Via GBM I find Statkrafts plans for osmosis power plants. An interesting idea and entirely new to me.
Statkraft are a bit coy about the costs. This chap says its too expensive now (I don't know if thats true, its only there for balance).
Official Comment Count: 1,031,328
Taking science by the throat...
I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. More...
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Tank Man | Main | The boring truth »
Category: climate fuels
Posted on: October 9, 2007 5:01 PM, by William M. Connolley
Via GBM I find Statkrafts plans for osmosis power plants. An interesting idea and entirely new to me.
Statkraft are a bit coy about the costs. This chap says its too expensive now (I don't know if thats true, its only there for balance).
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Meanwhile,
the concentration of greenhouse gases has probably crossed 450 ppm CO2 eqv.:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ji18lPpTcmkbLlayqCSS3kygCvrwD8S5K5NG0
Posted by: Alexander Ac | October 9, 2007 7:39 PM
Dear William,
I one comment to Tamino's blog you wrote that one should not attribute this year's (whole) decrease in the arctic floating ice, because climate models do not predict so. I fully agree. But let me give an example.
We have an exceptionaly dry year in e.g. Siberia, partly contributed by clim. change. Huge amount of soot will be blown to Greenland ice sheet. The ice will get darker and the melting can be dramatically speeded up (I think this already happened in the past). One can say that this is not what climate models predicted, so this should not be attributed to climate change. Right?
But I guess, these kind of "unexpected" events (or non-linearities) could (should?) become more probable with further warming. Some peole say, that high uncertainty (or high variability of weather/climate in the past) should be reason for inaction. I think just the opposite. If we don't (exactly) know, it is a reason for caution...
Best,
Posted by: Alexander Ac | October 10, 2007 8:05 AM