Friday
Apr292011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill PowerPoint postings
A PowerPoint presentation looking at how energy will be consumed in the city of Cambridge in the year 2030.
Look who is quoted on the final slide (hint: it's not me).
Reader Comments (21)
Hmmmm
Fame at last?
I was going to point out that Kelly is one of the RAE people.
I was also looking for the rest of my comments, on slides 29 & 30 but, unaccountably, they aren't there :-(
"Michael Kelly has been the Prince Philip Professor of Technology since September 2002. This is a new post to honour the 25 years service of Prince Philip as Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. He is also a Fellow of Trinity Hall and a Visiting Professor at the University of Surrey. During 2003-2005 he was also the Cambridge Executive Director of the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Since July 2006 he has been both part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and non-executive director of the Laird Group plc.
He came to the UK from New Zealand in 1971 to do a PhD in solid state theory at Cambridge, and stayed there for a decade researching the electronic structure of metal and semiconductor surfaces and of amorphous materials. Between 1981 and 1992, he was based at the GEC Hirst Research Centre. His main research interests there concerned the practical exploitation of quantum transport phenomena in semiconductors, in particular in the area of new generation, high performance, microwave devices. Between 1992 and 2002 he was Professor of Physics and Electronics at the University of Surrey, first in the Department of Physics, and then heading the School of Electronics, Computing and Mathematics from 1996-2001, stepping down to Direct the Centre for Solid State Electronics in the School.
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He is a Chartered Physicist and Chartered Engineer. In 2002, he was awarded DSc (honoris causa) from his alma mater, Victoria University of Wellington. In 2006 he was awarded the Royal Society’s Hughes Medal and Prize for his work on electronic transport that became exploited in new semiconductor devices for advanced systems.
Research Interests
At present he is examining the manufacturability (or otherwise) of whole families of devices that rely on tunnelling effects and on hot electron injection, and the use of ion-implantation in fabricating novel devices in semiconductor multilayers."
Looks old enough to know better.
@Mar 19, 2010 at 11:20 AM | Martin Brumby
Although picked up by the Financial Times and the Grauniad, so far the blogosphere seems not to have caught up with the Royal Academy of Engineering's release yesterday:-
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/shownews.htm?NewsID=553
The 2 Mb pdf download of the full report "Generating the Future" is available at the top of the Press Release.
I suggest this should be an essential read for everyone on here and, indeed, a thread on "uncertainty" may be the perfect place to flag it up.
Again, little uncertainty is in evidence about the 'robust', 'settled' climate science that we all know and love.
The only uncertainty seems to be which breathtakingly radical and expensive (and probably dangerous) set of policy decisions should be taken to achieve the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions demanded as now required by UK law (thanks to the 2008 Climate Change Act).
I was almost tempted to believe that this paper was actually subversive, an attempt to highlight just how bizarre, unaffordable and indeed unachievable are the raft of actions which
would have to be introduced to achieve this completely nonsensical emissions reduction.
But I fear that isn't the case. Perhaps some of the authors (all allegedly eminent engineers) may be at the "more homeopath than surgeon" end of the engineering profession, with titles like "Professor of Environmental Technology" or "Prince Philip Professor of Technology (sic!)" or "Professor of Engineering for Sustainable Development". But they don't appear to be wide eyed greenies who smoked too much weed when they were younger.
Their first "scenario" envisages building 80 Nuclear or Carbon Capture power plants AND 9,600 more onshore 2.5MW wind turbines AND 38 "London Arrays" (an array of 341 offshore turbines planned for the Thames Estuary) AND 25 Million 3.2 kW Solar Panels AND 1,000 miles of Pelamis machines (for wave power) AND 2,300 Tidal Stream turbines AND the largest proposed Severn Barage AND 1,000 Hydro Electric schemes AND and enormous increase in the use of Biomass AND capping electricity use at current levels by achieving fantastic domestic energy savings.
Other scenarios envisage swingeing, or positively draconian REDUCTIONS in electricity use (which would likely necessitate rebuilding half of the existing UK housing stock, although that seems to have escaped them). And a slightly reduced requirement for Nuclear and CCS plants but a similar "investment" in renewables.
One might have thought that anyone coming out with recommendations like these, pointing out that:-
"In technological terms there are no choices to be made – the demand is so large that every available technology will be needed as quickly as possible. The main problems for scenario 1 will be buildability and cost to the nation. With over 80 new nuclear or CCS power plants required – around two per year – along with vast increases in all forms of renewables, building the system would require an enormous effort, probably only achievable by monopolising most of the national wealth and resources."
- one might have thought they would have sat back in their chairs and wondered about the initial premise. Whether 80% reduction in CO2 emissions was actually such a good idea. Especially as there isn't a scintilla of a chance of the Chinese & Indians following suit.
This is where we have arrived at from Phil Jones and Jim Hansen's fiddled data. From Michael Mann's corrupt and incompetent statistics. From the 'Climate Modellers' dodgy algorithms, designed to demonstrate the 'truth' of their initial alarmist premise. From Pachauri and the IPCC's tendentious 'errors' and frauds. From HRH Prince Charles obsessive drivellings. From Al Gore's greed. From the Bankers' salivation at the thought of all that Carbon Trading.
Aren't we alright?
Is this the same Prof. Michael Kelly as the one who was in the Oxburgh inquiry ?
Also, can the bishop please respond to my question about the "Browne" inquiry on the ex-BBC enviro-lady.
... sorry ... I meant the Sarah Muckerjee thread.
Heh, I liked 'virtual holidays?'. Yeah, and mandatory Sabbaths. Er, I mean mandatory sabbaticals.
===================
Great slide Martin. I agree totally with you. The proposals are sheer nonsense. As you say, they should have started by looking at the initial premise; but maybe they have to go along with the "consensus".
I haven't yet read the RAE report, but I can guess.
Check out slide 10 on wind farms.
It shows that in 2010 we have ~5000MW of operating capacity of wind (onshore + offshore) but that on the 21 Dec 2010 it was only producing 20MW.
Please tell me I am wrong. 20MW out of 5000MW. That's 0.40% !!
WTF ?? (this does not mean Wind is The Future).
Well slide 6 was proved to be over optimistic pretty quickly (Spanish Solar Power providing a significant part of the grid input).
@ Fred - yes, that's about right. iirc the figure for Dec 21st was 23MW, but that is from the total GB metered wind capacity which is about 2.5GW. So fairly safe to assume that total generation for metered and un-metered would have been about 50MW. On the other days when 5pm demand reached 60GW (Dec 6th, 7th) the total output from metered wind was 193MW and 123MW respectively. Wind is as much use as a chocolate teapot. The same the previous winter - demand peaked at 57.7GW on Dec 29th 2009, when total output from GB metered wind was only 147MW.
Uncle Latimer's Helpful Hints about Wind Power for Investors,Politicians and The Public
1. It does not do what its supporter's claim and it will never do what its supporters claim. It is a waste of money.
2. Do not give money in any form to anyone who tries to sell you wind power. Not for anything. They are charlatans
Thank you for reading.
You now know all you need to know on the topic. Do not spend any more of your valuable time considering the subject.
@ Fred Bloggs & lapogus - Here's a screen capture from the Neta site taken on 12-30-2010 at 19:00 GMT showing the wind contribution to be 26MW.
http://i53.tinypic.com/b895bk.jpg
Amen to the comments on wind power - but what on earth are the 'other renewables' which are going to produce so much electricity by 2050 - even more than (ha..!) wind, apparently..?
Anyone up for a beer at The Princess Louise in Holburn? 8thJune at 19:00.
I'll be there - a London stop off on my annual visit back to Blighty.
Jimmy - I'll not be in London but could meet up in the Blackie - it should be open again by early June - don't know what's going on there.
Iapogus - The Blackie in Aberfeldy?! I'll be there for sure.
The solution is very, very simple. Take the existing 61 million Brits and move them to Brazil. Replace them with folks from the Congo, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Somalia, NIger, Eritrea, Central African Republic , Togo (see the of lowest per capita income and add what you wish). And it'd be a win-win for everyone. The Brits reclaim their Empire; the lucky third worlders get a boost up; the EU will achieve it's goal of abandoning the continent; the Greens get to try and grow tropical plants; and the list just goes on and on.
After developing where they relocated, the Brits can then simply move off world. Oh, and it's very easy to adjust to required CO2 emissions. Just monitor the per yearly decline as Brit infrastructure decays at, say, a half live of 10 years, and apply that as a percentage to arrive at the number needed to be moved into the UK. You won't even have to move out all the Brits - with the swap comes huge declines in health care, etc., so maybe only half of living Brits will be swapped out. Call it climate population equilibrium. Should be simple for those folks at UEA, Jones, Mann, etc., what with their models and such.
Norman @ Apr 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM
Yes
Amusing -- I wonder what they were smoking?
I love the way they call themselves engineers. They would be lucky if they knew how to switch their computers on. I have had the benefit of meeting quite a number of academics in my life and have spoken to others that have had this dubious pleasure. And whilst they are certainly not all as big a nob as this chap, most are impractical buffoons.
There is not a hope in hell of any of the scenarios as outlined ever becoming a reality. This is not an engineering paper that I would recognise from the commercial world. This is just a dream. Even if we had the money we could not actually do it. We don't have the industrial capacity, and nor does any other country. And as has been mentioned in numerous previous blog posts the effort would be actually greater than that required for armament production during WWII. This is just not going to be acceptable to the UK electorate. These simple ideas just seem to pass these people by.
peter geany @ May 1, 2011 at 1:39 AM
I assume that in your second paragraph you are referring to the RAE Report mentioned above.
The first few words of the Executive Summary:
The Climate Change Act, that became law on 26 November 2008, has committed the UK to at least 80% reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. ................
The Climate Change Act 2008 is the nub of the problem. It is the law of the land and the RAE goes on to say:
This report, produced by a working group of Fellows of The Royal Academy of Engineering, considers possible energy scenarios that could meet the 2050 emissions reduction target.
Until such time that CCA 2008 is repealed, then all engineers affected by this legislation are bound to act in accordance with the law. Thus, the RAE presents 4 scenarios (however outrageous) to demonstrate ways in which the law might be obeyed during the next 40 years or so.
The RAE are sounding an alarm, presumably hoping that those responsible for CCA 2008 will read their report, recant and introduce legislation to repeal the CCA 2008.
However, for this to happen, more than 350 MPs will have to vote in such a way as to show the voters that a mistake was made by 463 MPs who voted "aye" in October 2008. MPs do not readily admit mistakes.
Of the 463 deluded loons who voted "aye" in 2008, 367 of them were re-elected in May 2010. For information the 3 wise men who voted "no" were also re-elected in May 2010.
The only way in which 367 MPs would change their minds and admit to a mistake would be if, and only if, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband came together and instructed their MPs to vote "aye" for legislation to repeal CCA 2008.
What are the odds of this occurring?
Surely, we should be supporting the RAE in their efforts to get MPs to pay attention to the disaster for the UK which is coming over the horizon, rather than pouring scorn?.