You're viewing a single thread.
I never understood why they did not switch to solar power when the fossil fuel got so sparse.
Because the fossil lobby won and there is no renewable power source.
It's just america that chooses to live like that. The rest of the world juat goes on
Mad Max takes place in Australia though.
Few know the movies are actually documentaries chronicling the lives of people living in the Outback.
Outback is a funny way to spell Perth.
Because then they couldn't drive around in awesome frankensteined together muscle cars.
Reads like an advice: think long-term, start the transition as early as possible. So, basic rationality.
It would be interesting to see them update that with current data since global PV installations are estimated at 392 GW for 2023.
It is unrealistic to imagine that we could jump into a full-scale infrastructure replacement in one year. To set the scale, the U.S. uses about 3 TW of continuous power. A 1% drop corresponds to 30 GW of power. Our modest 2% replacement therefore would require the construction of about 60 new 1 GW power plants in a single year, or a rate of one per week! Worldwide, we quadruple this number.
What capability have we demonstrated in the past? In 2010, global production of solar photovoltaics was 15 GW, which is only about 6% of what we would need to fill a world-wide energy gap of 2% per year. Even on a tear of 50% increase per year, it would take 7 years to get to the required rate. Wind installations in 2010 totaled 37 GW, or 14% of the 2% global requirement. It would take 5 years at a breakneck 50% per year rate of increase to get there. When France decided to go big on nuclear, they built 56 reactors in 15 years. In doing so, they replaced 80% of their electricity consumption, which translates to about 30% of their total energy use. So this puts them at about 2% per year in energy replacement.