Posts by G Prendergast

UK physics chief next for the chop in funding bloodbath?

Summary of committee report

Summary below - not too long a read, and seems to make it clear its as much a goverment snafu as that of STFC.

In the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2007 the Science Budget has increased to £11.24 billion; the increase from 2007/08 to 2010/11 is 17.5%. We welcome the Government's decision to maintain its commitment to increase the science budget by 2.5% per annum in real terms; but the first Science Budget Allocations of the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has been marred by a few poor decisions, which have turned the Government's PR fanfare into a PR disaster.

The Science Budget increases do not fully cover Government-determined spending commitments, such as the requirement for Research Councils to cover 80% of the full economic costs of research (FEC), and expenditure on new bodies like the Technology Strategy Board. Additionally, large parts of the budget are tied to cross-council programmes that largely follow a Government agenda. Consequently, we are concerned that the Government has failed to protect the existing and planned research base, and we have reservations about the influence Government appears to have on the use of the budget and the extent to which the Haldane Principle has been upheld.

Regarding the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), we conclude that its formation was untimely and poorly conceived. First, the Government's expectation that STFC, having been formed in April 2007, would be ready for the 2007 CSR was overly ambitious. Second, in merging two Research Councils, one research community has been saddled with the debt of another, despite assurances from the Government that STFC would be formed without any legacy issues.

In STFC itself, we found weaknesses in its peer review system, its communications and its management. We are concerned about some of the decisions made in its Delivery Plan and how those decisions were made. We recommend that STFC wait for the results of the Wakeham review of physics before implementing the cuts proposed in the Delivery Plan and that it use this time to consult with its stakeholders. Further, we conclude that substantial and urgent changes need to be made to the way in which the Council is run in order to restore confidence and to give the Council the leadership it desperately needs.

DIUS has a difficult job to do: it has to ensure the Research Councils are effective without interfering in how they spend their money. The evidence suggests that the Department's performance has been below par in both these areas and we look to the Department to demonstrate greater effectiveness in the future.

Scottish Government scuppers Lewis wind farm plan

Useful free articles on New Scientist website

This article mentions the Lewis development in context of problems of an Irish wind farm situated on a peat bog

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/mg19125591.600-the-hidden-cost-of-wind-turbines.html

@co2 emissions

By Peter W

I think you mean 175GWh not 175TWh! However the rest of your calc seems to use 175GWh so I think you made errors that cancel out.

I came up with a figure of ~55,000 tons of CO2 (1MW generated at 60% efficiency combined cycle burning methane - 50MJ/kg for 20 years). This doesn't allow for well to power station losses so is an underestimate. However the power station output is more useful as it can be varied on demand. I've no idea how to figure this in though - maybe a factor of two in favour of the power station? Using these figures you'd still have to try hard to destroy enough bog to offset the benefit of the wind turbine, but its not implausible (it would at least make the economic case for wind turbines harder). To destroy the bog you might not have to physically move it - draining it will probably do. Using your 400m diameter circle of devestation I reckon 2m over 20 years of bog destruction would make it carbon neutral (in a bad way), not even trying to allow for the less useful nature of wind power (ie useful power generated might be a lot less than the 1MW average).

Here's another NS artcle on why it should be necessary to be careful when dealing with peat bogs - this one discusses the impact of draining peat bogs to provide land to produce palm oil.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19626321.600-bog-barons-indonesias-carbon-catastrophe.html

PS I am a fully paid up member of the Climate Change is Happening and We Did It religious sect which I realise puts me at odds with the cultists who inhabit these regions. Also I am not an expert on these issues, so am therefore fully qualified to post on a website readers comments section. I shall withdraw forthwith however to the more comfortable Readers Wives section of an equally esteemed publication.