̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Julian Allwood

10 Cambridge spinouts forging a future for our planet

skbf2 — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:07:50 +0000

10 companies taking Cambridge ideas out of the lab and into the real world to address the climate emergency.

Cement recycling method could help solve one of the world’s biggest climate challenges

sc604 — Wed, 22 May 2024 14:47:38 +0000

Researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge have developed a method to produce very low-emission concrete at scale – an innovation that could be transformative for the transition to net zero.

UK steel can survive if it transforms itself, say researchers

sc604 — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:38:33 +0000

̽��ֱ��report, by Professor Julian Allwood, argues that in order to survive, the UK steel industry needs to refocus itself on steel recycling and on producing products for end users. He argues that instead of viewing Tata Steel’s UK exit as a catastrophe, it can instead be viewed as an opportunity.

Allwood’s report, A bright future for UK steel: A strategy for innovation and leadership through up-cycling and integration, uses evidence gathered from over six years of applied research by 15 researchers, funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and industrial partners spanning the global steel supply chain. It is published online today (15 April).

“Tata Steel is pulling out of the UK, for good reason, and there are few if any willing buyers,” said Allwood, from Cambridge’s Department of Engineering. “Despite the sale of the Scunthorpe plant announced earlier this week, the UK steel industry is in grave jeopardy, and it appears that UK taxpayers must either subsidise a purchase, or accept closure and job losses.

“However, we believe that there is a third option, which would allow a transformation of the UK’s steel industry.”

Instead of producing new steel, one option for the UK steel industry is to refocus itself toward recycling steel rather than producing it from scratch. ̽��ֱ��global market for steel recycling is projected to grow at least three-fold in the next 30 years, but despite the fact that more than 90% of steel is recycled, the processes by which recycling happens are out of date. ̽��ֱ��quality of recycled steel is generally low, due to poor control of its composition.

Because of this, old steel is generally ‘down-cycled’ to the lowest value steel application – reinforcing bar. According to Allwood, the UK’s strengths in materials innovation could be applied to instead ‘up-cycle’ old steel to today’s high-tech compositions.

According to Allwood, today’s global steel industry has more capacity for making steel from iron ore than it will ever need again. On average, products made with steel last 35-40 years, and around 90% of all old steel is collected. It is likely that, despite the current downturn, global demand for steel will continue to grow, but all future growth can be met by recycling our existing stock of steel. “We will never need more capacity for making steel from iron ore than we have today,” said Allwood.

Apart from the issue of recycling, today’s UK steel industry focuses on products such as plates, bars and coils of strip, all of which have low profit margins. “ ̽��ֱ��steel industry fails to capture the value and innovation potential from making final components,” said Allwood. “As a result, more than a quarter of all steel is cut off during fabrication and never enters a product, and most products use at least a third more steel than actually required. ̽��ֱ��makers of liquid steel could instead connect directly to final customer requirements.”

These two opportunities create the scope for a transformation of the steel industry in the UK, says the report. In response to Tata Steel’s decision, UK taxpayers will have to bear costs. If the existing operations are to be sold, taxpayers must subsidise the purchase without the guarantee of a long term national gain. If the plants are closed, the loss of tax income and payment of benefits will cost taxpayers £300m-£800m per year, depending on knock-on job losses.

Allwood’s strategy requires taxpayers to invest in a transformation, for example through the provision of a long term loan. This would allow UK to innovate more than any other large player, with the potential of leadership in a global market that is certain to triple in size.

He singles out the example of the Danish government’s Wind Power Programme, initiated in 1976, which provided a range of subsidies and support for Denmark’s nascent wind industry, allowing it to establish a world-leading position in a growing market. Allwood believes a similar initiative by the UK government could mirror this success and transform the steel industry. “Rapid action now to initiate working groups on the materials technologies, business model innovations, financing and management of the proposed transformation could convert this vision to a plan for action before the decision for plant closure or subsidised sale is finalised,” he said. “This is worth taking a real shot on.”

A new report from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge claims that British steel could be saved, if the industry is willing to transform itself.

We will never need more capacity for making steel from iron ore than we have today.

Julian Allwood

Public domain

Blast furnace #5, Port Talbot Steelworks

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

̽��ֱ�� spin-out wins green award

sc604 — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:24:18 +0000

Reduse, which was founded 2014, was named the winner at a ceremony held earlier this month in London for the UK’s top climate start-ups.

David Leal, Reduse’s Chief Scientist, invented the ‘Unprinter’ during his PhD research under the supervision of Dr Julian Allwood in the Low Carbon Materials Processing Group at the Engineering Department.

Their invention is able to remove print from laser-printed paper, and this process can be repeated several times without damaging the fibres of the paper, providing cost savings and CO2 reductions. Just one office employee can use up to 10,000 sheets of paper every year, most of which are thrown away after only a few days. Along with saving forests from being used for new paper, reusing paper could save an additional 50-80% in carbon emissions over recycling.

Climate-KIC (Knowledge and Innovation Community) shortlisted Reduse as a finalist in their annual UK Venture Competition, following the company’s involvement in the Climate-KIC Accelerator Programme, which provides up to €95,000 funding to the most promising carbon start-ups in Europe.

Reduse were one of nine finalists who competed for the prize at the Royal College of Music in London.

“We are of course delighted to have won this competition. This is more proof that we are on the right track to solving the incredible waste that is being generated by printing," said Hidde-Jan Lemstra, CEO of Reduse.

̽��ֱ��company recently recruited Tony Dunn to become their new Chief Technology Officer. He has over twenty years’ experience with product design and development, and will lead the development of the Unprinter. Reduse has already started raising its first round of funding and looks to gain a £224,000 grant from the Technology Strategy Board.

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge spin-out Reduse, which has developed a technology to remove print from paper allowing it to be reused several times before being recycled, has won the Venture Competition, organised by the Climate-KIC UK , the EU’s main climate innovation initiative.

This is more proof that we are on the right track to solving the incredible waste that is being generated by printing.

Hidde-Jan Lemstra

Turinboy via Flickr

A crumpled paper ball

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Better building through design

sc604 — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 08:16:01 +0000

̽��ֱ��construction industry, which uses half of the 1.5 billion tonnes of steel produced each year, could drastically reduce its carbon footprint by optimising the design of new buildings. Smart design could slash the sector’s carbon emissions by around 50%, without any impact on safety. If buildings are also maintained for their full design life and not replaced early, the sector's emissions could in total be cut by around 80% - the target set in the UK's 2008 Climate Change Act.

New research from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge has found that the amount of steel used by the construction industry, and the resulting carbon emissions, could be significantly lowered by optimising the design of new buildings in order to use less material.

At present, in order to keep labour costs down, the construction industry regularly uses double the material required by safety codes. Analysis of more than 10,000 structural steel beams in 23 buildings from across the UK found that on average, the beams were only carrying half the load they were designed for. ̽��ֱ��results are published in the June 4th issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Over one-quarter of the steel produced each year is used in the construction of buildings. Demand for steel is increasing rapidly, especially in the developing world, and is expected to double in the coming decades.

̽��ֱ��iron and steel industry contributes nearly 10% of total global carbon emissions, which climate change experts recommend be halved by 2050. Coupled with skyrocketing demand from the developing world, drastic action is required if a reduction in the sector’s carbon footprint is to be achieved.

One option to achieve this reduction is by designing and building more efficiently, delivering the same performance from buildings but with less steel, but this is not common practice at present.

“Structural engineers do not usually design optimised structures because it would take too much time; instead they use repetition to decrease the cost of construction,” said Dr Julian Allwood of the Department of Engineering, who led the research, which was funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). “This leads to the specification of larger steel components than are required.”

̽��ֱ��researchers found that building designs are exceeding Eurocode Safety Standards by a factor of two and so are unnecessarily using double the amount of steel and concrete needed. “As materials are cheap and structural design time is expensive, it is currently cheaper to complete a design by using safe but considerably over-specified materials,” said Dr Allwood.

Additionally, many buildings are being designed to last for 100 years but on average are replaced after just 40.

By designing for minimum material rather than minimum cost, steel use in buildings could be drastically reduced, leading to an equivalent reduction in carbon emissions, at relatively low cost. ̽��ֱ��net result of avoiding over-design and early replacement is that the UK could provide the same amount of built space with just 20% of the materials - and therefore 20% of the carbon emissions - used at present.

“We need to see a more sensible use of materials in the construction sector if we are to meet carbon reduction targets, regardless of the energy mix used in manufacturing the materials,” said Dr Allwood, who is also Director of the UK INDEMAND Centre, which aims to enable delivery of significant reductions in the use of both energy and energy-intensive materials in the industries that supply the UK’s physical needs.

̽��ֱ��construction industry could slash its carbon emissions by as much as 50% by optimising the design of new buildings, which currently use double the amount of steel and concrete required by safety codes.

We need to see a more sensible use of materials in the construction sector if we are to meet carbon reduction targets

Julian Allwood

Andreas Levers via Flickr

Construction

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Cambridge academics head for Hay

bjb42 — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:00:16 +0000

A series of talks and debates by Cambridge academics on pressing contemporary issues kicks off this week at the Hay Festival.

This year is the 25^th anniversary of the Festival and the fourth year running that the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge has run a series of talks there as part of its commitment to public engagement.

This year's line-up includes Paul Cartledge, A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture, who will be participating in three of the 10 sessions on in the Classics series on Herodotus, the “Father of History”, on Plato and on the aspirations and concepts of civilisation, democracy, drama, virtue, victory, liberty and xenia and what the study of Classics has meant in the wider world.

For the first time, Cambridge academics will take part in a series of debates about contemporary political and social issues, including Europe, democracy and urban violence. Among those taking part in the Europe debate is Professor Robert Tombs who has written a blog on the implications for France and Europe of the election of Francois Hollande as president of France.

Another debate covers the broader cultural implications of current events, with Professor Adrian Poole, Professor Alison Sinclair and Jennifer Wallace discussing the modern meaning of tragedy and literary representation of current events. Other speakers include Professor Susan Golombok on alternative family structures, Professor Martin Jones on the archaeology of food, Carolin Crawford on the birth and death of stars, Dame Patricia Hodgson on media regulation in the shadow of the Leveson Inquiry, Professor David Spiegelhalter on our risk society and Professor Stefan Collini on what universities are for.

Professor Lawrence Sherman will talk about how science is transforming policing in a session entitled “ ̽��ֱ��new police knowledge”. ̽��ֱ��session will be introduced by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O’Connor.

Brendan Burchell, senior lecturer in the Sociology Department, will be in conversation with Julia Hobsbawm, honorary visiting professor in networking at Cass Business School, about the future of work.

Other Cambridge academics speaking at Hay are Professor John Thompson, Professor Robert Macfarlane, Professor Martin Rees, Professor John Barrow, Dr Julian Allwood and Professor David MacKay.

Nicola Buckley, head of public engagement at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: “ ̽��ֱ��Cambridge series is a wonderful way to get the fascinating research being done at the ̽��ֱ�� out to the public. ̽��ֱ��Hay Festival draws an international cross-section of people, from policy makers to prospective university students. It is a fantastic platform for our research and this year’s debates aim to highlight the broad range of what we do at the ̽��ֱ�� and its relevance to the key issues we face today.”

Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said: “What’s thrilling about this year’s series is how exacting it is about society. ̽��ֱ��Cambridge experts cut through the political and media spin on big issues and look at them with real attention and intellectual rigour - from policing to European integration and 21st century family structure and risk. It’s a timely reminder about the value of authority; an aspiration that ‘policy’ might be formed by the best ideas and analysis rather than doctrinaire inclination or what’s easiest to sell. What else would you want from the world’s greatest ̽��ֱ�� but the best thinking on subjects that matter?”

Cambridge is fielding a series of talks and debates by leading academics on a range of global challenges at this year's Hay literary Festival.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge experts cut through the political and media spin on big issues and look at them with real attention and intellectual rigour.

Peter Florence

Hay Festival.

̽��ֱ��main site at the Hay Festival.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Six steps to a better material world

ns480 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:58:59 +0000

A six-part manifesto for drastically reducing a fifth of the world’s carbon emissions, caused by the production of materials like aluminium and steel, has been released online.

̽��ֱ��list is at the core of a new study by a team of eight researchers, who spent three years working with industry and manufacturers to find out how our demand for vital materials such as metals, concrete and paper can be made more sustainable in the future.

Their findings are being published as a book, Sustainable Materials With Both Eyes Open, which can be read for free online at: https://www.uselessgroup.org/publications/book/chapters. In an effort to communicate their ideas as widely as possible, the group has also broken new musical territory by releasing an album of songs about them.

Samples from the 12-track recording “With both eyes open”, which purports to be “the first album written for the 300 million people worldwide who convert metal ores into finished buildings, vehicles and goods”, can be found on the website as well, and the album is now available from Amazon. There Are No Silver Bullets by ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

At heart, the research has a deeply serious message. Most of what we use on a day-to-day basis depends on producing energy intensive materials – metals, ceramics and polymers. At the start of the 20^th century, global production of these materials was virtually nothing. Now we make 10 times our own bodyweight of steel, aluminium, cement, plastics and paper every year, for every person alive, and it costs us a fifth of all the world’s energy to do so.

This brings with it a number of problems, such as associated land stress and demand for water. ̽��ֱ��most pressing issue, however, is that materials production involves burning fossil fuels and putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

̽��ֱ��team of eight researchers, all from the Department of Engineering at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, set out to find ways to make materials production more sustainable in a way that will have a real impact on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50-85% of 1990 levels by 2050.

This is easier said than done: “Energy intensive industry is already highly motivated to reduce its energy consumption because energy purchasing is about one third of its costs,” Dr Julian Allwood, who led the research team and specialises in low carbon materials research, says. “Overall, it doesn’t have many further efficiency options left, and we also have to face the fact that demand for these materials is growing, and likely to double if unchecked.”

“We wanted to consider whether we could cut emissions by reducing the amount of stuff produced in the first place. Every aspect of our lives today depends on materials like steel and aluminium. If we want a sustainable future, we need to reduce the impact of producing them, and our biggest option for achieving this is to reduce our thirst for new material.”

̽��ֱ��book identifies a raft of options for reducing our demand for materials production, most of which have received very little attention. Although the study looks individually at cement, plastic and paper, at its heart is a list of six steps which could make huge changes to the carbon footprints of the aluminium and steel industries. In summary these are as follows:

Use less metal by design. ̽��ֱ��researchers argue that we use more material than we need in areas such as construction, car manufacturing, and the production of food cans.
Reduce yield losses. Some industries waste a large fraction of the material they originally receive due to “off-cuts”. ̽��ֱ��book suggests several ways of refining processes to limit this effect.
Divert manufacturing scrap. Does scrap metal really need to be scrapped? ̽��ֱ��researchers argue that in many cases it could be given to other companies or remoulded at room temperatures instead.
Re-use old components rather than recycle them. Car dismantlers are already doing this, but other industries could be doing it more, with re-use of steel in construction looking particularly attractive.
Extend the lives of products. Goodbye, in-built obsolescence – we could and should be refining products to extend their life-cycles.
Reduce final demand. Could we make a difference individually by using less stuff? ̽��ֱ��answer is unquestionably yes – but whether we are prepared to is a different matter. ̽��ֱ��researchers found no evidence that we would be any less happy if we did, however.

Overall, the impact of making all or a number of these changes could be huge. By optimising steel beams for buildings, for example, the researchers reckon we could cut the emissions caused by producing these beams by about 30%. Similarly, taking a series of measures to reduce yield losses would lead to an estimated 16% reduction of CO2 emissions in the steel industry, and 7% in the aluminium industry.

Allwood and his team are now focusing not just on releasing their findings, but on encouraging manufacturers and other companies to develop real-life case-studies that show these changes can be made to the way our materials are produced. For example, the researchers are already working with a supermarket chain on the construction of a new outlet made entirely from old materials (point 5).

“ ̽��ֱ��aim now is to get this connected to policy,” he adds. My job is really to try to trigger demonstrations of how these ideas could work. I think that everyone has a fear of something that has never been tried before. If we can provide examples that people can copy, then it greatly reduces the barrier that stops governments and companies from implementing these ideas and helping them to spread.”

Every year we make 10 times our own bodyweight of steel, aluminium, cement, plastics and paper, for every person alive, using a fifth of all the world’s energy supply to do so. Now researchers are releasing a manifesto to change that and help cut carbon emissions. And they’ve also released an album of songs to go with it.

Every aspect of our lives today depends on materials like steel and aluminium. If we want a sustainable future, we need to reduce the impact of producing them.

Julian Allwood

Joost J Baker Ijmuiden from Flickr

Scrap-metal

Material Manifesto - Six things we could do to make the future of materials use more sustainable

1. Use less metal by design

̽��ֱ��study argues that we could make big savings by optimising the design of metal components. ̽��ֱ��materials used by industry are often designed in a regular shape to make production easier and more efficient. But this means that they often use more material than they have to. For example, the metal “I” beams used in most steel frame buildings are produced to standardised specifications, rather than for specific tasks.

̽��ֱ��researchers calculate that if we can optimise the beam designs to suit their use, we could make weight savings of up to 30% - with a similar reduction in the emissions caused by production. Similar techniques could be applied to the production of components for cars, the “rebar” used to reinforce concrete, and steel cans for food storage. One simple tweak would be to change regulations. “Pretty much everything in a building is over-designed out of fear for safety,” Allwood says. “All national building regulations in the UK are written with a minimum level of steel. If we instead gave firms a target level, we would be able to stop people over-specifying without compromising safety.”

2. Reduce yield losses

At least 25% of liquid steel and 40% of liquid aluminium never makes it into products. Instead, it is cut off as scrap in manufacturing. One extreme example is the aluminium wing skin used for aeroplanes – 90% of the metal produced in this process ends up as “swarf”, or aluminium scrap.

̽��ֱ��researchers found that this is often the result of habit, rather than necessity. Simply designing more components with tessellating or near-tessellating shapes would make a big difference. Clothing manufacturers have, for example, actually derived the algorithms needed to make sure that rolls of fabric are used to maximum effect. Manufacturers could do the same thing with the metal they receive. ̽��ֱ��team calculated that reducing yield losses through this and other techniques would cut CO2 emissions by about 16% in the steel industry, and 7% in the aluminium industry.

3. Divert manufacturing scrap

Scrap metal is usually sent for recycling, which means melting it (an energy-intensive process). In fact, it could just be used elsewhere. For example, most steel scrap comes from “blanking skeletons” – the remains of sheets of steel after shapes have been cut out of them. About 60 megatons of steel are scrapped on this basis every year. ̽��ֱ��study says that we could effectively reduce scrap steel by half if these skeletons instead went to the manufacturers of smaller components, who can use what’s left.

Alumnium swarf cannot be cut in the same way, but it can be compressed and welded at room temperature. ̽��ֱ��researchers have been developing a technique to create new components by swarf-extrusion – squeezing aluminium through a die, and creating solid-bonded swarf that can be re-used.

4. Re-use old components before recycling at all

Old components are often recycled when they could instead be re-used directly. Car dismantlers are an example of good practice, breaking up damaged or old vehicles and re-using the components. But steel in construction remains the biggest potential asset and although the beams from dismantled buildings are usually recycled, they could often instead be used again straight away. “When you take a building down, the steel girder is totally reusable,” Allwood says. “All you need to do is unbolt it and clean it – because steel doesn’t degrade in use. Re-use means we can avoid all the energy of melting, casting and re-rolling old steel.”

5. Extend the lives of products

Most demand for products in developed economies isn’t to expand the overall stock, but to replace existing items. Fridges are a good example – we still need them but in the UK we destroy, every year, 33% more fridges than we make cars. ̽��ֱ��researchers advocate modifying products rather than replacing them wholesale, and urging manufacturers to develop adaptable designs that would help this process. This requires a change in thinking and an end to planned obsolescence.

Is this an economically convincing argument? Allwood reckons so: “If we can purchase a standard new fridge for around £200, expecting it to last 10 years but guaranteed for only three, we’re unlikely to agree to pay £2,000 for a fridge with a 100 year guarantee. However, we might agree to pay £40 a year indefinitely for a fridge that would always be maintained and upgraded to the latest standards. And if that’s the case, we can offer the supplier double their income over a much longer period, compared with a single purchase with no commitment.”

6. Reduce final demand

̽��ֱ��fall-back option that no policy-maker would ever condone, except in times of war. Yet it remains the case that we could be living with less stuff overall. In the UK, for example, we each spend 225 hours per year in the car. We have 28 million licensed cars with, on average, four seats in each. There are 60 million people. So each car seat is, on average, in use for 2% of the year. We could reduce our overall stock to 7 million cars with ease.

This is, of course, scuppered by the convenience factor of having a car when we need it. But the researchers looked into recent studies of happiness and well-being and found that there is little reason to believe that we would be less happy than we are now if we took measures such as this. Indeed, with only 7 million cars in the UK, we would all be £1,000 a year better off on average and our journeys would be a good deal quicker and less stressful. We may not want to make these changes to our convenient lifestyles, but that is not to say that we couldn’t do it if we needed to.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Foreseer of future resources

lw355 — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:16:32 +0000

Understanding how energy can be used efficiently is key to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating future fuel and food shortages. But energy use is only part of the story. ̽��ֱ��link between resources and final services – such as food, warmth, shelter and transport – is only really complete if water and land use is also factored in.

Almost a year ago, nine experts from seven different departments across the ̽��ֱ�� set out to do precisely this. They reasoned that to understand the uncertainties ahead it is vitally important not only to integrate models of energy, water and land use but also to create a visualisation tool that could be widely used, by industry, policy-makers, researchers and others, to understand the consequences of how decisions today might play out in decades to come.

Foreseer

̽��ֱ��Foreseer Project is funded through BP’s Energy Sustainability Challenge, which is supporting projects in 12 leading research universities worldwide to explore some of the key issues that could shape future energy supply and demand.

At the heart of the Cambridge project is the use of the Sankey diagram – a remarkably intuitive visual interpretation of the quantity of resources and how they are consumed.

Although Sankey diagrams have been in use for over a century for mapping energy flow, they have had limitations, as Dr Julian Allwood, who leads the Foreseer Project, explained: “Past diagrams were based on economic data and stopped short of tracing the length of each energy chain from fuels all the way to consumers, halting instead at sectors. They gave you an idea of who to blame for energy use but they didn’t provide a basis for what you could change.”

By demonstrating two years ago that it was indeed possible to create a global snapshot of energy flow from fuel to final service, Dr Allwood and colleague Dr Jonathan Cullen realised that it might also be feasible to turn this into a tool with forecasting potential.

“We could then ask ‘what if’ questions such as what if car engines were to become twice as efficient?” Dr Allwood explained. “But to be truly predictive, mapping energy flow alone is not enough. An increase in biofuel, for instance, has implications for land and water use, as well as fertiliser use, which itself is an energy-demanding product. Energy, land and water are interlinked.”

Good decisions

̽��ֱ��key innovation of the Foreseer Project is integration. Access to the data, physical models and expertise were already in existence in departments across the ̽��ֱ��; Foreseer has brought them together for the first time. “It has been a fascinating experience for each of the Project members to expand from thinking about the variables that each of us are familiar with to thinking about how they couple with other resources on a massive scale. ̽��ֱ��Project has really got under everybody’s skin.”

̽��ֱ��team has had to start from first principles to understand how to build a map for land and water use. ̽��ֱ��first stage, recently completed, focused on California, USA, and Beijing, China, and the goal now is to expand this to other regions and then worldwide.

“Ultimately we want to be able to ask global questions such as: what are the resource implications of rapid economic development and urbanisation in developing countries, and the expansion of mega-cities? How will changes in climate, population and technology affect services such as food provision? Making good decisions now, including energy investment decisions, requires physically based predictions of future needs and pressures.”

For more information, please contact Dr Julian Allwood (jma42@eng.cam.ac.uk) at the Department of Engineering or visit www.lcmp.eng.cam.ac.uk/

An online tool will help users predict trade-offs between the global commodities of energy, water and land.

Making good decisions now, including energy investment decisions, requires physically based predictions of future needs and pressures.

Dr Julian Allwood

̽��ֱ��Forseer Project

̽��ֱ��Foreseer tool is based on Sankey diagrams, where the width of each line is proportional to the quantity of resource

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes