Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 11:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/04/2012 20:22, Rod Speed wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
[...]
I actually think we need Nuclear as a bridge between fosil and other
fuels.

There are no other viable fuels.

Apparently, fusion is now only 20 years away - a big advance on the 50
years away it was, umm ... 50 years ago.

Pure speculation on my part, but would it be possible to "fix" the CO2
captured and stored from gas/coal power stations, into methane or even
alcohols using spare electrical power from wind turbines?

bwahaha.

Yes. you would need about 10-15 times the number of turbines as the coal
power stations and the overall effect would be that you had less than no
energy to run the grid.

In short its even worse than just having wind turbines...


So probably the idea will gain great traction in the Limp Dims and
Greens minds.

Along with homeopathy, aromatherapy, crystal gazing and perpetual motion
machines.

The key is the actual energy equations....

wind-electricity-hydrocarbons is less efficient than growing rape seed.

however nuclear-electricity-hydrocarbons is good, because you could in
theory use spare overnight electricity.

And you wouldn't need to burn coal in the first place.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.