As many WUWT readers may have noticed, there’s a small advertising box on the sidebar for the journal “Energy & Environment”. This represents a first for WUWT, in that I’ve decided to accept a dedicated advertisement for a journal on a trial basis. It is also a first for E&E.
I did this for three reasons:
1) E&E published Steve McIntyre’s and Ross McKittrick’s groundbreaking paper, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series., after they were rejected by numerous other journals. Those rejections seemed to be political in nature since M&M’s work has withstood many criticisms, and the effect has been seen in the IPCC’s distancing their most recent report from Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. For an excellent summary on the entire affair, please read Bishop Hill’s Caspar and the Jesus Paper. E&E has taken a lot of criticism for publishing M&M and it seems to me that the journal should be rewarded for having the courage to do so in the face of “consensus” at the time.
2) In addition to publishing on climate related issues, E&E also publishes extensively on alternate energy research. I’m a fan of both research and applications of viable alternate energy solutions (see my about page ) as are many WUWT readers, so from my perspective E&E is a twofer.
3) I think some WUWT contributors might find E&E a place to publish some of the works they have put forward here, in the harshest peer review environment of all; the online scrutiny of thousands. Introducing E&E here is a first step. Here is some recent content you can browse.
Bill Hughes, the publisher of E&E, has a short message below in which he outlines an exceptional offer being made to readers of WUWT. Please take a moment to have a look. – Anthony
Message from the Publisher
“Energy & Environment is one of the very few publications – perhaps the only one – which has consistently, over a number of years, published peer reviewed papers which contradict the claims that global warming is man made. By a long way the most famous was the McIntyre & McKitrick paper, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series. That paper, and its E&E published follow up, eviscerated the claims made in the Mann, Bradley, Hughes paper, Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.
That was the paper which gave us the infamous ‘hockey stick’ which was for so long the IPCC’s favourite image. So in that way Energy & Environment did destroy the hockey stick. And how we were insulted for having had the temerity to publish that paper!
But that abuse was from those who don’t like informed debate, don’t like citizens to know the facts. However, as the public policy arguments move forward, closer to warmist fantasies turning into a tax charge on citizens, its more than ever important for as many people as possible to see the other side of the argument.
That’s why I’m offering, for the first time, personal subscriptions to Energy & Environment at a hugely discounted rate. The usual annual rate, for institutions, is $641 a year, I’m offering it to you for just $165 – a saving of nearly $500. I really do hope you’ll take advantage.
Best wishes,
Bill Hughes
Publisher, Multi-Science Publishing
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What better peers to review it than skeptical commenters?
=====================================
Anthony:
I am looking at a solar power solution to off-set the big increase in my summer electric bill due to my pool pump. I am also looking to install a geo-thermal heating solution to replace my oil furnace.
Given all the scam artists out there it would be great if you could do an occasional article and thread on the latest technologies in these areas or recommend a trusted site.
That’s a really good deal.
This ought to be offered in Germany too, perhaps through EIKE:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/
I would like to second the call for some articles on Renewable Energy that Works.
For instance, Anthony, would you be in a position to report on the true costs and savings of the solar project you did at your local school.
I completely agree about alternative energy choices. We need an informed thread on home-based alternative energy choices available to the common person. From cars to panels. I would also encourage an explanation of the purchase costs of these choices. Is it related to skimming the cream? With later cost reductions coming? Or are we buying a DeLorian? Why doesn’t some Ford-esk entrepreneur make something for the first time that we can all afford anymore? Why offer it under the “skimming the cream” business model?
Is this an electronic or physical copy? I couldn’t figure out from the site, but ‘online subscription’ implies electronic to me.
REPLY: Online, with multiple PDF articles. see the sample link above. – Anthony
Yes, climate change realism (ie non-alarmist) and alternative energy enthusiasm are not mutually exclusive. We should try to stop screaming at each other and find common ground in practical, viable green energy tech. Then perhaps scientists and journalists could start avoiding hype and shun those publicity hungry extremists. One can but hope.
Yes, a search for new forms of energy is definately the way to go. Fortunately, a whole lot of work has been done by enterprising individuals who claim to have tapped zero point energy. Even the Greens can’t object to power generation that burns no fuel. It’s all here – what are you waiting for?
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/
A good idea this, me thinks.
OT – but a lunchtime news article for regional SW BBC has hailed the Met Office as a world leading weather forecast & climate change research body, but it only has a low rating for its carbon footprint (Deep Thought energy consumption no doubt!). The Director was interviewed claiming in true Met Office self-congratulatory style, all sorts of major triumphs & achievements in weather forecasting & climate change studies. Oh how soon do they want forget the 2009 “Barbecue Summer” debacle! Oh & the 2007 Summer forecast debacle, & the 2008 Summer forecast debacle, & the 2008-9 Winter forecast debacle too! They’ve thrown in the towel on August’s weather after saying “don’t put the barbecue away just yet”, at the end of July! The forecast for the weekend is mediocre at best, & they’re not even going any where near the coming Bank Holiday on Monday 31st August, just 4 days away! Oooh that must really hurt.
Vincent:
I need US-relevant information on panels and heat pumps.
Speaking of the Energy & Environment journal.
From time to time I’m doing the debate the catastrophist thing. That “no peer reviewed articles” comment always comes up. I of course go to one those sites with an easy to link list of same. The reply comes back stating how some of these journals on the list are not acceptable.
OK, so how do I reply to that one? The one that goes Science and Nature good. E&E bad.
What do Science and Nature do that E&E doesn’t? Why are Science and Nature supposed to be acceptable where E&E is not?
Hi everyone:
I work in the solar industry in Northern California. We regularly present interested parties with very good ROI numbers for installation of photovoltaic energy systems. They can range anywhere from 8–9%, and with larger residential systems quickly climb into the high teens. The factors that produce these amazing results are as follows: 1) federal, state, and local subsidies for solar providing a low present cost of installation; and 2) historic rate increase data from PG&E *(6.5% y–y).
My problem is that when you project PG&E data based on a historical increase factor (6.5% y–y) you end up with future energy rates that are four to five times higher towards the end of your projection. Hence a system in Northern California of say, 5 kW (a system for a three bedroom house with A/C) with a family of four, ends up with lifetime savings in the $280,000 range.
Is this reasonable from a forecasting point of view? I would be very interested in some reactions.
This is a response to Pamela Gray:
You are no longer buying DeLoreans or Edsels. Solar from reputable manufacturers works efficiently, reliably and for a long time. The products we use (we are a solar installer) have a 25-year warranty to deliver at least 80% of the rated output of the system.
I have read up on zero-point energy with great interest in the last few months, and although it sounds tantalizing it seems to be, as usual, not ready for prime time, or even ready for scrutiny.
Now tell us why you accepted an ad for a perpetual motion machine.
Vincent 07: 17: 05
Have you read chapter 15 of your free-energy link? Aliens wandering around in the Pentagon? Swine flu deliberately engineered to substantially reduce the population? Really?
The power of advising.
The power of advertising!
Vincent 07: 17: 05
And I forgot to mention the giant planet that’s headed our way, apparently.
Here is a link for solar in California – from a homeowner’s perspective, not the large-scale systems.
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/nshp/index.html
That old malfunctioning sense of humor thing is happening here again. Vincent is kidding. I can tell by the way he spells “definitely”.
Who knows… maybe WUWT will allow enough (appropriate) sponsors to do away with the Google ads… makes me want to visit E&E for that reason alone…
Roger:
If
“Small systems funded through California’s Energy Renewables Program, through the end of 2006, have been averaging $7.00 / watt, after rebates”
then there is no way that it can provide a viable return in a meaningful payback period of say 5 years when my current cost is $0.20 per KWH. I need enough power to run a .55KW pump.
Does anybody have any ideas?
SFTor (09:09:37),
Future rates for California will be difficult to aniticipate because much depends on future regulations, both state and federal. If regulations remain static, using historical data may skew your projections high because they will include the price spikes under ENRON’s, and other’s, price manipulations.
I looked into installing evacuated tube solar collectors on my new addition. It just adds too much cost to justify it. Green living is for the rich. Mandating green living would bankrupt the economy (of course, if it is already bankrupt it wouldn’t happen because the Chinese won’t give it to us for free, but then again, OPEC won’t give us oil for free either — and the warmists and eco-nazis won’t let us use our own coal, oil or gas, or build nuclear plants. I will pray for global warming so I don’t have to heat my house. Didn’t the Greenland colonies die off because society would not allow adaptation to the changing climate?).
Bernie, 5 year payback is a bit much to expect at this time. As noted in an earlier comment, the payback period is closer to 8 to 10 years. However, the value of the home increases so if the homeowner sells the home, he/she gets at least part of the money back.
It is far more attractive to add a few thousand dollars worth of insulation and weatherizing a house to eliminate air leaks than it is to install solar PV. When I did this a decade ago, the payback was around one year (and I only spent $1,000). This was in California, inland valley, with air conditioning as primary utility cost. Nobody had to tear the house apart to add the insulation, either. Exterior walls can be insulated in-situ by blowing in insulation through small holes in the wall, which are then patched and finished.
Roger Sowell (13:03:26),
Increasing home values are not guaranteed. Indeed, the last 18 months have shown that devaluations of over 30% are not inconceivable. Any major improvement in a home, as with a home purchase, is a gamble.
I am just finishing up a large addition. I purposefully kept the costs within pre-improvement value, but now the value at completion is below pre-improvement value by $30,000 and $150,000 below projected value at completion when we began the addition. Solar improvements would have added $30,000 – $50,000 to the costs. I still wish I could have afforded it, but the savings would have never payed off the costs.
Mikey, What do Science and Nature do that E&E doesn’t? Why are Science and Nature supposed to be acceptable where E&E is not?
And how is it that Nature which is supposed to be wonderful and have a peer review system supposedly of a different order to E&E, manage to publlish the quintessentially junk science paper, Mann et al, whereas little old E&E, inadequate in all sorts of ways according to its critics, managed to publish M&M, which no-one has been able to tear apart – that, to me, say that there’s something not bad at all about E&Es peer review system.