With the sun shining, the world’s biggest sporting event about to kick-off and the hopes and aspirations of many of The Engineer’s
But come July 10th, when English football fans will either be basking in the warm glow of victory or reflecting on another doomed campaign, a sense of reality will return as we get ready to peruse the findings of the government’s hotly anticipated energy review – the statement on energy policy that could shape our energy mix, and the world we live in, for many more years than Wayne Rooney’s metatarsal.
Following the Prime Ministers’ comments last month regarding the development of more nuclear power stations, there are fears in some quarters that renewable energy – which holds so much promise for our burgeoning energy needs – may be left high and dry.
After all, ask some, what’s the point in the incremental contributions made by a wind farm here and a solar panel there when a few new nuclear power stations can meet all our energy needs and more?
But while there’s a widely held view that renewable energy can only ever gradually chip away at our reliance on fossil fuels there are some in the renewables industry who believe that with government backing, large-scale, environmentally sustainable power generation schemes could make just as big a contribution to our energy mix as any nuclear power station.
A good example of this is the proposed Severn Tidal Barrage – a huge 10 mile long dam across the Severn Estuary, that could, its backers claim, harness the natural power of the tide to generate 5 per cent of the
Jon Excell
Features Editor
The Engineer
I believe that a nuclear option is viable. It just requires development investment, the down side is all a matter of perception. An argument used against the nuclear option is the long term legacy but I cannot see this is any worse than fossil fuel. After all aren’t C02 emissions causing plant damage?
I have even heard that renewable sources are not so, evedentially too many wind farms and the plant will stop and there is also the ecological effects of a river barrage – assuming the river is sill running.
J R Chapman
Renewable energy is essentially a good idea.
My principle concern is over the consequent effect on the environment of the removal of energy — a tidal machine will reduce the tides, which may endanger tidal habitat.
My principle gripe with the whole idea of generating enough energy is that it avoids the real issue, which is to consume less.
The Severn Estuary proposals would undoubtedly be a great feat of engineering but this development would stop the natural movement of silts in the estuary which consequently destroys the natural habitat of the wild life there. Wild life can’t be renewed or replaced and energy can be harnessed in many different ways. I therefore don’t think the Severn Estuary dam is the sustainable solution we are looking for.
Here we are across the pond in the USA pondering your problem about energy needs. Wish I had that magical formula to send over to you. We could also use it ourselves. We have some rather large desert areas that could be used for direct conversion to DC. The Russians just recently figured out how to double the efficiency of Solar Cells. I hope that report is true. What we much do is concentrate on action instead of words. That has been going on for too long in both our countries. Whatever happens in the future is going to largely caused by what we do about our energy needs today. We need smart young people and older smart people to work together on a solution. I’ve dedicated the rest of my life to teaching youngsters math and science. I’m doing whatever I can to bring about a renewed interest in engineering and science in general. I was a construction electrician all my life. So what about those truly smart people out there that have some spare time to give to the youngsters around you? We need to mobilize our forces into something that will produce the ideas that will bring about energy sources that won’t kill us with pollution. What do you say UK?
Whilst I agree entirely that green energy would receive a boost by being chosen by the government, I think another equally important opportunity has not been reported as widely in the media. If a grants scheme for green energies was introduced and backed by industry and government alike, we could all be creating our own power from things like solar (limited in the UK but still viable), wind (this we do have alot of in the UK) and things like fuel cells, combined heat & power units, micro-turbines, underground water heating, etc. If we all had these installed in our houses, they may not support all of our power requirements, but they sure would reduce the demand on the national grid and therefore the power generation requirements from the likes of Powergen et al. Then the question would be, do we need any extra capacity at all?
The Severn energy project seems worthwhile as it does not contribute to industrialising our landscape. Windfarms, if they really worked, may reduce CO2 emissions but what a soulless solution! Do we really want to turn our country into an industrial park? Perhaps people should stop shopping and get out into the country for walks – this would improve the nation’s health and perhaps make people appreciate what we are about to destroy!
Regards
John
“Dam and Double Dam”
If the Severn Barrage were to go ahead, would this not be a good time to consider making this a double Dam, split between salt water and fresh? That way we could harness not only the power of the tides and out flow, but collect the fresh water for our dearly missed hose pipes.
Why not have nuclear energy because if we can use this energy in a safe controlled manner it may answer all our needs now and in the future.
As long as we adhere to the standards and procedures the process is safe. It is the people who operate the system that make the mistakes that can cause disasters.
If nuclear establishment were guarded by our services nobody should get in. If we can make use of the little waste that is produced and maybe collect the heat that might be dissipated then again we have an energy from waste.
I know this is an opinion that many people would disagree with but how many solar panels, wind farms, sea turbines etc would we need?
I am not against any of the above, far from it, but we must look at all forms of energy and solve the problems we encounter and not simply put our hands up and say we cannot do it.
Name and address supplied
The problem with such schemes is that there are not many Severn Estuaries in GB and therefore the technology developed for this purpose cannot be reused. However when the technology can be implemented globally it can certainly be economically viable.
The real “failure of vision” is the absence of the plan that tells how we can cover all energy needs with renewable resources. What is the mix? 20% tidal, 10% wind, 15% Bio, 12% solar etc. Such a plan will make it possible to see the goal.
I am always amazed at ‘The Engineers’ unfailing cynicism regarding renewables. When even a government report states that 1/5 of UK power could come from wave alone, I don’t think the impact of renewables can be underestimated. The UK does not need nuclear; we are in prime position to leave fuels which are polluting and which, ultimately, will run out (i.e. fossil and nuclear) behind.
‘The Engineer’s constant sniping and unfailing negativity only reflects badly on the publication.
Back in the 1950’s we were told that nuclear power would be so cheap that it wouldn’t be worth metering. Well, we now know better. Not only has nuclear had to be heavily subsidised by the UK tax payer, but it’s still not free. And on top of that it has generated hugh quantities of toxic waste that the industry still has no idea what to do with!
OK, so the government needed a source of plutonium, and it’s used the reactors to produce it – fine, but be honest about it!
Now, if a fraction of the support that went into nuclear power went into renewable energy, we would all see that benefits; including UK design and manufacturing. More jobs for engineers in the UK too!