'tis the Grauniad, so take with however much salt you feel appropriate.

"Backers of an ambitious proposal to transform the UK's power supply
will learn in the next few weeks if they are to be given the go-ahead to
build tidal lagoons to generate electricity. The green light could see a
series of major lagoon projects costing more than ukp15bn being
constructed around the coast of Britain"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...8/tidal-power-
swansea-bay-lagoon

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 08/10/16 22:15, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

'tis the Grauniad, so take with however much salt you feel appropriate.

"Backers of an ambitious proposal to transform the UK's power supply
will learn in the next few weeks if they are to be given the go-ahead to
build tidal lagoons to generate electricity. The green light could see a
series of major lagoon projects costing more than ukp15bn being
constructed around the coast of Britain"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...8/tidal-power-
swansea-bay-lagoon


It will be an economic disaster. And probably an ecological one.

I sincerely hope they aren't allowed top suck public money into a waste
of time.


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

I thought that this idea had been buried long ago, not only would it affect
wildlife, but also predictions of silting up in other parts of the coast and
inside the lagoon could render the ongoing cost very much too high to make
anyone invest in it as an on going concern. There have been some others
built, at least one in France and I know there have been problems ongoing.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

'tis the Grauniad, so take with however much salt you feel appropriate.

"Backers of an ambitious proposal to transform the UK's power supply
will learn in the next few weeks if they are to be given the go-ahead to
build tidal lagoons to generate electricity. The green light could see a
series of major lagoon projects costing more than ukp15bn being
constructed around the coast of Britain"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...8/tidal-power-
swansea-bay-lagoon

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 09/10/16 07:58, Brian Gaff wrote:
I thought that this idea had been buried long ago, not only would it affect
wildlife, but also predictions of silting up in other parts of the coast and
inside the lagoon could render the ongoing cost very much too high to make
anyone invest in it as an on going concern. There have been some others
built, at least one in France and I know there have been problems ongoing.
Brian

a lot of people stand to make a lot of money out of the taxpayer with
these ecobollox projects.

--
"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.

On 08/10/16 22:15, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

'tis the Grauniad, so take with however much salt you feel appropriate.

"Backers of an ambitious proposal to transform the UK's power supply
will learn in the next few weeks if they are to be given the go-ahead to
build tidal lagoons to generate electricity. The green light could see a
series of major lagoon projects costing more than ukp15bn being
constructed around the coast of Britain"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...8/tidal-power-
swansea-bay-lagoon

Maybe they should read this first:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-fi...143846894.html

"The challenges ahead are formidable as evidenced by a pilot project in
2009 which saw OpenHydro and Nova Scotia Power deploy a 400-tonne
turbine that had two of its 12-metre blades snapped off in the powerful
waters."

I like the idea of tidal power as it is constant and predictable. But
will the technology ever be up to it?

--

Jeff

En el artículo , Jeff Layman
escribió:

had two of its 12-metre blades snapped off in the powerful
waters."

The wrong kind of tide.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Jeff Layman
wrote:

I like the idea of tidal power as it is constant and predictable. But
will the technology ever be up to it?

It's not constant. It's periodic.

We've done that bit:-)

Going sideways, how about pension investment in nuclear?


--
Tim Lamb

After Mr Trump has finished his Mexican wall, perhaps he could build one
down the north sea and around the English channel, and we could make that
the border and use it to generate tidal power?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Jeff Layman
escribió:

had two of its 12-metre blades snapped off in the powerful
waters."

The wrong kind of tide.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
This Grauniad article is a re-hash of what has been published
previously, except that I note they're now getting a strike price of
only £89.90/MWh, compared to £168/MWh they were wanting before.
They've obviously been told they won't get the higher price. That they
can virtually halve their asking price and still make a profit is a
measure of the cynical profiteering that goes on in the renewables
industry, all the way from Big Renewables down to minnows like Harry.

You are implying all other generators do so out of purely altruistic
motives? Without a thought to making a profit?

Perhaps the same trick should have been pulled with Hinkley Point.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

They continue with the misleading publicity for the output of the
proposed Cardiff scheme, claiming it will be 3,000MW, when in reality
this output will only occur for a limited period at peak tidal flow,
and averaged over a year the output will be a fifth of that, something
like 600MW. And it will be intermittent, on-off-on-off etc. four times
a day

Something like this would seem to be a better solution: cheaper, doesn't
block the bay, constant power, presumably lower impact on the
environment (if it doesn't do a Chernobyl). One issue would be a
transmission uplink to the grid which would still need to be built.

https://www.rt.com/news/361908-lomonosov-fnpp-russia-platform/

This caught my eye though: 300MWt and 75MWe. 25% efficiency? Seems
very low. What about primary containment, and corrosion caused by
seawater?

Mo http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/english/lomonosov

Some controversy in Russia about it:

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issu...-says-russias-
floating-nuke-plant-must-be-smaller

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 09/10/16 09:36, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Jeff Layman
wrote:

I like the idea of tidal power as it is constant and predictable. But
will the technology ever be up to it?

It's not constant. It's periodic.

We've done that bit:-)

Going sideways, how about pension investment in nuclear?

Damn good idea if e gi8vernment would

(a) set clear simple regulations that will not be retrospectively applied.

(b) Stop interfering. And make all subsidies to power plants illegal.


Having this disposed of windmills, tidal lagoons, solar panels and all
the other dross, the investment decisions would be much simpler, and we
could build nuclear plants without worrying that 5 years down the road
some intellectually challenged lefty**** parliament wouldn't close them
all down.





--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 09/10/16 10:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
However, it's not an absolute measure by which to judge the merits or
otherwise of a tidal scheme, only the relative merits.

Id does give a first stab at relating 'amount of energy stored per tide'
to 'cubic kilometers of concrete needed to make the barrier.

circular bays with narrow mouths being the best.


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 09/10/16 11:42, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
25% efficiency? Seems
very low.

Very high, to me, given its tidal, not pumped.

And the head is very low indeed.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

25% efficiency? Seems very low.

Very high, to me, given its tidal, not pumped.

Err ... it's a floating nuke

On 09/10/16 12:54, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

25% efficiency? Seems very low.

Very high, to me, given its tidal, not pumped.

Err ... it's a floating nuke

Oh. That one. Well 37% is top thermal efficiency on most steam turbine
plant with BIG condensers, so 25% sounds OK for a steam turbine built to
actually *float*.

And not be too massive.




--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 09/10/16 13:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 11:42:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

They continue with the misleading publicity for the output of the
proposed Cardiff scheme, claiming it will be 3,000MW, when in reality
this output will only occur for a limited period at peak tidal flow,
and averaged over a year the output will be a fifth of that, something
like 600MW. And it will be intermittent, on-off-on-off etc. four times
a day

Something like this would seem to be a better solution: cheaper, doesn't
block the bay, constant power, presumably lower impact on the
environment (if it doesn't do a Chernobyl). One issue would be a
transmission uplink to the grid which would still need to be built.

https://www.rt.com/news/361908-lomonosov-fnpp-russia-platform/

This caught my eye though: 300MWt and 75MWe. 25% efficiency? Seems
very low. What about primary containment, and corrosion caused by
seawater?

Mo http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/english/lomonosov

Some controversy in Russia about it:

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issu...-says-russias-
floating-nuke-plant-must-be-smaller

75MWe out of 300MWt is indeed a bit low; Hinkley C will produce 9,000
MWt, 3,200 MWe, an efficiency of 35.5%. Ignoring the source of heat,
once you've created the steam, the turbine and generating bit is much
the same for nuclear plants as it is for coal-fired plants, the latter
having around 30-35% efficiency, so much the same as nuclear, as you
would expect.

Se my other po9st. That's with full condensers and reasonably high
superheated steam temps.

Both of those increase plant costs and weight, which is significant in a
'floater'


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

Chris Hogg wrote:

Hinkley C will produce 9,000 MWt, 3,200 MWe

5.8 GW of heating is literally a drop in the Bristol Channel, but
couldn't it be used e.g. to "hothouse" a giant algae lagoon, which you
harvest for biofuel?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/10/16 07:58, Brian Gaff wrote:
I thought that this idea had been buried long ago, not only would it
affect
wildlife, but also predictions of silting up in other parts of the coast
and
inside the lagoon could render the ongoing cost very much too high to
make
anyone invest in it as an on going concern. There have been some others
built, at least one in France and I know there have been problems
ongoing.
Brian

a lot of people stand to make a lot of money out of the taxpayer with
these ecobollox projects.

only if it works

They get paid for the leccfy they generate

if the prediction that it will silt up is correct they will get paid nothing
by the *bill*payer (not the tax payer)

tim

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/10/16 07:58, Brian Gaff wrote:
I thought that this idea had been buried long ago, not only would it
affect
wildlife, but also predictions of silting up in other parts of the
coast and
inside the lagoon could render the ongoing cost very much too high to
make
anyone invest in it as an on going concern. There have been some
others
built, at least one in France and I know there have been problems
ongoing.
Brian

a lot of people stand to make a lot of money out of the taxpayer with
these ecobollox projects.

only if it works

for some value of "works".

They get paid for the leccfy they generate

Yes, with a nice strike price. Which everyone justifies as it's "green"
and needs to be encouraged.

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

tim

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

Very high, to me, given its tidal, not pumped.

Wrong again. Quelle surprise.

How about you read what is actually written before knocking out a knee-
jerk reply? Then you wouldn't look such a dickhead.

You're turning into a know-it-all-but-actually-knows-****-all like
Wodney.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 09:05:30 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

I like the idea of tidal power as it is constant and predictable. But
will the technology ever be up to it?

The Achilles heel of tidal power, like all renewables, is
intermittency. It may be more predictable than wind and solar, but it
still has to be compensated for, by supplying yet more intermittent
and inefficient power elsewhere to coincide with the gaps. Oh, and
tidal power isn't that constant either. It varies across each tidal
cycle from nothing to a peak and then back down again, and the peaks
vary in strength with a two-week cycle between spring and neap tides.

I notice in the Bay of Fundy article the usual reference to the
maximum power output of the turbines, when in reality it will be
something like 20% of that when averaged over 12 months, due primarily
to intermittency.
Nuclear doesn't suffer from intermittency, except perhaps when
governments such as Merkel's get involved!

Perhaps now all those tidal power supporters would like to pile in and
show why Chris is talking cock. With numbers please - so if you can't
do sums don't bother.

Not me. I liked the tidal flow job but, if the sums don't work, stick
with nuclear.


--
Tim Lamb

On 09/10/16 14:01, Andy Burns wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

Hinkley C will produce 9,000 MWt, 3,200 MWe

5.8 GW of heating is literally a drop in the Bristol Channel, but
couldn't it be used e.g. to "hothouse" a giant algae lagoon, which you
harvest for biofuel?

Oh come ON. Giant cannabis greenhouses!


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

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Jeff Layman
wrote:

I like the idea of tidal power as it is constant and predictable. But
will the technology ever be up to it?

It's not constant. It's periodic.

We've done that bit:-)

Going sideways, how about pension investment in nuclear?

Too risky IMO. Impossible to be sure you wont get fanged
in the arse by something as stupid as what the krauts did
with their nukes when the **** hit the fan in Fukushima etc
which has no relevance what so ever to kraut nukes.

En el artículo , Tim Lamb
escribió:

Not me. I liked the tidal flow job

agreed, Chris did a nice analysis.

but, if the sums don't work, stick
with nuclear.

+1.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Andy Burns wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Hinkley C will produce 9,000 MWt, 3,200 MWe

5.8 GW of heating is literally a drop in the Bristol Channel,
but couldn't it be used e.g. to "hothouse" a giant algae
lagoon, which you harvest for biofuel?

Makes more sense to use the heat to grow vegys
etc in winter and produce the fuel directly instead.
And not **** the gas against the wall heating houses.

Those figures seem quite small when one considers the size of the projects
and the unpredictable effects of changing the way the currents and tides
run.


The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power from
any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the sun, you
actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of it, you
alter the environment in some way, often a way which was unexpected.


Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 10:10:50 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

After Mr Trump has finished his Mexican wall, perhaps he could build one
down the north sea and around the English channel, and we could make that
the border and use it to generate tidal power?
Brian

That general idea has been considered. In the late David MacKay's
book, he refers to work by Cartwright on estimating the average tidal
powers across major sea boundaries around the UK*. For example, across
the Strait of Dover, 16.7GW; across the Irish Sea from Wexford to St.
David's Head, 45GW; a long one running from Malin Head in N. Ireland
all the way around Scotland and the Shetland Isles to Floro in Norway,
60GW, and an even longer one across the Western Approaches, from
Valentia in S.W. Ireland across to Ushant in Brittany, 190GW.

But somehow I don't think anyone is actually going to build barriers
across any one of them to tap that power!

* http://tinyurl.com/6cp8c4c et seq.

Then of course there's this: http://tinyurl.com/d8c5tzh

--

Chris

On 10/10/16 08:16, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power from
any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the sun, you
actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of it, you
alter the environment in some way, often a way which was unexpected.

That is ONE problem Brian.
Environmental impact. Essentially 'renewable energy' comes in low power
density, so that automatically and irrevocably means, with no
possibility of technological development changing it, that the devices
used to capture it will be *LARGE*.

Let me repeat that for the avoidance of doubt. Low power density means
that all renewable power generation will be *LARGE*. And hence of high
environmental impact.

And potentially expensive.

Let me stress again that this is simply unavoidable. Anything big enough
to get the very low grade energy out of the environment will have to be
big enough to make a significant impact on the environment. There simply
is no answer to that.


The second problem is intermittency. Not unpredictability, but the sheer
fact that the power is not coming from an energy store, but has to be
generated and used when the energy source is available. Again no amount
of clever technology cam make the wind always blow steadily or the sun
always shine, at least on the earth's surface.

And if attempts are made to store the intermittent energy, you run into
two further problems.

Firstly it's very costly to store large amounts of electrical energy.
and secondly is very dangerous. Depending on the energy density it may
also be quite big, and therefore exact a further environmental penalty.

Then intermittency adds another problem. If the store and the source are
not co-located, a further problem arises with intermittency, and that is
the connectivity. High peak to mean power flows generate cables more
costly than the mean flow would dictate. And these larger cables too,
have more environmental impact.

Finally, if the dispatch side of the generation needs are not handled by
(rechargeable) stored energy, they have to be handled by some other
access to stored energy - typically fossil or nuclear. This means
complete duplication of capital equipment, since all renewable sources
are capable of simultaneously dropping to zero output over very large
geographic regions, and if not co-operated with conventional power, they
must incorporate very long, expensive and vulnerable inter-connectors.

Yet more cost, yet more environmental impact.

What needs to be stressed is that all these drawbacks are not something
that can be 'developed out' of renewable energy. *THEY ARE INHERENT TO
THE VERY NATURE OF IT*.

Renewable energy will always be large, and will never be more than a
partial solution. Simply because the power density is low, and the
source is inconstant.

You may ask 'why then are we bothering with it?'

Why indeed?


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 10/10/16 09:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:16:44 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Those figures seem quite small when one considers the size of the projects
and the unpredictable effects of changing the way the currents and tides
run.


The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power from
any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the sun, you
actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of it, you
alter the environment in some way, often a way which was unexpected.


Brian

I don't think so Brian. There may be local effects, such as reduced
wind speed downwind from a wind farm, or smaller waves 'downwave' of a
wave farm, but the effects are small in the grand scheme of things.

You would be surprised.


Wind energy is dissipate when it shakes trees; wave energy is
dissipated when the waves hit the coast; solar energy is wasted when
the sun heats the ground. All man is doing is diverting that energy
from being wasted into something useful.

So shaking trees is 'not useful'

And you have just made the point that solar energy that DOESN'T hit the
ground is obviously going to leave the ground colder than it was by a
substantial amount.


When David Mackay talked of 'a wind farm the size of Wales' he wasnt joking.

That is a significant an serious environmental impact.




After all, all that energy
ultimately comes from the sun, which is going to keep shining for a
good few years yet and what we do with the small amount of its energy
that reaches us isn't going to change that.

Even the energy of the tides is wasted, and the tidal forces exerted
by the moon and dissipated by distorting the solid bits of the earth
probably vastly exceed those dissipated just by moving the sea to and
fro. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth, at a rate roughly
equivalent to how fast your finger-nails grow, and it was been doing
so long before anyone thought about harnessing the tides to do
something useful. http://tinyurl.com/6hnffhl

I am simply jaw droppingly flabbergasted at your complete and utter
ignorance of what used to be called 'physical geography' and that is the
actual impact that things like sun, wind, waves and tides have upon the
environment.

AS I have pointed out before, the UK uses several Hiroshima sized bombs
worth of just *electricity* every day.

Ultimately the environmental impact of that, done conventionally, is a
little CO2, and a reasonable amount of heat. IIRC something like 10% of
the sunlight falling on the UK. (that is of course what actually
generates the 'rising temperatures' of 'global warming' as cities get
built round thermometers and keep them toasty due to energy spill)

With energy needs in a crowded country like the UK being about 20% of
the actual energy falling on it as an island from the Sun., its going to
be a massive environmental impact however its done, and more so with so
called 'renewables' than any other way.

Because they have to be HUGE to scrape it up. At least 20% of the land
area for PV for example.

The lowest environmental impact of any is of course nuclear. The sole
thing it produces is heat, and the oceans are big sinks (though it might
help melt a tad of polar ice). The waste such as it is is compact and
easily dealt with,.

Nuclear is far and away the 'greenest' technology there is, to generate
large amounts of usable power.




--
€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 Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:34:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

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?

You are having a pop at harry and his plug in EV aren't you wink ;-)

Of course, because harry is both greedy and a hypocrite, he has both
IC and electric cars. The IC for all 'normal' driving jobs and the EV
for getting as much money out of the rest of as possible. ;-(

I think that anyone who buys electricity and doesn't have PV + FIT
themselves and who lives near harry should get him to run them around
as they have contributed to the battery charge (and the cash to buy
the car) after all. Only locally of course or he'd get *you* pushing
*him* home in his EV!

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power
from any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the sun,
you actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of
it, you alter the environment in some way, often a way which was
unexpected.

Well, yes. Possibly. But then burning fossil fuels to produce power
doesn't seem to be doing the environment much good either. Except in the
opinion of the various nutcases on here, of course.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power
from any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the sun,
you actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of
it, you alter the environment in some way, often a way which was
unexpected.

Well, yes. Possibly. But then burning fossil fuels to produce power
doesn't seem to be doing the environment much good either. Except in the
opinion of the various nutcases on here, of course.

So what then is your solution, Our Dave?

Eggs. Basket. Put. Don't. Rearrange to suit. And preferably owned by the
UK. Or rather England, as is likely by then.

--
*I was once a millionaire but my mom gave away my baseball cards

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate
power from any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even
the sun, you actually are taking power from the earth and if you do
enough of it, you alter the environment in some way, often a way
which was unexpected.

Well, yes. Possibly. But then burning fossil fuels to produce power
doesn't seem to be doing the environment much good either. Except in
the opinion of the various nutcases on here, of course.

So what then is your solution, Our Dave?

Eggs. Basket. Put. Don't. Rearrange to suit. And preferably owned by the
UK. Or rather England, as is likely by then.

of it's a lagoon in Wales, they might not like a "colonial power" owning it.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
This Grauniad article is a re-hash of what has been published
previously, except that I note they're now getting a strike price of
only £89.90/MWh, compared to £168/MWh they were wanting before.
They've obviously been told they won't get the higher price. That they
can virtually halve their asking price and still make a profit is a
measure of the cynical profiteering that goes on in the renewables
industry, all the way from Big Renewables down to minnows like Harry.

You are implying all other generators do so out of purely altruistic
motives? Without a thought to making a profit?

You don't seem to know the difference between making a profit and
profiteering - further evidence of the economic ignorance of a
leftie****.
Perhaps the same trick should have been pulled with Hinkley Point.


--
bert

On Sunday, 9 October 2016 09:44:39 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Jeff Layman
escribió:

had two of its 12-metre blades snapped off in the powerful
waters."

The wrong kind of tide.

No; wrong kind of management.

In the 1970's Rolls having given Stanley Hooker the elbow found itself bankrupt after all it's high bypass engines failed the frozen chicken test for carbon bladed turbines.

When the government bought out the blighters and reinstalled god's gift to the jet-set, he redesigned them in titanium and found them much better mincers.

Several frozen freezerfests later the Rolls Royce jet engine is worth millions.

The reason the river barrages are not viable is that they have to be closed to shipping. There is no accord in the world that will save the environnment from rich people and money. It wasn't even mentioned past a few editions of the News Chronical when the people who made the Conwy Tunnel decided to create a marina from the tidal flats that used to house most of the waterbirds in North Wales.

However if they dig a tunnel to direct a tidal range into a reservoir separate from the rivers then they can use any amount of wilderness that the government are willing to steal from the locals for their not using it properly.

On 10/10/16 13:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power
from any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the sun,
you actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of
it, you alter the environment in some way, often a way which was
unexpected.

Well, yes. Possibly. But then burning fossil fuels to produce power
doesn't seem to be doing the environment much good either. Except in the
opinion of the various nutcases on here, of course.

So what then is your solution, Our Dave?

Magic pixie dust. What else?


The lefty**** modus operandi is not to supply solutions, but to merely
comment on the immorality of everyone elses.


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 10/10/16 14:57, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate
power from any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even
the sun, you actually are taking power from the earth and if you do
enough of it, you alter the environment in some way, often a way
which was unexpected.

Well, yes. Possibly. But then burning fossil fuels to produce power
doesn't seem to be doing the environment much good either. Except in
the opinion of the various nutcases on here, of course.

So what then is your solution, Our Dave?

Eggs. Basket. Put. Don't. Rearrange to suit. And preferably owned by the
UK. Or rather England, as is likely by then.

of it's a lagoon in Wales, they might not like a "colonial power" owning it.

You know, I think its high time we had some DIVERSITY in the shape of
wheels.

Putting all your eggs into the 'round wheel' basket looks like a really
bad idea don't you think?

Almost as stupid as only investing in power generation technology that
actually works eh?

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?



--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 10/10/16 14:58, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
This Grauniad article is a re-hash of what has been published
previously, except that I note they're now getting a strike price of
only £89.90/MWh, compared to £168/MWh they were wanting before.
They've obviously been told they won't get the higher price. That they
can virtually halve their asking price and still make a profit is a
measure of the cynical profiteering that goes on in the renewables
industry, all the way from Big Renewables down to minnows like Harry.

You are implying all other generators do so out of purely altruistic
motives? Without a thought to making a profit?

You don't seem to know the difference between making a profit and
profiteering - further evidence of the economic ignorance of a leftie****.

Not to mention rent-seeking.


Perhaps the same trick should have been pulled with Hinkley Point.




--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 10/10/16 16:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem seems to be that no matter what you try to generate power
from any naturally occurring force like wind or tides or even the
sun,
you actually are taking power from the earth and if you do enough of
it, you alter the environment in some way, often a way which was
unexpected.

Well, yes. Possibly. But then burning fossil fuels to produce power
doesn't seem to be doing the environment much good either. Except in
the
opinion of the various nutcases on here, of course.

So what then is your solution, Our Dave?

Eggs. Basket. Put. Don't. Rearrange to suit. And preferably owned by the
UK. Or rather England, as is likely by then.

That's pretty vague, it only just avoids being labelled wriggling. So
lets have a bit more detail.

No, its cat belling nonsense.

If you only have one type of basket that actually CAN hold eggs at any
sane price, that's where the eggs go.

Dave's stupid point would seem to be that its a choice between lots of
little crappy renewable sources and just ONE power station to run the
whole country.

Its not. We build many power stations. WE have many baskets.

That they are all of similar type, is the nature of useful baskets. Over
years we have arrived at a pretty good idea of what constitutes a good
basket.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

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.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 10/9/2016 1:22 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/16 12:54, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

25% efficiency? Seems very low.

Very high, to me, given its tidal, not pumped.

Err ... it's a floating nuke

Oh. That one. Well 37% is top thermal efficiency on most steam turbine
plant with BIG condensers, so 25% sounds OK for a steam turbine built to
actually *float*.

And not be too massive.




That's with steam temperatures of ~ 650C, this will be a water reactor
with steam temperature perhaps 315C.

Best fossil plant (without combined cycle) gets just over 40%, AGR a
little less, water reactors around 30%.

IMHO size of condenser is not really a limit for a floating system!