Power to the people

[tony1851]

So we're pretty stuffed. Unless, of course, we get all prisoners to spend their days on treadmills/cycling machines which are hooked up to generators. By doing this, at least we'd have some contenders for Conan the Barbarian, or some top-drawer olympic cyclists

Here you go
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/05/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories.html[/QUOTE]

That stuff is all very well as a hobby for Greens, retired science teachers and generally people with plenty of time and money on their hands.

But you can't run a modern society on push bikes - that's going backwards.

 

[ladylola]

Actually I posted it to point out that generating electricity by pedal power is a non starter.
Actually the obsession with generating electricity rather than direct mechanical is holding us back in many ways.
And as I've said before any energy policy , wether it's coal , nuclear or renewables is flawed without the introduction of TEQ's.

 

[tony1851]

And as I've said before any energy policy , wether it's coal , nuclear or renewables is flawed without the introduction of TEQ's.

Exactly. In a true market place, coal would probably be the cheapest way to generate power, but it's seriously skewed (to absolutely no useful purpose and a detriment to the economy) by government policy.

 

[ladylola]

I agree that it's all skewed. There isn't any form of power that isn't subsidised , there isn't and probably never has been any "true market place" and of course just because something is cheap doesn't make it the best. On another forum I visit a poster has the following on all of his posts and I won't try to hide the fact that I've borrowed it -
"If you think the economy is more important than the enviroment , try holding your breathe while you count your money"
Of course if we all build our own generating bikes

 

[Dextraneous]

Can't we tap into the gulf stream?

 

[JBR]

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.

The longer we prevaricate, the more likely regular power cuts.

 

[JohnD]

tidal, tidal, tidal

a big barrage across Morecambe, Severn or Thames would be more than enough.

 

[ladylola]

TEQ's , TEQ's , TEQ's
The longer we put them off the more likely we are to have power cuts.

 

[tony1851]

TEQ's , TEQ's , TEQ's
The longer we put them off the more likely we are to have power cuts.

The sooner we scrap them, and stop kow-towing to Green pressure groups, and start extracting the coal we already have, the more likely we are to have dependable power.

 

[Norcon]

If all the coal is burned in power stations then what will people use in their stoves and aga's?
You haven't thought this out too well.

 

[tony1851]

If all the coal is burned in power stations then what will people use in their stoves and aga's?
You haven't thought this out too well.

Yes I have - it's quite simple really.

The one big natural resource we have in this country is coal. It's just that we tie our own hands behind our backs and forbid ourselves from using it.

If our policy makers had some common sense, we would be using this dependable God-given resource to generate power. It would also create many extra jobs.

And to those who say we are polluting the atmosphere, what about the Chinese? Has our self-flagellation and pursuite of the moral high ground changed their approach? Not a bit.

 

[ladylola]

Why do we even need to extract the coal? Here's the next idea from those who want to fry the world -http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129560.400-fire-in-the-hole-after-fracking-comes-coal.html?
Green pressure groups ? pretty much every government has looked at the evidence and has signed the Kyoto protocol . Perhaps we need to stop kow towing to those who I see money as the most important thing in the world.

 

[tony1851]

 

[Dextraneous]

If we could drill deep enough holes down to where the temperature is over 100 degrees, then water poured down there would turn to steam and the pressure could be used to drive turbines. The by product would be water, which could be poured down the hole again. Perpetual power - Hoorah!!

 

[Space cat]

Various pressure groups don't want nuclear because it will kill us all; people living in nice country areas don't want turbines because they spoil the view;
marine biologists don't want offshore turbines or barrages because it will kill all the nice little fishes, and of course mention coal, oil or gas and you're a social outcast.

Well that pretty much says it: there are no 'nice' ways of generating electrical power on the scale that we want it. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Yes, we can find ways of putting the CO2 back into the ground - 95% of Earth's carbon is already there - but the fuel supply will still run out.

Similar arguments were raging decades ago and it was generally agreed that there were only two long term options: solar or nuclear. (Geothermal power is nuclear in origin. Tidal power is the only true exception.) We can cover the landscape with windmills and PV panels. We can build dams across every major estuary - and the Gulf of Mexico too. We can give over significant areas of agricultural (i.e. food-producing) land to grow fuel. Tell that to a starving African. Or we can build a lot more of those nasty little nuclear reactors.

There are two ways to go: the clean way and the dirty way. In order to harvest solar power on a large scale, we'll have to harvest it over a large area and so the clean way isn't so clean after all. Tidal power suffers from the same problems and, geothermal power is difficult to reach. It's a long way to Iceland! In contrast, the dirty way isn't as dirty as a lot of people think but past accidents have jaundiced the common man's view of nuclear power.

For what it's worth, I think the future will be nuclear and it will be doughnut shaped. This may not happen in what's left of my lifetime but it's the best option we've got - at least until the day arrives when we run out of deuterium.