'Without Hot Air'

[Ivan]

Thought I ought to publicise this. It concerns climate change, and is written by a Cambridge Professor. You can download the book FOR FREE. I've read extracts of the book which were available before it was finished (you'll find references to it elsewhere on this forum). From what I've read, I'm very impressed, and it's good to see someone take the trouble to write this book first and foremost to spread the knowledge, and not for the purpose of making money.


Hi Ivan,

I found your email address on the Navitron forum.

I'm writing to let you know that Prof David JC MacKay's new book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" is now available.

You can order directly from the publisher by emailing sales@uit.co.uk

You can also download the book free at:

www.withouthotair.com

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any more information.


xxxxxx

Publicity
UIT Cambridge

[David]

I read a few extracts and was very unimpressed.

The extracts were a series of childish calculations of the, "if we were to generate all electricity by wind turbines", type. I'm sure the public will love the anti-science the book represents.

[rhys]

I think you need to read it all!!! The last thing it is is anti - science. It is a good staring point for discussion on energy issues and policy.
There have beeen quite a few posts relating to David Mckays book on this forum.

[billt]

It seems pretty realistic to me. I.e. he does not play down the difficulties of using renewable energy to maintain present lifestyle expectations.

[Ivan]

That's exactly what I like about it. When we listen to the nuclear industry we hear a very alternative view of reality, and it's also true that a lot of people supporting renewable energy believe that a few wind turbines and the odd tidal barrage will see us 100% supplied by renewables. It's going to be a lot harder than that, and I think Prof. MacKay's book illustrates the extent of the gap between our current energy needs and our current non-fossil energy production. He's very much pro-renewables, but the book is written to show just how important and drastic the changes need to be.

[Richard Owen]

What came home to me is just how energy dense oil and gas are.

It takes a lot of anything else to replace them.

So, I think, in addition to doing all the good renewable generating stuff, we're going to have to get used to getting by on less.

Especially if transport goes electric.

[djh]

What came home to me is just how energy dense oil and gas are.
It takes a lot of anything else to replace them.

Yes, that's why I think that methods for synthesising hydrocarbon/alcohol fuels are likely to be important

I went to a talk by Mackay at work earlier in the week. He's very entertaining, well worth seeing if you get the chance.

The one thing I hadn't appreciated before listening to him was how strongly he favours heat pumps. Basically, use heat pumps now in preference to gas boilers or pretty much anything else that isn't directly renewable. And use them with renewable electricity, of course. I've been a heat pump sceptic until now but I'm presently in a rapid learning exercise. The magic keyword is "EcoCute". I still haven't made my mind up though.

[Richard Owen]

My heat pump isn't cute. Eco or otherwise.

Does the job though.

Economics were easy for us: we were all electric and no gas within 6 miles. Heat pump makes more sense than storage heaters.

Not sure they make sense for everyone though.

[David]

I think you need to read it all!!! The last thing it is is anti - science. It is a good staring point for discussion on energy issues and policy.

I have plenty of other things to read which would be more productive. I have known for decades how energy dense coal and oil are. Neither do I believe that all it will take is a few wind turbines.

[renewablejohn]

I just wish Prof MacKay looked at real life renewable examples before he extrapolates his figures into the real world.

[biscuit]

I've just read "Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air" and highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the future of power generation in the UK, and the pros and cons of nuclear, wind, pv, conc solar, etc.
Personally I really like the light hearted style it's written in, but it obviously doesn't appeal to everyone!
Incidentally, Mackay has recently been appointed as Chief Scientific Advisor at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which I see as a ray of hope.
There's a great quote from Jeremy Leggett in the book about the mind numbing inaction resulting from government committees.  I wonder how long  Mackay will cope with that frustration!

George

[langstroth2]

There's a great quote from Jeremy Leggett in the book about the mind numbing inaction resulting from government committees.  I wonder how long  Mackay will cope with that frustration!

...decide on a "strategy paper" and associated review board, technical committee and "delivery proposals", or perhaps bring in some expensive client side consultants to propose "a framework for procurement options"...and rework it a few times when it fails to deliver the first time.

Oh and then there's the project teams still in existence 6 months after <insert name of project> was cancelled. I kid you not.  

I'm not talking about any one specific white hall department/quango, they all tend to be the same.

Can you tell I've seen more than my fair share of white hall money wasting inaction, "don't actually do anything because that involves the big R word - Risk (political/career/financial - take your pick)".

Sigh.

I wish Mackay the best of luck.

[Simon]

I read a few extracts and was very unimpressed.

The extracts were a series of childish calculations of the, "if we were to generate all electricity by wind turbines", type. I'm sure the public will love the anti-science the book represents.

Frankly, I think you are missing the point of this book. MacKay's whole thesis boils down to that to make a big difference we are going to have to do something big. His example of covering Wales with wind turbines is just to illustrate the point that we need country-scale solutions. A few wind turbines here and there are not going to solve the problem.

His point that any solution has to "add up" is well made in my opinion. He is not advocating one solution over another and specifically states that he is ignoring economics. Policy makers should read this book so that they can disabuse themselves of the notion that a wind turbine here and a PV panel there will do the trick.

My final conclusion was that we are going to have to rely on nuclear for some while yet whether we like it or not. James Lovelock came to the same conclusion.

I think the book is an extremely valuable contribution to the public understanding of sustainable energy.

Simon

by the way, as a chartered engineer, I can probably derive all the equations from first principles. The "childish" calculations are for the vast majority who probably can't including most politicians. The appendices provide a good primer for the more numerate members of the public

[martin]

What always amazes me is the number of people who seem to be labouring under the complete delusion that "nukes" are the "cavalry" needed to save us from all our problems - even it's proponents will admit that the most it could ever give is under 10% of our needs, so far in the future that any real supply problems will have already kicked in, and then only for a very few decades before it "runs out" - chuck in a few realities, like the extreme cost, that the sea will be lapping around many of the proposed sites, that they're perfect targets in an increasingly unstable world by whoever wants to "do terrorism"- "sensible" nuclear generation is a myth, only propounded by those directly funded by, or those hoodwinked by the incredibly strong, powerful, well-connected and funded nuclear industry!
It's SO simple, just cut needs by the 10% that nukes might give us sometime in the future, then spend the savings on REAL renewables!

[EccentricAnomaly]

What always amazes me is the number of people who seem to be labouring under the complete delusion that "nukes" are the "cavalry" needed to save us from all our problems - even it's proponents will admit that the most it could ever give is under 10% of our needs, ...

That's 10% of energy needs, not just electricity, right?  Currently, electricity is about 10% of total energy consumption, I think.

(No, this is just a request for clarification, not a leading question.  Personally, I think nuclear could possibly be done safely but with the secretive and clubby way that such things are run in Britain I have some confidence that it wouldn't be so I'd rather we did without.)