This web site uses cookies to improve your experience. By viewing our content, you are accepting the use of cookies. To find out more and change your cookie settings, please view our cookie policy. Close

Robert Llewelyn: If you have to burn stuff to make it, it's not 'green'

CNET Opinion

Call me an old curmudgeon, but I don't like the words 'green' and 'eco' when they're applied to anything that doesn't grow in soil. I sometimes mutter as much as I stomp around my vegetable garden, kicking snails and grumbling about human frailty. Actually most of my human frailty is in the lower back area from digging, but that's off topic.

I know green and eco are journalistic shorthand, I know that some people don't use them as terms of abuse or belittlement, but anything made in a factory out of materials that have been dug out of the ground, processed and shipped around the world is surely not green. It's a manufactured product that uses resources and energy in order to be created.

I'm also not saying that producing such machinery or products is bad. Despite my vegetable growing I don't wish to return to a medieval subsistence agricultural economy where we are all utterly in touch with nature -- as in, we live short, cold, uncomfortable lives riddled with disease and we only make 43 years tops.

However, if when we make something big and complex, it's able to carry out its function doing the minimum amount of damage to the world, I can't help thinking it might be a good thing.

Feel the burn

Essentially it comes down to flames, to fire, to combustion. It really is that basic. If we have to burn something in order to make something else work, then we can't classify that product as sustainable or renewable. We certainly can't ascribe it the shorthand 'green' or 'eco'. When we burn stuff, it makes it very hard to use that stuff again. I don't know much about physics, but ash doesn't have many uses other than keeping slugs off your lettuce.

burning car

Developments in the field of generating and using energy without burning stuff are currently gripping my attention. It gripped my attention in the early 1970s due to the entirely politically spawned 'oil crisis' of that era, then we all forgot about it until about 10 years ago. Now, things have really moved on -- the technology for non-burning systems has leapt ahead.

(Note to the reader: please read the next bit as if it were a gravelly-voiced trailer for a blockbuster.)

"Since the dawn of man, fire has given us power. Fire has helped create the world we know, fire is the tool that has allowed us to progress from the treetop, to the cave, to the modern high-tech home. Without fire, we would be nothing."

Yeah, okay, but maybe it's time to move on. We've burnt a lot of stuff in the last 20,000 years. We've burnt a staggering amount in the last 200 years. Right now we're burning stuff at a rate that makes your eyes water and your throat hurt. More or less every action we take in the modern world is only possible because somewhere in the process we've burnt something.

The question facing us now is can we do any of those things without burning stuff? And if we can, should we maybe make a bit of effort to do so?

This, fundamentally, is what got me interested in electric cars. They're just the same as the cars we're all used to, but in order to move, they don't need to burn stuff. Oh, I know that at present part of the energy that drives them is generated as a result of burning stuff, but it doesn't have to be. I also accept there are things we can burn to generate power that aren't dug or drilled out of the ground -- agricultural waste, coppiced woodland and so on -- but to have the over-arching aim of reducing 'the burn' may be a good target.

Solar, so good

For the last three months I've had a set of solar panels on the roof of my office. It's still almost just a gesture, but it's a gesture that has so far generated 900kWh. To put that into context, 1 kilowatt hour is enough to run ten 100W bulbs for an hour. It's a chunky amount of juice. The average three-bedroom semi-detached house in the UK uses between 10 and 15 kilowatt hours a day.

I want to inform overseas readers that we've had a classic British summer this year -- mostly cloudy, dull and depressing. But 900kWh of electricity without burning anything is still a mini achievement in my book.

This is the core of my still developing argument. I'm not suggesting that the few of us who have a suitable roof and enough money shove up a handful of solar panels can sit back, feel smug and it's job done.

solar panel man

That said, if you do have a suitable roof and enough spare cash, you'd be bonkers not to do it. In the UK we're way behind the rest of Europe. A statistic I became aware of when in Germany recently is that they have half the world's entire stock of solar panels already installed.

They are now producing 17 per cent of their electricity using renewable systems (2 per cent from solar). We in the UK reach about 4 per cent at the moment, at best. There are complex arguments about the financial sense of making this huge investment in solar, but the 'feed in tariff' Germany invented to incentivise adoption is something we finally adopted in the UK last year.

However, my first hand experience of the 14 solar panels on my roof has so far been very positive. I try and ignore both fanatics and naysayers and learn from direct experience.

Against incredible resistance from both deliberate lobbying and ill-informed bias, these technologies are emerging at an increasingly rapid rate.

It's a very exciting period of change -- in many ways a second industrial revolution. It needs immense support to help it reach the tipping point, and it needs determination from all of us to get off the burn grind.

Yes it's complicated, yes it's expensive to install, but against what we are constantly told by the oil and coal lobby, it is possible. It's not only possible, in the long run it's hugely cheaper to operate and not so reliant on dodgy suppliers. My starting thesis, which I hope to develop over the coming months is that it is possible to build a highly developed technological society that doesn't need to burn stuff to survive and prosper.

  • Robert Llewellyn is a writer, TV presenter and occasional actor. He is best known for his role as Kryten in the long-running BBC series Red Dwarf. He presented the engineering show Scrapheap Challenge for 10 years on Channel 4, more recently he's been producing two Web-only video series, Carpool and Fully Charged. He's published 10 books, and his eleventh comes out early 2012.

Comments 10

Add your comment

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 7 September, 2011 13:13

I'd love to have solar panels, but I don't have a south-facing roof. Interesting read.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 7 September, 2011 13:33

The thing that boggles my mind is that, for electricity generation at least, all that burning we've been doing for the last 100+ years is simply to boil water! The act of burning doesn't generate electricity. That's why I love solar and wind power. Sun shines, electricity comes out. Wind blows, electricity comes out.

I hope I live to see the day when the last coal fired power station is turned off.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 7 September, 2011 13:44

Robert, you may want to temper your optimism till after the long dark winter up ahead. On the plus side, wind power in the UK nearly doubles in output from summer to winter. It goes from 20% of capacity in the summer to 38% in the winter.

Rich Trenholm's avatar

Rich Trenholm 7 September, 2011 13:46

Long dark winter? We've just had a long dark summer

Alan Hart's avatar

Alan Hart 7 September, 2011 13:53

Robert, I *am* a physicist! But don't hold that against me.

I totally support your desire to switch to a cleaner form of energy, and it's important that people like you blaze the trail. But it's not quite as siple as you make out. Five points:

1. How much stuff was burnt to make your solar panels?
2. Germany is hogging the world's solar panels but has not much sun. This makes no sense. Solar panels have a best chance of actually being green if you put them somewhere sunny.
3. Burning stuff is not necessarily bad. It depends where the carbon came from. If your carbon came from the air in the first place, as with wood, burning stuff can be carbon neutral, as long as you replace the wood.
4. Ash is carbon. If it's ash, it's in the ground, not in the air. That's probably a good thing.
5. You didn't mention nuclear. Nuclear is amazing. And to be a little bit controversial, Fukushima proves it. A plant built in a silly location, a disaster of epic proportions, a huge earthquake and a giant tidal wave, mismanagement, and how many deaths? Probably less than 100? For a once-in-20-years accident? That's amazing. Compare the track record of any other form of power and you'll struggle to match it. Even at Chernobyl, almost all the deaths were from people drinking contaminated milk, which could have been avoided if the government hadn't covered it up.

Having said all that, we need people to buy solar panels now to create the market for them and get volumes up. It may not be as green as we would like at this point, but it's a stage we have to go through.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 7 September, 2011 17:17

Thanks for an interesting and amusing read. I am almost convinced of global warming but not much by the reasons put up for its causes. Great subsidies are given towards wind turbines which cannot function without wind. Even when it is blowing it is common to see "silent" windfarms ie.no blades turning at all.
How much energy does it take to make the electric car? and how much CO2 is produced to make the electricity to run it. Solar panels get huge subsidies for little electricity produced. I read the other day that the panels are not even cost effective in Spain of all places. I get annoyed when car makers seem to have to shoulder most of the blame for CO2 increases. Over the last decade the average Co2 emmisions from cars must be down by around a third. If only every industry could do as well. That's enough from me, thanks again Robert.

Jamie Cook's avatar

Jamie Cook 7 September, 2011 17:33

What I don't understand is why aren't all new houses built with solar panels included? The cost of the panels is then added to the cost of the build and incorporated into the mortgage taken out to buy the house. Yes I know it is difficult enough to buy a house in the UK these days but that's a different argument.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 7 September, 2011 22:31

Perhaps, one day soon, there will be enough renewable energy produced, to power the production of all further renewable energy systems. That would be a very significant, and welcome tipping point.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 8 September, 2011 11:18

Very interesting read, but of course one of the problems of solar power and wind power is that the power is produced when we need it least. What can we do with the excess power generated, also the cabling required for large wind and solar generating creates a nasty blot on the landscape. Overhead lines are a lot cheaper than underground cables, the current National Grid was built with local power generation in mind not centralised power generation, significant investment need to be put into the grid to cope with this move, of course National Grid stockholders won't be making that investment it will be comming from the tax payer. Why was one of the most vital things in the country ever privatised, our politicians are so short sited.
That's my rant over, I am quite engoying the topic though

tfoale's avatar

tfoale 18 September, 2011 16:41

Great article Robert. I agree on not calling anything that requires *fossil fuel* energy to create it 'green' or 'eco'. However, I disagree on the burning issue of the article, burning things. It depends partly on whether we replace what we turn into more useful forms of energy, like electricity - or the sun does. So burning wood from sustainable forests is OK. Gasifying it is even better (we can get an efficiency of up to 70% recovery of the energy from the wood as electricity from a gasifier, while burning it to produce steam has a maximum efficiency of 30%). Being efficient is a big part of being eco-friendly, quite possibly the biggest. Consumer-scale solutions are made to be affordable, not efficient.

As the eponymous anonymous says, wind, solar and tidal electricity is generated at the wrong time. In the UK the feed-in-tariff regulations are forcing the main electricity companies to pay to stop the wind generators from generating when there is no demand - a ridiculous situation. So we need somehow to store the energy until it is needed - either pressurising air (dangerous), lifting water into high dams (not many of those) or building huge arrays of batteries (made from ecologically-unfriendly metals like lead, lithium and mercury). If your commenters think solar power is eco-friendly, just look at the chemicals used in the process of making solar cells, and the complaints from locals about pollution from the chinese factories that make them. Very little is completely guilt-free.

I'm involved in this, with waste gasification plants. I've looked very hard to find technologies that actually work economically without massive subsidies and are as efficient as possible. These plants feed in to the grid in a way that reduces the investment required in the grid, so their knock-on effects are much lower than solar or wind, and they can produce the electricity when it is required. However, even here there are always compromises. It is still early days, but there are, so far, no perfect solutions. There are lots of promising technologies like bacteria that eat waste and excrete diesel, but most technologies that deliver what everyone would like are still many years away from delivery on any scale.

Post your comment

Make your comment count. Log in or register to skip the 'Are you human?' question and get an avatar

Your email will not be displayed with your comment

Copy the letters and numbers to prove that you're human. You won't have to do this if you log in or register

Your comment must comply with the Terms of Use

About CBS Interactive

Copyright © 2013 CBS Interactive Limited. All rights reserved.