3 ms·
[1] 100 TW primary energy An article by MIT claims 14TW - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/energy-scale-part1-1024.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/en
by moocowduckquack 13y ago
[1] 100 TW primary energy
An article by MIT claims 14TW - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/energy-scale-part1-1024.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/energy-scale-part1-1024.h... - and I've seen figures from 12TW to 20TW bandied around and I tend to use 18TW when running the numbers, but I have never seen an estimate as high as 100TW. Where's that figure from?
- yk 13y agoUps, good catch. It is from a old blog post from myself [1]. The reasoning was 10 billion people, with first world energy needs ( 10 kW). The alternative to use this number is, that you get a safety factor of 6 to account for using solar as baseload, weather and everything else that dissipates energy. Edit: Additionally, the power of solar panels used is for England, not the Sahara. The purpose of the posting was essentially a back of the envelope calculation with pessimistic assumptions. [1] http://yoshi-k.de/2008/09/die-plausibilitat-der-solarenergie/ http://yoshi-k.de/2008/09/die-plausibilitat-der-solarenergie... ( German)
- moocowduckquack 13y agoYou don't need to get everyone in the world to be consuming more energy than the average European to have converted most energy to solar though. I am all for using fudge-factors to allow for rough data, but I don't see the point in starting a calculation with completely fictional data when there is data available.
- yk 13y agoWell, I like my 100% renewable future with flying cars. So I allow for some growth of energy consumption.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoFlying cars? Ok, I'm sold, half the Sahara it is.