UKIP launch their Energy and Environment Policy:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.p...d=418&
Itemid=43
Quote from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2631117.ece
"For many others, the principal lunacy of the UK’s position is not that it ignores the potential for clean energy from imported coal, but rather that it ignores the wealth under its own feet. Accounts vary. One expert tells me that 75% of the coal that ever existed in the UK still lies undisturbed – a buried mountain of pent-up energy that could fuel the country for centuries. Another says the likelier figure is 98%. Either way, it’s a lot of coal. The problem, of course, is getting at it. If it was easily accessible, then the whole energy equation might look rather different. Coal would still be king, and CCS would be a no-brainer.
But there is a powerful body of opinion that says not only that much of it is accessible, but that it can be extracted with minimum environmental impact – ie, without open-cast mining – and with great benefit to national security and the carbon economy. The key to it is “underground coal gasification” (UCG), a technique devised by the Scottish chemist Sir William Ramsay. The Coal Authority thumbnails it as “a method of converting unworked coal deep underground into a combustible gas”, which, through CCS, contains no CO2. The result is “clean energy with minimal greenhouse emissions”."
See also:
http://www.ucgp.com/
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//86...ppendix%
202.pdf
Mike
Interesting article at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5215
Also, see their "topics" "energy" in the left hand menu.
The "energy density" of the power generation technogies is being sidestepped by the renewables crowd. Five Kw per acre average capacity for a wind turbine farm, will mean you need about 625 square miles worth of windmills to replace one 2000 Mw Coal fired power station.
Interesting trial from the USA:
"The Department of Energy has just wrapped up a fascinating experiment in Washington State in which it provided both homeowners and their appliances with tools that can sense stress on the power grid. Homeowners who made use of the tools saved money—approximately 10 percent on their electric bills—and the grid was more stable, too." Ars Technica
I understand the current nuclear power plants were designed without decomissioning in mind. One assumes that won't be the case now, and decomissioning costs will be far smaller as a result.
anon- yes, I heard about underground gasification from someone else today- I must take a closer look
Acorn- excellent link.
So to convert the US to windpower would cost 4x the inflation adjusted cost of the interstate highways system.
It's a money gusher alright.
Must take a closer look at the UK players.
Dave B- that's a brilliant idea- charge users, including domestic, variable tariffs depending on grid load, and get them to manage their own demand.
Fantastic.
Where do I sign?
Andrew- as I understand it, the existing plants were designed without very much in mind for the long-term. It was all part of the New Elizabethan age.
Seems a long time ago now.
Fuel prices seem to be driving a lot of investment into alternatives. One of the more interesting ones I've come across recently is the "Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion System"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/...th/
4243793.html
Not yet in production, as the saying goes.
I've noticed 'energy independence' cropping up in the USA primary candidates speeches, and where there's a will, there's a way 
Commenting by HaloScan
