"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

its a very expensive and environmentally dfestrictive way to generate
power,

It isn't.

and there are only a few places where its really effective - you cant use
the whole coastline, not for any decent scale and efficiency.

20% of the Irish Sea will do all of the UK and Ireland. They work great in
shallow seas.

wrote in message ...
On 25 May,
"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:

(tidal power)

Not on anything like the scale you are discussing. UK peak demand is
60GW.
Total global tidal power is 0.3GW. Total global nuclear power is around
370GW.

24/7 production,

Only notionally. It varies with the tides and peak production may not be
when you need it.

With two sources (Morecome Bay and Severn Estuary 24/7 is easy, and will
produce moer GW than any single nuclear plant.

They are not lagoons.

It /will/ modify marine environments. They change anyway. I can't see any
overall worsening.

Yep.

The life of a tidal barriage (or lagoon) would be extremely long. Its
construction would not be difficult, and relatively pollution free. A
win-win
situation once the nimbys are consoled.

Yep.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

So? we need about 100 nuclear plants to run the whole country. For
everything.

Using lagoons no estuary need be used.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

" * We currently find one barrel of oil for every four that we use

Time to build tidal lagoons while oil is cheap enough to build them.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

At $50-60 a barrel nuclear electric heating with heatpumps is cost
competitive.At over $150 a barrel even windmills can be argued for..

Electric trains start to be really cost competitive over diesel and short
haul flights. Rail freight starts to be cheap, although rail pricing is
such a complete muddle due to the way its subsidised (or not) that it
makes it very hard to say.

Rail freight is cheap when shifted in bulk. It is increasing and if the
rail infrastructure is there it would be used more. The port of Liverpool
now only has one rail line in to the port, when it had countless lines only
a few decades ago. The old Canada Dock tunnel and from it to the docks is
not being built on to give scope for re-use. The rail line into the
container terminal may require electrification to use the west coast main
line when the post-Panamax terminal is operational - ships too large for the
Panama canal. Only about 4 or 5 miles of electrification can put the trains
on the west coast main line, which means very fast overnight usage, and
using surplus power from power stations running at night - more eco and
economical in many ways.

Higher commuter costs for many people will switch the housing market away
from suburbia, back to short to medium inner city rental properties.

Rapid transit rail systems contributed to the decline of the inner-cities.
People could buy new homes on green-field sites on the outskirts get to and
from the centre super fast by rail and by-passing the inner-cities. For
e.g., the creation of Merseyrail (Liverpool's underground/overground metro
system) accelerated greatly in the inner-city decline around it's centre.
They never put stations in the inner-city districts, despite having
countless tunnels under the city and some under inner-city districts - the
tunnels were left unused while stations could have been cut into them.
London was not immune as Tower Hamlets and Hackney suffered the same fate.

This was predicted and councils/governments did not do enough for the
inner-cities when it was obvious they would become bottomless pits for money
in social handouts.

Those are the reasons I consider that oil has already passed its peak in
production. Not because its not still there, but because its getting too
expensive to be worth using.

So, get people living back in the city centres to avoid travelling.
Manchester and Liverpool are doing this, but both ignoring the immediate
inner-cities, which will come on-line eventually as energy gets expensive.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...

The planet will survive and sort itself out over
time, possible rather a lot of time but wether we as a species and lots of
other species are part of that is another matter.

Yep.

On May 24, 11:43*am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:


...., given that the rate of discovery has consistently
increased faster than the rate of increase in use.

But it hasn't. the rate of discovery has FALLEN steadily over the
last 50 years and rate of consumption has increased.

Robert

On Tue, 26 May 2009 02:23:50 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be RobertL
wrote this:-

..., given that the rate of discovery has consistently
increased faster than the rate of increase in use.

But it hasn't. the rate of discovery has FALLEN steadily over the
last 50 years and rate of consumption has increased.

Indeed. As I quoted earlier in the thread:

"The oil we have built our societies on was actually created one
hundred million years ago. More of it is not now going to suddenly
appear 10,000 feet underground just because economists say the price
is too high."

" * There were enormous early discoveries (in the Middle East) in
the late 1930's and late 1940's

" * Worldwide oil discovery peaked in 1964 and has been falling ever
since

" * Every year since 1984, we have been discovered less oil than we
have produced

" * We currently find one barrel of oil for every four that we use"

http://philhart.com/content/introduction-peak-oil

Perhaps mere facts cause some to put their fingers in their ears and
shout loudly that they can't hear. That certainly seems to be the
approach of many governments. However, just as with climate change,
ignoring peak oil does not make it go away.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

I was specifically addressing DD's suggestion that the entire power
supply for the UK could be derived from tidal power in the Irish Sea.

It can. Understand what a tidal lagoon is.

I do and I also understand their limitations, which is why I question the
claim.

I think a lot of work still needs to be done on the effects of the
lagoons on marine environments.

The lagoons will protect it and act as fish farms too.

I doubt you will find many supporters for that claim around the Severn
Estuary, which also stands to lose some important archaelogical sites if the
proposals go ahead.

Colin Bignell

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:01:02 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

I was specifically addressing DD's suggestion that the entire power supply
for the UK could be derived from tidal power in the Irish Sea. I agree
that
distributed systems around the UK would alleviate the problem, but I think
a
lot of work still needs to be done on the effects of the lagoons on marine
environments.

Are you suggesting that the only way to extract electricity from the
tides is to build lagoons?

No. If you followed the thread, you would see that DD was suggesting they
were the answer to supplying the UK with electricity.

Colin Bignell

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:37:59 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

You only have to read the post that started this thread to see that some,
at
least, actively promote that view.

I did read it. I didn't notice anything in that post which said that
oil would run out suddenly.

The bit about the entire structure of society as we know it collapsing in
four years' time obviously passed you by.

Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
news We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "nightjar" cpb@insert my
surname
here.me.uk saying something like:

There is a lot more oil in the ground that we can extract than the
peak oil
adherents would like us to believe.
Ah, but.
Are you an advocate of sitting on our arses and doing nothing because
you say there's more there than we think there is? Doesn't matter when
it will run out, it will run out for sure at some point and if we
haven't got off our arses and got something in place to compensate, we
will have a very bleak future indeed.
One of the fallacies is that oil will run out suddenly.
Last year it did run out suddenly.

Not as 'in the ground' but as refinery and extraction capacity.

With the result that prices rose, various non-conventional sources became
worth while exploiting, giving some increase in capacity, while demand
reduced until it matched supply. It is a self-limiting system and quite
different from the question of oil reserves.

There are complex reasons why its actually less profitable to pump more
oil. Or build more capacity.


We have decades, possibly a century or more, to do something, even
after supplies start to fail. For my money, that ought to be investing
in algal oil, which uses human and animal waste to replicate how nature
created oil, without the multi-million year wait, without the need to
take up any fertile land, with lots of CO2 being consumed from the
atmosphere and with fertiliser as a by-product.

Colin Bignell
Figures dont add up sadly.

The only figures that don't add up at the moment are the costs -
currently $800 a barrel. However, that is for a laboratory level
production and a ten-fold reduction in cost for full production is not an
unrealistic target.

At $50-60 a barrel nuclear electric heating with heatpumps is cost
competitive.At over $150 a barrel even windmills can be argued for..

Electric trains start to be really cost competitive over diesel and short
haul flights. Rail freight starts to be cheap, although rail pricing is
such a complete muddle due to the way its subsidised (or not) that it
makes it very hard to say.

At around $100 a barrel many industrial heating processes are cheaper with
nuclear electric than carbon fuels..

Higher commuter costs for many people will switch the housing market away
from suburbia, back to short to medium inner city rental properties.

Online shopping replaces going to the supermarket.

Those are the reasons I consider that oil has already passed its peak in
production. Not because its not still there, but because its getting too
expensive to be worth using.

My apologies. I thought you were supporting Hubbert's theory. Your arguments
are more logical, although I question whether, once we get clear of the
current blip, China (in particular) or India would simply sit back and allow
their economic growth to be held back by something as basic as a lack of
refining capacity.

Colin Bignell

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...
....
Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure.

Nothing is zero risk.

We can all form a list on nuclear disasters.

We can also note how short it is and how the accidents all relate to
outdated systems.

Nuclear power stations are a front for atomic weapons.

Even if that were true, my answer would be so what? I don't believe that, if
we bury our heads in the sand and pretend nuclear weapons don't exist, our
enemies will do the same

Magnox and RBMK reactors were built to produce nuclear weapon material,
which is why they were built with fewer safety precautions and why they
became involved in significant nuclear accidents. Modern designs are
optimised for power generation and are not only much safer, they are also
less suitable for producing weapon grade material.

Colin Bignell

"RobertL" wrote in message
...
On May 24, 11:43 am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:


....

given that the rate of discovery has consistently
increased faster than the rate of increase in use.

But it hasn't. the rate of discovery has FALLEN steadily over the
last 50 years and rate of consumption has increased.

If you take only the discovery of entirely new fields, that is correct. If
you count all new discoveries, including the extension of existing fields,
oil reserves have been consistently growing faster than the rate of increase
of consumption. Oddly enough, it is easier to find oil where you already
know it exists than in entirely new areas.

Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
its a very expensive and environmentally dfestrictive (sic) way to generate
power, and there are only a few places where its really effective - you
cant use the whole coastline, not for any decent scale and efficiency.

Sure. In the short term I agree with your position - we can either go
fission, or have no power. But I think tidal is probably a better bet
than wind, and it could provide part of a balanced system. It was only
the single point - that it is not tidally variable, when you look at the
whole country - that I was picking him up on.

Andy

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

I was specifically addressing DD's suggestion that the entire power
supply for the UK could be derived from tidal power in the Irish Sea.

It can. Understand what a tidal lagoon is.

I do and I also understand their limitations, which is why I question the
claim.

Those who know think differently.

I think a lot of work still needs to be done on the effects of the
lagoons on marine environments.

The lagoons will protect it and act as fish farms too.

I doubt you will find many supporters for that claim around the Severn
Estuary, which also stands to lose some important archaelogical sites if
the proposals go ahead.

Once again, the estuaries will not be touched. The lagoons are away from
them. The Mersey estuary can be left as it sees a hell of a lot of shipping
traffic.

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...
...
.
Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure
Nothing is zero risk.

Once again, "Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure".

We can all form a list on nuclear disasters.

We can also note how short it is and how the accidents all relate to
outdated systems.

Once again, "We can all form a list on nuclear disasters".

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...
...
.
Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure
Nothing is zero risk.

Once again, "Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure".

Repeating something wrong does not make it true.

Colin Bignell

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

I was specifically addressing DD's suggestion that the entire power
supply for the UK could be derived from tidal power in the Irish Sea.

It can. Understand what a tidal lagoon is.

I do and I also understand their limitations, which is why I question the
claim.

Those who know think differently.

So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. BTW my degree included
oceanic sciences and I was looking at tidal models 40 years ago, although
then model really meant a model - a scale model of the area under study
(with vertical scale exaggerated) which we moved water in and out of, by
dipping a weight into it.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

I was specifically addressing DD's suggestion that the entire power
supply for the UK could be derived from tidal power in the Irish Sea.

It can. Understand what a tidal lagoon is.

I do and I also understand their limitations, which is why I question
the claim.

Those who know think differently.

So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. BTW my degree
included oceanic sciences and I was looking at tidal models 40 years ago,
although then model really meant a model - a scale model of the area under
study (with vertical scale exaggerated) which we moved water in and out
of, by dipping a weight into it.

Cambridge feel confident. Do a Google.

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...
...
.
Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure
Nothing is zero risk.

Once again, "Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure".

Repeating something wrong does not make it true.

People will not glow.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
....
So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. ....

Cambridge feel confident. Do a Google.

It is you making the claims. It is up to you to provide the sources you are
relying upon, not for me to call up every possible link to anything to do
with the subject.

Colin Bignell

The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Those who know think differently.

That excludes Dribble then. He has demonstrated time and time again that
he doesn't think.

So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. BTW my degree included
oceanic sciences and I was looking at tidal models 40 years ago, although
then model really meant a model - a scale model of the area under study
(with vertical scale exaggerated) which we moved water in and out of, by
dipping a weight into it.

Dribble used to claim he had a degree. Curiously he would never admit
which discipline. Do degree certificates bought over the Internet
neglect to mention such a vital fact?

--
Roger Chapman

nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...
...
Tidal lagoons have zero risk on failure.

Nothing is zero risk.

We can all form a list on nuclear disasters.

We can also note how short it is and how the accidents all relate to
outdated systems.

Nuclear power stations are a front for atomic weapons.

Even if that were true, my answer would be so what? I don't believe that, if
we bury our heads in the sand and pretend nuclear weapons don't exist, our
enemies will do the same

Magnox and RBMK reactors were built to produce nuclear weapon material,
which is why they were built with fewer safety precautions and why they
became involved in significant nuclear accidents. Modern designs are
optimised for power generation and are not only much safer, they are also
less suitable for producing weapon grade material.


More to the point, they are almost totally unable to produce weapons
grade material at all.

To get a reactor going requires material at about 1% of the
concentration needed to make a bomb.

Bomb making material is massively hard to refine, hence you build a fast
breededr to make plutonium, BUT a fast breeder is a uniquely different
animal, and easy to spot under international inspection.

This is why the international community is more bothered about
refinement capability than about reactors.


Colin Bignell

On May 26, 6:40*pm, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...
On May 24, 11:43 am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:

...

given that the rate of discovery has consistently
increased faster than the rate of increase in use.
But it hasn't. *the rate of discovery has FALLEN steadily over the
last 50 years and rate of consumption has increased.

If you take only the discovery of entirely new fields, that is correct. If
you count all new discoveries, including the extension of existing fields,
oil reserves have been consistently growing faster than the rate of increase
of consumption. Oddly enough, it is easier to find oil where you already
know it exists than in entirely new areas.

Colin Bignell


My understanding was that those figures for discoveries were for "all
known reserveves" and did include extensions to existing oilfields. I
mean the ones used he http://www.oilposter.org/ Do you have a
reference for total reserves growing faster than consumption? I'd like
to take a look. I

Of course, there is a big problem getting reliable figures, especially
from national oil companies, about what their reserves are, but that's
a different matter.

thanks, Robert

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. ....

Cambridge feel confident. Do a Google.

It is you making the claims. It is up to you to provide the sources you
are relying upon, not for me to call up every possible link to anything to
do with the subject.

You say you were in to Oceanography, then you would look, instead of trying
to make out you know it all. Things have moved on in 40 years, as they
don't drop weights in baths any more.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Those who know think differently.

That excludes Dribble

This man is clearly a plantpot.

RobertL wrote:
On May 26, 6:40 pm, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...
On May 24, 11:43 am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:

...

given that the rate of discovery has consistently
increased faster than the rate of increase in use.
But it hasn't. the rate of discovery has FALLEN steadily over the
last 50 years and rate of consumption has increased.
If you take only the discovery of entirely new fields, that is correct. If
you count all new discoveries, including the extension of existing fields,
oil reserves have been consistently growing faster than the rate of increase
of consumption. Oddly enough, it is easier to find oil where you already
know it exists than in entirely new areas.

Colin Bignell


My understanding was that those figures for discoveries were for "all
known reserveves" and did include extensions to existing oilfields. I
mean the ones used he http://www.oilposter.org/ Do you have a
reference for total reserves growing faster than consumption? I'd like
to take a look. I

Of course, there is a big problem getting reliable figures, especially
from national oil companies, about what their reserves are, but that's
a different matter.

thanks, Robert

I think another issue that needs highlighting is that once oil gets more
expensive, and technology improves, how much oil you can extract from
known reserves at economic prices, also increases.

This also gets into oil company known reserve figures.

Of course, what is published by oil companies reflects not only what
they actually know, but what they can credibly claim, in order to
improve share prices etc.

I.e. being flexible with the truth is distinctly, if not to the oil
companies long term advantage, at least to those due to retire in 5
years with stock options..

Cui bono.

On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:42:41 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
its a very expensive and environmentally dfestrictive (sic) way to generate
power, and there are only a few places where its really effective - you
cant use the whole coastline, not for any decent scale and efficiency.

Sure.

Expensive? Compared to nuclear most things are cheap.

Environmentally destructive? What sort of system? A Severn barrage
would certainly largely destroy internationally important wildlife
habitats, though climate change will do that too. Build lagoons
instead and, the proponents say, one can generate at least as much
electricity while still preserving the habitats. The reports at
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal-power.html discuss the
issues. Offshore lagoons are probably not the thing, but that is
where turbines come in, of which the most well known is probably
http://www.marineturbines.com.

Using the whole coastline?

"The strength of the tidal current varies depending on the position
of the site on the earth, the shape of the coastline, and the
bathymetry (shape of the sea bed). Areas that have high tidal
currents are in narrow straits, between islands, around headlands,
entrances to lochs, bays and large harbours. This flow is cyclical,
first increasing in velocity and then decreasing before switching to
the opposite direction.

"The generation of energy from tidal currents is therefore very site
specific. The World Offshore Renewable Energy Report 2002-2007 ,
released by the DTI, suggests that while a staggering 3000GW of
tidal energy is estimated to be available, less than 3% of this is
located in areas suitable for power generation. A number of possible
sites have been identified in Scotland. The Pentland Firth has been
described as the Saudi Arabia of the world's future tidal industry,
which is capable of providing up to 10% of the UK's energy demand
alone. Scottish Enterprise has estimated that 34% of the UK's
electricity demand could be generated by tidal currents."

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/Default.aspx?DocumentID=27e58172-d6f0-4968-a2ee-3db723d6c093

In the short term I agree with your position - we can either go
fission, or have no power.

If built it would be too little too late. The SD Commission report I
have referred to before explains why.

But I think tidal is probably a better bet
than wind, and it could provide part of a balanced system.

Wind works now, there is no large scale tidal scheme in the UK
(despite the ROC system being neutral about what form of generation
is used). In the future both will be used, which is great.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
In the short term I agree with your position - we can either go
fission, or have no power.

If built it would be too little too late.

The lead time for nuclear stations is long. You could have a large tidal
lagoons, employing far more people, in less time.

I posted this a few months back...

Tidal lagoons are being looked into. If they come about then forget gas and
oil and all will be, hopefully cheap electricity.

How Lagoons Work

There are a number of them at various states of water levels. There will
always be power generated. Think of one large dam wall in a circle in a
shallow sea, split it into three sections. The centre section could be 30
foot below the outer two and the high tide level, and fill up via the other
two or the high tide.

It is a matter of having the lagoons filling and emptying at different times
to ensure full power production 24/7. A test lagoon is being suggested at
Swansea in South Wales.

This is different to tidal only at La Rance, France. La Rance is just one
power station. It only generates when the tide is running one-way. It is
quite old now - 1966. Pioneering it is.

Political Spite Makes Matters Worse

Hard nosed cost/benefit eliminated the British coal industry (or more
political spite by Thatcher hating miners). Middle Eastern oil was buttons
to buy and the North Sea was full of cheap gas. Mrs Thatcher was told to
reserve the gas for primarily domestic use and not use it to generate
electricity - use the masses of coal we have under the country to only
generate electricity. She never. The coal industry disappeared with amazing
stocks still under our feet. The North Sea is running out of oil and gas.

Fuel Poverty is a major Problem

Domestic gas prices went through the roof because of world market
conditions - the Uks gas is mainly imported. Fuel poverty is now a major
problem.

Long Term Political View is Important

We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas as we used a lot of our own
reserves needlessly. Russia refused to supply gas to the Ukraine a few years
ago, so alarm bells rang. We need stable fuel supplies. We get oil and gas
from the politically unstable Middle East and Russia - which is a political
concern over cost/benefit. They have to look at the long term and stability,
not short term gains of utility companies. Then there is the important eco
angle too. Tidal lagoons are both the long-term practical answer and
politically acceptable.

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected.

* The electricity will be introduced in phases,
* Knock-on effect fresh water reservoirs from rock excavations to combat
water shortages, bridges, etc, by rock excavations.
* Increased insulation levels in buildings at the same would reduce oil,
coal and gas dependency rather quicker than expected.
* Coal, gas and nuclear stations can be decommissioned and any planned costs
in introducing nuclear stations will off-set the lagoons building costs.
* Such a scheme would bring zero unemployment, saving on public social
benefits over 25 years.
* There is the comfort of not being under the reliance of foreign countries
for energy, and being over-friendly with countries you would rather not be.
* Savings on military as the world will be a more peaceful place - oil has
created wars.

The UK over 25 years can easily construct and afford such a scheme. Advances
in rock cutting & transporting machines and methods would ensue. The
technology and design and build can be exported elsewhere for others too.

Unprecedented Project

To meet 100% of Britain and Ireland's need for energy, this is clearly
possible and mostly involves hauling rock from mountains and valleys to the
sea on an unprecedented scale.

* The British Isles geography is the best in the world for such an
undertaking with its high tidal rises and falls.
* It involves moving about 2,500 million tons of rock to the Irish Sea
* Tidal lagoons created out of about 20% of the Irish Sea
* 100% of Britain and Ireland's electricity needs met.

The numbers are staggering but possible:

* A heavy train can move perhaps 500 plus tons of rock
* About 4 or 5 million train loads are needed
* The UKs waste can be dumped into the lagoon walls while under
construction, saving on landfill and re-cycling costs.
* It would take maybe 30 railways to haul rock from say 30 large quarries
over 25 years

There Are Many Knock-On Benefits

* The insides of hills and mountains can be cut out for the rock and lakes
constructed top and bottom to make provision for instant use peak time hydro
stations for half time energy peaks in major football games on TV.
* New valleys can be created
* New lakes
* Fresh water reservoirs
* Rail and road tunnels through mountains
* Rail and road bridges across the Irish Sea
* Deep water ship canals can be cut inland, reducing rail and road transport
of goods - good result for quarried rock.
* Some lagoons can be supertanker harbour/terminals, keeping these massive
pollution risk vessels away from the shore.
* The lagoon walls built can also be bridges
* The lagoons can also be anti tidal surge barriers. Empty the lagoons at
low tide when a surge is expected and allow the lagoons to fill taking
excess water - London will go under if nothing is done.
* Fish can be farmed inside the lagoons preventing foreign trawlers
overfishing and all fish goes to the UK.

Fuel Poverty & Pollution Eliminated

Fuel poverty and pollution will be a thing of the past.

Cheap Fast Transport

The EU has a transport dept that looks at transport for the EU 20, 30, 40
years hence. The aim is super fast intercity trains between all major
cities/centres. One idea is a tunnel between Liverpool and Dublin. As
Holyhead is the halfway point between the two cities that appears a dumb
suggestion and a loooooong expensive tunnel. But a tunnel from Ireland to
North Wales at the shortest point and then a fast link to Liverpool,
Manchester, Birmingham, London is feasible.

However, damming in the Irish Sea to make lagoons to produce all the power
for the UK and Ireland would create maybe two land links anyhow and maybe
one to the Isle of Man. This gives high speed transport bridges. Super fast
Maglev trains between major centres and to Ireland become feasible as
running cost are low.

All cars can be electric, and the auto industry is currently moving that
way.

Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and
clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed.

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:42:41 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
its a very expensive and environmentally dfestrictive (sic) way to generate
power, and there are only a few places where its really effective - you
cant use the whole coastline, not for any decent scale and efficiency.
Sure.

Expensive? Compared to nuclear most things are cheap.


No, compared to nuclear every single alternative energy source is *way*
more expensive.

Nuclear electricity generally 2-3p/unit. Wind about 10p.Once the cost of
the transmission lines and grid balancing is costed in (which its
protagonists NEVER do).

Uses roughly ten times as much concrete per average watt delivered as
nuclear too.


Environmentally destructive? What sort of system? A Severn barrage
would certainly largely destroy internationally important wildlife
habitats, though climate change will do that too. Build lagoons
instead and, the proponents say, one can generate at least as much
electricity while still preserving the habitats. The reports at
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal-power.html discuss the
issues. Offshore lagoons are probably not the thing, but that is
where turbines come in, of which the most well known is probably
http://www.marineturbines.com.

Using the whole coastline?

"The strength of the tidal current varies depending on the position
of the site on the earth, the shape of the coastline, and the
bathymetry (shape of the sea bed). Areas that have high tidal
currents are in narrow straits, between islands, around headlands,
entrances to lochs, bays and large harbours. This flow is cyclical,
first increasing in velocity and then decreasing before switching to
the opposite direction.

"The generation of energy from tidal currents is therefore very site
specific. The World Offshore Renewable Energy Report 2002-2007 ,
released by the DTI, suggests that while a staggering 3000GW of
tidal energy is estimated to be available, less than 3% of this is
located in areas suitable for power generation. A number of possible
sites have been identified in Scotland. The Pentland Firth has been
described as the Saudi Arabia of the world's future tidal industry,
which is capable of providing up to 10% of the UK's energy demand
alone. Scottish Enterprise has estimated that 34% of the UK's
electricity demand could be generated by tidal currents."

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/Default.aspx?DocumentID=27e58172-d6f0-4968-a2ee-3db723d6c093

In the short term I agree with your position - we can either go
fission, or have no power.

If built it would be too little too late. The SD Commission report I
have referred to before explains why.


Same applies to any alternative energy.


But I think tidal is probably a better bet
than wind, and it could provide part of a balanced system.

Wind works now, there is no large scale tidal scheme in the UK
(despite the ROC system being neutral about what form of generation
is used). In the future both will be used, which is great.


Wind doesnt really work at all.

That's the problem.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected.

Lets see..
4.5 million trains at one per hour 24x7 is about 500 years.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected.

Lets see..
4.5 million trains at one per hour 24x7 is about 500 years.

Wrong.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
The reports at
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal-power.html discuss the
issues. Offshore lagoons are probably not the thing,

It states its finings on not enough practical evidence of tidal lagoons.
One was to be trialled off Swansea. Modelling is very upbeat on them - then
there is the knock-on effects.

The following is just barrages, not lagoons.
----------
Liverpool, UK - 25 March 2009: Engineers at the University of Liverpool
claim that building estuary barrages in the North West could provide more
than 5% of the UK's electricity.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/press_rele...r-barrages.htm

Joe Flanagan, Head of Energy and Environmental Technologies at the Northwest
Regional Development Agency (NWDA) said: "The NWDA is pleased to have
supported this project, which has provided an important stimulus to the
concept of tidal power in England's Northwest. There are a variety of groups
and individuals promoting a number of schemes in the region, which have now
been brought together under the Northwest Tidal Energy Group."
------------
This is very interesting indeed...
A pilot scheme is about to be tested in Norway and the Dutch are very
serious about it wanting one in the mouth of the Rhine.

They can be merged into desalination plants too, so fresh water as well.
Looks good and all eco.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ers-mouth.html

Most UK river mouths could have these plants. Yep. No dams either. It
appears feasible in large estuaries where there is a lot of fresh water
flowing into the sea. Could be a power station in each estuary where salt
and fresh water meet. Cities like Liverpool, Bristol, etc, could take all
their power from these local station with little line losses.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected.

Lets see..
4.5 million trains at one per hour 24x7 is about 500 years.

Wrong.

Ok so its actually 513.34 (24x7x365) years.
Is that better?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

25 Year Project

It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than
expected.

Lets see..
4.5 million trains at one per hour 24x7 is about 500 years.

Wrong.

Ok so its actually 513.34 (24x7x365) years.
Is that better?

I can see why Maxie thinks you are barking mad. Maxie does know some things.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. ....

Cambridge feel confident. Do a Google.

It is you making the claims. It is up to you to provide the sources you
are relying upon, not for me to call up every possible link to anything
to do with the subject.

You say you were in to Oceanography, then you would look, instead of
trying to make out you know it all. Things have moved on in 40 years, as
they don't drop weights in baths any more.

Suggesting that I trawl through everything on the internet on the off chance
I will find the same articles as you is ridiculous. I can only assume that
your reluctance to give your sources means you don't think they will stand
up to close scrutiny.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. ....

Cambridge feel confident. Do a Google.

It is you making the claims. It is up to you to provide the sources you
are relying upon, not for me to call up every possible link to anything
to do with the subject.

You say you were in to Oceanography, then you would look, instead of
trying to make out you know it all. Things have moved on in 40 years, as
they don't drop weights in baths any more.

Suggesting that I trawl through everything on the internet

It takes less far less keystokes on google to get it all that the tripe you
typed here.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
So, post your sources and let's look at the figures. ....

Cambridge feel confident. Do a Google.

It is you making the claims. It is up to you to provide the sources you
are relying upon, not for me to call up every possible link to anything
to do with the subject.

You say you were in to Oceanography, then you would look, instead of
trying to make out you know it all. Things have moved on in 40 years,
as they don't drop weights in baths any more.

Suggesting that I trawl through everything on the internet

It takes less far less keystokes on google to get it all that the tripe
you typed here.

In other words, you cannot provide any documentary evidence to support your
claims.

Colin Bignell

The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

It takes less far less keystokes on google to get it all that the tripe
you typed here.

In other words, you cannot provide any documentary evidence to support your
claims.

I think you may have underestimated Dribble.

It is not that he can't provide any evidence - the chances are that it
would be the easiest thing in the world to provide the link to his
source - it is just that he would rather leave the source a mystery than
expose the gap between his claims and the reality, which may be no more
than a sales brochure for a novel pumped storage scheme.

We have seen that behaviour before with the degree he claims to have. No
doubt we will see it again in the future with any number of his wacky
ideas.

--
Roger Chapman