There's a very interesting article in The Register about a Cambridge 
University physics professor who has put some hard numbers into the 
climate/energy debate.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

The full article is too long to post here but here's how it starts:

"A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into 
the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several 
things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness 
to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas 
put forward would actually stack up.

"Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of 
Physics holds a PhD in computation from Cal Tech and a starred first in 
Physics, so we can take it that he knows his numbers. And, as he points 
out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon 
emissions and energy use.

"MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the 
constant suggestion — from the Beeb, parts of the government etc — 
that we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing 
such things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our 
mobile-phone chargers.

"Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this 
is madness. Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off 
standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean 
clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind 
and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use 
to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other 
things.

"Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as 
sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This 
means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to 
consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon 
fashion. He’s coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint, 
but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty 
becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil — as the North Sea 
starts to play out — will also find his analysis interesting. 
Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The 
Reg this week. “But it’s got to add up.”


Guess what? Windmills don't come out of it too well.

More at his own site at: http://www.withouthotair.com/

A four-page "executive summary" is available here:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/synopsis.pdf


-- 
Ed Banger

Oh, silly me. I've only just noticed that Conor posted the same article 
on here earlier today.

As a famous fictional nuclear power worker would say:

"D'oh!"


-- 
Ed Banger

"Ed Banger"  wrote in message 
news:ugSSnbfkrRXIFwV9@nildram.co.uk...
> Oh, silly me. I've only just noticed that Conor posted the same article on 
> here earlier today.
>
> As a famous fictional nuclear power worker would say:
>
> "D'oh!"

Fictional ??
You mean all this time my life coach is nothing but a work of fiction ?

D'oh !!