Energy, Environment and Sustainability Group
The debate was very skilfully and professionally facilitated by Jo Confino (of the Guardian) ensuring everyone had a say for about the same amount of time and ensuring everyone was listened to.
The debate was attended by some very senior local industry people and from Bristol City Council all of whom were very well versed in Energy – the debate was well informed technically with no one even attempting to make political points. (The participants in the main were a large number of technically qualified engineers/scientists all of whom were very business savvy).
The debate was very South West and potentially Bristol area centric which was probably the intent although several of the attendees did try and set this in a more global context.
Bristol area has a finger in nearly all energy related technologies from Nuclear to waste incineration to renewables. The city council is particularly pleased with its wind turbines at Avon Mouth although it did say they were symbolic and were not the answer on their own – they were very keen to say they were not a silver bullet and further no silver bullet exists for the energy issue.
Bristol City area are very into the potential for local generation schemes with local people investing (a stake in the ownership of) in an energy scheme and then getting preferential energy prices.
Bristol City has declared itself a “Fracking Free Zone”
All in the meeting agreed that the UK cannot meet its Carbon (climate change) emissions targets. It was generally agreed that nuclear had the lowest carbon emissions and had a significant part to play over the next decades – the project at Hinkley and the proposed new build at Oldbury were seen as key suppliers of base load energy. Also it was acknowledged that both had a significant impact on employment in the region both locally to the plants but also supportive of the significant number of engineering consultancies (Atkins; Arup etc both of whom were represented in the room).
The employment potential for renewable energy sources was also a feature of the SW economy with potentially 10,000 jobs in the sector.
All in the room accepted that energy use meant more than Electricity and heat featured in the discussion although it as noted that heat infrastructure was more difficult to develop and install compared to that for electricity.
All agreed that energy use should start with an evaluation of demand and demand management.
All agreed that the UK had no real energy policy/strategy and that its development was politically difficult because energy projects span several parliamentary periods. There was very strong support to take energy out of the political debate and appoint a cross party energy commission strongly technically led to develop and action a long term strategy for UK energy. It was felt this would give both supply price and security predictability/certainty which is what industry locally (and nationally) really needed. However it was thought this unlikely unless these was a significant price “shock”.
The meeting concluded that a balance of all energy sources including both base load and local/renewable generation schemes was the only way forward over the next decades and that the best way to achieve this was via an “Energy Commission” taking a holistic approach rather than a politically driven approach.
The event was definitely worthwhile and of value for the IMechE to attend; from the EESG discussion I feel that the Bristol event was by far the best informed and most professional of them all.