On 10/10/16 17:37, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:22:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/10/16 17:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
While it might require the whole of Wales to be covered in windmills
to power the UK or whatever, that's never going to happen. Nor will
half the country be covered in solar panels, or whatever area is
necessary, to power the UK. So I'm happy to repeat my assertion that
renewables are never going to make other than a local impact on our
overall environment.


I think you are wrong actually., There are those who absolutely want to
do the above. And if they had the power they would.

The fact that it would destroy the country is not actually somnething
they give a rats arse about.

Local communities are already resisting solar and wind farms, planning
permission is being refused, and government subsidies are gradually
being withdrawn. I don't think we'll see either being installed at the
same rate as in the past. Offshore wind will continue, and tidal,
either in the form of lagoons/barrages or tidal streams, hasn't yet
made an impact, but will to some degree I'm sure, attracted by the
high strike price. How long that will continue, remains to be seen.


There is in fact a massive struggle between the poqwers that be - as
evinced by the EU, legal system, government etc, and te wishes =-
reasonable wishes - of te citizens.

Just today I read this:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...uk-guidelines/

which if true,. is way beyond anything the soviet union did, and more
akin to Nazi Germany.

Your argument is, I think, predicated in the assumption that the
reasonable thing will happen. Mine is predicated on the assumption that
those in power will do whatever they think they can get away with. And
if that means foisting a windmill every half mile on the countryside, to
justify raping us for 50p a unit electricity, that's what they will do.

There is a war on. Between the establishment and their fanbois like
Plowperson. and the rest of us who actually think the country should be
run a little bit for *our* benefit as well as for everyone elses. And
windmills benefit no one except those who operate them.

So indeed we shouldn't have them. But that doesn't mean we wont.



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 10/10/16 19:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:02:34 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

I'm not quite sure where to begin in response. Let's try this:

The area of the UK is approximately 241,000 km^2. or 2.41*10^11 m^2.
Solar insolation in the UK is approximately 100 W/m^2 (MacKay p.38),
or over the whole country, 2.41*10^13 Watts, or 24100GW. The UK
consumes roughly 35GW of electricity on average, which is 1.45% of the
solar insolation.

A minor correction, for the record: 35GW is 0.145% of 24100GW, not
1.45% as I said above.

now calculate how much of the atmosphere is co2....

400 ppm? that's .4 parts per thousand, which is .04%.

And that apparently is going to destroy the world.


So the impact of 0,04% is so massive it justifies altering something
else by .14%. which wont make any difference.


Oh and BTW 35GW is just the electricity. You left out all the gas an
road fuel we burn, any you left out the fact that in winter, the
insolation is about 10W/sq meter. And you left out the panel efficiency,
which is about 15%.




--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 11/10/16 11:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:41:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/10/16 19:28, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:02:34 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

I'm not quite sure where to begin in response. Let's try this:

The area of the UK is approximately 241,000 km^2. or 2.41*10^11 m^2.
Solar insolation in the UK is approximately 100 W/m^2 (MacKay p.38),
or over the whole country, 2.41*10^13 Watts, or 24100GW. The UK
consumes roughly 35GW of electricity on average, which is 1.45% of the
solar insolation.

A minor correction, for the record: 35GW is 0.145% of 24100GW, not
1.45% as I said above.

now calculate how much of the atmosphere is co2....

400 ppm? that's .4 parts per thousand, which is .04%.

And that apparently is going to destroy the world.


So the impact of 0,04% is so massive it justifies altering something
else by .14%. which wont make any difference.


Oh and BTW 35GW is just the electricity. You left out all the gas an
road fuel we burn, any you left out the fact that in winter, the
insolation is about 10W/sq meter. And you left out the panel efficiency,
which is about 15%.

Well, yes to most of that. But even if you triple the energy
requirement, that still only gets you to less than 0.5% of the total
insolation across the country. So there's 99.5% left to do what it's
always done. There are of course variations in the insolation:
day-night, summer-winter, north-south, all broadly taken into account
by MacKay when he arrived at his average UK figure of ~100W/m^2, down
from the ~1000W/m^2 under the blast of full sunshine at the earth's
surface at the equator.

I still maintain that the energy extracted from the environment by
solar panels and wind turbines isn't going to make any difference to
the environment other than very locally.

By the same token CO2 emissions from power stations aren't going to make
any difference to the environment except locally, so what is the point
of renewable energy?


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On Monday, 10 October 2016 16:05:24 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But not actually as stupid as having roads where everyone has to drive
on the left. I mean that flies in the face of individual freedom social
justice and the principle of diversity. What right has anyone to force
me, against my religion and culture, to drive on the Left?

For me it'd be someone in a much larger vehicle coming towards me at speed on the same side as I was on.

Or the EU decides to add a tariff on everyone that doesn't drive on the side of the road EU tells you to. :-)

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

tim

On 12/10/16 13:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving. The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d


And no one has ever built another. Why is that then?

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

I actually don't think my analogy above was particularly good. A
better one, using the above comparative figures, would be if you
bought 50 old bangers at £750 each, total cost £37,500, and you parked
them at intervals of say 10 miles along a 500 mile journey. You then
set out to drive that 500 miles but the old banger breaks down every
10 miles and you have to change cars to the next old banger and so on
until you get to your destination. Alternatively, you buy one reliable
car for £15,000 (£37,500/2.5), and drive there non-stop in one go
without the inconvenience of stopping and changing cars, and saving
£22,500 into the bargain. Only an idiot would chose the old banger
option.


Yup. Thats about te way it is.

Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,
achieve the same output of electricity, and without the added
complication of having to phase-in and then phase-out a whole series
of tidal generators four times a day. And that assumes that there are
enough sites around the UK that are suitable for 50 tidal barrages.
Which there aren't. You'd be lucky to get 10. So the whole thing is
completely pointless.

Exactly.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 12/10/16 16:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly).

That cannot be the purpose of 'renewable energy''because in fact is
doesn't actually reduce CO2 emissions, as the stats from Germany and
Denmark show.

If the governments invoplved are not aware of this, they are truly
incompetent.

One therefore assumes that renewable energuy is

- a virtue signalling vote catcher from the lunatic green left
- a chunk of crony capitalism handed out to renewable energy operators
and landowners, by government decree.
- a politically convenient excuse top justify more government
interference in energy, which is the lifeblood of civilisation.

AS to whether CO2 reduction is needful or worth the price, is another
point. Renewable energy doesnt achieve very much reduction and per pound
spent its about 6 times worse than nuclear, even Hinkley nuclear.

That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.


That is what happens when powerful political and commercial interests
build a grid, to suit their agenda, instead of engineers to suit the
agenda of the customers and the power supply companies.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one else's.
The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that makes
them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they are
undoubtedly there.

achieve the same output of electricity, and without the added
complication of having to phase-in and then phase-out a whole series
of tidal generators four times a day. And that assumes that there are
enough sites around the UK that are suitable for 50 tidal barrages.
Which there aren't. You'd be lucky to get 10. So the whole thing is
completely pointless.

I agree that the number of suitable sites is an issue, but individually that
doesn't make a single complementary set of barriers pointless, any more that
building a single hydro power station that can only produce 0.5% of total
requirements pointless.

tim

On 13/10/16 10:07, tim... wrote:
I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.


No, they are not. They are only concerned with the income .

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

No, with CFD, the consumer pays whatever.

Cfds are a way to enforce a cointr4act between supplier and consumer
that is against the consumers interest.




--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at that
price.

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

(subject to the environmental considerations etc etc...)

A string of points have been made debunking the whole
approach, and explaining why it is technically and financially stupid,

They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

it is for them to decide if it is viable at that price, not you (or anybody
else).

and you want to proceed with it to "prove the technology".

I don't *want* to proceed with it - not the slightest bit interested in
whether it goes ahead or not.

I am saying if *they* want to proceed with it, it's entirely up to them.

**** the
technology, concentrate on the essentials.

You'll be proposing planes with flapping wings next, because that's how
birds do it.

I didn't propose anything

I am simply making the point that if someone else wants to risk an
investment in X, you and I have no place stopping them.

The only issue that is our concern here is where it is given a subsidy,
which it is. But as that subsidy is the same as that given to Nukes, which
most here support, the they have no case that the subsidy is too high.
Either a subsidy of X is OK or it isn't. You can't say it's OK for my
preferred solution, but not for something else.

tim

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought it
sensible.

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being given the
same subside as Nukes, which they support. And that once it has that
subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is viable.

tim



--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell

On 13/10/16 10:18, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at
that price.

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

Because its *not* their money they are risking.

In the end, they will do a deal of CFDs and it will be no risk to them,.
because they will sell at 5 times the price of a gas power staion.

They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

I dont think so.





--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 13/10/16 10:22, tim... wrote:

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought it
sensible.

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being given
the same subside as Nukes, which they support. And that once it has
that subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is viable.


But its being given far more.

tim



--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of
people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 10:20:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at that
price.

illogical

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

because it spends our money without a sensible return

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

it isn't

(subject to the environmental considerations etc etc...)

A string of points have been made debunking the whole
approach, and explaining why it is technically and financially stupid,

They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

it is for them to decide if it is viable at that price, not you (or anybody
else).

there is clearly no basis for that claim

and you want to proceed with it to "prove the technology".

I don't *want* to proceed with it - not the slightest bit interested in
whether it goes ahead or not.

I am saying if *they* want to proceed with it, it's entirely up to them.

**** the
technology, concentrate on the essentials.

You'll be proposing planes with flapping wings next, because that's how
birds do it.

I didn't propose anything

I am simply making the point that if someone else wants to risk an
investment in X, you and I have no place stopping them.

OK, then I'm going to take 50% of everything you own and invest it in a dimwitted scam. It's in my interest as I'll get paid (from your money) until that money runs out.

The only issue that is our concern here is where it is given a subsidy,
which it is. But as that subsidy is the same as that given to Nukes, which
most here support, the they have no case that the subsidy is too high.
Either a subsidy of X is OK or it isn't. You can't say it's OK for my
preferred solution, but not for something else.

completely illogical. Let's spend your electricity bill money on a roof turbine then, and leave you to cope with the resulting hopeless supply. I don't think you'd be too happy.


NT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:22, tim... wrote:

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought it
sensible.

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being given
the same subside as Nukes, which they support. And that once it has
that subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is viable.


But its being given far more.

on what basis?

it has a strike price of 80 something pounds per whatever unit it is that
costs tens of pounds

the same as the Nukes have been given (plus or minus a few pounds)

if you think there some other clause in the contract that makes it more
expensive then you need to explain that to people properly

not go around insulting people who didn't notice this

and until you do, I shall assume that you cant

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:18, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at
that price.

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

Because its *not* their money they are risking.

It's the money of third party investors, sure

but it's money that they have freely decided is available for this
investment.


In the end, they will do a deal of CFDs

will they

How can you be so sure?

for them to do a deal on CFDs there will have to be a seller (or is it the
buyer they need). And that seller (or buyer) will only be in the market if
he thinks he can make some money.

This can't be a guaranteed win/win, can it?

Unless, of course there is some hidden subsidy in this electricity CFD lark.
But then that's going to be there anyway, isn't it. Whether the other party
to this contract is this tidal power station of a new gas one (or something
else)

and it will be no risk to them,. because they will sell at 5 times the
price of a gas power station.

they won't if they don't produce anything


They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

I dont think so.

Then explain it so that people who aren't as clever as you can understand

Insulting me because you think that I can't see that it (or isn't) is a poor
investment on the figures that are openly available, is insulting.

I am perfectly capable of doing that.

but if there are some hidden figures that are available that you alone know
about then you have to explain them to us

and no, links to some complicated analysis that someone else has done isn't
sufficient

And your ridiculous ranting that just because it's impossible to produce
100% of the country's needs this way means that producing 5% of the
country's needs this way is pointless, doesn't cut it either

tim

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at that
price.

So you're a know-nothing.

In didn't claim otherwise

I have never made any value analysis on this propose, technical nor
financial

just argued that if the "subsidy" that it has be offered is the same as for
the Nukes you have no case in arguing against it (from that pov), unless you
also argue against the subsidy for Nukes.

I don't need to have any technical understanding for that. Merely be a
bill/tax-payer (arguably, not even that).

It is you who assumed that I made some technical claims that was wrong

look back at my posts (there are only three of them before you started this
rant of yours) and tell me what claim it is that I made that makes me a
loony?

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

I'm sure it will "work", for some value of "work". It will produce
electricity. But it won't produce very much, and when it's producing
nothing at all will need backup, which means you're yet another of
these people who want to build two power stations to get the output of
one.

The whole idea of tidal barriers is that you need a complementary set

you have to evaluate their overall usefulness on the basis of the set.

That we can't build the complete set in one go is down to the problems of
financing (and possibly of the technology, but some said that is tested)

So the people who are interested in this, build the first to show the
financiers that it will work profitably at the allowable charge rate, or
alternatively they don't,. But I don't see that that's any of our business.
It isn't our money. We don't care.

I don't want yo-yos to be permitted to build second-rate solutions,
even if it is their money. They will spin it as wonderful, however poor
it is, and however expensive. Customer pays, y'see.

so what solution is there that is "politically" acceptable that costs less?

We can't build coal and gas stations because they produce CO2 which we have
(stupidly) agreed to cut to zero, and Nukes are the same price.

Look, in a world where the Chinese are (apparently) bringing on stream a new
coal power stations ever week, the idea that we have to close ours, and our
coal mines, when we have 100 years worth of coal still in the ground is
nutty.

But that's the world we have stuck ourself with.

Ranting at me when you didn't know that that was my view is arrogant.

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:07, tim... wrote:
I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.


No, they are not. They are only concerned with the income .

same thing, in this context


It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

No, with CFD, the consumer pays whatever.

where in the contract does it say that?

It has been presented as a strike price (admittedly a high one) for all
electricity generated

that's it. nothing more

no electricity generated = no cash

Cfds

contracts for difference

can't find any other meaning that even comes close

are a way to enforce a cointr4act between supplier and consumer that is
against the consumers interest.

you need to explain properly

tim






--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 16:51:51 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:07, tim... wrote:

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

No, they are not. They are only concerned with the income .

same thing, in this context

totally completely different things.


NT

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

See my sig.

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought it
sensible.

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being given
the same subsidy as Nukes, which they support. And that once it has that
subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is viable.

All subsidies should be scrapped.

Ok

And what subsidy is HinckleyC
getting, anyway?

A guaranteed strike price.

AIUI, EDF and the Chinese are paying the entire cost
of construction.

As will (someone else) with the barrier,

Once built, we but the volts from them at an agreed
price.

As with the barrier

Where's the subsidy in that?

the possibility that when the electricity is produced it will be fed into
the grid at a higher price than the market price for alternatively generated
electricity, paid for by a surcharge on everybody's leccy bills.

You are the first person I have ever seen to claim that this isn't a
subsidy. Even the supporters accept that.

tim

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 10:20:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price
as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at
that
price.

illogical

well I know that there are some dumb investors about

but they usually look like little old grannies (and some not so young) who
get conned by a boiler room scam

or VCs who just chuck a million here and a million there at a few start-ups
in the hope that one of them goes really big to pay for losses from the ones
that fail

but not many invest in billion pound infrastructure projects without doing
proper due diligence

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

because it spends our money without a sensible return

It's not "our" money

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

it isn't

whose is it then?

(subject to the environmental considerations etc etc...)

A string of points have been made debunking the whole
approach, and explaining why it is technically and financially stupid,

They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

it is for them to decide if it is viable at that price, not you (or
anybody
else).

there is clearly no basis for that claim

what claim?

That someone is free to decide whether to invest in a scheme or not

Of course they are.

It doesn't even have to be a legal scheme for them to be "free" to decide
(FTAOD, and some of you are very quick to doubt, I am not advocating
investing in illegal schemes)

and you want to proceed with it to "prove the technology".

I don't *want* to proceed with it - not the slightest bit interested in
whether it goes ahead or not.

I am saying if *they* want to proceed with it, it's entirely up to them.

**** the
technology, concentrate on the essentials.

You'll be proposing planes with flapping wings next, because that's how
birds do it.

I didn't propose anything

I am simply making the point that if someone else wants to risk an
investment in X, you and I have no place stopping them.

OK, then I'm going to take 50% of everything you own and invest it in a
dimwitted scam.

These people are not taking 50% of everything that I own

It's a ridiculous comparison

It's in my interest as I'll get paid (from your money) until that money
runs out.

The only issue that is our concern here is where it is given a subsidy,
which it is. But as that subsidy is the same as that given to Nukes,
which
most here support, the they have no case that the subsidy is too high.
Either a subsidy of X is OK or it isn't. You can't say it's OK for my
preferred solution, but not for something else.

completely illogical. Let's spend your electricity bill money on a roof
turbine then, and leave you to cope with the resulting hopeless supply. I
don't think you'd be too happy.

completely illogical (you started it)

tim

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 16:51:51 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:07, tim... wrote:

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

No, they are not. They are only concerned with the income .

same thing, in this context

totally completely different things.

output * guaranteed strike price = income (minus a few ruining costs)

tim

On 12/10/2016 17:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/10/16 13:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:








The original proposed site was from East pier diagonally across Swansea
bay to an area not far from existing County Hall.
This was what went through environmental reviews etc.
However they then built a new university campus West of Swansea .... and
suddenly the whole project is moved to run from Queens dock wall (West
of river mouth) to the the beach area opposite the (now closed) Fords
factory.

If it were to proceed there should be a full review of environmental
impact, in my opinion it is too small to be worthwhile.
Much is made of the leisure aspects of the tidal lagoon .... it needs to
be much bigger.

If it were to go ahead far better that it went right across Swansea bay
from original start point of Eats pier - over to West Cross ........ a
huge natural bay.
However I do not think funds will ever be raised for this.


Last announcements,were that the private company (in it for the money`)
wanted government to guarantee a fixed price per MWh .... higher level
than that for Nuclear.

All just makes no sense to me ...... especially as it was going to a
Chinese company for construction - this should be British jobs

"rick" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2016 17:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/10/16 13:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:










Last announcements,were that the private company (in it for the money`)
wanted government to guarantee a fixed price per MWh .... higher level
than that for Nuclear.

They claimed in their initial prospectus that they needed a strike price of
almost twice that of Hinkley

They have been offered a take it or leave it deal a few pounds different to
Hinkley, and are, apparently, seriously considering that (though there still
seem to be some panning hurdles to overcome)

That they initially seem to have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the
regulator (or whoever it is who decides this) and can consider going ahead
at half of what they originally wanted is seen, by some, as indicative of a
bad agent who shouldn't be allowed to continue with the project on a point
of principle.


All just makes no sense to me ...... especially as it was going to a
Chinese company for construction - this should be British jobs

I'm sure that they will be requirements for construction staff to be
recruited locally

This isn't West Africa, they won't be allowed to bus in thousands of chinks

tim

On 13/10/16 14:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns
not withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

See my sig.

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought
it sensible.

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being
given the same subsidy as Nukes, which they support. And that once it
has that subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is
viable.

All subsidies should be scrapped. And what subsidy is HinckleyC
getting, anyway? AIUI, EDF and the Chinese are paying the entire cost
of construction. Once built, we but the volts from them at an agreed
price. Where's the subsidy in that?

In the agreed price.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 13/10/16 17:09, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 16:51:51 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:07, tim... wrote:

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

No, they are not. They are only concerned with the income .

same thing, in this context

totally completely different things.

output * guaranteed strike price = income (minus a few ruining costs)


Exactly, two completely different thuings.

tim





--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 17:07:26 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 10:20:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price
as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

No

I know very little at all about this technology, I have no idea what the
costing are, not my problem matey!. But the fact that there are people
prepared to invest in it suggests that some people think it viable at
that
price.

illogical

well I know that there are some dumb investors about

but they usually look like little old grannies (and some not so young) who
get conned by a boiler room scam

or VCs who just chuck a million here and a million there at a few start-ups
in the hope that one of them goes really big to pay for losses from the ones
that fail

but not many invest in billion pound infrastructure projects without doing
proper due diligence

Why should we stop them from trying just because some other people think
that it wont work?

because it spends our money without a sensible return

It's not "our" money

We don't live in a dictatorship.

It's their money, if they want to risk it, why stop them?

it isn't

whose is it then?

(subject to the environmental considerations etc etc...)

A string of points have been made debunking the whole
approach, and explaining why it is technically and financially stupid,

They have been made an offer which is comparable with other solutions

it is for them to decide if it is viable at that price, not you (or
anybody
else).

there is clearly no basis for that claim

what claim?

That someone is free to decide whether to invest in a scheme or not

Of course they are.

It doesn't even have to be a legal scheme for them to be "free" to decide
(FTAOD, and some of you are very quick to doubt, I am not advocating
investing in illegal schemes)

and you want to proceed with it to "prove the technology".

I don't *want* to proceed with it - not the slightest bit interested in
whether it goes ahead or not.

I am saying if *they* want to proceed with it, it's entirely up to them.

**** the
technology, concentrate on the essentials.

You'll be proposing planes with flapping wings next, because that's how
birds do it.

I didn't propose anything

I am simply making the point that if someone else wants to risk an
investment in X, you and I have no place stopping them.

OK, then I'm going to take 50% of everything you own and invest it in a
dimwitted scam.

These people are not taking 50% of everything that I own

It's a ridiculous comparison

It's in my interest as I'll get paid (from your money) until that money
runs out.

The only issue that is our concern here is where it is given a subsidy,
which it is. But as that subsidy is the same as that given to Nukes,
which
most here support, the they have no case that the subsidy is too high.
Either a subsidy of X is OK or it isn't. You can't say it's OK for my
preferred solution, but not for something else.

completely illogical. Let's spend your electricity bill money on a roof
turbine then, and leave you to cope with the resulting hopeless supply. I
don't think you'd be too happy.

completely illogical (you started it)

tim

icba. It ain't my problem.

On 13/10/16 18:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

See, any fool can say we should be doing X, but oh dear the practical
details I leave to others.

Cat belling.

In such cases I call bull****. We have a
plethora of luvvies and others saying as how all we need is a magic new
battery technology when a survey of available battery chemistry rules
it out, or how carbon capture and storage is the way forward when no
one has the least idea how to do that.


Bandar Log. "We all say it, so it must be true"

Of course for such twerps anything to do with science is
indistinguishable from magic, and so they imagine that the "magic" of
science can come up with anything they want. For them, the insistence
of for example those on here who call for nukes + gas as the way
forward is perverse and obviously maliciously motivated.


"Magic thinking" - the way the Left operates

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 17:09, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 16:51:51 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/16 10:07, tim... wrote:

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is,
against the cost of construction.

No, they are not. They are only concerned with the income .

same thing, in this context

totally completely different things.

output * guaranteed strike price = income (minus a few ruining costs)


Exactly, two completely different thuings.

not completely different

directly related

tim

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology",

I didn't mean it in the technical sense

I meant it in the financial sense

"prove that the technology produces the required rate of return"

sorry to have been unclear

tim

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.


I still haven't seen them

tim

On 14/10/16 17:14, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology",

I didn't mean it in the technical sense

I meant it in the financial sense

"prove that the technology produces the required rate of return"


You don't need to build it to demonstrate that it doesn't.


sorry to have been unclear

tim





--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/16 17:14, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology",

I didn't mean it in the technical sense

I meant it in the financial sense

"prove that the technology produces the required rate of return"


You don't need to build it to demonstrate that it doesn't.

You do if you are just trying to take advantage of the gullibility of your
investors.

Many a start up has gone down that path.

tim

In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they
are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering knowledge
whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.
achieve the same output of electricity, and without the added
complication of having to phase-in and then phase-out a whole series
of tidal generators four times a day. And that assumes that there are
enough sites around the UK that are suitable for 50 tidal barrages.
Which there aren't. You'd be lucky to get 10. So the whole thing is
completely pointless.

I agree that the number of suitable sites is an issue,
The number of suitable sites or lack of kills the whole concept dead in
the water.
but individually that doesn't make a single complementary set of
barriers pointless,
Yes it does. Building several generating stations to get the equivalent
output of one is shear lunacy.
any more that building a single hydro power station that can only
produce 0.5% of total requirements pointless.
A hydro power station bears no resemblance to a tidal lagoon.

tim



--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/10/16 10:22, tim... wrote:

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

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:18:55 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

Are ye mad?

Most of the population have lost sight of the primary objective, which
is to reduce and even eliminate CO2 production (assuming that that is
necessary, which most people think it is, rightly or wrongly). That
objective has been hijacked and transduced into one of using as much
renewable energy as possible, regardless of cost, convenience or
practicality.

I now await Dotty Tim's riposte, in which he will explain on precisely
what grounds there is justification to build this barrier.

I resent that post

Nothing in my PP supported the technology or suggested that I thought it
sensible.

Merely that posters here have no place complaining about it being given
the same subside as Nukes, which they support. And that once it has
that subsidy, it is entirely for the investors to decide if it is viable.


But its being given far more.
For a next to useless power output.

tim



--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of
people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell






--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.

See, any fool can say we should be doing X, but oh dear the practical
details I leave to others. In such cases I call bull****. We have a
plethora of luvvies and others saying as how all we need is a magic new
battery technology when a survey of available battery chemistry rules
it out, or how carbon capture and storage is the way forward when no
one has the least idea how to do that.

Of course for such twerps anything to do with science is
indistinguishable from magic, and so they imagine that the "magic" of
science can come up with anything they want. For them, the insistence
of for example those on here who call for nukes + gas as the way
forward is perverse and obviously maliciously motivated.

He's right brained you see. All airey fairy ideas but no practical
understanding whatsoever.
--
bert

On 13/10/2016 17:40, tim... wrote:


I'm sure that they will be requirements for construction staff to be
recruited locally

This isn't West Africa, they won't be allowed to bus in thousands of chinks

tim

Opposite the proposed site is Amazon distribution Centre ... where a
very small minority are British (let alone local)

On 14/10/16 17:49, tim... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/16 17:14, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology",

I didn't mean it in the technical sense

I meant it in the financial sense

"prove that the technology produces the required rate of return"


You don't need to build it to demonstrate that it doesn't.

You do if you are just trying to take advantage of the gullibility of
your investors.

Many a start up has gone down that path.


Yeah. I used to work for Clive Sinclair, too.

tim







--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one else's.
The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that makes
them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they are
undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering knowledge
whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim




achieve the same output of electricity, and without the added
complication of having to phase-in and then phase-out a whole series
of tidal generators four times a day. And that assumes that there are
enough sites around the UK that are suitable for 50 tidal barrages.
Which there aren't. You'd be lucky to get 10. So the whole thing is
completely pointless.

I agree that the number of suitable sites is an issue,
The number of suitable sites or lack of kills the whole concept dead in
the water.
but individually that doesn't make a single complementary set of barriers
pointless,
Yes it does. Building several generating stations to get the equivalent
output of one is shear lunacy.
any more that building a single hydro power station that can only produce
0.5% of total requirements pointless.
A hydro power station bears no resemblance to a tidal lagoon.

tim



--
bert

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:15:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology", because there's nothing
profound about letting water flow through turbines to generate power.
Your writing what you did implies that you don't know that, and that
when it is built and indeed produces some power, this will somehow
validate the concept and so, chaps, it's full speed ahead to ****loads
of cheap power.

This in spite of an unanswerable set of objections having been put
forward by Chris Hogg.


I still haven't seen them

tim


AIUI you are happy if private investment puts up the money for e.g.
the Swansea barrage and accepts the risk of making a profit or loss,
just like any other investment.

Yep

It's the free market

There are loads of cases where the free market has put up money for white
elephants, they should be allowed to do so. It's their money.

It's the cost of having the opportunity to invest in the big wins.

If HMG were allowed to decide which projects private investors
could/couldn't invest in we would be in a right old mess. Just look at the
failures of Government industrial policy when it did have a policy for
picking "winners"!

Of course government must be able to act on environmental concerns (which I
do have some reservations about with this scheme, but none of the other
posters here seem concerned by), but financial potential is not their
concern.


If the price paid for the product by
the utilities and ultimately ourselves is satisfactory, in this
instance on a par with Hinkley C, then on the face of it, that seems
fine, especially from an investor's POV.

But it's not that simple.

Intermittent production imposes problems on the grid that aren't the
concern of those investors.

I understand that

but that is why you have to build a complementary set of 4/5 of these things
and assess the viability of the set.

That is the long term intention here, but as I have already said, presumably
the proposers can't get financila backing for the full scheme without firts
proving (the financial returns) of a trial.

tim