Again Steve, I agree with you, but how, how, how, can we do that. We are addicted to petroleum, not just for fuel, but nearly everything, and most of the products made from it
Apparently some 70% of oil is used for transportation and a similar percentage of coal is used for electricity generation, so there's scope for a significant reduction.
Actually I find some of the emerging technology in the alternative energy sector to be quite promising and certainly worth developing.
Just yesterday I was reading about using solar energy to heat molten salt which then can be stored until required to produce steam to drive power station turbines. Apparently you can get an overnight storage efficiency of over 90% with this approach.
Obviously many of these ideas are in their infancy but you don't stop development just because it's dificult.
Where would we be if the Wright Brothers had made their first flight and said, " Well it only went 120 feet, let's get a balloon instead!"
Where would we be if the Wright Brothers had made their first flight and said, " Well it only went 120 feet, let's get a balloon instead!"
We wouldn't have all those airplanes flying around the world burning fossil fuels... I say blame the likes of the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford!
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?
You may want to take a look at this. I used to drive by the place and didn't even know what it was. There are other places in the world where this could be done. Indonesia, Iceland, Japan and southern Italy to name a few, but don't know if they are of not. Pete
prcscct wrote:You may want to take a look at this. I used to drive by the place and didn't even know what it was. There are other places in the world where this could be done. Indonesia, Iceland, Japan and southern Italy to name a few, but don't know if they are of not. Pete
It is not as simple as it might at first appear. Indonesia does have a small area that is suitable, Iceland has the best known area in the World. Not sure about the others. Evidently the Geological structure suitable for this type of development is very rare, and in the case of Iceland at least, is often found in remote areas of small, or little population.
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil know`s you`re dead!
As they say in the classics mad dogs and Englishman go out in the mid day sun. And for yet more historical proof have a look at poor old Icharus. That bloody sun has also cause much havoc to my skin!
Nice to see that S/G acknowledges the finiteness of resource perhaps a little reading of Maltheus and appropriate extrapolation might point to perhaps the biggest problem !
Electricity from sunlight may become the most economical source of power within the next 10 years, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
As solar photovoltaic systems become more common and the technology becomes more efficient, they will reach cost-parity with fossil fuels, the New York-based trade group said today in a statement.
Solar power is approaching the point of grid parity, where the cost of generating power from solar is similar to the cost of traditional sources, James Prendergast, IEEE’s executive director, said in an interview yesterday. By “about 2015, we’ll be at a significant inflection,” and “if you talk about southern California, you’re probably already there.”
Worldwide generating capacity for solar photovoltaic systems has been increasing by about 40 percent a year since 2000. At those rates, solar is expected to provide 11 percent of total global power by 2050, according to the International Energy Association.
“These projections are highly speculative,” Prendergast said, and solar may provide even more of the world’s power if adoption accelerates as prices for solar panels fall. “We are about as close to consensus as you can get that solar will be a game changer for the generation of energy in the future.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-1 ... -says.html
CARBON TRADING FIASCO
by someone who should know - T.L. Cardwell
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.(Rockhampton)
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at
the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide
emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and
renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions
Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the
election) about global pollution. Using Power Station
cooling towers for an example. The condensation
coming from those cooling towers is as pure as
that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named
man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is
Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly
doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable
energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable
energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy
generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon
credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the
public who have not got a clue about thermal
Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting
ridiculous figures about something they clearly
have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to
70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of
modern power station are 96% efficient and the
exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and
reheaters that heat the air and water before entering
the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist
as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no
fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators
or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4%
lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with
very little heat loss and can generate a massive
amount of energy for our needs. They can generate
power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per
kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is
very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total
generation cost and does NOT constitute a
major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China
is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations
because they are the most efficient for bulk power
generation.
We have, like, the USA , coal-fired power
stations because we HAVE the raw materials
and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe
me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly
the reverse, they are very envious of our raw
materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and
U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the
coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet,
cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees
that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a
genius to work that out. But there is only one
problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being
built all over the world but they only add a small
amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts,
which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis
because it requires substantial forces of wind. And
for the same reason only generate when there is
sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends
where they are located but usually they only run for
45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum
capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load'
because they are too variable. And they certainly
could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia
is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small
part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric
System (the ultimate power Generation) because
it is only available when water is there from snow
melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it
costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly
hydro-electric generation because of their high
amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind
generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is
only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts
(of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300
wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has
been done over the decades and there are two types.
Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation
but in each case they cannot generate large amounts
of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed
but they would NEVER have the capability of
replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your
heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics
and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies
(or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and
care very much about our planet. The difference
is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia
where everything can be made perfect by standing
around holding a banner and being a general pain
in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous
this financial madness is that the government is
following. Do the simple maths and see for
yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has
risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last
50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in
a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x
3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would
occupy in that room would be .25m x ..25m x ..17m
or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon
Dioxide and the government wants to reduce
this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of
the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has
risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased
|in 50 years by ..004%.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%.
(Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions
would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ..0000008%.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments
wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008
= ..00000016% effect per year they would have on
the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as
the size of a small pin.
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous -
cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor,
I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission
of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units.
My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle.
I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?
I thought we were trying to power the world in the 21st century, not the 19th.
Fossil fuels are only going to get more expensive as demand from countries such as China and India goes through the roof whilst the price of alternative energy drops due to advancing technology and scale of production. Once parity is reached, it's not going to be worth burning coal anyway, whatever the effect.
As I have posted here before, one of the issues the public has is not understanding the science of climatic change. That is a problem made infinitely worse by reliance on journalists, who are the least capable people to trust with explaining complex science.
Ive also pointed out here that certain figures in the media with a vested interest in stoking irrational debate, such as the shabby arse who works for the Telegraph and makes his whole living from change skeptics now, control significant amounts of the media output on the subject. Fox News, with its inbred agenda of fear mongering and disinformation, is the main home for climate change doubters....well, thanks to the HackerGate investigations and revelations, now we know why.
Watch and wonder ye doubters at just how your information feeds have been cynically manipulated by the Dirty Digger and his shabby crew of vipers, who in turn generate secondary chatter from the climate change misinformation they feed into the interweb....and bear in mind that the Murdochs have recently been shown to own significant amounts of stock in oil companies....so its not like Rupey and co are impartial in the matter eh?
Fair and Balanced????? Pull the other one Rupert.
As Malcolm Maclaren so accurately said:
Ever get the feeling you've been had?
"Science flew men to the moon. Religion flew men into buildings."
It's called the annual news. Fires, floods, tornadoes, and heat waves (and unusually cold waves) happen every year somewhere in the U.S. It's a big place. This past winter there were record breaking cold temperatures in many states and snow in Florida and Southern California...
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?
