In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
Green ****ing in the wind, as usual.
[]
What about when there isn't any wind (-:?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW, not 300GW

Could you clarify what you mean by that exactly?

IIUC, our total annual electricity production (including nett imports)
is something just under 400GWh[1].

Oops, sorry, make that TWh!

You have: 400 ****t hour /year
You want: Gwatt
* 45.631821

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
[]
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.
[]
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, on the earlier
area: I think a small amount is worth having, and because it _is_
such a smaller amount, the threat it poses to the stability of the
rest is small - it'll just mean the rest of the system will use
slightly less fuel for some of the time.


why should I subsidise a horse and cart, so that it is there if the car
breaks down?
[]
A better analogy would be, why should a distribution depot keep a
solar-charged van? There's no way (especially in this country!) such a
vehicle could replace the normal truck fleet, but equally, it's free for
what little it could do.

(Actually not a bad analogy [to wind power], in that setup costs are
significant; I happen to think that, with current costs [and
efficiencies] of solar cells, such a van _would_ be _totally_
uneconomic, whereas I think that - in certain limited circumstances -
wind power has a chance of being.)

Your horse has high maintenance costs. (The cart less so.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message , Derek Geldard
writes:
[]
And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.


The state that this goverment has got this country into, out of
incompetance and rthe need to placate the lily-livered lefties
because they need their vote, I seriously doubt we could maintain a
country full of windmills because we don't have the capability to make
the replacement parts inside the country if ever the chips were down.

Derek

Can we please leave (party) politics out of this one? I'm certainly no
fan of the current lot (have never voted for them in my life), but as
far as energy policy is concerned, neither of the main parties in this
country have shown much promise where it comes to energy policy, nor
show any sign of doing so (or, whatever has to be done will have to be
done whichever of them is in power). I fear that this is because the
majority of them don't understand the problem, and the few that do are
either cynical because of, or hamstrung by, the political system
(short-termism). [The reds - and to some extent the yellows - _do_ have
ties to the greens, though not as great as is alleged, and the blues
probably favour nuclear more than is wise, but both of these slight
biases won't IMO make much difference.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:33:06 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

Be fair. The delicate bits of windmills are 50ft in the air, safe from
the average chav.

The delicate bit is the hollow steel tube that the turbine sits on.
Give that a hard enough whack and it'll just crumple, as several have
done spontaneously...

Have any recently-built ones done so in Britain? (Genuinely curious: I
just don't know.)

And to damage enough of them to make any difference to our supply
situation would take a _lot_ of effort. There are _thousands_ of them.

Even if you took 'em all out it still wouldn't make much difference.
Might have to ask Drax for another few percent of their capacity.

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message , Paul
Martin writes:
In article ,
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:26:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes:
Osram 15w (75w equiv) - 900 lumens
Philips 20w (100w equiv) - 1200 lumens

Bloggs 60W (60W equivalent - i. e. a filament bulb) - ? lumens?

Somewhere between 700-900 lumens, according to the first page of a
(not necessarily particularly scientific) google search.

Osram 42W Halogen (60W equiv) = 630 lm

Yes, I've noticed these creeping in, despite the relatively smaller
energy saving.

One daft thing is that you can still get higher wattage tungsten bulbs,
as long as they're not pearl finish (frosted).

But not higher-wattage CFLs! (Apart from the below.)

Of course, it does nothing to relieve the world of 500W halogen yard
search lights.

I've seen advertised (in those leaflets that fall out of magazines, and
similar places) a security light with a coiled fluorescent in it
(thirtysomething watts, I think). Anyone used these? Do they have enough
mercury in them (or whatever) so that they come on quickly enough to be
used as a security light?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message
,
jgharston writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Conversely, if you take a stroll around the electrical isles of Home
Depot (the US equivalent of B&Q), it is like looking back at the wiring
accessories we used to use in the 1930's.

Whenever I see most foreign, and particularly america, plugs it seems
so much that they haven't evolved past the two-nails-bashed-through-a
piece-of-wood stage, whereas the BS1363 was actually /designed/.

--
JGH

I grew up in (then West) Germany, with the Schuko (as we call it here
now) design: I certainly found them at least as good then as the
(then-common) versions of the BS1363, which were then made with a
brittle white substance and unshrouded pins (the basic design of the
German _socket_ made shrouded pins unnecessary). Of course, the BS1363
has improved since then (196x-197x), but then so has the Schuko.

I'm sure they were _all_ designed; I agree I'm not fond of the American
one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.

In message , Paul
Martin writes
In article ,
Richard Tobin wrote:
[protons]
AIUI, many physicists believe that they do decay, because they
believe a certain kind of unified theory must be true, and such
a theory would imply it. But that's an intuition about what
must be true, rather than something backed by physical evidence.

They do it when we're not looking.

It's possible that the half life of a proton is in the exayear range or
longer, and that the heat death of the universe would come before any
significant number will decay.

I wonder how many decayed reading this thread ?

--
geoff

On Sep 28, 5:14*pm, geoff wrote:
In message , Paul
Martin writesIn article ,
* * * Richard Tobin wrote:
[protons]
AIUI, many physicists believe that they do decay, because they
believe a certain kind of unified theory must be true, and such
a theory would imply it. *But that's an intuition about what
must be true, rather than something backed by physical evidence.

They do it when we're not looking.

It's possible that the half life of a proton is in the exayear range or
longer, and that the heat death of the universe would come before any
significant number will decay.

I wonder how many decayed reading this thread ?

--
geoff

Now we know where that little white spot that slowly faded went.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
Rest assured, Goldman Sachs (GS) is determined to make sure that
energy of any form is no longer "cheap".

The same goes for food (agriculture) as they, plus carbon, are the new
super-commodity markets with super-distortions. Enron showed just how
much money could be extracted.

It will be a case of energy prices rise to negate technological
improvements, since energy will be a prime source of taxation in the
anglo-america and much of the world. All disguised as "green" of
course, a repeat of the UFO groups.


You don't have to be Milton Friedman to realise just how much oil prices
have been speculated and manipulated, especially in the last couple of years

Free market, what free market?

Steve Terry

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:24:14 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple
kilowatts

Sounds like Scottish Power generate more than a *couple of kilowatts* to
me from hydro electric schemes --

Lanark Hydro Electric Scheme 17 MW
Galloway Hydro Electric Scheme 106.5 MW

Sloy 152MW
Foyers 300MW
Cheers
Dave.


Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

Steve Terry

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:22:51 +0100, Bof wrote:

seems like 'some' is currently around 170 MK products

Why are none of them available for home delivery?

Could it be that they are the remnants of the stock line still available
at some stores which have not yet sold out of the item, and thus are
no longer available from the central distribution depot (from where
home delivery items would be dispatched)?

Or is that a bogus explanation?

No idea, is it /the/ explanation?

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Java Jive wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:01:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
- world uranium output is what it is because no more is currently
needed. There is plenty more there.The use of CURRENT production to
imply a limit on FUTURE production is basically worthy only of a
green****er or politician.

But you are talking about buying the uranium up front, which implies
it must be found now or in the near future, so current production
figures or nearly so would apply. See the calculation below.

-300GW is a figure obtained by taking the governments figures for total
energy consumption, and multiplying it by appropriate efficiency figures
to map it into putative electrical generation figures.

I know, but I and everyone else are talking about electricity
production alone, so you're just muddying the waters.

Thereby making us strategically independent of oil and gas producing
countries.

We are already, or near as dammit.

Bwahahahaha!
Keep up at the back! we have never been able to meet our oil demands,
and we are now a net importer of gas, too.

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference. It would be a lot
easier to fly some planes into some nuclear power stations.


Wouldn't get very far.

And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.

But we don't have any radio-active fuel, so the only way we could
guarantee strategic security of supply is to stockpile the WHOLE
envisaged future demand in advance while we are actually building the
power stations. Let's do the maths for that ...


Do it, Its a lot easier than stockpiling all the coal for a year so you
can take on the miners.

If 100 nuclear power stations were ordered today, and completed 10 a
year from 10 years hence, it would take 20 years to complete the job.
If each was expected to last 40 years, the estimated lifetime of
Sizewell B, that would mean a total fuel demand of 40 * 100 * 7360t =
29,440,000t, or 1,472,000t/yr, or 34 times the current world uranium
production. This means that total current world uranium production
would have to grow at about 29% compound every single year over the 20
years of construction to meet both our and the current level of world
demands.


You conveniently forget reprocessing and fast breeding. And your figures
for uranium are way off beam. It only takes about 200tons a year of
enriched uranium to run a 1GW power station so for 300GW its about
600,000 tons a year.

By contrast we currently import 50 million tons of coal each year.


You should look at the rate of rise of production in uranium in the 50's..

That's a hell of a growth rate.

Now look at the figures for windmills.

And gasp. Oh I forgot, you dont do maths except when it fits your scenario.


You're not employed by or have shares
in Rio Tinto are/do you?

Wish I was..

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


Be fair. The delicate bits of windmills are 50ft in the air, safe from
the average chav. And to damage enough of them to make any difference
to our supply situation would take a _lot_ of effort. There are
_thousands_ of them.

Andy
They said that about public telephone boxes too.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
Green ****ing in the wind, as usual.
[]
What about when there isn't any wind (-:?

It will run down there trouser legs, with luck.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes:
[]
Further, a recent programme showed that we actually have plenty of
untapped reserves in the North Sea and the North Atlantic, enough at
least for another 40 years, probably quite a bit longer. It's just a
question of price and need as to whether we decide to use them.

I saw that, and have been wondering when someone would bring it up. I
think the bit I saw said that, more or less, there's slightly less left
in the North Sea than we've extracted already - in other words, several
decades' worth. (I didn't see the bit that covered the Atlantic
reserves.) The prog. said that, more or less, it's speculation that has
put up the cost of fuel, not really increased difficulty in getting at
it or increased demand (both of which are there, but not major
contributors).

Of course, (a) this is still _relatively_ short-term, and (b) it's still
a CO2-producing fuel. But I suspect it'll be favoured by the population
after a few long power cuts, and sod the planet.
[]
You really are clutching at straws. Nothing goes to Australia through
Suez It goes either via cape Horn, or the Cape oh good hope. Suez is of
zero importance apart from access to the oil in the Persian gulf, and
even then, most larger tankers go around the Cape.

Hard information seems hard to come by, but why would a shipping line
want to increase the distance its ships have to travel by nearly a
third? Also ...

I will freely admit that I don't have any figures for quantities, but it
is certainly true that there are ships which go round the end because
they are too big to go through Suez, and which have been built since
Suez has been open; at this scale we are definitely talking hard
economics, so there must be an economically viable reason for them to
exist. I repeat, I don't know what proportions are.
[]
"-The Suez Canal can now accommodate all mammoth tankers in service on
their ballast trips."

(Presumably this means one way only?)

... work is apparently under way to increase the draft to accommodate
full mammoth tankers. As far as I can gather the current largest
container ships still fit through the canal, certainly the BBC
Container went through it - to continue ...

Well, there are some (at least one) designed just to shuttle back and
forth between China and the USA (across the Pacific), which no way will
fit through either canal. (With many of the containers being empty in
the USA-China direction, apparently ...)
[]
A country must have security of its energy supply. If you are
maintaining that actually we don't need this, then why are we arguing?

I agree with you (even though we didn't for several decades before North
Sea oil was discovered).
[]
neodymium are estimated as about 8 million tonnes. Although it belongs
to "rare earth metals," neodymium is not rare at all - its abundance

The term "rare earths" is an (I've always thought rather quaint!) term
for a class of elements (a certain patch of the periodic table, I
think); it got the name because several of the first elements to be
used/isolated/whatever _were_ rare, and the name stuck.

virtually no neodymium is mined outside of China.

Whether its rare or not in quantity, it sure is in location.

Steve Terry wrote:
"js.b1" wrote in message
...
Rest assured, Goldman Sachs (GS) is determined to make sure that
energy of any form is no longer "cheap".

The same goes for food (agriculture) as they, plus carbon, are the new
super-commodity markets with super-distortions. Enron showed just how
much money could be extracted.

It will be a case of energy prices rise to negate technological
improvements, since energy will be a prime source of taxation in the
anglo-america and much of the world. All disguised as "green" of
course, a repeat of the UFO groups.


You don't have to be Milton Friedman to realise just how much oil prices
have been speculated and manipulated, especially in the last couple of years

Free market, what free market?


What is unfree about speculation?

It's part of the free market.

Steve Terry

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:56:40 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
You seem to living in another world. Noone here seems to be agreeing
with you at all.

You've obviously got a few of us blocked, then?

That's Charlie Farlie's answer to everyone who disagrees with the
******** he spouts...

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...


Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a dy?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better access
for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the Bristol
channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

Steve Terry

In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least half that
time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway) between England and
Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better
access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the
Bristol channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why did
they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea water rot
the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with nuclear? Does
anyone know?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Steve Terry wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW
For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better access
for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the Bristol
channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

Steve Terry



At what cost?..both direct, and indirect to the coastline and environment.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least half that
time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway) between England and
Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better
access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the
Bristol channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why did
they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea water rot
the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with nuclear? Does
anyone know?

Twice a day it produces zero power for a few hours.
These periods change time on a rotating basis every 28 days.
Unless you can store the energy there isn't much you can use it for.
Its just like the problem with wind power but a little more predictable.
Maybe it could be used to produce hydrogen for cars?
Its not going to help the grid much AFAICS.

charles wrote:
The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why
did they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea
water rot the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with
nuclear? Does anyone know?

No - but I think I remember reading many years ago about problems with silt.
However, that may not have been major, since a quick google gives
www.eoearth.org/article/La_Rance,_France as what looks like a balanced
summary (there are other hits which are either rehashes of EdF's P.R.
material, or else trying to make points about a Severn barrage).

The main points I take from that article which respond to Charles's question
a
(a) a policy decision in favour of nuclear,
(b) capital cost and lengthy pay-back time,
(c) [a lesser concern?] environmental effects.

André Coutanche

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:32:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?

Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

But probably not when it's needed, OK ship it up to Scotlands pumped
storage schemes then ship it back down? Wonder how much wouldbe lost?

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and
better
access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers
across
the Bristol channel, producing around half that power

At what cost?..both direct, and indirect to the coastline and
environment.

A barrage is probably nota good idea, the severn estuary is very
silty, slow the flow of water (which with 40' tides is huge, hence
being a good site for power generation) and the silt will start to
settle out. Dredging such a huge area is not very practical.

Tidal lagoons or submerged turbines in a weir type arrangement is
probably better from the long term maintenace and enviroment aspects.

--
Cheers
Dave.

charles wrote:
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW
For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least half that
time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway) between England and
Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better
access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the
Bristol channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why did
they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea water rot
the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with nuclear? Does
anyone know?

I suspect its as with all these renewables, a mixture of things.

1/. Low energy density. Its very hard to extract energy from a source of
lot of something slightly different rather than a little of something
highly different, in energy from your sink . Wind, solar and tidal and
indeed broadly hydro, all represent essentially solar incidence over
very wide areas representing loads of energy, but spread very thin. Only
occasionally do geographical quirks collect it for use in a convenient
place.

That inevitably means BIG installations costing a lot for not that much
power. CF a typical roof top windmill that produces a few watts,
compared with say a small petrol engine you can buy for less than £100
capable of a few KW..



2/. By their very nature, tidal power stations have to be designed
specifically for the actual place they reside..the tide flows and so on
are radically different in different locations, its also new technology,
and that means no low cost mass produced components and a legacy of R&D
in the form of stock solutions, exist.

So once again that is doomed to make them costly.

3/. Risk benefit analysis., If you do not simply subsidise, its a brave
man who reaches into his pocket for a project with very poorly defined
risk, even if the rewards look good on paper. (Channel Tunnel vision)
That's what's holding back nuclear power right now. There is an element
of political risk, power stations can be (and have been) closed, at a
political whim.


4/. Political subsidisation, which seems a good idea, is in reality a
further risk. This was brought home to me, clearly, when I attended an
alternative energy conference some years back. At lunch I got talking to
a German banker. His question to me was 'You are an engineer, tell me,
is any of this viable without subsidy?' and I had to tell him that no,
it was not. 'Ach, then I am wasting my time, my banks time and my
investors money' he said. 'The politicians will never let us make a
profit: If we do, Boom! there is a row and the subsidies are cut'.

A situation you can see clearly with BT today. Ofcom wont let them make
serious money, and complains that they wont undertake serious investment.

Also to be seen with the Dartford crossing on the M25. Once it had paid
back its investors principle, and they looked set to make a profit, it
was to be effectively nationalised..strangely, that happened, but under
Nu Laber, tolls are still being charged. Hmm.


Put that in the pot and stir it, and you have a situation that nearly
all alternative energy is a commercial risk not worth taking by and large.

Not for private investors OR for governments.


Even conventional energy is subject to some pretty twisted economics.
I am not an oil market specialist, but it seems that the laws of supply
and demand don't work in the oil industry. If the price is high, you
would expect people to pump more oil, drill more wells and supply more
oil. It seems to be almost the reverse. By pouring billions into
developing less and less productive wells (mots oil still comes from the
huge easy fields exploited years ago) you are in fact ending up spending
money to both depress the price of oil, and deplete your capital assets
- your reserves.

So there you have it. Governments wont, and indeed these days can't
finace massive infrastructure out of the public purse, but because its
deemed of 'national importance' neither will they refrain from
interfering with it if someone else does it.

The net result is that nothing happens.


The ONLY reason windpower has become fashionable is because the EU
simply made vast sums of money available to meet a self imposed
political emissions target. A vast sum we are all having to pay in
increased taxes.

typical political interference. ALL they had to do was tax fossil fuels
by about +50% more and let the market decide how and where it would make
the cost savings..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wind, solar and tidal and
indeed broadly hydro, all represent essentially solar incidence over
very wide areas representing loads of energy, but spread very thin. Only
occasionally do geographical quirks collect it for use in a convenient
place.

If you are claiming (it's a bit unclear) that tidal energy is a derived
form of solar, i.e. derived from the light emitted by the sun, and
incident on the earth, you are mistaken.

Wind and hydro _are_ solar, though.


#Paul

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Wind, solar and tidal and
indeed broadly hydro, all represent essentially solar incidence over
very wide areas representing loads of energy, but spread very thin. Only
occasionally do geographical quirks collect it for use in a convenient
place.

If you are claiming (it's a bit unclear) that tidal energy is a derived
form of solar, i.e. derived from the light emitted by the sun, and
incident on the earth, you are mistaken.

No. I admit to a gross over simplification there.

APART from tidal, they all are incident sunlight

ALL represent low grade diffuse energy..a tough thing to cope with
engineering wise.


Wind and hydro _are_ solar, though.


#Paul

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you are claiming (it's a bit unclear) that tidal energy is a derived
form of solar, i.e. derived from the light emitted by the sun, and
incident on the earth, you are mistaken.

No. I admit to a gross over simplification there.

Tidal energy is derived from gravitational potential energy and/or
the kinetic energy of the earth/moon/sun system. I think describing your
remark as an "over simplification" is being a bit optimistic.


#Paul

In article ,
wrote:

If you are claiming (it's a bit unclear) that tidal energy is a derived
form of solar, i.e. derived from the light emitted by the sun, and
incident on the earth, you are mistaken.

A substantial part of the tides are caused by the sun's gravity.
Without the moon, we would still have tides - about a quarter of
the height, I believe.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Sep 30, 12:58*pm, Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Richard Tobin wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
If you are claiming (it's a bit unclear) that tidal energy is a derived
form of solar, i.e. derived from the light emitted by the sun, and
incident on the earth, you are mistaken. *
A substantial part of the tides are caused by the sun's gravity.
Without the moon, we would still have tides - about a quarter of
the height, I believe.

Other way round. The moon has the largest effect,

That's why taking away the moon leaves only a quarter!

MBQ

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

If you are claiming (it's a bit unclear) that tidal energy is a derived
form of solar, i.e. derived from the light emitted by the sun, and
incident on the earth, you are mistaken.

A substantial part of the tides are caused by the sun's gravity.
Without the moon, we would still have tides - about a quarter of
the height, I believe.

Other way round. The moon has the largest effect, and the sun the
lesser effect.

that's what he said. About a quarter with no moon, ergo 3/4 is the moon.

Of course if we start using the tidal energy, the moon will come
crashing into us and destroy the planet a bit quicker. Another example
of 'green' energy destroying the planet...? ;-)

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:11:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Of course if we start using the tidal energy, the moon will come
crashing into us and destroy the planet a bit quicker. Another example
of 'green' energy destroying the planet...? ;-)

He he, except that the moon is currently moving away from us at about
3.8cm/year. As you take energy out of the system there is less to
alter the course of the moon so it tends to travel a straighter path
and thus moves away, well it's a theory...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:58:54 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

A substantial part of the tides are caused by the sun's gravity.
Without the moon, we would still have tides - about a quarter of
the height, I believe.

Other way round. The moon has the largest effect, and the sun the
lesser effect.

I believe that's what he said... 1/4 sun, 3/4 moon.

On Sep 30, 3:24*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:11:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course if we start using the tidal energy, themoonwill come
crashing into us and destroy the planet a bit quicker. Another example
of 'green' energy destroying the planet...? ;-)

He he, except that themoonis currently moving away from us at about
3.8cm/year. As you take energy out of the system there is less to
alter the course of themoonso it tends to travel a straighter path
and thus moves away, well it's a theory...

Err no. The moon is gaining energy by taking angular momentum from the
earth and hence is speeding up and going into a higher orbit. The
earths rotation is slowing down in response to the loss.

B2003

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Of course if we start using the tidal energy, the moon will come
crashing into us and destroy the planet a bit quicker.

Actually, the opposite is true. Tidal action causes the moon to
get further from the earth, and extracting energy from the tides
makes that happen sooner.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Steve Terry wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW
For how many hours a day?

Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better
access
for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the Bristol
channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW Steve Terry

At what cost?..both direct, and indirect to the coastline and environment.


That's Greenpeace's argument against them, but what cost in CO2 production
not building them?

Climate change is probably a bigger threat than coastal and bird / fish
environmental damage.
If you believe that, then almost every tidal estuary should be used for
tidle power, and should have been years ago

Steve Terry

In message , Steve Terry
writes

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better access
for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the Bristol
channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

It would get nicked in a week ...

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve Terry
writes
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...
snip
another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

It would get nicked in a week ...
geoff


Take more than a week.

To start with it would take a week to steal enough wheelbarrows
and shopping trolleys

Steve Terry

dennis@home wrote:

Twice a day it produces zero power for a few hours.
These periods change time on a rotating basis every 28 days.
Unless you can store the energy there isn't much you can use it for.
Its just like the problem with wind power but a little more predictable.
Maybe it could be used to produce hydrogen for cars?
Its not going to help the grid much AFAICS.

I looked this up some time ago. Morecambe Bay (another potential site)
is conveniently out of phase with the Bristol Channel. It might not
help much, but it would help.

Andy