Figure 1
Website trillionthtonne.org
Society is facing a time of uncertainty
and possible change. Whilst we try to
juggle the opposing goals of maintaining low energy costs, decarbonising our
lives, maintaining a security of energy supply and promoting sustainable
economic growth, other countries are trying to do the same; whilst others
ignore the experts and carry on regardless.
The future of energy in the UK will depend on many factors including
market drivers, regulatory requirements and technology cost and performance. .
Figure 2
Wannabes- Spot the Difference
It is easy to compare a wannabe
decarbonising world to a wannabe fit, slim and healthy overweight dieter, a
different way of life is needed and putting the action plan on the long finger
will possibly make action more difficult for both parties in the long
term. Last month was the hottest May in more than 130
years of recorded weather history[3],
the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced last Monday,
as May 2014 surpassed the previous record high for the month set in 2010,
noting that 4/5 hottest Mays have occurred in the last 5 years. Awareness of the issue is the first
challenge, the second is accepting it is a challenge and finally action is
required to make change happen. The
climate change debate is likened to the smoking debate, it took 40 years before
the scientific data was accepted that smoking caused ill health and death but
from the evidence above, that timescale is not an option for the climate change
challenge.
 |
| Figure 3 Dr Nick Gostick |
The debate was chaired by Nick Gostick
who is the Managing Director of Inntropy; the Nottingham CleanTech Centre an incubator for early stage cleantech
businesses. Before
establishing Inntropy, Nick spent seven years as Incubation Manager at BioCity
Nottingham, supporting early-stage businesses. This followed on from a
successful career as an entrepreneur with a background in microbiology. The discussion began with Professor Colin
Snape who is the Director of the EngD Centre in Efficient Power from
Fossil Energy and Carbon Capture Technologies
 |
| Figure 4 Prof Colin Snape |
Prof
Snape heads a research team investigating clean fossil fuels. He explained that if we were to reduce our
carbon usage the UK had three possible options for future energy use -nuclear,
offshore and clean fossil fuel. He
continued by stating the peak oil argument was fading away as the reality has
struck home that although there are at least 100 years of shale gas and indeed
200 years of coal the possibility that they may remain underground due to the
burning issue of reducing carbon emissions is a reality. Prof. Snape remarked that ’an 8% reduction of
Carbon emissions per annum is required to achieve UK’s Kyoto targets’. He recognises that electricity usage will
increase as we decarbonise heating and transport by transferring to electrical
systems.
However a
recent government commissioned report from the oil baron Ian Wood has
recommended extraction of every fossil fuel drop to ensure an economically
sound Britain. George Monbiot in a
recent article in the Guardian[4]
questions the ability of the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change Mr
Ed Davey to be a servant to diametrically opposed UK statutes; the Infrastructure
Act 2015 and the Climate Change Act 2008.
Interestingly, UKIP’s position is to extract shale gas and cut all green
taxes, obviously ignoring previously agreed global mandates.
 |
| Figure 5 Prof Seamus Garvey |
Professor
Seamus Garvey joined Nottingham University in 2000 as a Professor of Dynamics.
Working within the "University Technology Centre" contract with
Rolls-Royce, he was promoted to directorship of the Rolls-Royce UTC in Gas
Turbine Transmission systems. Professor Garvey has one clear goal which is to
make a BIG difference by doing some exceptionally good engineering. He is currently working on large scale off
shore wind turbine projects and deep water energy storage solutions.
Prof Garvey
had 7 distinct points. He stated
1. There
is no energy crisis, when you acknowledge the sun generates 10,000 times more a
day than we as a planet currently use, we just don’t have adequate capturing
facilities at present. He asked the
question ‘can we collect it?’ Fossil
fuel, which is after all concentrated sunlight, it was a cheap concentrated
form of dispatchable energy, which is no longer the preferred option due to
climate change.
2. Engineers
are people who can create something for a farthing that anyone could do for a
pound (£2.40). He asked that we allow
engineers to be engineers and devise an engineering solution to the issue
3. UK
is blest with 2000 TerraWatt [5]Hrs/Year
offshore energy using wind and tidal sources.
The UK currently uses 1000 TerraWatt Hrs/Year. Can we make a system that can use this ‘free’
resource?
4. Engineers
require a user requirement specification, a whole systems thinking approach to
the energy issue. It is critical that we
do not make components but whole systems.
5. What
happened ambition? Why can Engineers no
longer trust their mathematical calculations?
6. Who
is in charge of Energy and who is coordinating?
Prof Garvey believes democracy is going to kill us all as politicians
pander to every will o the wisp that passes by in their quest for
re-election.
7. Finally
is climate change an issue? There are
anthropogenic risks however Prof Garvey believes the real issue is security of
supply. The uncertainty of the cost of a
unit of electricity, of gas, of wind. He
concluded by quoting US President JF Kennedy
“The problems of the world cannot possibly be
solved by sceptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious
realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask
"why not?"
Nick
agreed there was no rational decision when it came to Energy policy. The questions followed thick and fast. Nora Paddington asked the panel ‘Who should
be in charge? Prof Garvey explained
there was a group called the Energy Research Partnership who he wrote to in
2010 with a question ‘Is it conceivable that Engineers could gain £75MW/Hr for
marine offshore wind with storage, he never received a response. Earlier this year however, Hinkley Point C
was granted a nuclear power plant at a cost of £92.5MW/Hr for 35 years[6]. There are a number of bodies in the UK
including
Figure 6
Spot the Difference Scientists vs Politicians
A discussion
ensued on democracy versus dictatorship; China was winning the race against
sustainability by examining carbon capture and storage and by keeping costs
under wraps. Commercially viable pumped
hydro systems were also a possibility but Government has chosen not to do choose
this route. Prof Garvey made the
controversial statement that the fundamental issues were not understood by the
man in the street and the discussion should be left to engineers. This was refuted by Eamon Moore and others in
the room that whilst the knowledge of how energy is created, transported and
stored is intricate and complicated even without the decarbonisation process
thrown in, the man in the street will switch on and will ultimately drive its
use as he is the customer. The public
are responsible for our democratic process and the general opinion was that the
public needed to be informed so as to create a public opinion that will ensure
politicians can engage sufficiently to take action. The use of virtual power stations was
discussed and human nature. By changing
the cost to being dependent on the capacity of the grid ie using electricity at
certain times, drying clothes, boiling kettles, the demand time response would
only really affect the fuel poor. The
use of thermal storage is currently being researched in a number of
universities at present as a way to store electricity once generated as
electrochemistry is considered by Prof Garvey to be too expensive for general
electricity use. It will of course
continue to be used in technology such as computers and cars. But saving summer heat to use in winter is probably
a cheaper option and it is a growing concept.
The poor building stock was raised as an issue for heat loss and the
need to upgrade and build new pre fabricated modular houses which are
temperature controlled environments which allows the customer to decide the
energy use. Graham Allen, from Commercial
Money Matters raised financial instruments as market mechanism tools for ways
forward, Prof Garvey raised the issue that the feed in tariff for solar PV
scheme was in fact the poor paying a penalty for those that can afford to reap
the benefits of the tariff to benefit from cheaper electricity. Other new wind technologies[7] discussed
included an Archimedes screw type turbine, ‘Liam F1’ launched in May 2014 and commercially
available from July 2014 from a Dutch firm.
It was agreed
that the media had huge sway and it needed fundamental learning and so by educating
the media we could educate all, public and politicians alike and perhaps have a
better society. The though provoking
debate came to an end raising more questions than was answered. We look towards a future with an election
looming in a year’s time and wonder if the energy debate will help the country
decide?
Acknowledgments
Images taken from the Web with
thanks
Words by Dr Shirley Gallagher
Please feel free to contact
E: shirleyannegallagher@gmail.com
T: 0044 778 9829331
M: 00353 85 8555792
S:shirleyatsyspro
Twitter: shirleyatsyspro
No comments:
Post a Comment