Kelly on the engineering challenge

Mike Kelly sends details of a talk he gave last week to a symposium on "Energy Challenges and Mechanics".  Mike writes:

There were about 130 energy experts from 40 countries in the room.

I was heard in respectful (stunned?) silence, and there were two mildly critical questions out of a dozen that I was able to handle.

Several came up to be and congratulated me for the courage in speaking out against the consensus.

If you take a look at the slides (PDF below), you will see that there is nothing that would surprise readers at BH, but 130 more people learning that the renewables king has no clothes is good news indeed.

Kelly ECMA

Comments

[Bryan]

Follow the money

"Former US vice-president Al Gore has invested £8m in UK power supplier OVO Energy by means of a mezzanine deal. Stephen Fitzpatrick, who launched OVO in 2009, highlighted that he had spurned a previous deal with a private equity investor as he had been asked to give up too much control of the company in exchange. OVO has plans to float within the next 18 months and is looking to raise £25m-£30m from institutional investors later this year. The company's boss, which has nearly tripled its customer base since October 2013, came under fire recently for allegedly taking £2m out of the business to purchase a family home, The Sunday Telegraph writes."

[Phillip Bratby]

A brilliant set of slides. I will study carefully, but at first run-through I see nothing to disagree with and lots of information that I use in presentations, eg energy density; low productivity (the industry and Government seem very proud of how many jobs are created to produce so little energy).

[CharmingQuark]

Sanity at last.

But who will listen? Ed Davey - no because he is not capable of understanding

Green Taliban - not listening plus Uncle Putin will not like it

[Phillip Bratby]

Bish, you state "but 130 more people learning that the renewables king has no clothes is good news indeed". However, the 130 people are supposed to be 'energy experts'. If they are truly energy experts, then they should know all of this and it shouldn't have come as a surprise. I consider myself something of an energy expert (an amateur one nowadays) and it comes as no surprise to me. It would be interesting to know the general make-up of the attendees at the symposium.

I see from here that it was the closing address, which is good, but 40minutes plus 10 minutes Q&A waa clearly not long enough for such an important topic.

[Trefjon]

Presumably,since this carries the logo of the University of Cambridge it is this minute winging its way to the desk of energy ministers around the world. Sorry, just saw this porcine figure taking advantage of celestial levitation.

[Anthony Hanwell]

As an alumnus (1959) of the Cambridge Engineering Dept I regularly receive the department newsletter. For years now I have been embarrassed and disappointed to see evidence there that the institution was a fully paid up member of the AGW scare. (Perhaps it was to keep the research funds flowing?)

Anyway, reading Mike Kelly's slides has given me renewed faith that eventually the truth (whatever that is) will prevail. I used (2003) to think it wouldn't happen in my lifetime but now I am more hopeful.

Mike Kelly thank you!

[Richard Drake]

I've valued this emphasis from Professor Kelly before:

Nothing here detracts from need to eliminate human profligacy

A message that could helpfully be heard from sceptics more. How it relates to the great benefits, especially for the poor, of free markets is an interesting and worthwhile debate. "Technology developments are not usually pre-programmable" is pretty relevant to that.

[TinyCO2]

"If they are truly energy experts, then they should know all of this and it shouldn't have come as a surprise." Phillip Bratby.

Perhaps the surprise was that now they can voice it? AGW madness is like one of those tests where all but a few in an audience have been told to put their hand up when a red card is held up but the speaker says it's blue. The small number don't know whether they're going mad and should just put their hand up to match the others or stand up for their beliefs and risk ridicule by insisting it really is red. With so many influential people sat on the AGW band waggon it's hard for people to go with their own opinions, even when their knowledge screams the opposite. For too long the wrong people have been steering the bus. Politicians, actors, activists and renwables salesmen.

Well done Mike. Every step back towards sanity is a good one.

[jamesp]

"congratulated me for the courage in speaking out"

Which simply confirms that many more think it than are prepared to say so in public. If more Sir Humphreys were to congratulate their ministers on 'brave decisions', it might begin to dawn on them that they have been had.

[Harry Passfield]

I took a look at the slides pdf. There were two points that, taken together (although pages apart) gave me pause - and told me where the world is likely to go:

1: "We need track-record 20 years of successful prediction of climate change before we use model data as a guide for investing in the global future."

2: "40 years is a typical lead timeline for an infrastructure technology [and] and even if there was a scientific breakthrough tomorrow, it takes 40 years to develop and deploy."

So that's 60 years before any solution can start to deliver. So much for political targets. At least by that time just about all the warmists and alarmists who would destroy the world in order to fix it will not be around.

Finally, it occurred to me that, if quote #1 is true, what about it's antithesis: 20 years of failed prediction and no climate change? Should we then still be planning to 'invest in a global future'?

[Paul in Sweden]

LOL - Harry, I was just about to comment on that quote "We need track-record 20 years of successful prediction of climate change before we use model data as a guide for investing in the global future." and the one prior from page 22 of the presentation. "James Hansen's 1988 Scenario C climate model: wrong input, right output!"

Adding onto what you said Harry I would like to ask how decades into the future of Climastrology should we expect to begin counting the 20 years of successful prediction of climate change.

[Capell]

PB
Although ' . . .the 130 people are supposed to be 'energy experts . . .and it shouldn't have come as a surprise', the remarkable thing about Kelly's paper is that he's not a retired energy expert (like you(?) and I).

Added to that.it's also very well done

[Ex-expat Colin]

"I was heard in respectful (stunned?) silence, and there were two mildly critical questions out of a dozen that I was able to handle"

Q&A = test for liveness? Almost nil response which is rather an insult I think. Clearly no activists present,which is odd.

I suppose the term Engineering (+ Electrical) might cause a problem..particularly if you are not an Engineer in the true sense. You know the general type, a British Gas engineer or BT engineer.

Anyway, its a juncket with expenses, spend while you can.

[Shieldsman]

At last REALITY as seen by an ENGINEER.
The originator of the Climate Change Act - Ed Miliband has pledged (if elected) to decarbonise electricity generation by 2030.
Looking at page 9: 2 The scale of the decarbonisation problem is unprecedented
•Today biomass, hydro-, geothermal and nuclear produce 15% of energy
•First generation renewables produce less than 1% of world energy
•I assert: decarbonising by 80% by 2050 is impossible without mass deaths
•UK scale: reduce emissions by 23% by retrofitting all buildings at a cost of £1.7T, with a workforce of over 1M over 40 years. Who pays?
•How would £10T spent over a decade on CO2 emission reduction actually affect future climates?

[Pointman]

That expression, if it can't go, it won't applies. When the lights go out, and that will start to happen, the light will begin to dawn in certain political circles. If the Greens are feeling ignored at the moment, just wait and see who the political class twist the blame onto ...

Pointman

[John Shade]

That slide set is packed with good stuff and good sense. It is very encouraging to see people of the calibre of Professor Kelly take time out of their other work to think about the headlong rush into dramatic policy decisions about energy. This rush is of course the most prominent evidence of the success of the political drive to demonise CO2, and I guess it may be the first to collapse. The sooner the better, and then perhaps more attention will be given to other 'successes' of this odious political initiative, not least the scaring of children and the promulgation of negative and destructive views about our abilities to make progress and cope with, for example, climate variation.

Many people have spent their entire lives exposed to one vividly promoted eco-scare after another, and some of them may now be quite hard to reach with rational argument. A recent research paper (as reported on here, hat-tip Instapundit) found that people can pursue or support eco-alarm motivated actions or initiatives because they give them reassurance rather than for any more objective reasons:

The researchers found that participants who read the article questioning scientific progress expressed greater intention to recycle, reduce washing temperatures, and buy organic foods than those who read the version affirming scientific progress. Why the difference? Because, the researchers report, “questioning scientific progress results in a relative increase in disorder perceptions, which in turn triggers the motivation to restore order via personal actions such as engaging in environmentally friendly behavior.”

A reasonable reading of these results is that a lot of environmentalists experience many aspects of the modern world as chaotic and thus seek to compensate for their perceptions of disorder by engaging in ritual behaviors that make them feel like they are exerting more personal control. It is not much of a leap to conclude that by imposing those rituals on others, some environmentalists seek to reduce their dread of disorder even more.

Why call them rituals? Because it is not all that clear that they actually do anything much for the natural environment. For example, the costs of curbside recycling often outweigh purported benefits, and lower organic crop yields mean more land taken from nature. But as Meijers and Rutjens have shown, partaking in such rites is much like reciting the Rosary, in that they, too, reduce participant anxiety.

So will a calm and level-headed analysis of the folly of a headlong rush into renewables get through to those who 'dread disorder' and for whom what we see as a folly is a source of great reassurance? If not, the politicians and vested interests who gain from the folly will still have a large enough constituency of support to carry on.

[Tim]

File downloads but will not open. Note says 'file damaged, cannot be repaired'. Is there a problem at your end, Bish?

[Cheshirered]

Pointman:

Very accurate to predict MPs will look to transfer blame at the first opportunity. Hell, they won't be able to move fast enough; 'we we're just following advice', 'the Greens said it', 'the IPCC' etc.

Someone somewhere will cop for it. It won't be Dave, Nick or either of the Eds.

[Robin Guenier]

Mike Kelly's slides are essentially illustrations supporting his paper published recently by the GWPF. It's interesting and informative to read them together.

[Paul]

The thing is that if the entire world can be taken in by a staged beheading video they will fall for other lies such as the climate scam and the renewable con-trick.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html

[Capell]

Much of this presentation is explained in a pamphlet Kelly has written for the GWPF:
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/03/Kelly-lessons.pdf

[Victoria Sponge]

"either of the Eds"

Either of three?

[sherlock1]

Were any government ministers there..?

I'll answer my own question - of course not...

[H2O: the miracle molecule]

I wonder if Lord Deben has even heard of Professor Kelly.

[Cheshirered]

Victoria...Yes there are more than 2 Eds. Miliband & Davey ought to be in the frame but won't. I was ignoring Balls. Most sane people do.

[Dodgy Geezer]

WHY does he not mention Prof. Julian Simon?

Simon completely trashed the concept that we had to rein in our development and become 'economic' with our resources. He pointed out that humanity improves generation on generation, and what is considered profligate in one generation is normal for the next, and insignificant for the one after that.

Unless this development is clearly understood and allowed for in predictions, we will always be trying to halt progress...

[Paul the Nurse]

China and India will only ever reduce their coal consumption projections IF there is an alternative around.
that alternative will NEVER be bird-smashers(the so called "free" wind) and/or birds-fryers(PV).
That alternative can ONLY be nuclear.
A substantial investment into nuclear engineering and fundamental research is justified.
(thorium fusion LENR but also small scale fission)

Coal is needed for humankind to make STEEL
and FF are needed to make PLASTICS.

It is not just for energy however that a jolt in physics R&D is needed.
Particle physics is in a conundrum , string theory is bollocks. A new physics is needed.
A new physics WILL turn out, possible with help of the "singularity"(now expected by 2025)

But the singularity (AI) will need data , which we need to provide..
PLUS we will need to understand what the Singularity will tell us..

[Martin A]

Out of interest what is Prof Kelly's own research speciality?

[kellydown]

For some people, they will spot that Kelly has worked with GWPF and they'll stop right there. In the pay of Big Oil!

However, Kelly's discussion paper and presentation are where the discussion should always have been.

All due respect to Bish and Watts and all arguing about temperatures and climate, but all that matters is what can and should be done.

That is: it is and always has been an engineering question first, a policy question second, and a climate science question third.

But we have heard so little from the engineers. Not all their fault, I hasten to add.

[Dave Ward]

I spent a few minutes searching for a better quality version of the Demand vs Capacity graph, and found it in the following download:

https://www.bsria.co.uk/download/asset/will-the-lights-go-out-2.pdf

It contains lots of other information which may be of interest to the BH gang. Apologies if you've all seen it!

[Phillip Bratby]

Martin A: Not sure what relevance your query has, but try googling him, it's not hard to find his background.

Professor Michael Kelly is the Prince Philip Professor of Technology in the University of Cambridge since 2002, and a Professorial Fellow at Trinity Hall. He was also Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and a non-executive director of the Laird Group plc, both from July 2006.

Michael Kelly studied Mathematics and Physics to MSc level at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, and completed his PhD in solid state physics at Cambridge in 1974. After a further seven years as post-doc working on the electronic structure of metals and semiconductors, he joined the GEC Hirst Research Centre in 1981. While there he and his team developed two new families of microwave devices that went, and are still, in production with E2V Technologies at Lincoln. From 1992-2002 he was Professor of Physics and Electronics at the University of Surrey, including a term as Head of the School of Electronics and Physical Sciences. During 2003-5, we was the Executive Director of the Cambridge-MIT Institute, an £80M project which brings together academics from Cambridge and MIT to work on research, education and industrial outreach for the benefit of the UK economy.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society of New Zealand. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology and Senior Member of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineering in the USA. He has won prizes for his work from the Institute of Physics, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society.

[ZT]

Thank you Prof. Kelly - impressive.

[Martin A]

Phillip - Thank you.

Developing novel microwave semiconductor devices, still less ones that are still in production more than 20 years later, is not an activity for the intellectually mediocre.

[Relevant to nothing whatever, my dad worked at GEC Research for the first couple of years of his career. At the same time that GEC Research was developing the KT66 as a pin-compatible replacement for the 6L6.]

[bernie1815]

Perhaps because like other regulars here I was familiar with much of the background information, I did not find the presentation materials very helpful - though it is nice to have some of the graphics in one place. I imagine his talk was a bit more coherent. I certainly agree with his main takeaway points.

I agree with kellydown above: CO2 emissions really can be treated as an engineering problem. I would not have become so involved in the climate debate if someone had simply championed and expanded nuclear power to off-set any reductions in fossil fuel use. My understanding is that this is James Hansen's position. Instead the usual suspects created a Catch-22 situation and have led many down the primrose path of a non-existent energy utopian dream.

[oldtimer]

Plenty of material here for UKIP to deploy at the next GE. An open goal for Nigel?

[Adrian Ashfield]

Thank you Prof.Kelly for your excellent presentation.

Averages beng what they are, I hope LENR in the form of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat HT, will provide a transition to a new source of energy in half the stated 40 years. We should know how well it works from ELFORSK's report in September.

[Mike Singleton]

At the risk of being just another echo in the chamber I agree with Tiny CO2's observation.

Like many other commenters here I'm a retired engineer and Prof Kellys presentation is no surprise and reflects the views of the majority of my previous peers.

The UK government, political head and bureaucratic body would do well to heed the UK power generation supply and demand graph.

By virtue of association with his University Prof Kellys presentation will carry far more weight than someone from an obscure polytechnic in an educational backwater. I do not in anyway intend that to be a demeaning comment, it's just a fact of perception by the general public. I think the presentation has gravitas in the debate.

[Foxgoose]

Common sense at last!

The engineers strike back.

I knew Mike Kelly at GEC Hirst in the '80s - very bright individual.

I firmly believe the future of our planet depends upon electrical engineers being put in charge of absolutely everything - at the earliest possible opportunity.

Foxgoose (BSc Elec Engg 1965)

[Mike Singleton]

Foxgoose,

You'll need some chemical engineers as well. Water supply, sewage treatment, oil refining, nuclear, food processing, and a few more commodities.

Happy to oblige

[Rud Istvan]

I read with interest Professor Kelly's slides. While there is much to commend, there is also much stuff that is quite challengable, that a pure engineer would not have posted in the first place (using his thesis assertions, not mine). On Jevon's coal, see prof Rutledge from Cal Tech and his several counters, including several peer reviewed. (don't ask for hyperlinks, as he is one Google query away). On oil, see Prof Defyesse of Princeton's three books. Or take a cheaper, less authoritative gander at two of my past posts at Dr. Curry's Climate Etc. iIRC, circa 2012/2013.

Disproving/disbelieving CAGW does not automatically disprove things like peak fossil fuel consumption, or automatically prove thatbinnovations (which Kelly says take at least 40 years to mature) will bail us out of 20-40 year problems. Having now written two ebooks about such matters, I really object to the overly facile, overly simplistic associations made without a deeper factual understanding or analysis. Malthus and Ehrlich were specifically wrong. Those facts do not address the general question about Earths carrying capacity for humans. Unless one wishes to appeal to miracles, and also reject all of ecology and related pretty hard biological science. Prior to replies, please read Gaia's Limits. A hard slog because of so many details. Wherein the devil lies.

[James P]

"Disproving/disbelieving CAGW does not automatically disprove things like peak fossil fuel consumption.."

But the CAGW myth has to be nailed first. As long as people like Davey think that power shortages can be cured with windmills, there will be no will or money to do anything else. That will be self-correcting before long, of course, but it would be nice to avoid the chaos and draconian legislation that will quickly follow. And the Greens accuse us of not looking after our children's interests!

[MJK]

Ruud,
As James P points out, it is the policy response of the AGW hypothesis that has to be nailed first. The point about the Malthusians overestimating the problem stands. I make no observation about the carrying capacity of the earth as it is not relevant, although the demographic transition will probably circumvent the problem you are emphasising.

[osseo]

RI:
"Disproving/disbelieving CAGW does not automatically disprove things like peak fossil fuel consumption [agreed], or automatically prove that innovations (which Kelly says take at least 40 years to mature) will bail us out of 20-40 year problems."
Do you read Professor Kelly as claiming that technical advances (thorium reactors or whatever) are likely to solve our difficulties within 40 years? I thought he was only saying that we will not know whether such things as windmills and carbon capture will solve them, or not, until that time is past.

And no doubt the earth has a finite human carrying capacity. But do we know what it is, to within an order of magnitude or so? And do you in fact expect human population to increase much in the next century?

[Marion]

Many thanks Professor Kelly for your excellent presentation, and for restoring my faith, if only a little, that not all of academia have sacrificed their integrity on the altar of global warming!

[MikeN]

Notice the Pielke Jr slide on Page 11. I notice a long pause, after a steep jump in the late 70s.
So can it be concluded that renewable energy caused global warming?
The reverse is likely as warmer temperatures perhaps yield more solar.