date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:00:20 -0000
from: "Gross, Robert J K" <robert.grossatXYZxyzerial.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Science Museum Energy Advisory Meeting 18 February 2-4pm
to: "Allan Heather" <heather.allanatXYZxyzi.ac.uk>, "David Sang \(E-mail\)" <email@example.com>, "Duncan Millard \(E-mail\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "John Lanchbery \(E-mail\)" <email@example.com>, "Mike Hulme \(E-mail\)" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Peter Campbell \(E-mail\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Peter Mather \(E-mail\)" <Peter_Mather@bp.com>, "Phil New \(E-mail\)" <NewPG@bp.com>, "Ulrich Eichenauer \(E-mail\)" <email@example.com>, "Walter Dreher \(E-mail\)" <Walter.Dreher@v-pe.de>
This is very good, and I look forward to the meeting later. I have a few
fundamental concerns though, which are laid out below.
Here are my comments:
Is it right to open with 'what happens when fossil fuels run out?' There
is no prospect of that happening for 100s of years (if one considers in
particular coal, unconventional oil reserves and so on).
Similarly, Why are we in danger of 'more fuel shortages and power cuts'?
Environmental impacts - the story reads as if it is all about trade off
and that all environmental impacts are equal. This is misleading for two
1. ALL impacts can be reduced over time through some new technologies
(eg energy efficiency). Surely the real point here is that some
technologies are much better for the environment but maybe cost more,
are less convenient or will take time to develop?
2. SOME impacts are much worse than others. 'Renewable sources also take
their toll on the environment'. The suggestion appears to be that it is
just one's preference. Is it really right to be suggesting that visual
intrusion from wind or a few heavy metals in a solar panel are just as
worrisome as climate change?
Energy efficiency is largely absent from the story. 'Could you manage
without' is the only high level message. But more important, and less
'hair shirt', are the much more efficient devices for providing the
energy services we need.
Few, if any, low carbon scenarios do not envisage an important role for
energy efficiency. There are plenty of tangible examples: LEDs have the
potential to increase the efficiency of lighting service provision by a
factor of 10; Design a building to maximise natural light and the
lighting service uses zero energy (at least in the daytime); a modern
well designed house uses 1/6th of the energy for heating as a Victorian
home, future designs less than 1/10th. A hybrid car could double fuel
efficiency. The list goes on... yet no mention of efficiency in 'energy
today'. No examples of more efficient options in 'future energy'.
Energy services are absent too, and if more emphasis were placed on
meeting needs - light, heat, mobility then the efficiency story would be
easier to tell. Expanding energy services whilst cutting energy use.
Imperial College (ICEPT)
4th Floor RSM Building
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2AZ
020 7594 9324
From: Allan Heather [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 17 February 2004 17:53
To: David Sang (E-mail); Duncan Millard (E-mail); John Lanchbery
(E-mail); Mike Hulme (E-mail); Peter Campbell (E-mail); Peter Mather
(E-mail); Phil New (E-mail); Gross, Robert J K; Ulrich Eichenauer
(E-mail); Walter Dreher (E-mail)
Cc: Gammon Ben; Redler Hannah; Steiner Kate; Byrne Aisling
Subject: FW: Science Museum Energy Advisory Meeting 18 February 2-4pm
Please find attached an Energy Project document which is the first draft
a mapping exercise designed to tell the broad brushstroke Energy content
storyline. It's interpretive function is pitched towards older
and parents to brief them on the overarching themes/key issues.
These themes and issues are explored in depth through the interactive
exhibits and Find Out More stations. This storyline, crafted into bite
chunks, and presented alongside interactive exhibits as graphic labels,
provides the overall context. The bite sized chunks will not be
chronologically and may be read in any order.
We would be grateful to receive comments by Wednesday 3 March 2004 on
attached document, with particular regard to;
* any omissions (particularly big themes)
* over reduction or simplification of information,
particularly where such activities obfuscate real issues or scientific
* glaring factual errors
Please forward comments to Hannah Redler, Energy Project Leader
the following address/email;
London SW7 2DD
Look forward to seeing you all at the Dana Centre tomorrow, 2pm.
<<Content storyline map 17.02.04.doc>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Heather
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:55 PM
> To: David Sang (E-mail); Duncan Millard (E-mail); John Lanchbery
> (E-mail); Mike Hulme (E-mail); Peter Campbell (E-mail); Peter Mather
> (E-mail); Phil New (E-mail); Rob Gross (E-mail); Ulrich Eichenauer
> (E-mail); Walter Dreher (E-mail)
> Cc: Liz Yeoman (E-mail); Margaret Lane (E-mail); Redler Hannah;
> Ben; Willcocks Lorien; Steiner Kate; Byrne Aisling
> Subject: Science Museum Energy Advisory Meeting 18 February 2-4pm
> Dear all
> Please find attached an agenda for the next Energy Advisory Committee
> Group meeting on Wednesday 18 February, 2 -4pm at the Dana Centre.
> For those of you who have not yet visited our new Welcome Wolfson
> which houses the Dana Centre, it is based at the following address;
> 165 Queens Gate
> SW7 5HE
> Tel 020 7942 4040
> I hope to forward an electronic version of an Energy Project document
> you tomorrow, by close of play. Should you be able to read this
> in advance of the meeting on Thursday that would be great, however not
> essential for the meeting. I would however like to ask you all for
> comments on this by Wednesday 3 March. Many thanks
> Any queries, please do give me a call. Looking forward to seeing you
> on Thursday.
> Best wishes
> <<Agenda 18Feb04.doc>>
> Heather Allan
> Sponsor Liaison Manager
> Science Museum
> Development Department
> Exhibition Road
> London SW7 2DD
> T: 0207 942 4333
> F: 0207 942 4366
> E: Please note my new email address: heather.allanatXYZxyzi.ac.uk
This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only
and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please
notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer
system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the
National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for
all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.