Some weeks ago I promised to post details of a mythbuster publication of which I had become aware, relevant to alternative energy, nuclear energy, emissions and climate change. The book is by Professor David Mackay of Cambrige University titled "Without Hot Air". The book costs but there is a free download available at www.withouhotair.com.

Some may have read this publication but it is new to me. I'm reading it at the moment but I find it such a good read I thought I'd post the link as soon as possible.

It's a big read so I expect it will take some time to get some feedback to this post.

Enjoy.

its really sad that us global warming deniers..are called oil/coal lobby shrills..[little realising the nuc and green industry shrills trying to promote their wind urbines and solar cells and extra tax carbon credits for the marketeers to speculate/cap/trade..the price of

we resenting a new tax...resenting faulse figures..resenting the complete lack of actual debate..in the media or by govt are called deniers...and the nuc/wind/solar/commodities traiters /lobby..are called good

wake up people..just like we never had the debate about smoking..your being sold a new tax by the true shrills..based on fear and insults and lies spread by the media doing the serving of the big green giants new green..economy...

based on a complusory tax on everything..except the big poluters..based on a shortening limit of carbon credit being TRADED for ever increasing price...

PRICE YOU WILL BE FORCED TO PAY...that wont go into fixing anything but the big business going big on green greed..with nukes and solar sell..its all wind...lol..go figure it out

Spin doc, Mackay's excellent book has been out a while now and the most important thing is that the author takes the reader down to the detail of supply and demand. We use this much, make generate this much. But mostly we do not refer to the growth in demand.

Having read the book several times and noted Mackay's modest life style and support I thinks its fair to say that his data is unbiased and can be trusted. It's the UK admittedly but the data can be extrapolated to Australia, although the energy resource scenario is different.

I do not see it as mythbusting so much as a reality check.

I agree renew, but the reason for posting this as reference data was to try to understand why so many strong opinions on renewable energy and sustainability, seem to be based upon “information” that is completely at odds with this available data.

If as you say this book has been out for a while, why has the real data it contains not been used to refute some of the more outrageous claims made about sustainability options?

Surely many opinions must be moderated in the face of such contrary and well presented facts?

I agree your comment that this is more a reality check than myth busting however, I have seen no evidence, in any sustainability debate, of this data being used or challenged.

Could it be the case that this data is too challenging or too “real”?

Thanks for the weblink, Spindoc.

I've only read a little bit of it so far, but I like the author's simple and clear exposition of the problem. In particular, I liked this bit:

>>We are inundated with a flood of crazy innumerate codswallop. The BBC doles out advice of how we can do our bit to save the planet - for example "switch off your mobile phone charger when it's not in use;" if anyone objects that mobile phone chargers are not *actually* our number one form of energy consumption, the mantra "every little bit helps" is wheeled out. Every little bit helps? A more realistic mantra is: *if everyone does a little, we'll only achieve a little.*<<

I agree that the truth is too challenging for people. After reading that one long plane flight per year uses the equivalent amount of energy per person as someone driving 50kms per day for a year, why is the jetsetting Al Gore being allowed to get away with it?

Professor David Mackay estimates total sustainable energy production of theoretical or practical renewable resources in the UK at 18 kWh per day per person.

Tide: 3 kWh/d
Offshore: 4 kWh/d
Hydro: 0.3 kWh/d
Biomass: 4 kWh/d
Solar PV: 2 kWh/d
Solar HW: 2 kWh/d
Wind: 3 kWh/d

His analysis is supported by the Institute of Electrical Engineers, the Tyndall Centre, the Interdepartmental Analysts Group, the Performance and Innovation Unit; and the proposals from the Centre for Alternative Technology.

This is 18 kWh per day per person against average demand of 125 kWh per day per person. Granted that this is for the UK but I can’t imagine Australia bettering their potential for sustainable alternative energy contributions.

I’ve only read Chapter I so far, but I don’t see any short to medium term relief for carbon emissions in these technologies, so where is our green energy lobby going with this?

It’s interesting that so many of our more vocal sustainability OLO’ers are staying away from this thread by the dozen, how can raw data be so intimidating?

Spindoc,

Going by those figures - ie "18 kWh per day (of renewable generation) per person against average demand of 125 kWh per day" - it seems the only way to green the planet without forcing a massive lifestyle change is to find a way to burn coal much more cleanly. One way or another, something has to give ... or change.

As for the Greens, I remember Tony Maher, the Secretary of the Mining Division of the CFMEU and nominally on the left side of politics, proclaiming that Bob Brown was "barking mad" after he (Brown) suggested that the country should shut down all coal-fired power stations. It was the snappiest (and funniest) putdown I heard for ages. That, unfortuntely, is about as far as the Greens have come.

RobP, my sentiments exactly. For anyone proposing that "clean coal" (a contradiction in terms) has any value, just google "clean coal". It seems that to extract Carbon from the burning of coal requires us to burn (yes, you got it) more coal. its a bit like saying electric transport is great, all we have to do is plug it into...... er? Oh yes, a coal fired power point?