I just read an article on available world wind energy. Apparently the amount of energy that can be extracted from wind with suitable turbines is at least an order of magnitude greater than all the energy we use or would need. And we won't run out of wind energy and there is no waste or pollution. I think wind turbines with a vertical axis can be built and be used not only on wind farms but atop building for local generation and also aloft. Solar will also play a role for local power. What else do we need? Storage an important issue Here is what else.
We need advanced approaches to building electric power transmission to make it less ugly and more secure. I am also privy to new deep discharge battery technology that will allow an electric vehicle to go >250,000 miles before the batteries have to be replaced. The GM Volt can only go 50,000 miles before replacing the batteries at > US$15K adding about 25 US cents per mile driven to the few cents for energy . With those carefully hidden numbers added the Volt and all EVs make no sense except as toys and will fail. With the new battery data there is little doubt that EVs will dominate and ultimately petroleum use will disappear. In 50 years or less we will virtually produce no CO2 for heating, lighting, locomotion or manufacturing. Unfortunately it will continue to get warmer albeit at a slower pace if the Earth's 540 million year proxy record is a guide and we will need geoengineering in any case. In another year or two no one will dispute that conclusion. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jim woolridge Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:37 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Vote on Manchester Report the thorium reactors sound too good to be true--not a new phenomenon with nuclear power. But a general point: if widespread disruption up to and including breakdowns in governance and social and political collapse is a very real possibility under climate change then why would we want a proliferation of potentially dangerous very high tech reactors? A glance at the effects of the collapse of the old Soviet Union on its nuclear arsenal should be enough to convince everyone that nuclear is not the way to go. Doesn't it make a lot more sense to go for small scale stand alone renewables--then if and when things go wrong the downside is limited. On Jul 15, 3:42 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thorium reactors sound good but it smells of nuclear and that is bad. > It also requires mining. I will vote for geothermal, which requires no > mining and will last 'forever'. > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [geo] Vote on Manchester Report > > Hi guys, > > You might want to vote-in on the Manchester Report at: > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/page/2009/jul/13/1>http://www.guardia n.co.uk/environment/page/2009/jul/13/1. > > I recommend the Dr. Hansen supported Thorium Reactors. I've attached > my MSWord summary of all the presentations. > > Stephen, Tim and I finished out of the top ten voting, but you can > view 1-minute videos, which were taken after the 15-minute > presentation. I'm planning to make a .pdf of the "notes" from my > PowerPoint. Let me know if you would like the 7 MB PowerPoint or a > hopefully smaller .pdf. I am suggesting a potential compromise on the > developed-developing world impasse on legacy carbon. You might want > to promote the concept to elected representatives in time to help > China and India agree with the US and Europe at the Copenhagen meeting in December. > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Oxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org<http://www.podenergy.org/> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
