And unlike those Goliath's, this one could be quite comfortably distributed in the suburbs... potentially generating (most of) that residential baseload where it's needed.
Remember that the first nuclear reactor was essentially a pile of uranium covered by some graphite bricks that produced "zero" power.
And the first coal fired engines don't really stack up today either...
How many horse power was "The Rocket"?
Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND we don't have to wait for "carbon capture and storage"... I hope the trial is successful.
G'day mates, any chance I could have a little piece of the South Florida franchise? I promise to put a few large shrimp on the barbie for you if you come over for a visit. I'll even throw in a tour of our coral reefs.
"Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND .."
Well, just like Dr. Lovegrove points out above,
It's about manufacturing, the use of steel and glass and not rocket science.
Setting it up and transport are the real real problems.
Meaning that Edison was right all the way. It has to do with breaking the bariers of collecting diffuse energy AND storing it. Right now, collecting is a tick too expensive and storing/transporting it breaks the bank. I've started the Ammonia discussion in other threads and think it will be ONE very good opportunity to store/use solar and wind being produced in Australia or the Sahara/MidEast. There are many brains working on the "problem" right now: http://www.desertec.org/ .
I have a greatly improved way to transport it, but you'll have to wait til I start my own company and publish the patents for that.
Anyone want to give me a couple million start capital for it?
SP enthuses that the technology is "scalable" but Big Gav, the author, says "I agree that there is no detail about storage capacity". So I think SP is premature. Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere. There is probably a reason.
Let's hope we can find some real, scalable solutions to the energy storage need.
And unlike those Goliath's, this one could be quite comfortably distributed in the suburbs... potentially generating (most of) that residential baseload where it's needed.
Remember that the first nuclear reactor was essentially a pile of uranium covered by some graphite bricks that produced "zero" power.
And the first coal fired engines don't really stack up today either...
How many horse power was "The Rocket"?
Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND we don't have to wait for "carbon capture and storage"... I hope the trial is successful.
Anyways... David won!
Nice post Gav.
G'day mates, any chance I could have a little piece of the South Florida franchise? I promise to put a few large shrimp on the barbie for you if you come over for a visit. I'll even throw in a tour of our coral reefs.
"Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND .."
Well, just like Dr. Lovegrove points out above,
Setting it up and transport are the real real problems.
Meaning that Edison was right all the way. It has to do with breaking the bariers of collecting diffuse energy AND storing it. Right now, collecting is a tick too expensive and storing/transporting it breaks the bank. I've started the Ammonia discussion in other threads and think it will be ONE very good opportunity to store/use solar and wind being produced in Australia or the Sahara/MidEast. There are many brains working on the "problem" right now: http://www.desertec.org/ .
I have a greatly improved way to transport it, but you'll have to wait til I start my own company and publish the patents for that.
Anyone want to give me a couple million start capital for it?
All the best, Dom
SP enthuses that the technology is "scalable" but Big Gav, the author, says "I agree that there is no detail about storage capacity". So I think SP is premature. Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere. There is probably a reason.
Let's hope we can find some real, scalable solutions to the energy storage need.
What is the reason?
Yes, I am probably premature in my enthusing, and I should have used the appropriate modifier 'potentially'. But we are talking about a trial.
The argument that becuase "Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere" ... can be used to dismiss anything.
Battery Technology.
Cancer research.
Fusion.