How can academia and industry work together to ensure the quality of and trust in biochar solutions in the UK, in the context of misinformation around Net Zero and climate?

At the macro level, the global transition to Net Zero is one of the most ambitious and urgent undertakings of our time. However, this transition is increasingly clouded by misinformation and fear, particularly around the perceived economic costs of decarbonization. Much of this fear is fueled by inaccurate or misleading narratives, often amplified by vested interests, that exaggerate the financial burden of climate action while downplaying the long-term benefits. This misinformation undermines public trust, slows policy momentum, and creates confusion in markets that are critical to the Net Zero transition (particularly when it comes to investors).

At the micro level, these challenges are even more acute in emerging markets, where regulatory frameworks are still evolving. For companies like ours, operating in the biochar/carbon removal sector, the lack of clear regulation allows low-quality or ineffective products to enter the market. These substandard biochars may not store carbon effectively or deliver the same agronomic benefits, yet they are often indistinguishable to the average customer. This not only erodes trust in the technology but also distorts competition, making it harder for scientifically validated, high-integrity solutions to scale.

In this context, the collaboration between academia and industry becomes essential. Academia brings the rigor, credibility, and transparency needed to establish clear benchmarks and communicate scientific truths, but the science often does not break through to industry and the broader public. How can we work together to address this problem?

What would be the best method to anchor or secure Marine Deflectors at sea in a fast flowing tidal coastal location?
The requirement is to minimise the cost of manufacture and installation of the deflectors.
Would drilling into the seabed be preferable or are anchors available which can be laid on the seabed and would dig into the ground?

I have developed a design and concept for Marine Deflectors which are large plate-like structures which when placed near to and on either side of marine turbines will increase the volume and speed of tidal current flowing to the turbine blades.
The increase in speed is around 55 % which creates an increase in turbine power output of around 140% and can reduce the cost of tidal generated energy by approximately 50%
This is possibly the biggest single source of potential reduction in tidal energy generation.

Marine turbines require fast flowing tidal streams and turbine operators seek out the areas of fastest tidal flow around the UK.
The UK has 50% of the potential tidal resources in Europe.

The tidal energy industry is at an early stage of commercialisation, only about 20 MW of production capacity exists in the world and most is located around the UK.
The cost of tidal energy generation has yet to be reduced to be competitive with the cost of wind energy and eventually with energy derived from fossil fuels.
When this cost reduction occurs the tidal energy industry could become a major contributor of carbon free electricity.

It is necessary to minimise the cost of manufacturing and of installation of marine deflectors to maximise the reduction in cost of tidal energy. The lower the capital cost to install deflectors with turbines the greater will be the reduction in cost of generation.

Minimum cost to manufacture deflectors can be achieved by making the deflectors as lightweight structures and not requiring heavy ballast.
The lightweight structure and absence of ballast allows a much lower cost of installation of deflectors at sea as heavy lift cranes and large ships are not required.

It is essential to securely anchor the large deflectors in position and ensure that they cannot be moved by the forces of tidal current.

What, specifically, do we need to do in the areas of concept selection, engineering design, thermo-hydraulic modelling, economic case (incl. income generation in a dynamic energy market), grid interfaces, etc. to prove our ideas for offshore CAES are viable and so attract the external funding to make it happen? 

We have undertaken a couple of short studies into the feasibility of utilising extensive offshore salt deposits for compressed air energy storage (CAES) as a solution to the UK’s need for long duration energy storage. We have proven such systems are feasible and have invented a new approach that looks as if it is more efficient than existing solutions. We want to attract funding to develop our ideas further and show that this can be a competitive energy storage solution for intermittent energy systems to achieve net zero.

Carbon intensity of balancing:
As more intermittent renewable resources come online, we are faced with new challenges in maintaining grid stability. The carbon-intensive balancing services used to stabilise the grid, are becoming more critical – and costly – than ever. With these increasing levels of renewable generation in the system, balancing services are expected to grow exponentially.
How can innovation, regulation, and new business models address the carbon-intensity of balancing operations?

The UK has made strong progress in decarbonizing its electricity systems. In 2023, nearly half of the UK’s electricity came from low-carbon sources such as wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. However, this shift has introduced new challenges in maintaining grid stability. As more intermittent renewable resources come online, balancing services that are used to stabilize the grid are becoming more critical.
Empirical studies (Lafratta et al., 2021), show that only 8% of electricity used in UK balancing services comes from low-carbon sources. The rest is primarily fossil-fuel based, making the carbon intensity of balancing services more than twice that of the main grid on average.
Data from National Grid ESO shows that in 2023, the UK used 23.6 million MWh of balancing capacity. Of this, 18.4 million MWh was “positive balancing”, additional generation brought online to meet demand. This alone led to an estimated 8 billion kilogram of CO₂ emissions.
Despite the growing share of renewables in overall generation, balancing operations still rely on fossil fuels due to their flexibility and fast response time. These emissions are not clearly reflected in decarbonisation roadmaps or net-zero strategies.

Demand flexibility:
Could demand flexibility energy assets surpass grid-scale batteries in competitiveness, and what role could their scaled deployment play in displacing carbon-intensive generation on the grid? What kind of platform is needed to enable distributed flexible assets to flourish?

Distributed flexible assets such as home batteries and EV chargers are arguably ‘CAPEX free’, given they are generally purchased for a primary reason other than providing grid services. This positions them as an efficient resource for the system operator, and competitive with batteries.
The NESO opened up the demand side flexibility service in 2023, and distributed assets now participate in the flexibility and grid services markets. However, barriers still remain to their full participation, including grid code rules, aggregation options and platform availability.

How can marine energy initiatives adopt and be governed through ’energy commons’ models, drawing on the ocean’s historical role as a commons to enable equitable, community-led energy transitions?

Marine energy funders like Wave Energy Scotland and broader R&D investors such as the Scottish National Investment Bank play a pivotal role in shaping the direction of emerging energy technologies. They can advance energy justice by supporting diverse development scales, especially beyond utility-scale, and by investing in viable business models for small-scale and island-based projects. This aligns with broader goals of energy security, resilience, autonomy, and local economic sustainability, and could benefit from partnerships with regionally focused institutions like Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Funders, developers, and R&D bodies should also assess risks of energy and economic insecurity in islanded communities more deeply. Policymakers and researchers should work with legal, financial, and community actors, alongside institutions like Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, to identify and remove barriers to local participation, including within existing commercial frameworks. This may require creating new financial or contractual tools to enable more equitable partnerships, even in large-scale projects.

Finally, to further just transitions in marine contexts, developers and funders should pursue R&D collaborations with existing sea users – such as small-scale fishers – to foster mutual benefit, strengthen cross-sector understanding, and inform more inclusive ocean governance approaches like marine spatial planning.

What governance and technical innovations are needed to unlock energy flexibility and resilience in remote or islanded systems, and how can these be supported through integrated net zero strategies?

Island and remote energy systems often face unique challenges – such as limited grid interconnection, high dependency on imported fuels, and exposure to extreme weather – that make flexibility and resilience critical to achieving net zero. Unlocking these qualities requires both technical innovation (e.g. smart microgrids, storage integration, flexible demand systems) and governance innovation (e.g. local ownership models, multi-actor coordination, adaptive regulation). Integrated net zero strategies offer a pathway to align decarbonisation goals with energy security, economic development, and social equity, particularly when tailored to the specific needs and capacities of island communities. Centres like the Islands Centre for Net Zero can play a pivotal role by piloting systems-level approaches that link energy with transport, housing, and digital infrastructure, creating replicable models for other remote regions.

How can academic research and innovation support the development of scalable, evidence-based methodologies for data collection in Scotland’s food and drink sector, ensuring they are both scientifically robust and practical for SMEs to implement?

Scotland’s food and drink sector faces a critical challenge in collecting consistent, high-quality environmental data—particularly from SMEs—while progressing towards Net Zero. The Scotland Food and Drink Partnership’s Net Zero Programme has identified data collection as a foundational enabler for emissions reduction, yet current methodologies are fragmented, resource-intensive, and often misaligned with the realities of small businesses.

The sector’s Scope 3 emissions typically account for over 90% of total emissions, making robust data essential for credible reporting and targeted interventions. However, the complexity of supply chains, lack of standardised tools, and limited technical capacity among SMEs hinder progress. The Programme has launched initiatives such as carbon literacy training and digital support hubs, but recognises the need for scalable, evidence-based data methodologies that can be embedded across the sector.

This question invites academic partners to explore:
– How to design data collection frameworks that balance scientific rigour with SME practicality.
– Opportunities to co-develop digital tools, auditing mechanisms, and sector-specific metrics.
– Behavioural and systems-based approaches to improve data uptake and trust.
– How to align methodologies with national and international standards (e.g. LCA, SBTi, FDTP) while reflecting Scotland’s unique supply chain characteristics.

The goal is to build a resilient data infrastructure that empowers businesses, informs policy, and accelerates Net Zero delivery across Scotland’s food and drink system.

Beyond obvious returns, how can we quantify the full financial benefits of sustainability, including its less apparent (‘submerged’) value, and comprehensively assess the financial risks posed by climate change?

Financially quantifying the benefits to integrating sustainability to our business processes and identifying financial risk associated to climate change are key to a successful business strategy that embraces sustainability, and adoption of best practices and standards.

What is the magnitude of model risk in climate scenario models?

Projections of economic and environmental indicators taking climate change and policy responses into account vary significantly across providers. While some providers – e.g. NGFS – note that “multiple models have been used for each scenario and warming level to represent uncertainty”, I’m not aware of any publication presenting a quantitative analysis of model risk in climate models. I would be interested to see this gap filled.

What in-field inspection techniques and condition assessment protocols can be developed to reliably evaluate above- and below-water greenheart timber in maritime structures, enabling scalable grading systems that support both timely intervention and reuse decisions?

In the UK, maritime timber is often retained until structural failure is imminent. Asset owners, typically constrained by tight budgets, prioritise extending service life over planning for material recovery. As a result, greenheart components are frequently removed only once they are too degraded for reuse. This reflects a critical gap: the lack of robust, in-field condition assessment protocols capable of quantifying residual value and supporting timely intervention.

Current inspection practices rely heavily on subjective visual assessments, particularly for components above the waterline. Below the waterline, inspections are even more limited, often restricted to diver observations or low-resolution imaging. However, techniques such as resistograph drilling, ultrasonic velocity testing, and X-ray imaging, commonly used in heritage conservation and utility pole assessments, could be adapted to evaluate timber degradation in situ. For submerged elements, portable ultrasound devices, digital diver logs, or ROV-mounted cameras with AI-assisted pattern recognition could enable semi-automated damage classification. These technologies have already been piloted successfully in submerged concrete inspections in Scandinavia and could be extended to timber.

The aim is to establish a condition rating system that balances serviceability with salvageability. A simple four-tier grading scale could help asset managers make informed decisions, for example:

Grade 1: sound and reusable,
Grade 2: reusable with milling,
Grade 3: suitable only for non-structural use,
Grade 4: unrecoverable.

Crucially, this would allow them to forecast salvage potential and schedule removals before deterioration exceeds the threshold for viable reuse. By integrating inspection data into asset registers, owners could better evaluate the trade-offs between prolonged service and lost reuse value, encouraging more timely, carbon-conscious interventions.

To embed this practice, standard guidance could be developed through organisations such as TD UK (TRADA), CIRIA, the Environment Agency, or port infrastructure consortia. Protocols should define inspection frequency, testing methods, photographic documentation, and damage classification. As with OCIMF’s multi-factor condition assessments for marine equipment, combining visual, photographic, and quantitative indicators into a unified standard would improve consistency and uptake.

Ultimately, early and consistent condition assessment is essential to unlocking the circular potential of greenheart. By enabling asset owners to identify reuse opportunities before they are lost, such a system would reduce embodied carbon losses and support a more sustainable, resource-efficient maritime infrastructure sector.

How to develop a method to describe and quantify nature’s benefits to people?

This includes the qualitative and quantitative aspects of nature’s benefits to people, especially through decisions in the Scottish planning system, including personal, community and population benefits.

Nature provides a wide range of benefits to people – including to human health and wellbeing. In order to inform decision-making, we need a model that helps both describe and quantify these benefits. We need this model to include a consideration of the consequences of degraded nature.

How can nature-based solutions and eco-engineering solutions to coastal and near-shore heat transfer infrastructure (https://sea-warm.co.uk/ ) deliver enhanced biodiversity and improved protection/ reduced erosion along the Edinburgh coastline?

With the changing climate Edinburgh’s coastline is facing significant pressures from rising sea levels, increased storm pressures and coastal erosion. The Climate Ready Edinburgh (CRE) Plan is a multi-partner approach to adapting the city to the effects of climate change, involving Edinburgh University, and highlights the need for action to protect communities and coastal infrastructure from the effects of climate change. One of the key actions for CRE advocates the deployment of nature-based solutions to help build climate resilience and support nature recovery. Meanwhile Edinburgh University is involved in Seawarm and other research initiatives that might be scaled up and help meet our net zero ambitions. Alongside these issues, the coastal environment is designated for its nature conservation interests Is there potential for shared endeavours on Edinburgh’s coast? E.g. Is there potential for multi-functional project and infrastructure design- what research would be needed to underpin the right approach to long term climate resilience, nature restoration and net zero for the future coast?

Climate Ready Edinburgh Action plan, including commitment for coastal change actions https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/climate-2/water-management/2. Scottish guidance on Coastal Adaptation Planning (Edinburgh in progress)https://www.dynamiccoast.com/cca

How do we minimise social and environmental impacts from AI datacentres and big data delivery in SE Scotland region while also ensuring positive outcomes from the supporting infrastructure (eg heat networks, positive effects for biodiversity etc)?

The South East Scotland Regional Prosperity Framework aims to promote sustainable economic growth and the transition of the region to a Data Driven Innovation enabled economy in the region. There is a talk about the need for more data-centres and some concerns being raised about their environmental and place based impacts, including carbon emissions. Meanwhile the National Planning Policy promotes net zero development, the reuse of brownfield land, close community engagement, the delivery of heat networks and the delivery of positive effects for biodiversity in all planning applications of a certain scale.

https://www.arup.com/insights/nature-and-technology-balancing-data-centres-with-biodiversity/

What options exist for machine learning to assist in the decarbonisation of legacy commercial buildings

Prioto Limited is seeking to further develop it’s machine learning and AI capability in the optimisation of the built environment.

To date we have been successful with initial models to optimise environmental conditions and we also perform wider data analytics functions to reduce energy and carbon across a number of industry sectors.

We are interested in expanding this capacity, in particular with regards AI options and insights for the automation of anomaly analytics – in particular power factor/associated energy consumption and its application/impact in assisting the decarbonisation of legacy, mixed/multi use sites and industrial processing.

What is the potential for novel business models/structures, and/or methods of collaboration between third sector organisations in Scotland; to reduce unnecessary competition and effectively accelerate climate action

(Challenge holder: Scotland’s Community Climate Action Hub Programme & SCCAN)

The government’s not going to solve the climate crisis for us.

What they have uniquely done, though, is to provide start funding for a community climate action, to further enable people to grow grassroots community climate action movement.
24 place-based, unique Climate Action Hubs have been funded, covering every square meter of Scotland; every person in Scotland now has access to a Community Climate Action Hub. Each has its own governance, operated by local people and being guided by local organisations, whilst also working towards the same Scottish Government-provided Theory of Change.
At the same time, the long standing Scottish Communities Climate Action Network has gotten further funding at the national level, and is initiating new projects that can leverage the existence of the Hub network.

However, Scotland’s third sector is notoriously competitive when it comes to funding.

How might we all work together collaboratively, in this competitive third sector environment, to leverage the internationally unique and potentially transformative opportunity that we have? How might we create appropriate governance to enable a community climate action revolution which starts in Scotland?

What is the potential for novel business models/structures, and/or methods of collaboration between third sector organisations in Scotland; to reduce unnecessary competition and effectively accelerate climate action

(Challenge holder: Scotland’s Community Climate Action Hub Programme & SCCAN)

The government’s not going to solve the climate crisis for us.

What they have uniquely done, though, is to provide start funding for a community climate action, to further enable people to grow grassroots community climate action movement.
24 place-based, unique Climate Action Hubs have been funded, covering every square meter of Scotland; every person in Scotland now has access to a Community Climate Action Hub. Each has its own governance, operated by local people and being guided by local organisations, whilst also working towards the same Scottish Government-provided Theory of Change.
At the same time, the long standing Scottish Communities Climate Action Network has gotten further funding at the national level, and is initiating new projects that can leverage the existence of the Hub network.

However, Scotland’s third sector is notoriously competitive when it comes to funding.

How might we all work together collaboratively, in this competitive third sector environment, to leverage the internationally unique and potentially transformative opportunity that we have? How might we create appropriate governance to enable a community climate action revolution which starts in Scotland?

How can we test the use of new technologies (e.g. remote sensing, acoustic sensors, AI and machine learning, eDNA) to identify feasible and cost-effective opportunities to monitor the condition of our wildlife reserves, and improve our data flow?

• The Scottish Wildlife Trust manages over 100 wildlife reserves (https://scottish-wildlife-trust-swt.opendata.arcgis.com/apps/49e987eb02244b5ab0a3a5fd18ae02d9/explore) across Scotland, covering more than 17,000 hectares. Across our reserves we aim to protect, enhance and restore a range of habitats, as well as to connect and create new habitats, prioritising native broadleaved woodland, species-rich grassland and blanket and raised bogs.
• We adopted a new Reserves Monitoring Strategy in 2024, to support our strategic goal of ensuring that our wildlife reserves are directly contributing to nature’s recovery. The strategy aims to provide a repeatable and robust long-term monitoring approach to answer key questions around the effectiveness of management interventions in maintaining or increasing the extent and condition of priority habitats, and the presence and/or abundance of target species.
• The monitoring approach is based on a cycle of habitat condition assessments, with frequency determined by the nature of the habitat and site management objectives, as well as assessments of appropriate target species. Our Senior Ecologist is currently conducting the first set of habitat condition assessments aligned with the new Monitoring Strategy.
• The Reserves Monitoring Strategy commits to supplementing the core monitoring approach with trials of new technology, to identify feasible and cost-effective opportunities to improve data flows
• We have used and trialled different technologies on individual reserves, for example a [http://thermal drone survey for deer populations]thermal drone survey for deer populations at Ben Mor Coigach and the wider Coigach and Assynt Living Landscape area

How might we build and use a digital twin of a nature reserve to model the impacts of extreme weather, or management interventions to improve practitioner decision-making on our reserves?

In the context of a changing climate, we are seeing an increase in extreme weather events, including flooding and wildfires, affecting our wildlife reserves. Could a digital twin of a nature reserve be developed to model the impact of fire or flooding, or other interventions such as species reintroduction? How can digital twins be used to simulate the effects of extreme weather events on habitat composition, species survival and people in and around nature reserves? Can digital twins improve practitioner management decisions on wildlife reserves?

Data on our wildlife reserves: Scottish Wildlife Trust Open Data Hub (https://scottish-wildlife-trust-swt.opendata.arcgis.com/)