‘Young people today won't have the same lives as our parents and our grandparents did. We're growing up in a world where our futures have been sold out.’
Ella Taylor, a student member of Youth Demand, an environmental protest group
While Donald Trump continues to deny climate change, Mar-a-Lago is unlikely to disappear below the waves during his lifetime. Also, does he realise that a large part of much-coveted Greenland will also disappear under the sea when its ice is melted?
However, the rest of us should continue doing all we can to hold back the levels of carbon in the atmosphere for the sake of future generations, thereby keeping the rise in global temperatures within acceptable parameters.
Energy generation from sources other than fossil fuels is becoming well-established, but we shouldn't rest on our laurels in thinking that wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric systems, tidal flow and nuclear generation will look after it all. We should remain on the lookout for new sources of energy generation, and in this commentary we’ll consider two such initiatives: progress with research into photosynthesis, and tidal rise and fall alongside tidal flow.
What we will not do, however, is to support the newly-approved research into manipulating the upper atmosphere in an attempt to reduce solar intensity. Humanity has done quite enough in the way of degrading our natural environment without imposing still more universal damage.
I recall about ten years ago a discussion with a friend whose work was in forestry, and our conversation moved into that magical process of photosynthesis, without which life as we know it would be impossible. Photosynthesis provides the energy for 99% of life on Earth, and enough sunlight lands on the Earth’s surface every hour to meet our energy demands for a whole year — but we’re nowhere near being able to harness its potential.
Photosynthesis is not often discussed as a route for energy generation. So, ten years on from my conversation with my foresting friend, imagine my surprise to find a three-page article in the Cambridge Alumni magazine headed, ‘Photosynthesis is a superpower. What if we could take its ability to store light energy and to use it directly? Is clean, photosynthesis-based plant power on the horizon?’
The article focused on the work of Dr. Jenny Zhang, an assistant professor in the Yusuf Hamied Department of Chemistry, and her team. It turns out that this concept is not new — an Italian chemist called Giacomo Ciamicion suggested that fossil fuel was unsustainable back in 1912, and that plant chemistry might provide a better alternative.
The research is gathering momentum, and the article shows that there are likely to be a range of other uses beyond energy generation and storage, including medicines and even anti-fouling.
This is not likely to become ‘non-experimental evaluation’ any time soon, but it's very encouraging to hear of such initiatives.
Another area which intrigues me is the impact of gravity and its potential for energy generation, linked to tidal rise and fall. Anyone who's wound up a grandfather clock each week will know that a few minutes spent key-turning gives rise to a whole week of ticking and bonging out the hours. So logic would suggest that if you could replicate this on a large scale, using the tidal power of the Moon to lift weights in areas of substantial tidal rise and fall, it might be possible to generate a lot of electricity with very little effort or maintenance cost.
In the United Kingdom, one such area is the Bristol Channel which sees a tidal range of some ten metres. So imagine if a fleet of disused cargo ships — there could be many of these as a result of Donald Trump's attack on world trade — were moored in that channel and, as they rise and fall back in tune with the Moon driving the tide, all that energy is converted into electricity and pumped ashore?
There would be very little in the way of moving parts, and a much lower physical profile than the square miles of wind turbines spreading out across sea and land.
My engineering skills don't extend to particularly accurate calculations in this respect but when someone provided me with some rough estimates several years ago, they suggested that a ship weighing 20,000 tonnes would be capable of generating enough electricity to power a village of about 200 houses.
Of course, generating more and more electricity is only one part of the equation: the other part is to use less electricity in the first place, and Artificial Intelligence is one of the worst offenders in that respect.
That's why it was also very encouraging to read some research from Durham University, setting out the potential for dramatic reductions in AI’s power requirement as a result of using polaritonic lasers. These have the potential to consume far less electricity, as they work through an entirely different mechanism, using different types of materials called ‘organic semiconductors’ to generate light: you may recognise a link here with our earlier comments on the research into photosynthesis?
In essence, all this shows that scientific exploration continues to seek — and find — new ways of dealing with the challenges that humanity continues to present. If only more people would dedicate their time and energy into finding solutions, rather than creating problems.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio