

Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap - lurkage
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

======
ljlolel
Finally, somebody speaks logically and with credibility about how little
actions have no practical effect on energy use or carbon output. Like he said,
if you eat hot-cooked and/or refrigerated food, drive to work, and are
socially acceptably clean, then frankly you use a ton of electricity.
Disconnecting your phone charger does nothing.

Hopefully the mass media will report on this in the US.

I was surprised to learn that current nuclear technologies don't have the
throughput to handle a lot of our energy needs in the long-term. Hopefully the
new fission technologies (or even better, fusion!) get developed and put into
practice.

~~~
billroberts
I agree - it's overdue for someone numerate to analyze the options. I've
downloaded the book and will read it this weekend. It's always astonished me
that most mainstream journalists focus on stuff like not leaving your TV on
standby, but never suggest turning the heating down a bit (or turning the A/C
off for any of you lucky enough to live somewhere warmer than where I live)

~~~
gregwebs
a TV on standby can actually use 40W of power. This is really an issue of
product design that we should be demanding the manufacturers fix. While 40W
may be small compared with the bigger picture, it is still energy that is
completely wasted, and if you add up the savings from everyone in USA turning
the TV off all the way, the energy adds up, and Americans just got a lot more
exercise from getting up from the couch and walking to the TV.

Phone chargers and many other electronic devices are using less than 1W when
unused but plugged in. Again, this is an issue that should be solved with
better product design.

~~~
pc
_While 40W may be small compared with the bigger picture, it is still energy
that is completely wasted_

Not quite - the "waste" is just emitted as heat, which will often be useful.

~~~
notauser
This is probably balanced out by people in hot places who have to expend extra
energy on air conditioning.

------
mechanical_fish
This guy sounds pretty good.

I took a physics class like this ("Energy and Society") from Philip Taylor
back at Case Western Reserve University ("a tradition of excellence that's
even longer than our name"). To sum up the lesson of the class in a sentence:
One of the most useful skills of the physicist is the ability and inclination
to do simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, and to take the results
seriously.

------
wallflower
5 minute shower * (5 gal/min) * (440 BTU [to heat water 85 degrees]/gal ) =
11000 BTU or 3.223kWh or ~16 hours of 200-watt HDTV

1 gallon of gasoline = 115000 BTU or 33.7kWh or 10 5-minute hot showers

Am I willing to take cold showers (not sure..)?

~~~
mechanical_fish
But if it turns out that these are the important numbers, you can _fix_ them
to an amazing extent. That's the very essence of the Pareto principle: Focus
your efforts on the things that matter.

There are, if necessary, alternatives to the daily 5-minute showers of 5
gal/min. (Some people, as we all know but politely avoid mentioning, are used
to the alternatives already. ;) It might be a combination of: fewer showers,
cooler showers, shorter showers, better heat-recovery technology for shower
water, more efficient shower heads that use less water but provide the same
cleaning, improved shower techniques involving better soaps and high-tech
sponges, special filters for water reclamation...

The transportation situation, of course, is more expensive and tedious to fix,
but the answers aren't _that_ hard: Design cities around public
transportation. Live at higher density and/or with smarter zoning that leads
to shorter trips. Build _real_ bike lanes so that those of us who bicycle in
Boston don't need such expensive insurance policies.

~~~
yummyfajitas
>more efficient shower heads that use less water but provide the same
cleaning,

I think a lower flow but high pressure might be useful here; perhaps
supplement normal water pressure with an electric pump. Another possibility is
low flow with a trigger that lets you turn on high pressure/flow when you need
it.

~~~
Raphael
But then people just hack it so it stays on high flow.

~~~
eru
Why would you do that - when you have to pay for the water and energy?

------
radu_floricica
Very much agree with the order of magnitude argument. I never understood all
this economic lighting fad: i use economical light bulbs because they save me
money, not because they save the planet. Everything I save this way is
probably less then one brake of a freight train.

What irritates me more is how much we allow people to push their irrational
arguments over us and let them dominate the discussion. I strongly doubt
Greenpeace hasn't made the same math, they just don't care. And still they can
make someone be afraid to be labeled as pro-nuclear. Why? Why do we allow
obvious flawed theories be pushed around until they become common sense?

------
dangoldin
The book can be downloaded here: <http://www.withouthotair.com/>

------
ericwaller
> He says he’s largely letting his machine-learning lab at Cambridge run
> itself these days

I hope the humor was intentional -- especially since The Register has a whole
section dedicated to the "Rise of the Machines™."

------
asahopkins
I find it useful to think in terms of watts, like Saul Griffith does here:
<http://www.wattzon.org/>

It puts 1W standby energy in context of a total "wattage" we each use.

------
TrevorJ
Very fascinating. We sometimes forget that far from being 'clean' energy, the
sun is actually a massive nuclear furnace. It just happens to be far enough
away :-)

~~~
hernan7
Now I'm going to have that TMBG song stuck on my head for the rest of the day,
thanks.

