David MacKay is a physics professor who is also chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. 

From the Guardian today:

Every person in Britain will need to pay about £5,000 a year between now and 2050 on rebuilding and using the nation's entire energy system, according to government figures. But the cost of developing clean and sustainable electricity, heating and transport will be very similar to replacing today's ageing and polluting power stations, the analysis finds.

Recent comments

  • guest2

    It's actually pretty straightforward to put a low gas price into the calculator - simply go to the 'cost sensitivity' tab (under 'see implications' in the top left hand corner). You can then select a gas price of 45p/therm, which is roughly equal to $7/MMBtu. so higher than Henry Hub prices but well...
    0 Like
  • Evgueni

    Can anybody stop the Earth please, I would like to get off. I am feeling dizzy as I can see lots of educated people in power talking complete and utter nonsense, claiming that they can regulate the Earth's climate by taxation. <br /><br />I feel like I have gone mad, because I can't thin...
    0 Like
  • malcolm

    from the website:<br /><br />and find out how we have used stakeholder input to improve the Calculator. <br /><br /><br />And, a search of the offending document reveals a large improvement from the wind turbine industry:<br /><br />Some industry stakeholder...
    0 Like
View other comments

A misconception, to be polite, that Green policy makers (they make and force us to take) such as Greenpeace and the Tyndall Centre share, is that producing more natural gas won't make the world a cleaner place. They see a world where natural gas doesn't displace coal and simply gets used up by us profligate earthlings.

The scientific basis for shale opponents is pretty thin on the ground, but a constant citation from opponensts is  the Howarth Cornell study which gave a seemingly  counter-intuitive view that the overall life time emissions of shale gas were actually worse than coal. The Howarth study for example is the only part of the Tyndall Centre study on shale that appears vaguely scientific.  A new peer-reviewed study from other Cornell professors sounds as if the Howarth and Ingraffea days are numbered:

This is an e-mail I've sent to the Co-op and the Tyndall Centre today on their  recent shale gas report

 Paul, Chris and others

As I have pointed out before,  I have no argument with the scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change or the necessity of addressing it.  However the recent report from the Tyndall Centre on shale gas should be subjected  to similar scientific rigour, one that it is unfortunately lacking.

Recent comments

  • Andy

    Not to worry REfrACTIONARIES! Lynn Helms of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources explains how Obama's EPA will ban hydraulic fracturing after the election--and there is nothing anyone can do about it, except take it to court where it will be Verdun with writs for years and no wells wil...
    0 Like
  • I was embarrassed to read the Tyndall report and if I had written it I would be ashamed. Science has to have integrity, their report is like Intelligent Design.<br /><br />I believe in global warming, the cause is not helped by shoddy and unprofessional analysis. Shape up.
    0 Like
View other comments