<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sustainable Energy &#8211; Without the Hot Air</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:01:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-167946</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-167946</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2012/01/version-3-of-2050-pathways-calculator.html&quot; title=&quot;Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Version 3 of the 2050 Pathways Calculator&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Version 3 of the 2050 Pathways Calculator &lt;/a&gt;

In December 2011, DECC published the Carbon Plan and version 3 of the 2050 Pathways Calculator. 

As before, this open-source engineering-based tool is intended to support grown-up conversations about our possible energy futures. The user can choose any combination of demand-side and supply-side actions over the period to 2050, and the calculator computes and displays various consequences - energy flows, areas of land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and some security-of-supply indicators. The significant new feature in version 3 is the inclusion of costs, for the first time. Version 3 of the calculator also includes an air-quality calculator, which, like the costs calculator, is under development. Expert feedback is welcome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2012/01/version-3-of-2050-pathways-calculator.html" title="Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Version 3 of the 2050 Pathways Calculator" rel="nofollow">Version 3 of the 2050 Pathways Calculator </a></p>
<p>In December 2011, DECC published the Carbon Plan and version 3 of the 2050 Pathways Calculator. </p>
<p>As before, this open-source engineering-based tool is intended to support grown-up conversations about our possible energy futures. The user can choose any combination of demand-side and supply-side actions over the period to 2050, and the calculator computes and displays various consequences &#8211; energy flows, areas of land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and some security-of-supply indicators. The significant new feature in version 3 is the inclusion of costs, for the first time. Version 3 of the calculator also includes an air-quality calculator, which, like the costs calculator, is under development. Expert feedback is welcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-160156</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 01:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-160156</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/01/379550/one-third-world-energy-solar-2060-iea/&quot; title=&quot;One Third of World&#039;s Energy Could Be Solar by 2060, Predicts Historically Conservative IEA &#124; ThinkProgress&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One Third of World’s Energy Could Be Solar by 2060, Predicts Historically Conservative IEA&lt;/a&gt;

The International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for renewable energy. The agency has embraced the need for more clean electricity and fuels to address climate change and peak oil, but its outlook for the future is usually far more conservative than how reality plays out.

So when an official at the IEA says we could get up to one third of our global energy supply from solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, and solar hot water by 2060, that’s a fairly big piece of news. But even that projection may be conservative.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/01/379550/one-third-world-energy-solar-2060-iea/" title="One Third of World&#039;s Energy Could Be Solar by 2060, Predicts Historically Conservative IEA | ThinkProgress" rel="nofollow">One Third of World’s Energy Could Be Solar by 2060, Predicts Historically Conservative IEA</a></p>
<p>The International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for renewable energy. The agency has embraced the need for more clean electricity and fuels to address climate change and peak oil, but its outlook for the future is usually far more conservative than how reality plays out.</p>
<p>So when an official at the IEA says we could get up to one third of our global energy supply from solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, and solar hot water by 2060, that’s a fairly big piece of news. But even that projection may be conservative.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Objection: problems with Kyoto</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-159692</link>
		<dc:creator>Objection: problems with Kyoto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:08:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-159692</guid>
		<description>[...] If the world continues on the path of carbon-intensive economic activity, we are setting ourselves up to dramatically transform the planet&#8217;s climate by the end of this century, with severe consequences for people all over the world. Preventing dangerous or catastrophic climate change requires limiting how much greenhouse gas pollution gets added to the atmosphere; that, in turn, requires that the world abandon fossil fuels and move on to zero-carbon forms of energy. Achieving that transition will be challenging and costly, but so is our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Instead of spending billions developing deepwater oil fields off the coast of Brazil, fracking shale gas in North America, or exploiting Canada&#8217;s oil sands, we could be investing our money and effort on the transition to a renewably-based zero-carbon economy of the sort described by David MacKay. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If the world continues on the path of carbon-intensive economic activity, we are setting ourselves up to dramatically transform the planet&#8217;s climate by the end of this century, with severe consequences for people all over the world. Preventing dangerous or catastrophic climate change requires limiting how much greenhouse gas pollution gets added to the atmosphere; that, in turn, requires that the world abandon fossil fuels and move on to zero-carbon forms of energy. Achieving that transition will be challenging and costly, but so is our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Instead of spending billions developing deepwater oil fields off the coast of Brazil, fracking shale gas in North America, or exploiting Canada&#8217;s oil sands, we could be investing our money and effort on the transition to a renewably-based zero-carbon economy of the sort described by David MacKay. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-159134</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-159134</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/denmark-energy-idUSL5E7MP17G20111125&quot; title=&quot;Denmark aims for 100 pct renewable energy in 2050
&#124; Reuters&quot;&gt;Denmark aims for 100 pct renewable energy in 2050&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/denmark-energy-idUSL5E7MP17G20111125" title="Denmark aims for 100 pct renewable energy in 2050<br />
| Reuters">Denmark aims for 100 pct renewable energy in 2050</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-120375</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 03:50:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-120375</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=4833937&quot; title=&quot;Opinion: Every little bit doesn’t really help&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Opinion: Every little bit doesn’t really help&lt;/a&gt;
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
By MARQ DE VILLIERS, The Ottawa Citizen

...

There is no easy way to cut the necessary emissions. We do need to be green, but it is not nearly as simple (or as cheap) as the greenies would have you believe. What is required are big changes in demand, and big changes in supply. We’re talking countrywide scales — hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, thousands of square kilometres of solar panels, massive cuts in demand, wholesale switches in technology, gigantic investments. You won’t hear these numbers from politicians, or not very often. Nor will you hear them from business leaders. And hardly ever from environmentalists.

Here are a few lamentable numbers to remember:

Every year our global civilization digs up, transports, heats and pummels and shapes and processes and sells half a trillion tons of materials. Only six per cent of all those tons ends up in products — the rest is used to mine and make and move them. And only one per cent — a single measly per cent — is still a useful product six months later.

Only 37 per cent of primary energy production is put to any real use. The rest is lost to conversion inefficiencies and waste.

About four-fifths of all energy used in transportation, including trains and planes, is spent on road traffic — and about half of that is for moving light vehicles and people. Worse, only about five per cent of the energy we expend in transportation actually gets us from one place to another. The rest is just to shift our inefficient internal combustion vehicles or is sent out the tailpipe as waste heat. Ninety-five per cent of the energy we use to get to Wal-Mart is wasted. So much for so-called “savings.”

The International Energy Agency estimates that somewhere around $45 trillion, or an average of one per cent of annual global economic output, needs to be invested between now and 2050 to make any real difference — which sounds unlikely in this era of “jobless recoveries” and multiple fiscal crises.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=4833937" title="Opinion: Every little bit doesn’t really help" rel="nofollow">Opinion: Every little bit doesn’t really help</a><br />
Wednesday, May 25, 2011<br />
By MARQ DE VILLIERS, The Ottawa Citizen</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>There is no easy way to cut the necessary emissions. We do need to be green, but it is not nearly as simple (or as cheap) as the greenies would have you believe. What is required are big changes in demand, and big changes in supply. We’re talking countrywide scales — hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, thousands of square kilometres of solar panels, massive cuts in demand, wholesale switches in technology, gigantic investments. You won’t hear these numbers from politicians, or not very often. Nor will you hear them from business leaders. And hardly ever from environmentalists.</p>
<p>Here are a few lamentable numbers to remember:</p>
<p>Every year our global civilization digs up, transports, heats and pummels and shapes and processes and sells half a trillion tons of materials. Only six per cent of all those tons ends up in products — the rest is used to mine and make and move them. And only one per cent — a single measly per cent — is still a useful product six months later.</p>
<p>Only 37 per cent of primary energy production is put to any real use. The rest is lost to conversion inefficiencies and waste.</p>
<p>About four-fifths of all energy used in transportation, including trains and planes, is spent on road traffic — and about half of that is for moving light vehicles and people. Worse, only about five per cent of the energy we expend in transportation actually gets us from one place to another. The rest is just to shift our inefficient internal combustion vehicles or is sent out the tailpipe as waste heat. Ninety-five per cent of the energy we use to get to Wal-Mart is wasted. So much for so-called “savings.”</p>
<p>The International Energy Agency estimates that somewhere around $45 trillion, or an average of one per cent of annual global economic output, needs to be invested between now and 2050 to make any real difference — which sounds unlikely in this era of “jobless recoveries” and multiple fiscal crises.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-113673</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:45:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-113673</guid>
		<description>This is why I think MacKay&#039;s book is so valuable, because of news stories like this:&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Nearly all the energy we use on this planet starts out as sunlight that plants use to knit chemical bonds. Now, for the first time, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have &lt;a href=&quot;http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/03/28/239212/Artificial-Leaf-Could-Provide-Cheap-Energy&quot; title=&quot;Artificial Leaf Could Provide Cheap Energy - Slashdot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;created a potentially cheap, practical artificial leaf that does much the same thing—providing a vast source of energy that&#039;s easy to tap&lt;/a&gt;. The new device is a silicon wafer about the shape and size of a playing card coated on either side with two different catalysts. The silicon absorbs sunlight and passes that energy to the catalysts to split water into molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is a fuel that can be either burned or used in a fuel cell to create electricity, reforming water in either case. This means that in theory, anyone with access to water can use it to create a cheap, clean, and available source of fuel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;Even if your artificial leaf is 100% efficient at turning sunlight into electricity, you would need to cover an enormous area with them to meet today&#039;s energy demand.

Most journalists seem to have no appreciation for scale, when it comes to energy. Yes, you can make biofuel out of discarded fry-cooking oil from fast food restaurants, but that isn&#039;t a technology that scales cheaply to replace gasoline...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is why I think MacKay&#8217;s book is so valuable, because of news stories like this:<br />
<blockquote>
<p>&#8220;Nearly all the energy we use on this planet starts out as sunlight that plants use to knit chemical bonds. Now, for the first time, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/03/28/239212/Artificial-Leaf-Could-Provide-Cheap-Energy" title="Artificial Leaf Could Provide Cheap Energy - Slashdot" rel="nofollow">created a potentially cheap, practical artificial leaf that does much the same thing—providing a vast source of energy that&#8217;s easy to tap</a>. The new device is a silicon wafer about the shape and size of a playing card coated on either side with two different catalysts. The silicon absorbs sunlight and passes that energy to the catalysts to split water into molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is a fuel that can be either burned or used in a fuel cell to create electricity, reforming water in either case. This means that in theory, anyone with access to water can use it to create a cheap, clean, and available source of fuel.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even if your artificial leaf is 100% efficient at turning sunlight into electricity, you would need to cover an enormous area with them to meet today&#8217;s energy demand.</p>
<p>Most journalists seem to have no appreciation for scale, when it comes to energy. Yes, you can make biofuel out of discarded fry-cooking oil from fast food restaurants, but that isn&#8217;t a technology that scales cheaply to replace gasoline&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why not a world of 690 million?</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-112830</link>
		<dc:creator>Why not a world of 690 million?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-112830</guid>
		<description>[...] David MacKay&#8217;s book describes in detail, producing enough energy for everyone on Earth to live like the average [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] David MacKay&#8217;s book describes in detail, producing enough energy for everyone on Earth to live like the average [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What I believe and why</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-100379</link>
		<dc:creator>What I believe and why</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-100379</guid>
		<description>[...] energy into forms that are useful for us. This belief is reinforced by calculations like those in David MacKay&#8217;s book. You can take the average amount of sunlight falling on a square metre of the ground in a day and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] energy into forms that are useful for us. This belief is reinforced by calculations like those in David MacKay&#8217;s book. You can take the average amount of sunlight falling on a square metre of the ground in a day and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Food, energy, and fossil fuels</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-87947</link>
		<dc:creator>Food, energy, and fossil fuels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-87947</guid>
		<description>[...] world. If there is any chance of that not taking place, it will depend on the massive deployment of the kind of advanced renewables that are already technologically feasible. That deployment will take dedication, foresight, financing, and energy. Indeed, there is surely no [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] world. If there is any chance of that not taking place, it will depend on the massive deployment of the kind of advanced renewables that are already technologically feasible. That deployment will take dedication, foresight, financing, and energy. Indeed, there is surely no [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Storms of My Grandchildren</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-86319</link>
		<dc:creator>Storms of My Grandchildren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-86319</guid>
		<description>[...] also overly pessimistic about renewable forms of energy. I would recommend that he take a look at David Mackay&#8217;s excellent book on different routes to a zero-carbon energy future. People who read Hansen&#8217;s book may also be [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] also overly pessimistic about renewable forms of energy. I would recommend that he take a look at David Mackay&#8217;s excellent book on different routes to a zero-carbon energy future. People who read Hansen&#8217;s book may also be [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-84482</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:35:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-84482</guid>
		<description>December 1, 2009, 8:12 am

&lt;a href=&quot;http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/100-percent-renewables-by-2030/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100 Percent Renewables by 2030?&lt;/a&gt;
By KATE GALBRAITH

Could the world get to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030? Not a chance, say most analysts.

But in an article last month in Scientific American, two California academics outline a path to this amount through “millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations.”

The paper, by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, envisions 3.8 million large wind turbines, accounting for just over half of electricity demand in 2030. These would be augmented by 90,000 solar plants and other renewable technologies like tidal and geothermal power.

The turbines “would occupy about 1 percent of the earth’s land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean,” the paper states. Solar plants (not counting rooftop installations) would take up 0.33 percent of the earth’s land.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>December 1, 2009, 8:12 am</p>
<p><a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/100-percent-renewables-by-2030/" rel="nofollow">100 Percent Renewables by 2030?</a><br />
By KATE GALBRAITH</p>
<p>Could the world get to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030? Not a chance, say most analysts.</p>
<p>But in an article last month in Scientific American, two California academics outline a path to this amount through “millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations.”</p>
<p>The paper, by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, envisions 3.8 million large wind turbines, accounting for just over half of electricity demand in 2030. These would be augmented by 90,000 solar plants and other renewable technologies like tidal and geothermal power.</p>
<p>The turbines “would occupy about 1 percent of the earth’s land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean,” the paper states. Solar plants (not counting rooftop installations) would take up 0.33 percent of the earth’s land.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From the Cambridge ivory tower to Whitehall</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/03/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air/#comment-83594</link>
		<dc:creator>From the Cambridge ivory tower to Whitehall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5857#comment-83594</guid>
		<description>[...] Economics, Geek stuff, Politics, The environment   Apparently David MacKay, whose excellent book I reviewed before, has been appointed Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Economics, Geek stuff, Politics, The environment   Apparently David MacKay, whose excellent book I reviewed before, has been appointed Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

