Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanTHE ENERGY HIERARCHY APPROACH TO
OPTIMUM USE OF
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE- SHARING IDEAS FROM THE UK AND OTHERPARTS OF EUROPE Ian M. ARBON1
1

EurIng Prof Ian M. Arbon MSc, MBA, CEng, CEnv
FIMechE, FASME, FEI, FInstR, FIES

Sustainable Energy Consultant, Engineered Solutions, Girvan, Scotland, UK,
Immediate Past Chairman, Energy, Environment & Sustainability Group,
Institution of Mechanical Engineers
ian.arbon@engineered-solutions.co.uk

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on how the Energy Hierarchy could be used to guide
new energy infrastructure policies in Japan, in the context of the 2011 earthquake,examining parallels with Europe, particularly the UK. The Hierarchy approachconsiders pragmatic pathways towards a sustainable energy future for Japan withreference to all forms of energy, not just electricity. Although engineering solutions are
crucial, the Hierarchy recognises that a primary influence on energy consumption ishuman behaviour.

INTRODUCTION
The stated aim of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) is “Improving the world throughengineering”. There are 100,000 IMechE members, and a large number of those have signed up to theEnergy, Environment and Sustainability Group (EESG). IMechE, specifically EESG, wasinstrumental in formulating the “Energy Hierarchy”, a sustainability framework for advocating theprioritisation of energy-saving as the most important step in a whole-system energy strategy (followed
by energy efficiency and renewable energy) to provide a logical framework for the development oftechnically coherent sustainable energy policies. This was launched internationally at ICOMES in2007 and has gained acceptance across many of the world’s engineering societies. Our idea is that theaddition of more minds to the challenge of a new national energy strategy in Japan, led by Japaneseengineers, could be helpful for both Japan and the UK. Such an “energy saving” approach to nationalenergy strategy is needed worldwide, so the potential to share learning in this area is significant.
Traditionally, engineers have focused on energy supply, rather than demand. However, energy supply
exists only to meet demand, so engineers must learn to focus on managing and reducing energy
demand to deliver more sustainable solutions in the future i.e. they need to provide the capacity forcontinuity.

156

EXPLANATION OF THE ENERGY HIERARCHY CONCEPT
Definitions for Energy
It is important to understand that the subject being dealt with here is ‘energy’ and that it is notsynonymous with ‘electricity’. The confusion of ‘energy’ and ‘electricity’ appears very frequently inthe press and broadcast media, as well as in many government communications.
Technically, ‘energy’ is regarded as the actual amount of energy produced (or consumed) and istypically expressed in joule (J), whereas ‘electricity’ is generally considered in terms of ‘power’
which is measured in watt (W); there is a time relationship between the two in that power is a measureof energy generated/consumed per unit time (1W = 1 J/s). In the energy industry, it has(unfortunately) become customary for the term ‘power’ to be used to mean ‘electricity’ while ‘energy’is generally used to refer to the non-electrical sector, e.g. ‘heat energy’.
When statements are made concerning ‘power’ or ‘energy’, it is of crucial importance that thedifferences between ‘installed generation capacity’, usually measured in ‘megawatt’ (Million Watts),
MW, ‘gigawatt’ (Billion Watts), GW, or ‘terawatt’ (Trillion Watts), TW, and the actual amount ofenergy produced or consumed (in GWh, gigawatthour, or TWh, terawatthour) is clearly understood.
For example, the ‘installed capacity’ of an electricity generating plant is generally the maximum
power output that the plant can produce, rather than the actual energy output over an extended periodof time, e.g. GWh/y.
Similarly, much focus by governments in the developed world is on electricity production, eventhough this is not necessarily the largest area of energy demand. In the United Kingdom, for example,
the proportion of total energy demand which is consumed as electricity is just 24%, compared with
38% for heat and 38% for the transport sector’s demand (DECC 2009). This is shown graphically in
Fig.1. Corresponding figures for Japan were not available before submitting this paper.

Fig.1 UK Energy Commitment for 2020 (15% overall Renewable Energy Target)

157

Renewable Energy Targets
Much has been written on the subject of ‘renewable’ energy and many countries have set challenging
renewable energy targets to be achieved over the next decade or two. The European Union (EU) has
legislated (in Directive 2009/28/EC) to achieve the targets, by the end of 2020, averaged across the 27
member states, of:• 20% of all energy (heat, transport and electricity) to be produced from renewable sources;• 20% improvement in energy efficiency;• 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, over 1990 levels.
These targets are often summarised as “20/20/20 by 2020”.
Although it is often stated that renewable energy targets are set as part of a strategy to reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there is evidence that the extent of reduction depends on themethod of integration to match the energy demand profile. For example, many forms of generating
electricity from renewable resources, such as wind, are ‘intermittent’ in their output, which gives riseto the need for different forms of ‘back-up’ generating capacity, often from fossil fuels. The extent of
the nature of back-up depends on the context of demand profile and transmission characteristics andthis can have a significant impact on the actual reduction in GHG emissions.
This does not imply that renewable energy is not worthwhile or will not have an importantenvironmental and societal impact but rather that each type of renewable energy source andconversion technology needs to be examined in terms of its true ‘sustainability’.
Energy sustainability
Traditionally, the priorities in energy production have largely been based on cost and fuel availability,with little regard for impacts on the environment and even society. Nowadays, there is a growing
understanding of environmental/societal issues such as Climate Change, the finite nature of fossil
fuels and rapidly increasing global population. This has made the ‘sustainability’ of any form orconversion method of energy a mandatory consideration.
In September 2005, the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering produced its “Engineering for
Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles”. This built on previous definitions of sustainability
and stated: “Sustainable development is the process of moving human activities to a pattern that canbe sustained in perpetuity. It is an approach to environmental and development issues that seeks toreconcile human needs with the capacity of the planet to cope with the consequences of humanactivities. It is useful to represent the constraints that make sustainable development an imperative inthe form of a simple Venn diagram” (Fig.2):

158

Fig.2 ‘Sustainability Diagram [RAE]

The term ‘Three Dimensions of Sustainability’, used in Fig.2, is often expressed nowadays as the‘Triple Bottom Line’. The expression ‘bottom line’ derives from the Profit & Loss (or Income)Statement which, along with the Balance Sheet, is the main document used in the day-to-day runningof a business. The P&L Statement is, in effect, a spreadsheet, where the first row (‘top line’) shows
the total turnover or revenue coming into the business; from this, the material, labour, overhead costs
and other expenses are deducted to show what is retained by the company, i.e. its ‘profit’; this istraditionally shown on the last row of the spreadsheet, or, the ‘bottom line’. So, ‘what’s the bottom
line?’ has come to express the whole purpose of being in business in the first place. This expression
has now entered into the English language.
Of course, the ‘bottom line’ purely measures the financial performance of the company which, in any
modern business, is only one of the key performance indicators (KPIs) which is necessary to run abusiness successfully. Any business now has to consider the broader impacts of its operation,
including the societal and environmental impacts and these same impacts must be assessed for any
sustainable energy project or development. This has become known as the ‘Triple Bottom Line’(TBL). In order to be truly competent, a TBL analysis should also form an integral part of any
national or international energy policy.
It should also be noted that a serious limitation of the ‘single bottom line’ approach is the difficulty ofincluding all of the ‘externalities’ in establishing, for example, a $/MW cost of different types ofpower generation.
Examples of these ‘externalities’ are: not including the full cost ofdecommissioning and remediation for nuclear power stations, not including the full cost of thedamage caused by fossil fuel combustion emissions or not including the true cost of ‘back-up’
generating capacity for ‘intermittent’ renewables such as wind.
Definition of the Energy Hierarchy
The concept of the ‘Energy Hierarchy’ is a simple one, although it has profound implications forenergy strategy or policy; it states that a competent energy policy must start with energy demand
reduction and then with improving energy efficiency before different types of energy supply are
considered. It has five main tiers of priorities (as shown in Fig 3), although obviously the 5th tier does
not represent any advantage. For the sake of clarity, there is no suggestion that one tier has to be‘completed’ before moving to another; indeed, the concept is that all tiers will be being put into
practice at the same time, but there has to be some value basis on which there is change in focus
between stages.

159

Fig.3 ‘The Energy Hierarchy [IMechE 2011]
Energy conservation is about eliminating the need for the energy demand in the first place. The
concept is simply that a kilowatt saved (or not used) is much more valuable than a kilowatt supplied,
no matter what the source. Energy conservation can often be achieved through behavioural changes;
for example, not making a journey and conducting a meeting by teleconference instead. Nevertheless,engineering solutions such as smart meters and real-time displays also have an important role to playin energy conservation, though how much they will actually influence behaviour change remains to beseen.
The second tier of the hierarchy, ‘energy efficiency’, affects both energy demand and energy supply.
On the demand side, enormous savings can be made by the use of more efficient domestic appliances,more efficient vehicles, more efficient heat delivery systems, and so on. However, it is on the supply
side that energy efficiency can significantly affect most country’s future choices.
In a modern fossil-fuelled power station for example, the steam turbine generator system can have its
efficiency significantly increased by the use of supercritical or ultra-supercritical steam, which gives amuch larger power output from the same quantity of fuel. Further, if the waste heat energy producedby the plant is harnessed and utilised, as is commonplace in most other European countries, theoverall efficiency of the power plant is greatly increased; the heat energy is provided from the sameamount of fuel that would have been used to generate the electricity in the first place, thereby leading
to an efficiency gain. .
The other three tiers of the Hierarchy are concerned with the supply-side for energy and assume thatdemand reduction and efficiency have already been considered and implemented. The 3rd tier is about
the utilisation of renewable, sustainable resources to supply energy in many forms, not solely
electricity. The latter is the focus of many national governments’ view on energy provision andclearly this misses the contribution to be made by delivery of renewable energy in other forms, suchas heat, and from other tiers in the Hierarchy.
The 4th tier concerns the utilisation of low-GHG-emitting resources; a good example of this is the useof nuclear generation for base-load electricity, as is currently the case in many countries. Although
nuclear power is not accepted by some as a sustainable technology, if an important objective of an160

energy strategy is to support a reduction in GHG emissions from electricity generating plant, this is amuch more sustainable option to include than some other conventional methods.
Another example of a tier 4 approach is utilisation of a Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)system to reduce CO2 emissions from conventional fossil fuel plant, though it should be noted that theapplication of this method will reduce the plant’s energy efficiency and may offend the 2nd tier of the
Hierarchy.
The 5th tier of the Hierarchy, namely the utilisation of conventional resources as we do now is clearly
the least sustainable option and is unlikely to form any part of a future sustainable energy strategy.
The main purpose of the Energy Hierarchy is as a tool that can guide policy-makers towards the mostsustainable solutions for future energy needs. Each policy development must however be consideredon its own merits; for example, a policy that is based on using only one type of intermittent resource,
no matter how renewable, to provide all of its energy, or even electricity, needs is extremely unlikely
to be sustainable in overall terms.
It should also be noted that the Energy Hierarchy is not a route to finding the cheapest available
option; in the author’s experience, the most sustainable solution is rarely the cheapest. However, it
has to be accepted that the current unsustainable state of the worldwide energy market has resulted
from a sole focus on the traditional ‘single bottom line’ analysis; only by taking new measures suchas the Triple Bottom Line approach can a truly sustainable solution be found.

APPLICATION OF ENERGY HIERARCHY – LESSONS LEARNED IN UK/EU
Challenges
There are four main challenges that are generally considered in the determination of sustainableenergy systems:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Rapidly growing global population and even faster growth of global energy demand;
Decline of availability of ‘cheap’ fossil fuels;
Security of national energy supplies;
Impacts on climate change.

The Energy Hierarchy can be used to consider any of the foregoing challenges and resultant policies
will lead to a reduction in fossil fuel consumption; this to some degree also mitigates the concerns ofsuch concepts as ‘peak oil’ which refers to the accessibility of extraction of oil becoming increasingly
difficult either from this point onwards or at some point in the near future. While the transition fromthe use of oil may be either due to physical limits or alternatives becoming economically preferable, it
is suggested that energy prices will become increasingly volatile. Applying the Energy Hierarchy canincrease a nation’s resilience to energy price shocks and reduce its vulnerability.
1st Tier of Energy Hierarchy – Energy Conservation
In most developed countries, the 1st tier of the Energy Hierarchy has been the most overlooked and iswhere most engineering challenges in the future are likely to be. Avoiding the use of energy in manycases requires a change in behaviour and there can be resistance to this on both a cultural and personallevel. For example there may need to be a change in work practice with people travelling less andworking at local hubs, compensating for the lack of personal interaction with colleagues throughadvanced audio-visual communication systems. Such workplaces are already being established in the
UK and are becoming more popular as people seek more flexible ways of working. Getting people toaccept sacrifices in comfort however is difficult and the more engineering can be used to avoid thisrequirement without excessive cost or complexity the swifter progress in avoiding energy161consumption is likely to be. For example it is challenging to get people to accept reduced internal
temperatures in the winter when they are used to warm rooms, even if they can compensate for this by
wearing warmer clothes. However the avoidance of heating the rooms that are not occupied at agiven time can be achieved through the engineering of ‘smart’ building management systems withoccupancy sensors and occupancy pattern feedback.
2nd Tier of Energy Hierarchy – Energy Efficiency
Japan has for many years been at the forefront of design and manufacture of energy efficient products
and it is understood that there is a mandatory ‘Energy Saving Label Program’ to allow consumers tocompare products. This is stricter than the European Union equivalent. However even in Europe
energy labelling has been successful in stopping the sale of inefficient appliances. Energy efficiency isgiven high priority in the Energy Hierarchy, but caution needs to be applied to the extent to whichenergy efficient products are procured and used. Reference may be made to the Jevons Paradox. At
the time of the Industrial Revolution, Jevons argued that the increasing the efficiency of use of coalwould increase the demand for coal and not result in the reduction in rate of depletion of this resource.
In the modern context people who experience reduced energy consumption through more efficient
appliances offset these savings through expending energy in other ways. For example they may buy
further energy consuming appliances. This is often known as the ‘rebound effect’. One way ofaddressing this, which has not yet been put into practice in Europe, is to cap the energy use of people
or organisations through the introduction of a carbon dioxide allowance, constraining their equivalentcarbon dioxide emissions in the same way that their economic budget is constrained. They can thendecide on what they expend their allowance. Whilst this might be perceived as a vehicle for abatingclimate change, the outcome is a reduction in energy consumption, with electricity and heat being
measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. In fact Europe has something to learn from Japan inthis regard with Tokyo becoming the first cap-and-trade city for companies in the world. It is
understood, at least in 2010, that the energy usage reporting system was superior to that in Europe inaccordance with the European Emissions Trading scheme (EU ETS). With economic conditions
being severe both in Japan, the UK and other parts of Europe, it is difficult to bring in such a scheme
on a domestic level. However in the longer term such a system can help regenerate the economy
through the introduction of stimulation of production and installation of new technologies.
3rd Tier of Energy Hierarchy – Renewable Energy
There are certain geographical similarities between the UK and Japan with their both being island
nations and with the latitude of Hokkaido not being dissimilar to southern England. However, it
could be argued that Japan has even greater energy challenges than the UK for the following reasons:1) The wave and tidal resource is less;
2) Japan is a very mountainous with higher densities of population on the flatter ground that may
be more suitable for wind turbines – this appears to be particularly the case on the main islandof Honshu, where the plains are extensively populated.
There is however more potential for solar energy in Japan than in the UK and what needs to be
determined is how the annual solar resource profile matches the consumption profile. In northern
European countries such as the UK and Germany there is a mismatch in this respect, in that there is ahigher level of solar resource in the summer than winter but greater energy demand in the winter –inter-seasonal energy demand spreading and storage remains a major challenge. The balance in Japan
would be expected to be somewhat different given that summers are generally hotter and more air
conditioning is used.
These constraints on renewable energy generation bring into sharp focus the pressing need to reduce
consumption. In the UK, behavioural change has been slow and the greatest progress has been interms of regulation. This is notable in the building sector where building regulations have beentightened considerably over the last few years. It is understood that at the current time Japanese162building regulations are less stringent than those in a number of European countries and that much
could be gained through adoption of an ambitious system of mandatory u-values. While traditionalbuildings in Japan have been designed to give comfort in high summer temperatures with shading andnatural ventilation, modern buildings to a large extent have become dependent on air conditioning.
While it is recognised that natural ventilation on tall buildings in urban centres is challenging, there ismuch that can be done through building regulations to facilitate building design that minimises theneed for air conditioning, which is a significant energy load.
Energy Infrastructure
Energy infrastructure covers generation plant, energy storage and energy distribution. It is importantto get the right balance between these for the most effective application of the Energy Hierarchy. A
balance has to be explored between the introduction of new energy infrastructure and more effective
utilisation of existing energy infrastructure. The Energy Hierarchy can be applied to the developmentof pragmatic pathways towards a sustainable energy future for Japan, as with Europe, with theappropriate balance at each stage between investment in renewable, sustainable, energy and more
efficient (or lower greenhouse gas emitting) supply of non-renewable energy, for example throughcombined heat and power (CHP) or even ‘heat only’ plant (the latter generally being both moreenergy-efficient and more cost-effective). The way in which the Energy Hierarchy influences theimplementation of non-electrical infrastructure solutions and their interrelationships also needs to beconsidered - for example heat distribution, biogas injection into the gas mains, transport (considering
energy sources and energy vectors) and waste infrastructure. The appropriate extent of heat
distribution infrastructure should not only be determined by the application of the energy hierarchy toassess the most efficient mode of energy supply, but it will also be determined by the availability ofsustainable resource to produce heat, in particular biomass. Although electric heating, in the form ofheat pumps, may have a role to play this may also be centralised in an area with heat distribution to
give potentially greater efficiency and ease of control and maintenance by an energy service company.
It can be seen therefore that the form commercial delivery vehicle (energy service company or utility)
may affect the type of infrastructure chosen. Injection of biogas into the mains, a practice that is
becoming more prevalent in both Spain and Germany and which is being explored in the UK, gives amore sustainable use of existing gas infrastructure and also has a link to waste management
infrastructure. Developments are also underway in Europe, and perhaps also in Japan, on thesynthesis of hydrocarbon fuel from electricity. This and direct electrical transportation allow
buffering of intermittent renewable energy thereby giving more efficient energy supply in line with
the Energy Hierarchy.
Establishing constraints and targets
In formulating policy recommendations, IMechE has recognised, for a number of years, that there is aneed to take care with the practical application of international or national energy or GHG emissions
reduction policy to ensure that the impacts are optimised. For example, deploying a large percentage
of intermittent ‘renewable’ energy sources in a system for electricity generation with the current
energy infrastructure might be accompanied by the provision of back-up capacity in the form of fossil
fuel fired plant, such as gas turbine power generation, which reduces the potential overall emissions
reduction and contribution to security of energy supply. Care must therefore be taken in this regard
when developing plans to deliver GHG-reduction targets, in particular that there is not an assumptionthat new, for example renewable, measures will not just plug into the existing system. Rather, what isrequired is an overall view of the energy system harmonising supply and demand variations. For
integration of renewable energy load there needs to be control of loads for which timing of demand is
not critical (such as electric heating via heat pumps), energy storage and greater interconnectivity ofloads to balance the intermittency.
Mallon [2006] introduced the concept of ‘cross-cutting objectives’ as one of the major ‘pitfalls’ indeveloping a competent energy policy: “sometimes apparently mutually supportive objectives canclash in practice”. This applies when considering the interaction between different tiers of the energy

163hierarchy and the choice of different energy vectors (such as heat, electricity and liquid fuel) needs tobe worked out in conjunction with available forms of energy supply.
The March 2011 edition of DECC’s UK ‘Energy Trends’ provides an illustration of how the reality
can be different from expectations. The data presented showed that the penetration of renewables in
UK electricity generation actually fell slightly from 7.0% in 2009 to 6.9% in 2010, despite a verylarge number of new wind-farms having been built over the same period. However, leaving aside thefact that 6.9% is significantly short of the 10% target for 2010, it must be noted that power generationfrom nuclear reduced from 17.6% to 15.6% and coal-fired power generation increased from 27.8% to28.4%. This means that, as well as the below target trends in the proportion of renewable electricity,
the decrease in the type of power generation from the lowest GHG-emitting generator and the increasein the highest GHG-emitting generator, inevitably means that there will have been a large increase in
GHG emissions over the year in question. Therefore, in setting targets in one sector (e.g. renewableenergy) there needs to be accompanying targets or measures in other sectors (e.g. aspects of energy
consumption) to ensure compatibility of measures and arrival at the intended results.
Policy Measures and Commercial Conditions
The question of whether the Energy Hierarchy approach might be introduced through legislation,
economic incentives, awareness raising or a combination of these needs to be addressed. While thefocus of the paper is on engineering solutions, it cannot be ignored that a primary influence on energy
consumption is human behaviour and therefore policy measures need to be introduced to allow people
to be both empowered and to gain a better understanding of their energy use such they can contributetowards effective delivery of the Energy Hierarchy.
In implementing the Energy Hierarchy, the appropriate commercial structure and incentives need to
be shaped to facilitate the effective delivery of the intended measures. Under the current system, even
if a measure is more cost-effective in lifecycle terms, it may not be commercially attractive to the key
stakeholders, since the party that benefits from the operational savings may not be the one that has toaccommodate a potentially higher initial capital expenditure (‘single-bottom line’ thinking). This is
the case with building developers in the UK, where operational energy savings are still not a strong
determinant in choice of building on the part of the buyer – the developers are generally inclined
towards developing lower cost buildings that are not as energy-efficient. The same principle applies
to energy utilities whose business has traditionally been geared around selling as much energy as
possible rather than encouraging reduced consumption. Therefore, there is a need to spread incentives
across stakeholders to ensure delivery of the Energy Hierarchy at all stages of the development
lifecycle. This can in part be achieved through revised organisational structures and regulation.
Success and Failure
Whilst awareness of the energy hierarchy on the part of Government and energy practitioners,
including engineers, is a good first step in the process towards realisation of its benefits, there areusually significant obstacles to be overcome in each country. One of the failures in the UK, andindeed other parts of Europe, is to leave the implementation of energy systems for market forces tosettle. Adhering to the energy hierarchy does not necessarily give the most cost-effective solution
under current economic conditions. In part this is because the cost under our current economic system
of using fossil or nuclear fuel invariably does not take into account the cost of the damage caused bytheir use and therefore the price of this form of energy is artificially low. This is being redressed stepby step through the introduction of economic mechanisms such as carbon dioxide taxation (forexample the Carbon Reduction Commitment [CRC] and the Climate Change Levy [CCL] in the UK).
Whilst this by definition is focused on the mitigation of climate change, their effect is to reducesustainable energy practice and give more commercial incentive to adherence to the energy hierarchy.
However these measures do not yet go far enough to bring economic equality to fossil fuels, nuclear
and renewables and therefore their impact is limited.

164

As has been identified earlier in the paper a value judgement needs to be applied in determining whento shift focus from one tier of the hierarchy to another. Ideally all energy consumption would be
eliminated or if this were not possible then systems using energy should have no losses, in line withthe first two steps of the Energy Hierarchy. Of course we know that this is not possible if we are to
maintain the functioning of our societies, so how should it be decided when enough has been done onenergy efficiency and resources can be directed towards renewable energy, moving to the next step of
the hierarchy? Under current economic conditions there comes a point whereby energy efficiency
measures may be more expensive than renewable energy supply measures. An example of this isincrease in thickness of external thermal insulation when retrofitting an existing building. Increasing
the thickness of insulation has diminishing returns in thermal benefit with the associated cost-reducing
at a lower rate, such that a thickness will be reached whereby further expenditure would result in
lower GHG-emissions displacement than would the same expenditure on renewable energy supply.
In this way there may be a conflict between short-term economic benefits and longer term energy
savings. The question is how to determine the prioritisation of measures favoured by the energy
hierarchy within a practical economic framework.

CONCLUSIONSWith increasing global population, rising material lifestyle expectations and increasingly constrained
resources it is becoming ever more apparent that more priority needs to be given to using less energy.
In recognition of the major challenges of long term sustainable energy supply globally the Energy
Hierarchy has been presented as a framework towards achieving this. Last year’s devastating
earthquake in Japan has exposed vulnerabilities in the current energy system which has given rise toan opportunity for new approaches to energy supply and consumption. There are not only benefits inJapan drawing from lessons learned in UK and other parts of Europe through applications of theEnergy Hierarchy, but as Japan consolidates its new direction, there will no doubt be much forEuropean countries to learn from, as they face similar energy challenges, albeit without the samewidespread exposure to the threat of natural disasters. With today’s level of global interconnection
and interdependency the most effective course of action in addressing what may reasonably bedescribed as a global energy crisis is to work together and combine the very best ideas from eachcountry. This paper has taken the concept of the Energy Hierarchy and through comparison ofcharacteristics of Japan and countries within Europe, in particular the UK, has explored its practicalapplication and given examples of measures that may be adopted to support it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks for the support in preparing the paper to Rupert Blackstone (Wattcraft Ltd) and DanielKenning (Splendid Engineering), fellow members of the Energy Environment and SustainabilityGroup (EESG), of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

REFERENCES
Royal Academy of Engineering (2005). “Engineering for Sustainable Energy: Guiding Principles”.
European Parliament and Council (2009). “Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council, on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources”; 23 April 2009.
UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (2009). “The UK Renewable Energy Strategy”; The
Stationery Office, London UK; July 2009.
Mallon, K (2006). “Renewable Energy Policy and Politics – a handbook for decision-making”;
Earthscan, London UK and Sterling, VA, USA. ISBN -10: 1-84407-126-X.
Arbon, I et al (2011). “Scottish Energy Policy?”; position paper on Scotland’s energy policies;
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London UK.

165