OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 07:40, harryagain wrote:
"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.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

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.


Nuclear power can do the job just as well in a fraction of the space.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

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


Quite impressive, but once installed and wired up how much change do you
get from a million quid?

OT Tidal power
 

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.



It isn't free.
The less efficent it is the bigger the machine to make a useful amount.
The bigger the machine the more it costs and the bigger the
environmental impact it has.

You really should learn that there is no such thing as free energy and
that it all has an environmental impact.

OT Tidal power
 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:36:25 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

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.

Harry please point us in the direction of real life deployments and technical
details of these low head, high volume turbines you mention.


--

OT Tidal power
 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:41:28 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"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?

Harry you are well behind the curve on this one. This was finally rubber
stamped maybe 12 months ago or more and funding obtained from the EU (from the
Southern Europe Failed State Slush Fund).

Flooding Scotland, all of it, is the renewable that is required to make wind
turbines almost work.

:)

--

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 11:21, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"


Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.
We may as well forget about it until the climate change mess has been
decided.
Doing anything else could see us producing lots of CO2 for no reductions
in CO2.

Same for solar and wind.
It doesn't make sense to invest in stuff that will cause climate change
in the short term unless you know that it works after the climate has
changed due to building them.

OT Tidal power
 

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:41:28 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:


"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?

Harry you are well behind the curve on this one. This was finally rubber
stamped maybe 12 months ago or more and funding obtained from the EU (from
the
Southern Europe Failed State Slush Fund).

Flooding Scotland, all of it, is the renewable that is required to make
wind
turbines almost work.

:)

Just don't tell the Scots till after they've voted for independence.

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 12:48, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:41:28 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"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?

Harry you are well behind the curve on this one. This was finally rubber
stamped maybe 12 months ago or more and funding obtained from the EU (from the
Southern Europe Failed State Slush Fund).

Flooding Scotland, all of it, is the renewable that is required to make wind
turbines almost work.

Getting all the income from it is what is required to make an
independent Scottish economy work.


--
Colin Bignell

OT Tidal power
 

Tim Streater has brought this to us :
In article , Harry
Bloomfield wrote:

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.

Good luck getting any energy out when the head is down to a couple of
feet. It's the same problem with heat: I've got a couple billyun tons
of water here, at 2deg above ambient. Now, quite a lot of energy there
- how do I get it out?

The answer (may be) a heat pump. But even if it is, think of the
*corresponding* solution for tidal flow. The corresponding solution is
to take your large volume/low head and, guess what!, convert it to
small volume/large head. Now, where are you going to put it?

I don't see the issue, the unit is designed to work with a low tidal
head - all they are doing is using pumps at off-peak to create the
head, when the tidal head is lacking.



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

OT Tidal power
 

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
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.



It isn't free.
The less efficent it is the bigger the machine to make a useful amount.
The bigger the machine the more it costs and the bigger the environmental
impact it has.

You really should learn that there is no such thing as free energy and
that it all has an environmental impact.

Sunshine is free. As is tidal energy.
The size of the machine has no bearing on efficiency.
Efficiency is the percentage of the available energy converted (into
electricity in this case.)

OT Tidal power
 

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:36:25 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:

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.

Harry please point us in the direction of real life deployments and
technical
details of these low head, high volume turbines you mention.


--

They have been around for at least two thousand years, and you haven't heard
of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_w...co-Roman_world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norias_of_Hama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_t...range_of_heads

OT Tidal power
 

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 11:21, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"


Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.
We may as well forget about it until the climate change mess has been
decided.
Doing anything else could see us producing lots of CO2 for no reductions
in CO2.

Same for solar and wind.
It doesn't make sense to invest in stuff that will cause climate change in
the short term unless you know that it works after the climate has changed
due to building them.

These things are not instant.
It will take decades to make the change over.

OT Tidal power
 

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:43:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"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?

I live in the country Harry. My next-door neighbours used to run a
riding stables. Horses graze in the field immediately outside my
kitchen window. They eat grass. It grows by itself and is free and
green, like the wind and the tides and the sunshine that's also free
and green and which you keep banging on about.

In the 18th century, horses pulled stagecoaches, the only means of
long-distance transport for most people. Horses also did all the heavy
work on the land such as ploughing and hauling carts. In the 19th
century, London was full of horses pulling carriages and Hansome cabs
and brewers' drays.

But then along came steam, and traction engines and locomotives
started to replace horses. They were fuelled by coal; you know, black
stuff. Definitely not green. Later, someone invented the internal
combustion engine, and cars, taxis and trolley buses started to
appear, replacing the horse-drawn carriages and Hansome cabs. They
were fuelled by petrol of one sort or another. Again, not green. The
final blow to horse-power came in WW1, when Britain lost nearly half a
million horses. They were never replaced. Industry and agriculture had
moved on to more efficient forms of motive power.

So if green is so good, where are all the stagecoaches, the heavy
horses on the land and the Hansome cabs then Harry? Apart from those
kept for nostalgic or recreational purposes, they've gone, simply
because coal and petrol are far more useful and efficient fuels than
grass.

Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

OT Tidal power
 

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

Ah. Another one that doesn't know the meaning of efficiency.


--
Colin Bignell

OT Tidal power
 

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
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.


Nuclear power can do the job just as well in a fraction of the space.


At fifty times the cost?

OT Tidal power
 

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/


Quite impressive, but once installed and wired up how much change do you
get from a million quid?

No idea.

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 17:19, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2014 07:44, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.


Nuclear power can do the job just as well in a fraction of the space.


At fifty times the cost?


More likely to be a fiftieth of the cost, going by past experience of
green initiatives.

The cheapest way of getting diesel fuel from solar power is already in
common use worldwide, and the properties of the oil concerned have been
known for many decades. Google for Brassica napus. It was commercially
grown by the Victorians for making lamp oil and animal feed and the oil
is now used either on its own after minimal processing or as an additive
to petroleum based diesel fuel. The residue after pressing the oil out
of the seeds is high protein animal feed.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 17:20, harryagain wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/


Quite impressive, but once installed and wired up how much change do you
get from a million quid?

No idea.


Similar devices in Strangford Lough cost 6 million Euros each in 2008 to
develop 600 kilowatts each at peak output.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 17:18, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Ah. Another one that doesn't know the meaning of efficiency.


Au contraire. It is obvious you have no idea what I am talking about.


--
Colin Bignell

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 17:16, harryagain wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:43:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"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?

I live in the country Harry. My next-door neighbours used to run a
riding stables. Horses graze in the field immediately outside my
kitchen window. They eat grass. It grows by itself and is free and
green, like the wind and the tides and the sunshine that's also free
and green and which you keep banging on about.

In the 18th century, horses pulled stagecoaches, the only means of
long-distance transport for most people. Horses also did all the heavy
work on the land such as ploughing and hauling carts. In the 19th
century, London was full of horses pulling carriages and Hansome cabs
and brewers' drays.

But then along came steam, and traction engines and locomotives
started to replace horses. They were fuelled by coal; you know, black
stuff. Definitely not green. Later, someone invented the internal
combustion engine, and cars, taxis and trolley buses started to
appear, replacing the horse-drawn carriages and Hansome cabs. They
were fuelled by petrol of one sort or another. Again, not green. The
final blow to horse-power came in WW1, when Britain lost nearly half a
million horses. They were never replaced. Industry and agriculture had
moved on to more efficient forms of motive power.

So if green is so good, where are all the stagecoaches, the heavy
horses on the land and the Hansome cabs then Harry? Apart from those
kept for nostalgic or recreational purposes, they've gone, simply
because coal and petrol are far more useful and efficient fuels than
grass.

Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates


Further down the same page:

'Most horses only need quality forage, water, and a salt or mineral
block. Grain or other concentrates are often not necessary'

I certainly don't recall the Mongols being noted as grain farmers, but
they were noted for virtually living on horse back.

--
Colin Bignell

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 18:55, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:16, harryagain wrote:
Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates


Further down the same page:

'Most horses only need quality forage, water, and a salt or mineral
block. Grain or other concentrates are often not necessary'

I certainly don't recall the Mongols being noted as grain farmers, but
they were noted for virtually living on horse back.

I think the choice is between low intensity agricultural feeding on
grass for countryside horses wandering round a field while doing normal
farm work and taking the boss to the pub and back and the convenience of
having to carry a sack of grain as against a number of bales of hay per
day for the horse pulling a loaded cart round a city all day.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 19:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

Horses do have a use in societies that don't have sufficient technical
resources to make tractors or want them in their society.

They are also self replicating, but making the result of that
replication useful is a very skilled job.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:56:24 +0100, "Dennis@home"
wrote:

Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.

Dennis you miss the point, the scheme pumps seawater from that vast reservoir
called 'the sea', into a land based reservoir made from the area formerly known
as Scotland, using the wind turbines, topped up by the rain that falls over
Scotland most of the time. It solves the rising sea issue, the problem of
intermittent generation from wind turbines, and the problem of what to do with
Scotland when Irn-Bru is outlawed.

--

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 19:09, John Williamson wrote:
....
Horses do have a use in societies that don't have sufficient technical
resources to make tractors or want them in their society...

The British Army, otherwise the only fully mechanised army in the world
in 1939, also had a few cavalry units in the Middle East, where the
terrain was unsuitable for the vehicles of the day.


--
Colin Bignell

OT Tidal power
 

In article ,
Nightjar \cpb\@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 15/08/2014 19:09, John Williamson wrote:
...
Horses do have a use in societies that don't have sufficient technical
resources to make tractors or want them in their society...

The British Army, otherwise the only fully mechanised army in the world
in 1939, also had a few cavalry units in the Middle East, where the
terrain was unsuitable for the vehicles of the day.

and in Hong Kong in the 1980 still used mules.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

OT Tidal power
 

On 15/08/2014 17:06, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 11:21, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"


Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.
We may as well forget about it until the climate change mess has been
decided.
Doing anything else could see us producing lots of CO2 for no reductions
in CO2.

Same for solar and wind.
It doesn't make sense to invest in stuff that will cause climate change in
the short term unless you know that it works after the climate has changed
due to building them.

These things are not instant.
It will take decades to make the change over.



That's the point.
You don't know if they will still work in decades time as the climate is
changing.

OT Tidal power
 

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 17:06, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 11:21, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"


Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.
We may as well forget about it until the climate change mess has been
decided.
Doing anything else could see us producing lots of CO2 for no reductions
in CO2.

Same for solar and wind.
It doesn't make sense to invest in stuff that will cause climate change
in
the short term unless you know that it works after the climate has
changed
due to building them.

These things are not instant.
It will take decades to make the change over.



That's the point.
You don't know if they will still work in decades time as the climate is
changing.

The climate will become more extreme, not less.

OT Tidal power
 

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2014 17:16, harryagain wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:43:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"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?

I live in the country Harry. My next-door neighbours used to run a
riding stables. Horses graze in the field immediately outside my
kitchen window. They eat grass. It grows by itself and is free and
green, like the wind and the tides and the sunshine that's also free
and green and which you keep banging on about.

In the 18th century, horses pulled stagecoaches, the only means of
long-distance transport for most people. Horses also did all the heavy
work on the land such as ploughing and hauling carts. In the 19th
century, London was full of horses pulling carriages and Hansome cabs
and brewers' drays.

But then along came steam, and traction engines and locomotives
started to replace horses. They were fuelled by coal; you know, black
stuff. Definitely not green. Later, someone invented the internal
combustion engine, and cars, taxis and trolley buses started to
appear, replacing the horse-drawn carriages and Hansome cabs. They
were fuelled by petrol of one sort or another. Again, not green. The
final blow to horse-power came in WW1, when Britain lost nearly half a
million horses. They were never replaced. Industry and agriculture had
moved on to more efficient forms of motive power.

So if green is so good, where are all the stagecoaches, the heavy
horses on the land and the Hansome cabs then Harry? Apart from those
kept for nostalgic or recreational purposes, they've gone, simply
because coal and petrol are far more useful and efficient fuels than
grass.

Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates


Further down the same page:

'Most horses only need quality forage, water, and a salt or mineral block.
Grain or other concentrates are often not necessary'

I certainly don't recall the Mongols being noted as grain farmers, but
they were noted for virtually living on horse back.

These days most horses don't have to do hard work.
When they did they needed high energy food.
Just as a uman labourer needs more calories than an office worker.
Did the Mongols ever use their horses for ploughing?
The cavalry always caught the Indians because the cavalries horse were grain
fed and the Indians weren't.

Most people give their horses concentrate as part of a good diet.
http://www.talkaboutlaminitis.co.uk/grass-laminitis/

OT Tidal power
 

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

Grains are the concentrated high energy part of grass.
But just as we do, horses need roughage.

Tractors are less work to maintain and more convenience.
Horses are lots of work (and vet's bills)
Also no neccessity to grow the foodstuff for horses.
Also more power in a smaller space.
Efficiency, not much in it.
The by product from horses is useful.

They have far from disappeared and may return in numbers one day.

OT Tidal power
 

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2014 19:09, John Williamson wrote:
...
Horses do have a use in societies that don't have sufficient technical
resources to make tractors or want them in their society...

The British Army, otherwise the only fully mechanised army in the world in
1939, also had a few cavalry units in the Middle East, where the terrain
was unsuitable for the vehicles of the day.

The Germans had lots when they invaded Poland.

OT Tidal power
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just
to feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates
Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

harry might have heard of the countryside, but I doubt if he's ever
been there.

I used to own a farm ****-fer-brans.

OT Tidal power
 

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2014 17:20, harryagain wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/


Quite impressive, but once installed and wired up how much change do you
get from a million quid?

No idea.


Similar devices in Strangford Lough cost 6 million Euros each in 2008 to
develop 600 kilowatts each at peak output.

Well I expect if mass produced they would cost a tenth of that.
Just like motor cars.

OT Tidal power
 

In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2014 19:09, John Williamson wrote: ...
Horses do have a use in societies that don't have sufficient technical
resources to make tractors or want them in their society...

The British Army, otherwise the only fully mechanised army in the world
in 1939, also had a few cavalry units in the Middle East, where the
terrain was unsuitable for the vehicles of the day.

The Germans had lots when they invaded Poland.

wrong way round. The Poles still had cavalry - the Germans had tanks.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

OT Tidal power
 

On 16/08/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 17:06, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 11:21, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"


Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.
We may as well forget about it until the climate change mess has been
decided.
Doing anything else could see us producing lots of CO2 for no reductions
in CO2.

Same for solar and wind.
It doesn't make sense to invest in stuff that will cause climate change
in
the short term unless you know that it works after the climate has
changed
due to building them.

These things are not instant.
It will take decades to make the change over.



That's the point.
You don't know if they will still work in decades time as the climate is
changing.

The climate will become more extreme, not less.


Which will cause many problems for the design of any system which
depends on the weather being within certain parameters for its
operation. In particular, current designs of wind turbines will have to
shut down for their own protection more often as wind speeds increase,if
that is in fact what happens...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On 16/08/2014 08:35, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats just
to feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates
Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

harry might have heard of the countryside, but I doubt if he's ever
been there.

I used to own a farm ****-fer-brans.


I know of several farms which are entirely within an urban situation.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

On 16/08/2014 08:38, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/08/2014 17:20, harryagain wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/08/2014 07:12, harryagain wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-power-wales/


Quite impressive, but once installed and wired up how much change do you
get from a million quid?

No idea.


Similar devices in Strangford Lough cost 6 million Euros each in 2008 to
develop 600 kilowatts each at peak output.

Well I expect if mass produced they would cost a tenth of that.
Just like motor cars.


For items of that size, mass production by the dozen does not give the
same level as savings as producing thousands of smaller items. You would
possibly save as much a 20% by the time they've been sited and connected
up if you were making a hundred or more identical items, which is
unlikely, as they need to be tailored to fit the site for maximum
production.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

OT Tidal power
 

harryagain wrote:

The climate will become more extreme, not less.



Oh, a clairvoyant! We've all seen the success of fortune telling.

OT Tidal power
 

On 16/08/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 17:06, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/08/2014 11:21, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 07:41, harryagain wrote:
"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?


Agreed by those that know what would be needed to get useful amounts of
hydro power from Scottish sources.

And it should be "Agreed by *whom*?"


Well its not possible to agree on how much hydro power you can get from
anywhere..
The greens claim the climate is changing so we don't know what rainfall
will happen.
Without rainfall hydro doesn't work.
We may as well forget about it until the climate change mess has been
decided.
Doing anything else could see us producing lots of CO2 for no reductions
in CO2.

Same for solar and wind.
It doesn't make sense to invest in stuff that will cause climate change
in
the short term unless you know that it works after the climate has
changed
due to building them.

These things are not instant.
It will take decades to make the change over.



That's the point.
You don't know if they will still work in decades time as the climate is
changing.

The climate will become more extreme, not less.



No, the weather may become more extreme, we are well within the extremes
of what the climate has been.
The limits would be 100% ice (snowball earth) and 10-20 degrees hotter
(if we ignore the really hot period when it was molten rock).

You climate terrorists can't get away with saying climate will become
more extreme when people know its weather you are talking about.