VW Generators

An article linking to technology that's noted as being too complex and expensive to be commercially viable. A bit like PV and wind, then. Do you ever actually *read* any of the stuff you link to?

Have you actually done the sums, harry? Using every possible hydro and tidal site, we could generate about 20 or 30% of our electricity needs. We would also wreck a lot of important wildlife habitats, which could well result in the local (And, in some case, global) extinction of a number of species, with unpredictable effects on, among other things, our ability to grow food.

That won't be the case, as other production can be increased in the short to medium term to cover that shortage just by opening the taps further. Prices will rise, but not due to increased production cost, they will rise due to political influences.

The smoothed average price of oil over a few years shows a slow general increase, at about twice the rate of general inflation, which is linked to the fact that about 50% of the cost of everything you buy is due to the energy cost of making and transporting it. This has been the case for as long as I've been alive. They have also been claiming available reserves of thirty years since the 1960s, but the increase in price has made it economical to extract oil from more "difficult" sources. Politics often makes this price swing by ten times that amount over a period of days.

Only needed due to a political spat in the late 1970s and '80s between two people who wouldn't back down. There was, at the time, two hundred years worth of coal available for extraction which it is now no longer possible to mine. It is also possible to burn coal underground to extract the energy, without gasifying it. Incidentally, underground gasification or burning doesn't cause as much subsidence as mining.

Your solar cells will last about 50 years at an absolute maximum, then will need to be replaced. Windmills have a life of between 20 and 50 years before they need vital parts replacing, this happens much more frequently in the case of offshore installations. They are *not* made from sustainable materials, and the latest generation of PV panels contain large amounts of toxic heavy metals. These are costs that the Greens often ignore, in the same way as they ignore the cost of running fossil fuel stations mostly in an idling condition to make up for the variability of renewable sources.

Suppose there were ..

Remember the summer of 1976 Harry how would you meet demand then?..

Have you seem what Dinorwig can do and for how long?, you might like to revise that idea..

I suspect they might well do that...

Hence we need to pull our finger out with modern Nuclear ideas;)...

Well not forever but I expect demand will always exceed supply perhaps a return to medieval times. Would you like to shut down your PC before I shut mine;?...

Don't think you will..

In article , harryagain scribeth thus

Yes and still your no further forward with practical workable ideas;(...

Don't think that would be acceptable these days, the world has moved on...

Still generates CO2 unless I'm mistaken?...

There are also credible allegations that the extraction process can contaminate groundwater, which is used to supply drinking water in many areas.

On the good side, it does generate less CO2 per unit of energy than burning coal. It also generates water, so surface reservoirs could fill more quickly, replacing the contaminated groundwater as drinking water supplies.

Indeed - although far less than coal per TWh...

It seems relatively unlikely though since fracking normally takes place may 1000s of metres below the ground water aquifers.

The difference is that fossil fuel technology has moved along. We are now in a postion to better judge just what reserves of fossil fuels remain. All the easy ones have been found. There only remains the difficult ones.

We won't be running that type of fossil fuel power station. We will be running combined cycle gas power stations.

As it is mostly hydrogen, much less CO2. Plus it can be converted to electricity much more efficently.

In message , tony sayer writes

There were 4 here around Domesday. One still exists and could potentially generate a few kW however the cost of the installation and the disruption to the bijou shops that the mill building has become make this wishful thinking.

I still have the *leat* for one other but taking water from the river beyond 20cu.m/day is chargeable and currently would outweigh the value generated.

snip..

ER CCGT is the default electricity from gas generation technology, John...

Apart from that you are in fact correct. Harry is talking hand wavey bollocks that doesn't stand up to mathematical analysis.

Not that that is relevant to anything, especially climate change.

On idle for a lot of the time, with zero fuel efficiency. Or cycling them so often, they fail prematurely, so you have the extra pollution caused by rebuilding them every few years. Either way, I'll bet your pollution and cost analyses ignore those costs.

The problem is alleged to be caused by the hole which carries the water down through the aquifer springing a leak.

They have a very high turndown ratio.

But do they maintain their efficiency at low output levels and their reliability through many cycles per day from full power to no power?

reasonably well.

Storing cadmium in glass seems like a nice way to get rid of a poisonous metal. It'll be stable for millennia. Just think, you might even be able to use this for other materials too... :)

(sorry - 1.5 MILLION?!!!)

Andy