No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

An evaluation is made of the potential fuel and financial savings possible when a small, autonomous diesel system sized to meet the demands of an individual, domestic consumer is adapted to include: (1) combined heat and power (CUP) generation. (2) wind turbine generation. (3) direct load control. The potential of these three areas is investigated by means of time-step simulation modelling on a microcomputer. Models are used to evaluate performance and a Net Present Value analysis used to assess costs. A cost/benefit analysis then enables those areas, or combination of areas, that facilitate the greatest savings to be identified. The modelling work is supported by experience gained from the following: (1) field study of the Lundy Island wind/diesel system. (2) laboratory testing of a small diesel generator set. (3) study of a diesel based CUP unit. (4) study of a diesel based direct load control system. (5) statistical analysis of data obtained from the long-term monitoring of a large number of individual household's electricity consumption. Rather than consider the consumer's electrical demand in isolation, a more flexible approach is adopted, with consumer demand being regarded as the sum of primarily two components: a small, electricity demand for essential services and a large, reschedulable demand for heating/cooling. The results of the study indicate that: (1) operating a diesel set in a CUP mode is the best strategy for both financial and fuel savings. A simple retrofit enables overall conversion efficiencies to be increased from 25% to 60%, or greater, at little cost. (2) wind turbine generation in association with direct load control is a most effective combination. (3) A combination of both the above areas enables greatest overall financial savings, in favourable winds resulting in unit energy costs around 20% of those of diesel only operation.

No description available.

Energy poverty – the circumstance of depending on low quality fuels and inefficient end-uses, or conversely, the lack of access to modern energy services – is one of the defining global issues of our time. Access to electricity is essential to eradicating energy poverty and empowering individuals, communities and economies, to reach their potential. Globally, 1.3 billion people, mainly in less developed countries, lack access to electricity. While central grid extension often provides electricity at very low cost, the reliability of the central grid in less developed countries is so low that the priority given by policy makers to central grid extension must be questioned. Rather than maximizing the extent of often unreliable or simply unenergized central grid extensions, we demonstrate the imperative to consider a multi-track approach to electricity access that includes microgrids and high quality solar lighting products. Through case studies and modeling efforts based on extensive empirical data, we provide new insight to this imperative and elucidate the nature of the challenges and solutions for microgrids to eradicate energy poverty.

No description available.

This paper focusses on the economic and socio-political preconditions and implications of low energy scenarios (LES) in the UK. It can be considered in two parts. The first section develops a generalised methodology for classifying and assessing alternative energy scenarios. Three scenario archetypes are identified: the conservation scenario; the renewable scenario; and the post-materialist scenario. The second part involves an examination of the various illustrative scenarios which have been advocated by the so-called low energy groups. In addition, since an assessment only has meaning if it allows for a comparison of a whole range of scenarios, a reference scenario (RES) has also been included. All these scenarios are subject to considerable uncertainties. These risks can be categorized as techno-economic, macro-economic, and socio-political uncertainties. LES in general are shown to have a greater techno-economic risk of failure than the RES since they incorporate a larger contribution from 'untried' energy supply and utilisation technologies. More importantly however, both the RES and LES would encounter the most serious obstacles in the socio-political spectrum. Since all LES embody a 'conservation scenario' they would be faced with a serious problem of providing an adequate incentive (whether carrot or whip) to ensure necessary take up of investments. This rests upon the assumption that individuals are myopic. A second fundamental socio-political risk concerns the acceptability of the energy supply facilities. In particular the expansion programmes for nuclear, synfuel and coal developments in the RES are not expected to be socially acceptable. On a less serious scale the 'renewable' LES would encounter obstacles in deploying wind, wave, solar and biomass technologies. With no evidence to suggest the development of post-materialist values the post-materialist scenarios must be considered the most implausible of all the scenarios.