"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