The 1990s, with falling oil and gas prices, was a period of easy energy. Consumption grew, we discovered the 4WD, increased suburban sprawl, talked about a UK 20% cut in CO2 emissions.

Now peak oil is approaching, demand is about to overtake supply, the UK is no longer energy self sufficient, fuel prices are increasing rapidly and nuclear power is back on the political agenda. Not only is the UK unlikely to meet its carbon dioxide emissions targets (and most of the world even less so) but recent science tells us that those targets should be very much more stringent.

The first energy debate sets the scene and asks how much energy we really need, particularly in operating buildings, which account for about half the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. Land use is also vitally important, as getting people and things between buildings is responsible for another 30%.

The debate was chaired by Prof Peter Guthrie, Professor Engineering, University of Cambridge.

Speaker 1: Nuclear Power - Another Depletion Problem (pdf)

Dr David Fleming, an independent energy consultant

Speaker 2: Oil Discovery versus Production (pdf)

Dr Jeremy Leggett, Chief Executive, Solar Century

Download

Debate invite and notes

More Notes

Action Points

Here are four loosely connecting views on how the nature of energy is changing. The debate was about each of the views and how they fit together.

1. Walt’s argument is with fundamental concepts. A much more radical rethink of the nature of our energy use and the infrastructure necessary to support it is required.

2. Matthew’s argument is that we need to value technical innovations in a completely different way. This is possible by establishing simple ways of looking at the energy system objectively from the customer perspective and by thinking from the kind of future Walt describes. By creating market institutions that value innovations properly, there is potential to release significant market forces, and deliver radical change very fast.

3. Joe’s position is that appliances can play a part in distributed control and provide an autonomous self- stabilising mechanism to the grid thereby allowing greater use of intermittent renewables.

4. David’s position is to show how fridges can cause the grid frequency to become a useful control signal to all players on the grid and how we can use this signal to control a new type of substation, which probably uses DC. Such substations can prevent cascades of power failure, so avoid big blackout, and distribute control decisions throughout the network. Finally, that it may be useful to have small substations of this sort in the house. And, of course, the final question: What voltage should the DC be-hence the title of the debate 42?

The debate was chaired by Mark Whitby, Member of the Edge and Director of +Whitby.

Speaker 1: Decentralizing Networks (pdf)

Walt Patterson, Associate Fellow Chatham House, decentralised electricity champion and recently recognised as such by Scientific American magazine.

Speaker 2: Energy step change - the view from the future (pdf)

Matthew Rhodes, Managing Director of Encraft, pioneering the development of new market mechanisms and informed homeowner participation in the energy market since 2003.

Speaker 3: Dynamic Demand (pdf) Short paper

Joe Short, Director of Dynamic Demand, a not-for-profit organisation promoting demand-side techniques to help integrate renewable energy onto the power grid.

Speaker 4: Responsive Technologies (pdf)

David Hirst, inventor, consultant and Director of ResponsiveLoad Limited, which is pursuing technologies to enable a transformed electricity supply industry to support fulfilled low carbon living.

Download

Background Report on Carbon Dioxide savings and dynamic demand control (pdf)

Notes from the debate

Event invite

Can the concept of physical capital help determine what makes a great neighbourhood? The ODPM and Treasury have been considering how to measure the benefit of public investment in the Urban Renaissance and Sustainable Communities — who benefits and how. ODPM, Yorkshire Forward and CABE held a workshop on the Economic Case for Investment in ‘Quality of Place’ on 25 November 2004. CABE commissioned two think pieces from Geoff Mulgan and Francois Matarasso (Comedia), which formed the basis of this debate.

The Fabric of Visions; a reflection on the democratic potential of physical capital has been prepared by Matarasso and Public Value, Physical Capital and the Potential of Value Maps has been prepared by Dr Geoff Mulgan, formerly of the Cabinet Office and now Director of the Institute of Community Studies and Visiting Professor at LSE.

Matarasso writes, “Physical capital is one element of an interdependent group of resources which contribute to social change and economic development.” It is but one element of the Asset Pentagon of Human, Natural, Financial, Physical and Social Capitals, but how useful is the concept for us today in pursuit of the holy grail of the Sustainable Community? Chris Murray presented thoughts from the Matarasso paper.

Alternatively, one might ask “What is the game plan for the nation?” Recent Edge debates were informed by the work of Richard Florida (The Rise of the Creative Class) and the concept of creating environments for cross-fertilization and provided a useful counterpoint.

The debate was chaired by Robin Nicholson, Edward Cullinan Architects.

Speaker 1: Dr Geoff Mulgan: Paper 1 (pdf)

Institute of Community Studies, formerly at No 10.

Speaker 2: Adam Poole

Construction industry lobbyist, africanist and bid consultant

Speaker 3: Chris Murray

Director of Learning and Development, CABE

Notes from the debate

Issues arising from the debate

 Further reading:

• Capturing Cultural Value: How culture has become a tool ofgovernment policy, John Holden, DEMOS

• The Fabric of Visions: A reflection on the democratic potential of physical capital, François Matarasso, 2004, A ppaer for CABE