Thursday
Oct022014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill DECC's new adviser
Oct 2, 2014 Bureaucrats DECC has finally persuaded someone to take on the role of chief scientific adviser - as readers no doubt recall the role his been vacant for several weeks since David Mackay stood down.
The new man is Professor John Loughhead, who currently runs the UK Energy Research Centre, a sort of retirement home for superannuated environmentalists. Loughhead is an engineer by training and was formerly the head of technology at wind turbine manufacturer Alstom. His professorship is an honorary one from the University of Cardiff.
His public pronouncements suggest that he is cut from the same cloth as Mackay - he will go with the political flow, setting out just enough of the engineering problems with the rush to renewables to cover his backside.
Reader Comments (34)
I always thought that for a visiting professor to use the style, as if he held a university chair, was the height of pretentiousness.
A bit like somebody who has been awarded an honorary doctorate by their local univeristy who then style themselves "Dr. xxx".
DECC was always unlikely to employ a normal person who knew that their policies were insane.
Don't misread this appointment. As an Imperial-educated engineer he will throw aside the climate pseudoscience nonsense and look for real solutions to the real problem, which is to reduce UK fossil fuel use without destroying the economy.
The windmills plus diesel STOR programme increases fossil fuel use for the windmill tranche of electrical power. That is unforgivable; in effect a scheme to enrich elite subsidy farmers under false scientific pretences.
Nothing unexpected about the appointment of a renewable energy industry insider.
I suggest an Engineer will be less-swayed by airy-fairy, wishy-washy pronouncements than say a PPE graduate.
David Mackay was far from infallible.
@ Philip Bratby
"Nothing unexpected about the appointment of a renewable energy industry insider."
At least Loughhead will be familiar with the mechanical failings of windmills then.
@Philip Bratby: Loughhead was also Co-Chair of the Implementation Panel of the European Commission Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform, which produced the future plan for European fuel cell commercialisation.
Domestic CHP by cheap, mass produced 1kW fuel cell modules in tandem with roof top solar panels and a common, local Grid access is the solution to the intermittency problem as domestic consumers are switched out first, the standby problem to displace diesel STOR AND by installing 10 million, they would solve the long term nuclear renewal issue by delaying that until the molten salt reactors are commercialised. They also halve fossil fuel use for heat and power to a major part of the economy ands bankrupt most wind farms so new contracts can be negotiated without the subsidies for the best and enable demolition of the worst.......
Can you really use an honorary title professionally? Joke.
I thought I'd have a stoll across to the UKERC web site. And I came across this page
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page_ref_id=2863
which contains energy cost methodologies for various energy systems, including separate reports for onshore and offshore wind.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered therein that offshore wind is not getting any cheaper! In fact, offshore projects have in some cases reached the £3.5m/MW installed capacity level.
But only the other day Lord Stern was telling us these technologies were getting cheaper all the time!!
Perhaps Professor John Loghead and Lord Stern could get together and agree on their story?
Can you really use an honorary title professionally? Joke.
Oct 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM Buck
The chief engineer of a company I worked for years ago had been awarded an honorary doctorate by the local university. From then on he insisted on the style "Dr xxx". He had worked his way up through the company, starting as a draughtsman.
One story was that the Research Lab had requested the construction of a vacuum tank. The practice in the company was to test vacuum tanks to an external applied pressure of two atmospheres. In this case, the now Dr xxx, had given instructions that the tank for the Research Lab should be tested to four atmospheres, twice the normal test pressure.
When xxx was asked why this was necessary, he replied (so the story goes) "Because everybody knows that in the Research Lab, they produce a much higher vacuum than other departments".
This made me laugh -
"We need to halve emissions, starting now, to delay a catastrophe until 2050."
I know it's somebody doing a precis - I wonder whether she was taking the mickey.
(His "public pronouncements", main text, line 7.)
Alstom does a lot more than wind turbines and at least he is an engineer.
I think John Loughhead is an inspired choice, a top bloke, a real pragmatist and very well respected by industry. Definitely not one to mince his words and will be looking to get things done. I also think he's got enough meaningful titles and letters after his name that we should forgive his use of a honorary professorship.
The problem with Mackay, is that he really really wanted renewables to work, because he really really believed in climate change, and it was with considerable angst that he felt it was his duty to point out that it wouldn't be that easy or that cheap.
At heart he is a physicist, not an engineer, in the practising sense.
Now Loughead has an engineering degree from imperial, and has worked around gas turbines much of his life, so one expects that unlike Mackay, he might be aware of things like heat rates and efficiency curves versus time and temperature.
And there's a new mood in politics. People are bored with renewable energy. Energiewiende is becoming PolicyUnwinding - DECC already has, though they dont talk about it, a policy for massive amounts of nuclear - essentially to run the country off AND massive amounts of wind, to satisfy renewable obligations (but not actually generate any electricity) .
Mackay managed to at least get them that far. even though the puff is all 'sustainable' and renewable' the reality is that it will in fact be nuclear, almost at any price.
Expect a complete reverse ferret of Miliband if he ever gets to be PM. Nuclear will be 'the best..job creating..low carbon...green..fluffy bunny..technology.. known to man' .
Cameron has gone off 'green cráp' anyway...its just not quite politically acceptable to shout it from the rooftops.
UKIP are 100% skeptical to say the least, and in favour of whatever generates electricity cheaply.
Which leaves only the Greens and the Liberal Democrats in favour of bird mincers and sun worshipping.
And with their popularity pretty much equal with almost no chance of winning any seats at all, who cares?
Salmond has been spared the awkward problem of actually trying to make renewable energy pay for itself in a free market.
So the game is pretty much up.
4 years ago when I first started getting political over wind turbines people assured me 'they were the coming thing'' It was a year ago when a random conversation in a pub yielded "well they dont actually work, do they?" from a complete stranger.
The tide is going out on 'renewables'
Oh there will be the odd windfarm yet to come, but even in Europe there are mutterings that 'we cant afford this, and if we have to be secure and low carbon, we should be using nuclear'.
If the Green vote drops enough in Germany they will even keep the nukes going.
So whilst the rhetoric is all about 'closing nuclear and going renewables' in reality, the reverse is happening behind the scenes..well you wouldn't expect politicians to keep their promises would you?
I know it almost certainly wouldn't be deliberate — I believe Cameron is an honest man — but how do you remain objective about energy in the current climate (no pun intended) when your family is up to its neck either in renewables or "environmentalism"?
As mentioned above Alstom are more than just a wind turbine manufacturer. They are also involved in many technologies that do not require subsidy. Some of the best engineers I have met work for them.
@ turnedoutnice Oct 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM |
Fuel cells are still very much pie in the sky; the molten salt reactors will probably be commercially viable first.
@Albert: the domestic CHP fuel cell based on the metal ceramic composite O+ electrolyte has been commercial for some time: http://www.cerespower.com
I was present at the birth of the technology. Last February one Al Gore bought a 25 kW (NASA design) version for his Corporate HQ. They are 55% thermodynamically efficient methane to kWhr.
The Australian (CSIRO) Blu-Gen, a ceramic module, is 60% efficient. Previous devices in the 1980s were developed to drive trucks. It's no new idea, just waiting for a commercial opportunity; he end of secure Grid power real soon.
Albert Stienstra
I'm happy to tell you that microCHP fuel cells working on natural gas are available today:
http://www.ceramicfuelcells.co.uk/en/start
It seems even the smallest unit still needs split between 2-4 homes at the moment which would make it roughly £5k to 10k (I think) per household. I'm keeping my eye on newer, smaller-scale microturbine CHP units too.
It is really nuclear that is the dead duck because UK.gov either cannot or will not fund it and nobody else seems in a hurry either. Any nuclear power we get will be too expensive, too little and too late to even replace the 12GW of plant closures due by 2023. Ergo this will be a real test of the free market. Since coal is seriously untrendy I don't see what alternative there is for the UK beyond just doing it ourselves.
Perhaps someone should send him the film that is the subject of this post at Roger's blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/sun-news-down-wind-sends-wind-industry-into-tail-spin/
Regarding Fuel Cells, Toyota have developed a good one for their vehicles which should scale up for household use. There is also work on using ammonia instead of Hydrogen, see
http://www.intechopen.com/books/hydrogen-energy-challenges-and-perspectives/ammonia-as-a-hydrogen-source-for-fuel-cells-a-review
The Honda automotive fuel cell is available for homes; it's 25% efficient: http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2013/04/10/honda-tests-fuel-cell-to-power-home/
Is it pronounced 'Lockhead'..?
I have some videos about "carbon storage" if anyone want is interested.
It really does not matter a single toss whether Loughhead is a 'good bloke' or where he was educated, or where he worked.
Government Chief Advisers are not appointed to give independent professional advice to Ministers - they are there to silence or overrule any 'heretical' opinions expressed by professionals employed within their Department.
They are not subject to the rules that apply to Civil Servants regarding impartiality and professional standards - just to enforce the party line.
@ JamesG Oct 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM @turnedoutnice Oct 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM |
A natural gas fuel cell may have 55% efficiency, but that is no better than a CCGT gas turbine with 60% I also wonder about the cost of a 400MW fuel cell generator as compared with a single CCGT module.
I cannot imagine a large fraction of UK households going for fuel cell electricity, perhaps a (hopefully happy) few. The UK economy urgently needs a dependable electricity grid, with low kWh price. The grid is there, the generators are not.The best configuration for low CO2 is nuclear for base load and CCGT for (night and day) variable load.
Personally, I don't believe we need to reduce CO2 a lot at the moment, it also does not look as if we are making any headway there with current renewables; look at Germany. Invest in nuclear technology for the future grid. There is time enough for that before the fossil fuels run out.
Don't confuse a thermal efficiency with an energy efficiency. A thermal efficiency of 100% would be an ideal Carnot cycle (THi-TLow)/TLow - which does not extract all energy from a fuel (if nothing else, when burning the fuel in the air, you have to heat 4 molecules of N2 for every molecule of O2, thus limiting an achievable high temperature). Data for fuel cells refer to an energy efficiency.
I would like to see a whole variety of technologies come on. New nuclear, preferably with a non-uranium base. Fuel cells are a fabulous idea, especially if they could run off newly-fracked gas and then ran at a local - even household - level. Tide, and even wind, could be a part too, but not as base load, and only on a commercial basis. CCGT as a gradually less necessary base too.
One day, they'll realise. Meanwhile, electricity would be nice for us humble consumers.
"His professorship is an honorary one"
If I had an honorary professorship I don't think I would want to flout it. I might be taken for someone else, I mean Brian Cox or someone. Yuk
Oh dear, I certain electrician called Mike Hill is mighty upset that he wasn't chosen as the new adviser.
@ Curious George Oct 2, 2014 at 8:19 PM |
Thermal energy is equivalent to electrical energy. CCGT efficiency is calculated by dividing the output Joules of electrical energy by the input Joules of gas combustion heat. This is 60% for modern CCGTs, never mind the Carnot cycle.
I assume the gas fuel cell efficiency is the same, if not it should be: divide the output electrical energy by the input heat energy of gas.
Regardless of what anyone thinks is the best way to supply electricity to the masses, nobody in government seems to be doing anything other than producing misleading pamphlets and private investors seem increasingly uninterested in funding traditional large scale plant. We will be forced to do it ourselves on a micro scale whether we like it or not. Happily a variety of products seem to be coming onstream that will allow us to do that at not unreasonable cost, largely noise-free and with good overall efficiencies - which is just as well. All we need then is a good gas supply.
I don't think Mackay is a physicist otherwise he would know that the GHE was a crock of shit.
Albert: Right you are - but what is an "input heat energy of gas"? I argue that it is not the same as an input chemical energy of gas. Fuel cells avoid a direct combustion. Think of yourself as a fuel cell. How would you function on 2000 thermal calories a day?