Switch off at the socket?
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
Green ****ing in the wind, as usual.
[]
What about when there isn't any wind (-:?

It will run down there trouser legs, with luck.

Switch off at the socket?
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Java Jive
writes:
[]
Further, a recent programme showed that we actually have plenty of
untapped reserves in the North Sea and the North Atlantic, enough at
least for another 40 years, probably quite a bit longer. It's just a
question of price and need as to whether we decide to use them.

I saw that, and have been wondering when someone would bring it up. I
think the bit I saw said that, more or less, there's slightly less left
in the North Sea than we've extracted already - in other words, several
decades' worth. (I didn't see the bit that covered the Atlantic
reserves.) The prog. said that, more or less, it's speculation that has
put up the cost of fuel, not really increased difficulty in getting at
it or increased demand (both of which are there, but not major
contributors).

Of course, (a) this is still _relatively_ short-term, and (b) it's still
a CO2-producing fuel. But I suspect it'll be favoured by the population
after a few long power cuts, and sod the planet.
[]
You really are clutching at straws. Nothing goes to Australia through
Suez It goes either via cape Horn, or the Cape oh good hope. Suez is of
zero importance apart from access to the oil in the Persian gulf, and
even then, most larger tankers go around the Cape.

Hard information seems hard to come by, but why would a shipping line
want to increase the distance its ships have to travel by nearly a
third? Also ...

I will freely admit that I don't have any figures for quantities, but it
is certainly true that there are ships which go round the end because
they are too big to go through Suez, and which have been built since
Suez has been open; at this scale we are definitely talking hard
economics, so there must be an economically viable reason for them to
exist. I repeat, I don't know what proportions are.
[]
"-The Suez Canal can now accommodate all mammoth tankers in service on
their ballast trips."

(Presumably this means one way only?)

... work is apparently under way to increase the draft to accommodate
full mammoth tankers. As far as I can gather the current largest
container ships still fit through the canal, certainly the BBC
Container went through it - to continue ...

Well, there are some (at least one) designed just to shuttle back and
forth between China and the USA (across the Pacific), which no way will
fit through either canal. (With many of the containers being empty in
the USA-China direction, apparently ...)
[]
A country must have security of its energy supply. If you are
maintaining that actually we don't need this, then why are we arguing?

I agree with you (even though we didn't for several decades before North
Sea oil was discovered).
[]
neodymium are estimated as about 8 million tonnes. Although it belongs
to "rare earth metals," neodymium is not rare at all - its abundance

The term "rare earths" is an (I've always thought rather quaint!) term
for a class of elements (a certain patch of the periodic table, I
think); it got the name because several of the first elements to be
used/isolated/whatever _were_ rare, and the name stuck.

virtually no neodymium is mined outside of China.

Whether its rare or not in quantity, it sure is in location.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Steve Terry wrote:
"js.b1" wrote in message
...
Rest assured, Goldman Sachs (GS) is determined to make sure that
energy of any form is no longer "cheap".

The same goes for food (agriculture) as they, plus carbon, are the new
super-commodity markets with super-distortions. Enron showed just how
much money could be extracted.

It will be a case of energy prices rise to negate technological
improvements, since energy will be a prime source of taxation in the
anglo-america and much of the world. All disguised as "green" of
course, a repeat of the UFO groups.


You don't have to be Milton Friedman to realise just how much oil prices
have been speculated and manipulated, especially in the last couple of years

Free market, what free market?


What is unfree about speculation?

It's part of the free market.

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:56:40 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
You seem to living in another world. Noone here seems to be agreeing
with you at all.

You've obviously got a few of us blocked, then?

That's Charlie Farlie's answer to everyone who disagrees with the
******** he spouts...

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...


Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a dy?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better access
for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the Bristol
channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

Steve Terry

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least half that
time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway) between England and
Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better
access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the
Bristol channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why did
they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea water rot
the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with nuclear? Does
anyone know?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Switch off at the socket?
 

Steve Terry wrote:
"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW
For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least
half that time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway)
between England and Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better access
for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the Bristol
channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

Steve Terry



At what cost?..both direct, and indirect to the coastline and environment.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Terry
wrote:

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

Proposed Bristol channel tidal barrier 7GW

For how many hours a day?


Some power close to 24/7, reaching maximum power for at least half that
time.

and it would provide a new motorway (and or railway) between England and
Wales along the top of it

Or alternatively to cause less of an environmental impact, and better
access for shipping, a row of tidal underwater turbine towers across the
Bristol channel, producing around half that power

another tidal barrier across the Mersey could produce 1.5GW

The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why did
they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea water rot
the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with nuclear? Does
anyone know?

Twice a day it produces zero power for a few hours.
These periods change time on a rotating basis every 28 days.
Unless you can store the energy there isn't much you can use it for.
Its just like the problem with wind power but a little more predictable.
Maybe it could be used to produce hydrogen for cars?
Its not going to help the grid much AFAICS.

Switch off at the socket?
 

charles wrote:
The French built a tidal generator in Brittany many years ago. Why
did they never build any more? Did it not work as planned? Did sea
water rot the turbines? Was it simply too expensive compared with
nuclear? Does anyone know?

No - but I think I remember reading many years ago about problems with silt.
However, that may not have been major, since a quick google gives
www.eoearth.org/article/La_Rance,_France as what looks like a balanced
summary (there are other hits which are either rehashes of EdF's P.R.
material, or else trying to make points about a Severn barrage).

The main points I take from that article which respond to Charles's question
a
(a) a policy decision in favour of nuclear,
(b) capital cost and lengthy pay-back time,
(c) [a lesser concern?] environmental effects.

André Coutanche