14 May, 2008,03:14
Make this my homepage
RU UA EN
|
Wednesday, 14 May, 2008,03:14 Make this my homepage |
RU UA EN |
 |
Letter to the editor / 1 March 2007 | 10:46
SOLAR, NOT NUCLEARDear
Editor,
Comments
Peter Crosby (12:13 | 02 April,2007)
An interesting scheme, but as presented it ignores the issue of security of supply. We have seen Ukraine being held hostage by its next-door neighbour cutting off gas supplies in the middle of winter. The supply lines running from the middle east to Europe would be obvious targets for terrorists as well as for unstable regimes through whose territories they pass. Once the proposed scheme is developed to its full potential the costs of maintaining a "backup" generation infrastructure and fuel stocks, be it nuclear and hydrocarbon based, would be prohibitive. Furthermore, the whole infrastructure for fuel extraction - mining, processing, shipping and storage would collapse through inactivity. So we would have all our eggs in one delicately poised basket. This is a very different scenario from our present reliance, but not total dependence, on middle eastern oil supplies.
Peter Crosby (12:19 | 02 April,2007)
On a different note, have the environmental effects of removing this vast amount of energy from the desert regions been considered. At present this energy is in part reflected back into the atmosphere, heating the air during the day, and in part absorbed and released slowly at night. The heat released into the atmosphere is the engine which drives the weather systems, determining the ability of air masses which pass over the dessert to spread out and circulate, and to pick up moisture on their travels to be later released as rain fall. Removing significant amounts of this energy could have effects on the climate every bit as dramatic as CO2 emissions. This aspect needs to be properly researched and publicised as one of the prices to pay for the solar scheme.
Robert (01:03 | 07 April,2007)
This letter is a cut and paste letter, posted around the internet, with various 'authors'
http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/non-nuclear-nations-say-nuclear-energy-not-the-solution-to-global-warming/
CSP was developed in the 80's and it is not ready for production to replace Ukraine's energy needs...and there isn't really any need to respond to this greeny propogandist.... I hope there will be solar power someday... it would be nice, and when it really works, countries will deploy it.
Robert (01:11 | 07 April,2007)
p.s. the gentlemen's article is highly misleading...giving you the impression the problem is energy loss in transmitting energy from africa to Ukraine. (or cut and paste the country here).
In fact, that isn't the issue at all...the issue is that solar cells are extremely costly, they are very fragile, and they take up vast, large swaths of land just to make minimal power. And there aren't any photo cell plantations out in the African desert....nor will there be, as long as other sources of energy cost far less.
(they do)
Pistol pete (10:38 | 11 April,2007)
I think Ukraine should build more then tree nuclear plants. In order for CSP to give 7 time the UAS capacity it need to take out a lot of area (since it wasn’t mentioned I assume sometime like state of Arizona, State of Taxes is bigger then Ukraine) Why not use nuclear power, it’s safe reliable and clean. For those that remember Chernobyl, it’s the operator’s fault not the engineer that designed it. It didn't blow up from normal operation. Would you say that Boeing makes bad plains because they destroyed Twin Towers?
Only registered users can add comments. For registered users to enter e-mail and password.
Be aware, Editorial staff may not share opinions and ideas of readers and commentators. REGISTER, forgot your password?, change profile |
All Letters |
|
Editorial staff:english@for-ua.com Republication or redistribution of ForUm content, including by framing or similar means, is allowed with the reference to en.for-ua.com only. All rights are reserved by © LTD. Inter-Media, ForUm 2001-2008 |
