Originally Posted by martinw  ....All we have to do is build a few lower mountain ranges, with suitably shaped Venturi valleys....
Martin |
I have a suspicion that you are not entirely serious
however, I think this suggestion is only a bit less likely to be successful than the idea of tripling the World's supply of Nuclear Power stations in the next twenty years. Especially since I found this snippet of information in the most recent issue of 'New Scientist';
A report commissioned by The Greens, a European parliamentary group, points that many ageing reactors are due to close before 2030 and 338 new ones would have to be built just to replace them. ....The world has five fewer reactors operating today than it did in 2002, they say. Only 91 reactors are now being planned, and a further 32 are under construction, mostly in Asia and eastern Europe. Construction work on 11 of those has been undereway for 20 years or more. ...The idea that nuclear power is about to experience major growth is "pure fantasy", says the report's author, Mycle Schneider.
I know I am at risk of being viewed as an incurable pessimist when I point out the impossibility of developing alternate energy sources that could replace fossil fuels but obviously I am not the only one.
Oh, by the way Donna, the abundant cheap energy is primarily coal although oil is still pretty cheap even at $100 compared to other sources. Your deserts fractionally full of CSP installations notwithstanding.