http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

I was just thinking that, as in the long run it is more efficient and should
enable wildlife changes to be catered for more cost effectively.

Still, you cannot tell some people....
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Brian Gaff wrote


I was just thinking that, as in the long run it is more efficient and should
enable wildlife changes to be catered for more cost effectively.

Still, you cannot tell some people....
Brian


Swansea trawlermen reckon the lagoon will affect the fish stock in the
area. That would be the fish which haven't been poisoned by the heavy
metal in the bay.

On 24/09/2014 00:28, Jabba wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote


I was just thinking that, as in the long run it is more efficient and should
enable wildlife changes to be catered for more cost effectively.

Still, you cannot tell some people....
Brian


Swansea trawlermen reckon the lagoon will affect the fish stock in the
area. That would be the fish which haven't been poisoned by the heavy
metal in the bay.


There isn't any fishing industry in the Bristol Channel any more. There
aren't any 'Swansea Trawlermen'.

On 23/09/2014 17:23, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.


IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...
--
Graeme, yeah, I know, IOW not IoW :-)

On 24/09/2014 10:31, News wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

I blame the Vectis Nationalists.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:04:25 +0100, Paul Herber
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.

How much more can we Ryde this.

G.Harman

On 24/09/14 12:56, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:04:25 +0100, Paul Herber
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:31:33 +0100, News wrote:

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes

IOW do massive ecological damage in the name of saving the planet.

First time I've seen the poor old Isle of Wight being blamed ...

Everyone also blames the methane output from Cowes.

How much more can we Ryde this.

What we need is an inVentnor to come along and have An Idea


G.Harman



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

harryagain wrote


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.


There's plenty of ****witted complaining about the lagoon. The nobs in
Mumbles are upset that their view of Port Talbot will be ruined by the
height of walls of the lagoon. FFS Port Talbot needs to be hidden away
behind a wall.

On 23/09/2014 17:23, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.


A tidal lagoon in the Bristol Channel would fill with mud in a year.
Doing the whole Estuary would just be an even more monstrous **** up.

Tim w

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:20:48 +0100, Tim w wrote:

A tidal lagoon in the Bristol Channel would fill with mud in a year.

Properly designed you use the outgoing tide to flush it clear every
so often. Just like they used to flush Bristols Floating Harbour
partly by tide and partly by letting more of the Rivers Frome and
Avon flow that way instead of along the New Cut.

Doing the whole Estuary would just be an even more monstrous **** up.

That would present far greater flushing problems.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:50:57 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:20:48 +0100, Tim w wrote:

A tidal lagoon in the Bristol Channel would fill with mud in a year.

Properly designed you use the outgoing tide to flush it clear every
so often. Just like they used to flush Bristols Floating Harbour
partly by tide and partly by letting more of the Rivers Frome and
Avon flow that way instead of along the New Cut.

As a complete aside we took the monthly boat trip operated by Bristol
ferry boats up and back the New Cut last month, interesting trip for
people who like going along unusual waterways.
Exeter Canal next month.

G.Harman

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

--
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 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

treats the energy density issue.

Entropy is really tied up in the efficiency curves.
I.e there is the same energy in a red hot poker as a bath of luke warm
water, but the red hot poker is a lot easier to get most of it out of.

It's lower entropy.

Mots renewable sources - wind and tidal and so on - are high entropy, so
you can only get out maybe 20-40% of what's in there to start with.

And low energy density as well. So you need BIG stuff to get it.



--
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 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.
--
J B Good

On 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/




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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable
energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Quote from above.:-
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to
convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand - and
simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim that we
don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one
power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6
fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating
seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean
ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear
power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in
the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as
much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The rest is nothing new.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/14 23:58, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable
energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear
and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK,
Europe and America.

I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My
thanks to you for providing that link.


Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

On the first line of the first page.

Introduction
This paper is a response to what the author considers are not opinions, but
near facts, with respect to
the ongoing use of fossil fuels: namely that, irrespective of any climate
change implications, the
world is, if not running out of fossil fuels, running into an area
characterised by high costs of fossil
fuels, and that a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels, as the
alternatives become cost competitive,
is inevitable.


What is a "near fact"?

On 25/09/14 17:04, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:43:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/14 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:11:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/09/14 11:03, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...kins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator


All tidal power is crap because the tides themselves are high entropy.
Ergo massive expensive structures causing huge eco impact to achieve
very little.


Once you look at entropy and energy density, assessing renewable energy
is simple.

And you always get the same answer. Its all crap.

Interesting comment, which I won't claim fully to understand, although
I have an inkling (thermodynamics was never my strong point!). Do you
have a link or book reference that gives a bit more detail, without
being too heavy or theoretical?



http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf

treats the energy density issue.

Entropy is really tied up in the efficiency curves.
I.e there is the same energy in a red hot poker as a bath of luke warm
water, but the red hot poker is a lot easier to get most of it out of.

It's lower entropy.

Mots renewable sources - wind and tidal and so on - are high entropy, so
you can only get out maybe 20-40% of what's in there to start with.

And low energy density as well. So you need BIG stuff to get it.

Many thanks. Just ordered McKay's book on sustainable energy.


That treats the energy density issues very well, but stops short of the
intermittency issues.


--
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 , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...110420/Swansea
-Bay-tidal-lagoon-plan-bolstered-by-former-Atkins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

An even better alternative is a f****** great nuke.
--
bert

On 24/09/2014 22:16, bert wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...110420/Swansea
-Bay-tidal-lagoon-plan-bolstered-by-former-Atkins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

An even better alternative is a f****** great nuke.

Collect all the greenies in one place and drop one on them?

--
Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 24/09/2014 22:16, bert wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...110420/Swansea
-Bay-tidal-lagoon-plan-bolstered-by-former-Atkins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

An even better alternative is a f****** great nuke.

Collect all the greenies in one place and drop one on them?

Waste of good plutonium
--
bert