costs for connection of low density housing to district heat networks, however there is much work to be done in this area. Although some existing services such as common drainage and electrical connections are installed in this way, covenants are provided in the property deeds to allow for access rights. These difficulties suggest that a communal heating system for a number of houses in Hollybush is likely to be impractical.

5.3.6 Summary of energy efficiency measures • Upgrade to new 90+% efficient LPG or oil boilers may bring about cost savings of between 29-32%

• The combined cost savings of new boilers with external wall insulation for solid wall dwellings are between 58-61%

• Air source heat pumps (ASHPs) offer CO2 emissions savings of between 37-55% for fuels other than gas (lower for gas)




• Cost savings from a switch to ASHPs is much more variable depending on the fuel type being switched from and the dwelling type, ranging from 11-45%, the most beneficial cost switch being from LPG

• Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) offer higher savings than ASHPs but are likely to have limited applicability in Hollybush due to space constraints in and around dwellings. GSHPs will be eligible for RHI when launched, which will influence payback periods

• Biomass heating systems offer the largest environmental benefit of any individual measure, with CO2 savings of between 74-86%

• Biomass offers limited cost benefit compared to most fuels, apart from LPG where it can generate cost savings in the region of 37%. Biomass boilers will be eligible for RHI when launched, which will influence payback periods

• District heating is not deemed appropriate for the village due to the disproportionately high costs that would be experienced for the installation of the distribution network. No anchor loads present to champion such a system

5.4 Renewable energy options

5.4.1 Solar systems Solar thermal and photovoltaic (PV) panels both harness energy from the sun. However, solar thermal systems use this to directly provide heat or hot water, while PV panels convert the sun’s energy to electricity. Hence, they can potentially meet very different types of energy requirement within a building. The efficiency of both are optimised by their orientation and inclination angle towards the sun. Figure 5 shows that most systems will operate within 90% of full capacity if orientated within 45 degrees of South. Figure 6 shows the general orientation of the houses within the village.

Figure 5: Relative proportion of solar energy collected depending on orientation and inclination12

12 http://www.solsticeenergy.co.uk/common/img/roof_chart_500.gif

http://www.solsticeenergy.co.uk/common/img/roof_chart_500.gif




Figure 6: Aerial view of the village of Hollybush showing the predominant roof orientations

The majority of houses in Hollybush are not orientated due south. Roof orientations instead lie generally within the range from 45° due south (i.e. S-E & S-W) to 90° due south (i.e. E-W). The maximum potential for solar PV/ thermal is likely to be on the farm houses. Their roof orientation is optimum for maximum performance of solar panels (See Figure 7). They also have potentially more space to install a larger system array. However over-shading from surrounding trees could be an issue affecting performance. This would need to be managed (i.e. trees kept cut short) over the life of the system.

EAST WEST

NORTH

SOUTH

E-S-E

EAST-WEST

SOUTH EAST

Roof orientations in Glenview, Lwynbach terrace and Banalog terrace

Roof orientations in Railway terrace

EAST WEST

NORTH

W-S-W

W-S-W

S-W S-S-W

N

W-S-W W

S

E

S-S-E S-E

E-S-E




Figure 7: Aerial view of the nearby farms, showing predominant roof orientations and shading risks

Roof and wall mounted solar installations for dwellings are generally considered to be permitted developments under planning law with no need to apply for planning permission. Conditions that need to be met, include:

• Panels should be sited to minimise the effect on the appearance of the building as far as practicable

• Panels should not be installed above the ridgeline of a roof and should project no more than 200mm from the roof or wall surface

Planning permission is however likely to be required if the building is listed or in a conservation area. While this should not be of relevance to Hollybush, it should be noted when considering other off gas areas.

Solar PV (electric)

PV units use solid-state semi-conductor cells to generate electricity. Various types of silicon or silicon-based cells are available, including monocrystalline, which are most efficient, polycrystalline, which are less efficient and various amorphous cells, which are the least efficient but the least expensive. Modern hybrid systems are now available that combine both crystalline and amorphous cells in order to optimise overall panel performance across a range of conditions (amorphous cells can perform relatively better in poorer conditions). Less efficient systems will require a proportionally larger area of cells to achieve equivalent output to a more efficient system, so although they may be cheaper, savings will be displaced by the need for more units. However, the key factor influencing payback periods for PV is the cost of the panel relative to the energy it can produce. Less efficient panels can be more economically viable if they are sufficiently cheap.

Power outputs from an array are highly dependent on its orientation and tilt and will be very sensitive to any amount of shading – much more so than solar thermal panels. A typical PV panel has been modelled at

NORTH

SOUTH

SOUTH SOUTH-WEST

S-S-E Overshadowing objects

PEN

PEN-YR-HEOL-FAWR FARM

PEN-RHIW-GWAITH FARM




various orientations to demonstrate the differences in payback that would be experienced. Sharp NU235 E1 panels are 14.3% efficient, which is fairly typical of mid-range monocrystalline PV panels. An array of 10 panels will provide 1.88 kW output and will occupy a roof area of approximately 13.1m2. It is assumed that this would fit on any of the roofs within Hollybush, while some dwellings may have space for a larger array. This has been modelled with an SMA Sunnyboy SB2100TL inverter. Table 10 reports the overall energy produced per year and how the system efficiency (i.e. combined efficiency of the PV panel and inverter) varies with changes in orientation. The typical profile for generation over the course of a year is given in Figure 8, which shows, unsurprisingly, that the highest levels of energy generation will be during the summer and the lowest during the winter.

Table 10: Variation in PV system output with orientation

Orientation/ Degrees

Annual energy from

system (kWh/y)

Annual CO2 emission

savings (kg)

System efficiency

%

Specific energy

(kWh/kWp)

% efficiency compared to South facing

panel S 0 1613.5 834.2 10.6 853.7

SSW 22.5 1598.3 826.3 10.6 845.6 99.1 SSE -22.5 1579.4 816.5 10.6 835.5 97.9 SW 45 1532.5 792.3 10.5 810.6 95.0 SE -45 1500.4 775.7 10.6 793.5 93.0

WSW 67.5 1425.5 737.0 10.4 753.7 88.3 ESE -67.5 1386.6 716.9 10.4 733.0 85.9 W 90 1287.2 665.5 10.2 680.1 79.8 E -90 1254.6 648.6 10.2 662.8 77.8

Figure 8: Monthly solar irradiation available at Hollybush

The maximum annual energy produced from the example panel is 1613.5 kWh/y from a South facing roof, dropping to 1254.6 kWh/y for an East facing roof. As discussed earlier, the average unregulated energy demand for a dwelling (i.e. from cooking and appliances) is approximately 3000-3400 kWh/y, suggesting that the PV panel could supply approximately a third to half of the non-heating energy in a home.




It should be noted that typically the performance of PV panels degrades over time. Manufacturers will guarantee that their panels will not drop below a certain efficiency. The limit is usually to retain approximately 80% of total efficiency within the anticipated lifespan of the system – 25 years. It is also common for inverters to require replacement at least once within this 25 year lifespan.

Any PV systems installed in the short term will be eligible for the Feed in tariff. This is discussed further in Section 9.3. This assumes that local generators will be paid a set generation tariff for the life of the system and will also receive an additional payment for any electricity that is fed back to the grid. Table 11 assumes that:

• Annual solar irradiation for the Hollybush area (based on Rhymney climate data) of 990 kWh/m2a

• The above system would cost approximately £6000

• A replacement inverter would cost an additional £1000 at some mid-point during the life of the system

• £35 per year (index linked over time) is paid towards cleaning/ maintenance. It is very important that panels are kept clean, as the efficiency will drop off and energy production will be reduced if dirt is allowed to build up on the panels

• The feed in tariff is paid at the current rate of 41.3 p/kWh (index linked over time)

• 50% of the electricity generated would be fed back to the grid at 3p/kWh

• The panels will degrade by no more than 20% in their lifetime

• No significant sources of overshading are present. This too would significantly affect the efficiency of the system.

Table 11: Estimated payback periods for PV systems, depending on their orientation

Orientation Overall cost

Total income Profit

Payback during year…

Additional savings from offset

electricity use

S £8,295 £21,842 £13,546 9 £3,304 SSE £8,295 £21,380 £13,085 9 £3,234 SE £8,295 £20,311 £12,015 10 £3,073

ESE £8,295 £18,770 £10,475 10 £2,840 E £8,295 £16,983 £8,688 11 £2,569

The overall income generated from the feed in tariff is reduced as PV panels are orientated further away from South. Since the capital cost would be the same regardless of orientation, payback periods increase and range from 9 to 11 years. Overall, a potential lost revenue of £4,858 could result from the unfavourable orientation of this example system, not including additional savings from offset energy usage.

Despite this, the long term income generated from the scenarios under the feed in tariff make PV an inviting prospect. However, that assumes that householders have money up-front that they are prepared to invest in the system. If the cost of offsetting the interest on a loan were taken into account, the payback periods and overall income would be reduced. Obviously it makes sense to orientate panels as close to South as possible in order to gain more benefit relative to the up front costs. However, there are still reasonable returns at orientations other than South. It will be up to individual households to decide whether returns are reasonable under their own specific circumstances.




Additional considerations for PV will include assessing the condition of the roof to ensure that it is structurally capable of supporting the additional weight of PV panels. While it is possible to install PV units that are essentially roof tiles, at present these are significantly more expensive than conventional panels and have therefore not been considered here. Considering the panels will inevitably be in place for at least 25 years, it would be sensible to ensure the underlying roof is sound and is not likely to need any repair or maintenance within that timeframe.

Many households may not be in a position to afford to pay up-front for such a system, or will not want to wait as long as 9+ years for the system to pay back. Some companies therefore are offering ‘rent a roof’ schemes, whereby the company will finance the purchase and installation of the system and reap the benefit of the feed in tariff, but the householder will be paid a contribution for the use of their roof. (Further detail in Section 9.3.) This may be a viable option for some properties within Hollybush, though it is likely that in order to capitalise on their returns, the financing companies would not be interested in roofs that are orientated beyond SE-SW. This would unfortunately rule-out a significant number of dwellings in the village.

Solar Hot Water

Solar thermal panels are generally used to provide domestic hot water, although they can also be used to supplement space heating e.g. in under-floor heating systems in highly insulated dwellings.

There are two main types of collector – evacuated tubes, which are more efficient but tend to be more expensive; or flat plate collectors, which are cheaper but due to their reduced efficiency a larger collector area may be required to produce equivalent energy to the evacuated tube collector. Both circulate a water/ antifreeze mix through the collector, which is heated by the sun. The heated liquid passes through a coil in a water storage tank, heating the water within, before being re-circulated back to the roof to be reheated.

The hot water in the storage tank can be used directly or raised to a higher temperature by a boiler or via an immersion heater if required. Typically a property will require between 2 to 5m2 South facing (or ideally at least within SE-SW) pitched roof area that is not particularly shaded. A larger than usual hot water storage tank is also required compared to typically household systems, so the availability of space within smaller homes would need to be considered.

Since the SHW system will have to integrate with the standard method of water heating in the home, it may not be possible to retrospectively install panels onto older boiler systems, hence making SHW unfeasible. Conversely, if householders are looking to have a new heating system installed without solar hot water at the time but think they may wish to install a SHW system in the future, it should be ensured that the new heating system selected will be compatible.

Table 12 shows the performance of SHW on the different building types assessed. A 4m2 flat plate panel with southerly orientation has been selected for modelling purposes, although it is reasonable to assume that the drop in efficiency of orientations other than South will be proportional to the drop in PV efficiency shown in Table 10.

It can be seen that solar hot water heating makes a relatively small contribution towards energy savings across all dwelling types. Since the capital cost of the system is relatively high in proportion to the savings made, the payback periods are particularly long. Despite the proposed introduction if the renewable heat incentive (see Section 9.4), which will inevitably reduce the payback period, it is anticipated that they will not offer sufficient incentive for householders. It should also be remembered that many dwellings within the village do not have South facing roofs, so the savings from installing SHW to such dwellings would be reduced, depending on the extent of orientation away from South.




Table 12: Modelled benefit of installing Solar Hot Water systems on dwellings



25791 25942 19925 28807

19268 18316 13744 20730

Saving 5% 5% 4% 4% 7% 7% 6% 6% Estimated annual cost £1,389 £2,214 £1,530 £947 £1,060 £1,578 £1,077 £709


7313 6604 10301 8868

5526 4736 7105 6437




29379 29586 22719 32925

23307 23411 16927 25367

Saving 5% 5% 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Estimated annual cost £1,579 £2,524 £1,743 £1,079

£1,273 £2,009 £1,319 £857


8321 7525 11746 10130

6657 6012 8752 7855


House type (e)Cavity/Timber wall 3 bd Detached Floor area = 180m2

Primary fuel type Oil LPG Econ 7 Coal Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 28113 26951 18694 30158

Saving 5% 5% 5% 5% Estimated annual cost £1,545 £2,322 £1,474 £1,034


8056 6970 9665 9369

Saving 5% 5% 5% 4% CO2 kg/m2/year 44.75 38.72 53.69 52.05 Cost of measure £4,000 Payback (years) 53.0 32.9 69.6 116.7




When considering priorities for improvement measures, for a similar budget it would certainly be more preferable to upgrade the heating system within the home or contribute towards improved insulation measures – actions that are higher in the Energy Hierarchy and result in more significant cost and CO2 benefits.

There are additional maintenance issues that will need to be taken into consideration. Solar hot water panels will require periodic cleaning, similar to PV panels, in order to maintain the optimum efficiency of the system, since built up dirt will block some of the sun’s radiation. They will also require a change of the antifreeze fluid approximately every 5 years, which will likely cost between £150-250 each time. As with PV, the condition of the roof receiving the SHW panels will need to be checked to ensure that it is structurally capable of supporting the additional weight. Considering the panels are anticipated to be in place for at least 20 years, it would be sensible to ensure the underlying roof is sound and is not likely to need any repair or maintenance within this timeframe.

PV vs SHW

Due to the introduction of the feed in tariff for electricity producing systems, PV now appears a significantly more viable option than SHW. PV offers payback periods within 9-11 years, compared to SHW which, despite anticipated contributions from the renewable heat incentive, is not likely to pay back within this time. While at one time PV was considerably more costly than SHW, the introduction of the feed in tariff and subsequent competition within the market has driven down the price of PV considerably.

There is a chance that households would not gain full benefit from SHW, for instance if they are not fully utilising the hot water that is being generated. There are also no back-compatibility issues with existing heating systems with PV like there could be with SHW. There will always be household electrical items requiring electricity and if excess energy is being produced this can be sold back to the grid. It would therefore seem more favourable at present, if available roof space were limited, to opt for PV rather than SHW.

5.4.2 Wind power Wind power is considered the most readily available and viable source of renewable energy in Wales, since there is a good wind resource as a result of the weather patterns and geography. Onshore wind is seen to be the most advanced of all renewable technologies, the cheapest to install with fast payback times typically between 5 and 10 years in the Heads of the Valleys region and therefore the most likely to bring about widespread renewable energy supply.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Wind Speed Database13 gives the average annual wind speed taken at different heights above ground on site for Hollybush as follows:

• @ 10m – 5.6m/s

• @ 25m – 6.3 m/s

• @ 45m – 6.8 m/s

According to the database, the breakdown of monthly average wind speeds are shown in Figure 9. Unlike solar-dependent renewable energy sources, the profile of wind speeds actually reflects the typical demand profiles of dwellings, i.e. higher demand in the winter and lower demand in summer. 13 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/windspeed/default.aspx

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/windspeed/default.aspx




Figure 9: Average monthly wind speed at 10m above ground for Hollybush

NB: The DECC Wind Speed Database is the result of an air flow model that estimates the effect of topography on wind speed. There is no allowance for the effect of local thermally driven winds such as sea breezes or mountain/valley breezes. The model is applied with 1km square resolution and takes no account of topography on a small scale or local surface roughness (such as tall crops, stone walls or trees), all of which may have a considerable effect on the wind speed. The data can only be used as a guide and should be followed by on-site measurements for a more thorough assessment.

The power available from the wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed. Therefore if the wind blows at twice the speed, its energy content will increase eight fold. For a wind turbine to be worthwhile the site’s annual average wind speed needs to be at least 4.5 m/s. Hence with an average wind speed of 5.6 m/s ( (at 10m hub height), wind power is a viable potential source of renewable energy for the village.

It has been determined that the lifecycle carbon impact (carbon emitted during manufacture, installation and operation) of micro-scale wind turbines can be difficult to justify in most built up areas. This is due to their embodied energetic cost versus their anticipated operational energy generation. These energy payback calculations are heavily affected by local conditions such as sheltering and turbulence from nearby buildings or trees etc. In some instances, units will not pay back within 20 years, thus exceeding the anticipated lifespan of the turbine itself. Clearly, if the cost of the turbines themselves was to fall then payback times would be improved.

In the short term, it is more likely that rural locations, away from buildings and other structures and with wind speeds above 6m/s at the height of the turbine rotor would be more justifiable from a payback and carbon lifecycle point of view14. So rather than small scale turbines mounted on the roofs of individual dwellings, it will be preferable to look at larger scale community schemes where a number of households would benefit from a wind turbine placed in a windy, obstruction free zone, potentially farm land.

It was noted during the community surveys that the owners of one of the nearby farms have looked into the potential for wind energy on their land before, but the scheme was not granted planning approval. However, attitudes towards wind power have changed over recent years and there are now stronger drivers for the

14 Carbon Trust, CTC738, ‘Small-scale wind energy – Policy insights and practical guidance’, August 2008. Available to download from the Carbon Trust website: http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/technology/technologyaccelerator/small-wind

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/technology/technologyaccelerator/small-wind




provision of renewable energy. It is therefore suggested that the potential for one or more wind turbines be reconsidered on some of the higher ground on the ridges of the valley.

Figure 10: Wind distribution in the heads of the valley region around Hollybush at 10m

HOLLYBUSH




A wind turbine on a contoured site with ridges and valleys should be mounted at the highest point without any obstructions nearby to avoid turbulence. Turbulence may be caused by nearby obstacles such as trees and building. Turbulent wind flow, which will reduce the efficiency of the turbine, may be experienced up to twice the height above an obstacle and between 10 and 20 times the height behind the obstacle, thus creating ‘turbulence bubbles’. For example, a building 7.5m in height will experience turbulent air flow within the vicinity approximately 15m in front and above the building and up to 150m behind the building15.

Coed Pen-Rhiw forest is situated on the east side of the river Sirhowy, making it impractical to situate the turbine at that location. The highest point (ridge) in Hollybush is located at the North-West corner (Figure 11). This plot of land is relatively obstruction free, making it an ideal site for mounting the turbine(s).

An assessment has been made of various example sizes of wind turbine and how they would perform in the prevalent conditions on the high ground surrounding the valley. An approximation of the number of dwellings that each could serve has been made based on the assumption that the electricity generated would offset the non-heating energy demand of dwellings, i.e. ~3400 kWh of electricity per household. (Table 13) If the power generated was used to offset the entire energy use of a dwelling, far fewer dwellings would obviously be served. However, since so many dwellings in the village actually utilise other fuel sources it is unrealistic to assume that the majority would switch to an electrical-based heating system in the short term.

15 Chiras. D, Sagrillo. M, Woofenden. I, ‘A practical guide to small-scale energy production-power from the wind-achieving energy performance’, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2009




Figure 11: Site assessment for wind turbine location for Hollybush

BEST PLOTS TO SITE TURBINE

SIR

HO

WY

RIVE

R V

ALL

EY

RID

GE

TURBULENCE BUBBLE

CO

ED P

EN-R

HIW

N




Table 13: Examples of different scale wind turbines and their typical output

Proven 35-2 Endurance Northern Power

Example system

Power of system 12.1kW 55kW 100kW Hub height 20m 24m 37m Anticipated wind speed at hub height 4.85 m/s 6.0 m/s 6.5 m/s

Rotor diameter 8.5m 19.2m 24m Average annual output 20,139 168,900 260,000 Number of dwellings non-heating load served (@ 3400 kWh/ dwelling/ yr

6 50 76

Approximate turbine cost £49,000 £235,000 £350,000

FIT payback for turbine only (years) 9.1 5.8 5.6

Norwin WES30 Enercon E33

Example system

Power of system 225kW 250kW 330kW Hub height 30m 49m 44m Anticipated wind speed at hub height 6.0 m/s 7.0 m/s 7.0 m/s

Rotor diameter 29m 30m 33.4m Average annual output 441,000 652,000 880,000

Number of dwellings’ non-heating load served (@ 3400 kWh/ dwelling/ yr

130 192 259

Approximate turbine cost £420,000# £474,000 £503,000

FIT payback for turbine only (years) 5.3 4.0 3.2

# Costs in £ could not be identified, hence this figure is an estimate based on the costs and payback periods calculated from the other example turbines.




For comparative purposes, the basic payback under the feed in tariff for the turbines alone, not including the rate of any interest on loans or ongoing maintenance and insurance costs, is included in Table 13. Clearly these payback estimates would increase once these additional cost components were taken into consideration. It is likely that the installation will require an annual service, plus additional costs are likely to be incurred for consumables replaced as a result of wear and tear on the turbine during such services. However, it indicates that even though larger turbines become increasingly more expensive, their higher generation output actually reduces their payback period.

In order to meet the demand of ~125 dwellings’ non-heating energy load within the village of Hollybush, the most suitable options appear to be:

• 3 x 55kW turbines. Cost = £705,000. Dwellings served = 150

• 2 x 100kW turbines. Cost = £700,000. Dwellings served = 152

• 1 x 225kW turbine. Cost = £420,000 (estimated). Dwellings served = 130

While it would seem more economically preferable to opt for a single turbine at the reduced overall cost, there may be other advantages of considering multiples of smaller turbines. For instance:

• When turbines need to be taken offline for maintenance, it may be possible to continue generating electricity from the other turbines if they are taken offline one at a time. However, the maintenance period and costs could ultimately be longer/ higher.

• It may be easier to raise the necessary funds for the turbines in stages, allowing them to be constructed and brought online in phases. Similarly, although this estimate has been made for the village as a whole, in the short term only a proportion of the residents may wish to take up the offer and it may not be financially viable to over-specify the turbines in the short term in order to meet future demand. So the option of multiple turbines would facilitate a phased approach if needed for any reason.

• From a planning perspective, it may be more preferable to install two or three smaller turbines than one larger one, which may be considered more intrusive and/ or more visible from surrounding areas. Local planners would obviously need to be consulted on this at the earliest possible opportunity, once the potential options have been roughly mapped out.

Despite the considerable capital cost of wind power, when sited appropriately it is such an effective means of power generation that it offers reasonable payback periods under the feed in tariff. It is anticipated that the community could collaborate to raise the necessary finances to purchase a turbine, then benefit from the generation tariff and the sale of the electricity. (See Section 10)

Wind turbines will require planning permission. Issues considered are likely to include the visual impact of the proposed turbines, potential for noise, vibration, electrical interference and safety issues.

5.4.3 Hydro power The Sirhowy river that runs parallel to A4048 trunk road could become a potential source of renewable energy. Hydropower systems are of three main types:

Storage

For storage schemes, a dam impounds water in a reservoir that feeds the turbine and generator, which is usually located within the dam itself. The advantage of this approach is that rainfall can accumulate during




the wet times of year and release the power whenever it is needed. However the dam causes accumulation of water by flooding the valley upstream, causing considerable environmental impact. When water is released later in the year, the system then changes the downstream river flow patterns. Silt accumulation in the reservoir can cause severe problems to system machinery.

Run-of-the-river

Run-of-river schemes use the natural flow of a river. A weir can enhance the continuity of the flow. Both storage and run-of-river schemes can be diversion schemes, where water is channelled from a river, lake or dammed reservoir to a remote powerhouse, containing the turbine and generator. The key difference is that run-of-river hydro uses the water that is available in the watercourse at any instant rather than storing it behind a dam for use later. The disadvantage of this system is that water is not carried over from rainy to dry seasons of the year. However the scheme can be built locally at low cost and its simplicity offers long-term reliability. They minimise environmental damage since the seasonal river flow patterns downstream of the installation are not affected and there is no need of flooding of the valleys upstream of the installation.

Pumped storage

Pumped storage incorporates two reservoirs. At times of low demand, generally at night, electricity helps pump water from the lower to the upper basin. This water is then released to create power at a time when demand, and therefore price, is high. This is not strictly a renewable energy source (because of its reliance on electricity), but pumped storage is useful for improving overall energy efficiency.

Due to the economic and environmental benefits compared to storage systems, a run-of the river system may be appropriate for Hollybush. Run-of-river hydro makes use of hydro turbines that can operate on wide flow ranges so that they can efficiently generate energy on high or low flows, dependent on what is in the watercourse at the time.

Figure 12 shows the annual flow duration curve for the Sirhowy River measured at Wattsville. The amount of power, and therefore energy that you can generate is proportional to the head and the flow. The chart shows modest flow rates for the majority of the year and the drop in the river is relatively shallow, suggesting a limited head height. It is therefore not anticipated that significant power could be generated from the river in the vicinity of Hollybush.

The most viable point for the consideration of a hydro power system appears to be at the site just South of the village where a bridge passes over the river. This is an area of council-owned land that is due for redevelopment in the short term and it seems worthy of a more detailed study into the scope of hydro power, including on-site measurements to accurately determine what the likely output could be from the location.

Planning permission would be required for any hydro scheme and this is likely to be accompanied by an environmental statement discussing the impact of the scheme. The Environment Agency would also need to be consulted about water extraction licences, because the water is not considered to be owned by the land owner.




Figure 12: Flow duration curve for the Sirhowy river

5.4.4 Summary of renewable options • Most dwellings in the village are not ideally orientated for solar PV. However, it is estimated that PV

could offset approximately a third of the non-heating energy demand in a dwelling and pay back in 9-11 years via the feed in tariff

• Solar hot water only offers a cost saving of between 3-7%, suggesting payback periods will be high despite the upcoming introduction of the renewable heat incentive. PV likely to be more favourable in the short term

• Local conditions along the valley ridge above Hollybush appear suitable for wind power. It is possible to offset the non-heating energy demand of the village by installing either 3 x 55kW, 2 x 100kW, or 1 x 225kW wind turbines. Excluding additional maintenance and loan costs etc. these would likely payback via the feed in tariff in 5-6 years

• Further investigation needs to be made into the scope for hydro power in the Sirhowy river. A run-of-river scheme is likely to be most viable, potentially at the newly acquired site belonging to the Council just South of the village

5.5 Specific comments about nearby farms

As stated earlier in the report, two farms were included within the scope of this study. While their energy concerns are largely similar to other residents in the village, i.e. rising fuel prices, they offer interesting opportunities to the village as a whole.

On a basic level, they indicated a desire to be included in any schemes that were being considered for the village as a whole, such as the potential to apply for funding to carry out solid wall insulation on their

June-September

ANNUAL

December-March




homes. Their relative exposure and south facing roofs make the more suited to PV or SHW installations than many other properties within the village. It also appears that they are likely to have more roof space available than other dwellings. These features will be useful if they decide to invest in PV or SHW themselves or if they were to consider a ‘roof rental’ scheme for PV via the feed in tariff as a means of generating additional income.

Unfortunately, neither farm felt they were able to give up land in order to site free-standing PV panels. There may however be an opportunity to opt for a Ground Source Heat Pump as an alternative, low carbon energy source, since the land used to lay the ground coils will be covered back over and could then continue to be used for grazing. Relevant information relating to the physical and technical nature of GSHPs was given in Section 5.3.3. Since it is suggested that Ground Source Heat Pumps may be more practical for the farm buildings in Hollybush where there is likely to be more space, a scenario has been modelled for a detached solid wall dwelling with a floor area of 200m2. Other assumptions for the dwelling are the same as for the other solid wall properties previously modelled. Table 14 shows the baseline performance of the dwelling using oil heating compared to the relative savings that could be achieved with a GSHP.

Table 14: Example detached solid wall dwelling, to represent farm houses, with switch to GSHP

House type Solid wall Detached Floor area = 200m2

Primary fuel type Oil baseline GSHP

Modelled primary energy (kWh/year) 54991 15187

Saving 72% Estimated annual cost £2,896 £2,103

Saving 27% Estimated annual CO2 emissions (kg/year)

15411 7851

Saving 49% CO2 kg/m2/year 77.05 39.26 Cost of measure £15,000 Payback (years) 18.9

The GSHP may offer cost savings compared to oil heating in the region of 27% and CO2 emissions reductions of approximately 49%. Cost savings and payback periods will be further improved once the renewable heat incentive payments come into effect.

Both farmers indicated that the potential to grow energy crops as biomass fuel on their land was extremely limited due to the relatively harsh climatic conditions at their location. However, this may be something that other farmers in the County could consider. They may then be able to make arrangements with residents of nearby villages to sell the fuel.

The owners of Penrhiwgwaith Farm indicated that they had previously shown an interest in having wind turbines installed on their land. Although their previous proposal was not granted planning approval, they




were quite keen to re-apply, particularly in light of the payback they would receive via the feed in tariff. They were also encouraged to learn that other Hollybush residents may consider contributing to a community renewable energy scheme of some sort and were interested to find out more about the arrangements and delivery mechanisms they could utilise.

The fact that a nearby land owner is positive about the potential for a renewable energy scheme is a useful starting point if the community of Hollybush wish to make efforts towards mid-scale energy generation.

5.6 Sustainability of energy supply

This study has discussed a range of potential options that will help contribute to reducing the fuel bills of residents of Hollybush. While it is evident that many residents feel the best option for them would be mains gas, the potential of extending the gas main beyond its current network cannot be considered sustainable. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and, theoretically, it would amount to funding future obsolescence. It is accepted that households in Hollybush will no doubt continue to utilise other forms of fossil fuel in the short term – either LPG, oil or coal. It would be interesting to calculate the relative carbon impact associated with transportation/ deliveries and the continuing use of these alternative fuels in the short term compared to the carbon impact of installing the necessary infrastructure for the gas main. However, sadly this is beyond the scope of this study.

It was indicated in the policy review in Section 2 that the UK Government foresees an increase in the use of electricity for heating, coupled with a significant reduction in the carbon emissions associated with grid electricity in order to drive forward emission reductions. Unfortunately, the short term driver to prioritise electricity use for heating is not really in place, since the carbon emission factors for grid electricity are still the highest of all fuels. While the introduction of the feed in tariff is intended to make inroads towards improving this situation, domestic scale systems such as roof-mounted PV, are not able to deliver the high energy demand required by the existing building stock on a dwelling by dwelling basis.

If we still need to rely on fossil fuel resources in the short term while the electrical grid becomes ‘greener’, it would seem preferable to reduce the demand for fossil fuels as much as possible so the finite resource may last longer. It therefore seems that whichever way the situation is considered – from the point of view of reducing the use of fossil fuels or making it easier to meet heating demands using electricity – the key measure to focus on should clearly be reduction of up front demand through improvements to the energy performance of our buildings. This is ultimately why reducing demand is the first priority in the Energy Hierarchy, as discussed in section 5.1.




6 Feedback from surveys

6.1 Survey Sample

A total of 48 surveys were collected over the course of the consultation. As shown in the tables below, these represent a range of house types and construction methods. Although the team initially anticipated a higher return rate on surveys, it is felt that the range of responses obtained represents a fair spectrum of the properties in Hollybush, such that the full range of issues will be considered in the study. As well as residential properties in the village, the sample also includes 2 farms and a boarding kennels.

Table 15: Distribution of housing detachment surveyed

Detachment Number of responses Detached 16 End of terrace 6 Mid terrace 20 Semi detached 6 Total 48

Table 16: Distribution of dwelling ages from surveys

House age Number of responses Pre 1900 15 1901 -1944 11 1976 - 1982 3 1983 – 1995 5 1996 - 2002 2 2003 - present 3 Unknown 9

Table 17: Build form of surveyed dwellings

Construction Number of responses Solid brick or stone 34 Cavity wall 7 Timber frame 2 Unknown/other 5

Similarly, in terms of household type, the team ensured that a range of opinions were collected from single residents, couples and families.




Table 18: Distribution of household types from surveys

Household type Number of responses Single 8 Single with child 1 Couple 20 Family with young children (under 11) 8

Family with older children (over 11) 6

House share 2 Not answered 3 Total 48

6.2 Current energy practices

The surveys revealed a range of heating practices in Hollybush. Some supplemented their main heating system with additional heaters to achieve the warmth required, even at considerable cost. In other cases this strategy was adopted but could still not provide the warmth needed. The quotes below reveal some of the challenges faced by residents in heating their homes:

‘I have young children so cannot leave the heating off. I need to have the heating on maximum in winter to feel comfortable. It takes no time at all for the house to become cold if the heating goes off or you open the door’

‘Without the wood stove the central heating system would have to be on constantly to heat the house’

‘I collect and cut most of the wood I burn myself. I'm in my sixties now and it's getting harder every year for me to do this’

‘It’s too expensive to run the gas for long enough to keep it warm enough’

‘Used to have coal (free) but too difficult to manage’

Overall, in Hollybush, almost half the households said their homes were not warm enough over the winter.

• 52% said their homes were warm enough over the winter (25 responses)

• 48% said they were not warm enough over the winter (23 responses)

This is of particular concern given that 60% of the households who responded have someone at home all day (29 responses).

6.3 Current energy expenditure

Understandably, some residents did not feel inclined or able to state how much they spent on fuel bills. This may be due to privacy or the difficulty of distinguishing between what was spent on heating and what was spent on other household activities. Nonetheless, the responses received indicate a considerable range of expenditure, from a few hundred to over £7000 annually.




Table 19: Distribution of fuel bill costs from surveys

Amount spent on fuel bills (annual)

Number of responses

<£1000 5 £1000 – £2000 18 £2000 - £3000 10 More than £3000 7 Not answered 8

Interestingly, there was no clear correlation between the amount paid in bills and whether homes were reported to be warm enough over the winter.

It is apparent that there are very few people in the village who are in receipt of any form of state benefits other than pensions. Those on benefit are often eligible for various grants and funding streams that can help contribute towards domestic running costs. However, since the majority of households in the village are home owners and not in receipt of benefits they do not receive such assistance, yet are still faced with the difficulties of ever-increasing running costs for their homes. The Welsh Assembly Government’s Fuel Poverty Strategy 2010 (Section 2) states that a household is considered to be in ‘fuel poverty’ if they are required to spend more than 10% of their disposable income on their energy bills and severe fuel poverty if they are required to spend 20% on energy bills. Where given, comparison of feedback on annual household incomes with fuel bill costs indicates that at least 18% of those that took part in the survey were likely to be at risk of fuel poverty.

6.4 Current energy efficiency practices

Many residents have already undertaken some level of energy saving measures on their homes. As shown below, 66% of households had most or all low energy light bulbs and 92% had double glazing throughout their homes. However, most double glazing was installed pre-2002, indicating that it is not as efficient as modern high performance double glazing.The newer properties in the village had wall insulation, but the older terraced homes did not. In terms of roof insulation, it seems that most homes could benefit from additional provision. (Percentages are of those households who answered the question and excludes blank responses).

Table 20: Presence of various energy efficiency measures within surveyed households

Low energy light bulbs Number of responses All 15 Most 14 Few 11 None 4 Not answered 4

Wall Insulation Number of responses No 28 Yes 14 Don’t know 2 Not answered 4




Roof Insulation Number of responses No 2 Don’t know 5 Yes, up to 10 cm 13 Yes, up to 20 cm 10 Yes, up to 30 cm 10 Yes, don’t know how much 7 Not answered 1

Double Glazing Number of responses All 35 (16 post 2002) Few 1 Most 6 No 3 Not answered 3

Comments about energy efficiency measures included:

• Desire to take up measures but prevented by cost (4)

• Interest in wall insulation (4)

• Desire for better quality or better fitted double glazing (1)

• Rejection of wall insulation due to change in house appearance (1)

The need for additional energy efficiency measures was neatly summed up in one resident’s comment:

‘My house is stone with no cavity wall, so the heat goes through. When it snows the heat loss thaws the snow on the pavement outside our houses’

6.5 Attitudes towards energy and the environment

According to the survey responses, the top priority for Hollybush residents is reducing fuel bills. After this, most people expressed a desire to feel like they were helping the environment, although there is notable concern for the appearance of houses and the village that could present a clash of interests around some of the more visually prominent solutions. Additional comments, such as the one included below, suggest that in fact some of the considerations the survey suggested were not relevant:

‘The nost important thing about energy is being able to keep warm’

Table 21: Distribution of energy priorities for surveyed households

Priorities Top priority 2nd priority 3rd priority Lowest priority I don’t want to rely on fossil fuels 5 8 15 11

I want to save money on my energy bills 36 5 1 1

I want to feel like I am helping the environment 3 20 13 4

I don’t want to change the way my house/ village looks 0 9 9 21




Feedback from the consultation process suggests that few, if any residents are in a position to invest significantly in the energy performance of their homes. Most require ways to immediately reduce their energy bills and do not have the capital to outlay towards measures that will not pay back for several years.

Responses suggest that despite the original desire for gas, there is still inclination and capacity amongst some residents in Hollybush to invest in renewables, if they can be proven to be a realistic alternative.

Table 22: Survey feedback on how much householders would contribute towards new infrastructure

Would you consider investing? Towards a gas main

Towards renewables

No 19 17 Yes. Up to £500 7 n/a Yes. Up to £1000 6 12 Yes. Up to £2000 4 5 Yes. Up to £10,000 n/a 1 Did not answer 7 8

It was evident that Arbed works being carried out in the neighbouring village of Markham had caused considerable envy, in that essentially ‘free’ works are being carried out in such close proximity to Hollybush but that they receive no such measures.

6.6 Attitudes towards renewables

Although there is still a feeling in the village that a gas main could and should be provided, the surveys revealed that many residents are open to the idea of renewable energy. In fact, some had already considered installing renewables on their own properties, and many more were interested and wanted to know more. The technologies that had already been investigated by residents were solar PV, solar hot water, a wind turbine, Ground Source Heat Pumps and Air Source Heat Pumps.

The survey responses suggest that for Hollybush residents the most important considerations in respect of renewables are that the technologies will save them money and will work. The management of the technology was important, and some would consider becoming part of a community energy scheme. The low support for loans suggests that grants would be needed to bring renewable technologies to most of the residents.

Table 23: Factors that would influence households investing in renewables

Factors considered in taking up renewables Number of responses

If it saved me money on my energy bills 36 If it was reliable 33 If it generated money back 28 If it was owned by the community 15 If it was properly managed 29 If I could get a loan 7 Only if it was on my own home 11 Only as part of a community scheme 11




In terms of individual technologies, the most favoured are solar PV and solar hot water. The tables below set out the responses and an overview of the comments that were received for each technology.

Although the survey did not specifically request views on hydro power, a number of respondents noted that this technology appealed, and indicated streams in and around the village that they thought could be suitable.

Solar PV

Table 24: Attitudes towards Solar PV from household surveys

Solar PV Number of responses Percentage of those who answered

Positive 27 67.5% Neutral 1 Negative 5 Don’t Know 7 Not answered 8

Positive comments on solar PV included that it was felt to be clean energy (3), and that the appearance would be acceptable on homes in the village (1).

Concerns about solar PV related to:

• Perceived lack of sunlight in valley (6)

• Long payback period (4)

• Ease of use (1)

• Panels in fields (1)

• Unattractive appearance (1)

From the comments received, the deciding factors on solar PV seem to be:

• Affordability

• Need to be convinced of suitability of location

• Ease of use

Solar Hot Water

Table 25: Attitudes towards Solar Hot Water from household surveys

Solar Hot Water Number of responses Percentage of those who answered

Positive 24 68% Neutral 0 Negative 7 Don’t Know 4 Not answered 13

Positive comments on solar hot water included that it was felt to be clean energy (3) and a good investment (1).




Concerns about solar hot water related to:

• Perceived lack of sunlight in valley (7)

• Space needed for storage, and changes to plumbing (2)

• Cost and payback period (2)

• Ease of use (1)

• Appearance (1)

From the comments received, the deciding factors seem to be:

• Affordability

• Need to be convinced of suitability of location

• Suitability of the infrastructure for individual homes

Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP)

Table 26: Attitudes towards ASHPs from household surveys

Air Source Heat Pump Number of responses Percentage of those who answered


Positive comments on ASHPs included:

• Appearance acceptable (2)

• Convinced by technology (1)

• Clean (1)

• Does heat and water (1)

Concerns about ASHP related to:

• Affordability (7)

• Expense of electricity (2)

• Unattractive (2)

• Noise (1)

• Does not go far enough in terms of renewable energy (1)

From the comments received the deciding factors seem to be:

• Provision of more information

• Need to be convinced about effectiveness

• Cost




Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)

Table 27: Attitudes towards GSHPs from household surveys

Ground Source Heat Pump Number of responses Percentage of those who answered


Positive comments on GSHP included the appeal of pipes being hidden underground (2).

• Concerns about GSHP related to:

• Unsuitability/undesirability on property (5)

• Impractical/disruptive (3)


• Effectiveness (2)

From the comments received the deciding factors seem to be:

• Space at property

• Affordability

Wind Turbines

Table 28: Attitudes towards wind turbines from household surveys

Wind turbine Number of responses Percentage of those who answered


Positive comments on wind turbines included:

• Opportunity to create a community scheme (5)

• Good for the environment (1)

• Suitability for village (1)

Concerns about wind turbines related to:

• Visual appearance (3)

• Noise (3)

• Unsuitability of valley (3)

• Effectiveness (2)

• Size (2)




• On individual houses (1)

• Cost (1)

From the responses received the deciding factors seem to be:

• Provision of more information

• Agreement of residents

• Concerns about technology answered

Biomass Boiler

Table 29: Attitudes towards biomass fuel heating systems from household surveys

Biomass boiler Number of responses Percentage of those who answered


Positive comments about biomass boilers included:

• Having heat and hot water (3)

• Possibility of a community scheme (1)

• Renewable and sustainable (1)

Concerns about biomass boilers related to:

• Ease of use (7)


• Undesirability of using wood (chopping down trees) (2)

• Changes to inside of home (1)

• Aesthetics (1)

• Expense of pellets (1)

From the responses the deciding factors seem to be:

• Ease of use – especially in comparison to coal

• Affordability




7 Likely ideal scenario for Hollybush

Balancing the priorities of environmental drivers against benefits to householders, the following ‘whole house/ village’ approach is proposed as the likely ideal scenario for Hollybush residents. As supported throughout this study, it is structured in accordance with the Energy Hierarchy discussed in Section 5.1.

Step 1: Insulate the solid wall dwellings within the village

Approximately 98 dwellings could be improved by installing external or internal wall insulation to solid walls. This would bring cost savings of between 27-47% and CO2 emissions reductions of 28-48% (the highest savings being from end terrace dwellings and lower savings from mid-terrace dwellings). This could potentially be delivered with funding support from Arbed and/ or the Green Deal in due course, resulting in minimal up-front costs to households.

Step 2: Modernise heating systems

It is suspected that virtually all dwellings within the village, with the exception of a few, could benefit from a more efficient heating system being installed. If the choice is based on user running costs, the modelling data suggests that users currently on oil should upgrade to a new oil boiler, while those on LPG or with Economy 7 storage heaters would likely benefit more by switching to an air source heat pump (ASHP). If and when the renewable heat incentive (RHI) is finally introduced for ASHPs, it may subsequently be more beneficial to also switch from oil to an ASHP due to the subsidy received. This would also appear to follow in line with aspirations from the UK 2050 Pathways Analysis (Section 2) to gradually switch householders to more electric-based heating served by a lower carbon intensity electrical grid, with a reduced dependence on fossil fuels. Those switching from coal are unfortunately likely to experience increased energy costs regardless which option they switch to, although this is likely to be minimised through switching to an ASHP.

It should be noted that if the choice of fuel switch were instead based on carbon emission reductions rather than cost savings, biomass boilers would be the preferable choice. Costs will inevitably be more favourable with the introduction of the RHI, but there may still be issues regarding supplies, with carbon benefits reducing the further the biomass source needs to be transported. The RHI will help to pay back initial costs outlaid on new heating systems over time, while in the short term the RHI Renewable Heat Premium Payments may fund a contribution to the up front costs in a limited number of instances on a trial basis (see Section 9.4). Unfortunately, actual levels of support cannot be confirmed until further information is published about the Renewable Heat Premium Payment scheme in due course. Some households may be eligible for other funding streams (see Section 9) that could replace boilers if they meet the necessary eligibility criteria (typically being on some form of benefit).

Step 3: Consider renewable energy systems

Having hopefully reduced the up-front energy demand of the buildings so far as possible through the previous steps, it may then be worthwhile to consider a renewable energy source. On a single household level, for people with funds they are able to invest, the most preferable option is likely to be the installation of a PV system, obviously giving due consideration to roof orientation and the impact this will have on the




payback period. Those without the up front capital may be able to benefit from a ‘roof rental’ scheme. There may also be scope for residents to contribute to a community scale wind turbine scheme, which would also receive funding via the feed in tariff. Arrangements to fund and deliver this sort of scheme are discussed in Sections 9 and 10.




8 Implications for other off gas communities

As part of this study, BRE were asked to consider the implications for energy measures of other off gas communities. In particular, the villages of Bute Town, Caerphilly, Groes Faen and Manmoel were highlighted. Each of these villages is somewhat smaller than Hollybush, but the majority of houses in each are of solid wall construction. The feedback on the measures considered for this study are therefore directly relevant for these other villages, with a few variations.

8.1 Bute Town Caerphilly

This village consists of approximately 33 buildings of solid construction. The most significant influencing factor here is that the buildings are apparently listed, so there will be limitations to what is deemed acceptable.

Fabric efficiency improvements

• If there is scope for the installation of loft insulation, particularly in dwellings with very little existing insulation (<100 mm), these should be prioritised. Dwellings with at least 150 mm loft insulation will likely not realise significant benefits.

• While it is likely to be deemed unacceptable to externally insulate and clad the dwellings, it may be feasible to install internal wall insulation instead. The site looks relatively exposed, so due consideration should be given to the likely moisture transfer through the structure once insulated.

Energy efficiency measures

• The current fuel types and heating systems are not known for the village. However, households may benefit similarly to Hollybush from the upgrade of existing heating systems. Air source heat pumps may be acceptable if they are not obviously visible from beyond the dwelling boundary. However, this should be confirmed with planners. Dwellings do not have particularly large gardens so it is assumed that Ground Source Heat Pumps will be unfeasible.

Renewable energy options

• While the buildings potentially offer a good orientation for PV (mostly South facing), they are unlikely to receive approval for PV because the buildings are listed. The same will apply to solar hot water.

• The area is high up the valley in a relatively exposed position. The wind speed at a height of 10m is reported as 3.6 m/s for this location, which would generally not be deemed sufficient to justify wind power. However, wind speeds 1km to the north and east of the site are 4.5 m/s 5.2 m/s




respectively, which would be more viable. It therefore seems likely that any wind scheme would not be within the immediate vicinity of the village.

8.2 Groes Faen

Groes Faen is essentially a single street of approximately 20 solid wall terraced houses. Again, the fuel being used in these dwellings is unknown. All dwellings appear to have a rendered finish.



• The dwellings would benefit from solid wall insulation. It is anticipated that this would be applied externally, with care given to detailing around the bay windows. Insulation could be applied internally if preferred.


• The current fuel types and heating systems are not known for the village. However, households may benefit similarly to Hollybush from the upgrade of existing heating systems. Air source heat pumps may be a suitable option, though it is again considered that there is unlikely to be sufficient space to accommodate ground source heat pumps.


• The terrace row of dwellings are in a single row, essentially curving slightly away from South at either end. Dwellings therefore would have a very favourable orientation for the consideration of PV, or solar hot water if that were preferred. However, it should be ensured that the trees on the opposite side of the road from the dwellings to the South are not allowed to grow tall enough to shade any installed panels.

• The dwellings seem to be in quite an isolated location. The wind speed at a height of 10m is reported as 4.0 m/s for this location, which would generally not be deemed sufficient to justify wind power. However, wind speeds 1km to the north and south of the site are 5 m/s, which would be more viable. It therefore seems likely that any wind scheme would not be within the immediate vicinity of the village.




8.3 Manmoel

This is a small village on the top edge of the valley East of Hollybush. It consists of approximately 20 buildings, most of which appear to be of solid wall construction, though some are rendered externally while others display stonework



• The dwellings would benefit from solid wall insulation. It is anticipated that this would be applied externally or internally depending on the existing wall finish.


• The current fuel types and heating systems are not known for the village. However, households may benefit similarly to Hollybush from the upgrade of existing heating systems. Air source heat pumps may be a suitable option, though it is again considered that there is unlikely to be sufficient space to accommodate ground source heat pumps.


• The dwellings are at a range of orientations, hence some might be suitable for the installation of PV or solar hot water, while others may be less ideal.

• The village is in a high, relatively exposed area with wind speeds of 5.6 m/s at a height of 10m, which would be well suited for wind power. There may therefore be potential for the installation of wind power to serve the non-heating energy demand of the dwellings. A considerably smaller turbine would be required to meet this demand for only ~20 dwellings. However, due to the proximity of Manmoel to Hollybush, there may be potential for a joint project between both villages.




9 Funding options

9.1 Arbed Phase 216

Overview:

Arbed Phase 1 ran from November 2009 to March 2011 and supported the installation of energy efficiency and renewable energy systems on a whole house, area based approach. The objectives of the scheme were to support job creation in Wales, to reduce fuel poverty and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It was funded and managed centrally by the Welsh Assembly Government (Department for Environment, Sustainability and Housing). Approximately £30m was used to fund 25 registered social landlords (RSLs), local authorities and housing associations to invest in their housing stock. This equated to approximately 6,000 properties all receiving at least one measure.

Arbed Phase 2, if it goes ahead, will by managed by WAG but will be funded through European funds (European Regional Development Fund) and will be delivered by private ‘managing agent’ companies specialising in energy efficiency and renewables. There will be a separate tendering process for the project delivery posts. Submission of the first bids for securing support is unlikely to happen until at least the 3rd quarter of 2011.

Eligibility:

Arbed Phase 1 was focused on the 7 Strategic Regeneration Areas (SRA) in Wales: Heads of the Valleys, Western Valleys, Swansea City Centre, Barry, Aberystwyth, Mon y Menai, and North Wales Coast. Additionally, the selected properties had to be in a Lower Level Super Output Area (LSOA) that is in the bottom 25% of the income domain of the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. Because of the fuel poverty objective, where there were pockets of fuel poverty in particular LSOAs that were not in the lowest 25%, exceptions could be made to the second criterion as long as the properties were in an SRA and could be identified as having fuel poor tenants. The housing providers were also encouraged to support private sector housing where possible.

Arbed Phase 2 is likely to again focus on whole house, area based approaches, though the area based criteria have yet to be announced. Whereas Phase 1 was mainly focused on social housing, Phase 2 will likely be 50% social housing and 50% private housing.

Administration:

The Welsh Assembly Government is the key administrator for Arbed. Projects are delivered in partnership between the housing provider, the contractors and any managing agents.

16 http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/energy/efficiency/arbed/;jsessionid= YWWmN7pSQvhdnfrRgntc2GSQkpBnhHyqzvCSSJp019Gw2Mdj8n4y!395851124?lang=en

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/energy/efficiency/arbed/;jsessionid




Funding available:

Typically under Arbed Phase 1 the funding available from WAG was in the region of £5,000-12,000 per property. Arbed Phase 2 is likely to be similar.

Included measures:

Under Arbed Phase 1, eligible measures included solid wall insulation (both internal and external), Solar photovoltaics (PV), Solar thermal hot water, Air source heat pumps (for off-gas properties) and fuel switching (for properties to switch to gas where the gas main was present in the street).

For Arbed Phase 2 it is likely that the programme will mainly focus on solid wall insulation for hard to treat properties, since separate mechanisms in the form of the FIT and RHI are in place to support other technologies. Fuel switching for eligible properties may again also be included.

Hollybush Context:

Depending on the exact form of the finalised Arbed Phase 2 programme, Arbed provides a significant opportunity for the residents of Hollybush (with CCBC’s support) to submit an application that focuses on insulating solid wall properties. This will lead to a significant reduction in energy bills and carbon emissions and will greatly support the deployment of any future renewable energy solutions. In the past, properties that are off the gas network with solid walls, have fallen in to the ‘too hard to treat’ category. However, the funding available through Arbed is intended to change this situation.

The data collected through the questionnaires and reported upon in this study presents a good grounding of necessary information and evidence that can contribute to any such funding bid.

The biggest potential barrier to any such project is the level of community engagement in a village that is almost 100% privately owned. Any solid wall insulation project, to demonstrate technical best practice, should treat all properties in a terrace rather than just one or two. It is recommended that residents in Hollybush are encouraged to visit the properties in Markham that have already received external wall insulation through Arbed Phase 1.

The level of individual resident financial contribution is again unclear from the current proposals for Arbed Phase 2. However, it should be noted that there may be a small contribution towards the overall cost of any installed system to be paid by the resident.

Recommendations: It is suggested that the data collected through the public consultation process with the support of Communities First, is used to form the basis of an Arbed Phase 2 bid. Under Arbed Phase 1 having complete and reliable data was a key factor in whether or not projects successfully received funding. It is also important to have as many private households ‘bought in’ to the project in advance as possible. Under Phase 1, there were isolated examples of projects that failed to be delivered across mixed tenures because the private residents were not properly consulted or made aware of the benefits. In Hollybush this process is very important as almost all properties are privately owned.

CCBC are already in the process of compiling data for an Arbed Phase 2 bid. It is recommended that Hollybush is viewed as a distinct part of a larger bid if CCBC does submit a bid for a larger number of properties.




Also it is suggested that Communities First, or an equivalent local partner, is used to engage with residents. Example models have been used where local people have been trained up to become ‘Energy Wardens’ in order to provide energy efficiency advice and support for residents whose homes are to receive measures. The Energy Wardens provide a link between the contractors installing measures and the residents. This approach was pioneered by Warm Wales and was used on the Arbed project in Markham. There is no reason why the approach could not be replicated in Hollybush.

9.2 National Fuel Poverty Scheme (NFPS)17

Overview:

Following a competitive tendering process , WAG has awarded this contract for targeting households in fuel poverty in Wales to the utility company British Gas. This is a demand led assessment rather than an area based approach, so is targeted towards eligible households based on a means tested assessment. This contract was awarded in January 2011, the scheme will be formally launched at the end of March 2011 and open to applicants from 1 April 2011. (N.B the title of the NFPS is likely to be changed to remove the word ‘poverty’, replacing it with something with a more positive association.

Eligibility:

Based on conversations with British Gas, there will be an initial screening process that will examine factors such as fuel type, boiler efficiency, if benefits are already received, if the householders are over 70, etc. These factors and others will be used to determine eligibility. The Energy Saving Trust will conduct this initial screening process before handing over to British Gas, who will carry out the installations. Clearly, those households that are most vulnerable should be prioritised given the policy and strategy context.

Administration:

Funded by the Welsh Assembly Government, the NFPS will be run by British Gas with support from the Energy Saving Trust (EST).

Funding available:

Free central heating systems will be available for eligible households

Included measures:

Boiler replacement

Hollybush Context:

It remains to be seen how the NFPS will fit with the property types and levels of fuel poverty within Hollybush. The survey information gathered will provide good background information towards making the first engagement with British Gas. There may be an opportunity to work with British Gas to get the NFPS off to a strong start by using Hollybush as an initial significant project with a large number of suitable households that can benefit. However, at present this is entirely speculative and further investigations should be made with British Gas and the Energy Saving Trust to explore the options.

17 http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/environmentandcountryside/2011/110126fuelpoverty/;jsessionid= K3pWNlfJFsrz6H14r49BF6JFpCP9jRQ4JyscyzHTM3pwHTHHyxwg!688189528?lang=en

http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/environmentandcountryside/2011/110126fuelpoverty/;jsessionid




Recommendations:

Once the NFPS is finalised and launched by British Gas and the Energy Saving Trust, CCBC and Communities First should support people in Hollybush and other off-gas villages in the Borough to make the most of this opportunity. In the past, schemes such as this have failed because ultimately residents have not been made aware of what benefits they might be entitled to.

Informal discussions with British Gas have indicated that the scheme should go live at the start of April 2011.

There is an opportunity to work with British Gas to make Hollybush become a demonstration village which could perhaps be used as a launch for the NFPS. However, this has only been discussed at a speculative informal level and given the timescales involved, any such development would have to be finalised extremely soon if it is to be realised.

In any case the NFPS does provide a significant opportunity for some of the people who are most in need of additional support.

9.3 Feed in tariff (FIT)18

Overview:

The FIT is a market based incentive that pays a generation tariff for every unit of electricity produced from either PV, micro-hydro, micro-wind, or anaerobic digestion. Payments are made on a quarterly basis and are based on the amount of energy generated. Since the introduction of the FIT in April 2010, over 20,000 PV installations have been commissioned. The FIT means that any of the eligible renewable technologies can potentially become an investment opportunity, with payback times for PV in the region of 7-10 years and micro-hydro 3-6 years. There is also a smaller export tariff available for electricity not used and exported back to the grid and savings available through offset use of the mains supply.

Payments are guaranteed by the Energy Supply Act 2008 for a period of either 20 or 25 years. The tariffs are shown in Table 30.

Eligibility:

Anyone with a southerly facing roof can potentially benefit from the FIT for PV.

Small scale hydro is well suited to fast flowing rivers or streams although there is a minimum size of plant required to make the investment financially viable. Similarly, small scale wind is suited to locations with appropriate wind speeds and limited obstructions and turbulence. NB. micro-wind turbines are generally recognised as being ineffective in most situations.

A wide range of people and organisations have been benefiting from the FIT, including housing owner occupiers, social landlords, local authorities, retailers, farmers, land owners, house builders and factory owners.

18 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/feedin_tariff/ feedin_tariff.aspx

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/feedin_tariff/




After the financial year 2011/12 the available generation tariff will be reduced on a year on year basis. The level of reduction has not yet been finalised. Installations of over 50kW of PV are currently being reviewed under the First Feed-in-tariff review, but this will not affect smaller installations.

All equipment installers and installation companies must be certified by the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS).

Table 30: Feed in tariff rates for each technology, up to end of April 2012

Technology Scale Generation Tariff 04/2010-04/2012

(p/kWhr) Tariff Lifetime

(years)

Anaerobic digestion ≤500kW 11.5 20

Anaerobic digestion >500kW 9 20

Hydro ≤15kW 19.9 20

Hydro >15-100kW 17.8 20

Hydro >100kW-2MW 11 20

Hydro > 2-5MW 4.5 20

Micro-CHP ≤ 2kW 10 20

PV ≤ 4kW (new build) 36.1 25

PV ≤ 4kW (retrofit) 41.3 25

PV > 4-10kW 36.1 25

PV > 10-100kW 31.4 25

PV > 100kW-5MW 29.3 25

PV Stand alone system 29.3 25

Wind ≤ 1.5kW 34.5 20

Wind > 1.5-15kW 26.7 20

Wind > 15kW-100kW 24.1 20

Wind > 100-500kW 18.8 20

Wind > 500kW-1.5MW 9.4 20

Wind > 1.5MW-5MW 4.5 20 Administration:

Payments are made by a utility company to the generator and are administered by Ofgem.

Funding available:

There are two main options for funding the capital costs of renewable energy technologies eligible for FITs. The first is that the owner of the roof or land pays for the capital costs of the installation up front (using either savings or loan), uses an MCS installer to complete the works, sets up an agreement with a utility




company, then claims the FIT for electricity generation. The alternative approach is to work with an agent who will purchase the capital equipment and lease the roof or land in return for reduced price electricity for the duration of the FIT. In this case most risks are taking by the managing agent company, hence the original site owner receives less benefit.

Included measures:

PV, hydro, wind, anaerobic digestion.

Hollybush Context:

There are a number of options for both individuals, CCBC and community energy groups to take advantage of the FIT for applications in the Hollybush area. The technical aspects of these were discussed in Section 5.4, while community energy groups are discussed in Section 10.

There is potential for wind at the local farms, the performance of PV will be influenced the orientation of the dwellings in the village there may be limited scope for hydro power in the Hollybush area. The two steep streams flowing through the garden of the old Hollybush Inn and the garden of the Pantymilah farm may be suitable for small scale hydro as they are fast flowing and have a high head.

Most of these applications either hinge on a private resident investing in the technology or working with a company on a rent-a-site basis in exchange for free or reduced price electricity. Other community based options are also potentially viable and are discussed later in this report.

Recommendations:

The FIT provides an opportunity for householders who have funds available and plan to live in their homes for at least the next ten years. Those with south facing roofs should examine the potential for solar PV. Also ‘rent-a-roof’ schemes with private companies could also be explored.

The FIT for hydro and for wind may also presents an opportunity for Hollybush. Both technologies are viable for community applications and provide a source of income in the short to medium term. How these opportunities could be realised financially for community groups is discussed in Section 10.

9.4 Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)19

Overview:

Taking a similar approach to the Feed-in-tariff, the Renewable Heat Incentive is a market based incentive that supports the development of small to medium scale renewable energy installations. While the FIT supports the generation of electricity, the RHI supports the generation of heat. The RHI is a new mechanism and was only formally launched on the 10th March 2011.

Eligibility:

Initially only non-domestic installations will be supported, but the intention is that full RHI benefits are incorporated with the Green Deal as of October 2012. However, in May 2011 further information will be provided on the RHI Renewable Heat Premium Payment, which will contribute towards the capital cost of a

19 http://www.decc.gov.uk/rhi

http://www.decc.gov.uk/rhi




limited number of domestic installations. Up to 25,000 installations will receive a payment towards the capital cost of the system. Homes that are i) off the gas network, ii) well insulated and iii) have residents willing to provide feedback on the system will be favoured for support. These homes will become eligible for RHI payments come October 2012.

Community projects will also be eligible, provided a single installation is providing heat to more than one house.

Administration:

The RHI will be administered by Ofgem with payments coming from general taxation.

Funding available:

Similar to the FIT, tariffs are available against a range of technologies with the level of support depending on the technology and the size of the installation.

Table 31: Proposed Renewable Heat Incentive tariffs for various technologies

Tariff name Eligible technology

Eligible sizes

Tariff rate (pence/ kWh)

Tariff duration (Years)

Support calculation

Tier 1: 7.6

Small biomass Less than 200 kWth

Tier 2: 1.9

Tier 1: 4.7

Medium biomass

200 kWth and above; less than

1,000 kWth Tier 2: 1.9

Metering Tier 1 applies annually up to the Tier Break,

Tier 2 above the Tier Break. The Tier Break is:

installed capacity x 1,314

peak load hours, i.e.:

kWth x 1,314

Large biomass

Solid biomass; Municipal Solid

Waste (incl. CHP)

1,000 kWth and above 2.6

20

Metering

Small ground source

Less than 100 kWth 4.3

Large ground source

Ground-source heat pumps; Water-source heat pumps;

deep geothermal 100 kWth and above 3

20 Metering

Solar thermal Solar thermal Less than 200 kWth 8.5 20 Metering

Biomethane

Biomethane injection and

biogas combustion, except from landfill gas

Biomethane all scales,

biogas combustion

less than 200 kWth

6.5 20 Metering




Included measures:

At present, supported technologies include: biomass, ground source heat pumps, solar thermal and biomethane (gas produced from organic matter). Air source heat pumps (ASHPs) have not been included initially because more work is apparently needed to better understand the costs associated with the technology. However, they are likely to be included in the domestic RHI when fully introduced in October 2012. Tariff rates are yet to be determined for ASHPs.

Hollybush Context:

The RHI presents several opportunities for Hollybush. The first is the use of biomass boilers for either larger houses or for a small scale community based heating system. The second is to contribute to the cost of solar hot water systems. The RHI Heat Premium Payment could contribute to the cost of a new heating system as long as residents are willing to provide feedback on its use. However, this is of course now subject to the release of further information from DECC in May 2011.

Recommendations:

The fact that the RHI scheme is not initially supporting air source heat pumps (ASHPs), which is an option potentially well suited to some properties in Hollybush, is likely to slow the uptake of ASHPs.

However, the RHI Premium Payment does provide an opportunity for Hollybush residents to act as test bed. The extent of this opportunity will depend on what is announced in May in relation to the Premium Payment. A situation could be envisaged where a small number of homes in Hollybush benefit from the installation of ASHPs but the properties would first have to be thoroughly insulated in order to improve energy efficiency rating in order to qualify.

The RHI does present an opportunity for houses with access to land to install ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) supported by the additional generation tariff that RHI will offer. The number of properties in Hollybush is limited to those with larger gardens. Again there will be a range of financing options ranging from entirely self-financed to leasing arrangements.

9.5 Energyshare Fund20

Overview:

Supported by British Gas, the Energyshare Fund is a novel way of supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Using an interactive website, individuals can register community energy groups. This allows groups to network with other similar groups either in their area or elsewhere, which allows sharing of best practice and ideas. Funding is available via British Gas which, has pledged £3m over the next 3 years with an initial fund of £500k available this summer to go towards community projects. A simple search shows that the closest projects to Hollybush are currently in Llangattock in the Brecon Beacons, two community projects in the Rhondda valleys area and one at Tintern Abbey – all of which are micro-hydro schemes.

Eligibility:

All types of community project are welcome. Projects must: 20 www.energyshare.com





• Have the objective of saving or generating energy locally

• Be supported by their local community

• Benefit the local community and have a tangible and lasting impact

• Have some aspect of the project that is realistically achievable within one year

• Inspire even more community renewable projects

One of the most interesting aspects of the community fund is that projects will be peer reviewed by other community projects, i.e. the judging will be carried out by community groups on each others’ projects.

Administration:

Energyshare will administer the funding, with support from project partners who include British Gas (who provide the funding)

Funding available:

Up to £100k is available per project. £500k is available in the first round, then a further £3m will be released over the next 3 years.

Included measures:

Any projects that either reduce demand or increase supply via renewables will be considered eligible. This gives a very wide scope in terms of the measures that could be applied for.

Hollybush Context:

The Energyshare Fund provides an opportunity for the residents of Hollybush to secure funding for a project for the village. Because of the nature of Hollybush, i.e. off the gas network, high levels of solid walled housing, reasonably good potential for renewables, etc. it may be an attractive project to secure funds.

Recommendations:

Hollybush has now been registered as a project on the Energyshare website by BRE. However, any funding applications must be led by someone based in the village, so this part of the process has not yet been started.

The Energyshare website is a good source of information about how other community projects have delivered projects with real benefits. (Some case studies from the website have been summarised Section 10 of this report). Everyone in Hollybush should be encouraged to get involved where possible and CCBC/ Communities First should support this process.




9.6 Heads of the Valleys (HoV) Regeneration Programme21

Overview:

The Heads of the Valleys Regeneration Programme is a 20 year commitment to the HoV area and focuses on achieving an attractive environment, a vibrant economic landscape, a well educated population, appealing tourism and public confidence in the future for the region. Within the HoV Strategy there is also a ‘Low Carbon Zone’, which has supported a large number of projects to improve and refurbish social housing (this was the precursor to the larger Arbed scheme, which built upon the approach trialled in Heads of the Valleys), as well as supporting the renovation of various non-domestic buildings and the development of environmentally sustainable new housing.

Eligibility:

Many different projects have been supported through the HoV Programme and the more specific HoV Low Carbon Zone. Eligibility is judged on a case by case basis.

Administration:

The Heads of the Valleys Programme is managed by the Welsh Assembly Government under the Regeneration Directorate.

Funding available:

Funding is available through the HoV Low Carbon Zone for particularly innovative projects.

Included measures:

Context specific

Hollybush Context:

Taking an area based approach in a village such as Hollybush where all the houses are off-gas, the vast majority are solid walled, the risk of fuel poverty is an important issue and where there is good potential for renewable energy would probably constitute an innovative project. It is recommended that further discussions with the team who run the Heads of the Valleys Regeneration Programme and CCBC take place.

Recommendations:

CCBC with representatives from Hollybush should engage with the HoV Low Carbon Zone team to discuss further grant funding opportunities. Certainly the idea to insulate a small number of demonstration properties within the village would seem to be an idea worth exploring further (this could potentially be linked to an RHI Premium Payment test bed for ASHPs). This would have to be viewed within the wider strategy for community energy within Hollybush which is discussed further in the Section 10.

21 http://wales.gov.uk/topics/businessandeconomy/regeneration/strategicareas/HofV/?lang=en




9.7 Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)22,23

Overview:

CERT is a regulatory mechanism that means that the regulated utility companies must execute measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from domestic buildings. Utilities are obliged to support measures that reduced carbon emissions.

Eligibility:

Any household in the UK can benefit. Low income and the over-70s are a priority group. CERT will run until December 2012.

Administration:

CERT is administered by the utility companies with measures installed by managing agent contractors. CERT is regulated by Ofgem.

Funding available:

Measure specific

Included measures:

Loft insulation, Cavity wall insulation, Solid wall insulation

Hollybush Context:

There will be potential for households on low income or over 70’s to work with a utility company (e.g. SSE/SWALEC, British Gas, npower, EDF, Scottish Power, etc) to prioritise Hollybush for improvement measures. It is likely that this would have to be part of a wider scheme in order to secure interest.

Recommendations:

CCBC should engage with the utility companies offering CERT measures to super-priority groups such as those over 70 and on low incomes. If viewed in conjunction with other projects this may be more attractive to the CERT providers.

9.8 Ynni’r Fro24

Overview:

The Welsh Assembly Government supported Ynni’r Fro programme uses European funds to provide support to encourage the development of community scale renewable energy schemes across Wales.

Eligibility:

Grants are available for legally constituted Social Enterprises in Wales. 22 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/consumers/saving_energy/cert/cert.aspx 23 http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/EnergyEff/FastFacts/Pages/FastFacts.aspx 24 http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Wales/Ynni-r-Fro

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/consumers/saving_energy/cert/cert.aspx

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/EnergyEff/FastFacts/Pages/FastFacts.aspx

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Wales/Ynni-r-Fro




This includes:

• Community Interest Company

• Industrial and Provident Society

• Company limited by guarantee or shares

• Limited liability partnership

• Registered charity

Administration:

The Ynni’r Fro programme is administered by the Energy Saving Trust, but is delivered by local partners in the form of Technical Development Officers.

Funding available:

Up to £30,000 is available for feasibility studies and then up to £300,000 is available for grant funding towards capital expenditure.

Included measures:

Projects must generate energy from a renewable energy source.

Hollybush Context:

There is great potential for Hollybush and CCBC to build upon the work started by BRE to deliver a project using capital funding from Ynni’r Fro. The funding available for feasibility studies may also be useful to cover activities such as environmental surveys and planning activities. Technically, any of the renewable energy technologies recommended by this report could be supported.

The key challenge will be for the people in Hollybush to set up a Social Enterprise to deliver community benefits. One requirement of the funding is that at least one full time job is created within 2 years of receiving the funding. This is a good opportunity for the village to demonstrate how such a project could have wider benefits than simply energy use and reduced risk of fuel poverty.

Recommendations:

The implications of starting a form of social enterprise are discussed in Section 10. Additional support in developing this process may also be available from the Ynni’r Fro Technical Development Officer, Dan McCallum who helped to set up the Amen Awel Tawe project mentioned as a case study in Section 10.3.1.

Clearly any project of this nature requires a high level of community support and engagement. Selecting the correct social enterprise model will be crucial. Communities First and CCBC may be able to assist in this overall process.




9.9 Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP)25

Overview:

CESP is a regulatory mechanism that requires utility companies to execute measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from domestic buildings on a traded carbon accounting basis. Each utility has a set amount of carbon dioxide to be reduced that is in proportion to their turnover. The funding is intended to encourage ‘whole house, area based’ domestic energy efficiency solutions. The funding is geared towards social housing in deprived areas. Hollybush is not eligible for this funding as it is not in an eligible area.

Eligibility:

Eligible LSOA areas must be in the lowest 15% based on the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD). Additionally areas with high levels of solid walled housing and social housing tend to be favoured due to the uplifts that are available for high levels of carbon reduction and area penetration respectively. It is likely that new entrants to CESP will finish in the 3rd quarter of 2011.

Administration:

The individual utility companies are responsible for the administration of the funding, which is then delivered by third party contractors as selected by the utility company. The overall regulatory process is regulated by Ofgem.

Funding Available:

Depending on the attractiveness of the carbon dioxide savings, the utility companies will contribute a percentage of the overall cost of the works. Typical contributions have ranged from 10% - 80% of total costs. Projects that include higher levels of social housing and the potential for multiple measures typically receive a higher contribution from the utility company. The remainder is usually met by some combination of Registered Social Landlord and Local Authority funding. The Welsh Assembly Government has also provided contributions through the Arbed programme in some areas.

Included measures: • Connection to a district heating scheme

• Gas central heating in a property that does not have an existing central heating system

• Ground source heat pumps (GSHP)

• High efficiency boiler when replacing a G-rated boiler

• Air source heat pumps (ASHP)

• Cavity wall insulation

• Internal solid wall insulation

• Loft insulation

• Microgeneration measures other than GSHP and ASHP

• Fuel switching

Different measures are favoured over others depending on the carbon savings achievable. 25 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/open/cesp/cesp.aspx

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/open/cesp/cesp.aspx




Hollybush Context:

Unfortunately Hollybush, which falls within the larger LSOA of Argoed (Caerphilly) 2, is not eligible for CESP on this basis. Argoed (Caerphilly) 2 is ranked among the top 20% on the income domain of the WIMD. here are only two eligible areas in the Caerphilly Borough: St James 3 and Twyn Carno 1.

Recommendations:

Hollybush is not eligible for CESP funding however, there are 16 other CESP eligible LSOAs in Caerphilly as follows:

§ Argoed 1 § Bargoed 4 § Bedwas, Trethomas and Machen 2 § Bedwas, Trethomas and Machen 6 § Blackwood 2 § Darren Valley 2 § Hengoed 2 § Moriah 3 § New Tredegar 2 § New Tredegar 3 § Newbridge 2 § Penyrheol (Caerphilly) 4 § Penyrheol (Caerphilly) 8 § St. James 3 § St. James 4 § Twyn Carno 1




10 Delivery mechanisms

This report shows that Hollybush and other off-gas communities in the County Borough have a range of options available to them to help bring about both energy saving and energy generating projects.

There are essentially three routes by which Hollybush residents can benefit from energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

1. Individual household self supported measures

2. Grant funded area based measures

3. Community based initiatives

This section illustrates examples of how these could be made to happen and highlights suitable sources of funding. Case studies that demonstrate how similar projects have been delivered are also included.

10.1 Individual household self supported measures

Traditionally, if individual households have the means, they have been able to upgrade their own houses and reduce energy usage through their own funds or through some sources of grant funding. This is generally for measures such as installing energy efficient devices, fitting radiator heat reflectors, draft proofing, insulation (pipes, cavity wall, loft), fitting high performance windows and doors, more efficient heating systems, etc. While this is limited to those who can afford such measures many of them do represent good value at low cost.

Some of the more expensive options such as central heating improvements, which have good paybacks in terms of reducing energy demand and increasing comfort levels, are also supported by grant funding such as the National Fuel Poverty Scheme and CERT. These are available through contacting the relevant sources directly. For the NFPS this will be the Energy Saving Trust via telephone or the internet (once the scheme is launched over the coming months) and for CERT by contacting the utility companies directly or via one of the contractors who install the measures on behalf of the utility.

A good example of an individual who has taken this approach can be seen from the following case study taken from the “Old Home, Super Home” website, which makes demonstration projects from individuals own refurbishment projects and opens the houses to the public.




10.1.1 Case Study 1: Abergavenny, Lower Monk Street Owner: John Cranna

House Type: Early 1900s end of terrace

Carbon saving: 76%

Approximate cost savings: £600 per year

Measures installed:

• Double glazing (uPVC framed)

• Internal insulation (Thermaline Super 60mm)

• Ground floor insulated with 70mm Celotex, 50mm Thermaline to the underside with 25mm Celotex in between

• Under-floor heating

• Condensing gas boiler

• Low energy lights and halogen lights in bathroom and kitchen

• Low energy appliances

• 1.8 kWp Photovaltaic Panels

Although on the gas network, this individual has been able to invest in his own home to significantly reduce energy usage and costs. The measures selected are all practical and achievable when viewed as part of existing decorating and DIY activities.

Looking at the measures that have been installed, it can be seen that if applied to a house in Hollybush several of them could be funded by either grant funding or the Feed in tariff. Low energy appliances and low energy lighting have in the past been available via CERT but are now available from mainstream retailers at a reasonable cost. CERT can now help with insulation measures (especially for priority groups) and solar panels and other renewables can be funded through the feed in tariff and renewable heat incentive (see Section 9 for more information on these sources).

Clearly the FIT and RHI favour individuals who have access to funding, but equally the leasing approach (such as rent-a-roof schemes) do provide a realistic option for those with less funds available up-front. As discussed elsewhere in this report, GSHP and biomass options may be viable for larger houses that have either gardens for heat coils or storage for biomass fuel, respectively.

Recommendations:

Communities First with the support of CCBC and HoV should focus education and awareness raising efforts in Hollybush with regards to low cost energy efficiency measures. This should be viewed as a key part of CCBC social responsibility towards vulnerable residents in Hollybush. More should be done to support households at risk of fuel poverty and, in line with the recommendations of WAG’s Fuel Poverty Strategy 2010, efforts should be made to coordinate with other organisations that support work to target fuel poverty.

Finally, a tour of existing homes that have received energy efficient measures could be organised. In order to gain community buy-in and engagement, the residents of Hollybush must be given the opportunity to see




some of these energy saving and energy generating approaches in practice. An example of a potential tour is given in Section 10.5.

10.2 Grant funded area based measures

Grant funded area based measures are likely to be well suited to Hollybush. In particular, the Arbed Phase 2 area based funding measure, as discussed previously, could be utilised to insulate solid walled homes in Hollybush and other areas of the Borough or Argoed ward.

As discussed earlier (Section 9.1), good quality data about the housing stock is required for a successful bid. Building on the work done by BRE and Communities First, further door-to-to surveys may be required to gather more information about dwellings and households and more community events may be required to gather support. Again, a tour to other local energy saving and generating projects might be useful (see Section 10.5).

Arbed Phase 2 is the most likely source of funding for completing a larger scale refurbishment of solid walled properties. The details of this programme are likely to be finalised in the 3rd quarter of 2011 and the programme will run for 2 or 3 years.

10.2.1 Case Study 2: Forgeside, Blaenavon Owner: United Welsh Housing Association

House Type: Early 1900s terraced

Measures installed: External solid wall insulation to the rear and sides of the properties plus solar hot water panels

Outputs: Solid wall insulation has greatly increased comfort levels and reduced fuel bills in these properties. Energy bills have been reduced by approximately £200 per year, per home.

Funding:

HOV Low Carbon Zone, but typical of similar projects funded by Arbed.

Although this project is for social housing, it is fairly representative of what could happen in Hollybush. The use of external wall insulation is suitable for many of the terraced properties in Hollybush. United Welsh, although a housing association, has also installed solid wall insulation to a number of privately owned households through the Arbed programme.

Recommendations:

CCBC should develop a comprehensive Arbed Phase 2 bid which will include Hollybush as well as other off-gas communities in the Argoed ward. A tour should be taken to visit similar projects that are relatively local to Hollybush.




10.3 Community based initiatives

Developing community based schemes is the most complicated but potentially the most rewarding approach to realising community benefits. It is also the option that requires the most input from the community. While still requiring the support of the Local Authority, this approach requires less direct input than for example an Arbed or CESP bid.

There are many examples of communities in the UK that have developed wind or hydro schemes that generate income that is then available for local community projects. Such projects do not have to be concerned with energy, although very often they are. There are a number of projects that have been developed in South Wales, notable the Amen Awel Tawe community wind project and the hydro projects supported by the Green Valleys in the Brecon Beacons area. Also, there are some community owned micro-hydro sites in the Rhondda area.

Such projects turn the concept of the Energy Hierarchy upside down, by generating income from renewable energy first. It is then possible fund measures to improve insulation and other carbon and cost saving measures. However, since the energy produced from the community systems would likely not be directly displacing household energy – instead it will probably be simply sold back to the electricity grid – it is not so intrinsically linked to the performance of the dwellings; it is simply an income generating mechanism.

Funding mechanisms such as Ynni’r Fro and the Energyshare scheme are based on a model that requires community groups to develop their own plans. Specifically, the Ynni’r Fro model requires a formal social enterprise to be set up. Developing well designed renewable energy systems such a community wind turbines can allow a social enterprise to be genuinely self-financing and viable in the medium to long term, which in turn can bring significant benefits to a local community. Additional benefits can include training, skills development and job creation.

There are a number of different forms of social enterprise that are suitable to support community energy projects. The forms supported by Ynni’r Fro are26:

• Community Interest Company

• Company limited by Guarantee or Share

• Industrial and Provident Society

• Limited Liability Partnership

• Registered Charity

In the case of Hollybush, any of these options could be considered. The requirement initially is that a group of local people get together to develop plans. From here, other organisations, including the Technical Development Officer support available from Ynni’r Fro, can provide assistance.

Community Interest Company:

This legal form is designed to support organisations with social beneficial objectives but that do not want full charitable status.

Key points are:

• All assets may only be used for the benefit of the community. This is known as ‘asset lock’.

26 http://offline.cooperatives-uk.coop/SimplyLegal

http://offline.cooperatives-uk.coop/SimplyLegal




• A Community Interest Company Regulator must determine that the CIC’s mission statement confirms that the CIC does indeed function for the benefit of the community.

• A CIC limited by shares can issue shares but the dividend from these is usually capped to maintain community benefits while not making the shares too expensive to buy.

• A CIC limited by guarantee cannot issue shares.

• A CIC is a fairly flexible approach to delivering community benefits.

Company Limited by Guarantee or Shares

This approach is commonly taken by community interest organisations as it offers a flexible framework as long as fundamental regulations are adhered to.

Companies limited by guarantee tend to be favoured by grant funding organisation so are typically favoured by community organisations.

Industrial and Provident Societies

IPS are typically used by worker cooperatives and housing cooperatives. There is usually less bureaucracy and reporting required of an IPS than of a private company.

Limited Liability Partnership

This form of company is viewed as an alternative to full private company status and is popular with worker cooperatives and other organisations. Such an organisation must be profit making, so is often not used by community organisations.

A number of very useful case studies can be found on the Energyshare website27.

Four examples are given here:

• Aman Awel Tawe

• Community Power Cornwall

• Llangattock Community Interest Company

• Westray Development Trust, Orkney

10.3.1 Case Study 3: Aman Awel Tawe27 (Charity)

Awel Aman Tawe (AAT) is a small charity and social enterprise in South Wales working with other community groups, community councils and partner organisations towards the installation of a 4MW community wind farm. The wind farm will act as a local asset - the anticipated operating profits from electricity sales will support a range of sustainable initiatives linked to clean transport, local food, energy efficiency and micro renewables, education and training. Planning consent for the wind farm was achieved in October 2009 for two turbines, 100m to tip (60m towers and 40m blades). This followed a process of community consultation, an independent referendum managed by the Electoral Reform Services and an

27 www.energyshare.com





Environmental Impact Assessment of the site. (Two reports on the consultation available from DECC website).

The site is 20 miles north of Swansea in the Amman valley. The participating community involves the 12 villages in the Upper Amman and Swansea Valley surrounding the wind farm site on Mynydd y Gwrhyd. There are approximately 13,500 people living in the 12 villages, which are spread across the three unitary authorities of Neath Port Talbot (in which the wind farm will be sited), Carmarthenshire and Powys.

Fuel poverty is a major concern, especially for older citizens. The housing stock is poor with many solid wall houses heated by coal or oil. In line with much of the former coalfield areas, there is a relatively high proportion of private housing in the area.

In keeping with AAT’s established approach to ensure that initiatives are socially inclusive, generate economic benefits and support the environment, the wind farm project has never been purely a technical infrastructure development. For example,18 local people were trained in participatory and inclusive consultation techniques and then employed to undertake this work. Several went on to employment with other organisations and Sian Rhys Williams won the British Youth Council’s ‘Young Person of the Year’ award. This approach led to the British Government selecting AAT as a case study for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002.

AAT has sought to increase support and recognition by broadening the charity’s work into all forms of renewables and energy efficiency, bringing about significant further savings in CO2 emissions. In addition, planning consent has been secured to develop a zero carbon café, biodiesel pump and allotments at AAT’s offices in the village of Cwmllynfell. These are the sort of projects which would be taken forward from wind farm profits beyond March 2011. It is considered that engaging people in a range of low carbon community initiatives encourages wider behaviour change.

10.3.2 Case Study 4: Community Power Cornwall28 (Industrial and Provident Society)

Community Power Cornwall seeks to meet their energy needs through renewable sources, while retaining financial, social and environmental benefits within the county. A co-operative venture to develop small to medium scale community owned renewable energy installations in communities across Cornwall has taken a major step forward with the launch of Community Power Cornwall’s first share issue. The community co-operative, which is the first of its kind in Cornwall, has already secured planning permission to site two Endurance E-3120 50KW wind turbines on land at Tregerrick farm, Gorran Highlanes and the first wind turbines are expected to be installed later this spring. These will generate up to 720,000 KWh of electricity every year, which is enough to power approximately 180 homes and will displace over 377 tons of CO2 a year from fossil fuelled power generation. Shares in the co-operative went on sale on 12th March for £1 per share with a minimum investment of £50 and a maximum of £20,000. The initial share offer will close on 12th June. The co-operative will take advantage of the financial incentives offered by the Feed in Tariff to meet its objectives and while it does expect to pay shareholders interest on their shares, surpluses made through

28 http://www.communitypowercornwall.coop

http://www.communitypowercornwall.coop




the venture will also be allocated to re-investment in further local renewable generation capacity and community grants. Community Power Cornwall is working with Cornish communities to help them understand their energy needs and to enable residents to influence key decisions on technology choices and scheme scale. Host communities will also benefit from peer development programmes to transfer skills to participants and build capacity for communities to independently develop their own renewable energy and low carbon schemes.

10.3.3 Case Study 5: Llangattock29 (Community Interest Company)

Llangattock Green Valleys (LGV) is a growing community group based in the rural Welsh village of Llangattock in the heart of the Brecon Beacons National Park. Llangattock is a relatively small community numbers wise – around 420 homes and some 1,300 residents. It is spread over two sides of a valley, with the village itself surrounded by four scattered hamlets – a situation that presents both challenges and some unique opportunities.

LGV started out two years ago as a loose collection of residents who shared a broad vision of creating a cleaner, greener, more sustainable future for the community. Many of the members are interested in harnessing natural local resources, e.g. water, wind, solar power and wood fuel, to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and help save money. The principal objective is to establish Llangattock as a Carbon Negative Community by 2015.

By sharing knowledge, forging innovative partnerships and encouraging the whole village to get involved in a range of ambitious projects, the group are already making a real difference to the community. In November 2009 thry won the Welsh heat of the British Gas Green Streets project. As well as becoming one of 14 communities chosen to take part in the year-long 2010 Green Streets competition, they also received over £137,000 worth of funding to help kick start their plans. They then used this to secured additional match-funding.

The organisation is a Community Interest Company (reg no. 7255186). They provide an 'asset lock', which ensures that assets and profits are dedicated to community purposes.

10.3.4 Case Study 6: Westray Development Trust, Orkney30 (Company Limited by Guarantee)

The Westray Development Trust is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. Everyone in the community is invited to become a member. After six years of planning and preparation, the small island community of Westray is reaping the benefits of its own wind turbine. Profits from the 900kW turbine are expected to rise to more than £200,000 a year and will be ploughed into projects to benefit the remote Orkney island’s 600 residents.

It was anticipated that the funds would be used to pay for current and future projects, to further develop the island of Westray and to implement the development plan. Community buy-in was essential and through

29 www.energyshare.com and www.llangattockgreenvalleys.org 30 www.westray-orkney.co.uk/thetrust/organisation.html


http://www.llangattockgreenvalleys.org

http://www.westray-orkney.co.uk/thetrust/organisation.html




effective engagement processes and involvement, the community has been very supportive and has contributed to the success of Westray and ownership of the project.

Through a range of funding sources, the trust was able to employ a renewables development officer and fund technical development work. Westray Renewable Energy Ltd was established to take the project forward and with support from Community Energy Scotland, were able to tap into the experience of other communities as well as a number of resources, including technical consultants.

The process was not without its challenges. As a small community, they struggled to find the financial resources to realise their vision. They had problems finding suppliers of wind turbines who would supply a single turbine to such a remote island. They also had issues with planning and logistics. After four years of hard work, Westray's community turbine was finally installed. The £1.6m Westray scheme was supported by the Big Lottery Fund.

The process and experience has brought the community closer together, building their confidence and helping people realise their potential. The trust was surprised by the skills of the community, and the willingness of people to get involved. They have developed many successful community projects, including creation of a youth drop-in centre, development of a marina and the installation of small wind turbines into 3 community facilities. They also have a biofuels project.

10.4 Summary and Recommendations

Clearly there is a wide variety of different approaches to setting up community energy companies, all of which have their own complications, structures and benefits. Any such development requires commitment and input from members of the local community. In Hollybush there is the potential for members of the public to support the development of such a scheme.

As a first step, it is recommended that Hollybush, perhaps with the support of CCBC or BRE, contact the Technical Development Officer for Ynni’r Fro for the Heads of the Valleys area to discuss potential options. The technical development officer is Dan McCallum who is heavily involved with the Amen Awel Tawe project, so is therefore familiar with setting up community based energy projects.

10.5 Energy Tour

As discussed between BRE, CCBC and at the steering group meetings for this feasibility study, a useful approach to developing the work in Hollybush would be to visit some relatively local installations of low energy housing refurbishment and renewable energy installations. There are nearby community hydro schemes, examples of solid wall insulation on both terraces and non-traditional houses, community owned wind turbines and the British Gas Green Skills Centre demonstrates both renewables and energy efficiency measures. Previously, BRE have organised such tours for community groups and would be happy to do this again in the future.

An example day might include the following:

• Visit to the external wall insulation and boiler replacement project in Markham (steel framed social housing) with Charter Housing Association.

• Visit to solid wall external insulation on private and social housing terraced properties in Llanhileth and Cwm with United Welsh Housing Association.

• Visit to Talybont or Llangattock Community Energy Projects




• Visit to the British Gas Green Skills Centre in Tredegar

Additionally, a separate visit could be arranged to the Amen Awel Tawe project near Ammanford. There are also community run small scale hydro projects in the Rhondda that might be suitable to visit. However, given the proximity of the projects in Blaenau Gwent and in Brecon Beacons in order to maximise local impact it might be worthwhile focusing on the projects that are the closest to Hollybush.

The energy tour could be tailored for either CCBC members/ officers and/ or for residents of Hollybush. A dual approach would probably be the most beneficial, i.e. two separate tours, although this would be more challenging to organise in terms of commitment from representatives of the individual projects.




11 Conclusions

• Perhaps unsurprisingly, surveys indicated that the primary motivation for residents of Hollybush regarding energy was to save money on their energy bills.

• A review of the relevant policy and strategy documents for the region indicate that there is strong government support for initiatives relating to energy improvements, renewable energy development and mechanisms to protect vulnerable households from the risk of fuel poverty. Funding initiatives and drivers that have, or are being put in place, offer a considerable amount of potential to the residents of Hollybush to realise their goal.

• The improvement measures that are likely to provide the largest cost savings are the installation of external or internal wall insulation to solid wall dwellings and the upgrade of oil and LPG boilers to modern, efficient heating systems.

• The single measure that brings about the largest CO2 emissions reduction would be a switch to a biomass boiler heating system. However, the running costs for such a system are typically not so favourable.

• A switch to air source heat pumps (or ground source heat pumps for dwellings suitable to receive them) seem to offer a reasonable balance between cost savings for residents and CO2 emissions reductions, compared to the other measures identified.

• Feedback from community engagement suggests that many residents need to see immediate reductions in their fuel costs to make their cost of living more manageable and are not able to contribute to measures up front where they will not pay back for a number of years and hence not offer any immediate benefits.

• While a number of survey respondents indicated that they would contribute towards the cost of renewable energy, many did not, and those that did were typically not in a position to spend enough money to bring about meaningful improvements.

• There is scope for the village to considerably reduce its overall energy demand and save costs by adopting a number of improvement measures and technologies and by taking advantage of a range of existing and upcoming funding mechanisms that have been identified.

• While benefits can most certainly be realised by individual householders, it is likely that if the community are able to come together to support a shared goal they will be able to bring about wider benefits for the whole community (i.e. join together to support an Arbed bid, or to back a community wind turbine project, etc).

• The findings of this study will generally represent the potential for energy reduction and renewable energy generation measures for any small off gas community. It should be relatively easy to look at the key features of a village – the building construction type, the fuel types and the key environmental parameters such as dwelling orientation, scale of wind resource and availability of land – then assess the suitability of each of the measures discussed in this study, prioritised according to the Energy Hierarchy.




12 Recommendations

Specific recommendations have been made throughout each of the individual sections of the report. However, some of the key headline recommendations for the project are:

• Publicise the findings of this study in order to educate and raise awareness amongst residents of Hollybush of what options may be available for their homes and the potential funding streams that may help facilitate improvements.

• Consider running visits for residents to other areas where relevant projects have been carried out. There are nearby projects relating to most technologies and this would allow residents to see and experience for themselves the impact of the potential measures, discuss any concerns with those who have been involved first hand and decide for themselves if it suits their needs.

• If Caerphilly Council were to support the residents of Hollybush in the submission of an Arbed bid towards solid wall insulation, significant benefits could be realised, both in terms of cost savings for residents and CO2 emission reductions within the county. The data on cost and emissions savings from this study should help to justify the benefits that could be brought about by carrying out solid wall insulation, which should help strengthen the bid.

• Encourage the residents of Hollybush to consider forming a community interest company in order to attract funding for the development of community based energy projects, such as wind turbines.

• Carry out additional feasibility work to fully scope out the potential and costs for a hydro-power scheme close to Hollybush in the Sirhowy river.

Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for the village of ...

Documents

Transcript of Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for the village of ...