So you think wind power is the answer ...
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
Geo-thermal.
catocom
Well-Known Member
Geo would be good, but you can't predict it as far as the pressure.
I think there are some places where is pretty stable, like in Yellowstone,
and it should be explored more, but I don't think we'll have anything
that can hold back/control, if it starts to erupt.
very dangerous
I think there are some places where is pretty stable, like in Yellowstone,
and it should be explored more, but I don't think we'll have anything
that can hold back/control, if it starts to erupt.
very dangerous
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
well we are many years away from it, but you dig a DEEP pipe, you send down water, it gets heated up to steam, steam comes shooting back up and turns a turbine, clean energy...after the pipe is down at least.
some guy was also working on harnessing the powers of the tides to make hydro electric energy, without disturbing the ecology. If we can finally perfect broadcast energy, have solar collecters in high orbit, broadcasting energy. (if only Tesla lived longer)
some guy was also working on harnessing the powers of the tides to make hydro electric energy, without disturbing the ecology. If we can finally perfect broadcast energy, have solar collecters in high orbit, broadcasting energy. (if only Tesla lived longer)
chcr
Too cute for words
At least the only currently viable one.
I do some side work for a company that has been drilling wells for geothermal heating and cooling for fifteen years. You may have seen them on an episode of Dirty Jobs a couple of years ago. I understand that building a home with geothermal assisted heating and cooling pays for the extra expense in less than three years. Unfortunately, retrofitting an existing home is not nearly as cost-effective. The folks I know do mostly large buildings though.
Cat, the magma pressure you're talking about isn't a factor in geothermal power generation. You don't have to get the water anywhere near the magma to get enough steam pressure to generate electricity. You watch too many sci-fi movies.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
The largest problem with GT is the matter that gets blown back up the pipe under pressure which damages the turbines. One big ass rock can ruin your whole day.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
The most successful use of geothermal has been in Iceland, Reykjavik being the best example. They have near surface volcanism which they tap into.
http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/
chcr
Too cute for words
Can you say "heat exchanger?" I knew that you could.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most efficient, and cheapest form of energy for land based energy needs such as industry and civilian use. Oil still is the primary vehicle for transportation needs. You cannot run a country's transportation needs on electricity.
Mention nuclear energy and the great cry goes up "Three Mile Island and Chernobyl!!!!!" Three Mile Island was not that close to a meltdown. The safety components did not work as well as they should have and we learned from the exercise. France has been getting 70%+ of its power from nuclear for the past thirty years with not one problem.
Chernobyl was a type of reactor which was known to have serious flaws. The reactor was made of graphite.
The explosion blew the environmental cap, or biological shield, off of the reactor and the graphite burned for days.
Chernobyl remains the only commercial reactor accident in which human life was lost due to radiation.
We need to start allowing exploration and ignore these enviro groups who hate everything that anyone would do to further the needs of this country.
Recently, a vast amount, in the tens of trillions of cubic feet, of natural gas reserves which span several states was discovered. Trying to get to those reserves, however, is nearly impossible as every enviro group with an ax to grind will file suit after suit to stop any attempt at getting to it.
Man made GW is a myth as 95% of all GW is natural. Take away the 5% and you still have the 95% left. No one has any idea what to do about that part of the equation but they will use the 5% as an excuse to stop any exploration for new energy sources.
Biomass has been shown to cause more pollution that oil, gas or coal fired energy sources. Ethanol can offset only a small percentage of foreign dependence and is now shown to cause more pollution than oil based products. To see a report by John Stossel on ethanol CLICK HERE. ANWR can supply our needs for many years to come but the enviro groups don't want anyone "disturbing" the area even though the indiginous Indian tribes there WANT oil exploration to proceed.
Wind turbines aren't the answer as the enviro groups have bneen successful in shuting them down due to the danger to birds.
Wave energy will disturb the fish so we can't go there.
So that leaves nuclear, oil, gas, and coal -- exactly what we have now.
chcr
Too cute for words
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
You know. Every time I see this type of 'doom and gloom' post, I wonder why we even bother as a species. Wind power, for all its foibles, is still a viable source of power, regardless of what you posted. Maybe its not 100%, but, looking at Florida the past couple of days, nothing is. Supplement all you can, and stop decrying the 75% to 90% solution.
chcr
Too cute for words
You're right. The main problem is that, even at todays prices (and with all the whining about carbon footprints), fossil fuels are still far cheaper and until they're not, no one will spend the R&D cash it needs to make things like wind, solar or whatever really viable. For instance, why doesn't some enterprising energy conglomerate look into this? Too little return in the short term and we've forgotten how to think long term for some reason.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Are you daft? Why do you think I sent you back to that link? It clearly shows -- and your quote from that site confirms it -- that what I said in THIS POST was correct. They are only useful, at this point in time, for SHALLOW wells.
The thermal heat is so near the surface that Iceland has been able to utilize the heat successfully. That is what I said in THIS POST
I get so damned tired of this "Neener, neener, your link contradicts you." crap when the link confirms what I have said all along. Try reading for comprehension, would ya? Holy shit!
chcr
Too cute for words
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
You're right. The main problem is that, even at todays prices (and with all the whining about carbon footprints), fossil fuels are still far cheaper and until they're not, no one will spend the R&D cash it needs to make things like wind, solar or whatever really viable. For instance, why doesn't some enterprising energy conglomerate look into this? Too little return in the short term and we've forgotten how to think long term for some reason.
Not forgotten. Taught. Funny thing is...even though such thinking (wind and solar) is conservative in nature, it is always maligned as a 'hippie/liberal' ideal. Me paying less, or not at all, for my energy is something I look forward to with relish. Sure, I'll be hooked into the grid, but, on the flip side, the grid will also be hooked into me.