DIYbanter

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)
-   UK diy (https://www.diybanter.com/uk-diy/)
-   -   saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap (https://www.diybanter.com/uk-diy/253720-saw-thought-heavyweight-physics-prof-weighs-intoclimate-energy-scrap.html)

misterroy June 22nd 08 10:30 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
in the register, all about alternative energy sums

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/

EricP June 22nd 08 11:11 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
 
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT), misterroy
wrote:

in the register, all about alternative energy sums

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/


He obviously has no problem getting his funding.

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 June 22nd 08 11:51 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
 
In message
,
misterroy writes
in the register, all about alternative energy sums

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/



Keep up at the back

someone talking sense at last


http://www.withouthotair.com/

--
geoff

David Hansen June 23rd 08 12:16 AM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
 
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
misterroy wrote this:-

in the register, all about alternative energy sums

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/


I haven't read the article. However, a comment on it in another
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, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The Natural Philosopher June 23rd 08 04:32 AM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
misterroy wrote this:-

in the register, all about alternative energy sums

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/


I haven't read the article. However, a comment on it in another
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.


You haven't done the numbers OR read the article.

He points out that renewable energy means living at the population
levels and at the energy lifestyles of mediaeval peasants.

YOU can do it, but I am ****ed if I will.

More irritatingly, it appears to be a total pliagiarism on everything I
have been saying in this area for the last year or so on this and
cam.misc newsgroups.

I am flattered, but would have liked SOME acknoweldgement;-)..or is it
that ultimately the facts speak for themselves and the answer is indeed
plain to see to anyone who does the research and is actually able to do
basic arithmetic.


David Hansen June 23rd 08 08:36 AM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
 
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:32:27 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

You haven't done the numbers OR read the article.


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.

He points out that renewable energy means living at the population
levels and at the energy lifestyles of mediaeval peasants.


If there are no improvements in energy efficiency.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The Real Doctor June 23rd 08 02:11 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
On 22 Jun, 23:16, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
misterroy wrote this:-

in the register, all about alternative energy sums


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/


I haven't read the article. However, a comment on it in another
place was that it started from the basis that our current energy
intensity should continue. If that is true


Excellent. Mind reading.

then he has missed the
point completely


Excellent. Personal abuse.

and should look at Contraction and Convergence.


Nice try.

Ian

The Natural Philosopher June 23rd 08 02:30 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:32:27 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

You haven't done the numbers OR read the article.


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


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.

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.

He points out that renewable energy means living at the population
levels and at the energy lifestyles of mediaeval peasants.


If there are no improvements in energy efficiency.


With all concievable gains in energy efficiency actually.





The Natural Philosopher June 23rd 08 02:32 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 22 Jun, 23:16, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
misterroy wrote this:-

in the register, all about alternative energy sums
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/

I haven't read the article. However, a comment on it in another
place was that it started from the basis that our current energy
intensity should continue. If that is true


Excellent. Mind reading.

then he has missed the
point completely


Excellent. Personal abuse.

and should look at Contraction and Convergence.


Nice try.


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

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

Ian


David Hansen June 23rd 08 03:05 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
 
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:30:22 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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.


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, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen June 24th 08 10:03 AM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
 
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:32:13 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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


Nice try. However, in the 13MB download from
http://www.withouthotair.com, 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."







--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The Natural Philosopher June 24th 08 04:37 PM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:32:13 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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


Nice try. However, in the 13MB download from
http://www.withouthotair.com, 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."




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.







John Stumbles June 25th 08 12:32 AM

saw this and thought...Heavyweight physics prof weighs intoclimate/energy scrap
 
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:32:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I am flattered, but would have liked SOME acknoweldgement;-)..or is it
that ultimately the facts speak for themselves and the answer is indeed
plain to see to anyone who does the research and is actually able to do
basic arithmetic.


Maybe a Cambridge Physics Prof is capable of thinking for himself and
doing the research and maths without help from Natural Philosophers?

Maybe he hasn't actually read your stuff?

Maybe he hasn't even heard of you?

Maybe you shouldn't be flattered? ;-)

--
John Stumbles

Xenophobia? Sounds a bit foreign to me.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter