Alternative Complacency II

Part I is here…

I thought I’d best do a bit of a follow up and actually take a look at what’s available by way of alternatives and what’s being done to make them viable.

I’ve talked a lot about solar and hydrogen fired power generation but that’s not all there is out there. These however, are simply my preferred option, mostly because I think that they are probably the most advanced, but we’re also exploring the auspices of geothermal energy as well.

I’ve also talked about cost, the economy and how I think it’s time we spent some of our hard earned in order to make something else pay. I also talked about the coal and uranium industries and the people that they support. There is no doubt in my mind, that if we were to somehow find an alternative solution overnight, which is not likely, the demise of the coal industry alone would spell economic disaster for this country. The uranium industry isn’t subject to quite the same peril. Uranium is also required to make isotopes and many other things, which is how Lucas Heights makes it’s money, but rationalisation is a real enough issue.

So now that that’s all out of the way, let’s take a look at some simple facts:

1. Being extremely conservative, it’s a fact that enough energy shines on Australia in one sunny week to power the nation for a year or more.
2. Hydrogen + Oxygen = energy and water.
3. Both energy sources are 100% clean.

Ok, that was easy so now for some tricky bits and there’s a few, so I’ll be concentrating on solar in this one and hydrogen in part 3:

1. Currently, the very best terrestrial based photovoltaic flat cell technology is only about 32.5% efficient. That means a maximum power generation of about 175W/m² - approx.
2. The sun doesn’t shine at night so you’ll need to store some of that energy.

Let’s break that down again:

1. A single 175W solar panel will cost you about $1500 and will yield, on a sunny day, 24VDC with a max power output of 4.95A @ 35.4V, so you’ll need quite a few.

We don’t really need to go much further than that, but we will. At peak efficiency, you’ll need a number of these things to run a 1000 watt electric stove. I only have a smallish one and it takes 1800W. Then there’s the fridge and all the lights, not mention the tele, the washing machine and the dryer. The average home uses about 30kW a day. If you want to work out how much you use, it’s on your bill in kilowatt hours (kW/h). Just average it out over your billing period.

2.  Batteries for storage.

Currently, there isn’t really any battery out there that will run your house for a night, including the electric stove and other appliances, unless you have an industrial sized UPS installed. The average tele for instance, that only goes into standby mode uses a constant 20 – 30W before it's switched on. Admitedly, my UPS at work will run my three phased computer room for about half an hour. That sort of energy should just about get me through an entire night at home, but then the batteries will need to be recharged. Then there's the little problem of commercial sized UPS systems costing anywhere up to hundreds of thousands and there's the issue of batteries needing to be replaced and disposed of or recycled every 2 years. The batteries are not only seriously expensive but are full of seriously toxic chemicals.

So what all that means is that at present, a self sufficient solar powered house simply isn’t an option unless you’ve got a cool million or so to outlay for the infrastructure you’ll require, and at least as much again invested to pay for the new batteries and the disposal of the old. That said though, it was only two or three years ago that you needed a cool two or three million, so I guess things are looking up.

That doesn’t mean that solar technology cannot make a valuable and significant contribution though. Multijunction flat cell technology that collects only the light that falls on it isn’t to efficient, but if you build a parabolic collector and focus it on a 0.25m² piece of the same material, you can generate about 30kW which is enough to power a number of homes. Now that’s impressive, but it still suffers from a serious lack of performance when the sun goes down.

That said however, there is currently a major project taking place in Victoria that uses exactly this technology, but on a much larger scale. Both the federal and Victorian governments have contributed quite heavily to it which is a good sign in my opinion. As you can see there, the plan calls for a 154mW (megawatt) power station that will contribute to the national grid. That my friends, is a significant contribution and will be the most significant solar contribution in the world once it’s completed. The boon here is that it helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuel technology.

The CSIRO’s National Solar Energy Centre also provides a fantastic facility that is used to demonstrate various solar technologies. The major showpiece however, is a little different to the one above. Rather than collect and concentrate light onto a photovoltaic cell, it collects and concentrate the sun’s energy, but it uses the heat to make stream and turn turbines.

The installation at that link is a demonstration only and can power only about 100 homes. Seems to me that it’s not quite as efficient as the one above, but this technology has a dual use in that it can also be used to desalinate sea water, but that’s a separate issue. The main issue here is that once again, when the sun goes down, it’s ability to keep powering those homes is seriously diminished. That doesn’t change the fact that a larger plant like this could also make a significant contribution in helping to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and could also help address our water issues. Trouble is that Dr. David Mills has taken his company and this technology offshore and is only leaving a small project behind, mores’ the pity. My guess is that Solar Heat and Power Pty. Ltd. didn’t get the funding because Solar Systems™ got it instead. This is a technology that has serious merit though and is being seriously considered in Europe (Germany mostly) and America(well, only in California, but you get the idea).

So what’s the answer to darkness? Well in my opinion it’s hydrogen but we’ll cover that in part 3.

Well, I hope that helps show some of the pros and cons of solar energy. But as you can see from the links scattered throughout, the technology required is still in it’s infancy at about 30 years or so. What we need is an interim measure that’s clean enough to buy us the time we need. The only serious CO₂ reducers we have are CO₂ sequestration (or “Clean Coal”) or nuclear and of those two, only nuclear is really ready to be used now. I do hope we can make sequestration viable though, because nuclear seems to me to be a little more permanent than interim, if you know what I mean…

10:35 PM - 13/2/2007 - post comment

Untitled Comment

I've just read your last couple of posts, Plonka. Nice work, as usual. I wish I had the time to research everything properly, but I rarely do. I haven't followed all of the links that you've provided yet, but you've covered much of what I eventually wanted to. I too, wanted to bring to light the negatives as well as the positives for our alternatives. There is no use touting a particular process if you don't also acknowledge the problems one might occur. If you don't find the dents you can't fix the problem. I think most of us really do want to go for a safe option that's both people-friendly and won't harm the environment, but it's NOT all as easy as that. We will need to see all of the picture to find answer... not just the pretty parts that certain others would like us to see.

Once again, good post.

tinacee - 10:59 AM - 15/2/2007

Both sides

Thanks Tina. It is very important that we bring all the negatives to light. It's the only way to make an informed opinion.

All sides seem to have their own agenda with this and as you say, the media only every seems to paint us an ideal image of what we'd like, not what we have or adversely, how soon we're all gonna die because we killed the planet.

What's important however, is what can and can't actually do. I'm sure there's more out there though, I didn't even look at the geothermal project in QLD yet, so get writing Tina, there's heaps to be covered off.

Thanks again...:)

plonka - 11:33 AM - 15/2/2007

Well put together, Plonka.

A couple of picky niggles with a couple of things, but a definite tick.

It is my opinion that solar will always be a supplemental supply to a secure supply, because it is severely limited by not only darkness, but also rainy days. I can't ever see the storage problem being overcome for that reason.

I'll be looking forward to your hydrogen post. I'd be interested to know the input energy required to produce the hydrogen as against the output energy produced by the separated hydrogen. Before next Thursday would be nice, as I'll be in New Zealand for a month after that. Ta.

I had a bit of a look around at geothermal, but it looks a long way off, if ever. It seems that it is not strictly speaking "renewable", as it does "cool down" the surrounding area in hot rocks anyway.

snowy - 12:59 PM - 15/2/2007

Feels like I'm back

At school Snowy...:) Still, it has been a bit of a learning curve. Next Thursday? No extentions?

But NZ do some pretty amazing hydro, as we do too. I could make that part 4 if you can collect me some info on your excursion. But then, you already know more about the Snowies scheme than I ever will...:)

Although solar energy can only ever be a significant contributor while the sun is shining, storage has come a long way and besides, hybrid solar/hydrogen is my preference, as you've probably already worked out...

But when I started in IT 20 years ago, the best any corporation I worked for could afford was a power conditioner to smooth out the spikes and troughs. 15 years ago our HUGE UPS kept things running for 30sec. while the generator cut in. 10 years ago 7mins. right through to now, about 30mins. Never say never Snowy, there's been a definite pattern here with an upgrade about ever 5 years. A little to regular for my taste, but I do love a conspiricy...:)

plonka - 1:28 PM - 15/2/2007

The Right fights back

I see where my favourite columnist Andrew Bolt is doing his utmost to discredit Tim Flannery, who, by the way, is not saying that coal exports should cease, as he thinks some parts of the world may be more suitable for clean coal than others. He also sees a future for geothermal in Oz but in the distant future.

Is Bolt a Victorian? If so, please deal with him, Plonka.

And sorry, no extensions. The plane is booked,

And can you tell me of any UPS systems capable of running a 1,000 hp motor for even 30 secs?


Edited by snowy on 14/2/2007 at 10:24 PM

snowy - 3:31 PM - 15/2/2007

Bolt

Yes, I'm afraid so. Sometimes he's not so bad, especially on religion, but when it comes to the environment, he's as blind as can be. Although, he does turn up some pretty decent research occasionally. Usually obscure, but well thought out science. But once he gets on his neo-con high horse he tends to lose the plot a bit. He's never answered one of my missives, and he's had plenty to choose from.

The UPS is only there to provide time to get the 1000hp motor running and generating electricity. But no, I don't...yet... But that wasn't really my point. The point is that given unlimited resources (at the moment) I can power my house with batteries for a night. We need to turn that into a fortnight at least and make it cheap before it's viable, that's all...

Ok then, before Thursday it is...

Edited by plonka on 15/2/2007 at 2:22 AM

plonka - 7:32 PM - 15/2/2007

But domestic is only 30% of total demand

If renewable is to be viable it needs to provide for industrial load also. In other words, stop trying to evade the real issues.

There, that should fire you up for another bike ride. You are still into that nonsense, aren't you? Heh, heh, heh...

snowy - 8:44 PM - 15/2/2007

Back from the Melb Conversations

Firstly, a quick comment on the Geo-thermal. I have no idea how far along the track they are but the idea of the Earth's core running out of energy is a long way off. I think we can safely assume we will have destroyed ourselves by the time the rocks go cold.

I think Tinacee would have really enjoyed the Melbourne Conversations. Dr Richard Denniss gave an example of how much effort is spent heating domestic water. It's a hell of a process. From the extraction of the coal to the generation to the transmission to finally heating the water to a temperature where you have to add cold to stand under it. The amount of losses along the way is quite depressing.

Compare that with throwing a solar water heater on the roof and using gravity th run a shower. It sounds so much more sensible when you think about the comparison. When I lived in Perth in the 70's one of my RAAF mates had solar and it only drew down from the grid one or two days a year and that is 30 year old technology.

Now before anyone starts asking about running Alcoa or such like, I'm thinking about relieving the pressure from the grid by lowering domestic usage.I am at a loss as to why we aren't lowering household usage and starting the savings from there.

According to the stats, 30% of domestic usage is for hot water. And 20 % of overall power generation is domestic. Under "old math" that's a touch over 6%. If that isn't a sensible option for stopping a brown out in Melbourne then I'll go He.

I'm with Snowy on Andrew Bolt. He blew his cred when he couldn't back up his claim of links between Osama and Bin Laden. He got caught red handed by Tony Jones on Lateline. He further damaged his rep when he tried to discredit "An inconvienient Truth". His data was out of date but he never retracted so that moves him from Commentator to Spin Doctor. One rung above an Economic Rationalist.

petermcc - 9:08 PM - 15/2/2007

We're not evading

The issues here. If you can't have a solar powered home Snowy, what hope is there for industry? I'm just starting at the bottom and working my way up...:)

And it's not nonsense, it's science. I now have a mag trainer. All I need is a coil and I'll be able to power my tele while I train. I can easily generate about 150W when I'm riding (when climbing a hill - the goal there is to be good enough to join the "300W Club" but there's not much hope of that with these legs). So I'm just doing my bit and researching my own alternative...

There. That should provide me with the excuse I need to get the new bits I want for my bike...:)

plonka - 10:24 AM - 16/2/2007

Hot water

Is a good start Pete, but it has one drawback. We couldn't afford to install it when we built the house, so we have gas hot water which is sooo much cheaper than electric.

Pity I couldn't get in there last night though, I would have enjoyed that and probably would have learnt something. Oh well....

I should qualify here as well. I also have a gas stove with an electric oven (gas is best for cook tops, electricity is best for constant and stable temprature). And it's just my oven that uses 1800W. I'd hate to think what that ramps up to when you add an electric hotplate to do the vegies...

As to geo-thermal, we've been digging very deep holes and letting the heat out for quit a while now. In fact, there are bits of Olympic damn that are so deep as to be unworkable by men because of the heat. I'm not sure our pitiful little species has the ability to cool it right off and kill the planet, but if anyone can, it'll be us.

Some idiot even wanted to drill deeper than 20km to see what happens if you drill right through the crust and into the next layer. He was stopped, thankfully....

plonka - 10:53 AM - 16/2/2007

Hot rock cooling down

This was the source of my hot rock cooling down comment.

http://www.sustainable.energy.sa.gov.au/pages/advisory/renewables/types/geothermal/geothermal.htm:sectID=21&tempID=52

Q Is geothermal energy really a renewable resource?
A Geothermal energy is a renewable resource in that the heat generated in the earth will still be around for millions of years. Some of the heat in the earth comes from the sun which will also continue to burn for billions of years.

However when you consider a localised area on the earth being used to produce geothermal energy, it is possible to 'cool' it down or use up all the heat. In this case, geothermal energy can be considered to be 'sustainable' if the amount of heat being taken away is equal to the amount naturally replenished (eg by heat given off during radioactive decay of elements in the crust). Unfortunately, where geothermal power is being used, this is often not the case. Currently, all major geothermal power production plants in the world are effectively 'mining' heat from the earth.

snowy - 12:19 PM - 16/2/2007

Excellent link Snowy

I have been working on the theory that Geo-thermal was based on volcanic vents rather than the Hot Rock process. If they are just dicking around on stored energy then it's much lower energy than I was thinking about. It would seem to have miles to go before it's a serious contender. What a pity.

Something that doesn't get a mention that I thought was the major cause of heat part way down to the core is Continental Drift. Earthquakes must generate huge amounts of heat with all the friction generated. Perhaps it's only a minor contributor?

In answer to your question Snowy, no, it's not renewable if they are only using Hot Rocks.

Hey Ted. One area that worried me last night was the $$ values quoted. A claim was made that renovations should have to include solar if the reno total was over $20,000. The theory being that it would only add another $1000. That sounds a bit light to me. I think it will cost me around $1,500 to solar power a mobile home if we decide to go nomad but perhaps I'm not comparing like for like. I think the caravan also covers cooking and TVs.

petermcc - 3:41 PM - 16/2/2007

Out of the pot...

I don't think you're really comparing like with like Pete. I wouldn't have thought your solar caravan would have an electric cooker or water heater, if it has a water heater. If you get a microwave make sure it's one with a mechanical timer. The electric ones never actually turn off and use a constant 10W min (I think 11.4 was the lowest I found). It's the running of the heating element that does the damage, as Snowy keeps reminding me because it's a high drain application. A fridge is a pittence by comparrison and a kettle is bad enough. Besides, your caravan has a built in fossil fuel powered generator up front in case the sun doesn't shine...:)

When we built three years ago, a decent unit, and by that I mean one that works, was going to cost about $15,000. You need about 5 meters of photvoltaic cell (currently about $1500 for 1 meter which is much cheaper than we were looking) for a start, so $1000, unless it's heavily subsidised is a tad unrealistic I think.

What you say about techtonic friction is true enough, but all that takes place in the magma layer under the cust. So if you're thinking about drilling through the crust to get to all the heat, I for one would be a little nervous. Where the earth's crust cracks, we get volcanoes.

Thanks again for that link Snowy. I knew there was a reason I didn't even think about it until I started writing this one. Well, that and the bake you gave me last time I brought it up...:)

But you're right, it's not renewable at all. I guess the sun isn't either really, we've just got no choice but to have that energy whether we like it or not...

plonka - 5:26 PM - 16/2/2007

Geothermal

I wasn't really trying to make a point about whether hot rock was renewable or not; just airing my new found knowledge. ;o) It may be a goer one day, but it seems quite a way down the track yet. And yet Bob Brown speaks of it as available now. And that is what really annoys me more than anything. The confident assertion that renewable is an alternative energy source, when it's not.

The economical case for using domestic solar is doubtful, as the payback periods are longer than the life of the device in many cases. For those who want to make their contribution to greenhouse emission reduction, then they are worth consideration, I suppose, but in global terms it's insignificant. Peter's estimate about the contribution of solar hot water seems about right to me. There is a house a few doors down from us. I'd guess it's about 20 years since it was built. They are on their third solar hot water system. We're on our second off peak hot water system in the same time. The cost difference is $9,000 v $1,200. I doubt the savings in energy costs are there.

snowy - 9:19 PM - 16/2/2007

No saving

Definitely not at the moment. It is a fair bit cheaper than three years ago when I was looking, so I guess you never know what we may see in another 5 or so...

I know I'm all pesemistic about the amount of research dollars solar gets but really, it's getting more now than it ever has in the past, so time will tell...

plonka - 11:47 PM - 16/2/2007

This has been a very educational stream

I've got another question on sequestration. (Well 3 as it turns out).

What is the chemical formula that gets created when sequestration occurs? How different is it from what gets pulled out in the first place? If we are effectively using Hydrogen or some other gas, is there are more efficient method of gaining it?

petermcc - 4:59 PM - 18/2/2007

All good

Questions Pete. They will be answered, along with a couple more in either the next or the one after.

I was thinking about doing a seperate one on sequestration as well, so now that you've asked "ze qvestions", I guess I'd better...:)

plonka - 8:08 PM - 18/2/2007

Remind me not to go off-line for so long next time.

I can't keep up with you guys. But there's definitely a few things that I'd like to respond to here.

Firstly, Snowy... you've said that domestic use accounts for only 30% of total use... isn't that a good number to start with? 30% of our use... that's a lot of electricity... and a lot of coal. Why shouldn't that saving be a good start... and telling us that we can't start unless we can account for every iota of usage is just not good enough. Where do we start in that case? At the ending?
And technically geo-thermal is not a renewable source... the heat can dissipate... but it still is an alternative source with a much lower impact on the environment than either of the options that we're being force-fed at the moment. As for the viability of alternative power plants... I'm researching at the moment. There are currently quite a few working alternative plants in the world, including thermal, wind, solar... etc. I'll find some references for a not too distant post.
Now... energy savings from Solar hot water... a friend of ours' electricity bill fell from around $300 per quarter to just $75 per quarter with a solar hot water system... I dunno, but I think that's a pretty decent saving. Couple that with the 'I like me' factor of knowing that you've saved at least a few chunks of coal from being burned, and it becomes even more valuable. It's a start at least, eh?

To Peter... you've made some very good points here. When it comes to heating water, there are so many alternatives that we can already use, but many people are complacent and lazy. For example, a camping solar shower is simply a black plastic bag. You leave it in the sun and it warms the water. There is no need to generate that heat. The same concept can be applied to houses... although most wouldn't bother because of the hassle... and the times when the sun doesn't shine. I think I've already written somewhere around here about the old digger with the black plastic poly piping on his roof. It did him quite well. When it rained he heated the water on his stove. Not quite the easy fix of simply turning on a tap, but it did the job. If we could all do little things like this it would at least relieve the problem a bit and perhaps give us a little more breathing space.

And Plonka... solar does cost a lot at the moment. And I guess in a way it's in the govt.'s best interest to keep it that way. John Howard certainly has his own agenda on the power thing... have you noticed that he all but denies that solar technology even exists... yet he doesn't mind traipsing out into the ring with some other alternative source to pick apart. But... if the solar option is out of reach, price wise, installing a gas stove is a good way to start. I don't understand why more people don't use them. There are many, many other things that people can do too. Things that CAN be done now.

And to all the rest of you out there who think it's fine to sit on your butts until someone else gives you a difinitive answer... Do you really want to know the answer to all of this? Really? Because the answer is simple... get off your butts and stop making excuses for your complacency. You can all do your bit. You don't need someone else to come and wipe the snot off your noses for you. You have answers but you won't take them. Tree-hugging greenies have been trying to tell the world what's happening for years now... and the things that we CAN do about it right now... today. But now that it's almost too late, all you can do is blame the greenies for not fixing it already. And of course none of it is ever your fault... while your cars spew out co2... while your porch light is on all night... while you happily snooze in front of the blaring telly... while you complain that it wasn't your fault so it's not up to you to fix it. It's all too hard, isn't it?

More than anything... society is the thing that needs to change to make this possible. That and people's attitudes.

End of rant... for now.

tinacee - 12:23 PM - 19/2/2007

Nice one...:)

You've hit the nail right on the head Tina. That's why I called it "Alternative Complacency" and not "Alternative Energy". There's far to much of it.

The economics that you mention concerning the solar hot water system was my problem. With a $75 saving per quarter it would have taken me 50 years to recoup the cost but they are only guaranteed for 25 years. That's because that's the effective lifespan of the solar cells, so at the moment you're always behind.

Trouble is though that sales is what will drive the cost down. It's a catch-22 at the moment. But then I never thought the price of an X-Box would drop as fast as it did.

plonka - 12:44 PM - 19/2/2007

Why shouldn't that saving be a good start... and telling us that we can't start unless we can account for every iota of usage is just not good enough

I don't mind responding to comment that I've made, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time by responding to comments that I haven't made, such as the above.

Nothing that I've said should discourage anyone from doing whatever they want to contribute to greenhouse gas emission. So, go for it, Tina. Nothing like leading by example.

snowy - 12:53 PM - 19/2/2007

Not a $75 saving...

A $225 per quarter saving. Their bill fell to $75.

I don't know how it worked out that way either... I did the sums based on the 30% savings that are predicted and... I don't know. All I know is the fact is that $75 per quarter is now the average of their bill.

Regardless, it's still an expensive venture. It puts people off, and as you say, sales are exactly what will drive the prices down. I wonder how much they actually cost to produce?... as opposed to what they charge us to buy them? I've heard that the profit margin is phenomenal, so I wonder how much the prices could realistically drop? And I wonder what would happen if they were priced more competitively? Or if there were government rebates available? What if they were acceptably within the REALISTIC price range of, say, 50% of all home builders? I do believe that most of them would take the option.

And yes... if the x-box hadn't dropped in price by now... there'd have been a super nerd riot-fest all over the country... hell, it'd have been WWIII. But that's typical too, isn't it? An x-box is a want... something to be coveted and prized... something to protect with our very lives. Our planet is a need... but all too often all we hear on the issue is 'the problem's too big for me to worry about, so who cares?'

You know, I've got better things to do with my time too. I would prefer not to have to waste my time telling people that they're being hard-headed or selfish. And trust me, I've been at the place where I'm just about to throw MY hands up in the air and say 'oh well'. I'm a little tired of being told that I have NO answers, when it's other people who refuse to see... that's all.

BTW Snowy... I never actually said that you did say that, it was a rhetorical question... however... by saying that solar is not a good option because it can't accommodate the industrial load, you could almost be construed as suggesting that. My point is that every little bit counts.

If every one of the 20 billion odd people on this planet carried one grain of sand, pretty soon a beach would be born.

tinacee - 1:18 PM - 19/2/2007

Solar HWS rebates

Labor governments in Queensland have been giving $500 solar HWS rebates for years. Ironically, it was removed by the National Party Government that came to power.........on the strength of Green preferences, and restored when Labor returned to power. Now the Greens are talking about directing preferences away from Labor again. So much for Greens credibility.

I didn't comment on the solar HWS savings of Tina's friend because it has been my experience that these claims are sometimes exaggerated by advocates anxious to justify the outlay of $3,000. However, a $225 saving may have been possible if the HWS thrown out was defective and leaking water as sometimes happens. But to then claim that they are getting this saving every quarter because of solar is cheating just a little.

BTW Tina, I didn't say "that solar is not a good option because it can't accommodate the industrial load" either.



Edited by snowy on 18/2/2007 at 10:00 PM

snowy - 1:53 PM - 19/2/2007

$3000

Does that buy you a hot water service that'll feed a young family of four? I ask because when we were looking, to feed our needs (wants?) we needed to go for a large one. We ended up with a medium sized gas jobbie though.

In Vic. we can get a $1500 rebate. I might have to have another look at this if $3000 can buy a decent water heater...

plonka - 11:07 PM - 19/2/2007

Haven't priced them lately

$3,000 was the price years ago when I was an energy Advisory Officer. $1,500 is a good rebate. May be better to wait until your gas one needs replacing though.

But doesn't it rain all the time in Melbourne? ;o)

snowy - 7:42 AM - 20/2/2007

Not really

It actually rains less down here than it does is Sydney. Well, that's when we're actually getting some rain. Trouble is that they get decent rain over a few weeks whereas we get months of fine mist...

Maybe that's why our rebate is so good. It's Bracksy's way of making the sun shine...:)

plonka - 10:53 AM - 20/2/2007

Ted scores again

Monday's Age has a story about a Geo-thermal experiment in Switzerland that has caused Quakes measuring 3.5 on the Richter scale. It was quite an interesting story.

Currently they are working out who gets charged with what. They drilled past the Plonka comfort zone.

petermcc - 11:08 AM - 20/2/2007

Silly buggers....

Well it looks like I was right about the geothermal thing needing a bit more research. In this case though, especially after all teh warings they had, it seems that just a little forthought may have saved the day...:)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/basel-quake-triggers-crime-probe/2007/02/18/1171733609346.html

Nice one Pete, thanks...:)

plonka - 11:26 AM - 20/2/2007

Interesting comment on Carlos blog

He referred to the letter from Keith de Lacy pointing out that half of total coal exports by volume are for coking coal used in steelworks. There is no alternative to using this. So much for Brown's call to stop all coal exports. And for total reliance on renewable energy.


Edited by snowy on 20/2/2007 at 1:29 PM

snowy - 12:41 PM - 20/2/2007