In particular, whether any particular number is right or not, I like his visualizations.

In the online version

this section starts the model he uses, of a balance sheet between energy uses (red) and supplies(green).

I really liked the section starting here, as it graphically compared 5 different strategies for the UK, as an example.

http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,view/idstr,CU-CSF-Lectures_2008-12_David_MacKay/Itemid,42

Very entertaining lecture that closely follows his book.

To me the whole renewables vs nuclear debate is somewhat beside the point. If you accept the imperative to make substantial cuts in fossil fuel use- accepting that fossil fuels are the worst of the available options for providing our civilisation’s energy needs- then you have to turn to whatever else is available. Off course that means both renewables and nuclear. It would be great if we were having this debate because governments were presenting us with a choice between a widespread rollout of nuclear power, or a massive expansion in renewables. Unfortunately they’re not.

That is why IFR support is so important. it is a safer, cleaner, and cheaper nuclear that supplies power for over 10,000 years (unlike existing nuclear technology).

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that existing nuclear technology would have any great difficulty in continuing to supply energy for 10,000 years. If it had to increase its rate of supply one percent a year, certainly, it would fail several millennia earlier, but so would anything.

In reality it could only increase about 1,000-fold before it became able to warm the globe noticeably, not by capturing sunlight, but just by direct heating. Levelling off at or below that 1-PW limit, it would require little of the continental crust to be processed in those ten millennia, and the crust right at the surface could be left alone. As I’ve previously noted in these pages, the energy cost of pulverization is not enough to disqualify even ordinary rocks as uranium ores. (Although if some cosmic mishap caused the Earth’s solid body to become thoroughly mixed, then, the uranium would probably be too thin. Over the Earth’s history it has unmixed itself, migrating towards where our feet would eventually be.)

(How fire can be domesticated)

“The point is very smart people disagree. Some think renewables are sufficient, but other very smart people think they aren’t. And neither side seems to be able to sway the other side.

Any smart decision maker would look at this and say “I can’t afford to be wrong. One of these positions is correct, but I can’t know which one because even the experts cannot agree. Therefore, my safest strategy is to embrace diversity and support nuclear and renewables. If renewables are sufficient, I’ve “wasted” a minor dollar amount. If renewables are not sufficient, my bet on nuclear saved the day.

I think the big point is experts disagree and so from a policy maker’s point of view, you should create policy so that the public wins in EITHER scenario.

That is why IFR support is so important. it is a safer, cleaner, and cheaper nuclear that supplies power for over 10,000 years (unlike existing nuclear technology).”

Matt, we’ve discussed David Mackay’s book a fair bit in the comments here, although not in any blog entries to date. Thanks for alerting me to his blog, which looks excellent (as is his book, even if some folks here have pointed out some potential errors, esp. regarding BEVs vs combustion engines).

Some samples:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/11/climbing-mount-improbable/#comment-12085
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/11/climbing-mount-improbable/#comment-12070
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/18/the-solar-fraud/#comment-9477
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/18/the-solar-fraud/#comment-9389
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/12/integral-fast-reactors-for-the-masses/#comment-7115

I was recently pointed towards your blog via comments section on realclimate and spent (some of) the last few days dipping into previous posts.

Thank you! I think you’re doing a great job of communicating both science and policy, moving easily between the two but taking care not to blur the distinction too much.

If you haven’t already read it, I’d heartily recommend David Mackay’s book ‘Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air’, available free online:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

He also has a somewhat low-key blog:
http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/
Not much in the way of comment/discussion yet, but I think it would fit in well on your blogroll on the strength of the posts if nothing else.

His thinking on energy policy seems similar to yours, and in his book he clearly states (and most importantly enumerates!) realistic strategies for de-fossilising energy and transport. It’s refreshingly free from ideology, and it’s finally starting to get some media coverage in the UK
(while the book uses the UK as a case study, the ideas are clearly applicable worldwide).

Taking it together with your blog, I hope I’m not being too optimistic in starting to see signs of international convergence in ideas of ‘what to do’ about the world’s climate/energy problem…

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/

Hmmm, any chance Doug will come back? If Barry offered him a thread here for comments on material he’s posted over there, it might be useful.

When I ask that you tag the peer-reviewed links, or when I ask Barry if he can rate which of the links at Doug’s site are worth reading — what I wanted to say is said far better here:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/04/sustainable-science-journalism-toward.html

“… filtering is crucial.

The issue in scientific reporting is about trust. One has to create mechanisms for individual science writers to establish trust with their audience….”

That’s what I think is missing at the so-called debate site; no clue to which of those items is a link to science rather than opinion.

Lacking that, it’s teaching the controversy:

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Doonesbury.gif

How about doing something akin to what I suggested above — an indicator of whether the material cites a decent paper? You could sign up for the peer-reviewed-blogging group and display the icon on posts that were in fact your comment on a peer reviewed journal article.

“Do you write about peer-reviewed research in your blog? Use ResearchBlogging.org to make it easy for your readers — and others from around the world — to find your serious posts about academic research.”
http://bpr3.org/account/createChooseBlog

(B: A Better Energy Carrier than H2?)