Why marine investors bail out As the former chief technology officer of Wavegen, I was fascinated by the article “Ripples of anxiety” (PE February). It was suggested that “the marine energy sector should be our Apollo programme”.
Apollo ran for 11 years, cost more than three times the estimate and having achieved its objective of placing a man on the moon was curtailed because there was no valid reason for further expenditure.
The marine energy sector by contrast has been active for more than 40 years, has increased in cost at each stage, has not achieved its objective of low-cost renewable energy and is being curtailed by industry because there is no valid reason for further expenditure – power being obtained much more easily from windfarms. So, yes, there are strong similarities!
The problem the industry faces is not the technical difficulty but the fact that when the full costs are on the table no developer can realistically project a cost of power from a fully developed system which society is likely to be willing to pay for. The industrial backers were prepared to wait a long time for their returns if the future looked promising, but not if technical success would not bring financial reward.
Siemens are quoted as saying that tidal power will “only ever be a niche market”. The same holds true for wave power. Whilst there appears to be an enormous resource, it is easy to demonstrate that physical, environmental and commercial limitations rapidly reduce this to the equivalent, in Britain, of one coal-fired power station for each technology. The overseas potential is similarly limited. With such a small potential market, the development costs cannot be justified. It seems that as with Apollo the investors in marine energy have learned that the prize is no longer worth chasing.
I am not anti-marine energy. I am only anti-spending on technologies which have been found to have no long-term commercial potential. If any new ideas are generated which can overcome the cost issues of those tested to date then please let them be considered on their merits.
As I understand it, it is to that end that Wave Energy Scotland is being established. May I wish them every success but please let them spend our money wisely.
Dr Tom Heath, Fortrose,
Ross and Cromarty
More time needed
Yes, the marine energy sector has a lot of work to do to develop reliability and survivability in order to make the devices work – in the way that some of them have done already. After that, the next task is to reduce the cost of the energy produced. Whilst this happens, it needs consistent support from government on a par with the commitment that the Scottish government has shown, to allow private investment to come in and make a reasonable return.
It is a long haul, but the UK has an excellent science base and a supply chain of increasing capability. Let us not give up now that the breakthrough is beginning to happen. The marine sector offers are a lot more positive things for government than just energy costs, it includes jobs – many of high quality and skill – and development in areas where there has been little prospect hitherto and a great export opportunity.
We have as a nation given up a lead position at this point with other energy technologies – let us not do it again!
John Griffiths, London
Flexible working needed
There are plenty of qualified women like Rachel Rawlings seething with frustration at the lack of part-time and flexible work available in the Stem jobs they were doing pre-children (Letters, PE January). My solution was to start my own business as a translator. I work flexible hours from home and earn more per hour than I used to as a full-time engineer. And I love it! Most women trying to juggle motherhood and a professional life do it by working full-time and being too exhausted at the weekends to have any fun.
The company I used to work for would have offered me part-time work, but I realised that with the shorter hours I would have become marginalised and career progression would be on hold until I returned to full-time work. This is because of the ‘all-day’ work culture. Because most people work full-time, everyone is expected to be there full-time. The media often talks about “flexible, part-time working for women”. But men should have the same opportunities to balance bringing up children with their careers.
The real issue is not about women, but about families and people of all ages.
The combination of the skills gap and the ageing population could be a perfect storm. I have great hopes that flexible part-time working will become more common, as staff head towards retirement without qualified people to replace them. This is already common practice in Germany, with a state-sponsored scheme for employees to work part-time during their last five years before retirement.
Part-time working is equally appropriate for younger people still going to college. Or people caring for elderly relatives. There could be all kinds of reasons for people wanting to work part-time, if they had the opportunity. The economy can only benefit.
Corporate culture will only change when a significant proportion of the people carrying out the central functions in a company are part-time. At that point, productivity could increase, because people will be focusing their work energy into a shorter period and have more time to recuperate before the next working day.
Fay Abernethy, Ulm, Germany
Full-timers only, please
“Women make different choices as do employers but that’s not bias,” wrote Ian Brown (Letters, PE February). Thank you for your honest observations. We need more of this transparency, to avoid many more women being disappointed in or excluded from the profession they have committed many years to.
Engineering needs to be honest with potential employees. Do you want highly skilled, educated, experienced, motivated, innovative engineers who may not be able to work 40 hours per week for 40 years? Or not?
There are many sectors where career breaks and the requirement for part-time work will not exclude you from your profession, such as education, health or local government. But engineering is not one of them.
Having children is life changing but we don’t tell young women that it is particularly life changing for female engineers.
I would like to say “You can have a rewarding career without bias if you work full-time and make employers believe you will do this” but I see too few women engineers in promoted positions to believe this.
Since my child was six months old I have worked part-time, mostly in non-engineering jobs. I have maintained my knowledge of mechanics, materials, material processing, numerical modelling, Excel and so on in the hope that one day I will return to a permanent engineering position. My child is now nearly 15. I wonder what opportunities are open to women like me in engineering?
Name and address supplied
Talents wasted
I am a mechanical engineer with 16 years’ experience of training and working in engineering. I have not been able to secure permanent employment since relocating to start my family 15 years ago.
Six years ago a local university could not wait to get me started on an unpaid work placement, which later led to funding to continue my research activities.
This much-needed support was in stark contrast to the response from my former employer when asked for help to access post-career-break retraining. Their response was that the company was currently sponsoring the lifeboats but that I should ask again the next year.
There are hundreds of unemployed and under-employed women, parents and carers who are qualified and experienced engineers. Given a paid opportunity to work (possibly not 40 hours per week for 40 years) we could make a genuine contribution to engineering and to the economy.
Name and address supplied
Cultural shift required
The skills gap has taught us that there is no such thing as a quick fix. Engineering will only progress through sustained collaborative efforts.
Parents, teachers, employers and the government should collaborate to encourage young people from any background to regard engineering as a fulfilling and exciting career.
What our industry needs is a cultural shift to help shatter outmoded stereotypes. Engineering is a world of thrilling and rewarding career opportunities. It is one of the most imaginative and creative professions.
Lucy Ackland, who has won the Women’s Engineering Society Prize at the Young Woman Engineer of the Year Awards, had to work hard to persuade her teachers that she wanted to leave school at 16 to become an apprentice at Renishaw. She went on to achieve a first-class honours degree and has led a team developing our next generation of metal 3D printing machines.
In theory Renishaw should have been among the first whose recruitment suffered as a result of the skills gap. However the number of our apprentice and graduate applications has trebled as a result of our collaborations with schools, universities, Stem-based organisations, career advisers and government agencies.
There is no hasty remedy for the shortage of engineers. The only solution is a combined effort to make the profession more appealing to young people, their parents and teachers.
Sir David Roberts McMurtry CBE, Chairman, Renishaw, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire
Promising answer offshore
It was exciting to read about the Mees offshore wind-turbine support system (News, PE January). A simple buoyant column supports the turbine and provides a stabilising moment of increasing magnitude as the wind forces on the turbine increase.
This is an economic solution to the problem of installing turbines in deep waters, and could be a revenue earner for the UK if applied worldwide.
The Articulated Wind Columns (AWCs) are applicable to most offshore sites but the greatest advantage is that many previously ignored deep-water sites within 15 or 20km of the mainland could now be reconsidered as feasible for windfarms. The crippling cost of underwater cables of up to 200km in length which threatens the viability of many existing schemes could be avoided, with much improved accessibility as a further benefit.
Some projects have been abandoned by investors due to the lack of cost-effective wind-turbine support structures for deeper water and because of unstable seabed conditions. Hopefully the simple Mees AWC support system which is ideal for deep water and does not require perfect seabed conditions can provide the solution.
Ian Crossley, Camberley, Surrey
Risky collisions
I was surprised to learn that John Large is looking at potential damage to reactor secondary containments weighing thousands of tonnes from personal-use drones weighing a few kilograms (Letters, PE February).
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted that the impact of a large passenger jet would not cause any breach or radiation release. There are far more plausible accident scenarios with serious consequences that should be investigated.
A more relevant area of study would be incidents where drones are driven into the cabs of high-speed trains or high-voltage electrical catenary lines. The railway accidents at Eschede in Germany and in Spain in 2013 show that scores of deaths can be caused by high-speed derailments.
The collision of a drone with a tanker carrying chlorine at a motorway interchange could also cause many fatalities.
Paul Spare, Northwich
Costly rail contracts
Soundbites covered the topic of rail privatisation (PE January). My concern is of the potentially large costs of all the legal, commercial and accountancy resources required to manage the contractual arrangements between Network Rail and all the private operating companies.
I wonder if there are any chances of finding out what the total annual cost of this is as a proportion of the total cost of running the railway?
Another problem is the split responsibility for health and safety, leading to more legal costs and time delays. Privatisation leads also to the potential for subcontracting which adds to further risk due to weakened communication. Ultimately it comes down to the cost to the passengers. Is it possible to produce a table showing how fares compare with those of other European countries? Do they go up at the same rate as the UK’s each year? My final thought is, if it was considered desirable to create Network Rail as a ‘not for profit’ company, why not the rail operating companies?
Jonathan Eadon-Smith, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire
Wasted opportunity
I recently visited the Science Museum in London. I was excited to see an exhibition entitled Engineering Your Future and swiftly ascended to the third floor to view it.
I presume this exhibition was designed to encourage young people to become an engineer or at least spark some interest. I am sorry to report that it has somewhat missed the mark. Only two of the five interactive displays appeared to be working.
In hindsight, maybe they were aiming for a more accurate reflection on the level of interest in engineering in this country?
Catherine Hall, Andover, Hampshire
Price comparison
I noted the Editor’s Comment on the impact of falling oil prices (PE January). I drive 550 miles a week just to get to work and back. Not being one of Pavlov’s dogs, I will not salivate at the prospect of saving £12 a week on fuel costs.
I will continue to use public transport whenever it is feasible and affordable. It is often more enjoyable, more social, and less stressful than enduring the endless roadworks on the M1.
Ken Strachan, Nuneaton, Warwickshire
From Chatham to Canada
The February issue of PE was the usual excellent read, but there is one slightly incorrect item in the Back Page article about Chatham Dockyard.
It is stated that Ocelot was the last warship to be built at Chatham. Not so. It was the last British warship to be built there.
The dockyard then built three Oberon class submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy – Ojibwa, Onondaga and Okanagan in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They served for about 35 years before being decommissioned.
Ojibwa and Onondaga are now ashore in eastern Canada as maritime museum exhibits.
Peter Davies, Frome, Somerset
Tossing and turning
I read with interest the article on engineers living and working in Antarctica and enjoyed it very much (“Coming in from the cold,” PE January).
However it mentioned the sea state of 5 as having wave heights of up to 4m – that seemed a little excessive but appropriate for a sea state of 6 to 7.
My time in small sailboats and cruise ships has given me a pretty good experience of actual sea conditions, even experiencing a sea state of 11. It felt like sleeping through an earthquake.
Bob Martin, Vancouver, Canada
Get your opinions heard in PE
Email your views to pe@caspianmedia.com
or write to: The Editor, PE, Unit G4, Harbour Yard, Chelsea Harbour, London, SW10 0XD.
Please include your name and address.