Cafe Scientifique:
Clean Energy and
the Greenhouse Effect
15 January 2001, Live Theatre, Broad Chare, Newcastle upon Tyne

Cafe Scientifique is a forum for public discussion of scientific ideas and controversies. The first meeting of 2001, held in Newcastle, was introduced by Professor Ian Fells, Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University.

Setting the scene, Professor Fells discussed the way green issues began to be taken seriously by government as far back as 1987, during Margaret Thatcher's term as Prime Minister. Following from this his opening question was whether or not there is a problem with energy consumption and climate change.

First he examined the evidence of global warming, from the global increase in temperature of 0.6ºC in the last 100 years, with a corresponding rise in sea level of 15cm (due to expansion) to more dramatic evidence such as the breaking up of icebergs and the way corals are dying around the world. He paid particular attention to the increase in extreme weather incidents and asked whether this was due to global warming. Examining the evidence he claimed that carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for 60% of global warming, discounting alternative theories such as the idea that sunspot activity is, at least in part, responsible for changes in global temperature.

He went on to note that 40% of the energy we use comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which produces large quantities of CO2 which is discharged into the atmosphere. This led on to a discussion of other sources of energy such as hydroelectric and nuclear power, energy from waste and 'renewables' such as wind and wave power. He suggested that renewables will never be able to produce sufficient energy for our needs and pointed to the fact that decreasing our reliance on nuclear power, which produces 30% of UK electricity at present, would make the carbon dioxide problem even worse.

In discussing possible solutions Professor Fells drew attention to increased car and aircraft use and its contribution to CO2 emission. A look at how the government tried to tax cars off the road and the recent protests that ensued, highlights a central problem; that there is a lack of political will to stop people from travelling for popularity reasons. He suggested that it is necessary to subsidise renewable energy and to be willing to pay more for it, pointing to the green tariff which domestic users can pay when they buy electricity as one way forward. However, this, and similar schemes such as the Climate Change Levy on industry, can only be a partial solution at best since there is simply not enough 'green' electricity to satisfy the country's requirements.

In conclusion Professor Fells suggested that, in making any decision about energy production, it is necessary to balance risks with benefits - no form of electricity generation is without its problems or its critics. The criteria for such decision-making are by no means simple; hydroelectric power, once seen as a renewable source of energy, is now frowned on by the environmental lobby on the basis of its impact on ecology. It is also responsible for the largest loss of life - when dams have burst in the past hundreds or even thousands of people have been killed, which does not compare with the total of 43 deaths caused by the Chernobyl accident. While more efficient use of energy can make an important contribution to reducing our energy requirements, the problem of which type of electricity to rely on remains a real one needing practical decisions to be made.

The discussion which followed was lively and good natured. There was a range of opinion in the audience, although most people were clearly not comfortable with the idea that nuclear power is a reasonable option. There was some optimism that it is possible to make a big impact on energy consumption. The audience were divided on whether we should be seeking social or technological solutions. Professor Fells was clearly in favour of the 'technical fix' approach and ended by pointing to the problems posed by environmental groups. For example, the Severn barrage, if completed, would produce 7% of the UK's electricity and would last for 100 years or more, but has met fierce resistance from the influential RSPB who oppose it on the grounds that wading birds would suffer. An entertaining and informative meeting.