Page 1 of 2
UK renewable energy targets 'impossible' - time to go to war
Posted: 12 Nov 2009, 21:38
by Quintus
"Go to war", "battle plan", "attack", "fight back", "war-time"
. Good wake-up call, though I'd rather the engineers worked on energy projects, than plant artificial trees.
Britain's renewable energy targets are 'physically impossible', says study
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers' 'battle plan' for climate change includes geo-engineering and nuclear power
It will be physically impossible for the UK to meet its renewable energy targets in both the short and long term, according to a group of engineering experts.
In a new study, they called for the government to adopt a "war-time" mentality in their approach to dealing with climate change and consider experimental approaches such as artificial trees that soak up carbon dioxide to buy the time needed to build the required level of low-carbon infrastructure in the UK.
... according to the engineers, building the massive amounts of low-carbon infrastructure in time to meet the government's targets will be impossible. "Current predictions are that we will be unable to service the current plans for offshore windfarms by 2013 because we won't have the construction vessels to do it and, by 2018, we'll run out of manufacturing capacity," said Tim Fox, lead author of the report and head of environment and climate change at the IMechE.
In a report published tomorrow, the engineers instead outlined a "battle plan" for tackling global warming, which includes adapting to rising temperatures and investing in geo-engineering technologies, as well as current plans to invest in green energy technologies. "The institution believes it's time to go to war on climate change – the climate is about to attack us and it's time for us to fight back," said Fox.
He said that, even if the UK could cut its energy demand in half by 2050 through efficiency improvements, the country still needs 16 new nuclear power plants between now and 2030, and an additional 4 by 2050. Around 27,000 wind turbines would need to be built by 2030 and an additional 13,000 by 2050. That would be in addition to ramping up solar power, waste and biomass plants and developing a smart electricity grid and advanced energy-storage technologies.
12 November 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... impossible
The report itself (24pp):
http://www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/77CD ... Report.PDF
Posted: 12 Nov 2009, 22:04
by biffvernon
Huh, typical engineers.
Posted: 12 Nov 2009, 23:02
by Baldybloke
Hey, I ressemble that remark as I've just started an OU Engineering course.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 04:57
by revdode
biffvernon wrote:Huh, typical engineers.
I resent that a little, but sadly it's true of the smartest of us. I'm a grunt not highly specialized enough to think I can predict the results of "geo-engineering" or produce equivalent amounts of energy to the millenia long reserves we are burning through.
Unfortunately the bodies that speak for engineering are generally populated by people far smarter than I am.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 07:43
by 2 As and a B
"The institution believes it's time to go to war on climate change – the climate is about to attack us and it's time for us to fight back," said Fox.
If "The Institution" has seriously misunderstood the problem, what credibility their solution?
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 08:09
by biffvernon
biffvernon wrote:Huh, typical engineers.
Baldybloke wrote:Hey, I ressemble that remark as I've just started an OU Engineering course.
Welcome to the forum. I think you can probably do an English module within your OU course.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 08:16
by ziggy12345
The depression of the 1930s eventually came to an end when the 2nd world war started. The increase of manufacturing was the driver. The same could be done today and all we need is an excuse such as a war or every body building renewable energy systems such as large offshore wind turbines. The price then as now is a large increase in energy consuption. It was freely available in 1940 but not so now. We dont have the capacity or the energy to build the systems we need
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 08:51
by snow hope
Yes Ziggy, this lack of extra available energy is a very serious additional barrier and it may be one, we can't find a way over......
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 10:18
by Silas
So why is the oil price so low with all this talk and all the reports, the IEA whistleblower stuff.
Whats in the news "BA Merger Labour win Glasgow bla bla, nothing about oil.
Surely Oil should be at $200 a barrel and heading sky high at its apparent peak and inlight of recent reports, but no its all humming along below £80.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 11:47
by biffvernon
It would only be at $200 if someone had $200 but would rather have a barrel of oil. Maybe there isn't anyone in that position.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 12:40
by clv101
I’m an engineer and I’ll be the first to say many engineers have some totally ridiculous ideas about this area.
Here’s an essay I wrote on the IMechE’s report on climate change adaptation:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5387
Some examples of ridiculous engineer thinking:
The report suggests changes to precipitation resulting in spatially distributed wetting and drying can be adapted to through increased trading of food as food represents a large amount of embodied water. Desalination can be used where energy is available.
Increased resilience to extreme weather events including flooding will be required. The most effective way to increase the resilience of the transport system is suggested to be through increased capacity.
In a report addressing the impacts of climate change the ImechE suggest increased food miles and the building of more roads.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 12:47
by Silas
It would only be at $200 if someone had $200 but would rather have a barrel of oil. Maybe there isn't anyone in that position.
I will have to guess that you are refering to supply and demand?
What I refer to is how we undervalue a primary energy source and how we squander it.
Posted: 13 Nov 2009, 14:21
by biffvernon
We undervalue it because our great grand children are not allowed to compete in the market.
Posted: 14 Nov 2009, 11:12
by Keepz
biffvernon wrote:We undervalue it because our great grand children are not allowed to compete in the market.
That is indeed a market failure, but I would suggest it is an uncorrectable one because we cannot know what value our great grand children will place on oil. They may, thanks to technology, not have any need of it at all and would really rather we spent the money on something else on their behalf.
If you were able to have a conversation with the generation of your great grandfather about the things they left to us and the things they took from us, how do you see the balance sheet stacking up?
Posted: 14 Nov 2009, 11:52
by biffvernon
Fair point. Our great grandchildren may, indeed, not need the oil. They probably will need a habitable climate. That's a more important market failure.