We don't have room in print for all your letters and blog pingbacks, but do here. Energy policy turns out not to be so boring after all...
LITHIUM FUTURES Electricity as it exists in most countries is a highly polluting form of energy. It is clean at the point of use (which is why you, Panorama and lots of other people presumably think it is environmentally friendly) but mostly it is generated using fossil fuels - and this is the problem. Somewhere, typically miles away from the user, is a power station belching out CO2 and NOx. Typically, electricity is no more than 20% efficient because of losses in the power station and distribution losses so 80% is wasted. So it is worse than gas and an electric car is far worse, for example, than a diesel in terms of CO2 emissions expressed as grams/km. So please stop perpetuating the myth that electricity is a clean fuel. Global warming is such an important topic that the public deserve to be well informed. John Miles, Professor School of Engineering, Cardiff University
>> A lot of time and blather is being spent trying to figure out what the car of the future will run on. It would be much better spent if we'd admit there isn't a future car and that our basic assumptions about society and economics need examination. nakedcapitalism.com
>> Part of the setback has been the historic volatility of the electric car market and sequels to "Who Killed the Electric Car" playing in the nightmares of auto industry execs, which have hindered investment in lithium source exploration. A powerful assist could come from a sharp reduction in the cost of making those lithium-based batteries--that would make the cost of developing and manufacturing the vehicles significantly cheaper, and therefore less risky to the carmakers. plentymag.com
MOJAVE >> Microsoft's 90% stranglehold on operating systems is perfectly OK on the trust-o-meter, even though it gives Europe fits. Which would be all right, if it were any damned good. But Microsoft's operating system underpins a whole menagerie of functionalities that don't function -- at least not well. What can be said about a system so vulnerable that it writes pothole-filling patches at the rate of 60 last year alone? Five a month? You can choose to call them 'security updates' or any user-friendly name you dream up, but they're still holes in the road. opinion-columns.com
>> In a study that was anything BUT scientific or double-blind, Microsoft presented a display of Vista's assets in a carefully orchestrated dog and pony show that wowed the audience. Microsoft will hopefully garner support and sales of Vista for its efforts; however consumers must realize Microsoft controlled the entire demo - from hardware selection to choosing specific elements of the software for demo. onsitenola.wordpress.com
WIKIA CHANGES >> That's right, we're tired and shocked and bewildered by [Wikia's] new ads that obscure and move around and basically ruin our content, and so we're in the middle of a planned move to our own server. It's funny that we've caused this much of a stir. Oh, Wikia. Oh, dear, sweet Wikia. shortpacked.livejournal.com
>> Looks like I got quoted in the liberal media again. I'm a little less angry - in part, because Wikia has left WikiFur alone for now - but yes, those words had teeth. I really do own the mark, most links have been changed, and our new server is being readied for deployment. I don't make empty threats...just promises. :-) greenreaper.livejournal.com
>> The struggle between community and platform is but one modality however, and the TFWiki initiative points to an alternative, which is for peer producers to build their own platforms and not to rely on the goodwill of the platform owners. blog.p2pfoundation.net
SHORT URLS The article in today's Technology Guardian ("Pointing the internet in a new direction") and Jack Schofield's response to a letter on this topic, fail to consider the user experience. I can understand that the user statistics are interesting to you, but there are better choices than bit.ly, which has two major flaws. First, using mixed upper and lower-case letters means I can't read and memorise the short form then type it into my browser. Second, if I set up a bookmark to bit.ly, the webpage which appears has an additional "/go" appended, so I can't just type the short URL on the end. XRL is worse. It replaces the bookmarked URL by an entirely different one which doesn't accept the short URL at all. Notlong is also out, since you have to type the short URL before "notlong.com". In short, if you don't like TinyURL, only Qurl, ElfURL and SnipURL (not in fact case-sensitive, as far as I can tell) are really user-friendly. Please, please consider using one of these! Romilly Bowden, Bognor Regis [In response, we're creating simpler URLs with bit.ly - Tech.Ed]
>> I remember several years ago when the right answer to this was given wrong on University Challenge; but you'd think that, after all this time, The Guardian's Technology section would know what URL stands for. Tip: it's uniform, not universal. devilgate.org
CAN TOUCH THIS With regards your discussion on whether or not touchscreen technology will take over from the mouse (or keyboard) you did not even touch (excuse the pun) on the reason touch technology has become so popular. This (in my humble option) is simply down to the emergence of "cheap" multi-touch displays. Multi-touch has lead to a slate of new ideas on how one can interact with modern technology, with computers unusually being one of the last to join in on this new approach (phones are way ahead at the minute) mainly for practical reasons which are currently being addressed. I agree with you when you say it is unlike to over take the keyboard in most workplace environments (at least in the near future), given you can already use your 10 fingers to work with a keyboard. This is the subtle difference between why I see touch becoming a "mouse-killer" and not a keyboard-killer. A mouse is so annoying and I don't know about you but it gives me a terrible pain the my "mouse-finger"! A touchscreen display (with an adjustable arm to move it closer to you and into a suitable position) would be far more superior given with multi touch you would now have 10 pointers to manipulate the screen rather than just the one with the mouse (imagine using a keyboard with one finger,annoying!!!). When the hardware and software is in place to take advantage of multi=touch on a PC, the touchscreen will be a "mouse-killer" which is already taking over accessible areas like handheld devices (i.e. mobile phones & laptops). I could go on further about were I see it being used in workplaces and the likes but I won't as I've written enough already! Michael Ruddy, Nava, Ireland
GAMES PIRACY >> Like everything else tho' the economic wheels keep turning and it sounds like a saturated market in which it's difficult to succeed. The potential not merely for revenue but as a platform to forge one's skills as a designer is attractive tho'. How do you get started? e-m-e-r-a-l-d.livejournal.com
>> It boggles the mind how one industry can so clearly get it and work with it, whilst another stumbles aimlessly around trying to justify its current existence. However, if you go sideways, there are some intriguing parallels to this. Freeing data and knowledge sets allows an individual to come up with and explore new ideas. It also means that potentially some revenue will be lost if there are charges involved. Well, it's going to happen any way but one might as well accept this and work on ways of making the original source more appealing and useful. austgate.co.uk
DEAR GORDON, ENERGETICALLY YOURS Your article today in the Guardian is pure plagiarism - I have been saying that for at least five years!!! I shall send a copy of your article to no 10 and ask what the PM intends to do about it. I think Miliband understands what is required slightly better than Brown. John Ellis, Llandysul
Good letter, and similar to one my father wrote to me thirty years ago. This is the galling thing, all this has been known about for decades. I picked up a geography text book printed in '84 just recently and it pinpointed all the human problems back then, about which we have done virtually nothing: overfishing, habitat destruction, overpopulation, finite material sources, water care. The list is scary. Personally I've never had much truck with a society that puts consumerism at the top of the list and from which our wealth is apparently subservient to and quite frankly, being a bit of a part-time doom merchant, I'm reasonably happy this is all kicking off at last. After the Twin Towers were dropped one of the first things [George] Bush said was, "keep on spending". It rather gave the game away. You're right about [David] Cameron. Silly me, I wrote to the Tories five years back that they had to absorb environmental policies to get anywhere, so sucking the life out of the Greens and Liberals. And Labour has been such a crashing failure I find myself in a situation where I am considering a vote for the blues next time around. Saying that I shall have to sign off anonymously. Paul Scott, Eastbourne
Finally someone who speaks a bit of common sense. We should have been acting 10 - 15 years ago on this issue. We have the greatest 'natural' resources in wind and sea power and refuse to utilise them. David Alford (no post town given)
Why doesn't the government want individuals to generate their own energy? Because if all of us were generating our own energy from solar imagine how much revenue the government would lose from the decline in profits from the energy companies. Unless of course they come up with some clever way of taxing us for sunlight........... Paul Wake, London
Great article, it's a shame you didn't write that to Thatcher/Major when they were destroying our energy infrastructure during their last term. Anthony Burton, Leamington Spa
Like your drift, but the fact is that the only real solution is to go largely nuclear, urgently - I'm not against solar panels or tidal barriers, but wind farms are ugly, low-yield and pathetically unreliable. You need to be a bit more realistic in advising the "immovable object" on what has to be done. Investment should be put into finding a best-of-breed solution for nuclear waste storage/recycling/etc, which is the only issue worth addressing on energy policy. Oh, and the planners need to be told to stop forcing builders to install gas-fired central heating (!) and to insist on electrically-driven systems. Brian Crabtree (no post town given)
May I just add a few thoughts to your brilliant article (I genuinely hope Gordon Brown will read it). Simply swapping coal-fire plants to renewable/green energy sources will not be enough solve the UK's energy-problem. It is the culture and the attitude that should be changed, while installing alternative energy sources. This country has been generous with energy since the industrial revolution. Once the UK was abundant in coal, wood, cheap labor in the colonised territories and industrial goods imported from its colonies. But the good, old days are over and British people seem not to realise it. Almost half of the food we buy ends up in the bins [and] Jeremy Clarkson, prophet of fuel-burning is more popular and known than any scientists or activist who design or promote green energy. Buying dirt-cheap clothes from Primark and not thinking about the consequences (where the clothes come from and who suffers from the consequences) is acceptable and a norm. Wasting energy is the very part of the UK's culture and lifestyle. I came to the UK to fulfill my dream, to study music and become a musician. After two years of living here I am full of fury and anger. You have choices and alternatives which I do not have where I am from (Hungary): with my partner we use eco-detergents and washing powder, switch of electrical devices before leave home, use public transport instead of cars, will change energy provider soon, etc. Most people in London, where I live, never get to this stage. It is the culture of 'I-want-it-and-I-want-it-now-whatever-the-price-is'. It is the culture of the Beckhams, Rooneys and Jordans. I work with poor, young people who want cars advertised on TV, fancy clothes, iPhones and gadgets. Many of them become criminals to get these goods. Again, I am full of anger. With my partner we will get married soon and want children and it is the British and Western culture that screws up my children's future. Once an excellent Guardian article about green lifestyle stated clearly: positive changes of a society start from the people, never from the government. We should not expect Gordon Brown to save us. The countdown has started and if the British society keeps wasting energy and resources, no wind farms and solar panels will save the UK. Greg Lorincz, London
Brilliant! Couldn't have put it better myself!! Brown's only hope is to grasp the nettle and do something decisive on this critical front. Who do you blame most for this mess - the Thatcher dash for gas, energy privatisation and destruction of coal mining? Or the subsequent Labour dithering over nuclear and lack of "carrot" for renewables - esp solar. Surely solar panels should now be obligatory on all new housing? Is our planning permissions process so labyrinthine than nothing ever seems to get done? e.g. I remember talking about the prospect of a Severn barrage when I was at school 35 years ago. Can't see it happening until people are actually starving! Are there worthwhile pressure groups people can join? (not just Greens - I want a realistic, coherent national energy policy that includes Nuclear) Are other countries doing much better than us....think I can guess the answer! Do you think new technology can feasibly make coal fired stations Carbon neutral (ish) or is that just wishful thinking? BTW..... How do the French dispose of their nuclear waste? Anyway thanks for an inspiring and thought provoking article. Paul Sherrard, Bath
Here are some of the major issues. 1: Energy is the nation's lifeblood and should have its own Minister of State like Defence, Health and Transport. It is quite absurd that with all the challenges to our energy supply, national & international, Energy has been hived off as a subsidiary of the Department of Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform. 2: Given that gas supply, like oil, is likely to remain in the hands of private speculators there are vital issues such as the provision of adequate gas storage facilities and the infrastructure to import store & distribute LPG which need urgent review. It is by no means axiomatic that these facilities are best supplied by 'the market'. We do not, for example, expect the transport industry to build our roads. 3: Electricity is a secondary fuel but is of equal or even greater importance to oil and gas in terms of security of supply at the point of use. It is largely generated by carbon-emitting processes - about 70% of our electricity is generated in this way and despite all our efforts to develop renewables is likely to remain thereabouts for the foreseeable future. We therefore need to reduce demand for electricity. 'The market' is unable to achieve this objective. 4: Virtually all our electricity generating capacity will need to be replaced in the next 2/3 decades. Will 'the market' oblige? 5: The major primary fuels available to us for electricity generation are coal (indigenous or imported), gas (ditto) and nuclear. These all have technically feasible but very expensive waste disposal problems (CCS in the case of coal & gas). Are these to be left to 'the market' to resolve? 6: The national electricity grid was built by the nationally owned Electricity Council and is now in the hands of a private company ("National Grid") which is responsible for the management & refurbishment of the system including new connections to off-shore wind farms. Who picks up the bill? 7) In the longer term there are possible developments such as solar-generated hydrogen from North Africa which may be best coordinated by the EU but will require major government input. David Hayes, Bristol
That was a welcome call for some more visionary leadership, but there is one aspect which needs bringing to the forefront. Invariably articles on energy seem to get trapped into comparing the alternative forms of energy resources and the methods of harnessing them and do not put the use of energy in the context of conservation, recycling and control relative to the need for energy. We have people like E-ON making a case for burning coal on the basis of false claims that otherwise our energy requirements will not be met - virtually trying to blackmail us into accepting their use of coal CO2 energy capture 'or else' - and claiming that energy conservation will not reduce demand sufficiently to avoid enduring reliance on fossil fuels. 'We cannot conserve our way out of the energy crisis or global warming' seems to be their mantra. The truth is that we have simply build our lives around a profligate use of primary energy from fossil fuels that everything is designed without thought of conservation or recycling of heat and power or the use of freely available ambient energy sources. Since in order to survive, let alone enjoy a sustainable civilized way of life, we are going to have to learn to operate within the limits of resources and without spoiling our habitat, we still have to abandon on sustainable energy systems and adapt to the use of infinite clean energy resources, and to simply stop wasting heat and power. The technology is there - it has been keeping space stations operating for years now - but it is not space science, and more importantly after the initial capital investment it is virtually free. Because highly energy efficient products, buildings and processes are relatively new, and there is no established sustainable development industry at this stage, that initial capital investment is going to be relatively expensive. There are no fundamental reasons though why they should be more expensive than current systems - there are no particularly rare or expensive materials or processes involved and most of them are readily available and in use already. As far as buildings are concerned for instance the basic conservation measures of thermal insulation, air-tightness, ventilation control can be met with cheap materials and good detailing - and almost remove the need for space heating altogether and together with the use of energy efficient lighting and equipment reduce heat and power requirements by 70% to 90% - putting the energy demand well within the capability of alternative energy systems. Keith Lodge, Chairman, ECOZEST Ltd, Ruthin
>> sensible advice. jebin08.blogspot.com
>> It will fall on deaf ears no doubt. If any notice is taken, it will be time to plough another £100million into consultancy navitron.org.uk
WI-FI TO THE MAX Jack Schofield's article heralding the benefits of WiMAX and hinting that it will have the same success as Wi-Fi fails to acknowledge that Wi-Fi used an unlicensed band so anyone could set up wireless hotspots to get internet access out to users. Companies holding licenses to operate WiMAX at the moment are simply not showing the imagination and drive of the first Wi-Fi operators which made that technology such a success. The result - people will miss out on technology that really could make a difference to them. Daniel Heery, Alston
TV AND FILESHARING I was shocked to just read your article equating TV show filesharing with music filesharing. It smacks of jumping on the bandwagon and dangerously stoking flames of an issue that is already ridiculously misunderstood and manhandled. It's inaccurate and poorly argued. "Did you notice how The Dark Knight came out at the same time all over the world?" It didn't. You argue for half the article that TV filesharing is terrible for creators and TV channels, and then sulkily admit that it may help shows after all. The issues are different. I disagree music piracy has the impact it's hyped to have, but I'll play along for now. With music, you get a lossless copy. With TV shows, you get a TV recording with TV channel icons littered over the screen. So it's not exactly the same product. TV piracy is out of a certain necessity, music is not. You acknowledge that TV has borders, and that's the main reason for most people's piracy. Music is usually released at the same time, so there is less excuse for it. TV piracy does not cause viewing figures to drop. In my real world experience, buzz created by people who've seen a show before it airs on TV has led other to watch. I myself started a long chain of people to have an interest in Lost, back when I first heard about it after seeing a preview on an American DVD I bought. All the people I told about it watched it when it was on terrestrial TV and bought the DVDs, and they told more people. Every show I've pirated, I own the DVD of, and watch on TV when I get the chance. The Battlestar Galactica reboot owes its success to piracy. This is acknowledged by the producers. The people who care enough about TV shows care enough about them to purchase them on DVD and watch them when they come on TV in their country. Last year, and maybe this year, producers admitted they leaked pilots to generate buzz. Why are new shows leaked but somehow episodes of new seasons manage to stay in the can? Piracy would still occur if TV was borderless, but people would download them at a fraction of what they do now. The piracy of TV in the UK would be dramatically reduced if shows were aired simultaneously, and everyone could access legal streaming sites like Hulu. But no, there are artificial borders. The entertainment site Digital Spy has forums, on which one viewer of Heroes created a topic called "No more downloading" because the BBC had secured rights to air the new series a couple of days after the US. "Doctor Who is very popular in the US". It's also one of the few British programs that US people like to pirate. Why is it popular then? Surely it shouldn't be popular by your estimations of the effect you think piracy has? Your conclusion that there are going to be more reality programmes is possibly correct, but not for the reasons you give. Unfortunately, people still watch them and the credit crunch means channels will have smaller budgets. If they believed people would watch them as much as drama, soaps etc, Channel 4, 5 etc would make all their programmes reality-based. More cost-effective. Nothing to do with piracy. Your ultimate conclusion I agree with, that TV needs to stop with its borders, but most of everything else is inarticulate and going in different directions. You suggest they should release low quality versions so they'll want the DVD... but that happens anyway; anyone who cares enough to download gigabytes of a TV shows will want the DVD. Oh dear. M Rodriguez, Newcastle
