26 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

The geothermal energy would be piped to Britain through the world's longest seabed power cable but would be no more expensive than the next generation of nuclear energy.

The man overseeing the project, Hörður Arnarson, the head of Iceland's state-owned power producer Landsvirkjun, said that it could be completed by 2020.

He told the Times: "This is a technically challenging project, there's no doubt, but there is no doubt in our mind that it is doable."

http://www.telegraph...tish-homes.html

[Armchair Educated]

bring on Britannias next industrial revolution

[The New Richard Nixon]

Slow news....

[Br Cornelius]

The EU has been planning and implementing your energy security for the next century in the form of a High Voltage DC network. Its currently been built and will allow for solar power to be piped from the Med and North Africa up to Northern Europe. Wind will be piped from Scandinavia and the Russian Steppes and Geothermal from Iceland.

Whilst many have buried their heads in the sand concerning climate change and fossil fuel energy security - some have been quietly creating a viable future which might just actually see us through our various resource crisis.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

good idea but not very secure. how would we defend and maintain the power cable and how much would this cost? i

[Br Cornelius]

stevewinn, on 12 November 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

good idea but not very secure. how would we defend and maintain the power cable and how much would this cost? i

The future has to be different from the past - the future only works if we trust and support each other.
Cost would be far less than doing it through Nuclear power - which seems the only other vaguely viable option available. Think of the costs incurred in building the electricity infrastructure we currently have - immense but we still did it - because we had to.

Really we have no alternative than to build a diverse interdependent transnational energy grid.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Br Cornelius, on 12 November 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

The future has to be different from the past - the future only works if we trust and support each other.
Cost would be far less than doing it through Nuclear power - which seems the only other vaguely viable option available. Think of the costs incurred in building the electricity infrastructure we currently have - immense but we still did it - because we had to.

Really we have no alternative than to build a diverse interdependent transnational energy grid.

Br Cornelius

of course we have to look forward to new forms of energy but - How practical is this power cable stretching all the way from iceland to the UK?, a good dose of reality is needed. how do we protect such a cable, how reliant would we be on this cable? it could be open to sabotage.

[Br Cornelius]

stevewinn, on 13 November 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

of course we have to look forward to new forms of energy but - How practical is this power cable stretching all the way from iceland to the UK?, a good dose of reality is needed. how do we protect such a cable, how reliant would we be on this cable? it could be open to sabotage.

Many of the cables are already in place - as are a number of HV DC cables between Ireland and Wales. We are moving towards a European wide single electricity market.Eventually we will have multiple redundant cables to allow for outages. The future is happening now.
A secure peaceful future of mutual cooperation is what the leaders of Europe have been trying to establish for the last 50yrs, and if they fail then we will all be less energy secure and poorer.

http://en.wikipedia...._direct_current

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 13 November 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[freetoroam]

longest seabed power cable but would be no more expensive than the next generation of nuclear energy.
-----------------------------
Great more wreaking of the seabed, we have seen the dangers this creates from the testing done in the past in the Pacific, the UK is only a small island, so who knows what impact this disturbance could have on the surrounding land?
Anyway how much will (is) the UK putting into this, we just can not afford it!
The climate is changing, so is this really a viable investment for the future in an area which could be the next Sahara?

[stevewinn]

freetoroam, on 13 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

longest seabed power cable but would be no more expensive than the next generation of nuclear energy.
-----------------------------
Great more wreaking of the seabed, we have seen the dangers this creates from the testing done in the past in the Pacific, the UK is only a small island, so who knows what impact this disturbance could have on the surrounding land?
Anyway how much will (is) the UK putting into this, we just can not afford it!
The climate is changing, so is this really a viable investment for the future in an area which could be the next Sahara?

i'd rather we just went with the nuclear option its been keeping the lights on so far. no C02. produces a reliable source for years to come. we already have the fuel. it will create long term Jobs here in the UK.

Icleand as a population of 320,000 we have a population of 62 Million. in short this idea and proposal will not work on a large scale. we'd be better spending the money on nuclear. mark my words. if we go down the Icelandic route we'll end up wasting Millions and in the end we'll turn back to nuclear.

Edited by stevewinn, 13 November 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[Wickian]

While mutual trust between all countries of the world is possible, it is very very unlikely to happen anytime in our generation or even the next few.

[Br Cornelius]

Wickian, on 14 November 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

While mutual trust between all countries of the world is possible, it is very very unlikely to happen anytime in our generation or even the next few.

I would say that Europe is proof to the contrary.

Br Cornelius

[freetoroam]

stevewinn, on 13 November 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

i'd rather we just went with the nuclear option its been keeping the lights on so far. no C02. produces a reliable source for years to come. we already have the fuel. it will create long term Jobs here in the UK.

Icleand as a population of 320,000 we have a population of 62 Million. in short this idea and proposal will not work on a large scale. we'd be better spending the money on nuclear. mark my words. if we go down the Icelandic route we'll end up wasting Millions and in the end we'll turn back to nuclear.

I agree, but who knows what will be the best solution, with a population on our wee biddy island already reaching 70 million (that figure includes some our government do not know about} I can only see our biggest problem is not on how we can keep ourselves warm, especially in a climate which is going to get hotter, but on how we are going to be able to feed everyone when our countryside is being built on left right and centre to house everyone.
But so far, i see nuclear is the best.

[freetoroam]

ps: did you enjoy your cup final draw with Chelsea on Sunday?

[freetoroam]

Wickian, on 14 November 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

While mutual trust between all countries of the world is possible, it is very very unlikely to happen anytime in our generation or even the next few.

Many are finding it hard to trust their own neighbour, let alone its own government, let alone the rest of the World.
We in England are finding trusting our MP`s a challenge at the moment.