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).
Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine
Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« 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).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/52609
casaubon's book 02.13.2012
denialism blog 02.13.2012
respectful insolence 02.13.2012
evolutionblog 02.12.2012
starts with a bang! 02.11.2012
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