The first two were in collaboration with Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) on energy demand reduction, on the 1 and 2 November, and the third was at the Quaker Meeting House, Glasgow, on the role of engineering in achieving climate stability, on the 4 November. This article gives an overview of what was presented and reactions to the events.
Glasgow Caledonian University events
The events at Glasgow Caledonian University were under the heading of “Engineering the reduction of energy demand” and based on a collaboration between EESG, GCU and the Glasgow and SW Scotland Area of IMechE. The event on the 1 November comprised evening talks on the subject and EESG hosted a workshop the following day to explore how industry and academia could work together in meeting the challenges on energy demand reduction.
The first talk at Glasgow Caledonian University was given by Ian Arbon, EESG board member and past Chair, sustainable engineering consultant and visiting professor in the Centre for Energy Policy at the University of Strathclyde. He explained how the UK had been a net importer in energy for most of the last half century and was the biggest net importer of CO2 emissions in the G7 group of countries. He was emphasising the point that, as a country, the UK focuses on reporting on greenhouse gas emissions within the country boundary, but that a high proportion of the UK’s impact is from the embodied greenhouse emissions of imported products and components. Ian expressed through this that a major consideration in sustainable energy supply on a global basis is the level of human consumption, which is unsustainable and fuelled by the pressures on economic growth that are integral to capitalist society.
Ian brought the severity of the problem of consumption into stark relief by pointing out that the wealthiest 1% in society contribute more to global emissions than the poorest 50%. Core to what Ian was conveying was that it is fundamental to adhere to the Energy Hierarchy (as developed by the IMechE), prioritising reduction of consumption over sustainable energy supply. This is because the combination of renewable energy resource and sustainable energy generation technology is too constrained to meet rising demand, which is exacerbated by population growth and increased affluence. Ian pointed out that in following the Energy Hierarchy, it is necessary to face the challenges of Jevon’s Paradox, whereby energy efficiency resulting in reduced energy costs can prompt people to use more energy and also the vested interests in behaviour change, whereby reduced consumption may be viewed as detrimental to certain business models.
Dr Keith Baker, a researcher in Fuel Poverty and Energy Policy at GCU's Built Environment Asset Management Centre followed on from Ian Arbon in addressing some of the practical challenges in driving energy demand reduction in the residential sector. He pointed out that 1 in 4 people were in fuel poverty in Scotland and 1 in 10 in extreme fuel poverty, and that was before the imminent gas price rises and the war in Ukraine. He said that the Scottish Government was setting out to address fuel poverty through energy efficiency, including supporting simple demonstration projects at homes in Renfrewshire. However, he explained the problem that, rather than the policy being based on real data, it is based on proxies and assumptions. He highlighted that Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which are used to determine performance, are too reliant on floor area as an indicator of energy consumption and do not address adequately the variations in human behaviour within the dwellings, which has a significant impact on energy consumption.
Keith said that part of the problem was a lack of technical knowledge amongst civil servants and he also said that there was not enough skill in the wider workforce to implement sustainable energy measures, with the implication being that there was a real opportunity for improvement through training. He noted that it was easier to design policy to put up wind farms, rather than for district heating, which was much more complicated, and so sustainable heating remains unattended to compared to sustainable electricity supply. Keith encouraged multi-technology solutions to energy demand reduction and supply and also touched on the importance of considering system lifecycle emissions, including embodied emissions in construction. He favoured wood as a sustainable building material with low lifecycle emissions and made a link between sustainable construction and increased comfort.
The workshop event the next day, hosted by Rupert Blackstone and Ian Arbon, explored how universities and the commercial sector can engage with each other to implement energy demand reduction measures. The discussion focused not only on technical matters, but on the different motivations of universities and business and on how they can engage with each other most constructively. It was recognised that there can be a tension between the focus on business case in the commercial sector and the objectives of universities in arriving at solutions with a robust scientific foundation without the economic viability of initial stages being as much of a constraint. However, it was viewed that with universities having such varied resource within them, there was a real opportunity for businesses and universities to collaborate more in addressing the complexities of energy demand reduction measures that reflect wider sustainability considerations, including behavioural aspects. Linked to behavioural aspects, psychological responses to material systems and what makes people happy were also discussed. It was suggested that engineers could do more both to measure wellbeing and also to design systems that facilitated wider wellbeing, rather than focusing narrowly on single functions. In summary it was considered that universities and the commercial sector had the potential to do much more together on demand reduction measures, but that the terms of engagement needed to be worked at.
Quaker Meeting House event
The Quaker Meeting House event was a hybrid event attended in person by IMechE President, Peter Flinn, and our new Chief Executive, Alice Bunn, amongst others and with a good online presence supported by very effective audio visual equipment recently procured by the Quaker Meeting House.
Rupert Blackstone gave an overview of sustainable engineering from the perspective of EESG, presenting thoughts on the basis of sustainability, principles of sustainable engineering practice, and methodologies for implementing sustainable engineering.
This was followed by a joint presentation by Daniel Kenning of EESG in the room and Susan Krumdieck on video link on Transition Engineering. Interacting with each other, they brought to life the principles of Transition Engineering and how they are applied to engineer a sustainable future through establishing sustainable outcomes and then taking steps from the present to arrive at these outcomes. Daniel and Susan drew parallels with the development of safety engineering, with the expectation that the Transition Engineering approach should become as integral with engineering design as safety is today. They explained the dynamic interrelationship between human practice and surrounding systems, using as an example a global no fly conference with accommodation for time differences. The effectiveness of the communications with the two speakers in separate geographic locations supported the case.
The third and final presentation of the day was by Michael Reid on “The Circular Economy in Agricultural Nutrients”. Michael pointed to the large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions that come from agriculture, with much of these being from the production and use of fertiliser. Apart from greenhouse gases emitted from the use of fossil fuels in fertiliser production, there are also emissions further to application on land. Michael explained that in the case of urea, only around half is used by crops and the rest ends up turning to ammonia and nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas.
Michael talked about the environmental benefits of anaerobic digestion of organic waste streams, not only through generating renewable energy, but with the additional potential of producing digestate as a soil conditioner. He noted, however, that there could be significant negative environmental impact with run-off from the land of digestate into water courses if not managed carefully. He presented an engineering solution to this problem, which was a system of stabilisation of the digestate, allowing it to be deposited to land without fugitive greenhouse gas emissions. Recycled nutrients are added to the process, compensating for the lack of nutrients that is typical with industrial agriculture - Michael mentioned that the nutrients in an apple are half what they were in 1960. Heavy metals have been an ongoing concern with digestate from sewage, but Michael explained that these were locked up in the pelletised product and do not get into the plants that people then eat. The talk illustrated compellingly the potential of the application of the circular economy in the agricultural sector.
Conclusion
EESG fringe events struck a balance between a local presence with local engagement in Glasgow where COP26 was being hosted and remote access and it is intended that the momentum of the ideas communicated and the lively engagement will be maintained as we move towards COP27.