Re: Hullo Oz!
- From: Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:23:35 +0100
AJH <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Oz
The main problem with burning grains is the pollution, lots of NOx and
SOX is produced,
Well we've been through this before and the sulphur is a minor issue
compared with coal, the NOx is a non issue if the combustion is clean
because proteins will burn out well and there is little opportunity to
reform NOx from atmospheric nitrogen at the typical temperatures and
pressures in a simple furnace.
That's not what a coal-fired powerstation manager said who had to burn
1% organics (mostly palm expeller). It gave him serious problems meeting
(or rather missing) his emission limits.
I agree with you re vegetable oils and lignious fuels.
Maybe one day. Personally I think extensive mangrove (on the red and
dead sea for example) might be a runner.
This is already a dwindling habitat because of losses to shrimp farming in
the far east.
There are few if any in these locations but the sea is shallow enough,
if all a tad infertile.
Yes, but the dam is cheaper .....
Are you sure? I'd have expected a high head dam across a valley to be
expensive in concrete and steel but not as expensive as a rock lagoon in a
tidal estuary. Either way the turbines have to be considerably bigger in the
low head scheme. I think pelamis uses about 350 tonnes of steel and/or
concrete to generate 700kW(e).
For dams (serious type) we are talking megatons.
Yes, but it reduces disposable income, and hence growth and employment.
Bad...
But whoever said there was no limit to growth?
What we are about to see is that growth was directly related to energy
availability. Also the propensity to use energy increases with wealth,
particularly with super wealth ( I'd be interested in comparing energy use
of those on the rich list with the "norm", not out of envy but because
previous generations of super rich were limited on how they spent their
money compared with the travel options and multiple homes or luxury ships
the wealthy have now).
Absolutely.
Forty years ago we may have been able to address this, now we are
constrained by not being able to survive an economic downturn, so cheap
power must be provided...
Nuclear here we come then ....
--
Oz
.
- References:
- Re: Hullo Oz!
- From: Oz
- Re: Hullo Oz!
- Prev by Date: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics
- Next by Date: Re: Biofuels,food prices and economics
- Previous by thread: Re: Hullo Oz!
- Next by thread: Re: Hullo Oz!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading