An open letter

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Feist (Physicist) Unit for Energy Efficient Buildings University of Innsbruck Techniker Str. 13 A-6020 Innsbruck 2011-03-26 Dear George Monbiot, Nick Grant gave me your mail address and suggested to contact you. I did not, only now, after the discussion I read on the Guardian today. The omission of efficiency is a serious one. And now I see, why you thought to do that: You are still thinking in 20, 30% reductions by efficiency. Nick grant thought you know about the state of the art: Passive Houses save 90%, electronic ink 98%, the Loremo-car 75%, ... I can go on. So: better efficiency is a game-changer. If we only manage to save net-50% in the next 20 yrs by this (after also taking higher comfort and prosperity into account), the need for energy production is only half of what it is now: Renewables (now some 15%, can double easily in 20 yrs) will be already 60% of the lower demand. The rest of non-renewables (40% of the lower demand) is just 20% of what we need now and we can be very, very picky of what kind of non-renewable source we choose. Given contemporary circumstances it might be natural gas - having just 50% of the global warming impact compared to coal. That reduces global warming impacts to 50% out of 20% - i.e. 10% of the emissions now. That would not cause any danger for the climate on earth. And ... after 20 yrs there is still time for even better efficiency and much better energy supply concepts. So, yes, that is a very serious omission, not to look on efficiency. Kind regards Wolfgang Feist PS.: You will find a lot of valuable information here:

Univ. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Feist Energieeffizientes Bauen Universität Innsbruck und Passivhaus Institut Darmstadt und Innsbruck ===== ===== ========= =========

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful