Hi Roger, thanks for bringing this up! I feel the need to correct the record here. This was taken from a podcast I did and is a misrepresentation. In the podcast I actually pull the interviewer up to correct the misrepresentation of what I said. I said that in 2050 we will likely still have to use fossil fuels, and Government targets account for that. The 'no fossil fuels by 2050' is not the current target (instead offsetting and capture are build in) and would be, as is pointed out in this thread, a political target rather than one with an existing engineering based delivery roadmap. You will notice that the 'critical target' in the article is not a direct quote from me and instead a stretch target used to frame the article.  These kind of stretch targets are commonly used in government and policy work to give engineers and scientists a clear space in which to innovate. However, in this case 'no fossil fuels by 2050' hasn't come from me and isn't currently an IET recommendation. In fact as part of the policy output work that we are currently doing the need to acknowledge the medium term use of natural gas/storage, whilst installing green capabilities, is something I am reiterating to the Government. Germany are doing this for example. All of our policy work and recommendations to government are rooted in engineering expertise and a significant and holistic consultation process with those from across the profession. I would be delighted to talk this through with you in greater depth at any time, please drop me direct message.

Hi James, thank you for responding and clarifying your meaning. I would certainly like to see a much more technically based article on the move away from fossil fuels in E+T rather than the current rather wooly left/green offerings. I am a firm believer in reducing our impact on the planet and minimizing our consumption of finite resources, but I haven’t yet found any science/engineering to back this up in the information published in the main stream media.

Hi James, thank you for responding and clarifying your meaning. I would certainly like to see a much more technically based article on the move away from fossil fuels in E+T rather than the current rather wooly left/green offerings. I am a firm believer in reducing our impact on the planet and minimizing our consumption of finite resources, but I haven’t yet found any science/engineering to back this up in the information published in the main stream media.

Agreed, we must reduce CO2 emissions, which means greening the grid which is possible if we build nuclear stations to maintain the supply at nights when the wind is not blowing.

The global warming is linked to the expansion of world population which is a cultural political problem not really in the remit of engineers.  We should encourage everyone to have small families so they can inherit homes and have a good standard of living.

It is interesting that the latest Clean Power 2030 report for the government also notes the need for continuing with gas as James states above.

https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

The projected 2030 figure show significant use of gas in winter and spring:

Yes, we will need gas and oil fuels to top up generation at peak times but even when we have greened the grid we still need fuel  for airlines transport and old cars that run on petrol or diesel.

Shipping could be greener by reintroducing sail power but greening everything to make us cleaner and self sufficient is all very well but misses the real problem which is population explosion. 

If we continue to double our global population every 20 years then whatever fuel we need now will double as well.  Just look at the worldometer stats.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ 

The fertility rate column shows how many children various countries typically have and wealthy countries are all around 2 who enjoy a good standard of living.

Countries with 3 or 4 kids will struggle to keep up with building new houses, roads, water, sewage, hospitals, schools and other infra-structure so are at risk of social instability as seen in Central America and several middle east states.

Countries with over 5 are probably already subject to dire poverty and risk military dictatorship and warlords fighting over water rights and land grabs which results in millions of villagers being displaced into refugee camps from where there is no way of returning home.

These refugees are homeless and will do anything to get to a stable country with a balanced economy including risking their lives on unsafe boats across the channel for English speaking refugees from North Africa or our ex colonies.

Greening the grid is a great idea but global warming and refugee crisis is caused by world population increase.

With fertility rates as low as they are, there's no way the global population is going to continue to double every 20 years.  More likely, it will peak sometime this century and then start falling.

Look at how low the fertility rate is in the larger countries.  Break-even (no population growth) is about 2.1.  India is 2.0 (slow decline), China is 1.0 (rapid decline), USA is 1.6 (decline).  The only reason population in the UK is growing is because of immigration.  If it wasn't for that, UK population would already be falling.

you read that table very differently to me. The only countries contributing to a population explosion are those with a mean age under 30, and a high fertility rate. Perhaps luckily, they represent rather less than 1% in total of the earths population. I would agree that there are some terrible outliers, like the "democratic" republic of Congo that have a mean age of 16 and a fertility rate of about 6 children per woman,  and those are the places where the best thing that could be done would be to stop the in-fighting and start a program of health and education, but as it stands at the moment, good luck with that. 

Longer term, as far as possible, the solution to too many folk wanting to come here (assuming it is even a real problem, and that in a few years time folk still want to and are not leaving as fast as they arrive..) is to influence the places they  are wanting to leave to make them less hostile where we can, not to try and make ourselves equally unpleasant and uninviting as they are now - as a moment of thought says many of us would just not survive the drop in our conditions to their level.  This may involve more or less defence spending and certainly more overseas education/aid. But we really are the wealthy bit of the planet, most of us just don't realise it.

Meanwhile take comfort from the fact that pretty much all the 'old world' countries are suffering a population decline anyway - and that chimes in with observation of ages folk are getting married if at all, having children, and when they do how many.
Very personally, my  4 grandparents were one of 8, 6,6 & 4 children, and more than half did not reach adulthood, both my parents were 1 of 2, all surviving into age 80 +, I've had 2 children, but ten years later in life than my parents did....
Like it or not, we do need some folk coming in to make up the numbers - if it was not for improved odds of reaching 80 +, the problems would be more obvious.

Mike.