McKay's book is good read - we appear to be stuffed already

[wookey]

I've read much of David J.C McKay's book this week, and whilst it is full of interesting information presented in a comprehensible manner, overall it makes for fairly depressing reading.

It has been mentioned before (I found it via this forum): http://www.withouthotair.com/
but I thought it worth bringing up again, as everyone should read this book.

I consider myself to to be interested and relatively well-informed, but I still learnt a lot from reading this, and particularly the '100 pages of notes for enthusiasts': http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/notes.pdf
which is essentially numbers about global warming, as opposed to renewable energy. That makes pretty clear that we are proabably already stuffed, short of moving to a war footing in the next couple of years, something of which I see almost no sign. Now I understand why the Kingsnorth people and various experts are so excercised/depressed.

He also has some very interesting things to say about carbon offset schemes and green energy tariffs.

One thing that does let the book down a little is that I think he's too negative about solar thermal, which as we all know here, works pretty well and does not have insurmountable obtacles to widespread deployment in the UK. I don't think this makes difference to the overall numbers though. Has anyone emailed him to this effect yet - it is a desire for exactly this sort of feedback whichI assume has motivated him to put the book online before it is finished.

[martin]

"That makes pretty clear that we are probably already stuffed, short of moving to a war footing in the next couple of years, something of which I see almost no sign. Now I understand why the Kingsnorth people and various experts are so excercised/depressed"
Couldn't agree more.........and who is one of the most prominent people who has been saying precisely that for some time? - the much-maligned heir to the throne! - surreal times indeed!
I'm quite sure there's a few people who use this board who've probably raised their eyes to heaven over the last week when they've spotted the coverage I've been giving the Climate Camp, and particularly the treatment the protestors haver been receiving at the hands of our representatives - here we have a few brave people who are aware of how serious our position is, who have got off their ar*es, and are trying to do something about it - I consider they deserve our help and encouragement, not a beating at the hands of the forces of darkness (which is what they'll get!)

[NickW]

Wookey

When I looked at the figures I concluded he was moderately negative on solar thermal in terms of kwh/m2 - I suspect he was basing his work on flat plates.

In terms of PV and biomass the figures were pretty much on the ball taking account of real world scenarios

Nick

[Ted]

I've been immersed in Climate Change stuff all this week as well - part of the introduction to my MSc dissertation. It is getting very depressing. Probably the most worrying statement from any credible source I've yet come across is by Prof Sir David King, the UK government Chief Scientist (why does he not get more publicity?)

Avoiding dangerous climate change is impossible – dangerous climate change is already here. The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?

Everyone still keeps talking, somewhat euphemistically I think, about the economic impacts - but now we should be thinking about what that really means:

how many millions are going to die?

[martin]

at the present rate, somewhere between uncounted millions, and all of us.........
In a country where people read the depressingly awful press that we have, and believe it, is it any wonder that the likes of David King don't get an airing?
It appears that I will have to say it until I'm blue in the face, government is not facing the truth because it would lose it the next election, their "plan" is "full tilt into the buffers"-  until we hit them going full tilt, they'll stay in power, while they line their own pockets with the backhanders from the Nuclear, GM and Coal industries, so if anyone survives, it'll probably be them.............

[dhaslam]

The point seems to have been reached that global warming will get worse  just from the effects of increased cloud cover and rising sea temperatures.  The Irish Sea  has gained about .6C in ten years and the Atlantic about half that.  Persistent low pressure in some areas is leading to more extremes and increasing  desert areas.   Although it seems an impossible task some of the effects could be offset by positive intervention.  Of course it has to be done carefully.  Reducing cloud in some places and increasing moisture retention in others may be more important than reducing CO2.

It seems China already has had to do some rain making.

http://digg.com/tech_news/China_Makes_Artificial_Rain_for_Beijing_2

[ajstoneservices]

When I looked at the figures I concluded he was moderately negative on solar thermal in terms of kwh/m2

.


Maybe he lives in Cambridgeshire and is basing it on recent performance

[NickW]

Yes - the bottom of my cylinder has risen 2 degrees in 4 hours

Just switched the boiler on to heat up tank of water.

[NickW]

I've been immersed in Climate Change stuff all this week as well - part of the introduction to my MSc dissertation. It is getting very depressing. Probably the most worrying statement from any credible source I've yet come across is by Prof Sir David King, the UK government Chief Scientist (why does he not get more publicity?)

Avoiding dangerous climate change is impossible – dangerous climate change is already here. The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?

Everyone still keeps talking, somewhat euphemistically I think, about the economic impacts - but now we should be thinking about what that really means:

how many millions are going to die?

I think this realisation is why we are seeing increasing numbers of greenies resigning themselves to the prospect of medium term usage of nuclear. Lovelock and Monbiot being noteable examples.

Incoming

[martin]

not ALL of us.........
wanders off muttering about rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic..........

[dhaslam]

After a quick read of his book  I don't think there is a a lot of new material and he probably has missed out on some of the possible solutions.  One of his suggestions is using pure oxygen in power stations and  producing pure CO2 that can be liquefied and  buried deep in the oceans looks like a useful  method  of reducing CO2.    If homes are to reduce their emissions by 90% then solar heating has a much bigger impact than he suggests.   Also I don't understand  his argument  that purchasing energy from green sources doesn't help.

[NickW]

If ultimately the 'methanol economy' gets off the ground - assuming some major break through in the economics of renewables (wave and cheap solar come to mind) then pure CO2 will be a useful feedstock for making liquid fuels / chemicals.

Methanol c3H4(OH) - I think

Eythlene - C2H4

[Twenty4Seven]

...we are proabably already stuffed, short of moving to a war footing.....

War footing? Won't be too long now I shouldn't wonder - seeing the events in Georgia.

Wonder how you can harness the energy from an EMP .... not really renewable though