This is the equivalent to driving a car at quarter throttle all the time as the Williams systems will generate three times that amount of energy in a single lap.5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW.
Energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap.
Measurements will be taken at the connection to the rear wheel drivetrain. [/QUOTE
Whilst I agree with you on principle I can't help but notice that the decades we're predicted to reach this peak and collapse keep getting further and further into the future. Back in the 90's it was around 2010 - now its about 2030 - whats the betting at 2030 it'll be 2050. I think your fundemental maths are right, however if you're not given the correct figures in the first place you're never going to get the right answer.Global warming is no myth and neither is Peak oil (and peak everything else for that matter), on a finite planet there is a limit of everything. The 'Limits to Growth' book of 30 years ago (and new documentary in the making) shows how resources, population, pollution...assuming business as usual, all reach a peak sometime within the next few decades followed by collapse. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; all biological systems reach a limit and then contract. Us 'wise apes' are no different.
Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to the E formula.
There's some truth in what you say RasputinLives but energy and how man uses it and moreso the path he takes in the future is an evolving situation. Most Japanese have changed their views on nuclear power for reasons far more immediate and valid than any reasons the Greens can put forward. I'm one who believes mans needs and the importance for him to retain his mobility and to continue to trade globally are far too necessary for him to not find an alternative, in fact the alternative is almost certainly already available but unnecessary to turn to until the depletion of oil runs much closer..
Perceptions change. Did anyone see that recent doc about green party activists who campaigned against nuclear power who were saying if they knew now what they did then they'd have been campaigning for it? Situations change.
Wise words. I agree with you and I'm a greenie. It is possible engineering solutions will reduce our impact on the planet for a good more decades than predicted. One of the reasons I like F1 is that they're about pushing the boundaries. I'm all for advancement whilst recognising that we're hard up against limits and step improvements are harder and more expensive to achieve in the same way it becomes harder and more expensive to find new oil reserves, more efficient engines etc, while the head winds of increasing freakish weather, wild fires, floods, droughts - it's, for instance, said food prices will rocket next year as a result of the drought in the US - makes our task that much harder.Whilst I agree with you on principle I can't help but notice that the decades we're predicted to reach this peak and collapse keep getting further and further into the future. Back in the 90's it was around 2010 - now its about 2030 - whats the betting at 2030 it'll be 2050. I think your fundemental maths are right, however if you're not given the correct figures in the first place you're never going to get the right answer..