Skip to main content

Green energy and me - a personal aside on a busy life

In my old age, heading for 80 next year, and with recent health worries, it is maybe timely for me to look back at the past and at how I managed to end up as an emeritus University professor, focusing on renewable energy. So, fresh from a holiday in Spain, as something of change from my usual current energy policy posts, here’s a brief bio- a version of what I have recently written for my old school magazine, Oak Leaves. It may be of interests to those contemplating a career in the renewable energy area.

Going back to 1954, when I was living on a council estate in Mitcheldean, on the edge of the, by then, mostly-closed Forest of Dean coal field, I had failed the 11 plus exam, and was destined for a secondary modern school, but had been given a second chance via an interview for marginal cases. So I had ended up at East Dean Grammar School in Cinderford, in the center of the Forest, in effect by the back door.  A lot of my life has been similar- taking indirect routes. Though I did quite well at the school - I even became head boy. I gradually focused on science, but also much enjoyed the arts side. However, school days came to an end and I had to decide what to do next. 

I tried half-heartedly to apply to do physics at Bristol, the nearest University I knew of, but got nowhere. Two Science ‘A’s and Math ‘B’s’ from a rural Grammar school was evidently not good enough. I don't think my parents were that worried- no one they knew had ever gone to University. My father said ‘get a trade’. 

So when I left school in 1962, I initially got a job at what was then Ranks in Mitcheldean, working in the chemistry lab. It was there that I saw a copy of a magazine called New Scientist which had an advert for jobs at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell. They ran student apprenticeship/sandwich degree schemes, as did many other similar large research centers and engineering companies.  I decided to try that out and it proved to be fascinating- arguably maybe better than going to University direct. I spent a year at Harwell, initially in their scientific assistant training school, and then, over the next four years, alternated between doing six months studying at a Polytechnic in London and six months back at Harwell each year, moving around the site to different departments. I learnt a lot- and ended up with a good degree in Applied Physics.  

I could have stayed at Harwell after graduating, but after my final stint there, I decided to go back West and a take a job with the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), in their research lab at Portishead near Bristol. It was fascinating, trying to measure and then avoid emissions from power stations, and the CEGB implied that at some point they might be able to support me on a PhD. However, an attempt to arrange that with Bristol didn’t work out, so, after an interesting and all too brief year living in Clifton, I decided to move on again to do a full time physics PhD- back in London, at Chelsea College, on the Kings Road. That turned out to be even more interesting- it was 1968, with Swinging London, the counter-culture and radical student politics in full flood. A heady mix.  I made full use of it all during the three years at College, also sitting-in on a range of courses well outside of physics, including a brilliant social and cultural studies postgrad course. I even managed to squeeze in some time on a course on film and TV production – and to make a few short films. 

So what next?  By 1971 there I was with a science PhD, an expanding awareness of the limitations of science, and an interest in film and TV. Well it was obvious where to go – to the Open University, just then opening up, with ambitious plans to teach via TV! I applied for every post that looked appropriate and the small team I eventually was invited to join was in a very experimental mood.  When after a few weeks it became clear that I had wider interests, beyond control system engineering, the Electronics Prof, to his credit, said, well what would you like to do?  We have some people looking at cybernetics and wider systems approaches. Could you add to that?  It was risky (I didn’t really know that much about it!), but I said yes.

So I spent a fascinating period with a group of academics trying to marry cybernetics, ecology, econometrics, Operational Research, behavioural science and general systems theory. I learnt a lot, but in the 1980s I was gradually drawn to another group- the Design group, whose approach included challenging the initial ‘design brief’, in the belief that better solutions emerged if you really understood what the problem was. This was a quite wide-ranging approach, covering industrial design, architecture, planning and in fact all aspects of technology, seen very broadly as ‘technical means for meeting social ends’. A long way from physics! But in a way, not that far. As time went on, I began to focus more and more on energy related technology- so soon my physics background became very helpful. Especially as the debate over the pros and cons of nuclear power got underway- I did after all have some experience in that area. And my involvement with Undercurrents, the pioneering Alternative Technology magazine, gave me some broader perspectives as to what might be possible, as did my pro bono work for the Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards Committee on their visionary Alternative Corporate Plan. 

That involvement shaped some of my activities for some years, linking in to grass roots work with trade union groups like SERA- I ran its energy group for many years. So did the nuclear issues. The more I looked impartially at nuclear power, the less I liked it, and the more I discovered about renewables like solar and wind power, the more they seemed the obviously much better way ahead. That at the time was a heretical view, and it still is in some quarters.  

However, although, early on, I did do some anti-nuclear campaigning, what I mainly tried to do, along with Godfrey Boyle and others, was to promote renewables more strongly, as positive and better alternatives. I set up the NATTA info network to help. All of that fed into OU courses and policy research as the years went on, where we tried to explore how choices about technology could be made, using this as one example.  The positive message seemed the best, and there were plenty of issues to debate in terms of how best to promote and develop renewables, and which ones to focus on. 

It led to a very productive few years and an expanding and well thought of research team, along eventually with personal recognition with a University chair. All of this being buttressed with a lot of books, including some for the Institute of Physics, and other communication outlets via NATTA- an activity I have been unable to resist continuing with, even after my retirement in 2009.  

Looking back, the Grammar School gave me a good start in the busy life that I have had. Harwell was interesting but worrying: I started asking whether relying on nuclear energy really was wise. Chelsea was exciting: although the times were chaotic, I found a way through. And then the OU provided me with a challenging but supportive environment to develop the new ideas I had come up with, whilst helping to open up access to higher education to a wide range of people. 

All of which I look back on with some pleasure in what has turned out to be far from inactive retirement- I’m still knocking out books and doing blog posts like this weekly one and NATTA’s long running bimonthly Renew newsletter. Though, as I noted in an earlier post, my pace has slowed a little of late since I have been having treatment for prostate cancer, including a course of radiation therapy. That’s ironical maybe, given my history, but I think that nuclear medicine is one area of nuclear technology that may be useful…At least I hope it is, and, so far, it seems to be going quite well for me. And so, for next week's post, it will back to renewables, where the UK story has been hotting up...


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universities

Small Modular reactors- a US view

Allison Macfarlane, who was Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2012-2014, has been looking at Small Modular Reactors in the USA and elsewhere. She thinks they are likely to be uneconomic, much like the their larger brethren, which, as she describes, have recently been doing very poorly in the USA.  Indeed, just like the EPR story in the EU, it makes for a sorry saga: ‘The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.’ Big reactors do look increasingly hard to fund and build on time and budget, while it is argued that smaller ones could be mass produced in factories at lower unit costs and finished units installed on site more rapidly. However, that would mean foregoing conventional economies

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av