Image courtesy: Shutterstock/Jonas Aleksander Larsen
Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.
The post Physics and wildlife conservation: a slide puzzle appeared first on Physics World.
From tracking elusive animals to protecting some of the world’s most endangered species, the latest episode of Physics World Stories explores how cutting-edge robotics, drones and ecological science are coming together on the front lines of global wildlife conservation.
You’ll hear from Blair Costelloe, leader and principal investigator of the EU-funded WildDrone and WildBotics doctoral training networks, and director of research and conservation at Kenya’s Mara Elephant Project. Costelloe explains how drones, machine learning and other physics-based technologies are opening new possibilities for conservationists, from monitoring animals across large areas to collecting data that would be difficult to obtain on the ground.
Show host Andrew Glester also catches up with Camille Rondeau Saint-Jean, a PhD researcher at the University of Southern Denmark. She is developing and operating drones to track animal body data in real time, offering new insights into population dynamics and conservation. It’s the latest chapter in a career that has already taken her from musicology to drone piloting and conservation biology.
Finally, William Njoroge of Kenya’s Ol Pejeta Conservancy discusses how drones are being integrated with more traditional conservation methods, as well as the practical challenges involved, from technical constraints to regulatory requirements. Set against the backdrop of Mount Kenya, Ol Pejeta is an integrated conservation site and home to the world’s remaining two northern white rhinos.
The episode highlights the fascinating science that can emerge from collaborations across disciplines and cultures, united by a common goal: protecting wildlife.
The post Drones, AI and the future of wildlife conservation appeared first on Physics World.
I have been involved in tribology for most of my working life, but even today it can feel like a well-kept secret. A highly interdisciplinary field with close ties to materials science, tribology is essentially the science and technology of friction, lubrication and wear between any moving surfaces. But tribology encompasses in part one age-old challenge.
I’m talking about the use of bearings, which dates back to at least 4600 BCE, when ancient Egyptians used wood log rollers to move large stone blocks during the construction of their pyramids. In 1500 Leonardo da Vinci used ball bearings in his conceptual helicopter design, while in 1740 the clock maker John Harrison invented caged roller bearings for his marine chronometer.
It was not until the mid-1960s that the word tribology was coined by the British engineer and entrepreneur Peter Jost after discussions with the then editor of the Oxford English Dictionary
The first patent on a ball bearing was granted to Philip Vaughan, an ironmaker from Carmarthen, Wales, bringing tribology firmly into the industrial world. But despite all the history, it was not until the mid-1960s that the word was coined by the British engineer and entrepreneur Peter Jost. After discussions with the then editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, the Greek word “tribos” – meaning rubbing – was suggested as a basis for describing the discipline.
This resonated with Jost, because the terms “tribo-chemistry” and “tribo-physics” were already in use. In an interview with the magazine Machinery Lubrication in 2005, Jost explained how “tribo science and tribo technology” then simply became shortened to tribology. “I felt that because it had a Greek basis, it could easily be adopted into a number of languages by most Western countries,” Jost recalled.
For the most part, the aim of tribology is to minimize friction and wear between components, which involves a knowledge of both materials and lubrication. Initially, the focus of the field was on moving parts in industrial or mechanical machines, such as bearings, gears, brakes and clutches. Indeed, one reason that the term came about was a conference in Cardiff in 1964 organized by the Iron and Steel Institute and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE).
At the conference it became apparent that significant failures in plant machinery, which were being attributed to poor lubrication, were in fact due to a lack of fundamental design knowledge. These findings led to Jost chairing a UK government committee into lubrication education and research and the needs of industry. The resulting study – generally known as the “Jost report” – came out in 1964.
Now all this may seem like ancient history, which I suppose it is, but I was intrigued to discover that delegates to that 1964 conference visited the Llanwern steelworks at nearby Newport. As some of you may recall me describing, I also visited this site during my own student days, where I saw the steel rolling line in action. It was a truly impressive sight.
The total failure was remarkable, underlining just what can happen when moving parts fail without warning
From the viewing platform, I could see a massive volume of red-hot steel thunder along the rollers when, suddenly, there was a bang. Something failed and the steel landed in a crumpled mess all over the plant floor. We were safe but the total failure was remarkable to witness, underlining just what can happen when moving parts fail without warning.
The knock-on effect of this failure would have been costly and sustained. As well as a steel rolling line being out of action, new parts would have had to be sourced and old ones repaired. There’d have been quality concerns to address, safety reviews to be undertaken and the root cause of the problems to be worked out. Quite possibly all those jobs would have needed to be completed before production could restart.
What’s more, the failure of the machine’s moving parts, which depends on tribology, would have damaged the company’s reputation and led to customers annoyed with delays and late deliveries. It is this kind of event that those involved in tribology are trying to prevent, or at least minimize. By understanding tribology, in other words, engineers can design better machines and components.
This was made clear in the 1964 Jost report, which said that adopting good tribological practices could save the UK between 1% and 1.4% of its gross domestic product (GDP). In today’s money, that would amount to some £30bn, given that country’s GDP is a shade over £3 trillion. Put simply, designing and maintaining industrial equipment, based on a solid understanding of tribology, yields significant economic benefit.
More recently, a 2017 study by Kenneth Holmberg from the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Ali Erdemir of the Argonne National Laboratory in the US (Friction (5 263) suggests that 20% of the world’s energy consumption originates in tribological contacts. And by the application of best practice, as much as 40% of this could be saved.
It’s generally accepted that there are three key ingredients for tribology:
As a truly cross-functional discipline, tribology has strong overlaps with several fields, including:
More than 60 years after the publication of the Jost report, the influence of tribology continues to grow. Alongside its impact on transportation and manufacturing, tribology is also relevant to extreme environments from aerospace, nuclear power, marine and subsea to space technology, high-voltage electrical systems and even the human body. There are also applications in nano-tribology, cosmetics, food, computational, digital, tribotronics, geotribology, hydrogen and green tribology.
Tribology will help to reduce our carbon footprint and counter climate change
As chair of the IMechE’s tribology group committee and a member of the tribology group committee of the Institute of Physics, naturally I am biased. Still, I feel privileged to be part of the tribology community and the amazing things it achieves. Whether it’s making products more energy efficient, creating green lubricants, or making plant-based protein more palatable to meat eaters, tribology will help to reduce our carbon footprint and counter climate change.
So next time you brush your teeth, comb your hair, switch on a light or ride on a bus, spare a thought for tribologists and their dedication to making the world run smoothly. It’s hard to think of anything that doesn’t involve tribology at all.
The post The secret world of tribology appeared first on Physics World.
With the growing adoption of LiFePO4 (LFP)/Graphite (Gr) cell chemistry in electric vehicles and grid energy storage, understanding and enhancing its performance under high-temperature conditions has become increasingly critical. In this study, various concentrations of vinylene carbonate (VC) (1% to 5%) were introduced to LFP/Gr pouch cells cycled at 70°C to evaluate their impact on cell lifetime. Additionally, two different lithium salts, LiFSI and LiPF6, were investigated. Upon reaching the end-of-life (80% capacity retention), detailed post-mortem analyses were performed, including qNMR and GC-MS to determine changes in electrolyte composition, micro X-ray fluorescence (μXRF) to quantify Fe deposition on the negative electrode, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) to assess charge-transfer resistance.
Various LFP/Gr pouch cells were evaluated, encompassing four distinct graphite types, two LFP surface area variations, and two cell form factors. The results demonstrate that higher VC concentrations significantly improve cell lifetime, reduce Fe dissolution and suppress electrolyte degradation pathways, including the formation of ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) and dimethyl 2,5-dioxahexane carboxylate (DMOHC). Furthermore, while LiFSI-based LFP/Gr cells exhibit enhanced performance in certain metrics, they suffer the production of gas at 70°C, which can be mitigated by incorporating LiPF6 salt.
Saad Azam is a battery scientist whose research focuses on improving the lifetime, safety and performance of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and grid energy storage. He completed his PhD at Dalhousie University in the Jeff Dahn research group, where his work centered on electrolyte additives, high-temperature degradation, transition-metal dissolution, gas evolution and long-term cycling of LFP/graphite and NMC/graphite pouch cells. His research combines electrochemical testing with advanced post-mortem methods, including qNMR, GC-MS, EIS, and micro-X-ray fluorescence, to connect cell performance with chemical degradation mechanisms. His recent work in the Journal of The Electrochemical Society examines how higher concentrations of vinylene carbonate improve the lifetime of LFP/graphite pouch cells cycled at 70°C.
The post Impact of VC on high temperature cycling of LFP/Gr cells appeared first on Physics World.
For particle physicists, bigger has always been better. The first working cyclotron, which was built by Ernest Lawrence in California in 1931, was little more than 35 cm in circumference and accelerated protons to 80 keV. Compare that with CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is more than 27 km long and has been creating protons with energies of 7 TeV per beam – some eight orders of magnitude higher.
Only recently, though, have the burgeoning energy requirements of ever-larger accelerator facilities become a cause for concern. It was not until 2020 that CERN published its first-ever environmental report, which outlined to the public how the lab was reducing its energy consumption. Thanks to innovations in cryogenics, for example, CERN reported that the “data per joule” doubled between the LHC’s first and second experimental runs.
All good and well. Yet while their core mission of fundamental scientific discovery remains paramount, it’s clear that – if nothing changes – the environmental impact of new and upgraded accelerator complexes will track in tandem with the size, energy footprint and resource consumption of these large-scale research facilities.
The numbers are eye-watering. Particle-accelerator research centres currently consume hundreds of gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity per year – roughly the energy budget of a mid-sized European city. CERN’s unique array of accelerators, detectors, computers and technical infrastructure, for example, together account for about 95% of the lab’s total electricity use of 1290 GWh in 2024, with the LHC alone soaking up 695 GWh.
It’s not a good look given the climate crisis – and only made worse with oil and gas prices soaring after the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fortunately, the accelerator-science community is ramping up efforts to make its core technologies and facilities more sustainable. The aim is not only to cut the energy and resources that accelerators use, but also to understand – and, more importantly, minimize – their “whole-lifetime” environmental impact.
In fact, with CERN bringing the upgraded High Luminosity LHC online by 2030, mulling over a 91 km-circumference Future Circular Collider, and China eyeing up a 100 km collider of its own, now is a good time to embed environmental impact-reduction techniques into accelerator designs from the start.
That, at least, is the hope of a group of accelerator scientists and sustainability experts from the UK, Switzerland and Germany, who in June published a “living document” that puts environmental sustainability front-and-centre in the planning, construction, operation and decommissioning of large-scale accelerator facilities (EPJ Research Infrastructures 10 12).
“We’re seeing a surge in interest from colleagues across the accelerator community, all of them eager to incorporate environmental sustainability into their work and to share lessons learned,” says Hannah Wakeling, lead author of the report. An accelerator physicist in the John Adams Institute at the University of Oxford, UK, Wakeling’s own research involves measuring the carbon footprint of particle accelerators, their use of raw materials and even their wider impact on biodiversity.
Trouble is, measuring and improving the environmental sustainability of accelerator facilities is not easy. Labs often don’t have enough funding, staff or time for such initiatives. Sustainability recommendations are either too generic or cannot be applied to accelerator science and technology. There’s also uncertainty about how to incorporate environmental sustainability into day-to-day operations.
We hope that the guidelines will help accelerator facilities make informed decisions that balance scientific progress with environmental responsibility
Hannah Wakeling, University of Oxford
Inspired by various initiatives in big science (see “Sustainable acceleration”, below), Wakeling and colleagues’ open-access resource has 110 practical sustainability recommendations for anyone building, planning or running accelerator facilities. It includes advice on procuring resources responsibly and reducing environmental impact through, for example, tunnelling, shielding, component design, waste management and green computing. There are also recommendations on skills, knowledge transfer and culture change, the latter being what the authors think will have most impact.
“Looking at accelerator programmes through the lens of sustainability gives us an opportunity to do things differently,” notes Wakeling. “We hope that the updated version of our high-level guidelines [v1.0 was published in 2025] will help accelerator facilities make informed decisions that balance scientific progress with environmental responsibility.”
In general, the biggest opportunity to make accelerators more sustainable is when they are still being designed and conceived. “At these crucial stages,” says Wakeling, “environmental impact assessments should be employed to highlight the areas of highest potential for impact reductions and more sustainable designs.”
What’s more, argues Wakeling, any decision to build or upgrade an accelerator shouldn’t depend just on its cost or scientific output but on how environmentally sustainable it will be too. That, in turn, means prioritizing R&D funding for enabling technologies that can make the most difference and co-ordinating efforts between large-scale facilities to avoid scientific duplication and to minimize the consumption of resources.
One relevant effort is a pan-European consortium called Research Facility 2.0 (RF 2.0), which is aiming to develop accelerator facilities that can run entirely on renewable energy – in effect, almost independently of the public power grid. A three-year, €5.6m initiative funded by the European Union’s Horizon programme and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation, RF 2.0 includes major accelerator labs like CERN, DESY and HZB (both in Germany), ALBA (Spain) and MAX IV (Sweden) plus the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and four high-tech SMEs.
Large-scale research infrastructures are a public good but they are inflexible and found wanting when it comes to environmental sustainability
Giovanni De Carne, director of KIT’s Institute for Technical Physics
“We are addressing a couple of fundamental problems,” says RF 2.0 head Giovanni De Carne, who is director of KIT’s Institute for Technical Physics. One issue is purely economic: a particle accelerator consumes a lot of electrical energy and therefore accounts for a recurring chunk of operating expenditure. In “run” years, for example, electricity costs typically equate to 5–10% of CERN’s annual budget.
“The second problem is practical, but also philosophical,” De Carne adds. “Large-scale research infrastructures are a public good – driving scientific and societal impact – but they are inflexible and found wanting when it comes to environmental sustainability, consuming large amounts of raw materials during construction and regular operations.”
RF 2.0’s goal is therefore to analyse the many ways accelerators use energy – from components and systems to experiments and engineering – and to develop and test novel platform technologies in real-world settings. One notable RF 2.0 demonstrator project, for example, led to a redesign of permanent magnets that steer and focus beams at the MAX IV synchrotron, reducing energy use and heat losses by up to 40%.
Another involved retrofitting solid-state amplifiers with energy-efficient “active parameterization” controllers to enhance particle acceleration at the ALBA synchrotron; it yielded 18% energy savings in one year versus prior technologies. A parallel R&D track has also led to sustainable high-performance computing initiatives such as a summer energy-saving programme at DESY’s data centre, reducing the power draw during the hottest parts of the day.
Meanwhile at CERN, an RF 2.0 team has installed 24 phasor measurement units (PMUs) at the lab. These smart grid devices, which record the magnitude and timing of voltage/current fluctuations, are able to monitor harmonics, voltage sags and grid disturbances within the LHC’s power network.
By recording phenomena that would otherwise go unnoticed with traditional metering systems, the PMUs help engineers to implement counter-measures to make the accelerator grid more robust. In the first year of operation, the devices recorded 135 voltage sags and rapid voltage-change events, with 18 of these adversely impacting operation of the accelerator complex – mainly affecting magnets and radio-frequency (RF) acceleration schemes.
“RF 2.0 cannot work in one single direction – a multidisciplinary approach is key,” says De Carne. “We are bringing together physicists, engineers and technologists who, under normal circumstances, rarely talk to each other. The project provides a forum for them to connect and share insights on common problems but from their own unique perspective. It’s been a real game-changer.”
The RF 2.0 programme finishes at the end of 2026, after which De Carne hopes to secure follow-on EU funding for RF 2.0 to merge with another pan-European project called Innovate for Sustainable Accelerator Systems (iSAS). The two projects look like a neat fit, with iSAS consisting of 11 academic labs and six companies seeking to make superconducting RF cavities – a workhorse accelerator technology – more energy-efficient.
The following sustainability initiatives are a useful starting point for scientists and engineers who want to evaluate and lower the environmental impact of accelerator projects at an institutional, project or individual level.
Along another coordinate, there’s also top-down pressure for a more sustainable approach to future accelerators from the European Strategy Group for Particle Physics (ESG), which guides the future of the field in Europe. “Energy consumption and emissions must be minimized when realizing and operating facilities and projects,” is the ESG’s unequivocal message in the 2026 update to its third strategy paper. “The design of new particle physics infrastructures should be as sustainable as possible, balancing important sustainability aspects with cost and physics performance.”
The ESG argues that R&D funding should be allocated to platform technologies with the most potential to yield energy savings. These include systems that convert grid power to RF more efficiently for particle acceleration, with some studies suggesting it could be possible to quadruple the efficiency with which RF systems convert electrical power into radiant power. Other promising technologies include thin-film superconducting RF cavities operating at higher cryogenic temperatures (around 4.2 K or higher versus 2 K for bulk niobium cavities).
Also important are novel permanent and high-temperature superconducting magnets that minimize heat losses. “Comparing the carbon footprints of electromagnet and permanent-magnet quadrupoles,” says Wakeling in Oxford, “the higher manufacturing impact of a permanent magnet can, in certain cases, be offset by its lower operational impact in as little as one year. Worth noting as well that this conclusion only considers carbon and doesn’t compare other environmental impacts.”
Another sustainability pathway is the use of AI and machine-learning to optimize the efficiency of accelerator experiments – for example, by focusing on intersecting parameters tuned to improve equipment reliability, lifetime and resource consumption. In parallel, AI could cut the huge computational needs of particle physics by requiring fewer “events” to be stored and lowering computing time.
Longer term, researchers are prioritizing disruptive accelerator concepts that could slash the size, cost and carbon footprint of next-generation facilities. One example is the energy-recovery linac, in which superconducting RF cavities decelerate a “used” particle beam and recycle the kinetic energy to accelerate new particles to higher energies. Another is plasma-wakefield acceleration, which uses laser- or particle-beam-driven intense “plasma waves” as the accelerating medium, yielding electric fields up to 1000 times greater than in classical accelerators.
Notwithstanding all this technology innovation, so many factors influence accelerator design that the “best” decision in terms of its environmental benefits can’t always be made. “In the end,” says Wakeling, “this is all a balancing act: we want accelerator facilities to be cutting-edge in terms of their scientific output, but we also want them to be cutting-edge when it comes to environmental sustainability.”
As for next steps, Wakeling and co-authors now plan to assess the anticipated impact of their 110 recommendations – whether high, medium or low – and the potential difficulty of putting them into practice (by referencing technology-readiness level, for example). Work is also underway to incorporate more quantitative analyses, including target figures for selected recommendations based on case studies from the accelerator community.
Equally, when assessing an accelerator’s emissions over its whole life-cycle, Wakeling thinks there is much to learn from the space-science community, which has developed the Open-source Rocket and Constellation Lifecycle Emissions (ORACLE) GitHub repository. This initiative seeks to cut the carbon footprint of the space industry – especially large constellations of satellites – by allowing researchers to share code and data.
“We applaud efforts like ORACLE and wish to encourage and promote similar programmes within fields applicable to accelerator science,” says Wakeling. But it’s clear that significant research is still required to tackle the complex environmental challenges in accelerator science, with Wakeling and colleagues aiming to update their living document as new information and technologies become available.
“We invite contributions from colleagues within the accelerator community,” Wakeling concludes, “to ensure this resource remains relevant, comprehensive and impactful.”
The post Big science seeks big wins from sustainability efforts appeared first on Physics World.
Sensors designed to record earthquakes can reveal insights into a very different natural hazard – how hurricanes evolve and intensify as they strike land. The surprising connection has been made by researchers in the US, who examined data from seismic sensors installed in Louisiana for studying the interior of the Earth. They found that the sensors, which collected data on pressure fluctuations, provided information about how Hurricane Isaac grew and intensified as it struck and devastated the state in 2012.
Earthquakes and hurricanes are very different in how they form, move and impact the Earth. The parameters governing these natural hazards – and the way that we measure them – are also distinct given that one is a geophysical phenomenon and the other atmospheric.
Hurricanes, which form over warmer tropical and subtropical ocean waters, are rotating systems of cloud and thunderstorms. They consist of a calm, central “eye”, a surrounding layer of tall thunderstorms, and strong winds called the “eyewall”. Spiralling away from the eyewall are bands of clouds and thunderstorms.
Forecasters describe the structure and evolution of hurricanes using three main parameters: track, intensity and the radii of the wind layers around the eye. But when hurricanes strike land, particularly important is the turbulence in the lowermost layer. That’s where momentum, heat and moisture mix between the atmosphere and the ocean or land.
Measuring the turbulence in this boundary layer is critical both for forecasting wind intensity and for developing and validating weather models. Such data are usually collected using reconnaissance aircraft, ocean buoys and onshore towers and radar. But flying planes into hurricanes is dangerous, while onshore towers are sparse, making data-gathering tricky. Continuous monitoring of a storm’s passage is not easy either.
In the new study, Qing Ji, Ipshita Dey and Eric Dunham from Stanford University processed data from seismic stations in Louisiana that are part of a network of 1700 stations across the US. Equipped with both infrasound sensors and seismometers, these “seismoacoustic” stations are designed to record seismic activity.
The infrasound sensors measure pressure fluctuations at the Earth’s surface, with the seismometers recording the resulting elastic response. But when the hurricane passed through the equipment, the winds were strong enough to leave an additional signal. In fact, the Stanford team found that the data revealed the calm eye and the turbulent eyewall – as well as the circular layers of thunderstorms and winds as the hurricane passed through the sensors.
“The infrasound sensors provide direct measurements of turbulent pressure fluctuations,” says Dunham. “We also used the seismometer data together with data from other atmospheric sensors to calibrate a computer model of hurricane turbulence.” The model provided space-time correlations of pressure fluctuations around the station, while the simulated pressure spectra matched the recorded data at station.
The researchers then calculated the Earth’s elastic response using the simulated pressure field, which aligned with the observed vertical displacement. More importantly, the simulations showed that the relevant parameter for calculating the Earth’s elastic response to pressure fluctuations is the velocity at which those fluctuations are carried downstream — rather than the near-surface wind speed as had been assumed.
Dunham told Physics World that he hopes the study will draw attention to the potential of seismoacoustic networks for atmospheric sciences. “Perhaps this will lead to deployments of seismometers and infrasound sensors in areas where coverage is currently sparse, like in the southeastern US,” he adds.
Those hopes are echoed by Ji – now based at the University of Texas, Austin – who says there is a growing interest in the use of these “noise” signals for environmental monitoring. As Ji points out, the beauty of seismic stations is that they record data continuously and have a high sampling rate compared to other sensors.
Seismoacoustic stations have already been used to study various environmental and climatic phenomena, such as rising amounts of energy in ocean waves as waters warm and the evolution of tropical storms and accompanying winds. “The atmospheric imprints, however, are less studied partly due to the overall smaller amplitudes and the potentially more complicated nature,” Ji adds.
Dunham also sees an opportunity to add infrasound sensors and barometers, both of which measure atmospheric pressure, to existing seismometers. “Having multiple sensors at a single location opens up new opportunities for studying both the solid Earth and atmosphere,” he says.
The researchers report their findings in Science.
The post Earthquake sensors reveal vital information about how hurricanes move and grow appeared first on Physics World.
Peeing at the Grand Prix just got a lot more meaningful. In the latest episode of Physics World Stories, Lucy Bell-Reeves and Olivia Wilson, who work for the start-up NPK Recovery, based at the University of the West of England, explain how their mobile system upcycles urine into fertilizer, right where it’s produced.
The pair unpack the physics and chemistry behind their approach, contrasting it with the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process, which converts natural gas into ammonia under extreme heat and pressure at centralized plants. With the UK importing 100% of its nitrogen, and recent global conflicts exposing the fragility of fertilizer supply chains, the case for local, circular alternatives is growing stronger.
Host Andrew Glester hears about the pair’s experience at the British Grand Prix in Silverstone, the UK’s leg of the Formula 1 World Championship. Bell-Reeves and Wilson reflect on what it’s like to experience the “Grand Pee”, and how attendees react when they discover where their urine ends up.
While not pitched as a replacement for industrial-scale ammonia production, the system offers a smart fix for off-grid sites facing sudden spikes in human waste.
The post From pit stop to plant food: how Grand Prix crowd’s urine becomes fertilizer appeared first on Physics World.
Environmental Research: Climate was launched in 2022, with the aim of uniting multidisciplinary communities. With a scope that is intentionally broad, the mission of the journal is to publish innovative research examining the causes, consequences, and solutions of climate variability and change. Since our launch, we have published more than 270 articles covering physical and biogeochemical processes that shape Earth’s climate across spatial and temporal scales; the human and ecological dimensions that shape climate-related risks and impacts; and the design, analysis and evaluation of climate mitigation, adaptation, and risk-management strategies and solutions. This webinar will explore the current state of climate research, including changes in the field over the last five years since the launch of the journal, and direct us toward the future.
Moderator: Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University
Noah Diffenbaugh is the William Wrigley Professor and Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow in Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability, and the Olivier Nomellini Family University Fellow in Undergraduate Education. His research is focused on understanding what aspects of the climate system most directly and acutely impact people and ecosystems. Noah has served as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and as editor-in-chief of the peer-review journals Geophysical Research Letters and Environmental Research: Climate. He has provided testimony and scientific expertise to federal, state and local officials. Noah is an elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), a recipient of the James R. Holton Award and William Kaula Award from the AGU, and has been recognized as a Kavli Fellow by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Katharine Mach, University of Miami
Katharine Mach is professor and chair of the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, & Earth Science. During spring 2025, she was the Coleman P. Burke Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Yale School of Environment. Her research assesses climate-related risks and response options to address increased flooding, extreme heat, wildfire and other hazards. Through innovative approaches to integrating evidence, she informs effective adaptations to the risks.
Katharine was the 2020 recipient of the Piers Sellers Prize for world-leading contribution to solution-focused climate research. She has served as a chapter author or lead in the Fourth through Sixth US National Climate Assessments and the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and as a member of the National Academies Climate Security Roundtable. She serves as co-editor-in-chief for Climate Risk Management, an editorial board member for Oxford Open Climate Change and Environmental Research: Climate, and an advisory committee member for the Aspen Global Change Institute. Across all of her research projects, she engages in relevant policy processes and explores and discusses climate risk and adaptation with the media, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations and communities.
Andrew Pershing, Climate Central
As chief programme officer, Andrew Pershing, PhD, leads Climate Central’s climate science activity. His role includes bridging primary research and media analysis to amplify critical work on climate change and climate impacts and make it accessible to audiences around the world. As the director of attribution science and climate fingerprinting, Andrew is developing tools like the Climate Shift Index to quantify how climate change has increased the likelihood or severity of conditions in the atmosphere and ocean. He works closely with communications experts at Climate Central and our partners to help the media and others to incorporate this information into their content.
Andrew has led interdisciplinary research teams to study the impact of global warming on marine ecosystems in the northwest Atlantic. More recently, his work has focused on how climate trends interact with decisions that people make and on how marine ecosystems store and process carbon. As a communicator, Andrew has deep experience working with journalists to present climate science on air and in print.
Inês Azevedo, Stanford University
Inês M Lima Azevedo is a professor in the Energy Science & Engineering department at Stanford University. She is a senior fellow at both Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and for Precourt Institute for Energy. She has a BSc in environmental engineering (2004) and a MSc in engineering policy and management of technology from IST-Portugal, and a PhD in engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University (2009). Inês is passionate about solving problems that include environmental, technical, economic and policy issues, where traditional engineering approaches play an important role but cannot provide a complete answer. In particular, she is interested in assessing how energy systems are likely to evolve, which requires comprehensive knowledge of the technologies that can address future energy needs and the decision-making process followed by various agents in the economy.
About this journal
Environmental Research: Climate explores the causes, consequences, and solutions of climate variability and change, by uniting research communities across the entire spectrum of the climate system.
Editor-in-chief: Noah Diffenbaugh Stanford University, USA
The post Environmental Research: Climate, fireside chat appeared first on Physics World.
To play, click or drag one or more tiles to move them into the empty space. Repeat until you have reconstructed the image.
Image courtesy: iStock/Galeanu Mihai
Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.
The post Physics and the green economy: a slide puzzle appeared first on Physics World.
The fast-charging performance of lithium-ion batteries is strongly influenced by the structure of porous electrodes and its evolution during battery operation. In such electrodes, ionic transport is governed by the electrolyte conductivity as well as by the porosity, tortuosity and thickness of the electrode. The latter parameters undergo both reversible and irreversible changes, induced by the lithiation and delithiation of graphite particles and by the formation of the solid–electrolyte interphase (SEI).
We will discuss how SEI formation alters electrode thickness, porosity and tortuosity. Particular emphasis will be placed on how these structural changes depend on the initial electrode porosity and how SEI formation can be quantitatively linked to the evolution of transport properties.
Second, we will address state-of-charge–dependent effects. Graphite particle expansion during lithiation changes the pore structure, influencing electrode porosity, thickness and pore volume. It will be shown how these changes affect ionic resistance and electrolyte transport, and how they connect to macroscopic effects such as the recently described electrolyte-motion–induced salt inhomogeneity (EMSI).
Together, these insights provide a coherent picture of how SEI formation and state-of-charge-dependent expansion alter ionic transport in porous graphite anodes, offering guidance for electrode design and improved methodologies for realistic parameter determination used in battery modelling and fast-charging optimisation.
Lennart Reuter received his PhD from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in June 2025 under the supervision of Hubert Gasteiger and is now a postdoctoral researcher at Uppsala University. His research centres on identifying and quantifying material and electrolyte decomposition processes in lithium-ion batteries. He implemented OEMS for gas analysis in the presence of volatile commercial electrolytes and developed a novel three-electrode cell for the operando detection of parasitic side reactions. In addition, he investigated structural and transport changes in porous electrodes during operation, including the characterisation of porous transport properties by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS).
Jonas Dickmanns is a PhD candidate at the Chair of Technical Electrochemistry, supervised by Hubert Gasteiger at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), focusing on advanced lithium-ion battery cell chemistry and anode materials. He received his MSc in chemistry from TUM, where he worked on the electrochemical characterisation of graphite. He later expanded his research to other anode materials, including microscale silicon and silicon/carbon composites. His work investigates key electrode processes such as solid–electrolyte interphase (SEI) formation, structural evolution of anodes, and electrolyte interactions. The goal of his research is to enhance the performance, stability and lifetime of next-generation lithium-ion batteries.
The post Changes in structure and ionic resistance of lithium-ion battery graphite electrodes appeared first on Physics World.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious,” wrote Albert Einstein. “It is the source of all true art and science.” It is a reminder that wonder – particularly in the natural world – lies at the heart of both disciplines. When it comes to an issue as multifaceted and emotive as climate change, it feels only natural to turn to art as well as science to make sense of what is happening around us.
The latest episode of Physics World Stories brings together two artists doing exactly that. Host Andrew Glester speaks first with Tom Bailey, a performance and environmental artist from Bristol-based creative company Mechanimal. Bailey has recently returned from an extraordinary 600 kilometre journey through the Arctic borderlands — spanning Norway, Finland and Sweden — travelling by ski, sledge, foot and boat, and occasionally dressed as a reindeer.
Travelling between festival performances, Bailey immersed himself in a region undergoing dramatic change: shifting weather patterns, transforming landscapes, and growing international interest in its mineral resources, raising urgent questions about governance and access. Central to his vision is a “more-than-human” perspective, advocating for nature to have formal representation in international decision-making, not merely as a resource to be managed, but as a presence with its own legitimate interests.
Composer Naomi Hart approaches the crisis from a different angle. After a conversation with her daughter about fears for the future left her saddened but resolute, she channelled that emotion into Save Progress – a short video game exploring how human connection can help us to think about the world and the choices ahead. In the podcast, Hart talks about her creative choices; the game combines an intentionally old-school design with specially composed synthesizer music. Save Progress takes around 10 minutes to play: give it a try.
The post Beyond the data: art meets climate at the edge of the world appeared first on Physics World.
Data centres that house AI infrastructure are on track by the end of the decade to consume nearly three times as much electricity annually as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria combined. That is according to a report published by the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), which also discovers that the water footprint of such centres could match the annual domestic needs of all 1.3 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.
For hundreds of millions of people, generative AI is now woven into their daily lives. ChatGPT processes 2.5 billion prompts each day and, by integrating AI into its search engine, Google processes billions of AI-assisted interactions.
Behind every virtual compute, however, stands sprawling data centres that operate thousands of high-performance processors. Data centres consume vast amounts of electricity and water to operate, cool servers and transmit data.
Day-to-day search queries account for 80-90% of data centres’ energy costs. An average text-based prompt consumes about 0.42 Watt-hours (Wh) of electricity. ChatGPT interactions alone result in 383 GWh per year — enough to cover the domestic electricity needs of nearly three million people in Sub-Saharan Africa.
As of late 2025, only 32 countries had AI-specialized data centres, with nearly half of global data centres located in the US. More than 150 countries, including most of Africa and South America, lack infrastructure to participate in the AI economy.
Those who benefit least from AI, however, often bear a disproportionate share of its cost. Vulnerable communities near data centres face air pollution, drought conditions, and land shortage.
Even regions in the Global South that are devoid of data centres are impacted by mineral extractions to build AI hardware. Such extractions are energy-intensive, deplete water, and pollute the environment.
The report finds that the land footprint of data centres could span an area roughly 10 times the size of Mexico City by the end of the decade. Additionally, it projects that 2.5 million metric tonnes of e-waste could be produced annually from AI hardware — equivalent to scrapping 250 Eiffel Towers each year.
UNU-INWEH director Kaveh Madani says that the report is not “a case against artificial intelligence” adding that the technology is improving the lives of billions of people worldwide. “[The report] is a call for using it responsibly and addressing its unintended impacts proactively to make it sustainable and equitable,” adds Madani.
To build a responsible AI ecosystem, the report calls for a multilateral approach. AI developers should improve efficiency of design and transparently report their environmental footprint. International and national governance should engage local communities in siting decisions and enforce standardized environmental disclosure while investors should consider environmental impact in their due diligence.
For individuals, the report encourages users to avoid unnecessary use, choose the smallest model capable of the task and write concise prompts.
The post AI data centres’ electricity use nears country-scale levels, finds report appeared first on Physics World.
In 2020, Toyota Motor Corporation launched the FC-EV of MIRAI-II adopting mesoporous carbon of nano-dendrite (MCND) support for the PtCo alloy catalyst NPs to suppress ionomer poisoning. Concurrently, we began using the CNovel® MH-18 mesoporous carbon (MPC) support mass-produced by TOYO TANSO, Osaka, Japan. The characteristics of the MPC support were entirely different from those of the conventional Ketjen Black EC-600JD (KB-600JD) porous carbon support.
The MPC support has a primary particle size of approximately 2 μm (KB-600JD: 40–50 nm) and consists of isolated particles lacking the chain-like structure seen in KB-600JD. Thanks to very unique porosity of the MPC support, that is, the coexistence of highly interconnected mesopores (2–6 nm) and macropores, allows oxygen molecules to access the Pt catalyst NPs from all directions within the MPC support, resulting in higher cell voltages compared to the Pt/KB-600JD catalyst at high current density regions.
The MPC support was ground to approximately 800 nm using a bead mill. Since the grinding generates new surfaces on the MPC support, the ground MPC support was heat treated in an Ar atmosphere at temperatures ranging from 1800°C to 2400°C to improve the durability of the MPC support. The durability of the Pt/MPC (800 nm) catalyst was evaluated using a triangular-wave potential cycle of 1.0–1.5 V vs RHE in MEAs. The Pt/MPC (800 nm) catalyst using the freshly milled MPC support exhibited higher durability than the Pt/KB-600JD catalyst. This is because although new surfaces were formed by bead milling, the purchased MPC (2 µm) was heat treated at 1800°C under an Ar atmosphere during TOYO TANSO’s final manufacturing process.
The durability of the Pt/MPC (800 nm) catalyst increased with rising the heat-treatment temperature, and the catalyst using MPC support (800 nm) heat-treated at 2400°C exhibited the highest durability under a triangular-wave potential cycle of 1.0–1.5 V vs RHE.
XRD and HR-TEM analyses revealed that the carbon (002) plane grew further upon the heat treatment. The N2 gas adsorption/desorption isotherms measured at 77 K for the MPC supports indicated that porosity of the MPC support decreased with increasing the heat-treatment temperature, and the surface area of the freshly milled MPC support, 1338 m2/g, decreased to 351 m2/g after the heat treatment at 2400°C. Considering the durability and the porosity retention of the MPC support (800 nm), a heat-treatment temperature in the range of 2000°C–2200°C is considered suitable.
Hideo Daimon completed his MSc in chemistry at the Faculty of Science, Kwansei Gakuin University, in 1984, he joined the research and development department at Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. At Hitachi Maxell, he conducted research on magnetic materials prepared via chemical routes; friction and wear of thin-film magnetic recording media, protective coatings and lubricants for the thin-film media, and electrodeposition and electroless plating of Ni and Ni-P films.
In 2000, he began synthesizing PtFe, PtRu and Pt nanoparticles for use in fuel cells. Daimon moved to Doshisha University in 2010, where he has been researching Pt and Pt-based catalysts used in cathodes for PEFCs, including Au@Pt- and Pd@Pt core-shell structured catalysts, as well as PtCo alloy catalysts. Currently, he is engaged in research on mesoporous carbon supports to enhance the cell performance and durability of PEFCs applied to FCEVs.
The post The discovery of mesoporous carbon support with characteristic porosity and the art of mastering its use appeared first on Physics World.
From heatwaves to extreme rainfall, the impact of climate change is rapidly becoming a reality in our daily lives and a danger to our planet. But physicists are in a great position to help, with physics-based research bringing about practical, real-world solutions, whether it’s more efficient solar cells, better climate models, or novel materials for capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
There are huge economic and commercial benefits from such work too. A 2023 report from the Institute of Physics (IOP), entitled Physics Powering the Green Economy, estimates there are almost 1800 companies in the UK and Ireland taking green technologies to market with a combined turnover of £750bn.
Last year a follow-up IOP Impact report entitled Unleashing Physics to Power the UK Energy Sector identified the most promising physics technologies for transforming the UK’s energy system. These fall into three main areas: energy generation (nuclear power, photovoltaics), storage (batteries) and transmission (high-temperature superconductors).
The clean-energy revolution will not be easy, however. As the IOP report points out, the UK has a strong research base, good international collaborations, and a growing pipeline of spin-out and early-stage companies. But the country doesn’t invest enough in technology scale-up facilities, faces critical skill shortages, and isn’t great at recycling either.
To discuss how physicists are supporting the green economy – and what more they can do – a panel debate was recently held at the IOP in central London. Attended by Prince Edward, the Duke of Edinburgh, as well as about 100 business leaders, policy chiefs, senior physicists, and IOP and IOP Publishing staff, it was chaired by Tara Shears, the IOP’s vice-president for science and innovation.
The panel featured ex-BP boss John Browne, who now works in green energy, Emily Nurse from the UK’s Climate Change Committee, former Sizewell C energy-strategy director David Cole, solar-cell physicist Jenny Nelson from Imperial College, and Nellie Technologies founder Stephen Milburn. The following is an edited extract of the discussion.
John Browne is chair of BeyondNetZero, a climate-growth equity venture firm. He was group chief executive of energy giant BP from 1995–2007, having joined the firm in 1966 after studying natural sciences.
Emily Nurse, who was originally an experimental particle physicist, is the director of net zero at the UK’s Climate Change Committee, which advises the UK government on reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
David Cole, an engineer by training, was at the time of the discussion director of energy strategy at the Sizewell C nuclear-power plant, which is being built in Suffolk in the UK. When complete, it is expected to meet up to 7% of the UK’s total electricity demand. He is now executive president, consulting, at energy firm Wood.
Jenny Nelson is a physicist at Imperial College London, where she has spent almost 30 years developing advanced materials for photovoltaic solar cells. She is also mitigation programme lead at the Grantham Institute of Climate Change and the Environment.
Stephen Milburn is a physicist who is founder and chief executive of the firm Nellie Technologies in South Wales. It removes carbon dioxide form the atmosphere using biomass, which can then be used as animal feed or construction material.
John Browne: I made a wonderful decision 60 years ago, when I was 18, which was to read physics. After graduating, I became an engineer, but over the last 30 years physics has come back in to my life as I’ve found myself doing something very important – trying to get to net zero. Physics, you see, touches absolutely everything.
All that I’ve ever done – whether it’s renewable energy or “old energy” [fossil fuels] in my old life – starts with physics. Whether you’re involved in chemistry, biology, electronics or engineering, it could not exist without a much deeper understanding of physics. We have to make sure everybody knows that – but I don’t think people currently do. They tend to think engineering is the only enabler for commercialization, but physics is there.
Emily Nurse: I started out as a particle physicist working at CERN on the Large Hadron Collider but for the last four years, I’ve been involved in climate policy and now work with the UK’s Climate Change Committee. We are the UK government’s official advisers on its climate targets – and assessing progress towards meeting those targets. As we celebrate global decarbonization to date, we need to remember it’s all underpinned by physics.
Take the rise of solar power for example, which has been the fastest growing source of global electricity generation for the last 20 years in a row. Solar installations in 2024 were double those in 2022. Along with wind, solar has led to a reduction in electricity from fossil fuels. We’re seeing the costs of solar plummeting and they just keep falling further.
In the UK, solar power has been growing more slowly, but it’s starting to pick up and is going to be a really important part of the electricity mix. We’ve also got a lot of wind here in the UK – it’s a very windy island after all. I would also like to give a shout out to heat pumps: as a physicist, how can you not love their efficiency?
David Cole: I am an engineer, not a physicist, but I’ve spent my career in lots of different sectors and been fascinated with the role that energy plays in creating a better society. What’s really interesting at Sizewell C is the ownership structure, which involves both state and private investment. It’s the first time private investment has been used for a new nuclear build in the UK.
I hope it leads to a virtuous circle, in which the more plants we build, the more we can reap from that investment
David Cole
Getting this hybrid financial structure over the line was not trivial – it took a lot of effort – but I think it will drive great performance. We’re also trying to use as much UK content in the plants as possible, whether that’s materials, skills or technology. I hope it leads to a virtuous circle, in which the more plants we build, the more we can reap from that investment. Sizewell C will, in other words, bring down energy costs, which is fundamental to economic growth.
Jenny Nelson: I have been active in research into solar photovoltaic (PV) materials and devices for over 30 years and we should celebrate how much has happened in the field during that time. In the last 10 years, we have seen capacity increase globally by more than a factor of 10, we’ve seen the efficiency of solar cells increase, and we’ve seen the cost come down almost by a factor of eight, all of which is remarkable.
Those innovations are firmly rooted in physics – whether it’s changes in device structure… or of the optical properties of materials
Jenny Nelson
The cheapest form of electricity globally, in other words, is now from solar PV, which was not the case 30 years ago. These developments have come partly from economies of scale and partly from technological innovations that have now fed through into production. Those innovations are firmly rooted in physics – whether it’s changes in device structure due to our understanding of semiconductor physics or new developments in the optical properties of materials.
The next generation of PV cells, which are likely to be silicon-based tandem devices, will also depend on scientific breakthroughs and innovations.
Stephen Milburn: I’m chief executive of Nellie Technologies, which is based in South Wales on the site of a former chemical-weapons storage facility. We’re using biomass waste for removing atmospheric carbon dioxide, and if you visit us, you’ll see all kinds of activity: in one corner there’s chemistry, in another engineering and in the next there’s biology and biochemistry. But physics is at the heart of the technology. Physicists are a bit arrogant when we say we think we can do everything, but the fact is we probably can.
But we should also celebrate the work that has gone on to create a market in which carbon-emission credits can be bought and sold. Trading carbon credits has been a bit of a dark activity over the last 10 years, with double counting and bad things happening purely by firms wishing to make a profit. However, the market does have the power to regulate itself – in fact the alignment we’re starting to see between the UK and the EU will help greatly.
John Browne: First, we can do much more with what we’ve already got – for example we could increase our offshore wind or rethink whether we should go back into onshore wind. Second, we can improve what we’re doing – for instance, by increasing the efficiency of solar panels to their theoretical maximum, which would make rooftop solar economically attractive. Third, there are new opportunities, such as metallic organic frameworks and nuclear fusion.
What we do here in the UK needs to move the needle globally, which means thinking about how to scale and finance it properly
John Browne
However, the UK needs to avoid doing things that others are doing much better. The race for the best battery in the world is, for example, probably going to be won elsewhere. What we do here in the UK needs to move the needle globally, which means thinking about how to scale and finance it properly. The UK shouldn’t end up as a secondary player.
Emily Nurse: The UK has made a lot of progress in our quest to reach net zero by 2050. Since 1990, for example, we’ve halved our carbon emissions, mainly by decarbonizing electricity – phasing out coal, reducing gas generation, while significantly increasing wind, solar and other renewables. Electricity generation now accounts for only around 7% of UK emissions, which are dominated by transport (cars and vans) and heating (oil and gas boilers).
Reducing emissions still further will predominantly come from moving to electric technologies, including electric vehicles and heat pumps, and by further decarbonizing the electricity supply. There will be a backbone of wind and solar, but to ensure a secure supply, we’ll need nuclear, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and batteries. We’ll have to reduce emissions from agriculture and land use too.
A report from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) last year estimated that the net-zero economy grew by 10% in 2024, which is three times faster than the rest of the UK. But we’ll need more innovations to continue to bring costs down – and we’ll also need to provide incentives to boost the take-up of electric technologies. If we do that, there’ll be an overall saving to the UK economy in about 15 years’ time, our analysis suggests. There are huge opportunities for green growth to come from this investment.
David Cole: I agree that for the UK to be competitive, the cost of energy has to come down – not just for domestic customers but businesses too. In fact, there are two main opportunities First, we have to adopt a “whole-systems” approach. If we’re building a power station, for example, can we use every bit to its maximum potential?
Let’s say I’m running a direct air-capture plant operating at 25–30 ºC – can I use the waste flow from my coolant system to encourage new industries? Can it support nearby hydrogen generation plants or companies making, say, synthetic aviation fuel? Those questions involve thinking about physics and engineering as well as materials science, which is also super important.
Whichever way you look at it, we’re talking about building a lot of hardware, which involves materials. How much energy per unit mass are they using? Can we recycle those materials? What can we do with the waste products? Ultimately, what is really important is energy security: where does your energy come from, who made it and what impact does it have on the environment?
Jenny Nelson: The net-zero economy is growing significantly faster than the rest of the economy and I think that will continue. But decarbonizing the power sector only addresses part of the problem and we’re going to see a big transition across the rest of industry, agriculture and elsewhere that will generate a wide range of opportunities and stimulate the economy too. I’m not just talking about rolling out more renewables, but about integration – bringing together the generation and storage of energy, ensuring that we are managing demands and have the right infrastructure.
As for my area of photovoltaics, we’ve seen great ideas and technologies come out of the UK that are very likely going to be developed outside the UK because the manufacturing capacity isn’t here. Nevertheless, those ideas and innovations can still benefit the country through licensing, partial manufacturing and new technology.
One thing to remember about solar power is it’s distributed. You can have solar generation without being connected to the grid. That not only opens some markets for certain applications where you want to generate electricity locally, but it also provides a route to energy security through back-up generation, towards which solar power will be an important part.
Stephen Milburn: Having a strong green-technology manufacturing base is a huge opportunity for the UK. My company is based in South Wales, where we have lots of highly skilled people who used to work in traditional industries but now don’t have many places to go. Yes, there’s a fantastic semiconductor industry here, but when it comes to deploying green technology we cannot outsource that responsibility to other parts of the world.
Green tech needs to be deployed in the UK’s industrial heartlands… if we don’t nurture jobs and skills here there’s a real risk they will be gone forever
Stephen Milburn
Green tech needs to be deployed in the UK’s industrial heartlands to take advantage of the skills we already have, but which we are at risk of losing. In fact, if we don’t nurture those jobs and skills here there’s a real risk they will be gone forever. Having a strong green-technology manufacturing base is a huge opportunity for the UK.
Stephen Milburn: Many science graduates leave university equipped with solid academic rigour and a great scientific understanding, but they often lack practical green-technology skills. This summer my company is therefore hoping to launch a climate apprenticeship programme, which will allow graduates to pick up those skills. We need to build green-tech skills in the real economy, in particular those that will deal with climate change.
Jenny Nelson: The UK must do more to support its own innovations. We need better regulations to avoid unnecessary bottlenecks. We need to invest in infrastructure like the grid. We should completely avoid subsidizing fossil fuels and instead divert any subsidies into alternative economies. Finally, we need to train and educate people, showing the public the potential of green technology so that they become part of the transition, for example by generating their own electricity.
David Cole: We need to integrate our policies on industry, energy, land use and AI so that we can invest in them all as growth areas. In particular, I’d like to see a long-term nuclear programme in which we build a fleet of new reactors all of the same design, which will drive down costs by letting us replicate a particular technology. It’s also vital that we get a high proportion of UK content and technology into these reactors, which will lead to a virtuous circle, with money coming back into the economy that we can re-invest in industrial and academic partnerships.
Emily Nurse: What’s vital is consistency in policies; we need certainty. In the UK, we are fortunate to have world-leading climate legislation in the form of the 2008 Climate Change Act, which does not just make it a legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050 but also gives us targets along the way. It means we know what we need to do in both the medium- and long-term, which gives certainty to investors, businesses, innovators and consumers.
What’s really important is communication – supporting communities through the transition and making sure they realize the benefits
Emily Nurse
So the first thing we need to do is keep the Climate Change Act. Then, of course, we’ve got to address barriers to delivery, including having the right incentives to electrify the economy. And what’s really important is communication – supporting communities through the transition and making sure they realize the benefits, not just in terms of reducing carbon production but of having cleaner, better and more efficient technologies too.
John Browne: First, we must never stop investing in people who can discover things and translate them into real commercial products. Second, we need to understand how to scale things, which means focusing on the winners and getting rid of things that are “nice to have” but aren’t going anywhere. That’s not easy because you have to push people to say, “You’ve done great work, but you’ll have to stop”.
What’s more, to scale new technology, people have to learn what it takes. When I’m in the US, I often speak to chief executives who can explain their technology to the financier who’s supporting it, whereas here in the UK that often doesn’t happen.
Third, we need to maintain confidence in what we’re doing. I often talk to people who think that it’ll be really expensive to get to net zero, but in fact estimates suggest that each household would only have to spend an average of about £150 a year to get there. So it’ll be less than the cost of a TV licence to get to net zero.
Of course the investment needed will be “lumpy” – it’s not as simple as just levying a fee – but the point about governments is that they can smooth things out. That is what they have done in the past and it’s what they should continue to do.
The post What physicists can do to support the green economy appeared first on Physics World.
Login