I found this and was extremely heartened and want to spread the idea amongst the internet community. I thought here would be a good place to start.
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/
It is really reassuring to see top quality scientists working on realistic methods to eradicate the need for nuclear power and improve the world. Please check it out.
Originally posted by MaltokimboothSeems a neat idea. Although, one major inefficiency is that of transport. I think diffuse generation schemes, such as wood burning (copicing) power stations, biofuels (including methanogenesis) and the use of technologies like solar panels on the roof / back garden windmills feeding to the grid, are probably more viable for countries like the UK. Also, don't forget to count in things like the "sea snake" a hydropower generator using wave / current action.
I found this and was extremely heartened and want to spread the idea amongst the internet community. I thought here would be a good place to start.
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/
It is really reassuring to see top quality scientists working on realistic methods to eradicate the need for nuclear power and improve the world. Please check it out.
There are many ways to generate power which do not require hydrocarbons, and every day they become more financially viable. Let's not forget when mobile phones were the size of a suitcase and cost thousands! The same will be true of these technologies, prices will drop (even if only in real terms), and the adoption of these technologies will increase.
Originally posted by scottishinnzTrue, but the cost of transport could also drop, making remote generation of electricity at large installations more price competitive.
Seems a neat idea. Although, one major inefficiency is that of transport. I think diffuse generation schemes, such as wood burning (copicing) power stations, biofuels (including methanogenesis) and the use of technologies like solar panels on the roof / back garden windmills feeding to the grid, are probably more viable for countries like the UK. Also ...[text shortened]... ill drop (even if only in real terms), and the adoption of these technologies will increase.
Well, looking around on the site, they said somehwere that the efficiency of tranportation of this energy compared to 70% loss using standard high coltage wires was roughly 2-3% per 1000km. I agree that rain water, solar panels on roofs, and things of this sort are also important, but the problem as I have heard with the "tidal snakes" is where to put them, given that they are a hazrd to ships.
Stealing large amounts of heat away from tropical zones (what is being proposed) will definitely have large climatic consequences locally, and most likely globally through global atmospheric teleconnections.
There appears to be no mention of this being considered, let alone a proper climate modelling study being performed, in their environmental impacts section of their 192-page full report. Their claim that,
'All in all, it can be stated that TRANS-CSP scenario reduces the environmental risks related to electricity generation when compared to the present European supply system.' p121
has therefore yet to be proven.
Originally posted by rwingettThe most environmentally enlightened, perhaps. Do you have stats for other countries?
Denmark meets 25% of its energy needs through wind power, making it perhaps the most enlightened country in the world.
Perhaps someone should email them and suggest this proposed cilmate modelling.