Coal Returns from the Dead to Power the World as Renewables Fall Short

a reply to: sraven

Spot on but you have to remember not every nation has easy access to that geothermal energy, it is indeed everywhere but the best sites are always near to volcanic regions due to the heat being much closer to the surface.

Then you have to remember you are cooling down the bore hole once you pump water into even in a closed loop system were it is used to drive subterranean steam turbined on the way up before cooling and being pumped back down the parallel bore hole, think of it like fracking but instead of for oil for heat.

So the life of a bore hole is limited, it cool's and has to be given time to return to it's natural high temperature as well and that means drilling many such holes for a single power plant and switching between them so that the cooler tapped out ones are given time to heat back up unless of course you are on a natural thermal updraft which is a region were heat is rising in a column from below the mantle and they are also not everywhere.

In the UK I would argue our nations must be backward because we missed out on the opportunity of a lifetime, we could have been the energy supplier to Europe using our coastal energy from wave generation, tidal generation and of course wind power were instead of oil rig's we could have created huge mixed floating wind and wave energy farm's building them in the same shipyards were we used to build oil rig's but of course that requires major government investment and the likes of the Tory's are never going to do that as it goes against there core values.

Sadly though it was during a Labour Government that the spanner was thrown into the work's of UK Wave energy production when a 'deliberately' misplaced decimal point in a costing revue for the implementation of the DUCK wave energy generator led to the cost of the implementation of a trial scheme being deliberately over estimated, in the UK the blame for this is often levelled at fear it would impact the Coal Industry which in the 1970's was a huge employer and other's also argue that it would also have impacted the nuclear power industry as once proven the Duck would have become cheaper the more we built and when coupled with wave and other hydroelectric schemed it had the very real potential to force coal out due to it then being more expensive.

But it could have been the UK exporting energy to Europe, supplying Europe's power need's and reaping the rewards as a pioneer of the then new - and then shelved - technology.

Though the sea is not always choppy even the north sea it is far more dependable than wind as well.

a reply to: LABTECH767

It would be nice to have power generation in every community however, that seems impractical.
But we have solved that for the most part. Wind Turbines in Texas send power to New Mexico. Power in New Mexico is sold to Texas. Nuclear power in Alabama is sold out of state.

I do not particularly care for transmission lines crisscrossing the country but the technology for doing so is well developed.

Because I have a contract for electrical service from an energy company that generates a fair percentage of their electricity by burning coal, I'm I responsible of bearing the burden of the carbon emissions based on my use?

I use propane for cooking, drying clothes and heating as well as burn gasoline in my vehicle and wood for heating, that is what I consider my carbon footprint I created by my usage of propane, gasoline and wood. The electricity from the energy company is their product they made by burning coal, IMO they own that carbon footprint by making it that way before selling it to me.

I've been generating my own puny amount of electricity via a 12v solar panel and battery system. I can do some AC with an inverter, but not much yet. I have a gas generator to power the entire house, but I only use that for power outages that rarely occur and only for a few hours usually.

How long has the human race harnessed electricity, for a couple hundred years now? We could live on far less electricity than we use currently, but the issue is more about how we create heat to generate energy that causes carbon emissions.

It is safe we have a geothermal unit at my Dad's house it saves a ton of energy too.

originally posted by: sraven

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: sraven

You think geothermal is safe? Have a look at this.

I did not say it was safe. I said it was efficient, stable, and quick.
And your article does not describe an unsafe situation if you consider loss of life. Buildings cracked and needed repair.
There was no radiation. No chemicals released. No carbon pollution.
A little bondo and some duck tape and it'll be good as new.

originally posted by: Waterglass

First of all I support a transition to green however in a balanced transition over several decades.

The problem is, there is no viable 'green tech' that would produce enough energy to power the world.

Not even close.

The absolute best option in the foreseeable future - barring some massive breakthrough in hydrogen production - currently is the LFTR.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Hydrogen will do it.

a reply to: everyone

They just wind her up.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Go to Hellenic Shipping News Dot Com. They already have articles saying the next generation vessels will be powered by hydrogen engines

Hellenic Shipping News

a reply to: LABTECH767

Nice write. Thanks

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: tanstaafl

Hydrogen will do it.

It would - if the technology was ready/viable.

It isn't. There needs to be a simple way to make it on demand from water or some other source.