energy-group-read https://www.opendemocracy.net/taxonomy/term/6039/all cached version 11/07/2018 20:15:43 en Can we clean King Coal and live happily ever after? https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/can-we-clean-king-coal-and-live-happily-ever-after <p> <strong>September 11th 2009</strong><strong>. Join the Group Read. Chapter 23. Can King Coal be cleaned? </strong> </p> <p> Listen to the interview with David MacKay on <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8249000/8249910.stm">Today</a> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <u><a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a></u>) </p> <p> <em>Should we adopt the <a href="http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/ise.html">Ise Shrine</a> notion of sustainability? No - the issue is really about costly irreversible action, not keeping doing what we do for a very, very long time.&nbsp; </em> </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c23/page_157.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> Clean coal will probably reduce the efficiency of the coal to electrical eneergy conversion process by about 1/3 -- from almost 40% to about 25%. Cleaning coal uses up coal at a greater rate. But if it does so in a climate-friendly way, why not? </p> <p> Quite. But David's MacKay's concern is not entirely about environmental friendliness -- he is asking the question of whether the UK can keep living more or less as it is within its own energy budget. The logic of this is to say: "if we&nbsp; control what we can most easily control---our own lifestyles---and we can live within our energy and climate-asset budgets ... and if all other nations can, then that's a sufficient condition for having cracked the problem." (Economists keen on trade and exploiting comparative advantage would say it is not a necessary condition -- maybe we can do so even better by being less autarkic...). </p> <p> David adopts an avowedly arbitrary definition of a sustainable burn rate: can a burn-rate be sustained for 1000 years? If yes, it is sustainable. That definition allows him to relate the UK's coal reserves with a daily per person sustainable consumption rate --- there would be less than 1 kWh of electricity per person available from clean coal. But we consume 180 kWh/day/person, so clean coal is a stop gap --- it will not see our way of life go on for that long. </p> <p> This relies pretty crucially on the definition of sustainability, which I think is wrong for the purpose. David adopts what one might call the <a href="http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/ise.html">Ise Shrine</a> notion of sustainability. The Ise Shrine was first built in 4BC and has been rebuilt, identically, ever since then every 20 years. It was last rebuilt in 1993. This is "sustainability" as in keeping on and on doing the same thing. David is ISe-esque in choosing our ability to do the same thing - burn British coal - for a very long time to come. </p> <p> But the concept that really bites in "unsustainable" development, I think, are processes that do irreparable damage, not processes that cannot conceivably continue for a very long time. So if we had clean coal, we could deplete UK reserves in 100 years rather than 1000 and spend that time developing other solutions and infrastructure. There is nothing fundamentally unsustainable in that approach. At 10 times the depletion rate David suggests, clean-coal generated electricity could satisfy at tenth and a twentieth of our daily energy needs, which is not to be sniffed at. </p> <p> So while David is right that this is a stop-gap, sustainability should not throw out the right stop-gaps. </p> <p> == </p> <p> (David revives Jevons' very interesting 1865 forecast of the decline of British power based on the depletion of coal reserves. <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n16/jack03_.html">Ian Jack reviews</a> Andy Beckett's history of the 70s in the LRB and reminds us of the pessimism that surrounded just the nadir that Jevons had forecast. North Sea oil, of course, was not in Jevons' forecast ....) </p> openEconomy openEconomy uk UK Creative Commons normal energy-group-read email Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:40:50 +0000 openDemocracy 48617 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Cutting the vampire appliances https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/cutting-the-vampire-appliances <p><strong>May 31st 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapter 22. Can we be more efficient users of electricity?</strong></p> <p>(Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>)</p> <p><strong><br /> </strong><br /> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c22/page_155.shtml"></a></p> <p>Many gadgets consume a surprising amount of power on standby. David cut his electricity consumption by half by making sure his "vampire appliances" were kept off. There are real savings available here. David and friends set up "<a href="http://readyourmeter.org/">ReadYourMeter.org</a>" to try to encourage others to make this sort of saving. According to the International Energy Agency, standby power consumes a surprising8% of residential electricity.</p> openEconomy openEconomy Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Sun, 31 May 2009 12:12:25 +0000 openDemocracy 48083 at https://www.opendemocracy.net David MacKay talking about Energy Without Hot Air https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/david-mackay-talking-about-energy-without-hot-air <p>David talks about <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jvdhb/More_or_Less_24_04_2009">Energy Without Hot Air on BBC</a>.</p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Tue, 12 May 2009 14:35:25 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47953 at https://www.opendemocracy.net "Small is beautiful" ... "but big is efficient" in heating systems https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/small-is-beautiful-but-big-is-efficient-in-heating-systems <p> <strong>May 10th 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapter 21. Efficient Heating</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c21/page_140.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> The average winter-time temperature in English homes in 1970 was 13C. Today, 50% more than that is usually thought of as just about tolerable. <p> There are three strategies for reducing the carbon footprint of keeping warm: reduce the temperature difference between the inside and outside; reduce heat losses from inside to outside and increase the efficiency with which energy is transformed into heat. </p> <p> The first two seem obvious and cheap solutions. We hear a lot about "nudging" as a policy, and this seems an ideal area for clever devices to make people aware that they could be heating less and leaking less heat. David does not mention my own favourite long term solution here---a widespread move to small exoskeletons as a substitute to housing: we should be able to walk around with our temperature control close to our bodies and our living spaces open to the elements. </p> <p> David makes a powerful argument for heat pumps rather than Combined-Heat-and-Power plants, and slips in a big fault-line in eco-politics versus eco-engineering: energy transformation efficiency tends to rise as scale rises, whereas green politics loves to decentralise and make solutions small and local. </p> <p> This chapter is full of low-ish tech, labor-intensive investments that make energy-efficiency sense today. This is just what government policy should be stimulating our economies with today. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Sun, 10 May 2009 13:12:52 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47919 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Transport: Bicycles, trains, electric cars and nuclear ships https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/transport-bicycles-trains-electric-cars-and-nuclear-ships <p><strong>May 4th 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapter 20. Transport</strong></p> <p>(Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>)</p> <p><strong><br /> </strong><br /> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_118.shtml"></a></p> <p>Electrify transport. There's not much to beat trains+bicycles, and any government looking for a Keynesian stimulus should find lots of infrastructure opportunities here.(For the UK, <a href="/article/circle/local-railways-odd-circle-tue-5-may-09-at-the-blue-mugge-pub">reverse Beeching</a> at last))</p> <p>David MacKay comes down softly on the car---which shows great realism---and finds that electrification is the only real solution there. He debunks hydrogen as a good energy carrier. Flying is a really tough case---there is not much that can be done to reduce its energy intensity. (I was sitting in an easyjet plane the other day that tried to convince me of its greenery by saying: "Flying contributes less CO2 than driving to the atmosphere" ...). Batteries are the way to go---though just wait for the peak lithium scares.</p> <p>David has an interesting aside on nuclear ships. If we could make the (political) world safe for small-scale nuclear power, maybe there's more than ships that could benefit.</p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Mon, 04 May 2009 19:30:52 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47863 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Energy group read - The basic solution https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/energy-group-read-the-basic-solution <p> <strong>April 21st 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapter 19. The basic solution</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_114.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> Chapter 18 was depressing --- the diffuse nature of renewables in the crowded UK basically means that a realistic view of their usage makes it clear we won't make it on local wind, tide, sun, geothermal, wood etc. <p> Assume: a) we can't change energy per capita too much; b) we can't change the capita (ie no creepy population control) and we still want sustainability ... The basic solution is:&nbsp; </p> <p> 1. electrify transport </p> <p> 2.&nbsp; electrify space heating </p> <p> 3. produce electricity with whatever local renewables we can, augmented by clean coal, nuclear and imported solar from desert regions. </p> <p> Sounds simple, no? </p> openEconomy openEconomy Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:45:22 +0000 openDemocracy 47786 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Balance: thinly spread and unpopular https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/balance-thinly-spread-and-unpopular <p> <strong>March 30th 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapter 18. A first balance</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> This is the first chapter attempting to balance-up consumption and production. While the story told so far of the raw energy <em>potential</em> from renewable sources shows an ecouragingly close race to maintain our rich lifestyles with sustainable energy sources, a little digging provides much disappointment. Between the potential and the realisation lies a factor of over 100! From a production potential of 180 kWh per day per person, we get to an actual production figure of just 1 kwh/d/p and a "realisable" estimate of 18 kwh/d/p---a full ten times less than our consumption. </p><p> Looking at the heart of the physics problem, David MacKay points to the geographically diffuse nature of renewables: each person needs a huge amount of land, tidal exposure, wind per person to make the sums add up. The sustainable potentials, as David emphasises, need "country-sized solutions". "To get a big contribu- tion from wind, we used wind farms with the area of Wales. To get a big contribution from solar photovoltaics, we required half the area of Wales. To get a big contribution from waves, we imagined wave farms covering 500 km of coastline. To make energy crops with a big contribution, we took 75% of the whole country." </p><p> Yet protection of species, habitats, nature, beauty etc. all move the same people who want to reduce fossil fuel dependency to limit the installations. Something will need to give to balance our energy ...</p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:16:47 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47628 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Drilling deep holes and making bombs https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/drilling-deep-holes-and-making-bombs <p> <strong>March 15th 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapters 14 and 15. Geothermal and Public Services</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c16/page_96.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> It matters where the energy is: lots of heat just 100km under our feet doesn't help much although manufacturing earthquakes might, just a bit. We're not Iceland which can rely on geothermal heat closer to the surface to operate huge aluminium smelting plants. So we can (almost) forget geothermal. Public "services" like a well-equipped army or well-heated academics also consume. Maybe some demand should be counted as production if it can be sustainably avoided by our efforts? </p> <p> Next week is the first chapter looking at the overall balance of demand to potential renewable supply. </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:06:42 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47535 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Tides and Stuff - March 8, Chapter 14 and 15 https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/march-8-chapter-14-and-15-tides-and-stuff <p> <strong>March 8th 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapters 12 and 13. Tides and Stuff</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c14/page_81.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> Tide farms, tide barriers and two-way tide pools sound very attractive. And they won't make the world stop turning. Unfortunately, even for the rather tide-rich British Isles, we can only really hope to cover something about equivalent to our lighting and gadget energy consumption this way. And the economics of building large installations are not yet clear. <em>Stuff</em>, on the other hand, is much less attractive. Just making and transporting it -- TVs, food, drink, packaging, cans, computers ... -- is our biggest single consumption category. Reducing the stuff-intensity of well-being seems like a good goal. </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read email Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:54:21 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47477 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Group Read. Energy without hot air. Wave and Food https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/group-read-energy-without-hot-air-wave-and-food <p> <strong>Feb 23 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapters 12 and 13. Wave and Food</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c12/page_73.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> In which we learn that to get by on wave power you need to be very very insular -- that is, have a small number of people per unit length of exposed coastline (sounds like a nice place to me, but the British Isles don't fit the description) -- and also that our food habits, especially for red-blooded carnivores with meat-eating pets -- amount to more than half our driving habit in energy. There is a real energy case to be made for vegetarianism (approximately twice as efficient) and even more for veganism (another doubling). </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:19:59 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47422 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Energy group read, Week 6 https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/energy-group-read-week-6 <p> <strong>Feb 23 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapters 10 and 11. Offshore and gadgets</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c10/page_60.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> Offshore wind seems intuitively a nice option for an island liuke Britain - out of the sight, a sort of power belt that you can see from high places on a clear day. The energy is indeed there - about as much as we use for our heating and cooling. But you'd need an aweful lot of turbines and a massive investment. (Would we then have to worry about the birds?) </p><p> What about our chargers and gadgets? There is a myth that they are responsible for the developing "power gap" -- all those new power stations we will need over the next 20 years as the big nuclear power stations are decommissioned. Well, it turns out to be quite small - about the same energy consumption we use for lighting. </p><p> Just like to repeat a big thank you to <strong>David MacKay</strong> who has been very supportive of this project, and to <strong>William Sigmund</strong> without whose amazing html and perl skills I do not think we would have had an online version to work with. </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read email Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:54:10 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47379 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Energy group read, week 5. Heat, hydro and light https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/energy-group-read-week-5-heat-hydro-and-light <p> <strong>Feb 14 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapters 7, 8 and 9. Heat, hydro and light</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> We use about as much to heat and cool ourselves (in Britain) as we use to move around in our cars, </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c7/page_50.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> while lighting uses only a fraction of that energy - especially using low energy fluorescent bulbs or the new generation of LED lights. Hydro-electric power in Britain, however, even with generosity from the wet Highlands, will only deliver about one third of the small amount of energy we use to light ourselves. How unfortunate that such accidental power-concentrators as mountains and streams are not more plentiful, and not just, maybe, for the energy benefits. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read email Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:39:24 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47332 at https://www.opendemocracy.net Group read, energy, week 4. Will solar energy let us fly to the sun in winter? https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/group-read-energy-week-4-will-solar-energy-let-us-fly-to-the-sun-in-winter <p> <strong>Feb 7 2009. Join the Group Read. Chapters 5 and 6. Flight and Solar</strong> </p> <p> (Instructions on how to join are <a href="/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-group-read">at the bottom of the original post</a>) </p> <p> <strong> </strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c5/page_35.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> </p> <p> Will solar energy technologies allow us to sustainably take those long-haul flights to get our winter dose of sunshine? On the way, we discover that flying intecontinentally once per year has an energy cost slightly bigger than leaving a 1 kW electric fire on, non-stop, 24 hours a day, all year, despite the fact that modern planes are twice as fuel-efficient as a single-occupancy car. It may be no surprise, therefore, that Airline businessman Michael O&rsquo;Leary, CEO of Ryanair, has developed a Swiftian the solution to the problem: " The best thing we can do with environmentalists is shoot them." </p> <p> Just like to repeat a big thank you to <strong>David MacKay</strong> who has been very supportive of this project, and to <strong>William Sigmund</strong> without whose amazing html and perl skills I do not think we would have had an online version to work with. </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read email Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:08:01 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47288 at https://www.opendemocracy.net "Energy without hot air" Group Read https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/economics/energy-without-hot-air-start <p> <strong>Jan 30 2009, Chapters 3 and 4. Cars and wind<br /></strong> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c3/page_29.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> In which we learn that a car eats (the energy equivalent of) <strike>half a kilo</strike> five kilos of butter per day on a typical commute, and that although "Britain&rsquo;s onshore wind energy resource may be &ldquo;huge,&rdquo; but it&rsquo;s evidently not as huge as our huge consumption." </p> <p> (click on image to get to book; read below to sign up to group reading) </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> <strong>Jan 16 2009, Chapter 2<br /></strong> </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c2/page_22.shtml"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/scrnshots.com/screenshots/106894/scrnshotsdesktop-1232208364png_large" alt="" hspace="5" width="150" align="left" /></a> Reading Chapter 2 this week-end. A short chapter that sets the goal of calculating in broad terms whether sustainable energy production can match current energy production. This is the big question of whether we face a massive environmental constraint or one that will require substantial but not life-changing modifications to life. David clears up important conceptual questions -- energy, power, entropy, efficiency. </p> <p> Read below if you are just joining the group read and would like to equip yourself with the annotation tools. </p> <p> <strong>Jan 7 2009, read-in kick-off </strong> </p> <p> <strong>E</strong><strong>nergy</strong> is at the heart of two of the hardest social problems we face: environment and poverty. And the two pull in different directions. </p> <p> Average energy use per person must rise, while total carbon emmissions must fall. Bringing 2 billion people out of misery and another 2 billion out of poverty will need huge increases in their energy use. But at the same time,&nbsp; environmental constraints mean that carbon emmissions must fall. </p> <p> To come to a responsible view on a great number of topics - from the response to economic crisis to bio-fuels; from climate change mitigation to transport policy - we need to have a solid grounding in the facts about energy. (See David's own list of questions at the bottom of <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_4.shtml">this page</a>). </p> <p> This is why I have picked David Mackay's "<a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_2.shtml">Energy Without Hot Air</a>" as a first text for openDemocracy's 2009 Group Reads. We'll feature about 10 pages per week and keep a running page of the commentary and questions and notes. </p> <p> As before, we'll use <a href="http://diigo.com">diigo.com</a> to do the annotations. You need to sign up for a <a href="http://diigo.com">diigo account</a> and then join the "<a href="http://groups.diigo.com/groups/od-energy-group-read">Energy group read</a>" group. I usually find it easiest to install the <a href="http://www.diigo.com/tools/toolbar">diigo toolbar</a> on my browser to add notes to online texts. You can also get the same sort of functionality by installing the <a href="http://www.diigo.com/tools/diigolet">diigolet button</a>, which is somewhat easier to use and install.If you have any trouble with any of this, add a question to the comments on this page and we'll try to sort it out. </p> <p> Once you have diigo set up, you can go to the online version of&nbsp; "<a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_2.shtml">Energy Without Hot Air</a>" and start reading, commenting and asking questions. When you come to a place in the text that is worth a comment or question (for example, here, on the text "<a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_3.shtml">This heated debate is fundamentally about numbers</a>"), highlight the phrase and choose "Highlight" from the diigo menu. Once highlighted, mouse over the highlight and choose "Add sticky note" from the diigo menu. Type in your note or question and in the drop-down menu that defaults to "Private" make sure you select "od energy group read". </p> <p> When you are reading&nbsp; "<a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_2.shtml">Energy Without Hot Air</a>" other people's highlights should appear, and you should be able to read their comments and questions by mousing over the text.You can also look at all notes on a page. </p> <p> We're still experimenting with how these online group reads work. Last year, we ran group reads on Zittrain's<a href="/blog/tony_curzon_price/help_me_online_annotate_jonathan_zittrains_new_book"> Future of the Internet</a> and on the<a href="/economics/annotation/g20"> G20 communique</a>. They're fun, interesting and informative. Do join us! </p> <p> Just like to say a big thank you to <strong>David MacKay</strong> who has been very supportive of this project, and to <strong>William Sigmund</strong> without whose amazing html and perl skills I do not think we would have had an online version to work with. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> openEconomy openEconomy Tony Curzon Price Creative Commons normal energy-group-read email Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:44:14 +0000 Tony Curzon Price 47057 at https://www.opendemocracy.net