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).
Stoat
Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.
Profile
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
Search
Recent Posts
- Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Grauniad hangwringing
- A testable prediction by a nutter
- Cold in Cambridge
- Chris Huhne
- Justice and Injustice
- Black to play
- RFS 9: Kill Hollywood
- Plan 8 from outer space
- I feel dirty
Recent Comments
- Eli Rabett on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Hank Roberts on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Sesli Chat on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Martin Vermeer on Grauniad hangwringing
- The Bishop of Stratocaster on Grauniad hangwringing
- Doug Cotton on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- My personal blog
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
- My view on climate change (Bart)
- Science of Doom
- Timmy
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Tank Man | Main | The boring truth »
Osmosis
Category: climate fuels
Posted on: October 9, 2007 5:01 PM, by William M. Connolley
Find more posts in: 
Environment
EnvironmentTrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/52609
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