Developing Engineers

Red Bull win both the Constructor and Driver title for 2010 (courtesy of www.f1-site.com)

Today’s finale was everything the organisers would have wanted. Four possible winners, three led the championship on the day – Before the best car/fastest driver came through from third to win. But how relevant is F1 to today’s cars?

Formula One plays on being at the cutting edge of design and development – one way to justify the huge costs involved. But the sport does have some perennial conundrums – such as: is it sport or entertainment?

Every year there are rule changes to increase competition by reigning in the previous years winners. Organisers are willing to tap the ‘entertainment factor’ and global audience of 600 million, accepting new money from the middle and far-east for yet more races and teams – at the same time team-orders detract from the sport as a spectacle.

Another question is – how much is driver and how much car? It is said the difference between the best and worst driver is around half a second a lap, and best and worst car two seconds. So changing the rules every year stops this larger gap growing.

To make it more exciting tyre and fuel changes have been introduced, dropped then re-introduced. But most cars have the same tyres – and fuel is regulated. So this just adds strategy to the equation – as Ferrari showed by getting it so spectacularly wrong.

Innovations such as turbochargers, ABS, flappy paddle (clutchless) gear change and active suspension have all come through F1 to production cars. Last season’s revelation was KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) – which helped Jenson Button on his way to No.1. But as soon as they work they’re banned! Leaving F1 as an entertainment industry trying to juggle cutting-edge technology, with limiting development costs in an attempt to increase competivity - and entertainment.

Solar Energy is part of the Governments low carbon energy strategy (photo courtesy of the energy saving trust)

Solar power is part of the government’s plans for a low carbon economy – offering huge subsidies to farmers or landowners to create solar farms. But should electricity be produced so inefficiently?

The first in Cornwall has just been given planning permission and is expected to open in April 2011. It is a £4m 5-acre site that will generate 1.3MW from 6,000 panels. Larger farms of 25-acres are expected at £15-20m for 5MW from 25,000 panels – enough to power just over 1,000 homes.

So far ten farms are planned, mainly in the ‘sunnier’ south but two for the Scilly Isles – they would produce 20MW. Twice as much as is currently generated through solar power. The panels will be a maximum of 2m tall to limit environmental impact, and would be directed south at an angle of 30-35degrees. The government sees them as a good foil for wind turbines, as sunlight rises relative to wind – but the energy produced is relatively miniscule.

The panels use photovoltaic (PV) cells to convert sunlight into electricity. These can also be used for the home – with any surplus energy sold to local energy companies, now that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has ended the ban on councils selling green energy. And PV cells don’t need direct sunlight to work – they can still generate electricity on a cloudy day.

But experts admit this is not an efficient way of generating electricity. It is only the subsidies and guaranteed income over the next 25 years through the government’s feed-in tariff scheme that make it viable. So a solar farm could pay for itself within a decade.

The energy a cell produces is proportional to the intensity of sunlight - so even the sunniest parts of Britain will generate three times less than an equivalent farm in Spain. The farms would be six-times as expensive per unit of electricity as onshore wind turbines, which are already several times more expensive than energy from fossil fuels.

A Hydroelectric Power Station (photo courtesy of Canadian Government, 1997)

The Government has axed the Severn Estuary Tidal Scheme following a two-year feasibility study – because the high costs didn’t make business sense. So is tidal power too uneconomic to be a real alternative energy source?

Costs had escalated to £34billion and could not be justified in the current economic climate. The proposed ten-mile barrier would have cost the same as seven nuclear power stations – although its working life of 120 years would be 3-4 times longer.

As with most renewable energies its peaks don’t tend to coincide with demand. There are two tidal cycles; a semi-diurnal cycle roughly every 24 hours – with 2 high tides giving max power; and a spring-neap cycle roughly every month where the low power days equals about a quarter the power of the high days. It would generate for about 8 hours per day.

The Aberthaw to Minehead barrage would generate 15GW peak power from the Severn’s 14-metre tidal range. But with the low-tides and only eight hours generation per day this is equivalent to 2.5GW, about 5% of the nation’s electricity (or two nuclear power stations).

Conservation groups had also been fighting the hydro-electric barrage as it would have destroyed the feeding grounds of 85,000 birds. Instead the Government backed nuclear power stations, wind turbines and CCS technology for fossil fuel stations.

But the Government has not completely rejected the scheme as the decision is not purely an economic one. The Government has to reach climate and energy goals of 15% renewable sources by 2020. And tidal power still remains part of Scotland’s energy policy on a smaller scale with a proposed £13m floating wave farm off Orkney generating 3MW.

These are a series of pass-notes on inspirational Great British Engineers. At the beginning of each month a new profile will be published. Some are famous names – others forgotten in history; some studied engineering, some studied other subjects before finding engineering; and some had no formal education at all – but all left their impression in the field of mechanical engineering.

One fifth of the national grid comes from nuclear power (photo courtesy of Scottish Government © Crown Copyright/2001)

The government has pledged to build eight new nuclear power stations, guaranteeing electricity supply for the next 40 years. But with two cancelled and existing ones due for decommission – is it too late to close the energy gap expected in 2015?

The new third generation reactors will be commissioned between 2018 and 2025 at a cost of £5billion each. They are all near existing sites close to the end of their operating lives – lives which may have to be extended to fill this 10MW gap (currently 18% of the market).

Two reactor designs have been approved – by EDF and Areva. They are part of an energy policy to cut greenhouse gases 80% by 2050 – when it is hoped a third of electricity will come from renewable sources. But until the storage of renewable energy such as wind power and wave power can be achieved - nuclear power will always have a place.

The government had pledged not to subsidise the private energy sector. But despite international anti-competition rules it will pick up the bill for radio-active waste disposal, after the government set a fixed cost – and accident reparations above £140million.

In the recession the economics of nuclear power are crucial. The government is already paying £100billion to decommission the current sites, and the new sites will be offered long contracts. They will also become more competitive as fossil fuel power stations have to pay carbon tax or for carbon capture technology.

Environmental targets with legally binding legislation is making nuclear power a key element of any sustainable future for energy generation. But the decision to build the new power stations should have been made to coincide with the natural design life of the older reactors - it would have saved money and been better for the environment.

Carbon capture would reduce carbon emissions by 90% (Photo courtesy of US Fish & Wildlife Service)

Despite the cuts – the government has pledged £1billion towards Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) – half the budget that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne wanted – But is it money well spent?

It’s the governments answer to meet legally binding targets to reduce green-house gases over the next 20 years. CO₂ would be captured at large sources such as power stations and factories, then compressed and stored underground. 

A modern power station could reduce its carbon output by 90% – but there is a price to pay. Apart from the expense of installation and storage, it would reduce the efficiency of a coal-powered fire station by up to 30%.

But is carbon reduction the best way to tackle global warming? Most scientists divide climate change into four questions – Does climate change exist? Is man a significant contributor? Is now a critical time? And is reducing carbon output the best solution?

While most agree on the first two points – the latter two are a major source of contention. Lady Thatcher – a chemist – was the first world leader to warn of global warming in 1988. She argued for risk management – saying the potential effects merited drastic action.

However, she later doubted such arguments as whether CO₂ had more of an environmental effect than solar activity. CCS will cost billions, reduce the efficiency of power stations and inflate the price of energy – would it not be better investing the money in promoting ‘green’ energy sources instead?

The Nimrod MR4A has been cancelled in the Defence Review (photo courtesy of Royal Navy © Crown Copyright/MOD 2007)

As the government cuts its losses on Nimrod – Where does this leave Britain’s military aero-industry? The decision comes as the entire Harrier fleet is retired – delivering a symbolic shift away from British aircraft.

Harrier will be replaced by the Joint-Strike Fighter, but not for another ten years! BAe is a junior partner in the STOVL (Short Take-off and Vertical Landing) aircraft – but it is a Lockheed Martin and will be built in the US.

Despite the Defence Review – the writing has been on the wall for the Nimrod MR4A ever since the RAF bought Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS (Airbourne Warning and Control System) in the 90s. Even then it was running late and over budget. Despite being based on the 1950s Comet 4 airliner it would have kept high-tech early warning radar development within these shores – rather than relying on the expensive American alternative ($270m in 1987).

But the cost of the AWACS now looks better value compared to Nimrod. Last year with escalating costs the order was cut from 21 to 9 – quadrupling the cost per aircraft to £400m. Its cancellation was no surprise – over budget, 8 years late and still not ready!

Harrier and Nimrod are the last British designed and engineered military front-line aircraft – and their passing is symbolic of the decline of the British aircraft industry. Not of today – but the last forty years when high costs have seen companies forced into joint-ventures.

Rolls-Royce remain an important player in developing engines for today’s aircraft, and BAe are a partner in such aircraft as Eurofighter, the Joint-Strike Fighter and the Airbus A400M. But the day of the British designed and engineered warplane from Spitfire, Hurricane and Lancaster to Lightning, Harrier and Nimrod is well and truly over.

HMS Ark Royal will be decommissioned immediately (photo courtesy of Royal Navy © Crown Copyright/MOD 2010)

As the Defence Review’s cuts hit home – the armed forces have been hit hard. It was thought one of the new carriers would be cancelled, but it now looks like it may be built – but sold after three years!

Last time Britain thought of selling a new carrier was April 1982. Then Argentina invaded the Falklands and the rest is history – the deal with Australia was shelved as HMS Invincible lived up to her name.

Critics say if the Falklands were invaded today – Britain couldn’t do a repeat performance. HMS Ark Royal is being decommissioned, and the entire fleet of 80 Harriers withdrawn – leaving Britain unable to mount another unsupported attack until the Joint Strike Fighter arrives in 2020. 

The new generation of nuclear submarines are postponed until at least 2028 – that’s four years after the Vanguard-class are to be scrapped. The cuts also mean finally cancelling Nimrod. No surprise – but where does this leave the British aircraft industry?

The army has also seen its Challenger 2 tanks cut by 40% and the decision on Trident has been put off for six years – or in other words until after the next election. Tories and Labour support a nuclear deterrent while the Liberals ask ‘Does Britain need Trident?’