David MacKay, energy star: “How many light bulbs?”

May 13, 2009 · 13 Comments

Prof. David MacKay’s book, “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air”, has been published, and it’s an instant success. Now there’s a video, a radio interview, a Guardian editorial singing his praises … and a bafflingly inscrutable criticism from the Sustainable Development Commission.

I had a look an an early draft of Prof. David MacKay’s book “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” ^[1] in a previous post. The book provides a numerical assessment of Britain’s energy options. The key message is, whichever mix of options you want to propose, the numbers must add up.

Now the book has come out – David MacKay reportedly ^[2] put £10,000 of his own money into getting it published – and it’s a soaraway success. It reached #43 on the Amazon UK bestsellers list on May 1 and it’s #1 in the “energy” category on Amazon US. That’s in spite of the fact that it’s available as a free download on the book’s website, withouthotair.com ^[3]. David MacKay’s book has found instant influence in the public debate about energy policy. The Guardian has even published an editorial “In praise of … David MacKay” ^[4].

Prof. MacKay has followed up the book’s launch with a short video which nicely summarises several of his key points. It’s called “How Many Light Bulbs?” ^[5] He adopts the 40 W light bulb as his unit of power – equivalent to about 1 kWh per day – and uses this to go through some of the biggest domestic uses of energy while debunking some energy myths (his famous phone charger example). He concludes with a brisk bicycle journey through our future energy options. Here’s the video:

How Many Light Bulbs
Does It Take To Change a Man?

Cambridge Ideas

The video is one of a series of audio and video productions called “Cambridge Ideas” ^[6]. Cambridge University has launched the series as part of its 800th anniversary celebrations.

David MacKay Versus the Sustainable Development Commission ?

Tim Harford

David MacKay has also appeared on BBC Radio 4’s “More Or Less” ^[7]. The programme is presented by the FT’s “undercover economist” Tim Harford, and sets out to “make sense of the numbers that surround us and that rule our world” – an ideal forum for David MacKay’s energy sums.

For a response to David MacKay’s views, the programme’s presenter Tim Harford then interviewed Rebecca Willis, Vice-Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission. The SDC emphasises the importance of engaging consumers in the energy debate. Here’s what the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (a joint initiative of the Sustainable Development Commission and the National Consumer Council) had to say about it:

The Sustainable Consumption Roundtable is convinced that significant and sustained progress will not be made towards the UK’s carbon reduction targets without actively harnessing consumer concern and converting it to action. The challenge is to raise people’s use of energy in the home from the subconscious to the conscious, and enable them to feel part of the solution.

Seeing the light,
Sustainable Consumption Roundtable ^[8]

David MacKay’s book has undeniably raised public awareness about energy issues. On the day I checked (May 1) his book was one of only two science books in Amazon UK’s top 50 bestsellers (Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” was the other one). It turns out there are a lot of people looking for clear information about energy policy. David MacKay’s book gives them the information they need to take an active and effective role in controlling their own energy use, and it gives them the information they need to become informed participants in the wider energy debate. David MacKay’s book seems to do everything the SDC is calling for, so when Tim Harford interviewed Rebecca Willis of the SDC about the book, I was very keen to hear what she thought of it.

The interview immediately took a rather peculiar turn. Rebecca Willis started by complaining that the book “boils it all down to giant equations”, and then she developed this point into an extended argument against providing quantitative information. I’ll put up a complete transcript of the broadcast interview between Tim Harford and Rebecca Willis, to ensure I don’t misrepresent her comments:

Dramatis Personæ:

Tim Harford is the presenter of BBC Radio 4’s “More or Less” programme, and conducts this interview.
Rebecca Willis is the Vice-Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission.

Transcript of Radio Interview
April 24, 2009
T. Harford: 6:23	“	How have David MacKay’s sums been received by the people who are looking at Britain’s future energy policy? The Sustainable Development Commission is the Government’s independent sustainable development watchdog, and it’s taken a position against nuclear energy. Rebecca Willis is Vice-Chair of the Commission.	”
R. Willis: 6:38	“	David MacKay’s position on nuclear power I think exposes what for me is one of the weaknesses of his book. His approach is to boil it all down to giant equations. Essentially if we have more of x and less of y and a bit of z maybe we’ll get there, whereas I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. It’s not about giant equations, it’s not about which mix of electricity generation we need, it’s essentially about how we can lead happy lives while using less than a quarter of the carbon that we do at the moment. So for me it’s not a technical question, it’s a profoundly political one.	”
T. Harford: 7:09	“	But it’s partly a technical question. If we want to generate a significant amount of energy we have to work out where that energy is going to come from. What’s wrong with doing those numbers?	”
R. Willis: 7:18	“	I think the real danger that we face at the moment is that we’re turning this into a technical debate about, you know, should it be nuclear or renewables. We’re throwing around figures about gigawatts, marginal costs and so on and actually what this does for most people is allow them to breathe a sigh of relief and go “Oh phew, the experts are sorting that out, I can just live my life now”, and reducing it into a technical debate is very problematic as far as I see it.	”
T. Harford: 7:39	“	Well the alternative seems to be style over substance. I downloaded a research paper published by the Sustainable Development Commission a few years ago called “Seeing the Light” which is all about microgeneration and how connected it makes us feel to the energy system, but really when I read that and I went back to Professor MacKay’s book, I really felt betrayed by the idea that I just need to feel connected to the energy system. I put a windmill on my roof and I feel more connected, but the windmill on my roof is not really generating any electricity at all in any significant way. I did the sums, I reckon it would generate about one thousandth of the energy that I use.	”
R. Willis: 8:16	“	You’re right that small scale wind turbines don’t produce a huge amount of power. But I think the issue here is that we need to look at our energy system as a whole and at the moment we have an energy system that incentivises a sort of “pile it high, sell it cheap” approach, and it’s no wonder that the small scale stuff can’t compete in that framework. Small scale wind power isn’t that effective, but if you look at some of the solutions for heat, if you look at solar, if you look at small scale solutions coupled with serious behaviour change you start seeing an alternative model emerging.	”
T. Harford: 8:54	“	Rebecca Willis of the Sustainable Development Commission and David MacKay, a professor of physics at Cambridge.	”
		…[End of interview]…
Times are for the mp3 file of the broadcast programme.

Rebecca Willis starts by criticising David MacKay’s “position on nuclear power”. What is his position? In his chapter on nuclear power ^[9] he goes through the numbers for nuclear in the same way as he goes through the numbers for each of the other energy options. MacKay doesn’t reach a pro-nuclear position or an anti-nuclear position. Rebecca Willis’ objection seems to be that he is presenting this information at all.

She then goes on to argue that “It’s not about giant equations, it’s not about which mix of electricity generation we need”. Well, actually, some of it is about which mix of electricity generation we need. The technical issues and the political issues are not mutually exclusive. The technical debate does not stand in the way of a political debate – quite the opposite in fact. We must understand the technical issues if we are to find viable political solutions.

In this interview Rebecca Willis argues against providing quantitative information on energy policy. She sees the “giant equations” as some sort of distraction. Instead, the SDC suggests installing domestic micro-generation, such as rooftop wind turbines, to make us feel “emotionally engaged” with our energy usage. She argues that showing people “giant equations” will turn them away from taking action on their personal energy use. Her approach treats the energy consumer as a slow-witted child, it infantilises the energy debate.

Trying to read between the lines, I guess Rebecca Willis was trying to make a case against nuclear energy, but somehow ended up arguing against arithmetic instead. David MacKay remarks in a BBC article that “I am not pro-wind or pro-nuclear: I am just pro-arithmetic.” ^[10]. If I had to speculate about what she’d meant to say, my guess is that Rebecca Willis set out to make an anti-nuclear case, but just came across as anti-arithmetic.

Where do Rebecca Willis’ comments leave the Sustainable Development Commission? Does all this mean that the SDC, as a body, has some sort of problem with David MacKay’s book? It’s clear from the book’s sales rankings that David MacKay has managed to engage with the general public more effectively than many of the SDC’s efforts. As a question of political positioning, why does the SDC think it makes sense to adopt an adversarial position with respect to MacKay’s book? They could be building on its success to develop the broader political argument beyond the raw numbers.

New book: “Sustainable energy – without the hot air”

References

Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, David J.C. MacKay, UIT Cambridge Ltd., April 1, 2009 (paperback)
Power to the people, Leo Hickman, The Guardian, April 30, 2009
Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, website for the book, David J.C. MacKay, 2008
In praise of … David MacKay, Editorial, The Guardian, May 1, 2009
Cambridge Ideas: How Many Light Bulbs? Cambridge Ideas, University of Cambridge, 2009
Cambridge Ideas, University of Cambridge, 2009
More or Less, BBC Radio 4 and Open University co-production, April 24, 2009 programme (podcast available for 7 days after transmission)
Seeing the light: the impact of micro-generation on the way we use energy, The Hub Research Consultants on behalf of the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, October 2005 (WebCite cache)
Nuclear? Chapter 24, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, David J.C. MacKay, 2008
Saving the planet by numbers, David MacKay, BBC News, April 23, 2009

Categories: boffins · energy policy
Tagged: David MacKay, energy policy

13 responses so far ↓

Joan Ko // May 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm

I think I understand what Rebecca Willis was trying to say. My reading of the transcript is that Rebecca identifies the move towards sustainable development as fundamentally about cultural change. That is, people need to tackle their values, their consumption, their aspirations. To Rebecca, small scale energy solutions are an indication (a catalyst?) for people adopting sustainability principles in their day-to-day life, whether or not these are effective.

I think Rebecca’s concern is that people are grabbing onto books like David’s because a technical solution (i.e. make the numbers work can shepherd us towards sustainability with very little participation from us. That is, we can wait for the technical specialists to solve the problem and when they finally do, we can get on with the way we were living out lives before.

So the protest is that these ‘giant equations’ (technology) are distracting from the root cause of unsustainable development.

My view of the situation is that sustainable development is not possible without culture and behaviour change. The technologies and quantitative analysis needs to be done but in themselves will be tools rather than drivers. I’m a tools person myself and every day I struck by the limitations of my work without culture change.
Joan Ko // May 13, 2009 at 8:00 pm

[To Mr Lightbucket] Would you please close my parenthesis in the second paragraph of my previous comment? It should be: (i.e. make the numbers work).

Thank you!
Joan Ko // May 13, 2009 at 8:06 pm

[To Mr or Ms Lightbucket] I assumed you were a Mr Lightbucket and there’s no reason you wouldn’t be a Ms Lightbucket. I shouldn’t have done that!
lightbucket // May 14, 2009 at 10:15 am

Hello Joan,

If you don’t know what the numbers are, how can you know what changes you need to make to your lifestyle? You can end up with the belief that switching off a phone charger is a significant lifestyle change.

>>To Rebecca, small scale energy solutions are an indication (a catalyst?) for people adopting sustainability principles in their day-to-day life, whether or not these are effective.

If they’re ineffective, what’s the point of adopting them? You’re surely better off understanding what the effective changes are, and adopting those instead.

I can’t see the advantage of living in willful ignorance of the numbers.

In fact I can’t see the merit of advocating willful ignorance under any circumstances.
Joan Ko // May 14, 2009 at 11:00 am

I agree that changes people make should be based on evidence and that our efforts should focus on measures that known to be effective. AND avoid tokenism that solves the guilt but not the problem!

I think the people who read David Mackay’s book are those already interested and willing to act and want to get information about what measures are effective.

Or even better, people who are paralysed with indecision because the picture looks muddy — they might read David’s book, feel like everything’s clear, then find the motivation to act.

Rebecca’s concern, I think, is different. I think she’s worried about how the general public is engaged with the issue. Reading the transcript, it seems to me that if people’s primary encounter with sustainable energy systems is through a technical and numerical lens, then they will assume that the issue has nothing to do with them, that it is remote.

The numbers and analysis will appeal to some section of the public (us and others) and MUST be part of decision making. But will the numbers engage people in sustainable consumption and production? That has not been my experience. I provide compelling numerical analysis every day and it’s rarely the numbers that persuades a client to act. The numbers provide a pathway but not a driver.

Now, I might have misread Rebecca’s interview, and perhaps she was actually critiquing David’s focus on conventional quantitative performance indicators. She might have been more satisfied with an analysis that takes into account broaders sustainability issues like:
* Concentration of political (and physical) power (nuclear vs distributed energy systems)
* Local supply chain and employment
* Landscape impacts
* Toxicity of various forms
* Local decision making processes
* Change management

…and so on. That’s usually the scope of SDC’s work.

Perhaps Rebecca hasn’t read the entirety of David’s works and hasn’t seen his opening caveat:

‘This book is emphatically intended to be about facts, not ethics. I want the facts to be clear, so that people can have a meaningful debate about ethical decisions. I want everyone to understand how the facts constrain the options that are open to us. Like a good scientist, I’ll try to keep my views on ethical questions out of the way, though occasionally I’ll blurt something out – please forgive me.’

In that case, Rebecca shouldn’t have set herself in opposition to David’s work and should have come out said immediately that their works complement each other. Perhaps her real criticisms should have been at people who misinterpret David’s work as a thesis on values and ethics, rather than David himself. It seems to me that David knows how his work should be used by policy makers.
lightbucket // May 14, 2009 at 11:18 am

Hello again Joan,

You’re making Rebecca’s case more persuasively for her than she managed to. The problem with the interview is that we’re left trying to work out what she’d meant to say.

As it stands, her argument sets up a false dichotomy between understanding the issue and engaging with the issue. They aren’t mutually exclusive, understanding is essential for effective engagement. Taken at face value, her argument is calling for willful ignorance.

As you say with the quote from MacKay’s book, he doesn’t claim to offer the whole picture, just some essential background facts. Rebecca sets it up as an “either/or” when it should be an “as well as”.
microchap // May 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm

This is one of the best debates I have come across on the big issues. It really matters that people do start to engage from a position of understanding and do not leave it to the “experts”. That is why we are facing the charade of the FIT and all the middle class eco-bling posturing about how much PV I have on my roof. If we are technically illiterate, how can we make sensible policy decisions? (Sorry, bit rhetorical that one).
lightbucket // May 17, 2009 at 9:30 am

Hello microchap,

My best guess on PV is that it will continue to follow a semiconductor cost curve down, and all UK roofspace will end up covered in PV. I’ve looked at the energy that’ll provide in this post.
Elemental » Links for May 12th through May 15th // May 19, 2009 at 12:01 am

[...] David MacKay, energy star: “How many light bulbs?” « lightbucket – Another great post from Lightbucket, this time analysing what SDC have to say about David McKay: "Trying to read between the lines, I guess Rebecca Willis was trying to make a case against nuclear energy, but somehow ended up arguing against arithmetic instead. David MacKay remarks in a BBC article that “I am not pro-wind or pro-nuclear: I am just pro-arithmetic.” [10]. If I had to speculate about what she’d meant to say, my guess is that Rebecca Willis set out to make an anti-nuclear case, but just came across as anti-arithmetic." [...]
Elemental » Interesting links for May 12th through May 15th // May 19, 2009 at 12:42 am

[...] David MacKay, energy star: “How many light bulbs?” « lightbucket – Another great post from Lightbucket, this time analysing what SDC have to say about David McKay: "Trying to read between the lines, I guess Rebecca Willis was trying to make a case against nuclear energy, but somehow ended up arguing against arithmetic instead. David MacKay remarks in a BBC article that “I am not pro-wind or pro-nuclear: I am just pro-arithmetic.” [10]. If I had to speculate about what she’d meant to say, my guess is that Rebecca Willis set out to make an anti-nuclear case, but just came across as anti-arithmetic." [...]
How many light bulbs does it take to change a man? « Keeping Ahead of the Oil Curve // May 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm

[...] information and a video can be seen at http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/david-mackay-energy-star/ [...]
Patrick // May 26, 2009 at 5:05 am

Great analysis ! What I find amazing is, as pointed out in the discussion, is the opinion that once something gets “numbers” on it, and “equations” on it, it is not something anymore people should be able to deal with. Amazing that one can even contemplate saying one single sensible thing about any issue without knowing the numbers and the equations (where they exist). Should we have ethical (religious?) discussions about planetary motion now, and is that poor old chap, what’s his name, Newton, just trying to turn it into a technical issue ?

Energy IS a technical issue, which puts us before a number of facts, and from there on we have to make choices (which have an ethical component to them). But making choices without knowing (or even willing to know) the facts, or worse, wanting to enforce choices (in contradiction with the facts) is misusing the energy problem for an ideological agenda which has nothing to do with it, and not set out to bring any solution.

Facts, numbers and equations protect us from the charlatanry of some, which want to vaguely use the energy problem for their own, different agenda. Of course they don’t like them!
Nick Grant // July 11, 2009 at 7:46 am

Good stuff as ever

Judith Thornton made a watertight case against domestic rainwater harvesting in a debate at Ecobuild this year. Slightly flummoxed her ‘opponent’ responded with ‘anyone can come along with a load of numbers’.

Brilliant.

Keep up the good work, most of the badscience stuff seems to be just about medicine.

Nick

lightbucket