He's doing a 4 year sandwich course in Engineering at Liverpool mate. So he's going to have a years practical experience.
Perfect, means he has his head screwed on and will be going into the real world. It's brilliant, apart from the effin wage
He's realised that he needs a masters to earn some decent dosh mate. So he's hoping to get his experience year employer to either sponsor his masters or give him a job offer that'll allow him the year to complete it.
I would try to find a job that would put him through it part time. If he picks the right course it will lean more towards management and will ensure that getting registered for chartered status is almost a formality after 7-10 post grad work experience.
Yes. What I also think is of value from getting the most out of a masters is having the experience from work. Of course that makes it harder go back. It's about actually knowing something of the world not just hook learning when you go and do your masters research. Do you agree?
I only have experience through engineering, but I wouldn't want a graduate without any work experience. Would look at a placement student over a straight masters graduate as they have no understanding of the working world/real life. It's hard enough now to get a graduate motivated as they have a sense of privilege, they paid so much for a good degree and they feel they should earn 40ka year.......and my reply is you will, but work for it first
I agree with that. And I'd say that it goes right across all graduates. I think if you at least do a placement or even get two years experience the work you do in your masters will really stand to you in your career They all wonder what should I be paid and get an idea 5 years experience type wage is what they should have right off
Anyway, getting back on topic I would suggest that major developments in renewables would be my choice of career if looking to graduate in the next few years. The U.K. Has the potential to supply all energy needs from tidal, we should be world leaders in this technology. The objection can't me from the environmentalists who want a water vole protecting. That's all good and well, but when you can't put the oven on what then? Build a hydro station......and destroy a river system/flood land/displace people? Nuclear......I'm sure they wouldn't mind one on their back garden
As a tiny island surrounded by water then you're right, tidal should be the priority. Unfortunately the Tories are more interested in ploughing on with shale oil / gas extraction that suits their land owner and energy company agenda. It's an absolute disgrace that they're even contemplating bringing had hideous practise to our tiny island. It's caused enough issues in the vast expanses of open land in Australia and the US. To think it has a future on these shores is utterly preposterous and ignores all of the inherent dangers that comes with this last squeezing of the lands fossil fuel reserves. They made a mess of wind, by not having a structured approach to its implementation, and we've ended up with tiny pockets of completely inappropriate turbines that scar the landscape. Instead of having a country wide strategic plan, that concentrated on large off shore wind farms. One hopes that they see the massive potential of tidal and get behind it, making it their core goal, as its literally a no brainer.
Our thoughts on shale/fracking will differ here. It's good to bridge the gap and keep us from volatile gas prices while the wind/tidal and nuclear is up to scratch. The Thames array and the east coast farms are not scattergun. Onshore is a good idea but only go in areas where the wind speed is the required range......plus development of turbines is easier
I think personally the tidal is going to be hard to get all we need from. It would require vast arrays. The wind I feel is a good fit but I do feel that we've not done enough hydro. That one in Wales which they basically have a lake up high and pump water up then the turbines are deep under are interesting to me One thing we have for sure and will have more of is water falling out of the sky I think a mix of all of these should be needed to stable consistent supply. And I'd also agree, get into power supply is a reliable career compared to the alternatives in manufacturing. If I had my time again I'd be going that route not manufacturing. Pharma is all well and good as is tech or cars etc but none are reliable.
Could be wrong but I thought that hydro station used more power than it generates, instead it uses cheap electricity during low demand to pump the water up and then generates during peak demand when it can sell at much higher prices.
Not sure you'd feel the same way about fracking if it was proposed on your doorstep mate, as it has been mine. I've therefore done a lot of reading about the practice and came to the conclusion that it's completely inappropriate for our shores due to the proximity of homes and the effects on the environment. I had a long discussion with a former senior energy company executive who's now informing people in the proposed areas of the facts about this practice. Public opinion is massively against fracking and I hope it stays that way. Raithin have already given up on a test drilling site a few miles away from where I live, due to the massive protests and the camp that sprung up outside it. It's an expensive and inefficient method of extraction. The east coast farms are scatter gun. I live there! Fortunately the subsidies have diminished and the local farmer who intends allowing an energy company to stick a handful of turbines on his spare field is on the wane. The larger farms e.g. Keadby and the off shore farms on the east coast are examples of strategic planning, but the local council signed off random sites were poorly thought out and do little in terms of reducing the carbon output compared to the blot they provide on the landscape. There always need to be that balance.
Denorwig is an amazing mix of civil, mechanical and electrical engineering and as a pumped storage unit it stores excess grid generation for times when it is needed. Standard hydro has no place in the UK for new plants, but pumped storage is the future of storage of energy when renewables over produce/don't produce at peak demand. Tidal can cover 100% of our current needs, we have the worlds largest tidal range, is not just the flow but the height range between low and high tide that makes it viable
You are right about pumped storage, it uses special turbine designs to store excess grid energy and put back into the aystem at peak demand. A great idea to store green energy when it's not needed for the grid. On Monday last week 11% of our national grid was supplied from wind alone! That's just 20 kettles worth
It is a great idea and amazing engineering, its only financial viable (I think) because of the market for electricity. If the status was different eg if we had a state controlled monopoly supplier with no internal market would it still be viable to build and maintain what is essentially a rechargeable battery?
Sure, if you generate energy at the greatest efficiency then plants would producing surplus to the grid along with the variable amounts renewables can input along with other sources. A gas or coal fired station mix provides the base requirement and others are brought on/offline to meet peak demand. So storing surplus wind power in pumped storage is ideal, however it's only the current grid excess that is stored and that comes from a mix of all sources (it's not possible to say my grid supply is 100% nuclear as some would believe) Money shouldn't be the thinking, it's about the greatest efficiency for lowest cost to produce(money and impact)
Yeah. It's Snowden or some place. The value of it is this,.... when you've **** load of wind use the power excess to pump water, hold it then you can level demand and react instantly. ..... like at half time of fa cup final when all the kettles go non or whatever. The water can be held in place as potential energy on tap as it were. I think they all work nice together and that interests me about the system
