Skip to main content

Energy at the OU – the early days

Professor Peter Chapman and the Open University (OU) Energy Research Group (ERG) that he set up in the early 1970s, came up with some challenging ideas about how energy should be used. The key message, pioneered in Chapman’s seminal 1975 Penguin book ‘Fuels Paradise’, was that we wasted most of it in inefficient generation, transmission and utilisation systems. Instead they argued for a switch to hyper-efficient combined heat and power plants, feeding (otherwise wasted) heat and power to users who would consume it in well designed and insulated buildings and also maybe in gas fired heat pumps. It mostly sounds familiar nowadays, but then it was revolutionary, and the OU ERG team were often perceived as a wild men (and women) from the hills! But many of their ideas were good and have stood the test of time…. 

A new video focuses on the energy efficient housing issues in MK and tells the story of the pioneering work done by Chapman and architect and MKDC engineer John Doggart, in creating a systems of energy labelling for buildings. It was initially used in the new city of Milton Keynes and then got taken up nationally as the now familiar ‘Energy Performance Certificate’ - the EPC rating. We hear at length from the (still) very charismatic Chapman and from other key collaborators including those in Milton Keynes Development Corporation - itself a very progressive outfit.  Even Maggie Thatcher seemed to recognise that you needed free thinking innovators to feed new idea businesses, and the traditional rather conservative (big and small C) building industry clearly needed a shake up. 

The MK Energy Index and the EPC that followed it provided the regulatory muscle that stimulated the market to take up new ideas. It’s good to have this bit of history documented like this – with the excitement of creating and promoting new ideas being well captured. The modern world may seem dull by comparison, but the ideas the OU ERG team came up with spread, and, after ERG was wound up in the mid 1980s, many of the group went on to be influential in other Universities- notably UCL. 

Peter Chapman, who had by this time adopted the nick name Jake, went on to promote what is now called sustainable energy policy and regulation via a range of businesses and organisations. MKDC was also wound up in 1992, as had always been the plan, being replaced by a Borough (and eventually City) Council. Although Milton Keynes is still seen as an energy leader, much as the OU was, it’s pioneering days may be over. Same for the OU: ERGs replacement, the Energy & Environment Research Unit, which pushed renewables, folded in the late 2000s, mostly leaving NATTA as something of an unofficial placeholder. But it’s good to look back at the early days at times.  For a bit more nostalgia, also take a look at this new report  by Dr Derek Taylor from the OU on the early days of wind power in the UK.  Some pioneering stuff...

We will be back in the new year.  Meantime, seasonal good wishes to all...

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...
44 comments
Read more

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

 Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.  A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...
2 comments
Read more

Renewables beat nuclear - even with full balancing included

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.  It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.  In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 bil...
Post a Comment
Read more