Messages

[quote author=Jemappelle link=topic=194.msg535#msg535 date=1449158602] It does concern me about water vapour being let out from cooling towers. Surely all that heat energy could be captured in some way.
[/quote]

Surely the constant flow of upwards air could power a flat turbine mounted at the top of the towers? In addition, water going into the boil could pass through pipes here first, thus requiring less fuel to boil.

Well, it's in the right direction at least, but a tiny percentage per year is not fast enough really.

Hydro, both tidal and dams. Wind is good, and we have a lot already, but we need to add stability in the grid, and this is best done in the form of renewables.

Only 6W for normal lighing, it would probably cost about £1 per year to run given normal usage. Do you use them in your house? I have 1, with the rest being CFL bulbs.

So Iceland and Norway are the worlds top 2, Are they just harvesting direct from Thor's lightning bolt? :D

Seriously though Norway never has anything to worry about with regards to fuel dependancy. They have a fully renewable grid, and enough oil to see them through a transitionary phase to renewable car transport.

Purely due the finiteness of fossil fuels, and reducing dependance on foreign and somewhat unstable states. I have to admit I'm a bit of a climate skeptic (awaits to be run out of town)

A vertical turbine would be much more accepted than a traditional 3 blade one.

I believe this is already happening on a small scale. I've read about car fuel produced from algae, and I'm not sure if this is being utilised yet. It is definately possible, I can tell you that. I think it's only in it's infancy for now.

I'm not sure why, I just have this assumption that it will never be completely phased out. In the same way dial-up is still used by 2% of people in the US. I can see it falling to 1-2% but for some reason I still think it will hold on. Probably just in living room fireplaces for the very rich.

Your title did lure me in, because France already gets almost all of it's energy from nuclear, plus a bit of hydro.

Better they invest in renewables while the economies are growing to prevent a chinese style boom in coal power.

[quote author=CuriousGeorge link=topic=180.msg442#msg442 date=1449001784]
Indeed, India's coal power expansion is something that should be a major global concern. China and India make up a ginormous amount of the CO2 we put into the air daily. There's almost no point in smaller countries like Ireland, Finland etc trying if the 1 billion plus countries are just going to continue pouring it into the atmosphere.
[/quote]

At least they will hit a plateua soon when their economies reach the stage of ours, from then on we can expect the entire globe to reduce fossil fuel consumption as is happening steadily in the west.

Wind, because then it would run through the night. Even without a tiny amount of cloud, you've still got the sun down for an average of 12 hours per day. It would be even more varied at higher latitude with short days in winter.

Solar, I absolutely agree about the panels. They fit nicely to the roof, they are even less imposing than a satellite dish. Anything else would be too complicated to install and too expensive. I might be a little more adventurous if I was a millionaire with tons of cash to play with, but only solar for now.

India runs a 2% deficit, so microgeneration (reudcing demand on the grid) will certainly help this. Their coal generation is rapidly expanding as China's did in the early 2000's and that probably won't slow down. Having said that India are very good as a percentage of electricity derived from renewables, so we can't fault them for that.

I don't believe they will. I think it will get to a stage where emmisions are reduce by so much, that a small amount is tolerated. If oil consumption is reduce to just a million barrels per day, then costs may well fall significantly alongside,