Monday, June 18, 2012


cc: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:49:16 +0100
from: "Dr Tomas Markvart" <>
subject: Re: Climate Challenges
to: "John Shepherd" <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, "Trevor Davies" <>

Dear Trevor

Just to echo some of the points that have already been raised principally
about the need to address the engineering issues more fully. Although some
of the 'clean technology' points have been mentioned their
interrelationship and integrated approach to solution does not come
through. A few other areas that should perhaps also appear somewhere:

Where to go after 10% of renewables at 2010 ?
Nuclear v fossil fuels ?
CHP and total energy solutions (already mentioned I think by Jonathan)
Energy storage, fuel cells and novel transport technologies
Effect of biomass as energy source on combined GH gas emissions
How to deal with intermittent renewables (wind solar etc)?
Solar architecture as part of energy technology

Many of these headings appear in various EPSRC programmes but they need to
be brought together to produce scenarios whose emissions and life-cycle
costs can be assessed to advice and comment on energy policy. Some of these
scenarios could be taken further in the form of pilot/demonstration

Perhaps the 'engineering' or 'clean technology' strands should be collected
together and intertwined into another parallel scheme ?

Best wishes


> From: Trevor Davies <>
> To: John Shepherd <>;;;;;;;;
> Cc:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> Subject: Re: Climate Challenges
> Date: 27 September 1999 18:21
> John,
> Many thanks for these comments. Agree about the lightness on the
> engineering side - hence the plea for some "hard text". Think many of
> points are spot on - we'll be back!
> Trevor
> At 16:35 27/09/99 +0100, John Shepherd wrote:
> >Trevor
> > Herewith as promised some rather hasty comments on the Challenges
> >
> > First, I think the Synthesis has captured most of the important points
> >some form or other, but it needs some serious work on re-structuring and
> >re-balancing (see below), and it's also lost some of the "bite" that it
> >in discussion. I'd be happy to help with this (maybe next week) but I
> >do so right now.
> >
> > The main problem is (again) that there's not enough engineering showing
> >through. I know (from a discussion in a taxi !) that Nigel and others
> >that too, so I hope he will propose some beefing up of this aspect.
> >
> > One thing which would help would be to split the "Carbon Management &
> >Technology" challenge back into two bits, one on what to do about fossil
> >fuels (i.e. "The Carbon Challenge") which would deal with fuel
> >uptake of energy-efficient devices, CO2 removal & sequestration, carbon
> >trading, etc etc; and the other on non-fossil options "The Renewables
> >Challenge" on renewables, uptake thereof, application at the
> >domestic/consumer level, and so on. This would be logical (in one way)
> >also bring the technology into the limelight a bit more.
> >
> > I also felt that "Management of Social & Technological Change" as a
> >challenge won't light many candles, at Green College or elsewhere (even
> >though it is one)! I would argue for actually using "Factor 4 and
> >as the title of a challenge. It makes immediate sense to those that have
> >read the book (and it was Sir C.T. who recommended it to me....), and is
> >likely to provoke a reaction such as "What the hell does that mean ?"
> >those that haven't, so at least they take notice (and get educated)!
> >
> > My final points are that
> >
> >1) whilst "Developing the Toolkit" is a good working title for what we
> >to do, we need to think of something more attention-grabbing for the
> >list.
> >
> >2) Integrated Coastal Management/Sea-level Change was in several groups'
> >lists, but has got a bit buried (in the toolkit !). Do we want to
> >this more ? I think so. People keep talking about it, but nobody does
> >precisely because it involves this nexus of natural science, engineering
> >and socio-economics that we're supposed to be going to mobilise....
> >
> >3) The environmental sciences (NERC interest) only really shows through
> >Abrupt Changes & Extremes, at the moment. This would also get a higher
> >profile if we re-emphasised the coastal zone. And when the new CE of
> >was Chairman of the RSPB, he was jolly interested in this subject....
> >
> > That's all I have time for right now, I'm afraid. Over to you for the
> >being.
> >
> > John
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Professor Trevor D. Davies
> Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ
> United Kingdom
> Tel. +44 1603 592836
> Fax. +44 1603 507719
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No comments:

Post a Comment