|
Great initiative, and I really like how pragmatic the approach is. This is the kind of complex perspective I personally hope energy policy will take. I think it's counterproductive that the current energy debate takes the form of a race to the top, where the argument keeps going in circles around which form of energy is the magic bullet that will save us, rather than looking at what each kind of energy generation is good for where in what amounts. As an aside, I think the OP could stand to include fusion and thorium energy for consideration, even if it's currently quite a while away, but that's assuming we will continue assuming the current state of technology and not speculate about future progress. The OP did a great job informally covering this by example, but I'd just like to make explicit the factors that I think we ought to be covering:
To "power our lives" efficiently and sustainably, we need to know the approximate values for these under the current system, and we ought to enumerate the desirable distributions of energy generation, on a per-country basis. The OP is one such distribution for Australia, but I'm sure there are more distributions that could sustainably power Australia. We also need to know how the factors interact - in the OP's case, stability and landmass interact to create a need for particular geographical distributions of energy generation, meaning we can't just place them willy-nilly. Other countries may face personnel or cash shortages, may be small enough that the country is meteorologically homogeneous, or may already have below average emissions or other special needs. I'm going to take a crack at Denmark.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:56 |
|