The argument by some here and on the other energy thread is that just because something can be done, in theory, that it should be, and to hell with cost and constancy. Do they require that their solutions be mandated and that society must simply pay the price for their decisions? This can only be if nuclear is banned, and no rational reason exists to mandate that.

Renewables, as costly as they are, have their place, but not in cheap base-load power provision to a world growing in its energy consumption with population and affluence. One far off day, perhaps, with some much hoped for outrageous technological breakthrough, but not yet. It's not simply a matter of applying the known science. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

PL has more than demonstrated this but pie-in-the sky is still being served up. I see no sensible argument against his well supported points here, only proof by bold assertion.

I notice Tesla have toned down their rhetoric about lithium ion batteries. For example their new home battery will do night lighting and phone charging, not run air conditioners. I see little prospect of such batteries keeping Gwh of electrical energy on tap. If electric cars go mainstream I predict they will be mostly charged at night from the grid and very little by daytime solar. Perversely they will increase the need for centralised electricity generation, the very opposite of what enthusiasts claim.

As the ratio of energy output/input declines some say increase the input. We haven't got that many more rivers to dam or forests to chop down for 'biomass'. Enthusiasts for wind and solar don't seem to know how silicon, rare earths, metals and cement will be produced in a carbon constrained world. Batteries of manageable size are stuffed after 1,000 deep cycles. We need something else.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is hydrogen extracted from ever abundant sea water utilizing a very modernized Water molecule cracking process would make a useful start and endlessly sustainable fuel produced for just cents per cubic metre; but particularly if the heat source were solar thermal.

And given lighter than air hydrogen can be guaranteed to rise without pumps, used on the way up, to turn a few turbines, and a few more once the energy package is extracted, sending pristine water down to its next user!

Solar thermal competes with coal and thanks to the inclusion of thorium fluoride salts, now available 24/7 as base load power.

Then there is even cheaper endlessly sustainable biogas, which is made very simply from our own waste, and endlessly available as bladder stored gas. Coupled to ceramic fuel cells to extract the energy quotient, available as the cheapest electricity in the world; and the bonus of endless free hot water.

Moreover the waste from this process would enable large scale oil rich algae farming, which in turn would support an energy input free ethanol industry!

Then there's cheaper than coal thorium, which coupled to very regional micro grids, will at least halve the cost of industrial energy, and that being so, get our manufacturing base up and running and successfully competing with other mass producers, also extremely reliant on energy!

As for batteries, GM seems to be trialing one, said to double the considerable range of lithium ion!

Grimm - your post did not constitute a response but the Opera House is a useful analogy.. It was an expensive white elephant built with out any adequate analysis at the urging of a committed few which has proved of marginal use in it original purpose - staging operas - but has become a landmark. The equivalent would be building these high level dams you want to find the energy storage completely inadequate, but that the high level lakes have excellent scenic and recreational uses..

Not such a bad idea really.. but that's enough of that.. back to work..

I didn't see any reference to Natural gas powered fuel cells in this discussion. This technology is apparently available in domestic sized units which are capable of providing both heat and electricity at high levels of efficiency.

Perhaps this is a topic for another article.

David

Before considering big dams see:

"In a paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams, Dr. V. P Jauhari wrote the following about this phenomenon, known as Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS): "The most widely accepted explanation of how dams cause earthquakes is related to the extra water pressure created in the micro-cracks and fissures in the ground under and near a reservoir. When the pressure of the water in the rocks increases, it acts to lubricate faults which are already under tectonic strain, but are prevented from slipping by the friction of the rock surfaces."

Given that every dam site has unique geological characteristics, it is not possible to accurately predict when and where earthquakes will occur. However, the International Commission on Large Dams recommends that RIS should be considered for reservoirs deeper than 100 meters.'
and others, lots on Google.