Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 340 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Sustainability and the Green Movement

Roger B

A couple of interesting pieces in the Guardian that follow some of my comments in the ‘Sustainable Energy’ thread.

https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/29789/how-can-we-develop-an-effective-sustainable-energy-strategy-that-also-ensures-a-just-transition

The first relates to Shell’s report that it will be dangerous to cut fossil fuel production before 2030. This suggests that Shell have actually done to Project Planning work on renewable energy sources and know what limitations there are on installation of wind and solar, lack of raw materials, lack of skilled labour, lack of interconnection power lines etc. If insufficient sustainable energy resources will be available in the time frame Shell and the others need to keep drilling for oil and gas.

As I have said many times I would like to see the Project Plan for ‘Sustainable Energy’ for just one country, real numbers for materials consumption, energy payback, financial payback and if the payback is negative who pays for it.

 

I have also commented that the Green Movement doesn’t understand that everything requires resources and these resources are finite. The columnist here confirms that the environmentalists have broken up into cliques each with their own agenda and self-interest.

They are no longer interested in finding an optimum solution, just getting their pet idea into production and hopefully making some money from government subsidies. The Movement has drifted completely away from the science (and engineering).

  • The Movement has drifted completely away from the science (and engineering).

    and this is a general problem - it is much easier to parrot sexy sound bites that seem to require someone else to do something than it is to sit down and work out calmly the art of the possible in any specific direction. Now I do harbour a slight cynicism about the exact figures from the Shell chap, but with that said, there is the kernel of a clear and valid point. Of course there will be some slow rate of turning off fossil fuels that is possible with minimum upset, and going a lot faster than that would be catastrophic, and I agree that the parts of the world that are far less well off than we are will set the pace if we are not to be guilty of genocide. We could, if we felt the urge, drop to a 3rd world standard of living and survive. A similar drop for folk already at that level,  and they will not. I'm not sure any sane thinking person wants to try the extreme rate of change where  that occurs. But, I am not sure, and I fear not many if any folk are, what the art of the possible is in any direction, let alone all of them.

    Rather like the problem with religions is they cannot all be right, (and maybe none are !) there is a problem that we need folk exploring all the possible solutions, knowing that most of them will be, if not a waste of time, then at best end up being purely educational or the solution to a small subset of human activity. But we cannot know which ones - it is not possible to back only the winners in advance of the race.

    In my world there would be a lot more pilot projects....

    Mike.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines