Slashdot Mirror
New Power Plant Produces Both Energy & Fresh Water
joshmccormack writes "An article in Sunday's New York Times (Free Reg, mah peeps) tells of how Japanese scientists have found a way to make fresh water and energy from temperature differences in ocean water. This may change the rules of what land is considered habitable, and the value of energy." Fascinating stuff, next step is rumored to be beer and power.
... and now there are drops to drink.
After reading the headline, the combination of these two things is like starting a company that sells fireworks and flamethrowers... but after reading the article it actually makes a good deal of sense.
sig.
FP? Anyway, I've visited that type of plant (OTEC, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) already in Hawaii (near Kona), where there is one running since quite some years. One problem is that it only works for steep ocean wall drop offs, since otherwise the pipe is getting too long.
It uses about half of the created energy (through a normal Carnot cycle) for pumping (about 120kW). The other half is not quite competetive, but with the nutrient rich and cool water, fish farming and air conditioning can be done, heaving the whole investment to a black zero (or better).
I leave the exercise of finding the link to a Karma-hungry reader.
Hurricane Application Group, Dept of Meteorology Control, Ministry of Proactive Defense
Temperature difference in sea.
the temperature difference is enough to liquify certain gasses, and then expand it again.
Just like the refrigerating unit.
Not to mention the increase of pressure water gets deeper.
Having lived on a island in the south pacific for a year I learned how important fresh water is. The aircraft landing strip that we had acted as a big water collector - water would drain into pipes and then was cleaned by a chlorination process. The idea they propose is a good one and would work in many islands out there - where they desperately need easy access to electricity and fresh water.
I am sure more will be available about the subject at a later date but, here is what would be interesting to know:
+ How much power/water does one of these amonia powered drinking fountains produce?
+ Is it scalable, should I start writing my congress person to de-comission Califoria's oil powered plants?
If it's scalable and is brought into full production, this could be a truly ground breaking mechanisim for re-newable engergy. Next to the sun and the wind, the Moon's gravitational pull on the earth is about the only other source of near infinite energy this planet has.
I first read about this as a kid years ago in the 70s. I think it's called OTEC.
t ml
The twist seems to be usage of ammonia water instead of plain ammonia - which was what I read about then.
http://www.ioes.saga-u.ac.jp/about-otec-lab_e.h
One thing for sure it's definitely closer to being practical than hot fusion power stations.
same story here
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
I heard that in some arabian countries beer is less expensive than water.. In near future this could also allow folks down in US to get their industrial energy(Oil) from somewhere else than Irak? ;)
Japanese Technology May Help Islands Reap Pacific's Waters
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
KYOTO, Japan, March 22 -- A number of Pacific island nations are discussing using new Japanese technology that can both desalinate seawater for drinking and produce electricity by exploiting the difference in temperatures between the surface of the sea and the depths of the ocean.
The Republic of Palau in the western Pacific is working with Saga University in southern Japan to build a system that can produce enough drinking water to meet the needs of its 20,000 residents, while producing electricity, said the country's president, Tommy Remengesau Jr.
The concept was highlighted this week at one of the 350 sessions at the Third World Water Forum, which is under way here. It has attracted 10,000 participants from around the world, along with ministers and some heads of state from more than 150 countries.
The university is preparing to build an experimental power plant off the coast of Palau that brings up cold seawater from the depths of the sea to an evaporator chamber near the ocean surface.
As the water is heated by the surrounding warm surface water, it releases ammonia gas, which then drives the system's power generator, said Yasuyuki Ikegami, deputy director of the Institute of Ocean Energy at Saga University.
Meanwhile, the heated water would be transferred to a separate low-pressure chamber where it boils at a lower temperature, producing steam, which would be condensed and collected as fresh water for human consumption, leaving salt crystals behind.
One experimental system, which produces power but no usable water, is scheduled to be put into use off the coast of India this month, Mr. Ikegami added.
"It works well especially in the western Pacific, where the temperature difference between the ocean's surface and deep seawater is" as much as 43 degrees Fahrenheit, he said. "It is environmentally sound."
With some financial assistance from the Japanese government, the university was hoping to build the experimental plant in Palau for $7.5 million, said Haruo Uehara, president of Saga University, although he declined to disclose details of the financing because it was still being negotiated.
Palau was hoping the plant could be built next year, Mr. Remengesau said.
"It is a big help for us," he said. "When there is rain, we have no problem. But we are hit by the drying effects of El Niño. When there is no rain, where can we get drinking water?"
The fresh water produced by the system will cost less than $1 for more than 250 gallons, Mr. Uehara said. "It is no more costly than regular tap water in other countries, including Japan," he said.
The system, while more expensive than ordinary generators, has raised hopes among leaders of other Pacific islands, which are too small to build many dams to catch water and are trying to cut back on their consumption of oil to run power generators.
Allan Marat, deputy prime minister of Papua New Guinea, said Pacific island nations had fallen victim to global warming, adding that he too was interested in the university's system.
"We are in the middle of the largest body of water" on earth, said Robert Woonton, prime minister of the Cook Islands. "Yet, we are faced with lack of safe potable water." He said he wanted to consider setting up Saga University's system in his country.
Other countries in arid zones have also shown interest, including Saudi Arabia, which was sending a delegation to the university, Mr. Uehara said.
I would run the cold water into a jacket around the warm water causing condensation (which should be pretty pure water) before warming it up for the released gasses. (Perhaps killing two birds with one stone?) I'm no scientist but it seems pretty obvious to me.
Strictly speaking, complete combustion releases energy and water (and carbon dioxide), and combustion engines are power plants that have been producing energy and water for quite some time.
Of course the operative word there is complete and as we all know your typical combustion engine passes (at least) a few PPM of unburnt hydrocarbons along with the other combustion products.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
The article wasn't clear whether the ammonia is re-absorbed or released into the atmosphere. I'm guessing it would have to be released, otherwise it'd be some kind of perpetual energy system. Assuming that's true - surely this system is just the same as burning fossil fuels? except it's releasing nitrogen based nasties instead of carbon based ones. Or am I misguided again?
It's not only more practical, but also better.
It only disturbs the water temperature in a local area. So at most some fish are dying. (Some other might growing bigger in return as the cooler water tends to have more nutrients)
Not like a fusion plant, that has all those problems radioactive waste is generating. (And the waste from fusion plants is not even useable for building ammunition like the uran is)
Bringing cold water from the depths has an unmentioned potential side-effect. Will it be replaced by warmer water from elsewhere? Cold, deep waters often support amazingly rich ecosystems. Raising the temperature even a few degrees could easily destroy entrie habitats. Will these generators warm the depths, and what effect will that have on the deep ecosystems?
Beer might not be strong enough but...
Fresh water and clean energy? Sounds awfully unamerican and likely to support terrorism.
Considering that they have Beer Water (whatever that might be) in Japan, the rumor might hold some truth;)
Derg is a google Master
I'm a little tea pot.
This affects not only the athmosphere by releasing ammonia (which is only a minor problem), but also the temperature balance in the ocean. Things such as the major ocean currents are driven by differences in salinity and temperature of the water. The big currents control at least part of our climate - eg. if the Gulf Stream were to shut down (which some think it might all too easily do if the polar ice cap melts), we will probably have a new ice age
And before you start jeering and making stupid jokes about it, remember that only 30 years ago the idea that human pollution could affect our athmosphere and the seas, was regarded as utter nonsense and hysteria.
When I was about ten I read one of those cool-science-futures-for-kids magazines, which showed a floating OTEC with a vertical downpipe - that makes more sense, as it doesn't rely on rare coastal relief. I believe Bruce Sterling's novel Islands in the Net also had similar floating OTECs. Perhaps building such a device of the necessary scale (you have to pump a lot of water around, after all) just isn't economic?
Even if you do get mass OTEC production working, its quite debateable if it's really such a good idea. It's a lot of effort (money, materials, time) devoted to something that doesn't generate a terribly impressive amount of energy, and by its very nature it both warms the deep water and cools the surface water, which will have localised environmental consequences.
I despair that everyone is concentrating on renewable resources while so many people (particularly in hot western US states) live in essentially uninsulated houses with single glazed windows. Biomas, geothermal, wind, solar, and ocean generation are all expensive and uncertain - tripleglazed solarglass windows and super-thick wall insulation are available fairly cheaply right now, are guaranteed to pay for themselves way before a windmill, an OTEC, or even a biomass plant. Yet still we're paying to air condition the sky.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
Easy, Just figure a way to capture the methane gas I produce while drinking beer.
It would be tempting to think of this as a "free" source of energy. We have to remember that we probably can't stick these plants everywhere because the oceans are the engine behind our weather.
OTECs Have great capabilities but have some limitations. The best way to get energy from thermal exchange is by having the greatest temp contrast. Equitorial waters are the most suited. OTEC that use an amonia to enhance the reaction do not leak it out. Basically deep cold water is mixed with warm surface water in a vaccum turning it to steam. The by-products are clean fresh water and hydrogen. Also the water brought up is heavily mineralized which has its uses in secreting a concrete like substance. Sea-Crete as some call it basically is same thing sea shells are. By using iron rebar for instance you immerse it in this heavily mineralized water and apply a slight electrical charge and you can grow this sea shell sea-crete stuff, its not fast but its strong and natural. Theres this group that has a idea of using a few OTECs and building a city near the equator on the ocean. The mineralized water is also usefull in mariculture, aka growing fish and crusteaceans. They plan to grow spirulina on the surface of the mariculture ponds. Spirulina is a plant/algae that when dried to powder is a potent source for nutrients. They think they can make a stable economy for this said city off exporting fresh water, sea foods, spirulina, and the hydrogen which the OTECs are central to producing all those including power in excess. And we all want clean power and hydrogen for those new fuel cell laptops coming next year. Course, if they built it exxon or someone the like would probably run into it and sink it. Or maybe a US submarine??? Though seriously, if the petro companies were real smart instead of fighting and stifling new energy theyd help develop it and get in at the ground floor of a new industry. Rant mode off...Those who use power without wisdom cannot claim courage...
I've seen a few posts here speculating that if ocean thermal energy conversion is scalable, we potentially have a miraculous supply of renewable energy. Sorry to pop bubbles, but OTEC is way too inefficient, expensive, and low-density to work on a larger scale. It's only viable for remote islands that need fresh water, in very warm areas, with a seawater temperature gradient of at least 20 degrees celsius. Otherwise, it's too expensive and inefficient to bother.
A theoretical 100MW plant (Current experimental sizes are lower than 1 MW) would require a hugely expensive floating platform, connected to the mainland by a hugely expensive submarine electric cable.
Because OTEC is a very low-density resource, a 100 MW plant would have to be massive... pumping, processing and discharging a volume of water equal to the flow of the Colorado River into the Pacific Ocean. On top of the massive construction costs, electricity generated would cost about $0.22/kW (as opposed to wholesale price of $0.02-$0.03.kW in the US). If just 1% of world energy consumption (60,000 MW) was met by OTEC, the cost of building the infrastructure would be $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) and the discharge from the plants would exceed the combined discharge of every river one the planet into the oceans. Scalable? Maybe not.
Where's the DRM when you need it??
Next to the sun and the wind, the Moon's gravitational pull on the earth is about the only other source of near infinite energy this planet has.
The Moon's gravitational pull on the earth is indeed a renewable energy source... but it's not a resource. A resource is something that is actually worth exploiting. Current experimental tidal power plants are extremely expensive, environmentally disastrous (they kill all the species that feed/lay eggs on the shoreline), and produce pathetically small amounts of energy. Google the Bay of Fundy experiment for more info.
Ocean thermal energy conversion isn't much better than tidal... too low-density and remote to ever be economical.
But you forgot the best renewable of all: GEOTHERMAL! It's good for at least a billion years and there's enough of it accessible within 3km of the earth's crust to power the whole world - ten thousand times over. We just have to wait until the technology catches up so that we can harness geothermal power effectively. When that happens, all this speculation of "wind" and "moon" energy will seem as silly and archaic as Wiccans exploring the healing powers of homeopathy.
Yes, but I think we all remember what happened last time the Japanes messed around with power plants. That's right: Godzilla. With Mothra defeated and major military forces otherwise occupied, the situation looks grim! Beware the denizens of the deep!
More studies are needed, but the real environmental problem with OTEC is not ammonia, nor is it the temperature balance of the ocean. Ammonia would only be released by accident, and even then it wouldn't be much of a problem.
Temperature balance is regulated because hot and cold streams of water leaving the OTEC are mixed, and then discharged by pumping it to a depth of about 60m, where the water temperature is about equal to the discharge temperature.
The real environmental issue is the fact that 99% of the seawater going through the plant is discharged back to the ocean (rather than being evaporated to fresh water). This means that huge volumes of water - thousands of gallons per second - most be pumped to generate a relatively small amount of electricity. The problem is that for every gallon of seawater that passes through, most of the plankton, algae and other tiny sea creatures who live in that gallon don't survive the amazing journey. A 10 MW island OTEC plant would inevitably destroy thousands of tons of biomass at the bottom rung of the local food chain.
Why is American beer like having sex in a canoe? Because it's fucking close to water. (I retract my first statement).
i wouldn't want to throw all my karma into a black hole :^)
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
Chaosium? Why not link to the actual author of the books, rather than what amounts to fan fiction?
Kids today.
One interesting power / water / greenhouse idea I read in New Scientist a while back involoved building a big glass air hanger in a hot climate on a reliably windy spot near the coast - the windward wall was built as a metal framework filled with porous wate absorbant material (straw in the example) which had sea water running down it in a waterfall.
As the hot wind entered the hanger it evaporated a large amount of water, and cooled substantially. The climate within the hanger was therefore wet and cool and sunny - perfect growing conditions (and NOT saline!).
At the far end cool seawater was used to cool a big condenser to get fresh water out of the air leaving the hanger.
The water pumps were relatively slow operating, so could run on relatively crap solar panels.
This idea didn't so much generate energy as avoid the need for the stuff in the production of water - and it enabled the reliable growing of a wide range of crops in an otherwise arrid climate
Or is this how all OTEC plants work??
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I'll leave it to the karma hungry people to provide links.
-=fshalor
The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps by Marshall T. Savage, 1994 goes into great detail on how an OTEC system works. The last 20% of the book is a bibliography of references and equations proving his vision feasible. Arthur C. Clark who provides a glowing testament of Savage's breadth of knowledge forwards the book. A Page or relevant links can be found here. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/millennial_p roject.html
I think the DoE deep sixed research on this in the late 70's becasue these would have to be in international waters halfway around the world in order to be effieient.
-=fshalor
According to Marshall Savage, in his book, the Millenial Project, it would take 15000 700MW OTECs before the ocean's thermal energy achieves steady state.
As you suck cold water from the bottom of the ocean, surface water will start sinking down to replace it. At first it will be replaced by the coldest water (that's a little warmer) around it. Think of pouring some hot water into a cup of cold water; it takes a lot to make a difference, and it will be a LONG LONG time before we can suck the entire Pacific ocean through a straw.
I'm not upset at you Joe, this is more of a separate rant:
I think the earth is just SO much more resilient than we've been lead to believe. Really.
So you rub out a few square miles of ocean floor, a whale dies, some dead fish float to shore. Oh well. It's not the end of the world.
I'm really upset at how resistant to change most of us have become. If we continue sitting around bickering over trivial issues like a few miles of tundra in Alaska or some bit-too-warm seawater in the middle of the pacific we're not going to get off this planet before nature herself torches us with a 100% natural meteor.
That said, I think it can't be SO HARD to find people who have moderate values, who can evaluate the costs/benefits of this type of issue. Our politicians seem more interested in bickering or trading favors than implementing mutually beneficial solutions.
I think it's time for a new political party made out of business-minded freedom-lovers who don't have ties to mega-corporations or the christian religion (or ANY religion).
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Not solar heating... solar cell electricity.
N.B.: Unless you're buying right now, look at the cell designs that aren't quite on the market yet. I especially like the one that drapes like canvas. (Though I haven't looked at them with an eye toward buying them.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
the rotation of the core? Won't disaster ensue?
You don't know much about science at all. Do you really think it's appropriate for you to be spouting out pet environmental theories given your stupendous lack of knowledge of basic mechanisms of energy transfer?
Did you bother to read the article to see how this works? No.
But that sure didn't stop you from rushing out and writing a post about the potential environmental horrors of the release of ammonia gas.
Conservatives and big oil don't have to destroy the environmental movement...their own stupidity is quite sufficient for the task.
scripsit Highwayman:
Woah, Godzilla's of Cthulu? I must've missed that part...
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Don't forget... the desalinization process also produces salt. Dump that back into the ocean and you jack the salt concentration up far enough to kill well, most everything in the area of the plant. Dumping it on land is no better, it's essentially poison to plants. It's also not very clean, because it's mixed in with all the other various things found in seawater, inlcuding waste, debris, dead plankton, stray fish, etc., so I don't know how good of a candidate it would be for use as a salt resource.
There are also basic maintenance issues. Barnicles love places where lots of water flows by, and they can cement themselves to nearly anything. I wonder if they have plans on how to clean out the inside of that pipe periodically?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Beer Water is called "Dry" Beer in the US ... pretty foul stuff, the one time I had it it tasted like liquified, fermented Froot Loops.
what are you qualifications? bored geek dont count. why should we take your opinion as more valued the virtually the ENTIRE scientific community who have actually studied this issue?
I don't really think that the moon-earth interaction is "renewable"...On the earth-moon scale, as you convert energy in the system, the orbit of the moon decays ending in oblivion... once its used up, game over(albeit on a much longer timescale)
Your definiton of "renewable" is ridiculous. As long as the moon orbits the earth and there is liquid water on earth, tidal energy is "renewable".
Sure, in a couple billion years, the moon's orbit will decay and oblivion will result. I guess solar energy isn't renewable either, because in billions of years the sun will go nova, and that will be the end of our prime energy source, not to mention our humble little planet. Further expanding your timescale, no energy source is renewable by your definition because entropy will ultimately shut down the whole party.
The best definition of "renewable" is not tied to thermodynamics... quite simply, a resource system is renewable if the amount of energy we extract from the system does not affect the long-term sustainability of the resource. For example, we can develop our hydroelectric potential to the max, or not ignore it totally. Regardless of how much energy we harness from the system, the hydrologic cycle will continue and water will still flow downhill into the ocean. The same is true for tidal energy and OTEC but obviously not the case for fossil fuels, etc.
To be a man he can't be some stupid kid wanting first post. That counts you out too freak.
It's fucking close to water.
It's like making love in a canoe!
(except some of the microbrews, of course)
Moderators are extremely stupid again. I'd really like to have an answer to my question.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
One problem is that it only works for steep ocean wall drop offs, since otherwise the pipe is getting too long
Sounds like they'll be getting Water, Electricity, AND BIG SURF!
I had always wondered what had happpened to this one hit wonder from the early Eighties. Their seminal progressive rock FM hit from 1981, "On The Loose", was a challenging piece for any cover band. It's blend of complex synth textures and restrained power guitar made this song stand out among the post 70s disco backlash.
It's good to know that they have moved on to solving man's health needs with science, as well as founding a school of higher learning and research.
Saga was a food service for many Colleges in the northeast. Just seeing Saga, reminded me of bad tasting food and several very large cockroaches seen around the dining hall.
In the late 80s they were bough out by marriot, and at least the cockroaches dissappeared.
As you say, OTEC is not that new in concept, there are just relatively few places that you can build shoreline OTEC plants, for reasons you give.
So how about off-shore OTEC plants? Then you have the entire surface of the Pacific to populate - plenty of room.
First question - how do you get teh energy back to land (I am not going for fresh water at this point). Easy - electrolyse seawater to Hydrogen for this new Hydrogen Economy we're all due to enjoy.
So you create a concrete (cheap) tube 1000 metres long. You insert buoyancy chanbers so it is roughly neutral density (and make the concrete with pumice, which is very light and widely available near volcanoes), but make the bottom denser than the the top so that it is naturally stable in an upright position. Add piping to pump heat from top to bottom: the tube becomes a giant chimney, and you generate electricity with turbines inside it. The thing free floats in the Pacific, mostly following the big eddies that swirl round the Pacific and occasionally using a little of its power to push itself into the right current. Tankers picking up Hydrogen have to chase it round the ocean.
Of course, the big problem with any installation at sea is storm damage. You have to make things incredibly strong so as not to be destroyed by "worst case" storms, which puts up costs enormously(and they still get damaged, if not destroyed, and are costly to repair). Not in this case. I said the tube is nearly neutral density. It is *very* nearly neutral density. When a storm approaches, it floods a few tanks and ducks down below the surface to lurk, perhaps a hundred feet down. It watches the suurface with sonar, and when the waves have subsided, bobs back up again and resumes work.
The bottom is denser than water, so the tube floats vertically, which means the rest is lighter than water for neutral buoyancy. The working bits are not at the surface, but far enough down to be out of harms way, but high enough up that they can be raised to the surface (weather permitting) for maintainance. The top few tens of feet are again denser than water. These are sacrificial: if, by mischance, they get knocked off, the average density rises, so that the whole assembly floats higher instead of sinking deeper, and can be repaired - thr erepairs, of course, beanng to the easily accessible top section. In fact, there are small explosive charges for use in an emergency, which can blow bits of this off to lighten the structure.
Assembly should be easy enough. It can be fabricated in sections, sections floated far enough offshore to get the right depth and to get into the eddy, assembled horizontally and then carefully rotated into position (arefully - this thing has the general geometry of a thin drinking straw, so you don't want it to flex too much). If the worst comes to the worst (e.g. it is about to run aground), ensure the expensive bits (turbing, pumps, heat exchangers) have positive buoyancy and blow the tube to bits. Collect up the floating bits and re-assmeble with a new tube (cheap concrete).
Ecologically interesting. Much of the open ocean of the Pacific is pretty barren, because of lack of nutrients at the top and lack of oxygen at the bottom. This is going to stir the whole thing up, which should increase the fertility of the ocean a lot. And it produces Oxygen as a waste product: I wonder what happens if you inject that at the bottom end instead of venting to the atmosphere...
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
They had some nice mock up graphics as well. Perhaps it was a bit new age looking, but it was fun stuff. The fmf website had that old Omni magazine/Heavy Metal flavor.
I recall folling their news archives and it seemed that there was a fairly talented voluteer who started questioning Hilbertz' results and he was having a hard time duplicating them despite what seemed to be fairly rigorous efforts.
It sounded like the problem was that the calcite was hard to keep homogenous and it tended to be too soft unless really large amounts of electricity were used which made it non cost competitive with cement and so it became somewhat besides the point.
But floating concrete cities still sound like a rad idea to me. And you don't need OTEC either. Just use generators and buy oil for starters. Park over the top of thermal vents and harvest nasty toxic chemicals fun and profit. So what if the seacrete thing costs too much at this point. Let's build it on shore and launch it. I'm there man.
Very large rocks have hit the earth before, killing most higher life forms. That's a natural phenomenon. Should we gladly accept the next one or try to stop it? Where do you draw the line? Are you advocating that it's OK for humans to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but not try to reduce the levels again because it would be interfering with natural processes? This does not make sense to me. If you're wary about messing with mother Nature, you should abhor increasing the emissions in the first place, not steps taken to reduce them back to natural levels.
My whole point is that NOTHING says that what we're seeing is unnatural, caused by humans, or even dangerous.
I can't really argue against the first[1], only the other two points. Changes in the climate are indeed naturally occuring. Does this mean that we have to help them along, especially since we will not have time to adapt our lifestyles nor bodies to them? I don't think so. If you're on a bus going downhill with no brakes, would you step on the accelerator instead of at least trying to stop it somehow?
Yes, of course I am advocating changing those 'natural' behaviours since they are indeed extremely dangerous: Stopping the Ocean Conveyor would put an end to the Gulf Stream, throwing large parts of the eastern north Americas and north Europe into the same kind of weather patters and temperatures currently seen in Siberia. There would be catastrophic droughts in the entire American midwest and other areas of the world which are today regarded as farm land would be turned into deserts for possibly decades, probably centuries. As long as there's even a minute risk that we're causing it this time, we'd need to stop and back up, real fast. What kind of evidence would you accept, BTW?
And yes, if there was a conceivable way of stopping the magnetic poles from shifting, I'd advocate that too. Holding back the next ice age to keep people from starving? Yep. Building a dam to generate electricity? Sure. Strip-mining foreign countries to make steel for the frame in my motorcycle? I'd rather not. Accepting minor environmental impact so I can have a computer and sit on Slashdot debating crap all day long? Hell yes! I'm not really keen on living in a cave, never knowing if I'll have or be lunch, which basically is what your idea of allowing all natural occurences have their path leads to in the end.
The weather changes are ALREADY dangerous as thousands of people are killed, directly or indirectly, by the changes in climate. The last decade has seen no less than TWO so called 100-year floods in the Midwestern US. Just look at the recent weather in Sweden. The last five winters we've had bears no resemblance to the winters of my childhood.
[1] I can't argue against it in the sense that there's inconclusive evidence that says we're doing it, but just consider the timing: Is it reasonable to assume that the emergence of our increase of greenhouse gas emissions and changing weather patterns at the same time is simply a coincidence?
Money for nothing, pix for free
The heating of the water causes the ammonia to turn to gas (ammonia steam if you like) which then turns a turbine. The gas then cools back to the liquid state and repeats. No combustion is taking place.
You're thinking of methane. And it is ammonia, folks, not "amonia."
Anyone out there fair enough to answer my question instead of modding me down?
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.