The Center for American Progress has a terrific new report on "Global Warming and the Future of Coal" by Ken Berlin and Robert Sussman.
The report explores what to do about the explosive growth in coal plant construction projected for the coming quarter century -- 1,400 gigawatts of electricity by 2030, with more than 10 percent in the U.S. alone.
In the absence of emission controls, these new plants will increase worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide by approximately 7.6 billion metric tons by 2030. These emissions would equal roughly 50 percent of all fossil fuel emissions over the past 250 years.
So we must have emissions controls on the vast majority of those plants. The report looks at a variety of policy measures that might achieve that goal and recommends:
Requiring all new coal power plants to meet an "emission performance" standard that limits CO2 emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems.
That is the best way to maintain coal's viability in a carbon-constrained world.
Watch Bob Sussman discuss the report:
Watch Ken Berlin discuss the report:
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
Charles Barton Posted 3:43 am
01 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
SoggyInSeattle Posted 4:37 am
01 Jun 2007
I'm unaware of any radioactive byproducts sequestration that has been "proven to be effective for at least one and a half billion years". Can you link to something to support that claim?
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 4:45 am
01 Jun 2007
The Center for American Progress report is excellent. Unlike many similar think tank products, it gets deep into financing issues, which are critical.
As the report points out, underground carbon sequestration is already happening. According to expert engineering studies, a massive expansion probably workable. Natural gas has been stored underground for millions of years.
The big stumbling blocks are 1) Ensuring the reliability and market acceptance of gasifying technologies and 2) Financial incentives for sequestration (caps, taxes, performance standards, etc.). The report has some interesting thoughts on why a carbon tax alone might not be the best solution.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:04 am
01 Jun 2007
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:43 am
01 Jun 2007
Romm's belief that "we must have emissions controls on the vast majority of those [coal-fired] plants" suggests that fossil fuel tax revenue has made it impossible for him to imagine putting up a carbon capture plant without waiting for someone to build a fossil fuel burner of which it will be part.
But others can imagine this, and indeed it's much easier to imagine the rich countries doing this to cancel newly industrialized far east countries' emissions than them doing it themselves.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:54 am
01 Jun 2007
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:47 am
01 Jun 2007
Indeed, "No" (and certainly not without the subsidies that wind currently enjoys from coal, gas, hydro and nuclear). According to the latest reports from Denmark, windpower breaks-even at $0.18/kWh:
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/101873.html
24.05.2007
Market uncertainties have given Dong Energy cold feet about a major offshore wind farm
The government's goal of doubling national reliance on renewable energy by 2025 experienced a serious glitch Tuesday when Dong Energy backed out of plans to build a giant offshore wind farm that would have served as one of cornerstones of the plan.
The Rødsand 2 wind farm, which is expected to be able to generate 200 megawatts of power - two percent of the national energy supply and enough to power 200,000 households annually - will be one of the world's largest, but according to Dong the project is too expensive and the returns too little to make it commercially viable.
"Given the price increases we've seen for wind turbines in the past six-months, we fear that the costs of offshore turbines for Rødsand would be very expensive," said Niels Bergh-Hansen, the company's executive vice president.
Dong had secured a fixed price of DKK 0.4999 per kilowatt-hour to produce what amounts to nearly 15 years' worth of electricity.
The price is nearly double the market price, but the company felt it needed a price guarantee of DKK 1 per kWh to make the investment worthwhile.
One Danish Krone currently trades at 18 U.S. cents.
x-rates.com/d/USD/table.html
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 7:58 am
01 Jun 2007
NEI isn't just the (American) Nuclear Energy Institute, it's also the British trade mag "Nuclear Engineering International", of which the last word should be a clue.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:21 am
01 Jun 2007
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
rorywilliams Posted 9:23 am
01 Jun 2007
Here's more on cement's energy requirements.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:13 am
01 Jun 2007
As far as wind vs coal is concerned, we again have to look at more than energy and carbon. Coal has many health and ecological effects, such as sulfur emissions, that are very harmful. I don't have figures handy, but I believe that if those where taken into consideration (and also the cost to miner's health and the cost of blowing up mountaintops), coal would be lucky if it got to 18 cents per KWH, nucbuddy dude.
The other consideration with coal is that it is running out just as surely as oil is going to run out at some point. The advantage, GRLCowan, to a wind installation over using 11 million CO2-sucking machines to pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere, as indicated in the article you linked to, is that not only do you get carbon mitigation, you also get energy, whereas with CCS technology you only get carbon mitigation.
Finally, if the government just decides that it will put up wind/solar, and not worry about the market doing it, the maintenance from then on is very cheap, and we get a renewable, free energy source that won't go away. There is actually an excellent report, put out by the same group that Romm points to, the Center for American Progress, has a page that references a renewable energy report, , which I think in some ways contradicts the CCS report, in that it shows how our energy needs could be met without coal or nuclear.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:31 pm
01 Jun 2007
When I read the title here I had to laugh, and I laughed some more when I read how easily projections are assumed to be reality, without modification, with no change, no chance of alteration or a difference future. I laughed some more at the school of fish unwittingly taking the bait. We have a species of fish called a sheepshead which seems appropriate. With apologies to Joseph Romm, if he was a fisherman he would have really hooked a whole bunch of you!
All of this assumes we will do nothing to change--nothing. So it serves as a distraction to which we all slavishly contribute. Which completely subverts the notion of any sort of organized effort to effect change.
The path to Carbon capture and storage is paved with huge, enormous, gargantuan subsidies set up by the Corporate Oligarchy. It is strewn with petals of roses, roses genetically modified under another subsidized and unregulated industry. Carbon capture will be a multi- multi- multi- BEEEEEEllllion dollar industry which will perpetuate Big Oil and Big Coal. It does nothing to reduce Carbon production and sets up still another vast industry.
Instead of this goddam nonsense, let's focus on other technologies which get us the Hell away from Carbon. None of this is sustainable--none of it, none of it, none of it. By even giving voice to this nonsense you are giving it legitimacy. Have you learned nothing? Can you be led down any path?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:42 pm
01 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:17 pm
01 Jun 2007
ExternE has in fact considered those coal externalities and figured a total production cost of 8 cents per KWH.
Here are some handy figures on coal-externalities in terms of cash:
world-nuclear.org/info/info.html#nuclearpower
world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html
The report of ExternE, a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in 2001 and further figures have emerged since. The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Dept of Energy (which subsequently dropped out), and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU".
The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity to the consumer and therefore which are borne by society at large. They include particularly the effects of air pollution on human health, crop yields and buildings, as well as occupational disease and accidents. The 2001 data excluded effects on ecosystems and the impact of global warming, but these are now included despite the high range of uncertainty in adequately quantifying and evaluating them economically.
The methodology measures emissions, their dispersion pathways and ultimate impact. Exposure-response models lead to evaluating the physical impacts in monetary terms. With nuclear energy the (low) risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (since shown to be exaggerated) and carbon-14 emissions from reprocessing (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer).
The report shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. Nuclear energy averages under 0.4 euro cents/kWh (0.2-0.7), less than hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (2-10 cent averages in different countries), gas ranges 1-4 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.05-0.25 cents/kWh average.
The EU cost of electricity generation without these external costs averages about 4 cents/kWh. If these external costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase around 30%. A summary plus access to more recent work is on ExternE web site.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:29 pm
01 Jun 2007
Should we go with coal or reactors?
Easy answer.
Carbon and Nuclear sequestration are both unproven technology and both have high taxpayer burdens and massive societal risks.
The solution is option number 3.
Do neither.
Instead go HDR Geothermal, Solar PV, and other various intermitant/regional renewable supplies.
Combine this with large scale backup storage, and general effeciency.
_
We don't need to play the false dichotomy game.
We don't have enough time to play games.
Certainly not long enough to safely scale up Nuclear Facilities, or Coal Sequestration.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 6:37 pm
01 Jun 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:41 pm
01 Jun 2007
Permalink
rorywilliams Posted 11:42 pm
01 Jun 2007
Of course it will run out eventually, but in the short term its use is increasing, not decreasing, in countries like China and South Africa. In fact there is so much cheap coal around that a number of countries are adopting South African-developed synfuels technology as a way to create a wider range of uses for coal. A comprehensive approach to GHG issues requires adaptation, mitigation and reduction - all three.
A minor correction to Jon's point on concrete vs steel: It is not correct to say that steel is "more recyclable", as concrete is already recycled by crushing it to form aggregate in new concrete, thereby reducing landfill waste and reducing the need to mine new aggregate (a process that causes environmental damage, and often uses valuable agricultural land near cities). And concrete recycling uses less energy than steel recycling.
The point in all of this is that there are no easy solutions, and what might seem to be the obvious environmentally sound approach is not always so.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 5:34 am
02 Jun 2007
I'm unaware of any radioactive byproducts sequestration that has been "proven to be effective for at least one and a half billion years". Can you link to something to support that claim? - SoggyInSeattle
I am amazed that you are unaware of the one and a half billion year old Oklo reactors, located in Gabon, Africa. This should be known to anyone who wants to talk seriously about energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reac ...
T
Charles Barton
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:29 am
03 Jun 2007
Please explain how the current surface reactors, cooled by steam or helium are in any way analogous to a nuclear reaction that happened sealed in a core of fused, solid rock. Does anybody anywhere have a plan for waste storage that centers on encasing the waste in large amounts of molten slag? If we have free supplies of molten metal exactly why do we need nuclear reactors in the first place?
There is a natural nuclear reactor that can/is being used today. Two in fact. The first is the sun, a reactor that provides enormous amounts of power and separates it's waste from the biosphere with 8 light minutes of vacuum.
The second is referred to as Earth, Terra or sometimes Gaia. Simply by drilling deeply into the crust heat from internal nuclear reactions can be extracted without all of the hassle of nuclear fuel processing or waste disposal.
Where geothermal resources are "low grade" solar thermal systems in existence are more than sufficient to boost them up to commercial power standards.
Commercial nuclear power plants are simply unnecessary.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:53 am
03 Jun 2007
Hey, Jon:
Yeah, I understand your comment on being nice. I have lost a great deal of that virtue, so I apologize, but in fact you would be one of the few fish who didn't swallow the bait. Reports like this, and the response baffle me: Is it because they are published that we automatically accept them as reality? Do we not have control over OUR future? Two scenes pop into my head: "My word, the oracles have spoken--it must be so--full sail, Number 2!" The other is the thunder from the mountain in "A Christmas Carol" in which Ebenezer Scrooge asks the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come:
`Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point,' said Scrooge, `answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only.'
Still the Ghost pointed downward to the grave by which it stood.
`Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,' said Scrooge. `But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me.'
The Spirit was immovable as ever.
Scrooge crept towards it, trembling as he went; and following the finger, read upon the stone of the neglected grave his own name, Ebenezer Scrooge.
...
`Spirit.' he cried, tight clutching at its robe,' hear me. I am not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been but for this intercourse. Why show me this, if I am past all hope.'
...
`Good Spirit,' he pursued, as down upon the ground he fell before it:' Your nature intercedes for me, and pities me. Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life.'
This report should be viewed as a cautionary tale, not history which only remains to be written. Let's change the present and let's change the future.
Which brings me to an organization, like what MoveOn put together. Please ignore the politics of MoveOn, and focus on the two-way activist model of organization. The potential of such a model to change conditions before they occur is one Scrooge would have appreciated.
Externalities are one of the worst business practices we have to deal with. One example I heard recently was that since the 90s the Federal government has spent over $2 billion in health care for miners who have suffered from their jobs. This amounts to a huge subsidy for Big Coal. What if Big Coal to pay this amount themselves? Coal would not be nearly so cost-effective, leveling the field for other sources of energy.
An organization would make a HUGE difference in creating a better future.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:09 am
03 Jun 2007
Commercial nuclear power plants are simply unnecessary.
Indeed, when activists have shut them down, fossil fuel energy has invariably taken up the load.
Please explain how the current surface reactors, cooled by steam or helium are in any way analogous to a nuclear reaction that happened sealed in a core of fused, solid rock.
The question could impart two misunderstandings. Current surface reactors are mostly cooled by liquid water, and in this respect are very similar to the Oklo phenomena, which did not happen in solid rock but in wet sand or mud; water was necessary as a catalyst then as now. By boiling away its water, making the catalysis diminish as power increased, an Oklo reactor is believed to have levelled its power just as manmade BWRs do now.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:59 am
03 Jun 2007
It's got a good safety record.
And plenty of excess capacity.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:26 am
03 Jun 2007
From the intro:
"That is the best way to maintain coal's viability in a carbon-constrained world."
Did no one see this statement? Since we need a "Carbon-constrained world", to reduce Carbon production and energy costs, why the Hell do we want to "maintain coal's viability"? Isn't there a foolish disconnect between needing to stop, but stomping on the brakes AND the gas at the same time? Wouldn't that guarantee at least a worn out vehicle/system with NO guarantee of avoiding a disastrous result?
And little gray Hydrogen-blind parrot,
At least we agree on something, that the Sun is the best source. PV and wind, powering solar Hydrogen and batteries for transportation, distributed generation of residential and commercial electricity, plus solar domestic water heat everywhere, would ALL--ALL--be very worthwhile applications. But now you'll parrot some chart for the 100th time.
Solar has vanishingly small environmental impacts, provided already altered ground surface is used (open land is far too valuable, even as green space, to be covered by PV panels), its materials are highly recycled and recyclable, it is egalitarian, universal, and free.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 6:12 am
03 Jun 2007
Once again we see the secret allies of the coal barons, are the environmentalist, who willingly sacrifice a viable solution to the CO2 problem on the alter of irrational objections to nuclear power. Pangolin knows nothing all about the Oklo reactors. And he knows even less abour reactor safety. It might shock him to learn that Oklo was documented in Scientific American a long time ago, and that many peer reviewed research papers have been published about it. Anti-Nuk Environmentalists are just as ignorant and narrow minded as global warming skeptics.
I have no objection to solar power, but the last I checked, the sun does not shine in Texas for around 12 hours on an average day. I cannot turn on solar powered lights after dark. Now maybe someday, a cheep and reliable storage technology will becpme avaliable, but until them solar power is not reliable power. It does not supply electricity on demand. Reactors are the only tested and cost competative electricity sources, that provide reliable power without CO2 output. It is utterly irresponsible of ignorant environmentalists like Pangolin to dismiss reactors without giving the technology a fair hearing.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:01 am
03 Jun 2007
Since when has nuclear power been "cost competative"?
It is the most heavy subsidized sources of electricity, with a long history of costing orders of magnitude more than the initial cost estimations.
Where it's successful it operated by government owned monopolies. (Russia, France, Japan)
_
The easy answer to Nuclear? Geothermal.
Specifically "Hot Dry Rock" Geothermal, supported by superpowered electric drilling motors.
http://www.calenergy.com/html/aboutus4.asp
http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to_wheels ...
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206
Geothermal gets hardly a drop of government subsidy. (Infact Bush wanted it to get $0 dollars in R&D subsidy)
And yet it can outcompete nuclear on both cost, and building speed.
_
That said, there are plenty of ways to store energy on a grid scale.
http://electricitystorage.org/tech/technologies_compariso ...
Compressed Air Storage and Pumped Hydropower, which are reliable old skool methods.
UltraCapacitors, and Metal-Air Fuel Cells being the emerging solutions.
_
Lastly, everything puts out CO2 over it's lifecycle.
Nuclear it all depends on the study. Some say Nuclear is about 1/3rd the emmisions of natural gas power plants.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 8:18 am
03 Jun 2007
There is certainly room for all forms of carbon free energy sources, and I do not doubt that geothermal power fits in the mix. At the same time, many questions remain about costs in most of the United States, and indeed the world. On the other hand the costs of generation IV reactors is predictable, and competitive with fossil fuel electrical generating plants. Generation IV Molton Salt reactors have the potential to bring about major savings in power generating costs compared to all current electricity generating technologies, In addition to representing a major break through in reactor safety.
My plea is that people who are concerned about global warming not sacrifice the future because the believe coal producers anti-Nuk propaganda.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:47 am
03 Jun 2007
I know it's hard for you CO2 zealot diehards to visualize any viewpoint other than the doctrinaire worldview that Gore beat into you, but do this mental challenge:
Suppose, just for a second, that you're wrong.
Suppose
(a) CO2 does not cause Global Warming
(b) Manmade CO2 is a miniscule contribution to greenhouse gas and also does not cause global warming.
Gerdanken: What then is your energy strategy?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:51 am
03 Jun 2007
But now you'll parrot some chart for the 100th time.
You are correct.
I really should use better charts than the same one all the time.
How about this?
http://www.greyfalcon.net/h2illusion.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/h2illusion
_
Certainly there's better ways to store energy.
Pumped hydro by comparison only loses 12%.
Batteries lose only 10-15%.
Hell, Zinc-Air fuel cells are actually a pretty good way to do it. For grid applications atleast.
_
When Electric Cars can refill on electricity for hours of driving in 1 minute, I fail to see whats supposed to be the grand benefit of hydrogen.
(Note, the 1 minute figure is assuming an 80% charge on 35kWh AltairNano batteries, with a 250kW PosiCharge charger.
Which would offer a 6 minute full charge.
Not a big stretch considering the EV1 could get an 80% charge on a 50kW charger in 12 minutes)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:00 am
03 Jun 2007
Suppose
(a) CO2 does not cause Global Warming
(b) Manmade CO2 is a miniscule contribution to greenhouse gas and also does not cause global warming.
What then?
Well, then we have the luxury of not having to breath polluted air.
And have cheap reliable scalable energy and efficiency which we can use to curb the impacts of exponential population growth and international war.
_
Longer Lifespan and World Peace.
Even if we didn't have global warming, thats more than enough reason to do it.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 9:00 am
03 Jun 2007
That is the context in which should be seen various commentators' suggestions that geothermal or solar or combustible puppy farms are quicker and more practical power sources than new nuclear.
Each of these supposed winners is taking less than ten dollars a second off Big Oil and Gas Tax's table. How much is nuclear taking? Just estimate. I've asked for all and sundry to take a crack at this estimate before. So you guess wrong, what could be so bad.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:22 am
03 Jun 2007
Current estimates of the costs of new reactor power would run about $0.10 to $.12 pre KWh. This cost is very competative with the real cost of fossil fuels, and very, very competative wiith the cost of Solar or wind sources when storage costs are factored in.
Geothermal power from deep sources come with an unassessed and lagely unacknowledged seismic risk. In addition current technology limits the geothermal sources that can be used. One German study estimated that geothermal sources could provide at most 25% of of German power needs. We have to mark the geothermal business uncertain at best.
Environmentalists serve coal industry interests, but blocking the electrical sourse that is most likely to compete with coal. Remember every year that no comprehensive solution to the CO2 problem is adopted, means billions of dollars in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, and more massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Solutions must be found not only for the United States and Europe, but for the rapidly growing, energy hungry economies of India and China.
The costs of reactors can be brougt down in the short run by mas production. In the longer run the adoption of generation IV reactor technology would greatly deminish the coust of building and operating reactors.
Environmentalists have to decide if the want to continue ther secret alliance with the fossil fuel industry of accept the necessity of reactor power generation.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 11:02 am
03 Jun 2007
Technically, the RegenesysTM energy storage system does not store toxic substances above threshold quantities listed in 40 CFR 68.130. Therefore, TVA is apparently not required to prepare a Risk Management Program, and is exempted from other requirements. This is apparently due to the storage tanks only containing about 300 pounds of bromine gas during normal operation, which is below the 500 pound threshhold quantity. The CFR fails to recognize that charged sodium bromide solution (bromine complexed as tribromide, NaBr3) will quickly release additional bromine gas when the solution is exposed to the atmosphere. For TVA's worst case scenario, they estimated that approximately 690,000 pounds of bromine gas could be released to the atmosphere in about 14 minutes, if the 500,000 gallon, double-walled tank were to somehow catastrophically fail.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:05 pm
03 Jun 2007
Which would probably be plenty for nighttime usage.
And Germany in particular uses Offshore wind for their nighttime baseload.
Also Germany in particular has completely sworn off of using Nuclear at all.
However "at most 25%" thats probably 1 mile deep geothermal. Or geothermal with existing water in the ground.
6 mile deep geothermal, with pumped water, is availible pretty much everywhere.
As is, there's roughly the same ammount of Geothermal energy as the current day grid demands.
greyfalcon. net/ energy.png
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:06 pm
03 Jun 2007
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 1:02 pm
03 Jun 2007
Ge what do they do fort baseload power on windless nights?
The 25% was the theoretical maximun using existing technology. For some reason the German's feel they cannot count on untested technologies. Given the unreliability of wind power, the Germans will need to find at least 65 percent of their peak load demand generating capacity gap, sources other wind and geothermal. Maybe the can use sequestered CO2 from coal fired steam plants to displace water from deep geothermal wells.
There does seem to be a lot of off shore wind around here.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:39 pm
03 Jun 2007
Uhm, we're talking OFFSHORE wind.
The ocean is a pretty windy place.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:42 pm
03 Jun 2007
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article-print.jsp?article_ ...
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 2:04 pm
03 Jun 2007
Sailing ships, which use to be the major transportation system at sea, were no doubt never troubled by windless nights. But in the real world you would always have to have a wind independent power reserve for tose rare occasions when the wind doesn't blow, and the back up system could not be a photovoltaic syestems.
The EU's present plan for deminishing CO2 emissions without using nuclear power is absurd. For example, Finland is expected to draw 20% of its electricity from Baltic tides, even though the Baltic only has a 1' tidal range. What do you bet that Finland is going to need the help of a ractor to meet its EU mandated CO2 reduction goals?
Charles Barton
Permalink