Write to your MP about... Concentrated Solar Power
The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
Write to your MP about... Concentrated Solar Power
Well for the first time ever I've decided to write to my MP via http://www.writetothem.com/ although I can't say that I'm that hopeful of receiving a response.
ive become a bit skeptical of renewable energy schemes,
as its argued some dont recover the energy it takes to build them, but this might be promising, its a bit like the film sahara where they had a field of mirrors pointing at a tower wich melted stuff. suposedly photovoltaic cells made from silicon wafers arnt likely to generate the energy used to make them, good only if you not near a local electric system.
amorphous silicon is less efficient but takes far less energy to produce, the thing to watch out for is plastic solar cells ! theyr actualy called polymer semiconductor. they not very efficient but they recoup the energy needed to make them very quickly.
the distribution system is also a quite an investment, my idea would be to put all the industries wich need a lot of heat eg, smelting and foundries etc as part of a CSP system.
its a bit like the film sahara where they had a field of mirrors pointing at a tower wich melted stuff. suposedly photovoltaic cells made from silicon wafers arnt likely to generate the energy used to make them, good only if you not near a local electric system.
I think I remember reading a while ago about Australia doing a solar tower - all the mirrors and such focusing the sun to a specific point. Is something to do with melting salt or salt water or something like that to generate the heat needed to produce electricity... The exact mechanics of it escape me atm >.<
yeah the heat is focused to melt sodium, not salt wich is sodium chloride, but the actual metal, liquid sodium is also used to cool nuclear reactors, its capable of transfering a lot of energy at high temperatures, it then goes to heat up water to make steam wich drives the steam turbines wich drives the generators etc... quite what they do when it all cools down and solidifies puzzles me a bit however ... maybe they have heaters wich liquify it again.
The pricniple of focused sunlight is quite simple and has been around ages, why are they only thinking of this now I wonder.
theres also convection towers, water is sprayed into the top of a very high tower wich cools the air wich then falls down inside the tower creating a very strong air current, they have to be very very high to be efficient though, the power comes from the sun heating up the air outside the tower, im not sure if this has actualy been built or is just theory.
Im stil in favour of sea bed wave power generators, the amount of energy available per km of wave can be very high, as its collected from the wind blowing over the sea and so is proportional to the width of the sea and if theyr on the sea bed can be totaly unobtrusive.
Sea bed based power has serious cost implications, plus there's a lot more life down there than we tend to think. Three quarters of the oxygen is generated by algae in the oceans so we should think twice about messing about too much with it.
Underground electric cables are something like 10x the cost of overhead lines, and submarine ones are even more expensive. So the cost of 20 miles of submarine cable could well be enough to get a overhead line across most of Britain.
One of the main benefits of CSP is that because it heats a salt/oil/etc. to very high temperatures is that its possible to store this heat and generate electricity even when the sun isn't shining.
you have to be carefull when you talk about 'cost', it will often be monetarily cheaper to use gas wich comes out of the ground under pressure, and if renewable energy seriously competes with oil then oil price wil fall anyway.
what needs to be considered with renewable energy sources is the energy cost and how quickly the plant generates the amount of energy required to build it.
for example marine cables are more expensive but how much of that extra expense is due to energy costs or maybe man power costs to wind more duck tape around it ?
The type of sea bed energy generator would not be so far from shore, as it can only function in water between certain depths, also the australian sea bed technolgy uses simple water pipes to transfer the energy. the power in the pumped water can then be put to numerous uses, drive generators or force water through desalination plant.
the oxygen generated by marine life is mainly microscopic plancton wich live a few meters below the oceans surface.
it might displace a few crabs I would gues. Idealy they could be made so they are effectivly just a simple platform on the bed wich goes up and down with the waves and any sea life could restablish itself on top. hopefully they would also be unobtrusive to recreational users too, as they would always be submerged.
The main difficulty is the severe environment wich is a problem wich may not yet be solved. but the numbers look attractive, the UK has plenty of potential energy around its shoreline to provide its needs.
As I have said there are so many dodgy claims made about renewable energy that without some independant technical review im only half inclined to beleive it.
ive become a bit skeptical of renewable energy schemes, as its argued some dont recover the energy it takes to build them, but this might be promising
I'm no expert on renewable energy sources, or the dynamics of how they work for that matter, but the one thing that strikes me about it is this:
Renewable energy = permanent
Fossil fuels = running out
Nuclear power = Another Chernobyl waiting to happen. (not an option in my mind)
Fusion Power = not developed enough yet.
Renewable power is a long term thing, it may not pay for itself straight away, but sooner or later it would cover it's own costs. Providing power shouldn't be about making profits in my opinion, it should be about covering costs, while providing the cleanest, most reliable, renewable energy available.
I still cant for the life of me figure out why they can't come up with some viable clean version of a rubbish burning power station, something which eats rubbish and puts out power, without the pollution. It would get rid of the rubbish problem this country has, it is renewable and it would provide power. They do have a couple up and running in this country, but the pollution and small from them are apparently pretty bad at the moment.
Nuclear power aint the way forward in my opinion that's for certain, yet it seems to be the way that the government wants to go.
Oh and to reply to the original point of the topic, yes i've contacted local MPs more than once about various issues, but have never recieved so much as a courtesy reply. I think it depends on the area you live in as to whether these politicians bother to get their aides to reply to you or not. My latest one was actually regarding recycling, because in my area, they paid out a fortune on like 2 million recycle bins for every house in this area and now they are threatening to only collect rubbish once a fortnight to go along with it, yet when you bother to put your paper out to be recycled, the council doesn't take it and when you phone the council, they basically call you a liar and say that the they were in the area and did collect, even though there has been times i've stood there and tried to actually flag the wagon down by hand and yet they still drive straight past.
In my area of Nottingham they already only collect rubbish once a fortnight.
Even nuclear power needs fuel and in the case of nuclear fission that's uranium which I believe is not exactly going to last a long time especially if we build lots of plants all over the world.
Thorium, or something like that, is another potential source but I understand that plutonium is a by product from using that so unlikely to be popular with the US of A.
Our government often talks about security of supply, but the only fuel we have left in any quantity is coal. The most polluting fossil fuel. Really security of supply is only going to be possible if we go 100% renewable.
On the dodge claims front, its my understanding that wind powered turbines on your home maybe a complete waste of money, which would be better spent on a larger turbine sited on a wind farm. Something to do with power output being the square of wind speed and blade area, hence making large turbines in windy areas enormously more efficient.
Well my local MP's Tony Blair so doubt writing to him would be of much help. (would take forever to get replied to)
We had the exact same problem the other week Det, the stupid van just drove past our street, we phones the council and they said they had been. They promised they would do another collection two days later but never turned up. What makes it worse is they only collect once every two weeks, my dads a recycling nut and we have **** loads of stuff to be recycled. This coupled with the stupidly high winds we had the other week ended up with rubbish all over the street. Would have been avoided if they had bothered to do their job in the first place.
you could try writting to your local elected council members or whatever they are called, its probably more directly to do with them, as its a council issue not a parlimentry one. fortunatly our rubbish collection here is excellent, and has been for as long as I can remember.
Just wait your bin will end up being empty ever 2 weeks eventually I would suspect. I believe councils have a duty to increase recycling and it doesn't make sense to collect half empty bins. A great way to avoid your bin smelling is to get a composting bin or wormery to put food waste in.
Well no sign of a response yet, but it would appear that people having been thinking of how to store/smooth out the inherent peeks/troughs in renewable power using fly wheels.
Looks like most of the technology is out there, just we need the political will to push it forward even if it means increased energy costs in the short/long term.
I'd expect to get an answer if you wrote to Tony Blair, although it obviously most likely to be wrote be an aide instead.
our local parish council has set up a yahoo group and its usualy totally quiet, however when something crops up theres usualy a lot of activity and something usualy gets done by a councellor or something, if there was any problem with the rubbish I would imagine there would be a lot of hassle thrown their way in a short space of time.
nuclear power needs fuel and in the case of nuclear fission that's uranium which I believe is not exactly going to last a long time especially if we build lots of plants all over the world.
There won't be lots of nuke power stations all across the world because the technology is too close to nuclear weapons, so those of us who know how it works would be incredibly irresponsible if we told maniacs how it works. There is enough uranium in Australia alone to power the few elite countries who can use it for millions of years. Nuclear fusion could produce endless power within 50 years.
But thumbs up to your silly inefficient hippy mirrors anyway.
But thumbs up to your silly inefficient hippy mirrors anyway.
They may not be that efficient at the moment but even so covering just a reasonable percentage of desert area in a single African country would produce enough electricity for the whole of Europe.
Search for "uranium shortage" in google, from the results I don't think there's anywhere near millions of years more like a few hundred at best.
Write to your MP about... Concentrated Solar Power
Linear Mode
