UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,339
Default OT Tidal power

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,410
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/



The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.

--
Colin Bignell
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,631
Default OT Tidal power

Have any of you driven across that French tidal power station. Forget where
is now. I thought that was very impressive, and they even had areas for
wildlife etc.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/



  #4   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
JTM JTM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default OT Tidal power

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Have any of you driven across that French tidal power
station. Forget where is now. I thought that was very
impressive, and they even had areas for wildlife etc.
Brian

Barrage du Rance, just outside St. Malo.
Driven over it, parked in the trees and been inside it.
From the viewing gallery I don't remember seeing much - just
a clean control room and lots of visitors' posters to read
up on its history. Very interesting.

Outside just woods and a quietish country road.

I remember being more excited being inside the Hawswater dam
many years ago.

John

--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

The new girl in the slaughter-house is a real stunner
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,120
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 07:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/




The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


+1

It's entirely predictable and - if spread around the coast - there will
always be some significant tide movement *somewhere* for round the clock
generation.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 07:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/




The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


One of the many that absolutely are not.

Price/performance is utter ****, its still intermittent and its
massively disruptive of marine ecosystems.

In short its got nothing going for it at all.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 08:46, JTM wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Have any of you driven across that French tidal power
station. Forget where is now. I thought that was very
impressive, and they even had areas for wildlife etc.
Brian

Barrage du Rance, just outside St. Malo.
Driven over it, parked in the trees and been inside it.
From the viewing gallery I don't remember seeing much - just
a clean control room and lots of visitors' posters to read
up on its history. Very interesting.

Outside just woods and a quietish country road.

I remember being more excited being inside the Hawswater dam
many years ago.

John

A site so successful no one ever built another...


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 10:38, Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/





The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


+1

It's entirely predictable and - if spread around the coast - there will
always be some significant tide movement *somewhere* for round the clock
generation.


Predicatbility is not really helpful

The tidal range on the West is massively more than the east. Ergo it
will never be a stable source of power

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/


400kW peak.

It's nice, but it would take about 5000 of them to replace those two
nukes they just stopped. And another 5000 somewhere else where the tides
are out of phase to deal with the slack tide problem.

Andy
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,410
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 11:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 07:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/





The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


One of the many that absolutely are not.

Price/performance is utter ****, its still intermittent and its
massively disruptive of marine ecosystems.

In short its got nothing going for it at all.


Despite the article claiming it is a tidal barrage, if you follow the
link to the company's page, it is actually a tidal flow system:
effectively underwater versions of windmills. While I would advocate a
wholly nuclear solution, if we do have to have renewable energy to keep
the greens happy, tidal flow is probably the least intrusive and most
predictable.

--
Colin Bignell


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,569
Default OT Tidal power

Jethro_uk wrote:

It's entirely predictable and - if spread around the coast - there will
always be some significant tide movement *somewhere* for round the clock
generation.


Won't it slow the earth down


I hope so because there aren't enough hours in the day.

Bill
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default OT Tidal power

The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 13:45, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green


Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war,
that anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer
is new.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so
riddled with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we
know how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and
we can calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies
required to extract it.

All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar
panels and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of
massive dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.

Neither is there any new technology that might change this.

You can live on dreams if you like. I prefer a bacon sarnie.

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.

Because it didn't work.

And still doesn't.


Sticking titanium shoes on a carthorse is all very well, but it still
cant draw a 4,000 tonne train.

A diesel engine can.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 14:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:45:22 +0200, A. Lurker wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be
obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.


"When a respected and learned scientist says something is possible, he is
more than likely right. When a respected and learned scientist says
something is impossible he is almost more than likely wrong."


I am however an engineer.

And I am not talking about possibilities.

I am talking about cost benefit ratios and environmental impact.

Its POSSIBLE to do many many things that are absolutely not worth doing.
Cars with square wheels are possible, with suitable active suspension to
keep the car body stable and suitable couplings to prevent longitudinal
stresses. Its just a such **** shape for wheel that no one has bothered.

An engineer is someone who can do for five bob what any damned fool can
do for a quid, or which a green can't do reliably for 50 quid.

If you want reliable dispatchable power the cheapest way is to burn
fossil fuel and the second cheapest is to 'burn' nuclear fuel.

There is no point in doing te rest if your actual aim is to generate
cost-effective life giving energy for human consumption.

All the rest is a complete fraud on the public who have to pay for these
extravagant cosmic political solutions that fail to solve a problem that
is looking increasingly as if it doesn't even exist.


This year, it's more than halfway through the hurricane season and we
are up to B for Bertha, and that did **** all.

Signs of a cooling globe.



Arthur C Clarke.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 15:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:29:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/08/14 13:45, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever
be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green


Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war,
that anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer
is new.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so
riddled with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we
know how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and
we can calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies
required to extract it.

All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar
panels and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of
massive dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.


I would have thought the best way to harness tidal power is to have a
reservoir fill up somehow[1] at high tide, and then use the outflowing
water to drive a turbine.


Why not use hydroelectric then? ponds 30 feet above a lower level (which
is all you get with tides) could be constructed on many rivers ..

Tides - even Atlantic coast tide = have rotten energy density.

If you have - like the severn - a reasonable geological amplifications,
its still marginal, bloody expensive and of deep environtmental impact.

Why bother? One nuke will do far better for far less cost..






[1]I may have spotted the flaw here



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 15:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:29:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/08/14 13:45, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever
be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green


Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war,
that anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer
is new.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so
riddled with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we
know how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and
we can calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies
required to extract it.

All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar
panels and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of
massive dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.


I would have thought the best way to harness tidal power is to have a
reservoir fill up somehow[1] at high tide, and then use the outflowing
water to drive a turbine.

[1]I may have spotted the flaw here

Which was what was proposed for the Severn. The problem is that at high
tide what is in the reservoir cannot be higher than the outside level so
no power. Tidal flow works both ways but there is a point where the
levels are the same and, again, no power.

ISTR that there was a proposal for the Severn that required a second
(empty) basin from the barrage to somewhere near the Devon border. This
would be emptied at low tide and the main barrage filled at high tide.
That way there was always a differential in level unless you had let too
much water through too quickly. I think that the idea was that you could
generate electricity quickly.

Took and awful lot of concrete though and the poor sods on the coast had
the tide permanently out.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,842
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 15:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green

They *may* be right by then. Grin

OTOH, we may have cracked the fusion problem by then, too.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,410
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 15:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible....


In 1894 Hiram Maxim managed to build a 3.5 ton, 110ft wingspan steam
driven aircraft that produced an estimated 10,000 lbs of lift. It made
successful restrained flights, but he was still working on how to
control it in free flight when it broke free of its restraints and
crashed. However, he did demonstrate that steam powered flight was
feasible.

There was also quite a lot of interest in steam powered flight in the
early 1930s and at least one steam powered aircraft made several
successful flights in the USA.

--
Colin Bignell
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,842
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 17:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

There was also quite a lot of interest in steam powered flight in the
early 1930s and at least one steam powered aircraft made several
successful flights in the USA.

There have also been model aircraft successfully powered by steam.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,410
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 17:31, John Williamson wrote:
On 13/08/2014 17:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

There was also quite a lot of interest in steam powered flight in the
early 1930s and at least one steam powered aircraft made several
successful flights in the USA.

There have also been model aircraft successfully powered by steam.


As far back as 1848, but getting a model to fly is a rather different
problem from getting a useful sized aircraft into the air. BTW Hiram
Maxim was building his aircraft as a carrier for his machine gun.

--
Colin Bignell


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,339
Default OT Tidal power


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:59:36 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/



The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


The last two paragraphs, referring to a tidal barrage being proposed
in the US, worried me slightly. The last sentence includes the phrase
"The setup would use pumps to replicate natural tides when
necessary...". Sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion to me! OK, so
it won't be, but it's not obvious what it does actually mean.


You don't really think proper engineers are going to fall for the perpetual
motion theory?

There is a system where the tidal lagoon is used to store energy using the
turbines as pumps.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,339
Default OT Tidal power


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/14 13:45, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be
obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green


Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war, that
anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer is
new.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so riddled
with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we know
how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and we can
calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies required to
extract it.

All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar panels
and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of massive
dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.

Neither is there any new technology that might change this.

You can live on dreams if you like. I prefer a bacon sarnie.

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.

Because it didn't work.

And still doesn't.



Full of ****e as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy



Sticking titanium shoes on a carthorse is all very well, but it still cant
draw a 4,000 tonne train.

A diesel engine can.


When there is fuel to run it.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,339
Default OT Tidal power


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/14 15:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:29:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/08/14 13:45, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever
be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green


Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war,
that anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer
is new.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so
riddled with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we
know how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and
we can calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies
required to extract it.

All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar
panels and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of
massive dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.


I would have thought the best way to harness tidal power is to have a
reservoir fill up somehow[1] at high tide, and then use the outflowing
water to drive a turbine.


Why not use hydroelectric then? ponds 30 feet above a lower level (which
is all you get with tides) could be constructed on many rivers ..

Tides - even Atlantic coast tide = have rotten energy density.

If you have - like the severn - a reasonable geological amplifications,
its still marginal, bloody expensive and of deep environtmental impact.

Why bother? One nuke will do far better for far less cost..


Drivel. No-one knows the final cost of nuclear power because no-one has yet
dealt with the waste,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_nuclear_power


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,168
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 18:46, harryagain wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:59:36 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/



The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


The last two paragraphs, referring to a tidal barrage being proposed
in the US, worried me slightly. The last sentence includes the phrase
"The setup would use pumps to replicate natural tides when
necessary...". Sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion to me! OK, so
it won't be, but it's not obvious what it does actually mean.


You don't really think proper engineers are going to fall for the perpetual
motion theory?

There is a system where the tidal lagoon is used to store energy using the
turbines as pumps.



From nukes!
They can't store it from anywhere else without more CO2 being produced.

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,410
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 18:54, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

....
Sticking titanium shoes on a carthorse is all very well, but it still cant
draw a 4,000 tonne train.

A diesel engine can.


When there is fuel to run it.


Which there always will be. We already have the technology to
manufacture it from waste products, water and sunlight. It is only that
it is not economic to do so at today's prices.


--
Colin Bignell


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default OT Tidal power

The Natural Philosopher wrote lengthily:

A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:


Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895


There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.


"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"


A stupid Green


No one ever said that.

Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed.


Birds are not made-made machines, which is what we are considering here.

However if he didn't know about the internal combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct.


He said something which turned out to be wrong; people do it all the time
- not least here on Usenet.

Without the internal combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


Not so, as the Wright brothers demonstrated in 1903.

There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war,
that anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


What has that to do with regard to an erroneous pronouncement?

These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer
is new.


Wave and tidal power technology is not new? How far back can you find it?

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so
riddled with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we
know how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and
we can calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies
required to extract it.


All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar
panels and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of
massive dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.


Neither is there any new technology that might change this.


You sound like someone who'd have told the atom-splitters that their work
was all very well but leading nowhere, and have scoffed at the pioneers of
flight for their contraptions.

You can live on dreams if you like. I prefer a bacon sarnie.


Einstein was forbidden pork, but Kelvin hankered for ham.

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.


Because it didn't work.


And still doesn't.


But maybe it will.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 19:24, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/08/2014 18:54, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

...
Sticking titanium shoes on a carthorse is all very well, but it still
cant
draw a 4,000 tonne train.

A diesel engine can.


When there is fuel to run it.


Which there always will be. We already have the technology to
manufacture it from waste products, water and sunlight. It is only that
it is not economic to do so at today's prices.


yep. Carbon fuel is the ideal storage medium as a 'battery' Its just
that there are - so to speak - a lot of AAAs lying around ready charged
under the ground.

And the cycle efficiency is crap.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 19:40, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote lengthily:

A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:


Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895


There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.


"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"


A stupid Green


No one ever said that.

Someone did, on Usenet.

Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed.


Birds are not made-made machines, which is what we are considering here.

What we are considering is the science of flight. Which applies to birds
too.


However if he didn't know about the internal combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct.


He said something which turned out to be wrong; people do it all the time
- not least here on Usenet.

Without the internal combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


Not so, as the Wright brothers demonstrated in 1903.


With an internal combustion engine. ****.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war,
that anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


What has that to do with regard to an erroneous pronouncement?

Jesus H. Are you really thick, or just trolling...

These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer
is new.


Wave and tidal power technology is not new? How far back can you find it?

Several thousand years.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so
riddled with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we
know how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and
we can calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies
required to extract it.


All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar
panels and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of
massive dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.


Neither is there any new technology that might change this.


You sound like someone who'd have told the atom-splitters that their work
was all very well but leading nowhere, and have scoffed at the pioneers of
flight for their contraptions.


On the contrary, armed with a slide rule, id have been building those
contraptions

You can live on dreams if you like. I prefer a bacon sarnie.


Einstein was forbidden pork, but Kelvin hankered for ham.

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.


Because it didn't work.


And still doesn't.


But maybe it will.

No it wont.

Not nearly well enough to keep you in a working computer.

And there may be a silver lining in that.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,168
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 19:40, A. Lurker wrote:



8

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.


Because it didn't work.


And still doesn't.


But maybe it will.

No it wont.

Not nearly well enough to keep you in a working computer.


Given the current rate of development in computers there is a good
chance you will be able to get a working computer that will work off the
heat in your hand.
There are some things that don't need massive renewables so they might work.

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,569
Default OT Tidal power

A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.


Mark my words that boy will hang.
My headmaster c1960.

Bill


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,569
Default OT Tidal power

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I am talking about cost benefit ratios and environmental impact.

Its POSSIBLE to do many many things that are absolutely not worth doing.
Cars with square wheels are possible, with suitable active suspension to
keep the car body stable and suitable couplings to prevent longitudinal
stresses. Its just a such **** shape for wheel that no one has bothered.

An engineer is someone who can do for five bob what any damned fool can
do for a quid, or which a green can't do reliably for 50 quid.

If you want reliable dispatchable power the cheapest way is to burn
fossil fuel and the second cheapest is to 'burn' nuclear fuel.

There is no point in doing te rest if your actual aim is to generate
cost-effective life giving energy for human consumption.

All the rest is a complete fraud on the public who have to pay for these
extravagant cosmic political solutions that fail to solve a problem that
is looking increasingly as if it doesn't even exist.


This year, it's more than halfway through the hurricane season and we
are up to B for Bertha, and that did **** all.

Signs of a cooling globe.


Excellent post. You should be on telly. Tried the BBC?

Bill
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 21:04, Dennis@home wrote:
On 13/08/2014 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 19:40, A. Lurker wrote:



8

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact
its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.

Because it didn't work.

And still doesn't.

But maybe it will.

No it wont.

Not nearly well enough to keep you in a working computer.


Given the current rate of development in computers there is a good
chance you will be able to get a working computer that will work off the
heat in your hand.
There are some things that don't need massive renewables so they might
work.

Oh dear.
You dont know anything about computer hardware either.

Sure you might get one. It would be good enough to - run a digital
watch perhaps.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,766
Default OT Tidal power

It happens that Chris Hogg formulated :
The last two paragraphs, referring to a tidal barrage being proposed
in the US, worried me slightly. The last sentence includes the phrase
"The setup would use pumps to replicate natural tides when
necessary...". Sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion to me! OK, so
it won't be, but it's not obvious what it does actually mean.


I would guess, it would pump the water to storage at off peak, then use
the stored water to generate power at peak. Its a well known and cost
effective method.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,410
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/2014 08:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:59:36 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/



The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


The last two paragraphs, referring to a tidal barrage being proposed
in the US, worried me slightly. The last sentence includes the phrase
"The setup would use pumps to replicate natural tides when
necessary...". Sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion to me! OK, so
it won't be, but it's not obvious what it does actually mean.


According to the company web site, they seem to be promising rather
better than simple perpetual motion, they are offering a net gain in energy:

'It is important to point out that pumping generates more power than it
consumes'

http://www.halcyontidalpower.com/the...al-protection/


--
Colin Bignell
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,896
Default OT Tidal power

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/14 13:45, A. Lurker wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote hastily:

Its more fairy dust mate. Forget it.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be
obtainable.
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"By 20202 the whole country will be running off renewable energy"

A stupid Green


Kelvin should have known better: birds which are heavier then air flying
machines already existed. However if he didn't know about the internal
combustion engine, he as in fact quite correct. Without the internal
combustion engine heavier than air flight was impossible.


There was in 1932 no indication that nuclear energy was ever obtainable
and a year or so later every reason as the world tipped towards war, that
anyone who thought otherwise be sworn to extreme secrecy.


These were of course NEW technologies. Nothing about wave or tidal poer is
new.

The record of the warmists and renewable energy aficionados is so riddled
with false claims that there isn't time to list them all.


To put it in simple terms, we know how much energy is in the waves and
tides, and we know how much of that we can reasonably extract and we know
how much area of sea is needed to get a given amount of energy, and we can
calculate a minimum cost for the structures and technologies required to
extract it.

All these give minimum costs several times greater than even solar panels
and windmills and no possibility without even further costs of massive
dimensions of solving the intermittency/dispatch problem.

Neither is there any new technology that might change this.

You can live on dreams if you like. I prefer a bacon sarnie.

The point is that renewable technology is not shiny and new, in fact its
centuries old and we abandoned most of it years ago.

Because it didn't work.

And still doesn't.





Full of ****e as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy


Wonkypedia .. Yes isn't it just;(...



Sticking titanium shoes on a carthorse is all very well, but it still cant
draw a 4,000 tonne train.

A diesel engine can.


When there is fuel to run it.



--
Tony Sayer

..



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,569
Default OT Tidal power

Tim Streater wrote:


Which will still leave you with residual ripple.

It's wonderful the variety of ice creams available nowadays.

Bill

  #37   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,085
Default OT Tidal power

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:38:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This year, it's more than halfway through the hurricane season and we
are up to B for Bertha, and that did **** all.


No we are not, quite. Mid point is Aug 31/1 Sep and the normal peak
is mid September.

Signs of a cooling globe.


One seasons data is "weather" not "climate", mind you last year was
quiet as well.

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/...014/index.html

Just change the 2014 to 2013, 2012 etc for previous years (2011
appears to e AWOL).


--
Cheers
Dave.



  #38   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 21:36, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
It happens that Chris Hogg formulated :
The last two paragraphs, referring to a tidal barrage being proposed
in the US, worried me slightly. The last sentence includes the phrase
"The setup would use pumps to replicate natural tides when
necessary...". Sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion to me! OK, so
it won't be, but it's not obvious what it does actually mean.


I would guess, it would pump the water to storage at off peak, then use
the stored water to generate power at peak. Its a well known and cost
effective method.

Not with at most a 30 foot head


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/08/2014 08:57, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:59:36 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/




The only renewable energy that I think is worth investing in.


The last two paragraphs, referring to a tidal barrage being proposed
in the US, worried me slightly. The last sentence includes the phrase
"The setup would use pumps to replicate natural tides when
necessary...". Sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion to me! OK, so
it won't be, but it's not obvious what it does actually mean.


According to the company web site, they seem to be promising rather
better than simple perpetual motion, they are offering a net gain in
energy:

'It is important to point out that pumping generates more power than it
consumes'

http://www.halcyontidalpower.com/the...al-protection/



At this point you just know its fairy dust


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default OT Tidal power

On 14/08/14 07:21, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:38:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This year, it's more than halfway through the hurricane season and we
are up to B for Bertha, and that did **** all.


No we are not, quite. Mid point is Aug 31/1 Sep and the normal peak
is mid September.

Signs of a cooling globe.


One seasons data is "weather" not "climate", mind you last year was
quiet as well.


Exactly. All signs of a cooling climate, which is after all the
integrated and averaged result of 'weather' data.

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/...014/index.html

Just change the 2014 to 2013, 2012 etc for previous years (2011
appears to e AWOL).




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Halfords switching power supply to power a Ring Automotive RAC610 12V Analogue (Tyre) Compressor MM UK diy 29 July 9th 15 01:26 PM
PC Speakers - no power supply but I have a drawer full of power supplies! alo UK diy 6 December 27th 12 11:53 PM
QUESTION: How to connect a power supply to my home power grid? S Claus Electronics 6 July 29th 09 02:08 PM
HP/Agilent E3632A programmable power supply has power up failure (solution) JW Electronics Repair 0 September 20th 07 12:54 PM
Running 120v small power tool on UK 230v power (with pics) Carl Farrington Electronics Repair 9 September 2nd 06 07:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"