Germany Leading The Way

[Skeddan]

If cowshit can be used, what about human waste? 80,000 people produce a fair amount of that.

 

Is there any scope for geothermal - e.g. aquifers or hot rock type scheme?

 

IMO the biggest gains are in reducing consumption and wasted energy. Then water heating with solar - just getting to 20 degrees from 5 is a huge saving in power. A hell of a lot of hot water goes down the drain - from the shower etc. and goes to waste. Tidal and wave is the most interesting. Should also take into account loss of energy in transmission - more localised power generation might have some advantages. I also heard some of the vertical style wind power systems are much quieter and have less impact - e.g. on birds etc. and also there are developments in more efficient storage - I think I heard about some gyroscopic type system that was highly efficient.

 

Fact is there is plenty of energy - and oil and gas is not going to run out anytime soon - it's just going to get more and more expensive. The point will be to reduce dependence on energy from external markets and with volatile costs and also to reduce carbon emissions.

 

The other approach is to make electricity VERY expensive by putting huge tax on this. You will pay more in electricity, but maybe pay less tax. Hence you have incentive to save, turn off lights, get low power consumption appliances etc. (or pay a lot). Cost of electricity in the Cook Islands is something shocking - like 5x what I was paying, but people manage - and are quite a lot more energy conscious. There's a lot of mindless waste - people don't bother saving because it's not worth the hassle - though they'll still whinge about the bills.

[Alias]

In relation to geothermal the closest you'd get over here is the ground heat piping (quite successful in some pilots in Scotland and such, just need a fair bit of land), we don't really have the option over here. Is feasible though, Iceland get a considerable amount of energy from it.

 

To whomever said biofuels were a bag of shit, whilst true it's still a desirable option -- having energy is great but a lot of our vehicles\equipment work on hydrocarbons; generating these (from biomass or industrial processes) is a lot more viable then using Hydrogen or some other alternative as the intermediate energy 'storage' fuel - Hydrogen fuels aren't very high energy-density, hydrocarbons (and oxohydrocarbons) beat it down every time. It's also something which would have to be considered when tackling the emissions from air travel, which is one of the greatest emitters (a return trip from NY to London uses up twice the target emissions set by the UN for 2050 per person per year in total).

[gazza]

it wasent long ago, that ppl were trying to ban log burners because of all the smog,

 

right quastion for you, prob more at ai_Droid, but anybodys answer is fine,

 

right the idea to burn wood,

so we plant trees and then burn them. but because the trees used up carbon when growing this is classed as carbon neutral

is that right,

 

well arent i right in saying that coal and oil comes from old trees over years of what ever,

well if that carbon was in the air b4 arent we just releasing it back again,

im sure somebody has worked out how many tons of wood makes a gallon of oil,

so for evey gallon used just plant a tree,

[Skeddan]

so for evey gallon used just plant a tree,

Sounds a bit like the idea behind Future Forests.

[gazza]

so for evey gallon used just plant a tree,

Sounds a bit like the idea behind Future Forests.

 

there nicking my ideas now lol,

 

to be honest i was thinking of setting up a carbon nautral forest planting over here,

or as i think its called carbon trading,

pay so much for the amount of crap u pump in the air per year, and plant trees to cross balance it,

[Skeddan]

to be honest i was thinking of setting up a carbon nautral forest planting over here,

or as i think its called carbon trading,

pay so much for the amount of crap u pump in the air per year, and plant trees to cross balance it,

Be good if IoMG had a carbon neutral public service and local tree planting provided the offset.

[Albert Tatlock]

20 to 45 miles below us (and less) is a reservoir heat source. All we need to do is come up with the technology to drill down toward the mantle where temperatures get up to around 3700 degrees celsius. To boil water (100 degrees celsius) you only realistically have to go down 3 to 4 Km. Force water down there and it will come up as steam to drive any power station, and heat any number of homes. You can probably do similar using old oil wells.

 

[Skeddan]

20 to 45 miles below us (and less) is a reservoir heat source. All we need to do is come up with the technology to drill down toward the mantle where temperatures get up to around 3700 degrees celsius. To boil water (100 degrees celsius) you only realistically have to go down 3 to 4 Km. Force water down there and it will come up as steam to drive any power station, and heat any number of homes. You can probably do similar using old oil wells.

Even further below us - like 7,900 miles - is 'Hot Water Beach'. There you just have to dig a bit of a hole to get water too hot to sit in - about 67C, and have to mix it with sea water to cool it down a bit. To get geothermal energy one might not have to go nearly so deep as 3 or 4 km. Also drilling through granite is a very different proposition from sand where you only need a bucket and spade. Whether or not geothermal is feasible depends on local geology. However if it is feasible I'd think this would be a very attractive option.

 

It might also move things along if IoM adopted the targets Scotland has:

 

"In Scotland, around 12% of electricity comes from renewable sources. This has to rise to 18% by 2010 to meet a target that’s been set by the Scottish Executive, whilst the aspiration is to generate 40% from renewable sources by 2020.”

 

I like the idea of wave energy, which seems to be getting very feasible, and something to keep a close eye on. Maybe something like this in breakwaters:

 

http://www.wavegen.co.uk/what_we_offer_limpet.htm

 

If water levels are indeed going to rise still further - maybe by 1m or so, one should also take account of that.

[ai_Droid]

it wasent long ago, that ppl were trying to ban log burners because of all the smog,

right quastion for you, prob more at ai_Droid, but anybodys answer is fine,

right the idea to burn wood,

so we plant trees and then burn them. but because the trees used up carbon when growing this is classed as carbon neutral

is that right,

 

Yes, kind of. There is carbon loss into the atmosphere before burning though, and of course there's the hydrocarbons you used growing, harvesting and transporting the tree.

 

well arent i right in saying that coal and oil comes from old trees over years of what ever,

well if that carbon was in the air b4 arent we just releasing it back again,

im sure somebody has worked out how many tons of wood makes a gallon of oil,

so for evey gallon used just plant a tree,

 

A number of reasons, but mainly because it takes seconds to burn oil that's taken hundreds of thousands of years to create and ten years to grow a tree.

[ai_Droid]

20 to 45 miles below us (and less) is a reservoir heat source. All we need to do is come up with the technology to drill down toward the mantle where temperatures get up to around 3700 degrees celsius. To boil water (100 degrees celsius) you only realistically have to go down 3 to 4 Km. Force water down there and it will come up as steam to drive any power station, and heat any number of homes. You can probably do similar using old oil wells.

 

The deepest oil well is 2 miles. 20-45 miles isn't a simple proposition, particularly when you consider the amount of cooling the water would take on it's way back up that distance.

 

Ground heat pipes are a good option though, very popular on the continent. I've some skandi mates who think we're batshit crazy because we dont have them. But they do need power to drive the pumps, so are only partially renewable and the amount of heat they generate only really makes them suitable for pre-heating or underfloor heating. You also get better gains by insulating in most british houses.

[Albert Tatlock]

The deepest oil well is 2 miles. 20-45 miles isn't a simple proposition, particularly when you consider the amount of cooling the water would take on it's way back up that distance.

PVT (pressure, volume, temperature). Water does not always require 100 degrees to boil and turn into steam - so with the right system (pressure/volume/temperture) you wouldn't have to go anywhere near that depth to extract the heat. I mentioned the mantle mainly to illustrate how hot it gets as you dig down. Such systems could also be used to inject CO2 far below the ground.

[Amadeus]

Typical - Germany does something, America has to do it bigger. A lot bigger in this case:

 

A Solar Grand Plan

 

Key Concepts:

 

- A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

 

- A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

 

- Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.

 

- A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

 

- But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

 

High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.

 

Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.

 

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

 

To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.

 

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

 

 

That's thinking on a big scale, that...

[ai_Droid]

That's thinking on a big scale, that...

 

They've got the space, and the sunlight. The DC backbone is a big step.

 

Love those solar concentrators. Basically taking away the need for expensive solar cells and replacing them with cheap mirrors that concentrate the sunlight onto your generator, here's an ace example:

 

http://www.solarpanelsdot.com/news/spain-b...-in-europe.html

 

Albert, as I said, geothermal isn't news, it's in use quite widely in many parts of the world. It's not perfectly renewable though, you need to drive pumps and you have problems with cooling over time. It's a good complement to other methods, but it's not a single solution.

[Skeddan]

They've got the space, and the sunlight.

IoM has the sea, and waves. As well as energy saving initiatives and geothermal, wouldn't it make sense to investigate solutions such as this:

 

http://www.wavegen.co.uk/what_we_offer_limpet.htm

[Slim]

Interesting geothermal project

 

Agence France Presse reports that two 1,700-metre deep shafts are to be drilled deep under the perimeter of the city’s Orly airport, where water heated by the earth’s core will be drawn upwards by natural pressure. When it reaches the surface, the water, at a temperature of 74oC (165oF), will be injected into the airports heating system.