Comments on: Geothermal: Clean, Green, Reliable Power

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:09:15 +0000

Haha Greg - some weird alien civilisation's power source would be pretty handy right now.

By: Greg Atkinson

Greg Atkinson — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:09:31 +0000

Pete, you are forgetting Arnie was also a secret agent on Mars, I am guessing they were using plenty of alternative sources of energy up there

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:41:02 +0000

Bill Foord: Whilst Ausra seems great (I really think it does), it seems to me that it would be majorly flawed aswell. It could only be constructed in areas with high solar temperatures (the desert would be good), but not in areas where there is often cloud cover (eg, northern europe and many coastal areas).

Imagine if you had two very overcast and cold days? I bet they can't keep the heat stored for very long.

I think one of the best applications for this technology would be for air-conditioning. You only need aircon when it's hot, and your solar thermal system only works when it's hot. What a great partnership.

No wonder they are based on sunny California... (although I think putting a quote from Arnie on their page is pathetic - what does he know besides how to kill masses of bad guys with guns and swords)

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:23:36 +0000

Joe:
"It is not beyond the realms of either possibility or imagination to use Solar power to divide water into Hydrogen and Oxygen to then produce power when demand outstrips Solar base load supply."

I too thought this. Then I did some research on the 'hydrogen' topic. Hydrogen is excellent. You are right, it burns and produces water. In fact, it is excellent in nearly every aspect...except for availability in its pure form (obviously there is an almost unlimited amount in the world where hydrogen is attached to other elements, eg water).

Getting hydrogen from water, etc, takes a LOT of energy - lots more than the hydrogren produces when it is combusted. So much more in fact, that this method is like spending 10litres of petrol to make 1litre of the hydrogen equivalent petrol (thats for illustration purposes only).

However...there is technology being worked on to make this more efficient. And you know whoever solves this one will make billions (or squillions after inflation).

The problem really is a basic chemistry one - hydrogen takes a lot of energy to remove it's bond from other molecules. It seems it is quite like the smallest and simplest block you could use in Lego - the very popular one that gets joined to everything else (and frequently found in the vaccuum cleaner bag).

Whilst hydrogen would seem like the cure for everything (zero emissions, high energy and low weight fuel, portability, availability), without the development of some dream-like technology to make it viable, it is a long way off mainstream usage.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:21:16 +0000

Geothermal I thought used recycled super heated water to steam power turbines. Given the closed system the pollution risk is minimal and the source of heat virtually unlimited since no fuel other than magma radiated heat is consumed. Can someone verify this for me please?

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:09:39 +0000

Generating baseload from Solar power is easy.
To manage demand for Natural Gas there are great expanding steel reservoirs all around the World. It is easily conceivable that these could be replicated for the purposes of holding hydrogen.
As was seen when the Hindeburg went down, Hydrogen burns.
When it is burnt it combines with Oxygen in the air to produce water vapour.
It is not beyond the realms of either possibility or imagination to use Solar power to divide water into Hydrogen and Oxygen to then produce power when demand outstrips Solar base load supply.
What is lacking is the will to invest in such a long term project which can not compete with burning brown coal since the full cost of brown coal is never charged to the providers and the consumers.

By: Greg Atkinson

Greg Atkinson — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:16:08 +0000

Some governments are throwing money at alternative/renewable energy. Here in Japan one of the key areas the government wants to direct economic stimulus money at is towards the development of alternative energy technology including the next generation of nuclear reactors.

By: thingy

thingy — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:02:09 +0000

The big question is why aren't governments throwing money at sustainable renewable energy like this? The amount of money that has been thrown in as bail-outs and wars would make the sum quite insignificant.
I'd really like to know.

By: Pat Donnelly

Pat Donnelly — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:07:22 +0000

Bond Thanks that was good!
There are also problems with radioactive elements encountered but most are not water soluble and pale beside coal which releases colossal radioactivity when burned. The possibility of earth movements exists but in the long term, releasing them is better for stability, even in Australia. We need more, smaller earthquakes.
The chemical contamination is a worry as there will be arsenides and such and pumping them back into the ground seems irresponsible, so extraction may have to pay for itself.
The real problem is that a small explosion risk exists and siting is easiest far from cities. Few Australian cities are suitable sites as they are on the coast and generally "cooler". Victoria should be good. Compared to the distances for transmitting coal fuelled electricity it is probably similar. Probably won't compete with brown coal tho?

By: Greg Atkinson

Greg Atkinson — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:14:33 +0000

"It's not rocket science." I love it with lawyers dabble in technology...like they would know anything about rocket science anyway Yes Byron, the development of technology is easy, you just give things a tweak...oh my...you scare me.