harry wrote:
On Apr 14, 2:04 pm, 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-

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~liaoj/

His paper dated 30 March 2012 on the "Integrated Electromicrobial
Conversion of CO2 to Higher Alcohols " can be found, and read in full if
you have an account with "Science", he-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1596.short

Otherwise a summary of his paper can be found in "Science Daily" he-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329171607.htm

--
Dave N- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's right. Called the law of conservation of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_...tion_of_energy

Schoolboy physics. Where were you educated?

Or was he educated at all?


--
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.