Government and Energy generation policy.

Typedef

No one will deny that Ireland is vehemently against nuclear power as a means of generating electricity, especially on our own back doorstep.

Reading through the government's green paper on sustainable energy http://www.irlgov.ie/tec/energy/greenpaper/ one can't help get the feeling alot of the government's plans for the reduction of emissions that are requisite with regard to Ireland's obligations under the Kyoto protocol hinge on reducing the consumption of energy. This is a laudable aim, but without sounding overtly messianic it is simply not realistic, if anything power consumption will increase exponentially.

As acknowledged in the ERM Report, the residential sector is a very significant source of emissions in Ireland. Including emissions associated with electricity generation consumed by the residential sector, it is responsible for approximately 30% of energy related CO2 emissions. As explained in the ERM Report, there are three ways in which CO2 emissions from this sector can be reduced:-

* reducing energy consumption in new build housing;

* reducing energy consumption in existing houses;

* by using less CO2 intensive fuels in both existing and new houses

Call me pedantic and and armchair finger pointer if you like, but energy demand reduction seems like a cop - out. It would seem only logical that rather than attempting to regulate and constrain energy consumption Ireland's methods of energy production should go through a seismic shift. Much more emphasis should be placed on hydro-electric methods of power generation.

Case and point for the virtues and feasibility of Hydro-electric power is Canada

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/statistics/energy/default.html
* Electricity generation** in 2000 by source was 600 net terawatt hours: 62% hydro, 19% coal, 12% nuclear, and 7% oil, gas and other. Quebec accounted for 32% of total generation (97% from hydro), and Ontario for 26% (40% from nuclear sources).

Nagilum

I'm guessing that might have something to do with NIAGRA FALLS?!?!

I think you need to think of something else Typedef.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Much more emphasis should be placed on hydro- electric methods of power generation.

No, it shouldnt.

There are effectively no significant waterways in Ireland which would allow the worthwhile creation of a power station, and even then such stations would be tiny in size. OK - you can count marine-based approaches as hydro as well, but you have to build well off the west coast in order to pacify the "dont spoil the landscape" crowd who dont want windfarms either.

In total, Ireland currently has 250MW of "renewable" energy (wind and water) generation capacity, with an additional 100MW available from private sources. Total capacity is just shy of 5GW, and actually tops it in winter when 5 semi-portable gas generators are brought in to meet the nation's demand for electricity (which exceeds supply in the winter months - hence the rented gennies).

In coming years, wind and wave power stations will be set up, adding an estimated additional 500MW to the renewable count over the next 5 years. Unfortunately, this would not even manage to meet today's energy demands (winter) if we were not renting foreign equipment. It is also worth pointing out that 500MW is roughly 50% of the generating capacity of our largest thermal stations. This is not an insignificant amount.

Until such sites are proven to be viable in the long term (as the technologies are all either new, or full-scale implementations of previously tested small-scale operations), Ireland has two realistic choices.

Choice 1 : Build a new thermal station - state-funded or private.
Choice 2 : Attempt to reduce energy consumption, while renting the excess generating capacity required.

Both situations, you will notice, involve thermal stations. Both require a net increase in our power generation needs. There are no other alternatives.

The simple fact is that Ireland does not have enough power, and is using what it has massively inefficiently. The most efficient approach is to make sure that we encourage more efficient power use - through the steps you mentioned. This will have two net effects :

1) It will reduce overall power demand, thereby reducing our requirement to increase thermal generation emissions in teh short-to-mid-term
2) It buys a window in which we can prove technologies in order to implement more of them on a larger scale in the future.

I woudl also point out that the Kyoto agreement is only effective until 2012, and that no serious analyst believes that "Kyoto Extended" is our future - that it is simply the first of many steps.

Therefore, the government have a target to reduce emissions by 2012, taken from when the agreement was signed. This is not a sufficient timeframe to make any significant changes to our energy generation plan. It is, however, sufficient time to make massive changes to our energy useage.

jc

Victor

Some interesting points here and I'll discuss them further later (it's something I've studied for the last few years). But an attack is needed on several fronts.

Renewable resources
Efficient generation and heat disposal (CHP)
Efficient transmission
Efficient usage

Some links:

ESB
www.esb.ie (poor tries-too-much site)

Commission for Electricity Regulation
http://www.cer.ie/

Department of the Marine press statement
http://www.marine.gov.ie/display.asp/action=pressreleases/loc=653)

Eirtricity (independant generator)
http://www.eirtricity.ie/news-28-06-2001.htm

Saruman

I read on www.msnbc.com that Ireland is to create the largest offshore wind farm in the world off the wicklow coast! An American news website of all places.. Then i got home and saw the same on Aertel teletext.. Sounds ambitious.. apparently it will provide about 5% of our total electricity output... Great considering its renewable and im not sure about the costs but essentially the power to run a windfarm is free.. wind! Does it not make more ECONOMIC sense to use more renewable resources like wind, hydro and sun! ok we dont get a lot of sun but its not direct sun you need, i think you only need Sun light so a clouded over sky is enough! Plenty of wind though, get a few up there in Donegal!

bonkey

The problem with any form of "clean energy" station is that the locations they require are typically the most unspoiled regions in the country.

Wind farms will typically involve building offshore platforms, but not so offshore that they wont be visible from land. Land-based platforms are typically built on remote hilltops.

Same applies for hydro. We are again talking about unspoiled coastline, or near-shore platforms.

In all cases, you end up fighting the typical fight. On one hand, local conservationsists tell you "not in my back yard", while at the same time telling you "it must be clean - no more thermal". Exactly where and what do they think we *can* build? Or, do these people think we shouldnt build at all? I wonder how happy they'll be when they start getting regular, scheduled power cuts as a result.

The 5% of our generating resources would be about 200 to 250 MW. Not bad, but the size of the platform means that while this is a good approach, it is not a particularly promising one for future needs. 250MW wouldnt make up our winter shortfall at the moment, let alone the projected increases in demand before this plan becomes operational.

Also, unless we want large platforms off every shoreline in the country, one must ask whether this is a technology with a future. I'm also surprised that its off the SE coast, when I would have thought the SW and NW were the best spots for picking up wind. Then again, I'm no wind expert, so I assume they know where they shoul dbe building.

Again, the problem is not that we cannot implement these technologies, but rather that we cannot implement these technologies efficiently enough. All "clean energy" sources must be capable of a minimum guaranteed supply. If we became heavily dependant on wind-power, a calm day over a large area could cause massive powercuts around the country. Our meagre hydro capacity at the moment is already quite variable due to the small nature of our rivers which makes them susceptible to weather patterns.

If you want a simple comparison, look at nuclear stations. Why do they exist? They are not clean (The Americans produce 2000 tons of nuclear waste annually and dont know what to do with it), they are not cheap to run (their running cost is at least 4-5 times what a thermal station would cost), and they are potentially massively dangerous. And yet the world is now designing fourth generation nuclear stations and many nations are seriously thinking about returning to building nuke-plants because its the *best* remaining option. This is the problem. OK - Ireland is small, so we can probably avoid the same scale of problem, but the fact remains that we do not have a proven reliable technology capable of providing large amounts of clean energy.

There is only so much thermal capacity possible. river-based hydro raises awkward questions about the massive flooding large dams typically cause, and all the "quick win" stations are already built. Wind, wave and solar power are either not proven, not reliable or not scalable enough to be major players. And dont get me wrong, I'm dead-set against nuclear power.

Where does this leave us? Back to square one. We need to conserve electricity today to give us a chance to take the time to build a clean, efficient station tomorrow. The other option is to not be worried enough about cutting back, and force the imlpementation of non-clean, non-desirable stations today, which will last with us for quite some time.

BTW, if you want to figure out who is to blame, ask yourself one question. Is it probable that the people running the power grid were not aware that they were facing a generation shortage that they needed to deal with, or is it more probable that some politicians didnt want to hear about needing to invest a few hundred million???

jc

Typedef

Interestingly enough Ireland does derive alot of electricity from hydro-electric source.

Name MegaWatts Source
Shannonbridge 125 Peat
Lanesboro 85 Peat
Rhode 40 Peat
Bellacorick 40 Peat
Cahirciveen 5 Peat
Turlough Hill 292 Hydro (Pump Storage)
Liffey 38 Hydro
Ardnacrusha 86 Hydro
Erne 65 Hydro
Clady 4 Hydro
Lee 27 Hydro
Moneypoint 915 Coal
Tarbert 620 Oil
Great Island 240 Oil
Aghada 525 Gas
Poolbeg 1,020 Oil and Gas
North Wall 266 Oil and Gas
Marina 115 Gas

If one assumes for most if not all countries, must use fossil fuels of some form until 'some kind' of replacement is found then people must start to catagorise allowable evils. Ireland has no vast oil deposits nor coal deposits, however recently natural gas reserves were discovered off of the Mayo coast. This natural gas could go some way to making Ireland a greener engery producer and more 'self-sufficient' vis-a-vis fuel for generating electricty.

Furthermore I would contend that Ireland's Peat bogs are part of the national heritage of this country. Peat bogs are beautiful places and could easily be made into tourist attractions. Most countries do not simply burn places of natural beauty for frivilous medium-term gain.

Here is an interesting quote from http://www.iea.org/pubs/reviews/files/ire99/08-ire.htm

Coal is an important energy source for Ireland, accounting for 15.2% of primary energy supply (in 1997) or nearly twice the contribution of peat. Unlike peat, coal is sourced on the international market from a variety of highly competitive suppliers. There can be little doubt that coal supply is secure and competitively priced.

Coal is under challenge throughout the world on environmental grounds. It has been proposed by consultants to the Department of Public Enterprise that Moneypoint power station, Ireland's only coal-fired power station, could be closed as one effective means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions (see Chapter 4). Closure is considered economic by the consultants. However, coal-fired power is more economic than peat-fired power so that, on the consultants' logic, all peat-fired and coal-fired power generation plants in Ireland could be closed with no economic loss. This would, of course, leave Ireland dependent on gas and almost certainly require the construction of a new gas interconnector and/or new domestic gas developments, to compensate for the loss of coal-fired power. Diversity of energy supply is an important means of securing supply, and reliance on gas, even if a second interconnector is built and the Corrib discovery developed, could be judged too risky.

In fact the page that I linked above recommends the 'phase out' of peat fired power plants altogether. For myself I would be in favour of massive investment in Hydro-electric, Geo-Thermal(if possible), Solar (if applicable) and wind power to attempt to supplement natural gas where necessary and ostensibly totally phase out the heavier fossil fules ie(oil and coal). In the main energy conservation is a really great idea, I will be very curious as to how the government actually propose to accomplish energy conservation, tax breaks, ad campaing, pamphlets in the post, all or none of the above?

azezil

Windpower - I worked with a guy from the ESB last year, he informed me that windpower isn't really a viable source of energy. Apparently the level of 'harmonics' produced by the generators makes it difficult to get any real amount of energy from them. Another point he made was that the fans have to be started before the wind can take over, thus using / wasting more energy.

As for the windfarm off Wicklow I heard it will produce 10% of the energy needs for the people in the immidate area, and that there may be problems connecting it too the national grid?

mike65

For Ireland the best way to go green is to use less power,
Irish homes are hopless, badly designed and built with the wrong materials for conservation. Industrial power use is proberly worse, matters will only improve if the cost of fuel is so high it becomes an imperitive to improve efficency and so get a tax rebate say.

As for production, its wind or its nothing for the moment, tidal power is interesting and might have a role at a future point proberly on the Shannon, which has a huge differernce between high and low tide. Plugging an off-shore wind farm into the grid is straightfoward and aesthetic arguements hold no water (anyway I think turbines look great!).

Of course if all else fails we can just hook up to the European grid and live off all that nuclear power from the UK, France and Germany...

Mike

Typedef

I myself think that Ireland should take greater advantage of the natural gas that is persent off the West coast. My main beef with energy conservation is that it is a goal not a remedy. Governments have a tendency to pontificate about energy conservation, but do little to actually bring it about. For example, tax breaks for business and individuals where an individual or business can prove an instance or instances of energy conservation would be a practile step towards energy conservation.

Ireland was once covered by glaciers, now I may be over-reaching with conjecture, but in glaciated upland areas it could be permissable to build some extra small scale hydroelectric dams. Another alternative that should seriously be considered is another pumped storage hydroelectric plant like turlough hill, which could be used to augment the national grid.

Sea Hydro can and should be investigated thoroughly, I do not accept the easy opt out that continuously burn peat bogs and cites 'unfeasbility' or some other such nonthought buzzword to rationalise the under exploitation of Irish natural gas reserves.

Nuclear power would be great, if it could be pulled of at room temperature, or cold fusion. Some people believe that cold fusion has taken place but is being suppressed as a technology in a similar fashion to the hydrogen fuel cell.

The fact is that hydrogen fuel cells offer humanity the ability to produce electricity from nothing in effect. Hydrogen gets extracted from water and combined with oxygen to produce electricity and water. So hydrogen fuel cells may represent the apex of power production.

*
Hydrogen gas is easily extracted from water, and chemically re-combines with oxygen to create clean power and water.
*

http://www.millenniumcell.com/investor/investor_pack.html
"..you could kiss me on the veranda."
"The lips would be fine"

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I myself think that Ireland should take greater advantage of the natural gas that is persent off the West coast.

Actually - ESB already have plans to do so. Remember Aghada is gas-fired. The western fields will be used there, to replace the southern fields it was using, which are not up to the job any more.

My main beef with energy conservation is that it is a goal not a remedy. Governments have a tendency to pontificate about energy conservation, but do little to actually bring it about. For example, tax breaks for business and individuals where an individual or business can prove an instance or instances of energy conservation would be a practile step towards energy conservation.

Err - why? You conserve electricity, then you use less. Which means you pay less. Now, you're saying that this isnt enough of an incentive? That you should be paid as well?

Look at the compact neon bulbs. 40W has the same output as a 100W filament-based bulb, once a few minutes of "warm up" have passed. Allow for reduced power consumption over an increased lifespan, and they are a far cheaper option that filament builbs. How many people do you know who arent using them? Now, you say that these people should be given some form of payment from the government in order to convince them to stop using the more expensive option? Why arent they using the cheaper option in the first place? There are numerous other similar examples.

You will also find that there are incentives in place for "Gold Shield" housing being built, and that this is an increasing trend.

Ireland was once covered by glaciers, now I may be over-reaching with conjecture, but in glaciated upland areas it could be permissable to build some extra small scale hydroelectric dams. Another alternative that should seriously be considered is another pumped storage hydroelectric plant like turlough hill, which could be used to augment the national grid.

There are no unused, viable hydro locations in Ireland. They have been looked for. They have been researched. They are not there.

There may be locations suitable for local small-scale projects, but again, that is not the ESBs concern. They cannot afford to buld and maintain hundreds of little generators. However, should a locale wish to build a little genny on a little site, ESB will be obliged to buy their generating capacity, as long as it is cheaper than the most expensive unit being produced to meet demand. If there is not sufficient power to meet demand, then ESB must also purchase it.

Sea Hydro can and should be investigated thoroughly, I do not accept the easy opt out that continuously burn peat bogs and cites 'unfeasbility' or some other such nonthought buzzword to rationalise the under exploitation of Irish natural gas reserves.

What? Sea hydro has, and is being researched. At present, there are *no* proven models which are suitable for deployment in Ireland, and coastal conservationalists have put up huge resistance to even trial plants.

Furthermore, "unfeasability" is not a non-though buzzword. It means that studies have been done and the feasability is not there. The government dont look into these things. ESB do - and they have been doing so.

Also, go back to the fact about ESB being *obliged* to buy power. If clean energy can be produced efficiently, then why doesnt private business do so. If they can produce it cheaper than the most expensive alternative, then ESB are *obliged* to purchase it. Again - since deregulation - the government are not solely responsible. In fact, several plants were proposed. They have all since decided that their models were not viable or reliable enough to be worth the investment.

Some people believe that cold fusion has taken place but is being suppressed as a technology in a similar fashion to the hydrogen fuel cell.

The fact is that hydrogen fuel cells offer humanity the ability to produce electricity from nothing in effect. Hydrogen gets extracted from water and combined with oxygen to produce electricity and water. So hydrogen fuel cells may represent the apex of power production.

Regarding Cold Fusion, the "some people" seem to exclude all credible scientists, who have yet to be shown any technology which is provably energy-positive.

As for hydrogen fuel cells - the fact is that the fuel cell itself needs other materials than hydrogen. To date, the acceptably efficient models wither involve highly dangerous materials, or tungsten. Unfortunately, there isnt enough tungsten in the world to meet (for example) the needs of 1 year of auto-manufacture at current levels. Not using these materials tends to make the fuel cells either too weak or insufficiently chargeable.

It is worth noting, however, that the first notebook fuel-cell batteries are expected to be on the market next year.

jc

p.s. to anyone who's wondering about where I am getting my info on the ESB - my dad is a station manager, and I often get to hear something much closer to the truth than what is generally reported.

Typedef

Hmm I'll take issue on the unfesability of tidal power. Yes tidal power is a fledgling method of electricity generation, but other countries are in the process of building Tidal power stations, China for example.
http://www.newenergy.org.cn/english/policy/priority/priority_o.htm

In recent years, development and utilization of tidal energy in the world has got comparative growth. Only in France, former Soviet Union, Canada and South Korea, installed capacity of tidal power stations, which have been completed or will be completed reached more than 660,000KW. At present, development on tidal energy in the world tends to be larger scale. For example, the Meijin tidal power station in Russia is planned with the design capacity of 15.2 million KW and the Tuguer tidal power station is 10.3 million kW. The Saiwen tidal power station in the United States is planned with the design capacity of 7.2 million KW, and the Kanbell Bay tidal power station of 7.36 million KW.

http://www.iclei.org/efacts/tidal.htm

The technology required to convert tidal energy into electricity is very similar to the technology used in traditional hydroelectric power plants. The first requirement is a dam or "barrage" across a tidal bay or estuary. Building dams is an expensive process. Therefore, the best tidal sites are those where a bay has a narrow opening, thus reducing the length of dam which is required. At certain points along the dam, gates and turbines are installed. When there is an adequate difference in the elevation of the water on the different sides of the barrage, the gates are opened. This "hydrostatic head" that is created, causes water to flow through the turbines, turning an electric generator to produce electricity (Figure 2).

Electricity can be generated by water flowing both into and out of a bay. As there are two high and two low tides each day, electrical generation from tidal power plants is characterized by periods of maximum generation every twelve hours, with no electricity generation at the six hour mark in between

Assuming the above is not utter nonsense it would seem that Ireland as an Island would have an ample supply of potential locations for tidal power generators. Ireland is probably too far North for anykind of viable Hydro-Thermal power, but Tidal power while probably costly would be clean and the fuel would be free.

Electricity conservation of course benefits people financially so obviously that should be some kind of impetus for energy conservation, what I'm saying is that if the government is supposedly espousing an energy conservation policy, where are the 'concrete' actions taken. How does citizen-X even have the vaguest impression or idea of what the government energy conservation policy is? The policy seems to exist in rhetoric only. I do not accept the argument that it is the citizens remit to enunicate pseudo-action for the action of governance, that's quasi-vigilantism in a sense.

Also fossil fuels used in internal combustion engines are extremely flammable and thus are extremely dangerours. Most internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient, all the heat that is diappated through the radiator is lost energy, never mind the greenhouse gases and the unrespirable and toxic emissions belched out by internal combustion engines and fossil fuel power plants, so the argument that hydrogen fuel cells use dangerous materials is as applicable to hydrogen fuel cells as it is applicable to fossil fuel powered engines.

I also don't accept the tacit ethos that says 'If the Americans or Japanese or Germans or French or Chinese or Russians' haven't invented real high energy producing hydrogen fuel cells, the cells must not be worth producing. If other countries with much more consumable resources or a greater pathos to use nuclear power are not developing hydrogen fuel cells then Ireland should.

Also as far as I am aware Turlough hill makes money and augements the national grid, therefore why not build more plants along the same model, unless there is some kind of buried secret regarding the efficiency of Turlough hill that the general public is not being made aware of? The point of such plants is that it begins to generate power at peak times when electricty costs more money. Then when the cost of electricity falls at night or (whenever after the peak) the turbines are reversed, seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Furthermore the offshore gas reserves have been know about for some length of time without beign adequetly exploited. Why has the reserve gone from being unsuitable to suddenly suitable? As far as some googling seemed to suggest the government had deemed the offshore gas reserves as being 'unfeasable' and now it has redeemed it as 'feasable', which is it?

I'm not trying to troll about this, I am of the opinion that there are far too many excuses made for the continuity of the current state of fossil fuel consumption as a means of electricity generation.

Victor

Article today:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2002/0208/351204028HMNWEST2.html

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Hmm I'll take issue on the unfesability of tidal power.

OK - now did you actually read what you quoted? You will notice first of all that the basic requirement is : a dam or "barrage" across a tidal bay or estuary.

Now, for bonus points, can you name the tidal bays and estuaries in Ireland which would be suitable for this?

I know *how* tidal power works, and there are several other models other than the one you mentioned.

However, they are not feasible *in Ireland*, because the only possible sites for them are all impractical for preservation reasons. Of course, if you'd favour destorying our natural environment in the name of conservation, please feel free to correct me on this.

The only other option is wave=power, harnessing Atlantic swells with a near-shore platform (maybe 5-7 miles). The cost of this would be significant, and initially nothing more than a pilot project would be possible.

Electricity conservation of course benefits people financially so obviously that should be some kind of impetus for energy conservation, what I'm saying is that if the government is supposedly espousing an energy conservation policy, where are the 'concrete' actions taken.

Gold Shield standard for housing. Introduction of cost-saving lightbulbs, with a large advertising campaign at their launch. Incentives and agreements with large businesses to limit and more efficiently utilise their current power demands. Oh - and Night Saver Electricity. Lets not forget that one. Big savings, efficient usage of power, very low takeup.

I do not accept the argument that it is the citizens remit to enunicate pseudo-action for the action of governance, that's quasi-vigilantism in a sense.

Excuse me? Are you saying that the common citizen should actively *not* try and conserve power in the means already available to him/her because the government isnt doing more?

If people alrady took the steps which are available to them, the demostic energy requirements in Ireland would drop by an estimated 10% to 15%. When each of these steps were introduced, they were advertised, and an attempt was made to make the public aware of them. You're now saying that the public's failure to do this is the government's fault, and the government should spend more money, introducing more steps, when the initial steps were widely ignored.

You cannot force people to conserve. The ability to do so is already there, and the information was presented. The people have ignored it. Exactly what reason have we to believe that more steps will result in any improvement in the situation? The only one I can think of which might work is a significant hike in electricity costs, but the politicians will never allow that one in.

I also don't accept the tacit ethos that says 'If the Americans or Japanese or Germans or French or Chinese or Russians' haven't invented real high energy producing hydrogen fuel cells, the cells must not be worth producing. If other countries with much more consumable resources or a greater pathos to use nuclear power are not developing hydrogen fuel cells then Ireland should.

So now we've gone frmo a suppressed technology to one which hasnt been invented? And the Irish should just go and invent it?
Typedef - if it hasnt been invented, then it is not the solution to all of our evils....it is a possible field of research to improve situations - a far cry from your initial stance of a free-and-clean-energy-device-which-exists-and-will-save-us-all-only-its-been-repressed. Come on....which is it.

Efficient fuel cells do exist. They are just not practical for widespread usage above a small scale or niche markets. At such scales, the investment into Hydrogen collection is too significant. Large-scale hydrogen collection is relatively cheap, but involves a large initial cost. This is impractical. Small-scale production is expensive, limiting the viability of the fuel cell even in the markets where it is suited.

As with any technology, things are improving, costs are lowering, and the technology is becoming mainstream. Wishing or claiming that it is other than what it is does not change the fact that this is not a panacea, nor is it without problems.

Also as far as I am aware Turlough hill makes money and augements the national grid, therefore why not build more plants along the same model, unless there is some kind of buried secret regarding the efficiency of Turlough hill that the general public is not being made aware of?

Turlough Hill has been a superlative success. Absolutely.

However, its design requires a hill of a certain shape (although thats not too hard to come by, to be honest), but with a natural lake at the bottom. If you are talking about making a lake at the base and at the top, then you start having problems in terms of astronomical costs.

The point of such plants is that it begins to generate power at peak times when electricty costs more money. Then when the cost of electricity falls at night or (whenever after the peak) the turbines are reversed, seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Except, that when you think about it a little bit more, its not because the cost of electricity drops, but because demand does. Thermal and river-based hydro stations do not stop running at night. They may scale back slightly, but they do not stop. Therefore, when demand drops at night, you either use the spare capacity, or you effectively lose it.

Turlough Hill is a way to avoid losing it.

In fact, when you analyse it completely, you discover that Turlough Hill does not actually generate electricity, but rather "stores" it like a battery. You then discover that it is energy negative - it costs more energy to recharge than is recovered from it (not sure of its efficiency rating).

So, there is a practical limit on the Turlough Hills of this world, in that you require the spare capacity at night in order to recharge it. Have you analysed the spare capacity? Can you say for sure that another Turlough Hill would be a viable alternative, or are you just looking at it, and saying "neat, lets build more".

Dont forget, by the way, about all the other incentives to balance our power consumption over the 24 hours, by offering companies incentives to use nighttime electricity, and the Night Saver scheme. These are far more successful approaches to using spare capacity, and yet you would prefer that we build more Turlough Hills??? Better to encourage commercial/domestic usage instead, surely. More efficient.

Furthermore the offshore gas reserves have been know about for some length of time without beign adequetly exploited. Why has the reserve gone from being unsuitable to suddenly suitable? As far as some googling seemed to suggest the government had deemed the offshore gas reserves as being 'unfeasable' and now it has redeemed it as 'feasable', which is it?

Good question. First off, I would point out that natural gas is only *relatively clean* in generation stakes, not clean. Also, perhaps emerging and advancing technology over the past few decades (and improved finds) have changed the classification? I'm not really informed enough to talk about this one, but the last I heard was that the plan was to spread the usage of our fields out over time - not to exploit them as fully as possible for as short a period as possible. This may also have had something to do with it....I dont know.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
Call me pedantic and and armchair finger pointer if you like, but energy demand reduction seems like a cop - out.

No, it is a vital part of the strategy. In developed economies, domestic energy consumption has the tendency to expand in proportion to the number of households (not economic development or population - one fridge, one TV, one cooker, one immersion). I live in apartment, an energy loss is only through the outer walls (i have only 2), as any loss though floors, ceilings & inner wall is minimal and in any case balanced by gains from my neighbours. I (personally, not counting my flat mate) only used my central heating twice in January. Installing a lagging jacket when I moved into the flat halved the historical ESB bill.

Originally posted by Typedef
Much more emphasis should be placed on hydro-electric methods of power generation.

Hydro electricity is dependant on 2 main factors, volume of water flow and 'head' (effectively the height of your water over the generator). Most of the suitable locations in Ireland have been exploited. A few medium (up to 10kW) and small (up to 1kW) locations still exist and there is a programme to exploit these. High rainfall, large landmasses and mountains provide the best options for hydro-electricity (hence the huge programmes in China). Also note that people are often displaced by the reservoirs associated with hydro (up to 1.5m people in one case in China).

Originally posted by bonkey
In all cases, you end up fighting the typical fight. On one hand, local conservationsists tell you "not in my back yard"

Then take away their electricity. I'm sorry, but the tens of thousands of miles of low-voltage power lines to rural (non-agricultural) housing does a lot more damage than the few sections of high-voltage lines proposed (perhaps 200 miles).

Originally posted by bonkey
The 5% of our generating resources would be about 200 to 250 MW. Not bad, but the size of the platform means that while this is a good approach, it is not a particularly promising one for future needs. 250MW wouldnt make up our winter shortfall at the moment, let alone the projected increases in demand before this plan becomes operational.

Moot point, peak demand in Ireland is on cold days in January and February, typically accompanied by clear, calm skies. Daily peak demand in Ireland is between 5-7pm. The Arklow Bank project is rated at 520MW. This is probably designed to be the most economically viable given existing or expected costs and sales.

Originally posted by bonkey
Also, unless we want large platforms off every shoreline in the country, one must ask whether this is a technology with a future. I'm also surprised that its off the SE coast, when I would have thought the SW and NW were the best spots for picking up wind.

The greatest demand (peaks and total) is in the Dublin area, it is simply a matter of being 'close to market'.

Originally posted by bonkey
Until such sites are proven to be viable in the long term (as the technologies are all either new, or full-scale implementations of previously tested small-scale operations), Ireland has two realistic choices. Choice 1 : Build a new thermal station - state-funded or private.Choice 2 : Attempt to reduce energy consumption, while renting the excess generating capacity required. Both situations, you will notice, involve thermal stations. Both require a net increase in our power generation needs. There are no other alternatives.

2 major new stations are under construction Huntstown (Independent 300MW) and Pigeon House II (Statoil & ESB 500MW?). There is a substantial programme for expanding wind and a minor programme to replace existing peat stations with cleaner stations.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Wind, wave and solar power are either not proven, not reliable or not scalable enough to be major players.

Wind, while still an emerging technology, is well developed in places like the Canaries and California.

Victor

Originally posted by azezil
Windpower - I worked with a guy from the ESB last year, he informed me that windpower isn't really a viable source of energy. Apparently the level of 'harmonics' produced by the generators makes it difficult to get any real amount of energy from them. Another point he made was that the fans have to be started before the wind can take over, thus using / wasting more energy.

These are all technical problems that are routinely resolved in all power projects. Every generator uses power to get started

When Poolbeg changed from Kinsale to North Sea gas, they has to add 30 tonnes of ballast to stop the turbines vibrating. Why were they vibrating? the composition of the gas was 2% different between the 2 sources (apparently the North Sea gas contained more water vapour and some miscellaneous hydro-carbons).

Originally posted by azezil
As for the windfarm off Wicklow I heard it will produce 10% of the energy needs for the people in the immidate area,

If the 520MW proposal goes ahead and it achieves 30% efficiency, it would probably provide power for 100,000+ people

Originally posted by azezil
and that there may be problems connecting it too the national grid?

Probably only artificial problems (ESB / National Grid, trying to hold onto market share, people objecting to pylons), not technical ones. Question, how did Global crossing connect the whole world with fibre optics?

All in all, what the ESB guy said was either uninformed rumour or propaganda (within the ESB, ESB -v- unions and ESB -v- independents).

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
Interestingly enough Ireland does derive alot of electricity from hydro-electric source.

Name 		MegaWatts 	Source 
Turlough Hill 	292 		Hydro (Pump Storage) 
Liffey 		38 		Hydro 
Ardnacrusha 	86 		Hydro 
Erne 		65 		Hydro 
Clady 		4 		Hydro 
Lee 		27 		Hydro

Each of these figures is 'installed capacity'. These stations would only work for a part of the day and do not necessarily contribute to peak capacity (although it is hoped they would do this). Turlough Hill is a net consumer of electricity and is used to meet peak demand, it pumps water uphill overnight and generates at peak demand, e.g. when 200,000 kettles are turned on around the country during the ad break in Coronation Street.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Also, go back to the fact about ESB being *obliged* to buy power. If clean energy can be produced efficiently, then why doesnt private business do so. If they can produce it cheaper than the most expensive alternative, then ESB are *obliged* to purchase it.

This is really a commercial (a perfectly practical) decision within the ESB. In addition, the ESB (or rather National Grid) operates a "top-up and spill-over" system with the independent suppliers.

Originally posted by bonkey
In fact, when you analyse it completely, you discover that Turlough Hill does not actually generate electricity, but rather "stores" it like a battery. You then discover that it is energy negative - it costs more energy to recharge than is recovered from it (not sure of its efficiency rating).

Apparently it is only about 40% efficient and consequently not very 'green'. It would be one thing is a huge proportion of your generating capacity was 'green', but that is very rarely the case.

There is a station in Norway that is a combination of hydro and stored-hydro. It has an upper and lower reservoir on a river. If generating capacity elsewhere is there and the upper reservoir has sufficient capacity, the station is pumps water, if the situation is reversed, then they generate.

Originally posted by bonkey
Dont forget, by the way, about all the other incentives to balance our power consumption over the 24 hours, by offering companies incentives to use nighttime electricity, and the Night Saver scheme.

But companies operate most efficiently (economically and environmentally) when running continuously. What is needed in this case is a move away from peak time usage by a larger part of the population. For example, before it closed, if Irish Steel turned off their smelters from 5pm to 7pm, that meant the smelter would have cooled considerable in that period and must use extra energy to resume production. However, if more people ate later/ earlier, then there would be no need for in-efficient peak-time generation.

Victor

Of course we could just tame the hot air on humanities and politics ...

Typedef

OK - now did you actually read what you quoted? You will notice first of all that the basic requirement is : a dam or "barrage" across a tidal bay or estuary.

Now, for bonus points, can you name the tidal bays and estuaries in Ireland which would be suitable for this?

Yes I read it, but your response begs the question are you dismissing it out of hand because you have 'decided' you are against sea driven turbines or you don't want to seem wrong? It would seem like a totally viable option if the Chinese, Russians and Americans are building such plants, what's the problem? Had you read the link you would know that there are plants under construction.

China has a history of 40 years in development of tidal energy. So far, it has set up 8 tidal power stations with a total installed capacity of 6120KW

However, they are not feasible *in Ireland*, because the only possible sites for them are all impractical for preservation reasons. Of course, if you'd favour destorying our natural environment in the name of conservation

There are no easy answers, wind farms will be 'unsightly' and thus environmentalist groups are against them, Tidal dam methods of derivation are unacceptable, however ask people living in the detrius of Sellafield which they would prefare, a Nuclear power plant or a series of windpower and tidal power plants and I guarantee you those people will not choose the nuclear reactor ever.

I'm not really informed enough to talk about this one, but the last I heard was that the plan was to spread the usage of our fields out over time - not to exploit them as fully as possible for as short a period as possible. This may also have had something to do with it....I dont know.

Fair enough.

Harnessing Atlantic swells with a near-shore platform (maybe 5-7 miles). The cost of this would be significant, and initially nothing more than a pilot project would be possible.

The Chinese have build eight of the things, so the technology is by that criteria pertty much proven.

Gold Shield standard for housing. Introduction of cost-saving lightbulbs, with a large advertising campaign at their launch. Incentives and agreements with large businesses to limit and more efficiently utilise their current power demands.

Perhaps because I don't pay the electricty bill I am a bit lacking in my knowledge of electricty conservation schemes enunciated by the government but, to my mind there really seems to be next to nothing in the way of an ad campaign or similar to spread the conservation message. If Irish households are so wasteful as you say then obviously simply expecting people to act in their own financial self interest has not produced the desired effect. Therefore the government must do more to implement stated government policy vis-a-vis energy conservation.

Excuse me? Are you saying that the common citizen should actively *not* try and conserve power in the means already available to him/her because the government isnt doing more?

Nope of course every citizen must, no is obligated to conserve energy, but lets face it, the message is no more getting across to citzen X now than it was 10 years ago in my opinion, therefore if the government is serious about conservation it MUST prepare ad campaigns and inform people properly, it can't expect the logic of conservation to be enough a proponent of conservation, because clearly in the case of Ireland it has failed and will continue to fail until more is done by those in authority to remedy the situation.

When each of these steps were introduced, they were advertised, and an attempt was made to make the public aware of them. You're now saying that the public's failure to do this is the government's fault, and the government should spend more money, introducing more steps, when the initial steps were widely ignored.

No, I don't remember one ad campaign in the last four years, furthermore if the government states it wants to reduce energy consumption by a modest 10% if the criteria you set out of 10%-15% is to be used, then the government must insure this target is met. It is simply not good enough to throw up the hands and say, oh we tried and the citizens couldn't be bothered so we give up. That seems to be what you are trying to argue.

So now we've gone frmo a suppressed technology to one which hasnt been invented? And the Irish should just go and invent it?
Typedef - if it hasnt been invented, then it is not the solution to all of our evils....it is a possible field of research to improve situations - a far cry from your initial stance of a free-and-clean-energy-device-which-exists-and-will-save-us-all-only-its-been-repressed. Come on....which is it.

Now now, I said if, if the technology doesn't exist, if. In the case of tidal power it does exist and in the case of hydrogen cells as you pointed out the first notebook hydrogen cell is due to be produced next year, so in the main the technology is at a faily high level of competenct and development already. Admittadely hydrogen cells are not at a stage that they can replace fossil fuels for power generation, but no-one has put any real money towards it bar the American military, and then only really for military purposes.

Hydrogen collection is too significant. Large-scale hydrogen collection is relatively cheap, but involves a large initial cost. This is impractical. Small-scale production is expensive, limiting the viability of the fuel cell even in the markets where it is suited.

Remember the impetus for clean/green energy is that is has a lesser impact on the environment not it's potential for financial remuneration.

Typedef

Originally posted by Victor
Of course we could just tame the hot air on humanities and politics ...

That would be extremely dangerous not to mention incredibly efficient.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Yes I read it, but your response begs the question are you dismissing it out of hand because you have 'decided' you are against sea driven turbines or you don't want to seem wrong? It would seem like a totally viable option if the Chinese, Russians and Americans are building such plants, what's the problem? Had you read the link you would know that there are plants under construction.

My point was, and is, that the plantrs can be constructed where there are suitable tidal influences. You need a significant height difference between high & low tide, perhaps accentuated by a river-flow which can be captured, a flood-basin of appropriate size, and ideally a small bay opening.

Regardless of the number of these being built in the rest of the world, this combination of factors does not exist in suitable locations in Ireland, except (as I said previously) possibly Hillary and Little Hillary - our nations only two fjords.

If we had suitable bays, then like the French, Chinese, Russians and Americans, we could build the technology.

Perhaps because I don't pay the electricty bill I am a bit lacking in my knowledge of electricty conservation schemes enunciated by the government but, to my mind there really seems to be next to nothing in the way of an ad campaign or similar to spread the conservation message.

I recall numerous flyers coming *in* my electricity bill about the lightbulbs, night-saver electricity, and so on. Why advertise publicly when you can target exactly the people you need to with a far more efficient tactic??? This may explain why you havent seen the ads?

Admittadely hydrogen cells are not at a stage that they can replace fossil fuels for power generation, but no-one has put any real money towards it bar the American military, and then only really for military purposes.

Well, a search under google "categories" finds 106 entries under : Science > Technology > Energy > Hydrogen > Fuel Cell, a large number of which appear to be companies involved in Fuel Cell work. For something which is "only" invested in by the US military, I am surprised that so many public companies are being allowed to avail of the research, rather than the military keeping it to themselves.

Truth is that its not just the US military. There's massive research in this area. Batteries are the one area of electronics-related technology which has not progressed that significantly in the past decade, and Fuel Cells are the way forward. This has been known for years, and massive research has been conducted to try and develop "general use" models, as opposed to highly specific niche-market models.

Also, as for hydrogen fuel cells not being ready.....doesnt this mean that your initial claims are a bit misleading :

The fact is that hydrogen fuel cells offer humanity the ability to produce electricity from nothing in effect.

You completely neglect to mention that the technology isnt ready, and go with the "repressed" claim instead. Is there any significant proof that there have been massive breakthroughs in this field which have been held back for some reason (presumably to keep our reliance on more traditional fossil fuels), or that pressure has been put on companies to *not* research it???

At the end of the day, I fundamentally agree with you that we need to be cleaner, but we cant just say "this is clean, build it". Power generation isnt that simple. We need appropriate locations, appropriate scale, and (unfortunately) appropriate costs.

One thing which they have here in Switzerland which I think is an excellent idea (but which would not work in Ireland) is that individuals are offered the choice of paying for "clean" power or 2dirty" power, or some mix thereof. Clean power is more expensive, but the distribution network will buy as much of it as people are willing to pay the extra for. Its quite successful over here, but then again we're talking about a country who are massively "green-conscious" anyway. In Ireland, I dont know how many people would take a 20% to 50% increase in their bill in order to have green generation rather than conventional thermal.

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
You completely neglect to mention that the technology isnt ready, and go with the "repressed" claim instead. Is there any significant proof that there have been massive breakthroughs in this field which have been held back for some reason (presumably to keep our reliance on more traditional fossil fuels), or that pressure has been put on companies to *not* research it???

Lets be clear, hydrogen cells are ready from a technical standpoint to replace fossil fuels for cars and other vechicular modes of transport. No hydrogen cells have not been made big enough to power a city yet, but given time probably will be made so, assuming the impetus is forthcoming from the powers that be. It is also fairly evident that one of the biggest pushes for the hydrogen fuel cell is coming from military quarters.
Examples:
http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/4689.cfm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/crg932.htm
The US DOD even seems to be a major contributor to fuel cell technology.

http://www.bullnet.co.uk/shops/test/hydrogen.htm
http://www.dodfuelcell.com/
What is the U.S. government doing now?

The U.S. Government owns and operates 30 fuel cell cogeneration units, the world's largest fleet of fuel cells.

The government helps in other ways. At least five cabinet-level Departments participate in fuel cell research and demonstration programs, investing more than $100 million per year. The U.S. Department of Energy spends the most: about $50 million on research in molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells for stationary power and more than $30 million on transportation applications.

The Department of Transportation also maintains a fuel cell bus research program. The Commerce Department supports fuel cells for premium ower applications and the Environmental Protection Agency has a program to facilitate the use of fuel cells at landfills and wastewater treatment plants.

The U.S. goverhment's Climate Change Fuel Cell Program provides grants of $1,000/kilowatt to purchasers of fuel cell power plants. The 'buydown' program has so far awarded $18.8 million in assistance for the purchase of 94 fuel cell units.

Fuel cell vehicles could transport American troops on the battlefield of the future, and could serve as a vital source of auxiliary power in combat. That's because fuel cells are quiet, flexible, and operate at low temperature, making them ideal for use in "stealth" vehicles. Fuel cells are also being developed for submarines, surface ships and a variety of other military uses.

Therefore it is wholely accurate to point towards the inherent military applications and impetus, drive, machisma, qualification call it what you will behind the development of fuel cell technology, but it serves no military purpose to develop city powering scale cells and hardly surprising therefore that those size of cells don't exist whilst smallscale cells, sufficient to power a laptop, radio or small vechicle do. I don't think that points to a conspiracy theroy but more a statement of fact and logic.

Now you may say that from a financial stand point the cells don't add up, but from an environment standpoint the cells should become the defacto method of energy consumption and production for small energy production needs right now, not at some pie in the sky distant point in the future.


bonkey: Ostensibly I agree with you on much of the principal of the need to move towards ecologically friendly methods of energy production, I suspect we differ on the role cost should play in such methods of production but, that is not a bad thing.

In fact to be fair I believe both of us have been possibly too emphatic of our positions. Yes tidal power is in and of itself only applicable to places of large tidal difference, but similarly OTE or Ocean Thermal Energy is only really applicable to tropical waters. I don't know if you were aware of this fact or not.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/development/oceanenergy/
Yes Ireland could probably make one or two tidal power plants and perhaps the gulf stream would supply sufficient heat for an OTE plant. Again using the thermal emmisions from the ocean or gravity with oceans as a proxy is an option, but in and of itself not an end. Still on Irelands Atlantic coast given the magnitude of Atlantic waves that batter the coast, if not some kind of tidal power then certainly wave power is feasable on the Atlantic side.

Tidal power requires large tidal differences which, in the U.S., occur only in Maine and Alaska. Ocean thermal energy conversion is limited to tropical regions, such as Hawaii, and to a portion of the Atlantic coast.

Also I proport that a 'general awarness' campaign should be enunciated by the government, information with an electricity bill is not sufficient.
The main crux of any and all new power generation initiatives must be to move Ireland away from fossil fuels and not towards nuclear fuels as a method of energy derivation. Smog used to be a bigger problem for Dublin until the use of smoke making coals(ostensibly) was curtailed. In a similar fashion the use of fossil fuels is haveing a macro environmental effect on the the climate of this planet. We, humans, share this planet and thus must strive to make it as habitable as possible. Yes it may cost people financially to move towards renewable sources of energy, but if human civilisation continues to neglect the environment or simply put off the development and implementation of renewable energy production the technologies to make it happen will not be produced and the ecology of this planet that supports and sustains us all will continue to deteriorate.

Victor

Maybe nuclear power isn't all that bad http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_516781.html?menu=news.quirkies

UN says Chernobyl could become tourist resort

A United Nations report suggests Chernobyl could become a new tourist resort.

It says countryside around the nuclear reactor site in Ukraine is flourishing and could be an eco-tourism destination.

Farming has been banned in parts of the affected area and wild plants and animals have taken over.

Radiation levels have been declining and some parts have now been declared safe, BBC Monitoring reports.

The UN development programme says the promotion of the area could bring in much-needed business.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Lets be clear, hydrogen cells are ready from a technical standpoint to replace fossil fuels for cars and other vechicular modes of transport.

From a technical standpoint, they may be ready, but you are forced to either use highly toxic substances which you do *not* want getting released in teh event of a crash, or you use tungsten. If you use tungsten, there is insufficient quantities of the metal available to meet one year of automobile production at current levels.

In short, technical ability is not the only issue. The fact is that there is no viable model for large-scale rollout of fuel cells. This is what keeps them in niche markets.

I mentioned battery notebooks - a great step forward, but still a very indicative one. Yes, the technology is *finally* ready to meet this market, but only this market, where people have relatively large battery packs which are quite expensive to begin with, in a sector where people will happily pay for larger capacity.

No hydrogen cells have not been made big enough to power a city yet, but given time probably will be made so, assuming the impetus is forthcoming from the powers that be.

This is a bit misleading. Hydrogen fuel cells are, in effect, highly efficient batteries. They do not generate electricity, no more than a regular Duracell AA does. There is no working model that I am aware of for a "continuous state" fuel cell which could churn out clean power ad infinitum. At best, you would need an array of charging/discharging fuel-cell batteries with all the necessary background tech in place.

While this is not inconceivable as a power source, it is highly improbable that this will become the power of the future. If we had the necessary large-scale *clean* hydrogen extraction (which can be done), then it is more probable that it would be used in a thermal plant. At ultra-large scales, the fuel-cell model does not necessarily make sense.

Also I proport that a 'general awarness' campaign should be enunciated by the government, information with an electricity bill is not sufficient.

Why not?

Who do you need to target, if not the billpayer?

OK - sure - you will have some domiciles where bill-paying dad doesnt hold with all this new age tree-hugging rubbish, and reckons those lagging jackets n silly lightbulbs are just someone trying to make money offa him. You think telling his son/daughter/wife that they are good ideas is somehow going to change the situation? Honestly?

So, like I said, if information with the bill isnt sufficient, who are you targetting?

Yes it may cost people financially to move towards renewable sources of energy, but if human civilisation continues to neglect the environment or simply put off the development and implementation of renewable energy production the technologies to make it happen will not be produced and the ecology of this planet that supports and sustains us all will continue to deteriorate. .

Absolutely, but unfortunately, this complaint is so cliched now that uttering it will get you branded as a tree-hugging loon by most of the mainstream - an indication of the success of big business to fight the cost of environmentalism.

At the end of the day, I think you are probably correct in the basic standpoint you commenced with (the Irish aims for Kyoto, while laudable are a bit "hollow" sounding), but I do not necessarily agree that the most major changes are needed in our generation policy, or that this area is one which has been failrly unresearched.

AS I said, from my knowledge of ESB, I am aware that they have done an awful lot of research in these areas. Hey - they're a business. "Clean" energy is almost always synonymous with "free" energy. After the initial building costs, these things run forever on virtually nothing. How stupid would a business have to be to ignore these possibilities.

I think ESB has looked into this stuff, and I would guess that their contribution to Ireland meeting Kyoto will be one of the strongest parts of our effort.

The rest does seem a bit empty.

jc

Typedef

Hmm bonkey maybe we are talking about two different things here. I am talikng about deriving electricity from water with the by-product being water. It is totally possible, it has been done. With hydrogen the most abundant element in the universe it is the ideal source of energy especially if there is a 'water cycle' or in environmental parlance if it is a 'renweable source of energy'.

Fuel from water:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/023/023box01.htm

The simplest fuel cell ?burns? hydrogen in a flameless chemical reaction to produce electricity. In order to ?burn? the hydrogen, a fuel cell needs a source of oxygen and this is usually obtained from air. The only by-product from this type of fuel cell is water.

It is a simple cycle really, h20 becomes hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen uses the oxygen in a reaction 'burning' to create a non polluting and renewable source of fuel. Yes seperating oxygen and hydrogen from water may be expensive, I don't know the economical practicalities of such things, but from an environmental stand point it seems like a dream come true.

bonkey

I thought you might be thinking of that

Technically not a fuel-cell, but there is a lot of research in the field of building an off-shore platform which can use the temp (and pressure?) diff in two layers of water to effectively split out hydrogen in an almost costless fashion.

As you correctly point out, this leaves you with almost-pure H2 and O2, which you can then combust almost perfectly cleanly, yielding your H2O again, as well as supplying thermal energy for use in a thermal station.

AFAIK, still at the theoretical stage as a unit, but the individual stages are known to be feasible. Unfortunately, as with the tidal-generation model, it is probable that it will only work efficiently under limited condition-ranges.

Superb idea though, and one I hope to see more of in the near future.

jc

Typedef

It's kind of frustrating though, the technology exists, but no group seems to have the desire to implement it. I suppose it is niave to think that in the abscence of economic or military impetus that beneficial technology from the point of view of human survival and environmental expeditiousness will recieve large scale investment sufficient to develop such technology would be forthcoming, but that doesn't mean I won't wait for it.

Sure there is an old adage don't hold your breath, however if people keep burning fossil fuels with the same motif of constant expansion of fossil fuel consumption, that is exactly what everyone will end up doing, holding our breath.