Download "Sustainable Energy -- Without the hot air" for free. You'll be glad you did.
A Cambridge physicist’s cooling summer treat 27
-
Posted 12:19 AM on 23 Jun 2008
by JMG -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Let’s live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Related Stories
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 5:45 pm
22 Jun 2008
While such a quantitative appraoch can be useful, it would be good to keep in mind its limitations: Numbers don't remove the need for clear thinking and for spelling out assumptions. Numbers can be intimidating, pushing the conversation in directions that may not be justified. Numbers aren't necessarily an accurate version of reality. They may be inaccurate or based on false assumptions. Policy is almost never based on a rational appraisal of quantitative information. Chance, emotion and the conflict among groups and interests are usually more important.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:46 pm
22 Jun 2008
theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk
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.
[...]
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:53 pm
22 Jun 2008
When you say clear thinking, do you mean bigotry?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:20 am
23 Jun 2008
Nucbuddy: When you say clear thinking, do you mean bigotry?
I had in mind scientism in which numbers, graphs and jargon are used the frighten the natives and cow them into accepting things without question.
I love science and am prejudiced in favor of scientists, but I recognize that they can be just as illogical and bloody-minded as anyone else, especially when they step outside their field.
In particular, there is often a blindness when it comes to history and ecology.
For example, any student of history has got to be very nervous about the idea of nuclear energy. Human beings have a poor record of being able to handle the power and responsibilities that such a technology brings. The sleepy little peasant society of today becomes a totalitarian powerhouse within 20 years. The stable empire overextends itself and breaks up into little states run by unbalanced dictators.
Many scientists are dazzled by the technology, but are shocked and surprised when things don't quite turn out as they expected (for example, the Iran nuclear industry which encouraged by the U.S. back in the 50s).
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:32 am
23 Jun 2008
Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is madness. Anyone with a slight grasp of social movements knows that small repeated commitments (e.g. turning off lights) are the foundation on which larger commitments are built.
This is the fundamental truth of religions and political movements. That MacKay does not realize this is a serious flaw in his analysis.
Energy is a problem with two legs - the physical and the social. You need to consider both.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
scatter Posted 1:09 am
23 Jun 2008
Also I would disagree that these smaller measures are insignificant when scaled up across the world. Standby power accounts for around 8% of domestic electricity consumption in the UK.
We'll require every single trick that's available to us.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:12 am
23 Jun 2008
The downloads didn't work. But the blog does. This blog entry touts air source heat pumps.
Ground source heat pumps and renewable electricity from roofs could eliminate 36% of GHG.
By missing the difference made by ground source geo heat exchange his figures will be hopelessly skewed, no matter how careful he is with his calculator.
Understanding the science and technology trumps number crunching, anyone can crunch. I'll check his blog further. I think the book could be a dud though JMG, given this random sample shows a serious error.
He lectures us that the 8% ghost load is unimportant, but misses the huge difference between air and ground source heat pumps, and the enormous difference made by mere cool water circulation substitued for air source heat pump (old fashionmed peak summer load transformer melting, air conditioning).
This is a rookie mistake of immense proportions.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:15 am
23 Jun 2008
With computers in stand by mode and all lights and appliances off, I recently put an ampmeter across both of my 120 volt mains to measure how much energy my home's standby power systems were really using. I couldn't find a serious answer on the internet. Some boob was claiming phantom loads were using the equivalent of 9 nuclear power plants.
We have a DVD, VCR, TVs, chargers, computers and on and on. They are using a grand total of 26 cents a month. Question answered. Will I be spending any of my time, money or energy to reduce my phantom loads? Not a chance. I have bigger fish to fry.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
gmobus Posted 3:15 am
23 Jun 2008
Human social systems are important, as is individual choice and judgment. But we are part of a larger world system that needs to be understood at the macroscopic level in order to know where to look for the details. The synopsis of MacKay's book makes this point in passing, while trying to address one leg of a more complex problem.
The macro-view must look at, at least, four major interacting phenomena in order to grasp understanding of the dynamics of the problems. These are: human nature (ability to adapt/think differently en masse as well as understanding consumption habits), population growth (a result of the biological aspects of human nature), climate change (a major driver of need for adaptation), and peak energy (the trigger for contraction and putting pressure on all the above). Virtually every other global issue can be seen emanating from these four with feedback loops complicating the causal patterns.
Nothing short of a systems dynamics approach will provide clues as to what to do re: policy prescriptions.
George
Question Everything
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
scatter Posted 3:33 am
23 Jun 2008
New switched mode PSUs on mobile phones can quite comfortably get sub 1W but anything with a linear PSU will likely have well over 1W.
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 5:58 am
23 Jun 2008
I see there that he is well acquainted with ground source heat pumps, tidal and wave energy and a whole host of other renewable and non-renewable energy sources. He spends some time talking about combined heat and power (micro?) generation as well. Seems pretty balanced overall. But I wonder if his assumptions are really on target-- do we really each use THAT much energy per person per day??
He breaks everything down into equivalent per-capita chunks. What I'd like to hear is if people think he's made the right estimates on that, etc. To me as a reader I think he may be oversimplifying, looking at each slice of the pie separately and not taking into effect the simultaneous value of reducing demand (by conservation) while diversifying supply (by finding renewables or other carbon-free optios).
It does look like he's debunking some of the carbon offset rates as far, FAR too low. If only it were so painless to go carbon-neutral.
I for one believe that conservation is the untapped key to getting us out of the climate/carbon mess we're in. There is always more we can do to increase our efficiency. Amory Lovins has the right idea...
One thing for sure the physicist/natural philosophy guy from Cambridge is no rookie. It's clear to me at least, that he doesn't underestimate the psychologic barriers that must be overcome to make the necessary changes in energy sources at this time. Lordy, what a bunch of NIMBYS they have over there in the UK, all over wind and other stuff, you think they want their power for free or something.
I had trouble following some of his points because his frame of reference as a Brit with local stories and case studies (e.g. a tidal energy project in the UK) was not known to me.
My favorite slide from his presentation was the one comparing birds killed by windmills to birds killed by domestic housecats. No contest there!!
I'd rather see numbers and debate their merits than simply argue endlessly about opinions without anchoring them in technological fact.
The review and discussion should continue, closer to the source of the thread!
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:52 am
23 Jun 2008
2 wheeler wrote: It's clear to me at least, that he doesn't underestimate the psychologic barriers that must be overcome to make the necessary changes in energy sources at this time. Lordy, what a bunch of NIMBYS they have over there in the UK, all over wind and other stuff, you think they want their power for free or something. The assumptions:
Other people have psychologic barriers that must be overcome. This implies a technological master plan that will be enforced upon an ignorant public. Note that this is a different model of change from a bottom-up grassroots effort. Note also, that this technocratic, anti-democratic view has nothing to do with science. One can argue for it, but one cannot take it for granted or claim that it is sanctified by science.
The term "NIMBY" is code for the assertion of the power of a central government/corporatocracy over the rights of local residents. In general, the term is used by people who benefit from the process to deny the legitimacy of those who suffer from the process. The outstanding example here at Gristmill was an environmental leader who inveighed against those who opposed wind farms in their neighborhood; in the same interview, he admitted his addiction to traveling by airplane to beautiful far-off places.
Here 2 wheeler talks about NIMBYism in relation to wind farms; but remember, the same argument is used against people who complain about nuclear plants, toxic industries, industrial pig farms.
I'd rather see numbers and debate their merits than simply argue endlessly about opinions without anchoring them in technological fact. As we've learned from the studies of "framing," if you can define the frame, you've won the argument. Here 2 wheeler objects to changing the frame away from a narrow focus on numbers and technology.
I would argue that the ONLY way you can make intelligent use of numbers in energy policy is to understand their social context.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 9:27 am
23 Jun 2008
power is an unfounded assumption that has grown up recently, that
decentralizing a technology somehow makes it greener. So whereas big
centralized fossil fuel power stations are viewed as clearly `bad', flocks
of local micro-power stations are imbued with goodness. Small may be
beautiful, but if decentralization is actually a good idea then this fact
should be evident in the numbers. Decentralization should be able to
stand on its own two feet without religious belief in the need to decentralize.
And what the numbers actually show is that centralized
electricity generation has many benefits in both economic and energy
terms. Only in large buildings is there any benefit to local generation,
and usually that benefit is only of order 10% or 20%. And what this
chapter will show is that there is another technology that is superior to
combined heat and power: this technology is called `heat pumps'.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:39 pm
23 Jun 2008
Verified ampmeter on 15 watt bulb a few minutes ago and double checked phantom loads. Now reading 1.2 amps, up from 0.8 amps last time I checked. Suspect new computer and daughter being home from college (alarm clock, cell phone, game system, etc).
Using 1.2 amps and 7.93 cents per kWh our phantom loads would be costing roughly $8.33 per month. That's getting significant...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 1:52 pm
23 Jun 2008
Centralized power = centralized political power. Do the numbers take account of this fact?
"Efficiency" begs the question - efficiency for whom? For what?
These aren't academic questions. Right now, in the UK The government wants to hand over powers to give the planning go-ahead on major projects - such as airport runways, nuclear power stations, motorways and waste dumps - to an unelected commission.
Guardian June 23 Great, you say. We can do away with those pesky local people who don't go along with the Plan to combat climate change. Unfortunately, however, the new commission will not look at that issue. As the journalist concludes: this isn't primarily about climate change at all. It is about business and national growth, and projects that will often run completely counter to environmental needs No surprise here for anyone familiar with history and the political process.
There's nothing wrong with numbers about technology and physics. What's wrong is ignoring critical aspects of reality.
Where are the numbers that show whether people have control over their own lives? Where is the co-efficient of democracy?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:21 pm
23 Jun 2008
I'm always aggravated by the implicit view, which pops up here (and many other places) again and again, that human society is a kind of deficient machine and human beings deficient robots.
grist.org
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 2:37 pm
23 Jun 2008
I'm surely in favor of decentralized, anarchic solutions when possible (what better way is there is to realize freedom?) But if I have to loose my electricity, I'd have to think about it first!
I think Mcckay is following Monbiot's footsteps, questioning the inflated numbers of the hucksters and the deluded in favor of solid, scientifically-backed numbers. See Small is Useless for his critique of micro wind turbines.) There could be some benefits to having centralized electricity production -- a large plant could supply the power for several towns or cities that might otherwise not have the resources or capital.
Anyway, Mcckay's praise of heat pumps (decentralized by nature) is going to reduce electricity demand where ever it comes from.
PS Good to see the Energy Bulletin back in business!
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:28 pm
23 Jun 2008
"bang for buck" is not undemocratic....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:29 pm
23 Jun 2008
http://www.otherpower.com/
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:14 pm
23 Jun 2008
Colin Wright: thanks about Energy Bulletin. It's been a struggle!
Although it may sound like it, I'm not really manning the barricades for localism. I'm just saying it is an issue that should be out there.
You're exactly right to pose the problem of freedom vs access to centralized electricity. It is a trade-off.
Governments would NEVER cut off a service like electricity would they?
Israel to begin cutting off electricity to Gaza
It's not just electricity. Europeans are very aware that they are dependent on natural gas from Russia. Does this constrain their independence? Does our dependence on Saudi oil affect our foreign policy?
One of MacKay's suggestions is for the UK to get electricity from (projected) huge solar developments in North Africa. There's much to be said for the idea... but one has to keep in mind the problem of depending on energy from other countries.
Energy will increasingly be a tool/weapon of geopolitical power. I'm afraid it also has the potential as a tool of repression as well. Physical measurements don't capture this all-important reality.
hapa: wouldn't sharing revenue from larger facilities empower?It all depends, doesn't it? Who gets to divide up the costs and benefits? Let ME be The Decider and I'm all for large "efficient" systems. The nuclear power plant goes in your neighborhood, and the special rate reductions go to me and my friends.
On the average, the system is much more efficient.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
ngoddard Posted 12:17 am
24 Jun 2008
The main point he's making is, IMHO: does your solution add up? Saying we will need every trick is not really an answer. We don't have the time or energy or money to pursue every trick. We have to make some choices. Whatever choices we make, they better add up to a plan that works in physical terms (i.e., delivers the energy required for the lifestyle expected).
If you think he's got some numbers wrong, I think he'd like to hear from you. He is very keen that numbers be correct. Similarly for a technology he's missing.
It may be the case that social movements get going with small steps. Fine, so long as those small steps aren't put forward as a sustainable energy system. He doesn't talk about how to get to the sustainable energy system (much), but what such a thing could look like. A good example is the feed-in tariffs that Germany and other EU countries use to promote growth in micro-renewables. They work great at kickstarting the industry. But they are completely unsustainable economically (would consume way too much budget) if micro-renewables were to actually achieve major penetration. So, a stop gap, a stepping stone, but not part of a target sustainable system.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:27 am
24 Jun 2008
Maybe you could advise him to change that? No one else is likely to explain the geo heat exchange mistake to him.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:05 am
24 Jun 2008
my question included CSAs and muni power. energy democracy without the overhead of hyperindividualism.
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 5:01 am
24 Jun 2008
That is a different question than if it is politically feasible, or socially desirable, or in whose backyard (everyone's?) the renewable energy sources might be located.
He's looking across the entire spectrum of alternatives trying to see what combinations, if any, might add up. Not unlike others such as Socolow have attempted to do with their "wedges" analyses.
A critical part of rational decisionmaking must be based on numbers and facts to inform the logic. i.e. Is it practical at this time to sustainably produce the amount of joules or kilowatts in this case that seem to be needed?
Assumptions not being made could include:
neglecting any increases in efficiency of the renewable productions through future R&D (e.g. nanotube solar, etc.)
Neglecting increases in efficiency on the consumption side to sustain the same level of prosperity with a lower energy consumption footprint.
Only when you consider these hard numbers realistically is it then possible to apply the social yardsticks or other voodoo to see what can be practically done (sold) in the political spheres. Discussants above seem more fixated on that aspect of the picture, perhaps due to their own backgrounds or perspectives coming more from social science viewpoints? I am not dissing them, nor am I saying that there is a numerical-only decisionmaking hegemony in force.
Fixations on "who is the Decider", e.g. is it democracy or not, big vs. small energy providers are the second stage, from this perspective-- after the basic scientific/technological question of what is quantitatively feasible at this time to approach sustainable carbon neutral energy for all of humankind's necessary activities.
I believe MacKay moves the ball forward by providing some useful information for people to chew on and truth out. Ultimately the decisions and solutions will likely be local.
To me, MacKay seemed to be saying that the bar is higher than we thought, we are currently using lots and lots of energy, and we need to be hitting on all the available cylinders if we are to kludge together a sustainable (carbon-neutral) energy future.
I found Bart's responses above to be unnecessarily polarizing, implying and inferring an "us vs. them" view extending to mine and other peoples comments. Maybe it boils down to that sort of picture later but I believe that it doesn't yet have to, at this point in time.
I believe that the ultimate solution(s) will depend on all people of the world:
Benefiting from an economy of scale that would be expected to take hold and reduce prices of the implemented various carbon-free energy production technologies.
Consciously leaving their NIMBY biases at the door and sharing the load of sustainable renewable energy production. Just as we all are part of the very big climate/carbon/sustainability problem right now, we all need to be part of the combination of solutions.
Luckily for the people right now: by their very nature, most renewables seem most suited to distributed production. The sun's photons hit the earth all over its surface... giving everyone a stake or share. Call it anarchic or call it terrorist-resistant, distributed energy would be the same functionally and would turn the existing paradigm on its head. The real battle as we are seeing it take shape seems to be happening between the status quo energy providers (centralized big power plants) vs. those who may implement a new distributed energy mode. Via net metering or whatever you want to call it.
Power, and information, to the people! We can get to sustainability, one step at a time. How to afford it best is a good question. We can't afford to fail, however. MacKay is helping us view the spectrum of technological options through some useful quantitative screens which I for one do value as a form of objectivity.
Let's bring out any hidden assumptions, check and test them. If the numbers are wrong, let's correct them. But we can't all collectively evaluate this without looking at some numbers, people!
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
ngoddard Posted 8:38 am
24 Jun 2008
Here's some of what he says about heat pumps (missing out all the physics) (bold emphasis is mine):
Assume that we have a neighbourhood with quite a high population density - say 6200 people per km2 (160 m2 per person), the density of a typical English suburb. Can everyone use ground-source heat pumps, without using the summer replenishment trick? A calculation on p.?? gives a tentative answer of no: if we were aiming for everyone in the neighbourhood to be able to pull from the ground a heat flow of about 48 kWh/d (my estimate of our typical winter heat demand), we'd end up freezing the ground in the winter.
Avoiding unreasonable cooling of the ground requires that the sucking rate be less than 12 kWh/d. So when we switch to heat pumps, we should plan to include substantial summer heat-dumping in the design, to refill the ground with heat for use in the Winter. This summer heat-dumping could use heat from air-conditioning, or heat from roof-mounted solar water-heating panels.
Alternatively, we should expect to need to use some air-source heat pumps too, and then we'll be able to get all the heat we want - as long as we have the electricity to pump it. In the UK, air temperatures don't go very far below freezing, so concerns about poor winter-time coefficient of performance of air-source pumps, which might apply in North America and Scandanavia, probably do not apply in Britain.
Nay-sayers object that the coefficient of performance of air-source heat pumps is lousy - just 2 or 3. But their information is out of date. If we are careful to buy top-of-the-line heat pumps, we can do much better. The Japanese government has legislated a decade-long efficiency drive that has greatly improved the performance of air-conditioners; thanks to this drive, there are now air-source heat pumps with a coefficient of performance of 4.9; these heat pumps can make hot water http://www.ecosystem-japan.com/
Do you still think he's got it wrong on heat pumps?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:08 pm
24 Jun 2008
He takes a couple dozen topics and runs the numbers on them. There are many interesting insights, and several of the graphs are magnificent (e.g., the graph of birds killed by wind turbines vs vehicles vs cats).
I don't think that MacKay would claim that he is writing a definitive guide to energy or energy policy. By its nature, this popularizing approach is superficial, and as he says early on, he's "not an expert on any of the topics in the book."
I personally agree with most of MacKay's points. I also agree with 2wheeler's comment that the book downplays conservation and efficiency.
I thought the nuclear chapter was the weakest part, leading off with a quote from "Greenpeace co-founder" Patrick Moore. That rather throws down the gauntlet since Moore is widely seen by greens as a renegade.
I had quibbles here and there in various chapters, but it's all part of an ongoing discussion.
I'd still stand by the early criticisms I made, about the lack of social and historical awareness. MacKay is writing about social policy and if you do that, you really can't get away with claiming that "I just do numbers."
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:48 pm
24 Jun 2008
Several skyscraper geo heat exchange heating/cooling projects are underway.
Even if extra wells need to be drilled it is worth it because the economy of scale of supplying residential heat for many more homes makes the well drilling cost effective.
Ground is 55% f in the UK is it not? Just below freezing is 30 degrees f. Not worth mentioning the difference eyyh? I thought he was a "numbers" guy. Newer, better heat pumps work even better with a 25 degree advantage!
And what about ground source direct circulation cooling? A bit more efficient than air source heat pumps, good old fashioned hugely wasteful peak summer load transformer melting air conditioning is aok with him?
How about when the Gulf Stream starts slowing and UK winters get well below zero f? The arctic and greenland ice is melting fast. Maybe all those air source heat pumps he recomends can be converted? Much easier to go ground source the first time around.
And quoting that rat Moore on nukes? Has he checked out Moore's sordid past?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink