COMMENTS: 9
Has Europe Found a Way To Replace Fossil Fuels?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The scheme would make the use of renewable energy, particularly wind power, so reliable and cheap that it would replace fossil fuels on an unprecedented scale, serving 1.1 billion people in 50 countries. Europe's 1.25bn tons of annual CO2 output from electricity generation would be wiped out. High-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, up to 100 times as long as the alternating current (AC) cables carried by the National Grid's pylons, would form the system's main arteries. While AC lines are the international standard, they leak energy. HVDC lines are three times as efficient, making them cost effective over distances above 50 miles.
Building the supergrid would require an investment of $80bn (£40bn), plus the cost of the wind turbines -- a fraction of the €1 trillion the EU expects to pay for a 20 percent reduction of its carbon footprint by 2020. The average price of the electricity generated would be just 4.6 euro cents per kWh, competitive with today's rates, which are likely to rise as fossil fuels run out.
Yet while several governments have expressed interest, Britain is not among them, says the scientist behind the proposal. "We have the technical abilities to build such a supergrid within three to five years," said Dr Gregor Czisch, an energy systems expert at the University of Kassel in Germany. "We just need to commit to this big long-term strategy."
Many supporters of renewable energy see it as a small-scale technology, but Dr Gordon Edge of the British Wind Energy Association, said the megaproject was essential. "European policy is only just waking up to this," he said.
The supergrid would draw power from massed turbines in a band of countries to Europe's south and east that have above average wind potential, feeding it to the industrialised centres of Europe. The scale would overcome the biggest obstacle to wind power -- its unreliability. In smaller networks, such as Britain's National Grid, calm weather could cut production to zero. But the supergrid would cover a region so large that the wind would always be blowing somewhere.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hdsolarguy on Dec 6, 2007 10:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For more information, see http://www.terrawatts.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 7, 2007 7:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dunno how'd that work out for EU but in NA, decentralization will be our salvation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: centralization: punch me, mr. terrorist, please punch me
Posted by: monkeywrench
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 8, 2007 1:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen is the achilles heal of this scheme. It
isn't really a "room" temperature superconductor. Any accidental
warming brings the grid to a halt. Energy is required to make
liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen must be cooled to 77 degrees
Kelvin to make it a liquid. The cable has to be insulated its entire
length. The cable also must be physically separated into "out"
and "return" wires, and the force between the 2 wires will be
large. As stated in the article, it won't be cheap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required
Posted by: hdsolarguy
» High voltage direct current
Posted by: PaulK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PROFPETE on Dec 10, 2007 12:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushite avarice knows no bounds
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 10, 2007 10:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we do have, though, is the sun. Lots of it. Damn near all the time in our Mojave Desert. Already SoCalEdison has built two large solar plants there; why can't we massivly increase this number? Holy kilowatt, 10% of that desert covered in solar plants could power the whole western United States, if not more. And, my guess is that the environmental impact would be minimal as well, not much more than an abundance of shade.
In the longer run, every place on Earth has a potential endless energy source right under foot – well, not RIGHT under foot, but a few miles down: the Earth's own interior heat. We already drill oil wells miles deep, down to where it is hot enough to superheat water, so getting there is not a major problem. So, what is? The will to do it. There are plans in the works to build these kinds of test geothermal plants, but the pace to reach meaningful production is glacial for lack of funds. Ditto for a plant operating right now, next to a Butterball Turkey slaughterhouse in Missouri, that can turn any kind of garbage, from chicken feet to plastics, into oil. Not enough funding because the technology, if expanded greatly, could threaten the profits of oil companies.
The technologies to solve most of our greenhouse gas/energy problems exist right now; we just need to act more for the common good like Europeans and invest in them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 13, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right technology is pumped hydroelectric storage plants. Wikipedia names about 100 such plants in the world. They pump water uphill during windy times and let the water back down in slack times.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hdsolarguy on Dec 6, 2007 10:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For more information, see http://www.terrawatts.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 7, 2007 7:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dunno how'd that work out for EU but in NA, decentralization will be our salvation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: centralization: punch me, mr. terrorist, please punch me
Posted by: monkeywrench
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 8, 2007 1:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen is the achilles heal of this scheme. It
isn't really a "room" temperature superconductor. Any accidental
warming brings the grid to a halt. Energy is required to make
liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen must be cooled to 77 degrees
Kelvin to make it a liquid. The cable has to be insulated its entire
length. The cable also must be physically separated into "out"
and "return" wires, and the force between the 2 wires will be
large. As stated in the article, it won't be cheap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required
Posted by: hdsolarguy
» High voltage direct current
Posted by: PaulK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PROFPETE on Dec 10, 2007 12:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushite avarice knows no bounds
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 10, 2007 10:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we do have, though, is the sun. Lots of it. Damn near all the time in our Mojave Desert. Already SoCalEdison has built two large solar plants there; why can't we massivly increase this number? Holy kilowatt, 10% of that desert covered in solar plants could power the whole western United States, if not more. And, my guess is that the environmental impact would be minimal as well, not much more than an abundance of shade.
In the longer run, every place on Earth has a potential endless energy source right under foot – well, not RIGHT under foot, but a few miles down: the Earth's own interior heat. We already drill oil wells miles deep, down to where it is hot enough to superheat water, so getting there is not a major problem. So, what is? The will to do it. There are plans in the works to build these kinds of test geothermal plants, but the pace to reach meaningful production is glacial for lack of funds. Ditto for a plant operating right now, next to a Butterball Turkey slaughterhouse in Missouri, that can turn any kind of garbage, from chicken feet to plastics, into oil. Not enough funding because the technology, if expanded greatly, could threaten the profits of oil companies.
The technologies to solve most of our greenhouse gas/energy problems exist right now; we just need to act more for the common good like Europeans and invest in them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 13, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right technology is pumped hydroelectric storage plants. Wikipedia names about 100 such plants in the world. They pump water uphill during windy times and let the water back down in slack times.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




