10-10-2014, 11:23 AM
(10-10-2014, 06:41 AM)stevebowers Wrote: We could move fusion back ten years or more and maybe make a vague reference to 'troubles' where political conflicts delay the introduction of renewables, but we should keep it relatively vague. The 21st century looks like it is shaping up to become 'interesting times' in some ways, so there may easily be problems that reduce the effectiveness of these potential technologies.
Probably fine to leave it as is then. On the scale of the OA timeline, 10yrs is tiny.
Interestingly enough, I just saw a news segment talking about the growth of solar and wind power in the US. Both are growing very fast. Apparently, California installed as much solar generating capacity last year as had been installed in the previous several decades. Fun.
On a rather different note:
I've been thinking about this thread off and on and about the publication referenced (Sustainable Energy w/o the Hot Air). Something was sort of bothering me. Specifically, the 'stack' on this page:
talks about air travel as a factor in the energy use of the UK. Which would mean jet fuel. Which raised the question: Where does the UK get its jet fuel? If it produced it all domestically, that would be one thing. But if it imports it all, it's not really logical to count it against the renewables column for Britain since, basically, the energy the jet fuel represents is coming from elsewhere (yes, it has to be produced somewhere, but should count against the energy budget of the places it comes from).
A bit of research turned up that the UK imported 64% of its aviation fuel in 2012. Which would seem to mean that we should reduce the jet flights section of the column by 64%. Which would seem to push the red column down a bit and put the green one on top.
Or am I missing something?
Todd