http://www.iea.org/speech/2009/Tanaka/WEO2009_Press_Conference.pdf

Slide three clearly shows the scale of the global issue – and reflects the intensive v extensive issue I referred to above. The ‘hockey stick’ in Mtoe is primarily driven by India and China.

One conclusion bullet reads:

“We are now on course for a 6°C temperature rise & rising energy costs”

How they get to 6 dec C is not clear.

The illogical reaction when the Govt spokesman says engineers should embrace the opportunity to build all these power stations and windfarms is dare I say typical. As an engineer I would love to be involved but the whole thing comes down to money so if the Govt coughs up the dough count me in (private enterprise fund it won’t because they know they won’t get a return on their money). The Institute is tring to help by highlighting just how big a task we have before us but this seems to have gone straight over the head of the Govt spokesman who is answerable to a pollie. If mechanical engineers can’t see the enormity of the scope of work, no-one can, including pollies. Why won’t Govts listen to experts? Answer not required. Climate changers just can’t come to terms with the reality of what they are proposing (for a non-existent problem).

As well as the basic issue of technical/economic feasibility (I haven’t read the IMechE report yet) there are two other important issues which DECC is reluctant to confront:

1. The intensive and extensive issues in relation to emissions. If the figures still seriously talk about UK population going up by millions then this clearly adds to the problem. (in fact it just strikes me that it won’t be long before we hear a hybrid green-BNP argument that every new immigrant ups UK CO2 emissions).

2. More fundamental is, even assuming that we meet the 80% reduction by 2050, what is the net global impact of this reduction? One forecast showed that the jump in emissions for China between 2006 and 2010 was the equivalent of adding another Australia, UK, Canada, Germany and Japan (at their 2004 emission rates) to the planet which would still be there for 2011 to 2050 under basic BAU scenarios. This was pre-downturn but gives some idea of the scale of the issue.

I’m reminded of all these car adverts claiming new super technology, idle-switch off, recuperative breaking, batteries, hybrid etc and then still delivering a lower mpg than a VW Golf Diesel. And what is the EROEI on all these additional technology features?