However, on an energy diversification basis,
this seems pretty cool:
Well I did, and so did most other environmentalists with a technical
background.
But common sense isn't very common amongst AmeriKKKan KKKonservatives is
it?
>I don't believe "global warming" is worthy of worry.
>And ALL energy use will have consequences.
>Gawd knows I didn't forsee the problems with ethanol.
What problems? Feedstocks other than corn are easier
to process, corn has to be ground and cooked to starch before
anything else is done, so any ethanol plant can stop using corn
and use any form of starch or sugar.
The sudden worldwide shortage of grain is a natural result
of fossil fuels becoming more expensive than grains per BTU, but
surely government and private industry around the world can do
what needs to be done to assure adequate food.
I hope you aren't talking about the lower gas mileage with
E85, that was known all along and considered in the price study
in market planning.
All in all, ethanol is not only a great alternate fuel
source, it is essentially the only non-fossil fuel source, the
problems with bio-diesel are substantial.
Apparently Mexico and other countries have non-food grade
sugar, and could increase it's production. The big thing with
ethanol is that a business of any size can produce it, and even
individuals can produce it, the big thing is the yeast needed to
switch to using any hydrocarbon for feedstock.
The US has a huge problem with hydrocarbon waste, local laws
require disposal, most waste removal companies don't have the help
or the equipment to utilize all this waste, it is just buried in
land fills, where most of it will end up as methane in the atmosphere.
So ethanol isn't a problem, it can be a way to use some of the
waste that is now being buried.
You might like to take a look at this then:
||||
Two of America's biggest power utilities have unveiled plans for a
multi-billion-dollar expansion of solar power supply, backing the
argument that solar energy can indeed become a viable alternative to
coal-fired electricity.
The company at the heart of the development is Ausra. It was started
by Australian solar expert David Mills, who left this country for
California earlier this year to pursue the further development of his
ground-breaking work.
What makes the announcement more significant is that the utilities are
confidently predicting that their solar power will soon be providing
baseload electricity - that is, day and night - at prices competitive
with coal.
Those associated with the project believe it could signal a paradigm
shift in electricity generation.
After decades as a fringe player in the energy industry, solar power
is finally taking off in the world's largest economy.
Dr Mills says solar power could potentially supply most of the world's
electricity.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm
||||
One of the big advantages of these plants is that they can be built
with the capacity to store heat that can power a plant and be drawn on
during times when the sun isn't shining.
With that in mind, he's confident this technology could deliver in
Australia, generating up to 90 per cent of electricity.
DAVID MILLS: Oh absolutely, if you only have 15 hours of storage with
this technology, that's enough to provide, if you supply to the south-
west of the United States, supply all of the United States electricity
needs essentially. Certainly when I scaled the plant output to the
maximum required by the grid in the United States, we ended up with
93% of the power being supplied in that calculation.
So the correlation between the output of the solar as long as you have
storage, and what the grid wants is very, very close. Much closer than
say, with the base load that people talk about. We hope to actually
emulate what's happening here in Australia as soon as possible.
SARAH CLARKE: In the United States, massive solar-thermal projects in
the order of $1 billion are being announced every few weeks according
to David Mills.
The key is the cost. This technology is competitive with coal and gas
on price; it can operate at 10 cents per kilowatt hour for plants
between 100 and 200 megawatts.
For bigger plants the cost can be reduced to 8 cents per kilowatt
hour. That means it's even cheaper than existing natural gas plants
which operate at 12 cents.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2274415.htm
||||
Fran
Might work if you have them all around the globe above the clouds.
--
Claude Hopper ? 3 :) 7/8
Cause as we all know, when clouds cross the sky, it becomes as dark as
night time.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
Then why didn't you say something then instead of waiting now to squeal?
Harley
I did. Don't you remember?