Seen elsewhere

 

Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Binary systems only produce zero carbon dioxide so long as the geothermal waters are returned to the subsurface. If hydrogen sulphide is released so will carbon dioxide. Most of the discussion concerns steam and superheated steam systems. I do not know of an economically successful hot-rock system that has any substantial capacity, and that's all the UK has.

Jul 21, 2017 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

From:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/geothermal-energy/

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

"There are many advantages of geothermal energy. It can be extracted without burning a fossil fuel such as coal, gas, or oil. Geothermal fields produce only about one-sixth of the carbon dioxide that a relatively clean natural-gas-fueled power plant produces. Binary plants release essentially no emissions. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available, 365 days a year. It’s also relatively inexpensive; savings from direct use can be as much as 80 percent over fossil fuels.

But it has some environmental problems. The main concern is the release of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that smells like rotten egg at low concentrations. Another concern is the disposal of some geothermal fluids, which may contain low levels of toxic materials. Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations may cool down."

Jul 21, 2017 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@Entropic man, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:40 PM

For me a fourfold decrease in CO2/MWh is a useful improvement.

As RR said, you are obsessed with the atmospheric trace gas CO2.

Where did the CO2 in fossil fuels come from?

Jul 20, 2017 at 9:54 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

Hmmm… 1941(ish) Metadata and Empirical Breakpoints: 0.49, 2017(ish) Metadata and Empirical Breakpoints: 0.85. You are right; I was wrong… it is closer to 0.4°C. Silly me.

Jul 20, 2017 at 9:13 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

There is no justification for accepting the '21st century temperature rise' as meaningful of anything other than the simple fact that if you start from a low point and end on the downside of a spike you get a positive difference. Big deal.

Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

Radical rodent

Thank you for confirmation that you cannot read a graph. The land Africa change you describe is a lot closer to 1C than your 0.5C.

Jul 20, 2017 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/20/sea-level/

Sea level rises and falls, depending on who measures it, how many years later, and why.

Jul 20, 2017 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

..they (Drax) are looking at converting some coal power plant .to GAS power

Jul 20, 2017 at 6:30 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Draxes profit rose even tho output fell due to "fixed price subsidy contract"
..they are looking at converting some coal power .

Ex head of WWF appointed as non-ex directorplant to gas

Jul 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Interesting, Entropic man (Jul 20, 2017 at 3:50 PM). What is particularly interesting is that only one of the graphs shown (for Africa Land Average) shows any significant increase (0.5°C) in temperatures since the 1940s. I wonder why that should be…

I also wonder what you think of the scientists who have found that 75% of the Earth has NOT warmed in recent decades.

Jul 20, 2017 at 5:14 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>