Research Councils UK Energy Programme Strategy Fellowship

Options for developing a roadmap of
energy research, skills and training needs

Consultation document

Research Councils UK Energy Programme Strategy Fellowship

June 2012

Jim Skea
RCUK Energy Programme Strategy Fellow
Tel: 0207 594 1571
Email:

1

Contents

List of consultation questions 2

1.  Introduction 3

2.  The shape of the current Research Councils Energy Programme 3

3.  Why cluster? 4

4.  Selecting topics for light touch review 5

5.  Options for clustering the technical workshops 5

6.  Options for the strategy workshops 12

Annex: Briefing Note – synthesis of roadmap of research, skills and training 15

List of Consultation Questions

Q1. Do you agree that it would be preferable to start with the strategic workshops? What are the reasons for your view?

Q2. Do you agree that nuclear fission and industrial energy demand are candidates for a “light-touch review” process? Are there other topics that could be dealt with in this way?

Q3. Do you agree with our identification of clusters and topics that would be robust against a range of options for structuring the technical workshops? Are there other topics that you would also regard as robust?

Q4. Broadly, do you have a preference for any one of the options for clustering the technical workshops over another? Would you advocate a completely different approach and if so why?

Q5. Are there any individual topic choices you would propose to make in order to fine-tune the options for clustering the technical workshops?

Q.6 Which option for structuring the strategy workshops would you prefer? What are the reasons for your preference?

Q.7 If you are not attracted by either option for structuring the strategy workshops, what alternative approach would you recommend?

Q.8 Are there any other observations you would like to make?

15

1.  Introduction

A key aim of the Strategy Fellowship is to develop a roadmap for UK energy research, skills and training. The roadmap is envisioned as a tool which will provide the evidence base upon which the RCUK Energy Programme can plan its forward activities, acting in concert with Government, RD&D funding bodies, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders. The aim is to produce the first version of the roadmap by late summer 2013 and then maintain the roadmap until the end of the Fellowship in March 2017.

The roadmap will be topic-based and published mainly as a web document. However, the topic documents will be complemented by a top-level document (~30 pages) spanning the entire energy domain. Its purpose will be to set out the policy context and the role which individual technologies and approaches (such as behaviour change) might contribute.

Work will be conducted in three waves: a scoping phase (April - August 2012) will involve a comprehensive review of relevant energy roadmaps, pathways and scenario exercises plus extensive consultation with stakeholders; an evidence-gathering phase (September 2012 - May 2013) will rely heavily on workshops bringing the research community and stakeholders together round specific topics (e.g. wind, wave and tidal; bioenergy; buildings energy use etc) in order to develop new roadmap documents or refine existing ones; and a synthesis stage (June 2013 - September 2013) when the results of the foregoing work will be consolidated, peer-reviewed and brought into a consistent format for publication. A fuller description is provided in the Annex.

The purpose of this document is to inform consultations with stakeholders during the scoping phase. It is concerned with the design of the evidence-gathering phase and the structuring of workshops. It is envisaged that two types of workshops will be held: a) technical, topic-based workshops which will offer a space for experts in the relevant field to focus on detailed research, skills and training needs; and b) broader “strategic” workshop which will deal with energy research and training in the context of wider policy, societal and commercial needs. It should be emphasised that the technical workshops will draw on all relevant skills, not just those of engineers. Social scientists,for example, bring key insights relevant to energy demand topics.

Within the resources available, six –eight technical workshops are envisaged during the evidence-gathering phase and three strategic workshops. The central purpose of this document is to set out a small number of options for the scope of these workshops so as to solicit views from stakeholders.

A key initial question is whether the strategic workshops should precede the technical workshops or vice versa. The advantage of starting with the strategic workshops is that the wider context for needs associated with research and training can be clearly set out; the advantage of starting with technical workshops is that the strategic events will be able to take account of the range of possibilities. Our initial proposition is that the balance of advantage lies with taking the strategic workshops first.

Q1. Do you agree that it would be preferable to start with the strategic workshops? What are the reasons for your view?

This document deals first with options for the technical workshops, then with the strategic workshops.

2.  The shape of the current Research Councils Energy Programme

The portfolio of the Research Councils UK Energy Programme (RCEP) is divided into 14 areas, based largely on an engineering/technology perspective. The degree of differentiation is much greater on the supply side than the demand side which is essentially covered in a single area. Table 1 compares the RCEP portfolio with areas under the International Energy Agency (IEA)/EU energy R&D nomenclature[1]. This demonstrates that the coverage of the RCEP programme is virtually complete, with the only apparent gaps relating to solar thermal power, geothermal and hydro. The roadmapping activity will give consideration to the merits or otherwise of the inclusion of these areas.

Table 1 also shows that there is a high degree of coherence with the IEA/EU scheme. There is a good one-to-one mapping in most areas. The exceptions relate to energy end use, sustainable energy networks and sustainable energy vectors. A limitation of both schemes is that, in taking an engineering/technology perspective, they make it difficult to locate: a) economic and social research; and b) research in environmental sciences.

Table 1: RCEP Energy research areas and the IEA energy R&D nomenclature

3.  Why cluster?

Ideally, a roadmapping exercise entailing a structured technical workshop would be conducted for each RCEP area. This is neither practical nor possible within the resources available. The proposed response is therefore: a) to conduct only a light-touch review process in areas where the quality of existing evidence is high; and b) to cluster together areas sharing linked research challenges or relying on similar underlying skills and competences. These would then be covered within a single roadmapping process covering more than one area, or sub-areas.

The Fellowship bid proposed running six-eight technical roadmapping workshops. The make-up of the Energy Programme and its 14 areas entail some unavoidable decisions in terms of clustering. Specifically, areas that could be said to fall under the heading of “new energy” comprise a number of heterogeneous renewables technologies plus carbon capture and storage and energy networks. There is an absolute need to cluster in these areas.

4.  Selecting topics for light-touch review

We have identified two candidate areas for a light-touch review. These are: nuclear fission where there has been a great deal of recent activity in relation to both training and skills needs; and b) industrial energy demand where the community of interested parties is small and a structured activity would require a disproportionate use of resources. In both these areas we plan that the Strategy Fellowship team will review existing material, consulting with the relevant community individually or in small group meetings.

Q2. Do you agree that nuclear fission and industrial energy demand are candidates for a “light-touch review” process? Are there other topics that could be dealt with in this way?

5.  Options for clustering the technical workshops

There is no “correct” way of clustering the Energy Programme areas; different rationales might lead to different outcomes. In this section we present four different options and we are soliciting views as to which might provide the most useful way forward. Table 2 summarises the four options, mapping the Energy Programme areas on to the proposed technical roadmapping workshops; Tables 3-6 then do the reverse and map the proposed technical roadmapping workshops back on to the Energy Programme areas. Options 1) - 3) allow for the maximum number of technical workshops (eight), while Option 4) deliberately goes for the maximum level of aggregation, with only six workshops. The final choice need not precisely match one of the four options; constructing the four options revealed many individual choices that could be used to fine tune the options. We are also soliciting view on the allocation of individual research areas to technical workshops.

We believe that some choices are robust across the four options:

·  Bioenergy as the sole subject of a single workshop.

·  The aggregation of all renewable technologies relying heavily on mechanical and civil engineering competences, i.e. wind and marine energy.

·  Light-touch reviews only for nuclear fission and industrial energy demand as justified above.

·  “Whole systems research” to be dealt with at the level of the strategy workshops, not through a technical workshop.

Q3. Do you agree with our identification of clusters and topics that would be robust against a range of other options? Are there other topics that you would regard as robust?

Option 1: Skills-based. This system of clustering focuses on skills and the key disciplinary inputs to technologies. One key element is the aggregation of all technologies with a chemical or electro-chemical basis ranging from fuel cells and PV through to those parts of the “sustainable energy vectors” area referring to, for example, hydrogen storage. CCS is split between carbon capture and transportation on the one hand, which is coupled with conventional combustion, and carbon storage on the other, which is then linked to oil and gas production. The latter workshop topic , “fossil fuel production and carbon storage” is then essentially about the contribution of the geological sciences. End use energy is split into its three main component areas according to the IEA nomenclature: built environment; transport; and industry. Each of these has a distinct research community associated with it. The social sciences and economics need to play a significant role in relation to the demand topics because outcomes depend critically on the interaction between technical and social factors.

Option 2: Technology system-based. The rationale here is that research areas be defined in line with “technology systems” whose different components might require different disciplinary inputs. This scheme is closer to the current structure of the Energy Programme than is Option 1 as it is more in line with a “whole systems” philosophy. Under this scheme, all of the components of CCS fall under a single topic, though we still add in conventional combustion. Fossil fuel production remains a separate topic. The aggregation of the “electrochemical” areas is different. Solar energy is separated out, as is hydrogen storage which stays with sustainable energy vectors under the topic of “energy infrastructure”. Fuel cells and energy storage remain linked.

Option 3: Energy system-based. This is a variant of Option 2 which focuses more on the role of technologies within the energy systems as a whole. A key feature is that all of the end demand areas are aggregated, as under the current Energy Programme arrangement. Energy storage is isolated as a separate topic, incorporating hydrogen storage taken from the current “sustainable energy vectors area”, leaving fuel cells and PV linked as a single topic.

Option 4: Maximum aggregation. This is a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of roadmapping workshops to six. The key elements are: aggregation of all energy demand; aggregation of all “electro-chemical” technologies; and the conflation of “sustainable energy networks” and “sustainable energy vectors”.

Q4. Broadly, do you have a preference for any one of these options for clustering the technical workshops over another? Would you advocate a completely different approach and if so why?

Q5. Are there any individual topic choices you would propose make in order to fine-tune the options for clustering the technical workshops?

15

Table 3: RCEP Energy Research Areas: Overview of Clustering Options for Technical Roadmapping Workshops

Table 3: Option 1 - Skills-based clustering