140 points•0sake_rs•1 day ago•80 comments•

80 comments

_aavaa_1 day ago
The books is good(ish) for it's time, but some of its analysis and forecasts are fundamentally flawed since it falls for the primary energy fallacy by comparing the chemical potential energy (in J) directly to electrical energy (also in J). The two are fundamentally different things and called be compared 1:1. E.g. To heat up your home with natural gas you need ~1J of chemical energy to get 1J of heat into the home, but with a electric heat pump you only need 1/6 J to get 1J of heat.

It is also a product of its time in terms of wind/solar vs nuclear. His forecasts of the impact of solar and wind is based on prices and performance from 2008. Prices have come down an order of magnitude since then, and performance and lifespan have increased drastically.

azornathogron1 day ago
Heat pumps, and their efficiency (getting more than X Joules of heating for X Joules of electricity) are discussed in chapter 21 Smarter Heating, see for example the diagram and discussion on page 150: https://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_150.shtml

I imagine the economics (and perhaps technical improvements) of some things may have changed more than the book could forecast. But heat pumps were definitely understood by the author.

_aavaa_1 day ago
I’m not saying he was unaware of heat pumps, I’m saying he’s comparing apples to oranges simply because they use the same units.

Look at “3 - Cars” on page 29. He says the typical car uses 40 kWh/day. 40 kWh of what? Chemical energy in the gasoline.

The go to page 33 where he looks at how much energy onshore wind could produce per days in the UK. His number is 20 kWh/d. 20 kWh of what? electricity

He then compares those two numbers directly and uses that comparison as the basis of his arguments: “Britain’s onshore wind energy resource may be “huge,” but it’s evi- dently not as huge as our huge consumption.”

This is simply incorrect. A combustion engine converts less than half of the chemical energy in the gasoline into mechanical work that can move the car. The electric model converts >90% of it. So we don’t have to replace 40 kWh/day, we have to replace less than half of that since the electric process is more efficient.

This same issues, the primary energy fallacy, underpins large parts of the book.

ZeroGravitas1 day ago
Yes, I disagree with some of his takes but he was spot on regarding heat pumps:

> Let me spell this out. Heat pumps are superior in efficiency to condens- ing boilers, even if the heat pumps are powered by electricity from a power station burning natural gas. If you want to heat lots of buildings using natural gas, you could install condensing boilers, which are “90% ef- ficient,” or you could send the same gas to a new gas power station making electricity and install electricity-powered heat pumps in all the buildings; the second solution’s efficiency would be somewhere between 140% and 185%. It’s not necessary to dig big holes in the garden and install underfloor heating to get the benefits of heat pumps; the best air-source heat pumps (which require just a small external box, like an air-conditioner’s) can deliver hot water to normal radiators with a coefficient of performance above 3.

bryanlarsen1 day ago
Which means that not including the conversion in the primary comparison is particularly egregious.
kragen1 day ago
> His forecasts of the impact of solar and wind is based on prices and performance from 2008. Prices have come down an order of magnitude since then

This is going to sound like one-upmanship or nitpicking, but I think it's important to know that this understates the change. https://web.archive.org/web/20100722072720/http://www.solars... says that in May 02009, crystalline solar cells in China cost €2.17 per peak watt, a decline of 26.4% from January 02009, whose price is not listed directly but which we can calculate as €2.95 per peak watt. If the price had declined by only an order of magnitude since January 02009, it would now be €0.295 per peak watt.

But, according to https://www.in2013dollars.com/europe/inflation/2009?amount=1..., "€100 in 2009 is worth €145.57 today." So, if we adjust for inflation — as we should — if the real price had declined by only an order of magnitude since January 02009, it would now be €0.429 per peak watt.

In fact, today, "mainstream" solar modules are currently €0.130 per peak watt, according to https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis..., and those are Chinese monocrystalline modules.

So the price of solar modules now is actually 3.3 times lower than what a careful reader would infer from your remark. Solar module prices have declined since January 02009 by not merely an order of magnitude but 33×. That's slightly closer to two orders of magnitude than to the single order of magnitude you said. Now they are at 3% of the price they were at when MacKay wrote his excellent book.

(Which does, as others have pointed out, explain the efficiency advantage of heat pumps.)

paimapi1 day ago
one thing to note is that the solar industry has receded quite a bit in the last two years in China due to overproduction (or, as the Chinese state likes to call it, 'involution' or 'too much competition'). solar is cheap now because 1) Chinese subsidies are reduced, shrinking their installation market and 2) overproduction leading to essentially fire sales. once production stabilizes against the market, costs will go back up. it's really never been a better time to buy panels than now

https://dialogue.earth/en/energy/behind-the-layoffs-in-china...

>Some observers estimate 20-30% capacity reductions are required, but demand shrinkage could increase that figure. “I’m particularly worried about the downstream side,” says Reis. “Even as prices collapsed, demand remained robust for three years, but power market reforms are now upending the entire renewables market.”

combine this with the global backing-off of the Paris Agreement (and subsequent subsidy defunding) and power utilities in the US abandoning clean energy goals in order to immediately increase output for proposed hyperscale facilities and you've got something of an enduring demand shortage

that said, there is a lot of automation happening in that industry right now (which is likely going to cause a small recession in China due to half a million to a million workers being out of a job, depending on how much the parts manufacturers also automate) so it's possible production with continue improving as more R&D is dedicated there. only time will tell!

LogicFailsMe1 day ago
Not bad at all for an early amazingly influential AI researcher and Hopfield graduate who died tragically of pancreatic cancer just as AI took off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

bryanlarsen1 day ago
> Prices have come down an order of magnitude since then

$10/W to 0.30/W is closer to 2 orders of magnitude than 1.

epistasis1 day ago
Another thing to point out is that the geography in the book, the UK, has spectacularly bad resources for solar, just astoundingly bad.

So even with updated technology pricing numbers, the conclusions from it should not be lifted to other geographies without adjusting for that. We're talking worse resources than Germany (worse than an US state), and into Finland territory:

https://globalsolaratlas.info/

sideshowb1 day ago
The updated version of this book is available in game format with the blessing of UK government https://my2050.energysecurity.gov.uk/?levers=111111111111111

Risking the HN hug of death here, but my own prototype of a car miles model inspired by the David's approach can be found at https://trafred.cardiff.ac.uk/

ajb1 day ago
Oh, very interesting. Not sure it's working correctly though: set everything to ambition level 4, which takes us to net zero minus 4. Then, the following knobs have no effect: efficiency, nuclear power, carbon intensity, solar (!) and wave & tidal. That can't be true, so I think it's buggy
zbs19701 day ago
Not commenting on the physics of this; I want to point out that I thought the narrative structure of this book was amazing. I have not read a hard-core piece of analysis in any field before or since that I thought was a page-turner the way this was. When I read it in 2008 I remember completing each chapter and feeling like "we're screwed" and then the next chapter feeling like "ok, we're going to make it." Presenting such analysis in the form of a race between supply and demand was narrative genius and I think should serve as an example of how ideas can be presented in a way that is both exciting and not-dumbed-down.
sam1r1 day ago
The original author was blogging just a couple days prior to his death. Rest in peace

https://itila.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-do-you-tell-children...

nirinor1 day ago
Actually, the better link might have been <https://withouthotair.org/changes>.

Note the .com->.org: its a version of the book whose numbers are maintained here <https://github.com/life-itself/without-hot-air/commits/main/>.

laurencerowe1 day ago
The 'Has It Held Up?' section seems a very good entry point. https://withouthotair.org/has-it-held-up

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories