Developing Engineers

A few days ago, I received a job vacancy email from Gradsouthwest (thanks Mayo!). The role was with a company called Engineering Arts, who are based in Cornwall and deal with creating interactive shows with RoboThespian robots. The vacancy reminded me about several issues discussed on this blog about the nature of engineering, and I thought that I might share some of my feelings with our readers.

Firstly, like engineers, artists are also in a profession that is hard to define in terms of recognition. Its easy to say that somebody like Leonardo da Vinci (also an engineer!) is an artist, but what about your four year old niece who finger paints random drawings that no one but her can make sense of? Can she be considered an artist?

In my opinion, they both are artists. And, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Leonardo da Vinci or your niece would care about whether or not they were being considered an artist, because to them it’s all about their own work. This brings me to the points made about whether or not the term “Engineer” needs to be protected, or at least differentiated, so that some sort of recognition could be made. To me, the title of “Engineer” can be applied to any human being or creature on the planet that demonstrates the creative spark, the ingenuity, and the motivation to transform the resources around them for some socially beneficial purpose. And since when did engineers become so insecure about themselves that they prefer to be recognized by their titles rather than their work?

Secondly, the recent hikes between courses at university, will add fuel to the fire that the arts and engineering industries don’t mix. For the sake of diversity, it is important to show that engineering is much more than fixing engines, doing calculus, or even using a screwdriver. It is important to develop courses at university that highlight just how important and far-reaching engineering is so that it can attract more students from various backgrounds. This should include its impact on not just the arts industry, but its impact on issues in politics, business, economics, media, and even literature (see here).

According to WhatUni.com, the top three most popular courses last year were Medicine, Business and Education with Engineering coming in 9th, just behind Arts and Design (which came in at 6th). After the increase in fees for STEM based subjects, I believe that gap will increase. The question is are we more concerned about differentiating ourselves from others that we begin to alienate new students, or are we going to work with other courses/industries to provide a clearer and more unified approach to engineering?

P.S. I really hope I get that job because I love robots!!

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.

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?’

Now that leaks are emerging concerning the fate of higher education funding in the UK, it is beginning to become clear what the ‘masterplan’ behind increasing tuition fees, reducing teaching funding and reducing research funding really is.  But will these changes ultimately improve the standard of teaching at our universities, create more specialist and demand-driven institutions and make our research efforts inherently more efficient?  Or simply saddle graduates with mountains of debt, discourage poorer families from considering a top university education for their children, and place an unfair burden on those that have recently been termed the ‘squeezed-middle’?  Will some less renowned institutions go to the wall?  And will the UK lose some of its most valued researchers?

Given the Government's insistence on spending cuts, what moves does the higher education sector have left to make?

In the whirlwind of media coverage on this issue (including, I feel obliged to add, footage of a number of my peers from Sheffield University Students’ Union outside Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency office) it is difficult to pinpoint any conclusive answer – the Government is clearly hoping for market forces to shape higher education, whilst the student movement is fighting any increase in fees at a time when student satisfaction has remained static.  The Russell Group wants higher fees and a market in HE but are worried about teaching and research funding cuts, a concern which is shared by academics and Vice-Chancellors across the country, while the institutions represented by the university think-tank million+ believe the impact will be much worse for them; without an international reputation to support them, they could get dragged into a divisive and destructive competition for students looking to pay lower fees, whilst facing the same teaching funding cuts as everyone else.

Given the Government’s market-driven approach, it is incredibly worrying to see reports suggesting that commercial firms and charities will not fill the funding gaps left by the proposed changes to the HE system.  Perhaps just as indicative of the severity of the situation, given the Russell Group’s aversion to criticising the Government recently, is when one of its own Vice-Chancellors warns staff that university cuts would be a “national tragedy”.  The head of Universities UK, Professor Steve Smith sent a similar message to Vice-Chancellors around the country, saying that the figures set out by the Browne Review “confirm our worst fears” – a £3.2bn or 79% cut to teaching funding and a £1bn cut to research.

“George Osborne’s aim of cutting Whitehall department budgets by between 25 and 40 per cent over five years could leave universities out of pocket by as much as £6.6bn” – Michael Savage commenting on statements by Universities UK in The Independent

Renowned scientist and Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, John Krebs has warned that research funding cuts will lead to a new ‘lost generation’ of scientists, highlighting the lack of top researchers in their mid-50s thought to have been lost as a result of cuts during the Thatcher years.  It seems common sense to suggest that cutting funding to research will just cause our best scientists to take their research elsewhere, namely the better funded institutions of our competitors in the United States, France and Germany.  In all this there does appear to be some respite for those of us of a STEM persuasion though – both the Browne Review and the Government have suggested increased subsidies for ‘strategically important’ subjects, although it appears this is at the expense of almost all funding for Arts & Humanities.  This is presumably one of the factors that is expected to result in smaller, specialised institutions as suggested by a recent Times Higher Education report, with ‘non-profitable’ departments being re-organised, merged or closed as a result of the loss of teaching funding.

Regardless of specific provisions for particular social groups or specialisms, all stakeholders and users of the higher education system in this country have grave concerns that need addressing before these monumental changes are pushed through Parliament.  With organisations, businesses, services and individuals from across the country fighting their separate corners after the Comprehensive Spending Review is published on the 20th October, half the battle for students, universities and higher education will simply be, to be heard at all.

I’ll leave some final thoughts to Professor Geoffrey Crossick, on his report entitled, ‘The future is more than just tomorrow: Higher education, the economy and the longer term’.

Plans for HMS Prince of Wales look like being scuttled - the last HMS Prince of Wales (above) was sunk off Malaya in 1941 (photo courtesy of the online library of the US Navy)

The imminent ‘Defence Review‘ which plans to bring the MoD into line with all other government departments – will mean the loss of thousands of engineering jobs. Defence isn’t ring-fenced, so faces cuts of up to 40%.

This is likely to mean cutting one of the two 65,000ton ‘Queen Elizabeth’ class aircraft carriers planned for delivery in 2016. HMS Queen Elizabeth is well underway, but the second ship HMS Prince of Wales looks likely to be cancelled with a saving of £2.5billion.

The RAF and Navy are also reported to have their order for Lockheed Martin/BAe F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft slashed from 130 to 50. Cuts to the STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) US-built Harrier replacement will save the tax-payer a further £8billion.

The cuts have been the talk of this week’s Tory Party Conference, with leaked letters and rumours of a rift between Defence Secretary Liam Fox and PM David Cameron.

There has even been talk of saving costs by having a joint nuclear deterrent with the French – This would be nothing new for BAe who have long had continental bedfellows through Eurofighter, Tornado and Jaguar.

What is not just talk will be the very real loss of engineering jobs – an inevitable consequence of taking over £10billion out of the industry.

On October 20th, the UK Government will publish the Comprehensive Spending Review called by George Osborne after the General Election earlier this year. Cuts of 25-40% are widely expected for all Government departments, leading to fears of lasting and damaging effects to public services and the economy.  But what are the likely implications for research in science and engineering?

Paul Stevenson - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pss/4876189045/

Universities, along with the science and engineering professions are bracing themselves for potential cuts to higher education and research funding – for which Vince Cable‘s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills has responsibility.  Already having suffered an £836m cut in June (including £200m from higher education, £233m from the UK centre for medical research and £82m promised for university teaching budgets), it needs to make savings of a further £5bn to meet its target.

So how will this be achieved, and what effects will it have on research and innovation in the UK?

One idea, that Vince Cable outlined in a speech at Queen Mary, University of London was to refocus funding towards the 54% of research deemed ‘world class’ by the last Research Assessment Exercise in 2008, suggesting the other 46% was unimportant or ‘mediocre’.

“My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international quality – and screen out mediocrity” – Speech by Vince Cable MP

As many academics were quick to point out, Vince (or one of his speech writers) had failed to understand the meanings of the classifications given by the RAE.  Dr. Evan Harris, in an open letter to George Osborne posted on his blog for The Guardian, points out that were funding to be cut from 1* and 2* rated research, this would save a mere £160m (out of over £5bn given by the Government to science research) and cause most damage to the ‘newer, improving universities… which have good links with industry.’  Cutting any more funding would simply damage our international standing and economy in the long term, and at a time when our competitors are investing in research, we risk sliding down the league tables.

Another idea that seems far more likely, though even less appealing, is a significant reduction in university teaching grants, with the Government apparently considering reducing teaching funds from £4.7bn to just £1.2bn annually.  This huge shortfall would presumably be met by an increase in the graduate contribution recommended by the Browne Review, though (as I was arguing earlier this week) this may deter students from poorer backgrounds from entering higher education and would only guarantee financial stability for the top research-intensive universities who are able to charge top whack for their degrees, whilst other institutions face huge shortfalls in funding.

It’s pretty unusual for anything to get scientists and engineers marching on Whitehall, but worries over the Government’s spending review seem to have pushed many over the edge, with groups such as Science is Vital and the Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK openly resisting cuts however they can.  Whatever the outcome of the spending review, one thing certainly seems to be happening: scientists and engineers are vocally and publicly engaging in politics on a level rarely before seen – and about time too.