Gib Bogle wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 18:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
wrote:


These are all good points, which, ISTM, apply to most of these types of
power generation. I just felt that the tidal power had at least some
advantages:

1) no "windless" days
2) max power output (when tide is flowing strongest) varies from point
to point so that if enough were installed you'd get a more even power
generation
3) capacity can be added bit by bit (unlike tidal barrage, say)
4) as it's underwater, visual impact is less.

Of course, all these methods have the major drawback of needing a
lot of
extra transmission capacity, which is why I favour nuclear anyway.


Right now we need some serious gigawatts - so not building a few
nukes would be foolish. But, in the medium term, I think the tidal
stuff and some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

If we dont build the nukes, there is no medium term.


There is no sustainable society that can ever exists.

There is no society that ever did many of the things we do. Your idea
that we look back, see that previous societies were not sustainable, and
throw up our hands strikes me as rather facile.

Your statement strikes me that way. But then, to the stupid, any
informed statement they don't understand themselves, seems facile.

Look up entropy and learn up on it.
A sustainable society is one that breaks the laws of thermodynamics.