| Poster | Message |
|---|
vos
|  05 Jun '04 06:26 : 0 recs
Hydrogen, wind, tar sands, tidal power, nuclear ...... my betting is that, for all the talk of getting away from the fossil fuels, we will suddenly remember Coal.
See Coal Reserves |
|
| |  You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
3dc
| 04 Jun '04 06:32 : 0 recs
I really like the Salton Sea bio-diesel idea for the US.
It takes carbon out of the air... puts it in oil then engines return it to the air. No net increase in airborne carbon.
Same for windmills. Windmills create lots of jobs too. Put them in the middle of farm fields or on the sea. The complaints about sound (as in today's DW report) are from putting them where people live. (Don't put them next to homes.)
Ocean geothermal is good too.
Solar cells don't make as much sense until it takes less energy to make then they will create. Solar thermal makes sense.
 |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Peter J
| 03 Jun '04 19:19 : 0 recs
[quote]You don't have to swallow the scenario of The Day After Tomorrow, the new disaster movie on climate change that has the northern hemisphere plunged overnight into another Ice Age, to believe renewable energy such as wind and solar power deserves support. But it has to be support that provides steady incentives for the development of efficient renewable energy in a way that does not needlessly jeopardise jobs and growth or distort competitiveness.[/quote]
Contd @ FT Editorial - Day after tomorrow
Aside from the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource that will run out another factor, that ought to be a spur to further research, is the pressing need to find an alternative to oil that doesn’t make economies hostage to the whims of the kind of untrustworthy and unreliable people that currently control most of the World’s oil reserves. The present price spike may dissipate but it is almost inevitable that at some point in the not too distant future there will be a further crisis. The possibility of Saudi Arabia, the largest supplier, becoming politically unstable is also growing.
The fact of the matter, which the FT fails to address, is that if something isn’t done then jobs and growth will be jeopardised. Unlike the FT I believe that a distortion is necessary. The markets and indeed the European Commission ought to seriously consider permitting major government and private sector investment, which may well run at a loss/deficit for some few years, in order to enable member states to actively seek a viable and renewable alternative to oil. The EU, especially, needs to address this issue before it becomes a problem. I believe it is no longer a matter of if but a case of when the supply of Mid East oil becomes either prohibitively expensive and/or is cut off or reduced due to regional strife.
Nuclear power is an excellent resource but in Europe it is an uphill battle thanks to tree huggers and their friends who appear able to only look on the dark side. Of course nuclear can be dangerous but I would suggest that the dangers of continuing to rely on fossil fuels are just as great, if not more so. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
S Saines
| 03 Jun '04 05:52 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 03 Jun '04 05:54
Just did some cursory digging on the concept of using nuclear power to extract refined oils from Tar Sands, and surprised to find so much. Here's a start::
Power Week Canada 02/02/04
[NUCLEAR POWER AN ATTRACTIVE OPTION FOR TAR SANDS: ALBERTA CHAMBER REPORT
Nuclear power is an attractive option for steam and hydrogen production for
extraction of oil from Alberta tar sands, according to a recent report by
the Alberta Chamber of Resources. The report noted that new reactor designs
offer significantly cheaper power costs while providing greater safety
margins in operation. The report observed that reliance upon natural gas
would be "unsustainable and uneconomic". It forecast a rise in natural
gas demand for tar sands processing from 10 per cent in 2012 of Mackenzie
and Western Canada Sedimentary Basin production to 60 per cent by 2030. At
that point, the report stated, imported liquid natural gas would be setting
North American prices. Therefore, continued tar sands production meant
switching to an external fuel source such as coal or nuclear power.
The Chamber report noted that nuclear power was competitive at natural gas
prices of $4/gigajoule for an operation producing 150,000 barrels of oil per
day. However, it said more study would be needed in this area, because
operations of that size are normally spread over an area larger than would
normally be served by a single steam source.]
NUCLEAR POWER, ATTRACTIVE OPTION FOR TAR SANDS
See also:
James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
S Saines
| 02 Jun '04 18:31 : 0 recs
Agnostic:
GLad that you 'kicked-off' this topic!
Here is my comment for now, as I've been ruminating and digging for this topic, much more to come later:
Nuclear! Watch for it to have a huge comeback. Is it safe? That's all relative. 3dc's point on 'Hydrogen in your neighbourhood' puts that in perspective. However, how safe are 'gas stations in your neighbourhood?'.
Hydrogen is no more dangerous than Propane is, and propane has had a very good safety record. There are ways to 'slow-release' H, the use of salts to bind it being one way.
But Nuclear: It makes a perfect match for H use, and it also makes a perfect power source for refining and recovery of heavy oils in the Tar Sands for instance. In the case of Canada's Tar Sands, about a thousand miles from any major city.
Like it or not, we are going to be using petrostock for generations yet, albeit petrostock presents itself as a rich source of H. At the moment, gas is used as the energy source to refine heavy oil in the Tar Sands, a massive waste of a fuel that can be used elsewhere, and a dimishing fuel as well. Far better that it be done by Nuclear means. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
3dc
| 02 Jun '04 17:52 : 0 recs
agnostic:
Just to lay down a trail or two, I attended a seminar a few weeks back about the hydrogen economy. We all know we need energy to generate hydrogen, and in an "ideal" ecological economy that energy would come from renewables. But in the seminar, a man in a position to know (or at least, to hazard a much better guess than I could) suggested that to make a real inpact, the UK would need to turn Norfolk, Yorkshire and most of the Scottish Highlands into a wind farm. I've always thought water-energy solutions (wave or tidal) would be more elegant and less intrusive ... any views?
hydrogen is too hard to contain.
You would not want a hydrogen filling station in your neighborhood.
If a semi was hydrogen fueled it would take 3/4s of its volume in liquid hydrogen compressed to 200 atm to drive from SF to Kansas City.
Not workable!!
Likewise, to minimise energy consumption, would it not be preferable to start a return to "vertically integrated" local communities rather than producing and selling things in a few vast emporia between which the 40-tonne trucks endlessly shuttle?
Yes! Its do-able with robotics and when nano-tech comes online maybe to the neighborhood or home level.
And when are we ever going to get serious about tele-working as a means of cutting the commuter flow?
When tele-workers are not the first ones laid off as they can't keep up with the office rumors. Tele-working and the rumor mill don't mix.
I believe some of the first practical applications of fuel cells in the USA are for "local power stations" in remote areas - it's cheaper and just as efficient to pipe in the gas and generate on the spot, rather than run a high-voltage line on poles across miles of virgin territory ... does anyone have any clues as to how much efficiency we would sacrifice by having lots of small, technically advanced power generators rather than huge power stations and 300,000V grid lines?
If they are good then this is the sacrifice...
friction and energy to pump the gas compared to losses in the power lines
when powerlines go to room-temp superconductors then they win... Till then
%50 of the generated power is lost before it ever reaches your home. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 02 Jun '04 14:29 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 02 Jun '04 15:19
Hey! Here we go ...
Just to lay down a trail or two, I attended a seminar a few weeks back about the hydrogen economy. We all know we need energy to generate hydrogen, and in an "ideal" ecological economy that energy would come from renewables. But in the seminar, a man in a position to know (or at least, to hazard a much better guess than I could) suggested that to make a real inpact, the UK would need to turn Norfolk, Yorkshire and most of the Scottish Highlands into a wind farm. I've always thought water-energy solutions (wave or tidal) would be more elegant and less intrusive ... any views?
Likewise, to minimise energy consumption, would it not be preferable to start a return to "vertically integrated" local communities rather than producing and selling things in a few vast emporia between which the 40-tonne trucks endlessly shuttle?
And when are we ever going to get serious about tele-working as a means of cutting the commuter flow?
I believe some of the first practical applications of fuel cells in the USA are for "local power stations" in remote areas - it's cheaper and just as efficient to pipe in the gas and generate on the spot, rather than run a high-voltage line on poles across miles of virgin territory ... does anyone have any clues as to how much efficiency we would sacrifice by having lots of small, technically advanced power generators rather than huge power stations and 300,000V grid lines?
PS: The next two days I have in Germany to spend ... so having hopefully started the ball rolling, don't complain if I now seem to go quiet for a bit! |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
MonitorCM
| 02 Jun '04 14:01 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 02 Jun '04 14:01
As requested, welcome to the Oil Price & Energy Policy forum. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
|
|
|
