http://www.cslforum.org/ec.htm
Consult:
Quote:
Table 6: Installed Electricity Generation Capacity in European Union, 1993-2002
(in thousands of megawatts)
|
For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7
For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.
1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.
2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.
3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.
4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.
Ratio of nonrenewable to renewable electrical generation 1993 EU is 16.7% of total.
GSWB was 0.6% of the total.
Ratio of nonrenewable to renewable electrical generation 2003 EU is 18.9% of total.
GSWB was 3.7% of the total.
That 2.2 % change in total ratios in renewables over the nine year period was almost entirely due to GSWB. As I said is its total contribution to power generation remains insignificant.
It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.
What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;
1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.
2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.
3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.
4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.
5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.
And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.
Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.
Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....
Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.
When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.
Remember this, the
power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.
