saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

[misterroy]

in the register, all about alternative energy sums

[EricP]

that's the rod that silences those who might speak out about this eco-madness, just as going with it is an automatic source of funding.

£500,000 required to research the statistics of buttered toast falling the buttered side down. (With reference to it's impact on the environment and global warming)

:))

[geoff]

In message , misterroy writes

someone talking sense at last

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be misterroy wrote this:-

place was that it started from the basis that our current energy intensity should continue. If that is true then he has missed the point completely and should look at Contraction and Convergence.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:32:27 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

You can read my mind and know whether I have personally done any numbers? Fascinating.

The numbers have been done by a number of people, whether I have done them is neither here or there.

I said that I had not read the article.

If there are no improvements in energy efficiency.

[The Real Doctor]

Excellent. Mind reading.

Excellent. Personal abuse.

Nice try.

Ian

[The Natural Philosopher]

It's not hard. There's not much in it. Just a couple of fixed ideas and a fixed agenda and your inability to count has repetaedly been demosntrated.

With all concievable gains in energy efficiency actually.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Especially since contraction and convergence features in the article quite significantly.

Giving It Capital Letters Doesn't Make It Work Any Better. BTW.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:30:22 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Such things have been asserted. The assertions have always been false.

As always such personal attacks fail to cover the lack of arguments about the subject under discussion. One might even conclude that they are attempts at causing a diversion. I couldn't possible comment.

You may have the last word.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:32:13 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Nice try. However, in the 13MB download from , which is the book we are discussing, it is only mentioned once. That one mention is, "If we subscribe to the idea of ?contraction and convergence?, which means that all countries aim eventually to have equal per-capita emissions, then Britain needs to get down from its current 11 or so tons of CO2 per year per person to roughly 1 ton per year per person by 2050. This is such a deep cut, I suggest the best way to think about it is ?no more fossil fuels?."

I haven't read it, but a quick skim has already raised some points. I wonder how those who have promoted this book will react to the following extract from it?

"Mythconceptions

"'There is no point in my switching off lights, TVs, and phone chargers during the winter. The 'wasted' energy they put out heats my home, so it?s not wasted.'

"True for a few people, and only during the winter. False for most. If your house is being heated by electricity through ordinary bar fires or blower heaters then, yes, it?s much the same as heating the house with any electricity-wasting appliances. But if you are in this situation, you should change the way you heat your house. Electricity is high-grade energy, and heat is low-grade energy. It?s a waste to turn electricity into heat. Heaters called air-source heat pumps or ground-source heat pumps can deliver 3 or 4 units of heat for every unit of electricity consumed. They work like back-to-front refrigerators, pumping heat into your house from the outside air.

For the rest, whose homes are heated by fossil fuels or biofuels, it?s a good idea to avoid using electrical gadgets as a heat source for your home ? at least for as long as our electricity is mainly generated from fossil fuels. The point is, if you use electricity from an ordinary fossil power station, more than half of the energy from the fossil fuel goes sadly up the cooling tower. Of the energy that gets turned into electricity, about 8% is lost in the transmission system. If you burn the fossil fuel in your home, more of the energy goes directly into making hot air for you."

[The Natural Philosopher]

I have already pointed that out to the author: that if electric heating from non fossil is the least carbon way to heat, saving electricity that generates heat is less relevant.

His points, that in fact heatpumps are even better, and that inadvertently gernerating heat which may *not* be where you want it, when you want it, is valid: we agree to differ on this.

Its not a huge pont though.

As he says. a lot of littles make a little.

A complete switch to CFL bulbs probably saves far less than e.g. cutting out one bath a week or somesuch or just going to Tescos once a forthinght instead of twice a week.