"Alain Fournier" wrote in message ...

On 10/3/15 7:51 PM, David Spain wrote :
On 9/29/2015 7:13 PM, Alain Fournier wrote

Yes. You would want smaller power plants only to avoid totally
deforesting an area and/or having to carry would over hundreds of
kilometres.


Exactly as Edison originally planned. Many many many to supply the much
safer direct current to subscribers within a radius of about 20 miles of
service of every power station. Edison was planning on making $$$ on
light bulbs AND power stations!

Oops, except George Westinghouse's economies of scale using central
generation with power distribution via an alternating current
distribution network that replaced massive network current losses with
more efficient voltage step-up/step-down won out in the marketplace of
the real world. Bummer when the real-world gets in the way....

Besides why screw around with hard-to-renew trees vs the easy-to-renew
solar and wind? Won't those solve all our energy problems w/o
deforestation?

Or how about sequestering all that CO2 back in the coal mines we
excavated for power?

Or hey, let's just go back to burning wood in stoves and forgo
electricity altoge **connection terminated**

*snicker*

Just to be clear here. My suggestion wasn't for a better way to
produce electricity. Someone asked how we could remove CO2 from
the atmosphere. I suggested one method for doing so. I'm not
even saying that is a very good way to do so. Just that it is
possible to remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Though it would take a lot of time to do so, my proposal would
remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then why even bother burning the trees. Just let them grow and sequester the
CO2.

Use other non carbon forms to replace your coal plants.



Alain Fournier

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net