Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004
PROFESSOR JIM
SKEA, PROFESSOR
PAUL EKINS,
PROFESSOR GEOFF
HAMMOND and MR
RICHARD STARKEY
Q240 Chairman: One of our witnesses
in our earlier inquiry into renewables described your centre as
a "research hotel". Is that a description which you
accept and is it appropriate, do you think?
Professor Skea: Yes and no. We are not a research
hotel but we have worked up a research hotel concept within the
centre, which will be part of the overall centre's operations.
The purpose of that is to act as the networking hub for the centre,
the place where we can engage with the international energy research
community, draw in the senior academics from overseas, run joint
projects and act as the place where we will be actually running
workshops and seminars. In fact that research hotel, which has
been described as the meeting place, is based at Oxford University.
So Imperial College will be the administrative headquarters of
the centre and Oxford will be running the networking hub with
the research hotel.
Chairman: That is interesting.
Q241 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Could
I just ask a quick addition. When you looked at this issue, and
you have come back to the point that I was making about the virtual
as against a proper centre, was there an analysis made of the
different costs and was it costed out to have one proper research
centre and was it the extra cost that stopped it happening? What
would be that extra cost if that was an issue?
Professor Skea: I have to say that I was only
part of this process since April this year and I was given a certain
charge at this point, which was to try and put together the different
elements of the UK community on the basis of peer review comments
that had been made and passed through the scientific advisory
committee which was advising the Research Councils, and listening
to the guidance I had from that committee the steer was very much
to try and pull together this distributed centre rather than to
base it all in one place and have a kind of winner takes all result
coming out of it. So from where I was sitting these were the kinds
of instructions or parameters that I was operating within.
Q242 Lord Wade of Chorlton: So you
were not aware of any initial analysis on cost that had been made
on alternative ways of doing it?
Professor Skea: No.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I raise the issue,
if I can just make the point, because we had exactly the same
situation when we ran the investigation into the future of computers
and computer technology when this Committee proposed the setting
up of a centre and Government watered it down to a virtual centre
made up of four different centres throughout the country. In practice,
it has been a very difficult thing to pull together and it is
still long behind what it should have been had the advice of this
Committee been taken and it worries me that it is a Government
approach to try and reduce the cost that turned out to be a lot
less effective. When we look at the financial implications of
what is going to happen on the energy field generally, it would
seem to me the difference between 10 or 20 million is peanuts
within the general scheme of things and is a mistake. I would
like to put that on the record, which I obviously have.
Q243 Lord Lewis of Newnham: Could
I just ask, is this an interim measure or is this the intention
that this will be the operational procedure it will go through,
as it were, for all time? I can understand that your way of dealing
with it at the moment allows you to start very quickly, whereas
building up a centre, going through a recruitment phase, could
well have been your four years. But if indeed this is still an
alternative that you could envisage taking place in three or four
years' time, it seems to me you could then marry these two together
quite successfully.
Professor Skea: Yes. It is worthwhile saying
that we do have these two milestones within the next five years
where we can look at the arrangements, the first being the two
year review, which I do not anticipate making any radical changes
in terms of moving from a virtual centre to a bricks and mortar
one. The Executive Director and I have been invited eighteen months
before the end of the current contract to give careful consideration
to how you might want to move this forward after 2009 and to draw
forward appropriate proposals at that point.
Q244 Chairman: On the financing,
did your budget not come out of the Research Council? Did three
or four of the Research Councils throw something into the pot,
or was it an additional sum on top of the Research Councils' already
existing fund?
Professor Skea: As I understand it, it was part
of the Research Councils' bid for the 2002 Spending Review. They
were allocated £28 million for the towards the sustainable
energy economy programme and took the decision to allocate £12
to 13 million of that for the centre itself.
Q245 Chairman: And all of the Research
Councils were involved in that?
Professor Skea: Three of the Research Councils.
It is led by the Natural Environment Research Council with support
from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and
the Economic and Social side.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q246 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
There was a specific allocation in the CSR last July. Is there
any further allocation as far as you know?
Professor Skea: There is further allocation
for energy research, as I understand it, but there is a process
going on at the moment to decide where that will go.
Q247 Lord Paul: One of the criticisms
that one hears a lot is that there is a lot of research going
on all over the country but it is just not being coordinated and
people are afraid to communicate with each other in spite of the
advance in the communications system, etc. They just want to run
it themselves. How effective do you think now in energy that coordination
is and what kind of effect your research centre would be able
to bring to it?
Professor Skea: Clearly the starting point for
this was Sir David King's Energy Research Review Group report
back at the end of 2001 and it clearly said that energy research
was not sufficiently coordinated in the UK. My subjective impression
from having tried to put the programme of the research centre
together and also communicating with the people making their bids
under the wider programme is that that would certainly still be
the case, though perhaps not as true as it might have been two
to three years ago because I think the very fact that the Research
Councils have been increasing their funding again has given incentives
to people to find out what is going on and this awareness has
been rising. What I would say about the Energy Research Centre
is that if we do not make a difference to that level of coordination
we will actually have failed in our task because it is one of
the main charges that have been given to us. If I could just mention
two specific initiatives that we will be taking forward within
the centre to address that. First of all, we will be establishing
a research portal which will map out the landscape of research
activities and competences in the UK to try and make it clear
and transparent to the wider community and there will essentially
be a gateway from the main website which will take you to that
type of information. The second thing is that there is quite a
high expectation from the Office of Science and Technology, the
Research Councils and the DTI that the research centre should
attempt to in some ways "conduct" (my inverted commas)
the sort of direction of future energy research within the UK
and we have built a specific function called research road mapping
into the centre's activities which will be integrated with the
work of the wider network to try and identify future research
priorities and the sequence of research problems which need to
be solved if you are going to get to certain points in the future
in the energy system.
Q248 Lord Paul: One of the problems
which I hear about is that it is a cultural problem, everybody
wants to keep their research to themselves. How are you going
to make changes in their cultural inhibitions?
Professor Skea: Yes, everybody wants to keep
their research to themselves but a lot of the more recent funding
initiatives have actually made it a requirement that people begin
to work together in order to actually get access to funding. I
have to say at the smallest sniff of research funding it is amazing
the incentives that are given to the academic community. They
are incredibly responsive to these kinds of signals. So if you
look at the kinds of initiatives which are being put together
under the towards a sustainable energy economy programme really
quite extensive consortia have come together with different pieces
of inter-disciplinary expertise with people beginning to work
together. Interestingly, to relate it back to this problem about
virtual versus bricks and mortar, it appears that it is almost
easier for people to collaborate with people at a university one
hundred miles away than it appears to be for them to collaborate
with their own colleagues and this pattern of collaboration between
and across universities is actually quite a striking feature.
Q249 Chairman: Perhaps we could ask
Professor Hammond, who is at the sharp end of this.
Professor Hammond: Well, I certainly agree with
Professor Skea. I have been involved in the Carbon Vision programme
(Carbon Trust/EPSRC) and I am hoping to be involved in Supergen
III, which is an EPSRC programme. Both programmes involve large
consortia. In the case of Supergen, 12 universities plus two industrial
companies, and the prospect of getting "a pot of gold"
to do the particular research that you want to pursue encourages
researchers no end.
Chairman: I am sure, yes.
Q250 Lord Lewis of Newnham: Are there
any areas which you have found completely lacking from the point
of view of energy research which you think really are critical
and ought to be being looked at and are not being looked at in
this country?
Professor Skea: Maybe I can go first on that.
I think given the very ambitious political objectives engaged
with energy policy, the 60 per cent target, it is very difficult
to leave out parts of the energy sector when you are actually
trying to take the research agenda forward, which is why the work
programme that we have put together is really rather comprehensive
in trying to cover all of the angles. Personally, I think perhaps
the biggest challenge is making the link between more basic research
and the exploitation of technology, which is more the development
and demonstration end that would fall within the remit of the
DTI perhaps rather than the Research Councils. I go to see the
DTI regularly about that, but this is one of the agendas that
I would like to see taken forward certainly.
Q251 Chairman: Perhaps we might just
ask, because we have them here, whether PSI and the Tyndall Centre
have any collaboration in their programmes?
Professor Ekins: Yes, I can say categorically
we have. I have been working on two projects with the Tyndall
Centre. One was to do with economic modelling of carbon reductions,
which has now come to an end. That was a collaboration with the
universities of Cambridge, Imperial College, and colleagues at
the University of Manchester. So that was already one of these
networking activities which will be feeding very much into the
UK Energy Research Centre work that we are doing. We are doing
another project, again with the University of Manchester, on the
integrated scenarios side of things, which again is going to be
related to the modelling work that I will be doing with the centre,
and PSI is going to be a collaborating partner of phase 2 of the
Tyndall Centre, assuming that phase 2 of the Tyndall Centre is
approved. It is part of that proposal. So I personally have been
very keen, and I know Professor Skea has too at Research Director
level, for the UK Energy Research Centre and the Tyndall Centre
to do things together where that makes sense and clearly I am
running the energy modelling theme for the UK Energy Research
Centre. That is a very important part of the climate change agenda
as well, the whole issue of integrated assessment models, and
I am pleased to say that institutionally it looks as if we are
going to be able to work very closely together indeed.
Mr Starkey: All I would add to that is that
Professor Ekins and I met only yesterday at Tyndall north.
Chairman: Well, we are hot off the press
then.
Q252 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
We have been talking about the structures. Could we talk a little
bit now about the research agenda and what are the main priorities
of the research agenda of the Energy Research Centre and how energy
efficiency, which is the main focus of our study at the moment,
is positioned within this agenda.
Professor Skea: Yes. Maybe if I can take that
first and then pass it on to Geoff Hammond to look specifically
at the energy efficiency side. The sad answer is that the priority
is almost everything, which I think is probably the wrong answer
when you put the question in that way. We have divided the Centre's
work into three vertical themes which basically divide the energy
sector up into a fairly logical way—the demand side, the
supply side and the infrastructure (ie the wires and pipes that
join things together)—and there is a Co-Director responsible
for each of these vertical themes. We also have three cross-cutting
themes, which largely address the interests of the individual
research councils. So the systems and modelling work being pioneered
by Paul represents the interests of the Economic and Social Research
Council. We have an environmental sustainability theme and we
also have a theme on materials for advanced energy, which was
one of the key blockers identified by the Chief Scientific Advisor
a couple of years ago. But just to emphasise that demand reduction
is the title of the very first theme that we identify, so clearly
energy efficiency is something that we identify as a priority.
Perhaps I could invite Professor Hammond to amplify on that theme.
Professor Hammond: Thank you. The energy demand
reduction theme which Jim mentioned is being coordinated through
Oxford University under Dr Brenda Boardman, whom I believe you
met at an earlier session. Roughly speaking the split of activities
in demand reduction is something like 46 per cent of energy is
assumed to be part of the building fabric or structure, excluding
processes in buildings, 15 per cent transport (which I know is
outside your particular remit), something like 20 per cent in
the food chain, the growing, packaging and transporting of food
of one sort or another, and 15 per cent in industrial processes.
Now, there are other ways in which you could `cut that cake',
and many people would combine the food processing with the industrial
infrastructure. So that is the basic format in which the energy
demand reduction theme is going forward, and different groups
will take a role in various sub-themes. Generally speaking, under
the buildings sector the Carbon Vision programme, which is a joint
Carbon Trust/EPSRC programme, is thought to deal adequately with
the building structure, transport is being done by the Robert
Gordon University up in Scotland, I think the food chain is being
undertaken by Oxford, and we are looking at industrial processes
at the moment.
Q253 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Is Oxford also doing the building fabric? Are they leading on
that?
Professor Hammond: Under Carbon Vision there
is a very large consortium, of which Oxford and Brenda Boardman
coordinate one part, which is entitled "building market transformation".
Q254 Lord Lewis of Newnham: So what
timescale are you running to on this? When do you anticipate that
the work you are doing will build a result? I am just looking
at an energy report here, which says that emissions have increased
in three of the past four years and still stand at broadly the
same level as in 1997. So there is a large hill to climb there
and I am just wondering what sort of timescale you are anticipating
your work will lead to.
Professor Hammond: Carbon Vision is looking
at 2030 as the timescale for something like a 50 per cent reduction
in the buildings sector. I think Jim will probably be able to
tell you what the UK Energy Research Centre is looking at elsewhere.
Professor Skea: Yes. To turn it into a more
managerial response to the question, because we will be reviewed
in two years' time we have some specific targets for what we intend
to deliver at that particular point and three years further down
the line at the end of the first phase we would expect to have
other achievements under our belt. But I think it is worthwhile
emphasising that given research will have an impact in the energy
system in the long-term and given the long-term nature of the
UK's energy policy objectives, I think it is appropriate for the
centre to have these slightly longer term timescales in mind rather
than thinking of what happens in the next six months to two years
in terms of the development of the energy system.
Q255 Baroness Platt of Writtle: Are
you intending to focus demand-side research on any specific sectors
and in what sectors do you see the greatest scope for reducing
demand?
Professor Hammond: As far as the bodies that
are coordinating the activity, the energy demand reduction is
being focused at Oxford in the Environmental Change Institute
and is led by Dr Brenda Boardman. The largest of the sectors is
clearly seen as being buildings but as there already is this very
large Carbon Vision programme it is seen as being handled mainly
by them. It is being coordinated and linked through the UK Energy
Research Centre. After buildings we are looking at the food chain,
transport and industrial processes, roughly equal size in terms
of potential for energy demand reduction.
Q256 Baroness Platt of Writtle: Could
I just follow this up, because it seems to me that the most important
thing is public education. I got my gas bill last week and was
very pleased to see that British Gas has included all sorts of
ways of saving energy in the home. All this research is lovely,
but the average member of the public is not going to take much
interest in that. The most important thing is the average member
of the public thinking, "This is something I need to do if
I want to avoid climate change and also what I want to do because
I then save money."
Professor Hammond: Perhaps I will just answer
that from a personal point of view and then I am sure Jim will
want to come in. A few years ago I was involved at the University
of Bath with a couple of colleagues, a psychologist and an architect,
in looking at how we could introduce smart metering into Georgian
houses in Bath to encourage the occupants to save energy. Certainly
the evidence from that study indicated that, if you give people
more information about their impact and also the potential cost
savings, they do take steps to reduce their energy consumption.
Professor Ekins: Perhaps I could just comment
in a slightly broader sense. I am just coming to the end of a
period of being Director of the ESRC's programme on environment
and human behaviour, which seeks to address very much the sorts
of points you are making, what causes people to change behaviour,
and obviously information is an important possible cause of change
of behaviour, but I emphasise the "possible" because
we are bombarded with information of all kinds in all sorts of
ways. Most if it we ignore. It is therefore very important that
there is research to try to elucidate how this information should
best be presented to householders, and indeed there are ongoing
practical programmes of work through Ofgem and elsewhere. I am
also a member of the Ofgem Environmental Advisory Board, which
has advised on how the bills from the suppliers should be formatted
so that people will read and act on the information that is there
and whether there also need to be other policy measures such as,
perhaps, economic instruments which will reinforce the mere information,
because the unfortunate thing is that there have been many attempts
by government to inform people about energy use, climate change
and about all sorts of things which, when people have done surveys
afterwards have turned out not to be terribly successful. I think,
therefore, there is an enormous role of research in helping to
identify and ascertain precisely what kind of information is going
to be effective.
Q257 Baroness Platt of Writtle: I
notice that we have had some information internationally that
in France they are putting a lot into radio and television and
whereas people may not read things, perhaps they watch it or listen
to it more readily.
Professor Ekins: Indeed, yes.
Chairman: Perhaps we should move on.
Lord Lewis of Newnham.
Q258 Lord Lewis of Newnham: Could
I just ask a supplementary here. I am a little bit confused as
to the aim here. Is it to save energy or to reduce CO2
or both, because if it is to reduce CO2 then there
are alternative areas in which I would expect you to be doing
certain types of research?
Professor Hammond: I think the answer is, both.
Obviously energy efficiency results in energy savings that will
lead to carbon savings, providing we still have roughly the mix
of supply side technologies that we have at the moment (because
they are dominated by fossil fuels). As we move into the future,
if and when the sources either become more scarce or we achieve
some of the targets for renewables, and we possibly introduce
nuclear, then those are carbon-free sources.
Q259 Lord Lewis of Newnham: I am
afraid you have used a forbidden word as far as we are concerned.
Nuclear is a word the Government does not seem to like under any
sets of circumstances, but that is another issue. Could I just
ask, what interactions will the centre have with government departments?
I know you have been telling us that you have got a well-developed
structure there. Will energy bodies such as the Energy Saving
Trust be involved in developing the research programmes and how
will the centre feed evidence into the policy-making process?
Professor Skea: I am quite happy to respond
on that. It is not just a question of plans. Already there are
regular meetings between myself, the DTI, Defra, the Energy Saving
Trust and Carbon Trust about how we take forward the research
agenda and some of these have actually been quite practical in
the sense that the Carbon Trust under its carbon vision programme
actually still has some decisions left to make. We have some decisions
left to make about the disposal of our resources and we are actually
talking together to make sure that we make the best common use
of the resources that we have got, that we do not duplicate and
we complement. So we are well engaged with them. In terms of getting
the information and the results over to the policy community,
there are several generic measures but we have also built a very
specific function into the centre to try and achieve that aim.
So the general approach would be publications, short summaries
of research, workshops (because the personal contact is very important
in getting the communication) and direct interaction with policy-makers
on the one to one level. We would also rather systematically look
at opportunities for responding to consultations and inquiries.
I apologise for not responding to this inquiry as we started on
1 October and you closed on 9 October. We thought it was a little
premature, perhaps, to make the offer. The very specific function
that we have built in is something called technology and policy
assessment, which is a function that has been operated for us
by the Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology.
The idea there is that perhaps if you are trying to influence
policy it is not so much new research as the careful integration
and synthesis of existing research which could make the difference.
So with this function we are going to create a steering committee
which will be drawn from people like DTI and the Trusts to develop
a programme of short projects which tries to draw together the
relevant types of information. There will be a steering group.
We have a very clear set of questions and protocol to guide the
projects and the results will be subject to peer and also policy
review at the end of the process. We would anticipate carrying
out about two of these initiatives each year and we are actually
planning a workshop on 10 December with various people from the
policy community to scope out how that programme of work will
actually operate.
Chairman: That is very clear. Thank you.
| 
