[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one produced on 21/7/05
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/secondannualreport.pdf
Try page 15, section 3.1 and then the nice graphic at the top of page 16.
The graphic shows what is likely to happen, and what the experts believe
would be economically feasible. It may even be the best choice. I do not
argue with that. However, if the people in the UK decided to, they could
throw out this projection, and derive all of their energy from North Sea
wind 20 years from now. There is more than enough wind, and the U.K. has
enough steel and concrete to manufacture the turbines.
People in the U.K. or the U.S. might be driven to do this by some dire
event such as a nuclear attack or a series of category five hurricanes, as
I said.
Of course this would mean that electricity and hydrogen fuel for vehicles
would cost a lot more. You might end up paying $1/kWh for electricity for a
while, and $10/gallon equivalent for synthetic gasoline. You could afford
that, and you would not starve, but of course it would mean sacrificing a
large part of your disposable income. It would not be as grim as the
economic conditions were during WWII in the U.K., when most people did not
have enough toothpaste, soap, gasoline, or hot water to live decently.
I am not recommending this course of action. I am saying there are no
natural or engineering impediments that would prevent it. There are
physical limits to other renewable energy sources. I doubt the U.K. could
derive more than a small fraction of its energy from solar power, for
example, whereas the U.S. or Australia have thousands of square kilometers
of open desert that could be used for solar power. We have more than enough
to produce all the energy we consume, with something like the Sterling
Energy 25 kW gadgets. You would have to manufacture one of those gadgets
for every 10 people, 30 million gadgets in total, and you would have to
install power lines, hydrogen pipelines and so on. I suppose that would
cost roughly as much a 60 million automobiles, which is how many we buy
every 3.5 years. The U.S. can certainly afford that, although it would be a
big sacrifice.
- Jed
