I'd like to canvas some forum members views if you've read the article in this months magazine. I had thought of writing to the Editor with feedback but previous correspondences have been ineffective. My views on the article.
Engineering is a discipline and vocation grounded in numerical analysis and the application of fundamental scientific principals. While aspirational target setting and mission and vision statements are often employed in project delivery settings, the roadmap of how to get there still needs to be clearly set out. This is normally supported by the application of appropriate technology, defining a budget and the resources required, and preparing an appropriate risk/opportunity analysis to meet a completion date. This occurs before the project is evaluated against predefined hurdles and before it receives approval and funding to proceed.
I was disappointed that the February issue of the IET magazine Ten Steps to Net Zero article, seemed to be high on the aspirational target setting, with little or no evidence of supporting numerical analysis on how to get there, or what the cost/value proposition was. Although the article highlighted the challenges and stumbling blocks there was no sense of how or even if they would be overcome at an acceptable cost. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modus operandi for what is in essence a politically driven agenda; only unswerving belief and acceptance that it will happen. The reluctance to have an engineering challenge or discussion on the how, the technologies, the cost and affordability, and the resources to meet an arbitrary 2050 deadline is disturbing. It’s an approach I’ve seen occasionally in my 35+ years experience in major resources projects, often termed by the questioning as “the King’s new clothes approach”, where its seen as unacceptable to challenge the obvious shortcomings. Reality eventually dawns, but the costs involved spiral, value is eroded and the completion date slips. A predictable outcome when aspirational targets generally represent a low probability of success starting point.
The underlying implication (and one voiced in another article in the issue) is that society needs to be re-educated with an explicit message to expect less, be prepared to pay more for less freedom of use, and be thankful that they have the moral high ground and are saving the planet. The implications for such an approach are insidious and harmful, when up to 25% of households in Scotland and over 10.3% (2.4million) in England are already categorised (UK Govt 2020 data) as being in energy poverty. Surely its more appropriate to have a grounded and challenging engineering and scientific discussion on what an affordable and balanced energy future looks like. What the roadmap is to get there and what the realistic energy mix should be, that serves the best interests of the UK populace (reliability, availability, affordability and security), and not the egos of virtue signaling politicians or vocal minorities who do not represent society at large or its interests.
