Forum menu
With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides
Utter crap
Next time you look into it, you might want to look beyond tidal barrages.
rightplacerighttime - MemberWho was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
rightplacerighttime - MemberTo paraphrase, are you saying "sh1t happens, get over it"?
Looks like it. As you clearly don't care about global warming, why should you care about whether we use nuclear electricity to power your computer. I'm alright Jack...
José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind."We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020," he told El País newspaper.
Windfarms have this month outperformed other forms of electricity generation in Spain, beating gas into second place and producing 80% more than the country's nuclear plants.
Experts estimate that by the end of the year, Spain will have provided a quarter of its energy needs with renewables, with wind leading the way, followed by hydroelectric power and solar energy.
There's got to be some hope for wind power - I'd quite happily see a large portion of East Anglia covered in Turbines and it is in my back yard.
Utter crapNext time you look into it, you might want to look beyond tidal barrages.
Ah, those underwater 'wind' turbines? Or maybe tidal pools? Yes 🙄
Any idea of the area of the Severn estuary? To give us 7GW all the time, how many tidal pools would have to be built around the coast? Is there enough relatively shallow sea in which to do this?
As for the sea-current turbines, they're a great idea, but limited by areas in which they can be deployed, and somewhat lacking in energy output. They'd make the proposed huge offshore windfarms look small by comparison for the same generation capacity.
zokes,
Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my opinion is on climate change?
You've told me what my opinion is, and now you're telling me I'm wrong. But I haven't said anything about it on this thread.
The only thing I have said on this thread is that I'm anti-nuclear.
They'd make the proposed huge offshore windfarms look small by comparison for the same generation capacity.
And how do they compare with the proposed investment in nuclear?
rightplacerighttime - Memberzokes,
Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my opinion is on climate change?
You've told me what my opinion is, and now you're telling me I'm wrong. But I haven't said anything about it on this thread.
The only thing I have said on this thread is that I'm anti-nuclear.
Whether you have a view that it's happening or not, you seem to have failed to grasp the effect it will have on over a billion people. If you wish, we can work out just how many times Chernobyl would have to explode to kill the same number...
Whether you have a view that it's happening or not, you seem to have failed to grasp the effect it will have on over a billion people.
When have I said anything about the effect it will have?
When have I said anything about the effect it will have?
You haven't. I'm simply trying to draw your attention to the scale of numbers. Greenpeace has deaths as a direct result of Chernobyl likely to be between 100,000 and 300,000. Just how many multiples of that number are there in 1bn?
You're also assuming that a catastrophic accident (which as I said earlier was the direct result of staff disobeying orders and disabling all the safety backups before carrying out an experiment on a reactor that would never have been allowed to run in the west, even then) will happen in a modern, much better designed and managed reactor?
And how do they compare with the proposed investment in nuclear?
The UK government is proposing 12.5 GW at this stage new nuclear build.
However, we've gone back to arguing about current technologies. The tides are fixed, it's unlikely we're going to get more usable wind. There are physical boundaries to where renewable generation can be built.
The future of nuclear is very different. Go back through the thread again, and look for my mentions of thorium....
With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides
Several place in scotland. pentland firth and the falls of lorn are the most obvious but the forth and the clyde could be as well as well as one or two others. One of them ( I can't remember which) could produce 25% of all scotlands needs. all together is 100% and more to export.
One of them ( I can't remember which) could produce 25% of all scotlands needs. all together is 100% and more to export.
Which is good, but you only have 5m people to supply. There simply isn't enough for the UK as a whole. I personally think tidal barrages are one of the more promising renewable options, but in their own way, locally they are very destructive. I agree this is nothing compared to the effects climate change would have, but in terms of local decimation of wildlife, a 2GW nuke in normal operation wouldn't be much worse.
Tidal power is ace... Until of course you get to slack water and all the lights go out
Dont worry though, because we've got wind turbines to cover for then haven't we 🙄
Ratty- Z-11
However coastal flooding and changes in rainfall as a result of global warming will almost certainly cause that number of deaths.
Is that the same global warming that you are arguing is not occurring on this thread?
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming
dont read it we argued a bit on there
Where RPRT is arguing it is occurring BTW Zokes
Z-11 what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to decieve... I file you under trolling BS ratty.
Nice line BTW RPRT
Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
Zulu - wrong. Have a look at how they work - tides are different in different parts of the country and different designs take the power in different ways. With all renewables you need some power storage - hydrogen is my fave but pump storage is possible as welland there are various schemes for getting power storge domestically / locally as well
Do try harder. If you want to rubbish something get your facts right.
Zokes - you said the only tidal worth doing is the Severn. I just point out that there are plenty more up here - enough to make a difference UK wide - maybe 10 - 20 % of the entire UK needs could be met with tidal - but it does have an environmental cost of its own.
I'm pleased Z11 has moved across from the climate change thread to add his critical thinking to this subject!
Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?
Curiously, Hitler, on death-toll alone....
Where RPRT is arguing it is occurring BTW Zokes
Good for him. I haven't looked at that thread. Seeing as it looks to be about 10 pages long, I'm not going to start.
Was there a point to your post, Junkyard?
only for the intelligent reader Zokes - I learnt from that thread the art of trading pointless insults with random starngers - not a great debating technique IMHO
Only that RTRP is not denying climate change and he has not done so in this thread - I thought it was a fairly clear point now made explicit for you.
That and ratty just argues for the sake of it.
Zokes - you said the only tidal worth doing is the Severn. I just point out that there are plenty more up here - enough to make a difference UK wide - maybe 10 - 20 % of the entire UK needs could be met with tidal - but it does have an environmental cost of its own.
I chose that as the most obvious example, mainly because it's also the one that got closest to being built.
I am certainly not 100% for current nuclear, I see it as part of a mixture of advances for future generation, and hope we can move away from messy uranium as quickly as possible. However I do take exception to those who dismiss nuclear out of hand without offering a viable low-carbon solution.
When full LCAs are carried out on most 'low-carbon' technology, you'll realise it's not just nuclear that's dubious in its claims of being 'low carbon'
The bottom line is as we're most unlikely to appreciably cut our energy demands, we'll all find nuclear risks and even global warming a bit of a small problem compared to the chaos that will ensure when oil truly starts to run out, and people try to enforce their claims to what's left...
Junkyard - Premier Memberonly for the intelligent reader Zokes
You must have missed it then
tides are different in different parts of the country and different design
So TJ - you need to build just how many levels of redundancy into your system?
If you need a national draw of, say, 10 GW - you need to build power generation capacity for what? 20 maybe 30 GW to account for the problems and lack of continuity?
there wouldn't be an inch of coastline or unblemished hillside left in the country!
nice retort BTW - still a bit pointless though
nice retort BTW - still a bit pointless though
Well, put your handbag away and contribute to the debate, rather than the poor attempt at trolling you're currently pedalling.
Zokes said:
Greenpeace has deaths as a direct result of Chernobyl likely to be between 100,000 and 300,000.
Zokes also said:
I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change...
Actually Zokes, I agree with you that the carrying capacity of the earth may well fall by 1 bn because of global warming (and other things, like peak-oil) - how that will play out is a matter for debate - depends how we manage things.
But what I take exception to is your your self-righteous assertion that a few hundred thousand killed in nuclear accidents is "small fry"
No zulu. You don't understand at all. As on the climate change debate you have so little idea of what is actually happening. Not good considering you are supposed to be a scientist.
One tidal barrage at the falls of lorn, another at the dornoch firth ( for example) each one will fluctuate but the two together will produce a smooth stream of power as they are out of phase.
Local power storage ( there are many proposed ideas - using domestic hot wate heating for example) also smooths it out.
YOu are supposed to be a scientist. try learning a bit about what yu spout on about. Try not to show your ignorance and stupidity.
I only pointed out that RPRT is not denying climate change in this thread - a point you missed so I clarified it for you- not sure why you think that is trolling. I have said trading insults is pointless - one sided insults are probably even more pointless.
I dont do trolling I only express opinions I actually hold as I find trolling, like trading insults, a touch childish.
But what I take exception to is your your self-righteous assertion that a few hundred thousand killed in nuclear accidents is "small fry"
Pragmatically speaking, 100k is small fry compared to 1bn. It's also not a certainty, a large nuclear disaster is a small possibility. Huge loss of life directly or indirectly attributable to climate change is highly likely, and may well be around the 1bn mark. It may be considerably less, it may also be considerably more. Even so - the uncertainty +/- that figure is a considerably larger integer than the total deaths from Chernobyl - even Greenpeace's estimates, which are hardly likely to be favourable towards the nuclear industry...
Z11
If you need a national draw of, say, 10 GW - you need to build power generation capacity for what? 20 maybe 30 GW to account for the problems and lack of continuity?
But it's not like that. I already pointed out that the tides are at different states around the country, so even looking at tidal power alone you could have continuity of supply.
OTOH someone else pointed out that there are nuclear power stations currently running at 40% of projected output.
You seem to want the moon on a stick.
But what I take exception to is your your self-righteous assertion that a few hundred thousand killed in nuclear accidents is "small fry"
Look up the number of road deaths in europe since Chernobyl. 40,000 a year-ish x24 years ~ 1 million.
Chernobyl is utterly trivial.
I only pointed out that RPRT is not denying climate change in this thread - a point you missed so I clarified it for you- not sure why you think that is trolling. I have said trading insults is pointless - one sided insults are probably even more pointless.
I dont do trolling I only express opinions I actually hold as I find trolling, like trading insults, a touch childish.
I did not miss it. What I pointed out was at that point in time, he hadn't clarified his views, so I took them at face value. He certanly wasn't taking possible deaths from a nuclear accident in teh context of the incomprehensible scale of deaths if most predictions on climate change prove to be correct. As you will see, we have both clarified this.
Wiki definition of trolling follows:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Taking advantage of the remaining areas in the UK for tidal schemes at best could only supply 10% of UK electricity demands.
Not enough, especially when you factor in the devastating effect it will have on the local ecosystems.
Not enough, especially when you factor in the devastating effect it will have on the local ecosystems.
Does it matter? These devastated ecosystems. Are they useful stuff or just birds and wiggly things?
Are they useful stuff
depends which way your bread is buttered.
Either way, they're screwed with climate change...
Either way, they're screwed with climate change...
Or at a competitive advantage.
Sorry I've not the whole thread, but have now reached a high enough boredom threshold to dabble at the end.
OTOH someone else pointed out that there are nuclear power stations currently running at 40% of projected output.
Was just going to reply to that, but decided to check who pointed it out originally - no surprises really, as TJ does seem to have a habit of arguing against new build power stations on the basis of figures taken from ones built 50 years ago, conveniently ignoring all the data from more recent builds which completely contradicts his point.
I look to the history of nuclear power and I see accidents, pollution and expensive unreliable power generation. Others look to recent reactors in france and other countries and see cheap reliable and safe.
When I look at the history of warfare I see bows and arrows, cavalry charges and trenches. Others look to recent wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan and see air strikes, IEDs and guided missiles. Which do you suggest is the best information to use when determining future defence strategy?
When I look at the history of warfare I see bows and arrows, cavalry charges and trenches. Others look to recent wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan and see air strikes, IEDs and guided missiles. Which do you suggest is the best information to use when determining future defence strategy?
Well, lets see, we won at Agincourt, but Afghanistan still seems to be undecided.
Poor metaphor.
****U me! Glad I didn't bother posting any more on this thread -
Its just turned into an 'I'm right: No I'M right' bitch slapping contest.
😈
Its just turned into an 'I'm right: No I'M right' bitch slapping contest.
How's that different to every other thread?
I did not miss it[my point].
Was there a point to your post, Junkyard?
Ok whatever you say.
Hainey 5 sites on the West coast alone could get to more that 10% according to research . Severn estuary @5% and then Solway firth, morecambe bay , mersey and dee Estuaries. What is your source?
[url= http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=380 ]article here[/url]
RPRT, so you would advocate that we supply our troops with Bows and Arrows on that basis? 🙄
"Does it matter? These devastated ecosystems. Are they useful stuff or just birds and wiggly things?"
Nature obviously doesn't provide you with anything. That's because you get all you need from the supermarket, innit!
p.s. How do you do that "quote"y thing?
Aracer - remember they told us it would be "electricity too cheap to meter" and that it would be reliable. It turned out to be the most expensive electricity and unreliable.
Now if you have a past history of not living up to expectation then would you believe future promises?
You missed off the crucial part of that quote - its about faith - you have faith that the next generation will be better - I don't based on past experience.
****U me! Glad I didn't bother posting any more on this thread -Its just turned into an 'I'm right: No I'M right' bitch slapping contest.
Sad really. It's sort of reminded me why I don't usually bother. Although your earlier input was a bit more useful than most, SO!