Dave N wrote:
On 14/04/2012 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

[...]

Really? Your condescension notwithstanding, I suspect that Professor
James Liao of UCLA wouldn't necessarily agree with you. His background
and credentials are he-

If he does not then he is a bigger fool than you.

IF one could not OONLY use wind to generate electricity but ALSO to fix
the carbon into fossil fuels to burn and get even MORE energy

...you would have a perpetual motion machine.

Why bother with the windmills? use the coal power stations to generate
electricity to turn their own CO2 back into more coal and oil!

Run that for a century and replace all the fossil fuel in the world with
new stocks!


Simples!


Its so easy to pronounce on scientific matters when you haven't a clue
about science isn't it?



--
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.