🚀 go-pugleaf

"ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:0oE_4.8818$N4.323789@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Murray Love wrote in message ...
> >
> >"ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message news:MR5_4.7628

> <snip>
>
> i should have been more precise, i was talking about the mainland USA, but
> another point is i am not saying that solar should be the only option,
just
> part of an intergrated renewable energy generation. you have indicated
that
> most of your electricity is hydro, already a fairly clean power source,
> there is the issue of methane production that needs more research.
> obviously solar is not the best option for somewhere in the far north or
> south of the planet, but there are many other options, hydro both large
and
> small scale, wind, biomass.

What is biomass?  It's many things; often it's wood, which is hardly
emissions-free, and isn't a particularly concentrated energy source.  If
we're talking about wood-biomass, that won't fly in lots of parts of the
world (like here) due to concerns over the destruction of forests.  A lot of
people would like to plant trees to sequester carbon (which is probably
futile), rather than burning them.  In any case, biomass of any sort is fine
in places, but it still emits GHG's and produces rather little energy output
per unit of mass, meaning you need a LOT of mass to produce reliable power.

>
> my local council is about to switch on its new greenwaste fed digestor
> power plant, it does not burn the greenwaste directly, it digests it and
> produces methane which is burnt in gas turbines, the solid leftover makes
> exelent fertiliser and soil improver. it is being used as a model for
> larger plants in other areas, we only have a population of 200,000 to draw
> on. so there is an example of an renewabel energy system that operates
> 24/7, is capable of being scaled to meet local needs, is cheap and turns a
> money loseing service(domestic greenwaste disposal) into a profit makeing
> enterprise. and all this was done without signifigant levels of government
> money, it was paid for through commercial loans and private sector
> investment. the technology can also be applied to sewerage, and in the
> process reduces the amount of polution from sewerage plants to near zero.

Wonderful!  I'm serious--that's great. You're still emitting GHG's, aren't
you?  What plans does your council have for them?  What is the output of the
plant, and how much biomass does it require?

> intergrated soultions is what i am saying, why you would chose to
> deliberatly chose a worst case scenario and then go on to say that proves
> that the technology will not work anywhere is strange.

BC may be a worst-case, but it is also my case.  I mean, I'm not picking
some theoretical location (Reykjavik for instance) to bash PV's.  And I am
skeptical about PV's when they're held up as a big part of THE answer;
certainly some locations are better, but PV's will always suffer from the
dilute nature of sunlight.  You've got to use large collector areas,
concentrate the energy and supply it; in thermodynamic terms, you're taking
a relatively disordered source (sun, wind) and making it highly ordered
(electricity).  This is very expensive, and a big part of why these
technologies have had such a tough time competing with the fossils.

Thoughtful post, ant.  Thank you for being civil.  As an aside, I don't see
the attraction of decentralized power.  I like my huge utility; it never
goes out on me, it's cheap, and if there's a problem I know who's
responsible.  This is a genuine question:  what is the attraction of
decentralization?