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: j.skea@ic.ac.uk
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
1
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?
2
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
3
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 nomenclature1. 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 oneto-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
RCEP Area
IEA Nomenclature Title
Bioenergy
Carbon Capture and Storage
Conventional combustion/oil and
gas strategy
Bio-energy
CO2 capture and storage
Oil and Gas
Coal
Electric power conversion
Energy efficiency
Solar heating and cooling
Consumer attitudes and behaviour
Energy storage
Fuel cells
Ocean energy
Nuclear fission
Photovoltaics
District heating
Electricity transmission and distribution
Hydrogen
Distributed generation
Energy efficiency - transport - analysis and optimisation of
energy consumption
Energy efficiency - transport - public transport systems
Energy system analysis
Wind energy
Solar thermal power
Geothermal energy
Hydropower
Underpinning basic research
End use energy demand
Energy storage
Fuel cells
Marine
Nuclear fission
Solar
Sustainable energy networks
Sustainable energy vectors
Transport operations
Whole systems
Wind
Missing areas
Nomenclature
Code
III.4
II.3
II.1
II.2
VI.1
I.0
III.1.1
VII.1.2.3
VI.3
V.2
III.3
IV.1
III.1.2
I.4.2
VI.2
V.1
VI.1.9
I.3.1
I.3.3
VII.1
III.2
III.1.3
III.5
III.6
VII.2.3
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
1
EU Commission, Energy R&D Statistics in the European Research Area, EUR 21453, Brussels, 2005,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/statistics_en.pdf
4
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 “lighttouch 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
5
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 “electrochemical” 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?
6
Table 3: RCEP Energy Research Areas: Overview of Clustering Options for Technical Roadmapping Workshops
Energy Programme Area
Option 1: Skills-based
Option 2: Technology systembased
Option 3: Energy systembased
Option 4: Maximum
aggregation
Bioenergy
Carbon Capture and Storage
 Bioenergy
 CCS and combustion
 Bioenergy
 CCS and combustion
 Bioenergy
 Fossil fuel and CCS
 CCS and combustion
 Fossil fuel production
 CCS and combustion
 Fossil fuel production
 Fossil fuel and CCS
 Built environment and
transport
 Industry energy demand
(light touch)
 End use energy demand
 End use energy demand
 Fuel cells and storage
 Energy storage
 Fuel cells and storage
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Wind, wave and tide
 (Light touch review)
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Energy infrastructure
 Energy infrastructure
 Energy storage
Transport operations
 Bioenergy
 Carbon capture, transport and
combustion
 Fossil fuel production and
carbon storage
 Carbon capture, transport and
combustion
 Fossil fuel production and
carbon storage
 Built environment energy
demand
 Transport energy demand
 Industry energy demand (light
touch)
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Wind, wave and tide
 (Light touch review)
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Energy infrastructure
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Energy infrastructure
 Transport energy demand
 End use energy demand
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Wind, wave and tide
 (Light touch review)
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Energy infrastructure
 Electro-chemical energy
technologies
 Energy infrastructure
 End use energy demand
Whole systems
Wind
 Strategy level
 Wind, wave and tide
 Strategy level
 Wind, wave and tide
 Strategy level
 Wind, wave and tide
Conventional combustion/oil and
gas strategy
End use energy demand
Energy storage
Fuel cells
Marine
Nuclear fission
Solar
Sustainable energy networks
Sustainable energy vectors
 Wind, wave and tide
 (Light touch review)
 Solar
 Energy infrastructure
 Energy infrastructure
 Built environment and
transport
 Strategy level
 Wind, wave and tide
7
Table 3: Option 1 - Skills-based clustering
Technical Workshops
Bioenergy
 Bioenergy
Built environment energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
Carbon capture, transport and
combustion
 Carbon capture and storage (part of)
 Conventional /combustion (part of)
Electro-chemical energy technologies




Energy infrastructure
 Sustainable energy networks
 Sustainable energy vectors (part of)
Fossil fuel production and carbon storage
 Conventional combustion/oil and gas strategy (part of)
 Carbon capture and storage (part of)
Transport energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
 Transport operations
Wind, wave and tide
 Marine
 Wind
Energy storage
Fuel cells
Solar
Sustainable energy vectors (part of)
Light touch reviews
Industrial energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
Nuclear fission
 Nuclear
Strategy level workshops
Whole systems
 Whole systems
8
Table 4: Option 2 - Technology system-based clustering
Technical Workshops
Bioenergy
 Bioenergy
Built environment and transport
 End use energy demand (part of)
 Transport operations
CCS and combustion
 Carbon capture and storage
 Conventional /combustion (part of)
Energy infrastructure
 Sustainable energy networks
 Sustainable energy vectors
Fossil fuel production
 Conventional combustion/oil and gas strategy (part of)
Fuel cells and storage
 Energy storage
 Fuel cells
Solar
 Solar
Wind, wave and tide
 Marine
 Wind
Light touch reviews
Industrial energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
Nuclear fission
 Nuclear
Strategy level workshops
Whole systems
 Whole systems
9
Table 5: Option 3 - Energy system-based clustering
Technical Workshops
Bioenergy
 Bioenergy
CCS and combustion
 Carbon capture and storage
 Conventional /combustion (part of)
Electro-chemical energy technologies
 Solar
 Fuel cells
End use energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
 Transport operations
Energy infrastructure
 Sustainable energy networks
 Sustainable energy vectors (part of)
Energy storage
 Energy storage
 Sustainable energy vectors (part of)
Fossil fuel production
 Conventional combustion/oil and gas strategy (part of)
Wind, wave and tide
 Marine
 Wind
Light touch reviews
Industrial energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
Nuclear fission
 Nuclear
Strategy level workshops
Whole systems
 Whole systems
10
Table 6: Option 4 - Maximum aggregation
Technical Workshops
Bioenergy
 Bioenergy
Fossil fuel and CCS
 Carbon capture and storage
 Conventional combustion/oil and gas strategy
Electro-chemical energy technologies




End use energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
 Transport operations
Energy infrastructure
 Sustainable energy networks
 Sustainable energy vectors (part of)
Wind, wave and tide
 Marine
 Wind
Energy storage
Fuel cells
Solar
Sustainable energy vectors (part of)
Light touch reviews
Industrial energy demand
 End use energy demand (part of)
Nuclear fission
 Nuclear
Strategy level workshops
Whole systems
 Whole systems
11
6. Options for the strategy workshops
The purpose of the strategy workshops, assuming they precede the technical workshops, is to establish the
wider context in which the more detailed assessments of research, skills and training needs will take place.
These higher-level workshops should reach conclusions about the range of possible contributions that
individual technologies or approaches might make to the UK energy system in the future, and the possible
conditions under which different levels of contribution might arise. A key input to these workshops will be
the Fellowship team’s comprehensive review of relevant energy roadmaps, pathways and scenario
exercises. The workshops will engage a range of relevant stakeholders from the policy world, business, the
third sector and academia so as to gain as wide a perspective as possible on different potential outcomes.
Should any of these workshops fail to reach consensus that will in itself be a useful piece of evidence to
take on to the technical workshops.
Two options for structuring the strategy workshops are proposed. The first technology-based structuring is
informed by evidence from the social sciences about how people engage with different types of technology
(Table 7). The second (Table 8) is theme-based and more pragmatically addresses how energy research
funded by the Research Councils may interface with policy and societal needs, links to other bodies in the
energy research funding landscape, and the role of the social and environmental sciences vis-à-vis
engineering perspectives which effectively define the current RCEP structure. Note that these two options
could be thought of in terms of a matrix format: each of the three themes in Option 2 would need to be
considered in the Option 1 workshops; if Option 2 were adopted each of the groups of technologies under
Option 1 would need to be covered.
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?
12
Table 7: Strategy Workshop Option 1 – Technology-based
Strategy Workshop
Component RCEP research areas
1. Energy end use, microgeneration and  End use energy demand
smart grids
 Transport operations
 Energy storage
 Fuel cells
2. Renewables and networks
 Bioenergy
 Energy storage
 Fuel cells
 Marine
 Solar
 Sustainable energy networks
 Sustainable energy vectors
 Wind
3. Fossil fuels, nuclear, hydrogen and
biomass
 Bioenergy
 Carbon capture and storage
 Conventional combustion/oil
and gas
 Nuclear fission
 Sustainable energy vectors
Rationale
Areas where people are agents of change
Supply side technologies with which people in general have
no intrinsic objection but which may challenge people’s
sense of place in specific locations
Technologies to which many people react with antipathy
due to unfamiliarity or which evoke feelings of “dread” (c.f.
Paul Slovic’s psychometric approaches to risk).
13
Table 8: Strategy Workshop Option 2 – Theme-based
Strategy Workshop
1. Policy and societal needs
Focus and rationale
Broad focus on the roles that all technologies might play in the UK’s future energy
system. Broadly, the technologies covered in all three workshops under option 1
packed into a single workshop.
2. Research Councils and the energy funding landscape
The role of the Research Councils vis-à-vis other funding bodies , including those in
the UK as well as the EU, and methods for ensuring coherence.
3. The role of the social and environmental sciences
How social, economic and environmental considerations can usefully be built into
research programmes largely designed form an engineering perspective while
maintaining the integrity of underlying approaches and concepts.
14
Annex: Briefing Note - Synthesis of Roadmap of Research, Skills and Training
Background
The Research Councils have appointed Jim Skea, Professor of Sustainable Energy in the Centre for
Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, as Research Councils UK Energy Programme Strategy
Fellow. Jim steps down as Research Director of the UK Energy Research Centre and takes up his new role
full-time from 1 July 2012. The establishment of the Fellowship responds to recommendations from the
International Review of Energy Research undertaken by the Research Councils in 2010. There are two roles:
the synthesis of a roadmap of research, skills and training needs across the energy landscape; and a related
research programme focusing on the effectiveness of systems of energy innovation. A support team is
being appointed at Imperial College to help Professor Skea in these tasks. This briefing note describes the
proposed roadmap synthesis. A separate briefing note describes the research programme.
Objectives
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 tool will make explicit links forward along the
innovation chain from basic science through to demonstration and commercialisation. The tool is intended
to be flexible and adaptable and will take explicit account of uncertainties so that it can remain robust
against emerging evidence about research achievements and policy priorities.
The roadmap will be framed 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. It will draw on existing policy documents and deployment
roadmaps. Possible technology contributions will be expressed as ranges to reflect underlying
uncertainties. The assumptions underpinning these ranges will be made transparent.
The top-level document will be underpinned by a more conventional set of roadmaps. These will cover
human capacity and training and skills needs as well as research. The option of combining areas where
there may be strong disciplinary linkages and linked training and skills needs (e.g. for the “mechanical”
renewables such as wind/marine) is being investigated. The primary communication tool for the roadmap
will be a website. The top-level document will be made available in hard copy to raise profile.
Method
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 across the energy landscape
to encourage buy-in and establish clearly the boundaries and links between the RCUK roadmap and other
products related more to deployment.
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. marine renewables, nuclear
fission, transport energy etc) in order to develop new roadmap documents or refine existing ones. Three
high level strategy workshops engaging a wide range of stakeholders will be complemented by six-eight
more focused technical workshops involving experts.
During a synthesis stage (June 2013 - September 2013) the results of the foregoing work will be
consolidated, peer-reviewed and brought into a consistent format for publication.
15