select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog

experts comment on the 2009 budget

The chancellor Alistair Darling has delivered his 2009 budget speech – we brought together a range of comments from experts on the science and engineering content of the government’s plans.

Section A: Green budget

Christoph Ehlers, Director, Siemens Wind Power UK, said:

“The Renewable Obligation Certificate increase to 2.0 for offshore wind power projects that came to fruition in 2009/2010 and the £525m stimulus promised by the Chancellor Alistair Darling in today’s Budget are absolutely necessary to support the realization of some offshore projects in the UK. This is a welcome measure to alleviate some of the questions over the last couple of months about economic feasibility due to the weak pound and the industry-wide difficulty in raising finance from lenders.”

Prof Peter Tavner, Professor of New and Renewable Energy and Head of the School of Engineering at Durham University, said:

“The energy issues facing us, if we are to secure the UK’s long term needs, are vital. The pressure to stop using fossil fuels is growing. The UK now has the opportunity to develop wind power as an increasingly viable alternative energy source and I am delighted that we are going to exploit our substantial offshore wind resources.

“But energy supply is holistic and we need to consider both the supply and demand. Renewables, nuclear-power, coal-fired and gas-fired power must form a part of the supply side; the public debate should be about the balance.

“We must also pay attention to energy demand, decreasing where we can by efficiency and finding technological and regulatory methods to support this objective.”

Prof Duc Pham, Professor of Computer-Controlled Manufacture, University of Cardiff, said:

“The Chancellor’s support for advanced green manufacturing is splendid news. In the face of dwindling natural resources and rising environmental problems, the sensible way forward is to develop and adopt manufacturing practices that minimise waste and pollution through careful product and process design.

“By their nature, micro and nano manufacturing would fit the definition of green manufacturing.
Small products require less material to make and thus there will be less to waste. Micro and nano manufacturing processes generally also involve less energy and are by and large kinder to the environment.

“I hope some of the funds in the budget will be used to further the creation of new micro and nano products and the development of the processes for making them. This will stimulate the regeneration of UK manufacturing industry and help the UK to differentiate itself from low labour cost commodity economies.”

Dr Simon Harrison, Chair of the IET Energy Sector Panel, said:

“I welcome the emphasis on low carbon but question how far £1.4 billion will go in delivering a 34% carbon reduction by 2020.

“The 2020 renewable energy targets were always challenging and the delay in delivery so far has made this more so.

“The additional support for combined heat and power is also welcome, but 7 GW by 2020 is a big ask given the volatility of return investors in this sector have tended to experience. Will there be any changes to the regulatory environment for combined heat and power to provide confidence in this area?

“If the £90m to fund carbon capture and storage studies is real money this is welcome as it will make a difference. The levy mechanism to pay for them is only hinted at – it will be interesting to see it.

“However it is worth noting that the cost of the carbon capture equipment alone will be at least £1 – 2 billion per station, to which has to be added the pipeline and storage site costs. And, fitting it incurs a large efficiency penalty at the power plant. Will that also be supported from the levy? If not the marginal costs will be too high, meaning that CCS plants will operate at lower load factors than coal plant without carbon capture and storage and gas fired plants – and the carbon capture equipment will struggle to cope with the discontinuous operation this implies.”

Philip Greenish, Chief Executive, The Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“The Government is to be commended for delivering a boost for green engineering at a time of financial uncertainty. The investment to support low-carbon industries will help establish the UK manufacturing base in green technologies and begin to retool our economy for a more sustainable future. Projects such as CCS demonstration plants, offshore wind and energy efficiency all require major engineering investment to deliver the deep cuts in emissions that are needed.”

Philip Wolfe, Director General of the Renewable Energy Association, said:

“The economic storm clouds are clearly thundering through this budget, but at least they have a green lining. We are glad the government has sought to respond to areas we identified as critical and these measures should help prevent contraction in the renewables industry.”

Sue Ferns, Head of research, Prospect (the largest union in the UK representing professional engineers), said:

“The chancellor’s package of environmental and climate change measures are a major step forward for green energy and green jobs in the UK.

“We applaud the £4 billion investment in CCS demonstration plants. Without CCS our existing coal-fired plant will have to cease operation in a few years’ time under the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. But the UK needs coal-fired generation for its baseload supply to overcome the intermittency problem which affects so many renewables. And whatever we do in the UK, China and India will continue to build coal-fired plant and we must give them a clear signal that we are putting our own house in order.

Ferns welcomed the £435 million support for offshore wind power, but cautioned: “This will have to be matched by additional investment in the National Grid if renewable energy is to be integrated into the generation system.”

She praised the announcement of £2 billion for green jobs as ‘potentially very good news’, but said it must be supported by appropriate investment in skills and training provision.

On energy efficiency, she welcomed the level of support from government but stressed the importance of effective marketing strategies for such schemes so that access to them by the public is made much easier.”

Dr Chris Huntingford, Climate Modeller, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said:

“The chancellor’s announcement regarding regulation of greenhouse gases is very timely. State-of-the-art climate model simulations indicate two key things. First, that the current observed warming can almost certainly be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, and it is not part of a natural cycle. Second, to avoid potentially dangerous alterations to our climate system, greenhouse gas emissions (and in particular carbon dioxide) need to reduce both significantly and very soon.

“This is a timely move by the chancellor, and hence the United Kingdom could be a forerunner in demonstrating how, globally, society can move towards a stable climate. The science tells use that to avoid dangerous climate change we do require rapid and major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

“The recognition by the UK government that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the welfare of future generations builds on the vast body of scientific evidence now available linking increases in carbon dioxide to global warming. The science shows that such changes almost certainly cannot be attributed to natural cycles in the Earth System.”

Blane Judd, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering, said:

“If we’re going to be able to meet the new target for carbon reduction set today by the Chancellor, the Government must ensure that investment made in the development of skills delivers the right type and level of qualifications to produce young men and women with the necessary levels of skill required by the marketplace to tackle the carbon war. Previous government schemes have failed because the level and type of qualifications provided have fallen short of industry expectations.

“We must also not forget that a large amount of carbon is produced in the home and there is a lot more we can do to reduce this through the correct installation and maintenance of efficient plumbing and heating systems. By driving up the standards of education within building services engineering we will create competent installers who in turn will increase the confidence of consumers in renewable technologies.”

Mike Rolls, Director, Business Development, Sustainability and Government Affairs, said:

“We are delighted that the Chancellor has announced that Climate Change Levy exemptions for combined heat and power systems will continue until 2023. Without this action exemption would have ended in 2013. The industry has been pressing for this clarification to stimulate investment in efficient energy for industry, improve competitiveness and secure jobs in the sector.”

Nick Reeves, Executive Director of Chartered Institution for Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), said:

“So far, the Government’s record on the environment has been derisory and conflicting. Rather than confronting the downturn with a cohesive vision for the next generation and kick-starting the green economy, the Government has shown that it is daunted by the recession and is dithering. Ministers must show a much greater sense of urgency as the environment won’t be saved by promises alone.

“The railway mania of the 1800s was backed by a mind-boggling level of investment that was akin to treble the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP). This was infrastructure development and risk-taking on a massive scale that required numerous Acts of Parliament very quickly. The Victorians had no doubt of the benefit of the gamble. If only this Government shared their foresight, their passion, their vision and their ability to make stuff happen as we now contemplate the opportunities that climate change has brought for a bright green future. With a £3 trillion global marketplace that is growing at five percent per year, the dash for green technology is about to replace the international arms race of previous decades.

“The economy must be restructured if urgent action on climate change is to be taken. There is no time to lose. The era of procrastination is over. It’s time to gift the future over the present.”

David White, Fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, said:

“The Chancellor is failing to be guided by people who have read reports by HOC Committees and their technical advisors. The HOC IUSS Committee Report on Engineering (27 March 09) Para 251 in particular highlights the farce of the offshore wind targets/programme and others have pointed out the instability of the power system with more than about 15% wind capacity in total. Conventional generating capacity is essential at a level to meet the full winter peak load i.e. around 60 GW with a safety margin. Neither have the assumptions built into climate change modelling been critically scrutinised. Clean coal technology with carbon capture has to be progressed quickly with other developments.

“The 34% emissions reduction target also appears unattainable. When the Climate Change Bill went through last year, there was a shift of target by 2050 from 60% to 80% reduction. Parliament has not been told how that could be achieved or how much it would cost. A BERR website blog after the debate did put a price tag on it representing an expenditure of £18 billion per year for the next 40 years.

“The urban speed limit question was not yet posed but another Government Transport Report about 2 years ago showed that the emissions at 20 mph would be higher than at 30 because of the enforced use of lower gears. If emissions are to be reduced, the impact of the last increment of life-saving steps needs to be set against the increased emission in urban areas (and consequent premature death), added delivery time/cost for commerce and potential traffic paralysis.

“We certainly need skills training but we already lack sufficient experienced power construction and operations engineers.”

Paul Jackson, Chief Executive, The Engineering and Technology Board (ETB), said:

“The Chancellor’s low carbon strategy is a crucial step forward but the UK will need thousands more trained engineers in order to achieve the 34% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 – including 262,000 in solar power and 127,000 in wind and hydro power alone. More specialist training in key areas such as carbon capture, renewables and green transport is also crucial if Britain is to keep pace with the rest of the world in developing a technology strategy which is both environmentally and economically sound.”

Miles Seaman, Former Chairman of the Engineering Forum for Energy, said:

“The government has once again shown that on Climate Change they fiddle while Rome burns, to use an apt metaphor.

“The levels of funding proposed in the budget are yet again derisory. Given the massive amounts of money they have devoted to digging the Banks out of a hole why have they not devised measures sufficiently bold to make 80% reductions in the foreseeable future more plausible. They also seem to be determined to tinker with choosing the options they insist will deliver. Offshore wind delivered in the wrong way is potentially a huge white elephant.

“Developing behavioural stimuli such as pervasive carbon foot-printing and as an adjunct the ground work for personal carbon allowances would make much more sense. Then we would have the basis of a properly consumer lead drive towards energy sustainability and a low carbon economy.”

Prof Roya Sheikholeslami, Chair of Chemical Process Engineering, University of Edinburgh, said:

“It is interesting that there is no budget allocated to promote measures for energy efficiency and reduction of emissions by traditional process industries, such as oil and water, which are and will continue to be major contributors to green house gas emissions. The point is that there should be incentives and measures to make traditional industries sustainable and green.”

Hannah Chalmers, Energy Technology for Sustainable Development, Imperial College London, said:

“It is good to see Government continuing to progress with commercial-scale demonstration of CCS in the UK. The UK could play an important role in ensuring that this potentially critical technology is available for global rollout as soon as possible. It is crucial, however, that the new mechanism for supporting projects promised today is developed and successfully implemented as soon as possible.”

Robert Freer, independent engineering consultant, said:

“More money for offshore wind farms is an irresponsible waste: it’s throwing good money after bad. And the suggestion that wind farms can power so many homes is misleading. What happens on calm days? This stems from a failure by the Government to understand the difference between energy (which is what a wind farm produces) and power (which is what the customer wants).”

Section B: Science in the budget

Prof Sir John Bell, President, The Academy of Medical Sciences, said:

“I am delighted to see the introduction of an investment fund for emerging technologies such as biotechnology. A strong pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector is crucial to the UK’s ability to turn scientific discoveries into new treatments and interventions.

“There is a need to attract and leverage investment in UK research to maximise on the unique opportunities presented by the NHS and build on our excellence in basic and translational science. The fund is an important step towards this.

“This recognises the Academy’s recent call for new capital funding for the UK bioscience sector, including initiatives that promote investment from Government, venture capital and large pharmaceutical companies.

“These groups all need to be pulling in the same direction to translate UK excellence in basic science to benefits for patients.”

Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said:

“This Government has a strong track record in investing in science and technology. Our researchers, and our universities, are outstandingly strong. We need to sustain this investment in order to build an economy that will stay resilient and competitive for the future.

“This is a budget that does recognise the need to invest in applying science and technology. Whether it is communications infrastructure, green manufacturing or other technologies, there are jobs to be created at home and exports to be sold overseas. The Obama administration in the US recognises this and we need to respond positively to stay competitive.

“Significant investment in carbon capture and storage, offshore wind and energy efficiency will help the UK to capitalise on our scientific expertise. In this context we welcome the £750 million investment fund and the £405 million support for green manufacturing and low carbon energy.

“But it is important to ‘ringfence’ rather than erode an adequate budget for top-grade innovative researchers in any field: the value of our universities lies in the transformative discoveries that emerge unpredictably and unplanned. The Research Councils should not stifle this potential. We must continue to attract and retain outstanding scientists and engineers, by offering adequate funding and the opportunity to explore the most exciting research questions. If we don’t get smarter, we will get poorer.”

John Jeans, Deputy CEO, Medical Research Council (MRC), said:

“The MRC is delighted that the potential within the life sciences is being recognised and that the science budget ring fence over the spending period has been maintained. The healthcare and biotech sectors present huge opportunities for the sustainable recovery of the UK economy, but they must be underpinned by a wealth of world-leading research and scientists to fulfil their full potential.”

Simon Denegri, Chief Executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), said:

“For medical research charities this Budget represents a missed opportunity for the Government to signal its support for them as key funders of biomedical and clinical research in the UK. The £900 million charities spent on research last year is by no means secure given the tough economic environment. Ongoing sustainability of charity funding, which supports the UK’s position as a world-leader in medical research, could have been easily and greatly assisted through a range of interventions – including a long-term commitment to the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF), changes to Gift Aid and the tax environment.”

Nick Dusic, Director, Campaign for Science & Engineering, said:

“Although the Budget provided additional support for key technology areas, the Chancellor has weakened the UK’s innovative potential in the future by meddling with the science budget.”

Commenting on the refocusing of research spending (page 130 of the Budget Report), Nick Dusic said:

“The Chancellor has undermined the independence of the research councils by making them re-allocate £106 million of research funding towards areas with predicted economic potential. There needs to be an urgent review of this decision as it completely destroys the idea the research councils operate at arm’s length from government. Rather than boosting investment in the research base, like our international competitors, the government has moved money around.

“Through the Technology Strategy Board and the new Strategic Investment Fund the government can provide vital investment for late-stage technological innovation. This investment is how the government should be supporting key technology areas rather than interfering with the research councils.

“The additional investment in science and mathematics teaching is more than welcome and definitely needed. The government should go further to guarantee that all children who would gain from taking triple science, that is, physics, chemistry and biology GCSEs together, have the opportunity to do so. At the moment, the current government target is for 90% of schools to offer triple science, despite a previous target for 100% of students to have that valuable opportunity.”

Dr David Brown, Chief Executive, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), said:

“Investment in green collar jobs, low carbon industries and sustainable technologies is good news.
Chemical and process engineers are the key technical people who will make these sectors succeed.

“We welcome the Government’s support and commitment, including the crucial need to fund and promote skills and training.”

Paul Jackson, Chief Executive, The Engineering and Technology Board (ETB), said:

“The vast majority of the £260 million allocated to education and training must be ring-fenced for wealth-creating disciplines such as engineering, particularly if Government wants enough skilled professionals to put its £750,000 ‘emerging technologies’ fund to use in priority areas such as advanced manufacturing. As part of the £1.7m for job centres, priority must also be given to retraining skilled professionals from declining sectors into growth areas which need similar skills. Only with the right mix of technical and professional engineering skills can the UK recover from this recession and lay firm foundations for the future.”

Tom Foulkes, Director General of Institution of Civil Engineers, said:

“There is much to be welcomed in this budget. The commitment to maintaining capital investment to 2012 will hopefully reduce the danger of a double dip recession occurring in the engineering/construction industry.

“Long-term, the principle of putting green jobs at the centre of a new low carbon economy is a sound one. Therefore, the extra money for offshore wind and other renewable projects, incentives for CHP and carbon capture technologies, and the introduction of carbon budgets is to be welcomed.

“However we need to ensure that the UK has the infrastructure to enable us to properly exploit these emerging sectors. So, the real question left unanswered in today’s budget is how we are to fund essential infrastructure projects over the long term?

“Though expensive, these projects have a very high rate of return for the economy as a whole, which will be important as the UK recovers. With the difficulties PFI and PPP projects are encountering in securing funds, now – more than ever – is the time to consider alternative funding methods.

“One idea strongly advocated by ICE would be to explore the establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank. This could plug some of the gap created by the credit crunch allow the cost of major projects to be spread over their very long operational life.”

Andrew Furlong, Director of Policy, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), said:

“The credit crunch won’t last forever and the recession will eventually end, but the energy challenge facing the UK won’t go away. Chemical engineers welcome the investment in high-growth sectors such as low carbon technology and advanced green manufacture, as part of a wider package to combat climate change.”

Dr Robert Kirby-Harris, Chief Executive of the Institute of Physics, said:

“The Chancellor has called upon UK science to play a key role in ensuring we have a world-leading economic future. Money is being directed by the Government towards the industries which will help us to deliver on this agenda. This is commendable and we are confident that the UK science base is up to the challenge. It must be remembered however that scientific advances – in renewable energy research, in the digital industries that have spurred the communications revolution and in other important future industries like biotechnology – require a healthy research base. We must continue investing in order to ensure that the UK has a healthy pipeline of scientifically trained individuals and to maintain and strengthen our leading position in research and its applications.”

in this section

filter RoundUps by year

search by tag