They seem to be intent on doing it a lot of times!

you need at least two holes, from recollection at Rosemanowse there were 6, but I could be mistaken at this stage....

found this!

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/egs_chapter_4.pdf 

from the dates, I must have worked on the initial 300m deep wells

---

What I mean is with a plan to generate 10% of the countries power in Cornwall (I'm trying to keep a straight face here!) they are going to need a lot of sites! Bear in mind that is the equivakent of about 15 nuclear power stations! The amount of vapour going up in the air it will never stop bloody raining!

I think if this was going to work, we would be doing it already... 10% of the power to drill the holes, more like...

---

Geothermal Power. Very interesting indeed.

Have they either found a way of smashing the rock in enormous amounts or have they found a way of altering heat transfer coefficients?

That is a very old example of something not working. Brecciated fault zone yes, anywhere else, not on your nelly.

It's a romantic non-starter.

But again, Smit is the man for getting publicity. You have to admire him for that. I would cynically say that a lot of these guys seem to know where the funding comes from to embark on projects that the rough order-of-size calculations (when considering all of the parameters) fall on their faces with. The attitude is right for success though.

Although I may come across as a nay-sayer, I'm not, I really hope it all works, but an educated idea of orders of size puts it firmly in the not-a-chance bracket. Sadly.

Let's face it, there is money out there to be had. These people are having a crack at actually doing something, which is a good thing. Regardless of what they achieve, they are bringing money in and having a crack at a real problem.

It does beat a load of dismissive talk.... but then again, an idea that wont work is just that.

the link ( above ) says about all there is to say on the subject, really. I must have a read of it when I have time.

however I note that the academics at CSM have long since turned their attention elsewhere.......

---

If it could be made to work (I'm unsure), the idea of supplying 10% of the countries power needs is ridiculous. The cost of upgrading the power distribution and Transmission network in Devon & Cornwall would be prohibitive - believe me I would love it to happen, I would have more work than I know what to do with! Realistically it would take hthe best part of 10 years just to get the planning permissions for the substations and and Transmission ad Distribution lines - we aren't talking quaint wood poles!

I was just listrening to Tim Smit on the news, and as is typical for his type, the environmental impact will be very low, there is no visual intrusion.... blah blah blah! He fails to emntion what else needs to go in!

Bit like wind turbines and their efficiencies and no one willing to state exactly ow much energy is used building a wind farm!

Renewables and energy saving are the next chance at industry the UK has. We missed the opportunity to be the chiefs of nuclear.

Funnily enough, this sort of thing is nothing new. I read a very interesting book "Small Scale Water Power" (as I reckon waterwheels are very much overlooked indeed) and funnily enough, there were 2 places in Cornwall manufacturing modern waterwheels. I wonder if they are still there....?

Looking at the inconsistencies of wind and wave, water power is pretty good..... you only have to look at the long gone cascades of wheels employed everywhere.

I'm very unsure about the wave power scheme. The actual wave energy we get around here is inconsistent and low. The azores high (even though it's been ill established in the last couple of years) usually sees we get a good 2 months of very slack surf indeed.

Rather than using it here, which will probably not prove viable in terms of output:costs, I hope they manage to build and ship.

Best of luck to them. I do wonder if the above comment is right about local innovation being a historic feature of Cornwall but not truly capitalising on it.

Cut the dole a bit more and there would probably be a lot more of it. :smartass: off we go :thumbsup:

Interesting discussion but stangley tidal power isn't top of the agenda. It at least has the advantage of being dependable. I'm thinking in particular of the Severn Barrage and others that were discussed at the time. But of course there would be enviromental consequencies. Having dismissed the nuclear option (bloody stupid) this to me seems an obvious route. I may add twenty years too late as always and still apparently not an option.

---

What do you mean dismissed the nuclear option? Its now the keystone! There are 15 new reactors due to be built in the next 15 years!

That's exactly what I mean. Various goverments sat on the fence after Thatcher decided coal was not required. No energy policy. The nuclear reactors you mention should now be operational. It's become the keystone because of lack of joined up thinking previously. Bit late don't you think?

---

Yes I agree way too late! As for building gas and oil power stations what idiot thought that one up?

I guess you know the answer to that. 🙂 I still think tidal is the best direction apart from nuclear.

---

I think you're pretty much right regarding tidal

This is a beast of a report, but it's worth a read.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf 

The old Hirsch Report. Wikipedia probably summarises it.

We all need to get a grip is a huge understatement. Rather than skirting around the issue, they need to get on and deal with it, otherwise we shall pay the shortfall.

We have had the capacity to get a grip for a long time. How will we get a grip. Nuclear stations don't grow like midas homes..... Coal is there, but we've probably slung a lot of the staff/manufacturing away. Let's import some gas! Bloody daft.

Whilst I scan my eyes around, I hear about carbon dioxide hysteria and burying CO2.... (which makes the power station about 25% less efficient in terms of coal used/power produced). It's barking mad that the IPCC still have no signal in the actual climate data due to anthropogenic CO2. I can see the results of their models, but a model tells you what you told it to. We do need to manage our energy properly, rather than cocking around wasting coal and resources, they need to deal with it if we are to maintain this living standard for this overly huge population.

In my opinion, it's failure to regulate the population adequately which will make the energy shortfall all the more poigniant. Rather like maggots starving when the corpse has gone.

We will see that the best maggots are the ones which eat other maggots.... ie Darwinian evolution back in action. Oil has allowed us to deviate from this.

Anyway, not in my lifetime and all that. :thumbdown:

Good words Stuey,
Ironicaly, I heard today that the Russian government are rewarding people with medals for producing more than SEVEN children. Large families apparently, are what is wanted to stem the decline in the Russian population. Statistics (Oh No! it's that word again!) say that the countries population is set to shrink by 1/3 by 2020 if people don't get busy. Perhaps this is to replace the ones killed and affected by Chernobyl? :angel:
I guess that means they will be digging out more coal to fire their powerstations to keep their new members warm in their 11 month witers, so whatever savings in CO2 are made by the west at our personal expense, the east will soon be replacing with theirs, and with no cost/conscience stigma attatched.
A thought.....
The amount of CO2, SO2, H2S etc being given off by a fuming, not erupting volcanoe in the space of a week, dwarfs anything the world can produce in a whole year.
Let's shove a filter on the top of Etna and see how the levels reduce. I doubt if it would be measurable.
The clowns in charge of world climate can't see that the most obvious cause of any rise in CO2 levels is not from what we are producing, but the amount of vegetation and rainforests that are being cleared for the expanding populace to inhabit, and make more babies and CO2.
I would rather my fuel taxes went toward saving a forest or planting more trees around Britain.
OK!!! Now I'm sure I had some Vallium around here ........... :curse:
:offtopic: drastically :oops:

---

Let's face it. The IPCC have "proved" that climate change is the case and the solar minima we are heading for will "prove" that carbon hysteria has been successful, the rise of global temps again, in about 10 years will perpetuate further remedies.

The solar signal (variable) is completely obvious in the data. After all it's what drives it!

In my opinion (cynical and a bit paranoid), the oil crisis and the threat of it peaking is the true driving force behind this hysteria. It is valid, we need to conserve our carbon stuff. Not due to a heating planet, but due to the threat of "mad max". I think the Hirsch Report says "Unrest".

Basically, unrest equates to packs of leather clad, one eyed, half humans, driving around in matt black cars with V8's, fighting anyone who may have a few litres of fuel. It's important to conserve the mining landscape as we need some sort of wasteland to set the scene!

A good thought experiment is to contemplate what would happen if there was any sort of fuss made about peak oil.

I see plant food gas driven hysteria in text books, on CD's and have to teach it by law. Odd how it's still unproven.... even though "the science is settled"....when it clearly isn't. Meanwhile, the knowledge of peak oil is left out the way....

Anyway, sorry for going totally off topic!