Download document:
Growth review framework for advanced manufacturing - .PDF file.
Jason Ford
News Editor
With payday a week away and The Engineer’s lottery syndicate failing to hit the jackpot, Briefing asks: is there money to be made in saving the planet?
This open-ended question is being raised by the IET Devon and Cornwall Network today and tomorrow, who helpfully narrow the scope of the debate to microgeneration.
According to the organisers, incentive schemes like the feed-in tariff will help the government achieve its plans for 2GW of microgeneration over the next few years.
The lecture, to be delivered by Bernard Quigg, will try to outline some of the challenges a developer faces when trying to tap into this income stream. It will address typical costs and technical challenges for a base case in which a 1MVA generator is to be connected to the distribution network.
Organised by the IET and hosted at Exeter University, the event is free to attend and registration is not required.
The same IET network has organized another evening of discussion entitled ‘Electric vehicles as the future of personal transportation: fact or fiction?’
This contentious issue starts from the premise that two contrasting views on the electric car exist – that there is an immediate reduction of CO2 due to zero vehicle emissions, but what about the long-term holistic CO2 footprint of the life cycle of the car?
In this presentation, Ben Boycott of Detroit Electric will look at the arguments on both sides, providing a perspective for the potential of the electric vehicle as the next step in personal transportation.
Once more, the event, which takes place tomorrow at North Devon College, is free to attend and registration is unnecessary.
Green, pollution-free transportation is laudable but the internal combustion engine is going to be with us for many years yet, which is why a certain Prof Rui Chen is delivering a talk on the latest IC engine technology tomorrow in Peterborough.
Prof Chen is scheduled to talk about new developments that are occurring in the world of internal combustion engines with specific reference to the mechanism of controlled auto-ignition.
This free event has been organised by Peterborough Young Engineers and takes place at the Perkins Auditorium.
The Royal Academy of Engineering/Chinese Academy of Sciences are hosting workshops over the 27 and 28 this week that will address the future of energy storage technology and policy.
The event’s publicity material says the workshops will explore the science, technology and policy needs for the development and implementation of electrical energy storage.
Specifically, the two day event will ‘consider the broad landscape and national energy policy in China and the UK, before focussing in more detail on the emerging portfolio of solutions around electrical energy storage to address issues such as power intermittency and electric vehicles.’
Further debates on the subjects raised will take place in Beijing in May 2011.
Briefing ends with news that Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are to attend the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Summit tomorrow.
They are expected to discuss ways of boosting growth in the UK’s manufacturing sector with leading figures from industry.
In December 2010 the government published a paper entitled ‘Growth review framework for advanced manufacturing’, which sought to address barriers to the UK taking a dominant position as an exporter of high-value goods. Pertinently, it also asked what was stopping people following a career in engineering.
Discussions at the summit and feedback from the framework are expected to feed into the government’s Growth Review expected by the Budget on 23 March.
There’s a good deal of discussion in academic & government circles, and endless consultants, but my observation is that Joe Public couldn’t care less. All that’s really wanted is an adjustment to the fuel duties & taxes to contrain the rising cost, and then business as usual. Money to be made – yes, but mainly in the business of preaching to the converted!!
Perhaps the public are very wary and would like the answer to the question, “Are we really saving anything of our planet with the huge amounts of money being spent?”
Dr Gray has nailed it when he states taht Joe Public couldn’t care less.
Aside from the 21st century version of the Save the Whale clan only hard cash will force people to take on green issues.
At present, even with the generous FITs a solar PV installation takes over 10 years to pay for itself. 90% of ‘Joe Public’ will not react until this below 5 years and/or evidence of climate change (no longer known as global warming I see 😉 ) kicks them firmly in the derriere.
Initiatives such as the boiler scrappage scheme worked, Whilst it served it’s purpose for the government in helping to reduce carbon emissions; the public were predominantly focused on the pound notes!
A Prime example of Mr Stanbridge’s point
I believe renewables are a solution to the Co2 issue; especially micro generation but initially somebody somewhere has to pick up the price tag before we can benefit as a nation / globally. The problem with renewable energy is the public and business are focusing on pay back times on what they see as a long term investment, as far as I am aware nobody ever asks when the purchase of a new led television or car will pay for its self!
I think it is a change of perception that is required along side instant financial initiatives from governments and manufacturers before we can make a change that is noticeable.
As the song said …
“money makes the world go round”
The main issues with the current crop of technology is simply that is does not work effectively or efficiently.
Cars still emit 80% of their life cycle emissions through their manufacture and disposal, while the remaining 20% are through their working life. Here we have the primary issue, we are dealing with the lowest emissions levels and ignoring the highest emitter of pollution.
Electric cars are not practical, the infrastructure is not there, and they are only practical for local commuting. Their market is predominantly private local commuters, and not the business users.
PV panels are another misnomer as their financial returns figures are flawed. They base their returns on the maximum theoretical returns, and not the real world returns. Research shows they only produce an average 7% of their theoretical maximum return in the UK’s climate. This means that with PV panels they will be obsolete before they cover even a fraction of their costs.
Pounds, shillings, and pence are critical to consumers, particularly in these hard economic times. Nobody will spend on such methodologies as it will increase, not decrease their overall or full life cycle costs.
It is these fundamental problems which need addressing before they can be promoted to a sceptical public as viable. Even then it will take many years to prove their financial viability.
I work for Practical Action an international development organisation using technology as a lever out of poverty. My point would be that this debate is too narrow. In the developing world millions of people don’t have access to decent energy; they still cook over basic cook stoves, the smoke from which kills more people than malaria. The UN is calling for energy access for all by 2030. If we are to deliver this much of the capacity will be renewable and models of operation while many will include business.
Can you save the planet and make a packet? Can you end poverty and do good business? I hope so.
In developed countries, every dollar that Government spends on green issues comes out of the disposable income of taxpayers. They would rather spend it on iPods and Flat screens, entertainment and petrol cars. It dose not hurt them if things aren’t green.
Developing countries like India,Africa, Cuba and China have a large population that can benefit by grassroots green tech. Putting green power into developed country grids just gives more power to control prices by Government agencies. Mr Average won’t see any benefit. Green power is dearer in the home and green cars are dearer. Green energy is supposed to be cheaper and it is if an individual is independent of the Government control.
Most of the developing world needs basic and cheap systems but developed countries need green engineering and architecture and less dependence on government subsidies.