The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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



Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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



Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.


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

On 14/08/2014 10:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
'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

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

And not very efficiently at that.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/08/2014 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip


'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




Not saying that this system doesn't have other issues, but as I see it
this single statement is not necessarily wrong. Sure if you are just
moving water from one lake to another it is, but this is a tidal
situation.

If you pump water from the sea to the lagoon when the sea is six inches
below the lagoon, and let it out when the sea is six feet below the
lagoon, would this not generate more energy than consumed? (OK the six
inches and six feet might not be the right numbers because of efficiency
losses but in principle?)

Its far from a perpetual motion machine since you are relying on a
dropping sea level to increase the head.

--
Chris

On 14/08/14 11:52, news wrote:
On 14/08/2014 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip


'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




Not saying that this system doesn't have other issues, but as I see it
this single statement is not necessarily wrong. Sure if you are just
moving water from one lake to another it is, but this is a tidal situation.

If you pump water from the sea to the lagoon when the sea is six inches
below the lagoon, and let it out when the sea is six feet below the
lagoon, would this not generate more energy than consumed? (OK the six
inches and six feet might not be the right numbers because of efficiency
losses but in principle?)


well you are then taking some energy from the tides and you MIGHT just
get a shade more out - but 6 feet is an abominable head to get any
efficiency at all.

Its far from a perpetual motion machine since you are relying on a
dropping sea level to increase the 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

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:


http://www.halcyontidalpower.com/the...nvironmental-p
rotection/





At this point you just know its fairy dust



Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

Surely that is all any of Harry's green dreams ever amount to? Apart
from insulation up to a cost/benefit balance.

If the country is committed to a percentage of green energy, the trick
might be to chose the ones which give the best overall return balanced
against loss of amenity.

Tidal stream appears to score well on amenity but I know nothing about
installation cost/lifetime performance issues.



--
Tim Lamb

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

At this point you just know its fairy dust




Not saying that this system doesn't have other issues, but as I see it
this single statement is not necessarily wrong. Sure if you are just
moving water from one lake to another it is, but this is a tidal situation.

If you pump water from the sea to the lagoon when the sea is six inches
below the lagoon, and let it out when the sea is six feet below the
lagoon, would this not generate more energy than consumed? (OK the six
inches and six feet might not be the right numbers because of efficiency
losses but in principle?)


well you are then taking some energy from the tides and you MIGHT just
get a shade more out - but 6 feet is an abominable head to get any
efficiency at all.

Its far from a perpetual motion machine since you are relying on a
dropping sea level to increase the head.

My reading of the Halcyon puff indicated they would save cost and
silting by not having a lagoon.

Pumping must be from some other scheme.




--
Tim Lamb

On 14/08/2014 11:52, news wrote:
On 14/08/2014 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip


'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




Not saying that this system doesn't have other issues, but as I see it
this single statement is not necessarily wrong. Sure if you are just
moving water from one lake to another it is, but this is a tidal situation.

If you pump water from the sea to the lagoon when the sea is six inches
below the lagoon, and let it out when the sea is six feet below the
lagoon, would this not generate more energy than consumed? (OK the six
inches and six feet might not be the right numbers because of efficiency
losses but in principle?)

Its far from a perpetual motion machine since you are relying on a
dropping sea level to increase the head.


They are only doing it so they can claim that they don't disrupt the
tidal levels.
I doubt if it makes enough energy from pumping the water to be worth
doing it for generation.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:52:10 +0100, news
wrote:

On 14/08/2014 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip


'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




Not saying that this system doesn't have other issues, but as I see it
this single statement is not necessarily wrong. Sure if you are just
moving water from one lake to another it is, but this is a tidal
situation.

If you pump water from the sea to the lagoon when the sea is six inches
below the lagoon, and let it out when the sea is six feet below the
lagoon, would this not generate more energy than consumed? (OK the six
inches and six feet might not be the right numbers because of efficiency
losses but in principle?)

Its far from a perpetual motion machine since you are relying on a
dropping sea level to increase the head.

That's about the only way that pumping more sea water behind the
barrage would make any sense (when the tide has already done 70 or 80
percent of the work for you).

It would only be used when such a high tide coincides with an
off-peak demand period when the electricity costs make it economic
enough to store additional energy in the system which can then be sold
back to the "Grid" on the following demand peak.

Unlike other forms of "Green Energy", this system can act as both a
green primary energy source and a green energy storage sink to further
help maintain stability in the Grid.
--
J B Good

On 14/08/2014 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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



Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

The web site shows the turbines being used as pumps. Unfortunately, as
they have chosen to use black text on a mainly blue background I haven't
actually been able to read what, if any, benefit they think there is.

--
Colin Bignell

On 14/08/2014 15:15, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 14/08/2014 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

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

At this point you just know its fairy dust

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

The web site shows the turbines being used as pumps. Unfortunately, as
they have chosen to use black text on a mainly blue background I haven't
actually been able to read what, if any, benefit they think there is.

They're minimising environmental problems by losing efficiency. The
pumping, for instance, is claimed to restore the original tidal flows,
and their turbines are only 3 bladed in an attempt to stop them from
turning fish into fish fingers.

It's easier to read if you select the text for copying, I found.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:58:00 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

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

Can someone press harry's repeat cancel button?


--

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

I'd hope by *20202* they might have just cracked building s solar cell that
lasts more than a couple of decades, a wind turbine that lasts longer than a
series of Strictly without going bang, and a means of burning greens without
them putting out the fire.

By 20202 we might have 10000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere


--

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:50:48 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

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

This reservoir of which you speak: where will you put it?

It has previously agreed that we need to flood Scotland, all of it, to what was
it 200 metres?

With Alex Salmond and that gormless female sidekick in concrete boots chained to
the bottom of Loch Ness, it demonstrates Scotlands contribution to the green
economy.

--

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:12:49 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

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.

No, in a message from the future they just announced that they need another 50
years.

--

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:54:47 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

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

I got redirected to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excrement


--

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:13:31 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

A form of pumped storage, like Dinorwick?

Have the jocks taken it over?

--

On 14/08/2014 15:38, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:12:49 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

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.

No, in a message from the future they just announced that they need another 50
years.

Dagnabbit!

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/08/2014 11:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:58:49 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 14/08/2014 10:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
'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

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

And not very efficiently at that.

And surely only really applicable to small volumes of water supplying
isolated locations such as farms or individual houses. They used to be
fairly common in Cornwall, and no doubt elsewhere were the topography
was appropriate, for raising water from a valley bottom to, for
example, a water trough for cattle on higher ground. Can't see them
being used on anything like a large scale.


This claimed to give 50,000 litres a day with a 100ft lift:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1PlQzRYkII

--
Colin Bignell

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.


Hydraulic accumulator and go far enough out that the tide dosent empty, wave rather than tidal power, Pelamis

https://www.youtube.com/user/PelamisWavePower

On 14/08/2014 17:49, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:08:28 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

On 14/08/2014 11:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
And surely only really applicable to small volumes of water supplying
isolated locations such as farms or individual houses. They used to be
fairly common in Cornwall, and no doubt elsewhere were the topography
was appropriate, for raising water from a valley bottom to, for
example, a water trough for cattle on higher ground. Can't see them
being used on anything like a large scale.


This claimed to give 50,000 litres a day with a 100ft lift:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1PlQzRYkII

Oh interesting! Thank you.

Until I found that video I hadn't realised how noisy they are.

It doesn't say where it is AFAICT, but a
set of three Green and Carter pumps were unearthed (literally) in the
valley below Heligan Manor* in Cornwall some 20+ years ago. They had a
(combined?) capacity of 9.5 gpm (~62,000 l/d), pumping against a head
of 300 ft and over a distance of 1.5 miles. They were refurbished with
G&C's help. See http://www.greenandcarter.com/main/history/case_1.htm

I like the 'guaranteed forever' on their products and the fact that they
have spares for all ram ever made on the shelf, presumably because they
have made very few changes to the design in the past couple of centuries.

But you'd still need an awful lot of them to run a decent sized tidal
generating system, and the volumetric efficiency (water pumped / water
used) is poor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_pump and scroll
down to 'Efficiency'.

Oh yes. Hydraulic rams are only useful if you can put high volumes of
water through them. In that case, if you want electricity, an
Archimedean screw generator would probably be a better option.

* 'The Lost Gardens of Heligan' http://www.heligan.com/)


--
Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote wantonly:

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.

Look more carefully at what you wrote.

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.

Phooey.

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. ****.

In September 1903 they made over two hundred flights in this heavier-than-air
flying machine without an engine:
http://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/previews/5809p.jpg

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...

War and secrecy are irrelevant to the simple fact that in 1932 Einstein wrongly
believed that nuclear energy would not be available "ever".

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.

Please give me examples of wave and tidal power technology from
several thousand years ago.

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

Not on the evidence here.

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.

Your wont is a want of punctuation.

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

And there may be a silver lining in that.

If you used intelligent argument when contradicted, rather than bluster and
insult, you'd have more credibility.

On 13/08/2014 13:09, Tim Streater wrote:
Which will still leave you with residual ripple.

Ripple on tides? Whatever next

More seriously though - one tidal system has a power output ranging from
0% (at high or low tide; slack water) to 100% (mid tide, peak flow)

Two out of phase add up nicely - I think if they are true sines you'll
get 70% of peak at worst.

Andy

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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


Drivel as usual.
Low head but large volume.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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

You never read it did you ****-fer-brains?
Or not capable of understanding it.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2014 10:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
'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

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

And not very efficiently at that.

As the "fuel" is free, neither here nor there.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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



Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Do you know what a hydraulic ram is?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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



Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

My aren't you the half wit.
All work is done by converting one form of energy to another.

And you claim to have been Cambridge educated?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/14 11:52, news wrote:
On 14/08/2014 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip


'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




Not saying that this system doesn't have other issues, but as I see it
this single statement is not necessarily wrong. Sure if you are just
moving water from one lake to another it is, but this is a tidal
situation.

If you pump water from the sea to the lagoon when the sea is six inches
below the lagoon, and let it out when the sea is six feet below the
lagoon, would this not generate more energy than consumed? (OK the six
inches and six feet might not be the right numbers because of efficiency
losses but in principle?)


well you are then taking some energy from the tides and you MIGHT just get
a shade more out - but 6 feet is an abominable head to get any efficiency
at all.

Do you not understand what efficiency is?


Power generasted depends on head and volume od water.
You can have high head, low volume.
Or
High volume low head.
Turbines can be designed for either.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:58:00 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:

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

Can someone press harry's repeat cancel button?


Well you keep repeating your obvious drivel.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:50:48 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

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

This reservoir of which you speak: where will you put it?

It has previously agreed that we need to flood Scotland, all of it, to
what was
it 200 metres?

Agreed by who?

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:54:47 +0100, "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.

Carthorses run on grass, Harry. Free, and green, in several senses of
the word. No wonder we don't see many of them about!

So horses is another of your ignorances?

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Ah. Sunlight.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:54:47 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:

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

I got redirected to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excrement

Not surprised, your field of expertise I take it?

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2014 10:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
'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

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

And not very efficiently at that.

As the "fuel" is free, neither here nor there.

If it's neither here nor there or anywhere, you've lost it.

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"The Other Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:50:48 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

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

This reservoir of which you speak: where will you put it?

It has previously agreed that we need to flood Scotland, all of it, to
what was
it 200 metres?

Agreed by who?

At a guess, not the Scots.

On 15/08/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Ah. Sunlight.


In practice, grow lamps run on nuclear power are likely to be more
efficient.

--
Colin Bignell

harryagain submitted this idea :
Drivel as usual.
Low head but large volume.

Correct!

If a tidal flow will work, then a flow resulting from previously pumped
stored water will work too.

Larger heads are used, as a means to store more energy in a smaller
volume of pump stored water.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 15/08/2014 07:25, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2014 10:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/08/14 10:29, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
'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

Hydraulic ram? Just a thought.

Still doesn't give an overall increase in energy.

Merely converts one form to a more useful one.

And not very efficiently at that.

As the "fuel" is free, neither here nor there.


The "fuel" might be free, but it is limited by the size of the river or
stream.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 15/08/2014 07:24, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/14 23:30, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
'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

You never read it did you ****-fer-brains?
Or not capable of understanding it.


I read it carefully and fully, not forgetting the other pages on the
site, with my brain switched on,and it *is* fairy dust as well as
advertising puffery. Anyone who believes otherwise is the on with ****
for brains.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.