Comments on: An Excellent Book on Energy: Before the Lights Go Out…

By: MikeB

MikeB — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:51:47 +0000

I’ ve just had a quick look at the net, and there is a blog spot from 2011 by Chris Vernon which takes on McKay in relation to his figures for wind, which seemingly have not changed since 2009.
I would have posted a direct link, but I’m using my IPod touch, and I have as yet no idea as to do that….

By: Mike B

Mike B — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:37:48 +0000

I think the problem with “Hot Air” is the figures are his, and perhaps not ones which experts in the field recognise. Remember that the author is not an energy specialist, and does seem to dismiss wind in favour of nukes with a wave of the hand.
The bit that really made me wonder is his argument that nuclear waste was but a small problem. Since UK governments have trying to find a waste dump for at least thirty years, and have ended up bribing the area around Sellafield to take the stuff, despite the geologically unsuitability of the area, you have to wonder about his general analysis.
He does say good things about efficiency, etc, but there is still a whiff of “then a miracle occurs”. However, he has managed to parlay his book into a new job. Which shows that hacks and politicians are impressed by his ‘balance’.
Try reading Walt Patterson, he’s been writing about energy for years from a UK perspective, and like Lovins, is unloved by the nuclear industry.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:49:15 +0000

I would go right to Maggie’s book an read that as he next stop no matter what.

By: Esa Riihonen

Esa Riihonen — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:11 +0000

Ok one of the GP has turned his coat or something, didn’t know about that – sorry. And seriously I don’t know the actual standing on the other environmentalists on that list either.

Doesn’t matter much – for me (a physicist myself) the study still seems quite balanced and level headed – with real numbers. He presents five different schemes (for the UK) for the year 2050 which all have the current energy consumption halved from the 2008 levels – IMO that is far from insignificant drop – and two of those scenarios don’t contain nuclear. What I took from the book was that the long term solution would be solar and neither wind nor nuclear – however nuclear would be the best short term alternative for the fossils.

In the book pages there are links to FAQ – where the author says that he has checked real data from 50 UK wind farms since writing the book and increased his power density estimate for 25 % (from 2 W/mÂ² to 2.5). Here is the link to his associated blog entry, answering more or less directly to the “accusation” list of yours above:

http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-david-mackay-trying-to-make-wind.html

Specifically, for me his first large answer in the comment section below seems not to be coming from someone that is somehow fundamentally against wind. BTW it’s been a while since I read it, but I really don’t remember him ever saying (pretending) that the land between the masts can’t be used for any other purposes – could you please specify?

Thus far I have to rely on his data more than blank statements by “someone-in- the-net” – so if you or anyone else knows a relatively easily available criticism to the work, I would seriously appreciate a link, thanks.

By: Wow

Wow — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:55:00 +0000

PS the “Greenpeace people” include the man who is now a CEO of a fossil fuel company…

By: Wow

Wow — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:52:38 +0000

Unfortunately, David has a pro-nuclear axe to grind and therefore makes many incorrect assumptions in order to preclude any other option other than nukes.

Examples are:

0) uses an incorrect total power use that is much larger than actually needed
1) old design turbine that is less efficient
2) uses a larger distance between masts than necessary to increase the land cost
3) pretends that the land between the masts are unusable for any other purpose
4) divides that by a quarter to say “We wouldn’t want to have a quarter of the land taken over by windmills!”
5) divides by another quarter because that figure still meant we had enough land to do it

The book, rather ironically, is almost entirely hot air.

By: Esa Riihonen

Esa Riihonen — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:25:18 +0000

Unfortunately the paper version seems to be temporarily out of stock in the (European) Amazon UK – have to check later.

Meanwhile I hope it is not inappropriate to recommend another highly acclaimed[*] book: “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” by David J. C. MacKay, since 2009 the Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change of the UK.

It can be bought – or downloaded free from here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

[*] Quite remarkably the book seems to be endorsed by just “anyone”, be it Greenpeace-people or executives of Royal Dutch Shell etc …