Month: May 2014

Materials and energy… over a pint?

Posted on by janet.crompton

Bristol, along with 20 other cities, in 6 different countries, was host to an interesting approach to science communication – over three nights, 19 – 21 May 2014, science took place at the pub!

Although varied, relevant and interesting research takes place every day at Universities, in many cases the general public is completely unaware of what goes on inside them – other than lectures and exams! Pint of Science is a volunteer-based, not-for-profit festival, which takes academic research into the everyday world, by having scientists at the pub sharing their work and answering questions.

Premièring this year in Bristol, the festival was well received, with many of the events sold-out before the doors were even opened. Across the city, four pubs opened their doors to a curious audience looking to learn about a range of topics from nanotechnology, to energy, to the brain and oceans or volcanoes.

Engaging society being at the heart of the Cabot Institute’s aims, it was quick to become involved when approached. As well as sponsoring the event, the Institute was well represented by two of its members, Professors David Fermín and Paul Weaver, who shared their research during the festival.

Energy, Materials and the Electrochemist Dream

 

L-R David Parker and David Fermin

Prof David Fermín and one of his PhD students, Mr David Parker, took on the second evening of the festival, talking about “Energy, Materials and the Electrochemist Dream”. During this event renewable energy sources, in particular solar, were championed. Of interest was the many ways in which solar energy can be harvested and used, whether to be directly converted into electricity or used to produce “solar fuels” from water or carbon dioxide. The need for developing new photovoltaic materials, which are cheap, efficient and made from abundant elements, was stressed. Questions from the public revolved about “how green” these technologies really are and the need to develop a “complete, systematic” approach to energy, which can incorporate various forms and sources of energy. This last is another key interest of the Institute, with groups in Bristol doing interesting work in this area.

Morphing cars, planes and wind turbines: the shape of things to come

 

Paul Weaver talks to the pub-goers

On the festival’s last evening, Prof Paul Weaver and one of his PhD students, Eric Eckstein, talked about “Morphing cars, planes and wind turbines: the shape of things to come”. They discussed the development of new composite materials with the ability to tailor structural properties and the difficulties involved in predicting responses. Also highlighted was the very important interaction and synergy between University and Industry in this field. In a particularly interactive approach they brought along many of the composite materials they work with, alongside demonstrating the strength and failure of various materials, allowing the public to see and feel how different properties can be altered. The use of composite materials in wind turbines and helicopter blades was of particular interest and generated an animated discussion on the subject.

This blog was written by Cabot Institute members Daniela Plana (Chemistry) and Matt Such (ACCIS) at the University of Bristol.

A brighter future for India’s energy sector?

Posted on by janet.crompton

In 2001, the Kutch District of Gujarat, India was struck by a magnitude 7.7 earthquake which killed around 20,000 people and destroyed nearly 400,000 homes. The total property damage was estimated at $5.5 billion and had a disastrous effect on what was already an ailing economy. In the aftermath of the earthquake, Narendra Modi, a member of the right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), became the Chief Minister of Gujarat and led the region out of darkness and into economic growth and prosperity. By 2007, Gujarat contained 5% of the total population yet accounted for 25% of total bank finance in India and continues to outpace growth in other states. Indeed, when I visited Kutch in January, it was clear that there was a growing and aspirational middle class population. Modi was recently elected Prime Minister of India, triumphing over Rhaul Ghandi, a member of the centre-left India National Congress (INC) Party, and with it became one of the most powerful players in the fight against climate change. So what does the future hold for the Indian energy sector?

Previous examples suggest that Modi wants to embrace the clean energy model. As Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi bankrolled the largest single-location solar plant in Asia with an operating capacity of 55 megawatts and launched the first Asian governmental department dedicated to climate change. Before 2012, Gujarat had the highest share of renewable energy sources in India (~14%) and as Prime Minister, Modi plans to use solar power to supply energy to approximately 400 million people who still lack basic access to electricity. Yet some have accused Modi of losing interest in his solar revolution following his failure to submit an action plan for the Prime Ministers National Climate Change Action Plan in 2013.

Despite the solar revolution, India still generates 60-70% of its energy from non-renewable sources. The dominant non-renewable resource is coal which accounts for 40% of total energy production. Yet, output from Coal India Ltd, the largest coal producing company in India, has stagnated over the past few years and has consistently missed targets. If Modi is to revive coal production in India he has to address a number of issues including infrastructure, corruption and a lack of pricing power. Failure to meet last years target was also partly attributed to cyclone Phaline and monsoon flooding. This is also likely to affect future coal production; all IPCC models and scenarios predict an increase in both the mean and extreme precipitation of the Indian summer monsoon.

Although sitting on huge reserves of coal, India also has to import a staggering amount of coal. Last year, 152 million tons of coal were imported, an increase of 21% on last year, while only China and Japan imported more. In order to decrease their dependence on coal, India have began hunting for domestic oil reserves. Alternatively, Modi has spoke of strengthening ties with Russian President, Vladimer Putin, with the possibility of developing a Russian pipeline through the Altai region into northwest China and, eventually, to northern India. Although this would be a costly procedure, it may be easier to forge a relationship with Russia rather than China, who are India’s closest competitors in the energy market.

So what does this mean for India’s energy sector? Ultimately, coal will likely remain the backbone of India’s energy sector. This is problematic because coal generates nearly twice as much carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour generated when compared to a natural gas-fired electric plant. In his rush for economic prosperity, will Modi forget about his solar revolution? On Monday, President Obama will unveil a plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants by as much as 25%, with an emphasis on reducing emissions from coal. If this is achieved, the US will have greater leverage over India and other heavy polluters such as China. Will this encourage Modi to reduce India’s reliance on coal? For now, I remain somewhat optimistic.

—–

This blog was written by Gordon Inglis, a 3rd year palaeoclimatology PhD student working in the Organic Geochemistry Unit within the School of Chemistry. This post was originally published on his own blog http://climategordon.wordpress.com/. You can also follow him on twitter @climategordon 

What the frack! – A guide to fracking and its legal implications

Posted on by janet.crompton

The recent UKELA South West region seminar hosted by the Cabot Institute provided an ideal opportunity for a rational discussion of both the technical aspects of fracking (courtesy of Professor Mike Kendall) and its legal implications in the UK (courtesy of James Taylor of Simmons and Simmons).

With CO2 emissions from gas combustion around 50% lower than that of coal the move to gas as a transition fuel evidently holds appeal. US shale gas production has been praised for its contribution to the fall in US CO2 levels which have reduced back to those seen in 1990. However as was highlighted during the talk, the current availability and low cost of coal presents a problem in incentivising this move. More importantly however, it presents a potentially significant problem for global emission levels. If the UK replaces its coal supply with gas and displaces this coal onto the global market, total emissions will increase with the existing coal and a new gas supply both being burnt.

The appeal of shale gas is not solely confined to its potential in reducing UK emissions however. Energy security is proving to be a driving factor with the Bowland shale basin alone (in Northern England) thought to contain at least 40-60 years worth of the UK’s gas supply. Although unlikely to lower gas prices in the UK, this could significantly reduce our dependency on foreign gas suppliers.

Gas well.  Image credit: Jerry Dincher

When considering the technique of fracking itself Prof. Kendall emphasised the importance of well design and integrity in ensuring water contamination risks are reduced. With wells connecting the shale gas layer, found at depths of around 2500km, to the surface this casing and its integrity are crucial. In addition monitoring of fractures to date has shown that they remain at levels far below those of aquifers and as such are unlikely to prove a problem in relation to water contamination, particularly as the technology exists to monitor the height and direction of these fractures. The treatment and disposal of wastewater was however highlighted as an area which will need to see innovation and clearer regulation as to how such fluids can be disposed of or re-used if a shale gas industry is to develop here in the UK.

James Taylor confirmed that whilst regulations governing conventional oil and gas extraction (that do not use hydraulic fracturing) are applicable to shale gas and fracking there are a number of problems at present. The absence of a single point of control was emphasised, with Department of Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive and Local Councils all playing a regulatory role. Other issues with the current system were highlighted through the absence of a compulsory Environmental Impact Assessment for shale gas operations (sites usually falling short of the 1 hectare threshold) and through the absence of a compulsory groundwater or flaring permit (both being assessed on a site by site basis.)

In addition the heavy influence of economic factors in both the planning guidance applicable to onshore oil and gas as well as within the National Planning Policy Framework were highlighted. The increased impact of such considerations should s58 of the Draft Deregulation Bill come into effect with its duty to promote economic growth when exercising regulatory functions was also raised. With local councils’ set to retain 100% of business rates from shale gas sites in their area the impact of economics on decisions was further brought into question.

Image credit: Libdemvoice

With shale gas promising a potentially valuable transition fuel it was clear from the talks that there is a need to ensure that the technique of fracking is carefully conducted in order to reduce the risk of damage and that this needs to be done under a robust and clear regulatory system. The need for transparent and upfront regulators who consider the arguments and concerns relating to both sides of the shale gas debate was also emphasised. This is of particular importance in light of the current shale gas promotion in the UK. Regulatory reforms such as the proposed removal of subsurface trespass (bypassing issues of obtaining landowner consent) in the next Infrastructure Bill evidences the presumption that at present shale gas is good for the UK and should be facilitated.

One of the key themes that emerged from both talks was that although the debate on fracking is often defined in technical terms the key factors proving influential at present are those of geopolitics and public perceptions. Emphasis was placed on the need for early public engagement and the need to tackle the continued  polarization of what is an already controversial issue. It is clear that fracking and onshore oil and gas extraction is a complex topic, technically, politically and socially. Although complex, it is crucial that the issues associated with fracking are discussed. Talks such as this UKELA event are central to doing so and for allowing rational and informed debate on an important topic.

This blog post is by Joanne Hawkins.
A PhD Researcher looking at the challenge of hydraulic fracturing: energy resilience, the environment and effective regulation at the University of Bristol Law School.

 
Joanne Hawkins,
University of Bristol

From Apollo 11 to Beagle 2: the amazing life of Professor Colin Pillinger

Posted on by janet.crompton

Professor Colin Pillinger, the Bristol-born scientist, passed away today at the age of 70. Although he is probably best known as the leader of the Beagle 2 project, the attempt to land a British spacecraft on Mars, he was involved in ground-breaking scientific research for over 40 years.

The man famed for his whiskers…

In 1968, Colin joined the University of Bristol as a postdoctoral researcher working within the Organic Geochemistry Unit. Along with Geoff Eglinton and James Maxwell, he helped to analyse the first samples of lunar soil and rock retrieved from the Apollo 11 moon landings (Abell et al., 1970). To avoid contamination, the samples were transported from Houston triple-bagged, opened in a clean room and extracted using purified solvents and reagents. Yet despite all these precautions, the Apollo 11 soil did not show any molecular fossils accepted as biological markers. Although less newsworthy, the Bristol-based team also identified the presence of methane on the moon, produced by chemical reactions driven by the solar wind. All of this work would not have been possible without the development of sensitive analytical techniques. Colin was a brilliant analytical chemist and two of his greatest achievements were pioneering mass spectrometry methods which allowed measurements to be made on a thousand times smaller samples than anyone else and building a semi-autonomous mass spectrometer which could survive the rigours of a rocket launch. Developments in mass spectrometry have allowed scientists working within the Cabot Institute to investigate a variety of environmental problems here on earth (e.g. assessment of sewage pollutants in soils and freshwaters, effect of soil fauna upon the decomposition of soil organic matter and the development of chemical proxies for methane emissions from cattle). In my research, I use mass spectrometry to investigate past warm climates. Using this technique, I can reconstruct the temperature or the precipitation patterns of  high CO2 worlds and use this to inform us about future climate change.

Colin (front) and James Maxwell
(back) analysing the lunar samples
from Apollo 11
Over the next twenty years, Colin was involved in a variety of research, from the geothermal maturation of oils (Didyk et al., 1975) to the genesis of basaltic magma in the earth’s mantle (Mattey et al., 1984). It was during this time, he began to study the evolution of life on Mars. Although there was a hiatus in space missions to Mars following the Viking missions in 1976, it was possible to continue researching life on Mars using Martian meteorites. In 1994, Colin and co-authors used carbon and oxygen isotopes to show that carbonates preserved within a Martian meteorite were precipitated from a low-temperature fluid in the Martian crust. From this they were able to conclude that the Martian climate was once warm and wet (Romanek et al., 1994). In the 1990’s, Colin took charge of Beagle 2, a British-based lander which was to be deployed on the European Space Agency’s (ESA) 2003 Mars Express mission. Named after HMW Beagle, which twice carried Charles Darwin, the aim was to search for organic matter on and below the surface of Mars (Wright et al., 2003). Launched on the 2nd of June 2003, Beagle 2 was scheduled to enter the Martian atmosphere on Christmas Day 2003; however, all contact was lost with Beagle 2 upon its separation from the Mars Express 6 days previous. Regrettably no one knows exactly what happened to Beagle 2.

Once landed, it was hoped that Beagle 2 would look
something like this…

In the days and months that followed, the media turned on Pillinger and British space research. The ESA and the UK government held a joint investigation and eventually published a 42 page report which suggested that Beagle 2 was doomed from before it was even attached to Mars Express. Debates even took place which argued whether the UK should be involved with space programmes at all! I think there are some important analogues between Beagle 2 and the recent Climategate scandal. Although there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, the intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change. But I admired Colin Pillinger’s response to scientific failure. He faced the media with the same cheerful candour with which he had promoted the original idea. He highlighted the cruel nature of science. Experiments fail. Things go wrong. But by adopting this approach he gained the respect of many people, including my own.For more information on Colin’s research, you can access his website:

http://colinpillinger.com/barnstormpr.co.uk/index.asp/
Extra reading:
  • Abell, P. I., Draffan, G. H., Eglinton, G., Hayes, J. M., Maxwell, J. R., and Pillinger, C. T., 1970, Organic Analysis of the Returned Lunar Sample: Science, v. 167, no. 3918, p. 757-759.
  • Didyk, B. M., Alturki, Y. I. A., Pillinger, C. T., and Eglinton, G., 1975, Petroporphyrins as indicators of geothermal maturation: Nature, v. 256, no. 5518, p. 563-565.
  • Mattey, D. P., Carr, R. H., Wright, I. P., and Pillinger, C. T., 1984, Carbon isotopes in submarine basalts: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 70, no. 2, p. 196-206.
  • Romanek, C. S., Grady, M. M., Wright, I. P., Mittlefehldt, D. W., Socki, R. A., Pillinger, C. T., and Gibson, E. K., 1994, Record of fluid–rock interactions on Mars from the meteorite ALH84001: Nature, v. 372, no. 6507, p. 655-657.
  • Wright, I. P., Sims, M. R., and Pillinger, C. T., 2003, Scientific objectives of the Beagle 2 lander: Acta Astronautica, v. 52, no. 2–6, p. 219-225.

Implementing volcanic hazard assessment operationally

Posted on by janet.crompton

Following the 2010 eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, the National Risk Register now lists volcanic hazards at the highest priority level. Volcanic hazard assessment draws together scientific knowledge of volcanic processes, observational evidence and statistical modelling to assess and forecast hazard and risk. Researchers at the University of Bristol have been central to the development of local, regional and global volcanic risk modelling over recent decades. One aspect of ongoing research is to develop a strategy for devising and implementing hazard assessments in an operational environment, to provide decision support during a volcanic crisis.

Cabot Professor Willy Aspinall
demonstrating the application of
Expert Elicitation in volcanic
hazard modelling at the OTVHA
workshop, Vienna, April 2014

Last week, I organised a workshop on Operational Techniques for Volcanic Hazard Assessment. The 2-day workshop, held in Vienna, Austria and supported by the European Geosciences Union and the Cabot Institute, brought together researchers from 11 institutions in eight countries to explore current practice in methods applied to operational and near-real time volcanic hazard assessment.  I was assisted in organising by Dr Jacopo Selva of INGV in Bolognia and speakers included Cabot Institute members Professor Willy Aspinall and Dr Thea Hincks, Dr Richard Luckett of the British Geological Survey and Dr Laura Sandri, of INGV, Italy.

There is a real gap between our ability to monitor and understand volcanic processes and our capacity to implement that understanding in a way that is useful operationally. In this workshop, we were able to bring together some of the leading researchers from around the world to explore how different tools and techniques are deployed. Better integration of these tools is essential for volcanic hazard forecasting to be useful for risk management.

The workshop involved discussion sessions and practical demonstrations of tools for real-time monitoring alerts, the use of expert judgment, Bayesian event tree scenario modelling and Bayesian belief network inference tools.  Dr Mike Burton from INGV Pisa, who took part in the workshop, said,

“It’s really important for volcanologists to engage with how our science can be adapted and incorporated in hazard assessments. The OTVHA workshop was a really useful exercise in exploring how our knowledge and uncertainty can be assimilated for real time decision support.”

Monitoring a volcano in Ethiopia

My research in Bristol concerns the interface between volcano monitoring data and hazard scenario models and I felt the workshop was a great success.  A few groups have developed approaches to modelling volcanic hazard and risk. This workshop provided a great forum for detailed discussion of how these tools and techniques can be combined and compared.  As scientists, we need to understand how to optimise and communicate our model output to be useful for decision makers.

Developing tools that are both scientifically and legally defensible is a major challenge in natural hazard science. The idea of organising the OTVHA workshop was to further explore the opportunities in addressing these challenges, which are central to the mission of the Cabot Institute. We’ve already started planning for the next workshop!

The OTVHA workshop was followed up with an associated session at the EGU General Assembly meeting, ‘Advances in Assessing Short-term Hazards and Risk from Volcanic Unrest or Eruption’, with a keynote presentation by Prof Chuck Connor on assessment of volcanic risk for nuclear facilities.

——————————–
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Henry Odbert, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol.

———————————-

There are a few places left on the Cabot Institute Summer School on Risk and Uncertainty in Natural Hazards, featuring Willy Aspinall and other leading Cabot Institute academics.  Book your place now.

Where does all the power go?

Posted on by janet.crompton

Ever wondered how much of your electricity bill goes on charging your laptop, or whether your TV is a bigger drain on your wallet than your kettle? I have…

A good basis to use in answering that question is the Annual ‘Energy Consumption in the UK’ report by DECC. Using their data on household electricity consumption, I’ve plotted a short history of UK electricity use by appliance. I’ve tried to aggregate similar devices together to create 6 categories: lighting, refrigeration, washing & drying, consumer electronics (TVs, consoles, device chargers), computing (desktops, laptops, monitors, printers) and cooking. It’s also important to note that this data is a total for all households in the UK, and is not taken on a per device basis.

The biggest individual energy guzzling devices today are TVs, refrigerators, halogen bulbs and power supply units (including chargers).

Some of this information isn’t surprising- refrigeration is notoriously expensive in physical terms, as it involves reversing a thermodynamic heat engine, in effect using energy to ‘suck’ the heat out of the colder compartment. Halogen bulbs are also commonly known as a large energy drain, due to their ubiquity and relatively low efficiency. Energy efficiency of both refrigeration and lighting have seen significant advances in the past few decades, and the relative drain on household energy of such devices reflects this.

I am, however, puzzled to see TVs on the list. The new generation of LED TVs and the advances in energy efficiency in electronics gave me the impression that these devices were far greener than their predecessors. In fact, the electricity used by TVs doubled between 1970 and 2000, and has almost tripled by 2012. I imagine this means that far more households have TVs now and that an increasing number of households own several. Even so, it is difficult to see why efficiency technology has not slowed the rate of growth of the electricity needs of televisions.

Laptops form a surprisingly small part of household electricity use, and power supply units (PSUs) and chargers appear to constitute a much larger energy drain. Perhaps the proliferation of smartphones and tablet PCs has something to do with this; the sheer number of devices that need charging may be the reason for the large increase in PSU consumption over the last few decades.

What can we take away from these statistics? On the surface, they hold few new suggestions in terms of how we should behave in order to save energy. It is common knowledge that one should boil as little water as possible in electric kettles, switch off devices and lights when they aren’t being used and purchase energy-saving devices instead of more power-hungry alternatives. However, these numbers do identify a large potential saving in energy consumption by switching to more efficient lighting methods and a significant rise in energy consumption by TVs and PSUs. The bottom line? Unplugging those idle device chargers won’t save the world from climate change, but it certainly could help.

This blog is written by Neeraj Oak, Cabot Institute.
Neeraj Oak

How much money should we spend to protect ourselves from climate change?

Posted on by janet.crompton

Investing in climate change resilience

 
The February floods left many asking how the damage could have been avoided and why we weren’t better prepared. The government came under attack from all sides; David Cameron said “money is no object” for the relief effort, but angry residents asked why this wasn’t the case when funding was cut to flood protection a few years before.

 

Peter Gist, an economist and Director of Arup Management Consultancy, visited the University of Bristol this week to give a lecture asking why we aren’t more resilient to climate change and what we can do about it.

It is a complicated question. Spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is not without its risks. In April, a report was released showing that the £473 million stash of Tamiflu was essentially useless.  It was stockpiled against the risk of a flu pandemic that never happened.  Was this money wasted?  Only because the problem didn’t arise.  The risk to public health was too high to leave to chance.

The same can be said of resilience to climate change. You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. Gist nailed it when he said, “the huge costs of not getting it right tend to lead to people acting like rabbits stuck in the headlights”.

Investment returns

Diverting resources to resilience measures is an investment, and Gist explained that this means trying to get the best return for your pound, in this case by limiting losses. It’s extremely difficult to calculate this for climate change, thanks to a lack of information, inherent uncertainties about the frequency and impact of the problem, and a decision process divided between numerous groups with different priorities.

An important economic technique when calculating the cost:benefit of different resilience methods is discounting. A price paid in today’s money cannot be directly compared with the future benefit of the scheme, so the value of the future benefit (prevention of loss) is transformed into today’s prices. An event predicted to occur far in the future will be severely discounted, making it unlikely to seem worth the cost to us today.

The problem with discounting is similar to that of politics; the focus is on short-term pressing concerns not future problems, even if they are predicted to have a huge impact. Gist explained, “in the case of severe weather events, we are almost always bound to discover that we haven’t done enough”.

Uncertainty

 

The Dawlish train line was damaged in winter storms.
Image credit: BBC News

Even if the risks were quantifiable, it would still be difficult to know where to channel resources because of the uncertainty in forecasting models. Would it be better, for example, to improve the resilience of the Dawlish train line to flooding, or to build an entirely new route to avoid the problem entirely? We need to know how often the line is likely to flood in the future, especially with regards to climate change, but Gist noted how difficult it is to confidently link global warming to specific extreme weather predictions.

Improving the decision

Value for money is still the aim of the game. How can we make better decisions on climate change resilience in the future?

Reducing the discount rate for long term effects is vital. Gist agrees with Lord Nicholas Stern that we should hold the impacts on the next generation with greater or equal importance than our own, rather than passing the problems on to them.

To counteract the uncertainty, of course we must keep collecting data and improving the models, but Gist believes we should go further. We need to consider more “no regrets” options, for example trees in a new development provide shade and enhance water run off, as well as making the area a more desirable place to live. He urged, “uncertainty should be an imperative to act, not an excuse not to”.

Consulting the wider public is vital in improving spending decisions. Gist described how difficult it is to factor in non-monetary benefits into the investment planning models. An area of moorland or forest might have incalculable value to people living nearby, but the property developers in the next town might see it as cut price real estate. Only by talking to a large range of people, institutions and regulatory bodies can you understand the different priorities in play and begin to factor in benefits that aren’t measured in pounds and pence. Pragmatically, Gist believes that all politicians should consult the people involved, whether in local councils or at the national level, because everyone takes part of the responsibility for the consequences and by removing the blame it clears the path to making decisions.

Get involved

Limited resources mean that we can’t always have the perfect solution for every problem. Money must be spent in the most beneficial way possible, so we can’t avoid making these investment choices. Gist urged the audience to get involved in decisions, make your voice heard and for the scientists among us to keep up the research that might yield more information. On the other hand, it is vital that we don’t fall victim to “analysis-paralysis”. If you’re waiting for the perfect data set before making a decision, you’ll be waiting a long time.

——————————————————–

This blog is written by Sarah Jose, Cabot Institute, Biological Sciences, University of Bristol
Sarah Jose
Sign up to our weekly newsletter for all the latest news, events and opportunities at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/subscribe. Find out more about our unique Master's by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot-masters.