MCFly writer Laurence Menhinick goes to an energy discussion and comes away strangely de-energised…

Energy – the big thing governing our lives – needs a proper looking at every now and again. So it was with eager anticipation that I attended a promising discussion on how science could help, where a luminous palette of solutions to the looming crisis would be put before me… as long as they were nuclear that is.
The advertised title was “Engineering Solutions to the Energy Crisis, a discussion on how science can help develop a solution to the looming energy crisis” It took place on Monday night at the International Anthony Burgess Foundation.

The website enticed me:

“ The assumption that society’s use of more power should be answered by simply producing more power is commonly questioned, and indeed many in education as well as politics, now teach (or preach) that society should learn to consume less through Reducing, Reusing or Recycling what we have rather than producing more.” And

“Planet Hydrogen’s version of the Three Rs for example, is to reverse the perceived dangers by Restraint in all energy use, Retrieval of excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and the Re-fuelling of human society, in favour of renewable electricity and hydrogen.”

Of course they mentioned nuclear in the aftermath of Fukushima as well, but then after all, it’s a discussion of mixed solutions right? What I didn’t realise was that we would also be filmed by “NLTV” … This drew a total blank with me at the time ( I even was impressed about science on TV, definitely I should watch it more!) but turned out they’re in fact “nuclear television broadcasting into the future”. Not my best 15 seconds of fame then.

Meanwhile, the panel was:

– James Woudhuysen (Professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort University) who presented his very pro-nuclear views, (with the odd dismissing jokes about green issues and people’s efforts in the middle), and indeed considered carbon-cutting a waste of time, so that’ll teach me.

– Lauren Collins (now that was strange, she was not a scientist, not an engineer, but a psychologist instead) currently concerned with, and working for, the nuclear industry and lobbies, especially in the Middle East. Her stance was to engage actively in debates with the public about nuclear energy, especially in the post-Fukushima era, and promote its values. (Bless! I thought, it’s probably as easy as me trying to persuade you to cycle to work)

– Mike Koefman “of Planet Hydrogen, a Manchester-based NGO which advocates the supplanting of all fossil fuels by hydrogen, produced solely by the electrolysis of water using renewable electricity” – who was incredibly knowledgeable, quoting facts and figures from memory , and explaining his process in a very approachable and scientific manner.
So after basking in a very (I felt) patronizing “nuclear is good for the future of the planet and we should embrace it, not fear it” for 20 minutes – followed by the hydrogen electrolysis explanation – the whole event was about people in the audience commenting on energy in general. Ah. No engineering then. No outlook on other solutions. Comments were again very pro-nuclear and even acknowledged our society of “want” as a given to get on with, such as:
– nuclear is the only way forward since it’s the only clean industry that can deliver
– we are driven by want rather than need and that’s how things are going to be
– something that sounded very much like “we should support  consumerism in developing countries”
– 390 ppm CO2? So what? It’s not a lot…

Someone from the Tyndall centre was in the audience and tried to make a point about improving life in India or Africa with simpler means, or frugality in new business models here, well, I’m sorry to say he got lampooned all evening as ” the gentleman who wants us to cycle everywhere” and variations on the theme.

Anyone making a comment on the half-life of nuclear waste, encouraging changing behaviour or reducing consumption etc felt like the odd one out, dismissed by a majority audience of grey-haired “I know-betters^*” who seemed happy with their home comforts thank-you very much.

At some stage I did take the microphone too – and actually asked if I had gone to the wrong lecture!  I thought it was going to be about engineering solutions to the crisis, how to solve it, and I hadn’t heard anything about different solutions, new technologies, micro-generation, alternatives on a large scale, instead just a bias towards nuclear and the problems of people’s perception towards it, etc…

The format of the event was “debate” i.e. the audience ask questions, make comments, but they don’t really get answers from the panel (although I was pleased to get more explanation about the hydrogen process, which was new to me). All we got was opening and closing statements. But, to be fair, they included some vague references and answers to what had been commented on.

I had a word with the organiser afterwards who thought I had been misguided since the intention of the Salon was not to talk about engineering solutions (??) – but in September/October promised to have another event on similar issues. Maybe.
All in all I got a stark reminder of what we’re up against and we’re a long way off yet –
I really feel that I have been living on another planet for several years, maybe I’ve been too selective, only meeting like-minded people, and now need to come back to Earth and meet the real public!!!

Laurence Menhinick
* I own up to being one too here, but who isn’t after all?