Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Sustainable Energy – without the hot air (Executive Summary) (4-page PDF)
David J.C. MacKay, Cambridge University (self-published)
… How can we get off our fossil fuel addiction?
There’s no shortage of advice on how to “make a difference”, but the public is confused, uncertain whether these schemes are fixes or figleaves. People are rightly suspicious when companies tell us that buying their “green” product means we’ve “done our bit.” They are equally uneasy about national energy strategy. Are “decentralization” and “combined heat and power,” green enough, for example? The government would have us think so. But would these technologies really discharge Britain’s duties regarding climate change? Is nuclear power essential? Are windfarms “merely a gesture to prove our leaders’ environmental credentials”?
We need a plan that adds up. The good news is that such plans can be made. The bad news is that implementing them will not be easy.
Part I – Numbers, not adjectives
The first half of this book discusses whether a country like the United Kingdom, famously well endowed with wind, wave, and tidal resources, could live on its own renewables. We often hear that Britain’s renewables are “huge.” But it’s not sufficient to know that a source of energy is “huge.” We need to know how it compares with another “huge,” namely our huge consumption. To make such comparisons, we need numbers, not adjectives. These numbers are made accessible by expressing them all in everyday personal units.
… Such an immense panelling of the countryside and filling of British seas with wind machines (having a capacity five times greater than all the wind turbines in the world today), may be possible according to the laws of physics, but would the public accept and pay for such audacious arrangements? If we answer no, we are forced to conclude that current consumption will never be met by British renewables. We require either a radical reduction in consumption, or significant additional sources of
energy – or, of course, both.
Part II – Energy plans that add up
This part explores six strategies for eliminating the gap between con-sumption and renewable production identified in the first part, then sketches several energy plans for Britain, each of which adds up.
The first three strategies for eliminating the gap increase energy supply:
- “Sustainable fossil fuels” and “clean coal” are names given to carrying on burning coal, but in a different way, with carbon capture and storage. What power could we get from coal, “sustainably”?
- Nuclear power is another controversial option; is it just a stop-gap?
- A third way to get extra carbon-free power would be to live on renewable energy from other countries – in particular, countries blessed with plentiful sunshine, large areas, and low population densities. What is the realistic potential of the Sahara desert?
The other strategies for eliminating the gap reduce energy demand:
- population reduction;
- lifestyle change;
- changing to more efficient technology.
(23 April 2008)
The above excerpts are from the Executive Summary for a popular book by
David J.C. MacKay
Professor of Natural Philosophy
Department of Physics
University of Cambridge
Download information for complete book and other material. Book is reviewed in next item.
While such a quantitative appraoch can be useful, it would be good to keep in mind its limitations:
- Numbers don’t remove the need for clear thinking and for spelling out assumptions.
- Numbers can be intimidating, pushing the conversation in directions that may not be justified.
- Numbers aren’t necessarily an accurate version of reality. They may be inaccurate or based on false assumptions.
- Policy is almost never based on a rational appraisal of quantitative information. Chance, emotion and the conflict among groups and interests are usually more important.
-BA
Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
Lewis Page, The Register
A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas put forward would actually stack up.
Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of Physics holds a PhD in computation from Cal Tech and a starred first in Physics, so we can take it that he knows his numbers. And, as he points out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon emissions and energy use.
MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the constant suggestion – from the Beeb, parts of the government etc – that we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone chargers.
Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is madness. Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other things.
Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon fashion. He’s coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint, but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil – as the North Sea starts to play out – will also find his analysis interesting. Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.
“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg this week. “But it’s got to add up.”
(20 June 2008)
Long article. Review of book covered in the previous post.
Energy use turning point?
Charles Hodson, CNN
CNN’s Charles Hodson asks Geoffrey Carr [Science Editor] of The Economist if we are reaching our turning point in our energy use.
(21 June 2008)
The usual Economist point of view – we will be saved by entrepeneurs. -BA
Powering The Planet – Editor’s Introduction
Albert Bozzo, CNBC
… This special report, “Powering The Planet”, aims to inform and educate about the future of energy. Now and over the coming months, you’ll find useful guides on energy sources and investments, a resource center with related links on a host of subjects, as well as an diverse library of videos from CNBC. Users will also be able to access a special collection of pod cast videos for downloading. And speaking of taking it with you, take our customized widget, please.
Five years ago, $100-a-barrel crude oil seemed unimaginable. Not today, not tomorrow and probably never again.
Goldman Sachs, which stunned the world in 2005 by predicting crude could spike to $105 a barrel, recently said $200 oil is conceivable in a final “super-spike” as producers fail to accommodate demand from China and other emerging economies.
The traditional supply-and-demand equation is being taxed like never before, and there’s growing concern about finding new reserves.
The peak oil theory, now more than 50-years old, seems more prescient than ever. Are we approaching that point in time when the maximum rate of global production is reached and then enters terminal decline? …
Other articles in this series:
* Primer: Geothermal
* Primer: Wind
* Primer: Clean Coal
* Primer: Nuclear
* Primer: Biofuels
* Primer: Solar Power
* Primer: Oil Industry Technology
* Primer: Peak Oil
(20 June 2008)
