On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:25*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:



On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

.../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/oritsbackup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out thatwww.withoutair.comishostedon a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

Very true.

MacKay has interesting, simple and plainly valid
"normalisation techniques", *one* of which is:
- work out the land area we each occupy (in the UK)
i.e. area/population, which has to be sufficient for
all our needs if we are to be self-sufficient
- for each use to which that area could be put, how
much can we extract
- what are our current needs, and how could they be
realistically changed
Examples are energy from wind, energy from crops,
energy for food, energy for cars or busses or trains
or aircraft etc.