Recent Comment
Share
In-stream power is getting another shot at commercial viability with a proposed installation in New York City. Verdant Power has applied for regulatory approval for an installation in New York's East River. Research installations have been tried here, as well as in Detroit and Minnesota.
If the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) Project is approved and installed, it would represent the first in-stream power installation connected to the commercial power grid. The project will expand the existing field of 6 full-scale research turbines in the East River to 30 turbines which would provide up to 1 megawatt of electrical power to the grid. RITE will utilize fifth-generation turbines, which Verdant has been developing and improving over the previous decade.
In-stream hydropower is appealing because it is less erratic than wind power, which depends on the weather. Part of Verdant's research has also been to investigate environmental effects of the turbines. Research has shown "no observed evidence of increased fish mortality or injury, nor any irregular bird activity in the project area. The data demonstrate that fish avoid zones of impact with Verdant Power’s system and populate inshore areas." These turbines will be more expensive to install and maintain than wind turbines, but the power can be generated close to the population centers where it will be used.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jimbo, January 07, 2011
-
- +0
-
-
written by Eric, January 07, 2011
I would recommend you to read the [Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security] study by Mark Z. Jacobson.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/PDF files/ReviewSolGW09.pdf
Regarding the relation between nuclear power and CO2 emissions, the study is a compilation of no less than 103 previous studies on that topic. The end result is that on average, nuclear is emitting 24 times more CO2 per KW than wind energy (yes, that's 2400%).
The hidden CO2 in nuclear energy production comes from mining, enrichment, transport and waste disposal as well as construction, operation, and decommissioning of the reactors.
Even not mentioning the intractable problem of storing the nuclear waste, it can't be a good idea.
Ultimately, nuclear is a fossil energy as any other. At the current consumption rate, the uranium will be depleted in around 30 years. Rushing to build many new power plants is financially wrong as the return on investment could never be attained.
I don't say there is an easy solution, but nuclear doesn't make sense environmentally or financially.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Pete, January 08, 2011
As for depletion of uranium reserves. I suspect that your figures have been pulled directly from your nether-regions. It is acknowledged that world supply is sufficient for 250 years at the current rate of consumption. There are huge areas of uranium yielding land which are yet to be exploited, and of course as you probably know, uranium can be extracted from sea water. In fact, most of todays uranium deposits occur in areas which were previously under shallow seas.
In 100 years, we will have nuclear fusion technology to provide power. It is a natural evolution to proceed from nuclear fission to fusion.
-
- -1
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Nuclear power is the only reliable and cheap method of generating green baseload power.