newshound <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> newshound <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Andrew wrote
>>>> Mike Halmarack wrote

>>>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>>>> themselves obsolete.
>>>> You really don't understand basic physics or sums do you ?.
>>>> There is nothing 'specialist' about energy density, battery
>>>> capacity or the absolute need that the world has for a
>>>> constant, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.
>>>> Wind and solar fail on all three counts.
>>>
>>>
>>> "The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise.
>>> It's about what *people* expect and will tolerate. "Saving the planet"
>>> is not a binary choice. Humans have been changing it significantly for
>>> more than ten thousand years.
>> For far longer than that in fact, even when they were just hunter
>> gatherers.
>> There is quite a bit of evidence that the australian aboriginese
>> extincted
>> the mega fauna with their deliberate use of fire to modify the natural
>> state
>> of the environment.

> I agonised a bit over whether to say 100,000 years for just that reason.

> Presumably they also hunted megafauna directly.

No evidence of that, no piles of megfauna bones for example.

Not that easy to kill with a boomerang or spear.

Few cliffs you can drive them over either.

> But >10k is certainly uncontentious.

>>> Currently, a proportion of people believe the "irretrievable breakdown
>>> without net zero" theory. Political pressure is dictating energy
>>> strategies that are already having adverse consequences in terms of
>>> electricity price. These will adapt depending on the impacts that they
>>> have, and anyone who claims they can predict the outcomes is either a
>>> liar, or deluded.
>>
>>> As you say, you can't buck the physical limits. But over time we
>>> could, theoretically, transition to a medieval society where all
>>> energy sources are "sustainable" (whatever that means).

Not convinced that most medieval societys were, particularly
with what fuel is used for cooking and keeping warm. Only
really with very low population levels. Possible in the tropics
but not really feasible at higher latitudes. Tho I spose you can
argue that the reindeer herders were. The chinese weren't tho.

>> Or even return to just hunting and gathering and watching your
>> kids die in severe drought etc.

> Going quite that far seems to me to be less likely. There's a small part
> of me that wonders whether the very long-term future may look more than
> a little like Diskworld.

Can't see it myself given that the world population is going to peak
quite soon and there is no evidence that that will stop happening.

No problem with fossil fuels when we go nuke as we are guaranteed
to do when the alternative is going back to a medieval lifestyle.

>>> Leave out fission and fusion, and you end up with a much smaller UK
>>> population. Allow nuclear and a bit of fossil, then who knows.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:16:41 +1000, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/04/2022 18:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>> There will be no magic discoveries that save us all, except in your
>> fantasy-land.
>>
>
> Sadly the only recent magic 'discovery' (nRNA vaccinations) has
> only 'saved' the global population so that that they can continue
> to destroy the planet due to their sheer weight of numbers.

In fact while the pandemic has likely killed something like 10M
people, or more strictly has caused them to die earlier than they
would otherwise have done, that is nothing in the 8b world population.

> Our hand-wavy friend (and many others) simply cannot see the writing
> on the wall because he is obsessed with the 'ease' that renewable
> energy can somehow solve all the problems.

On 18 Apr 2022 at 10:27:53 BST, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> On 17/04/2022 15:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:

>> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
>> context of energy production and use?
>
> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
> fusion etc.

And, indeed, lasers themselves.

--
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."

D M Procida, UCSM

On 13/04/2022 13:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>
>
> I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised to see
> just how much the tidal range varies.  Here, a spring tide is about 5m
> p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide tables.  That's a
> big difference in available energy.
>

And in most places around the UK coastline even the highest in that
range isn't enough for viable generation. In areas of constantly moving
sandbars it's probably unwise to even consider any form of dam.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18/04/2022 15:03, Andrew wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 17:04, newshound wrote:
>
>> "The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise.
>
> So the NHS can go back to blood-letting and applying leeches then ?.
>
> Lets scrap all those electricity-hungry MRI and CAT scanners, all
> the hi-tech Path Lab analysers, all the ITU monitors, ....
>
> Let's close all the food manufacturing factories, supermarkets
> and refridgeration equipment, because all 7.8 billion can go
> back to shopping every day at the farmers market, can't they ?

Except that there will be no food. Without energy to produce fertiliser,
farmers would be back to little more than subsistence farming, with
little left over to sell and, of course, there would be no imports - and
the country cannot feed itself, even with current production levels,
without imports.

In message <jc5mllFpm58U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
<junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On 13/04/2022 13:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>>
>> I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised to
>>see just how much the tidal range varies.  Here, a spring tide is
>>about 5m p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide
>>tables.  That's a big difference in available energy.
>>
>
>And in most places around the UK coastline even the highest in that
>range isn't enough for viable generation. In areas of constantly moving
>sandbars it's probably unwise to even consider any form of dam.

There is this version..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-5799135
1

Tidal races are not that common and rarely close to large consumers.

>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <e9gsvbRfibXiFw7+@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
<tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <jc5mllFpm58U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
><junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On 13/04/2022 13:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>>>
>>> I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised
>>>to see just how much the tidal range varies.  Here, a spring tide is
>>>about 5m p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide
>>>tables.  That's a big difference in available energy.
>>>
>>
>>And in most places around the UK coastline even the highest in that
>>range isn't enough for viable generation. In areas of constantly
>>moving sandbars it's probably unwise to even consider any form of dam.
>
>There is this version..
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-579913>5

Try this one:-)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-5799135
1 >
>
>Tidal races are not that common and rarely close to large consumers.
>
>
>>
>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <HM46jBU8tbXiFwb4@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
<tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <e9gsvbRfibXiFw7+@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
><tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In message <jc5mllFpm58U1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
>><junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>>On 13/04/2022 13:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
>>>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
>>>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
>>>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
>>>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
>>>>>
>>>> I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised
>>>>to see just how much the tidal range varies.  Here, a spring tide
>>>>is about 5m p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide
>>>>tables.  That's a big difference in available energy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And in most places around the UK coastline even the highest in that
>>>range isn't enough for viable generation. In areas of constantly
>>>moving sandbars it's probably unwise to even consider any form of dam.
>>
>>There is this version..
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991
>>
>
>Try this one:-)
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-
57991351

or this one?

>>
>>
>>Tidal races are not that common and rarely close to large consumers.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <dMV8zaUIxbXiFwZu@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
<tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-
>57991351

--
Tim Lamb

In message <S8r$fxUz0bXiFw6r@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
<tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <dMV8zaUIxbXiFwZu@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
><tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-
>>57991351

Someone more adept than I will kindly fix this URL!
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/04/2022 09:26, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
> of hysterical uncertainty.
>
> I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
> Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
> avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
> of the mix as much as possible. Nationalisation is the answer to
> that.

If you have enough nuclear to "fill the gaps" then you don't need other
sources. This is the point you continually miss. Apart from maintenance
and refuelling Nuclear is run 24/365 and not switched on and off on a
daily/monthly basis. It makes no economic sense to do so, once built.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Tim Lamb wrote:

> Someone more adept than I will kindly fix this URL!

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991351>

On 14/04/2022 09:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Now: how d'ye propose to deal with that? Our solution is lots more nuclear.
>> What's yours?
>
> Arm waving!
>

Will that produce enough wind to turn the turbine blades?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 20:30:28 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <HM46jBU8...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
> <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In message <e9gsvbRf...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
> ><t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>In message <jc5mll...@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
> >><ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
> >>>On 13/04/2022 13:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
> >>>> On 11/04/2022 18:55, Chris Hogg wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tidal generation only works for four three-hour periods per day,
> >>>>> twelve hours per day in total. It doesn't work for an hour and a half
> >>>>> either side of the slack tides, high tide and low tide, twice per day.
> >>>>> There's just not enough water movement. So it's intermittent, like the
> >>>>> other renewables, and has to be backed up somehow.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I recently moved near the sea and rather innocently was surprised
> >>>>to see just how much the tidal range varies. Here, a spring tide
> >>>>is about 5m p-p whereas a neap is 1.5m p-p, according to the tide
> >>>>tables. That's a big difference in available energy.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>And in most places around the UK coastline even the highest in that
> >>>range isn't enough for viable generation. In areas of constantly
> >>>moving sandbars it's probably unwise to even consider any form of dam.
> >>
> >>There is this version..
> >>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991
> >>
> >
> >Try this one:-)
> >
> >https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-
> 57991351
> or this one?
> >>
> >>
> >>Tidal races are not that common and rarely close to large consumers.

Many of the areas with high tidal ranges get them because of resonance effects.
Once you start taking large amounts of power from them, those resonances will
be damped and the tidal range will drop.
John

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 04:06:49 +1000, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 18/04/2022 15:03, Andrew wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 17:04, newshound wrote:
>>
>>> "The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise.
>> So the NHS can go back to blood-letting and applying leeches then ?.
>> Lets scrap all those electricity-hungry MRI and CAT scanners, all
>> the hi-tech Path Lab analysers, all the ITU monitors, ....

>> Let's close all the food manufacturing factories, supermarkets
>> and refridgeration equipment, because all 7.8 billion can go
>> back to shopping every day at the farmers market, can't they ?

> Except that there will be no food.

Bullshit.

> Without energy to produce fertiliser, farmers would be back to little
> more than subsistence farming, with little left over to sell

Bullshit with meat and stuff like potatoes and fruit trees etc.

> and, of course, there would be no imports - and the country cannot feed
> itself, even with current production levels, without imports.

But WW2 proved that that is a solvable problem.

On 16/04/2022 17:46, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> Sky News:
> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
> than other sources of energy, industry says
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406
>
> Yeah, I know:
> Woke
> Fart Student
> Handy-Wavey
> PutinBot
> Jeremy Corbyn
> Marketist

How do they work on a freezing winters evening/night? How do they
replace the amount of energy produced by gas on a winters day? You would
be lucky to get any energy from solar for 4 hours a day during winter.

Most domestic customers uses the majority of gas during winter, solar
produces most of its energy mid-summer. How do you store all of what
solar produces for 6 month to use during the winter?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/04/2022 13:51, Andrew wrote:

>
> The so-called 'dogged resistance' is based on existing scientific and
> technical knowledge and not airy-fairy blue sky thinking.

But Mike probably has a battery in his mobile phone that last a month
without recharging and all as a result of billions spent on battery
research over the past 3 decades.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/04/2022 09:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

I take it you've never worked in this field? Technology has moved on so
fast during my working time in industry that if I hadn't keep myself
up-to-date and used the most modern innovations I wouldn't have keep a
well paid job.

What a technical background does give you is the ability to do sums on a
daily basis and a belief that if you get the sums wrong thing don't work!

In the context of this thread the sums are really simple and even hand
wavey numbers based on the real world data gives some indication of the
scale of the problem with an intermittent supply, especially in winter,
if we have no fossil fuel and no viable renewable backup.

In some respects we don't even have to consider future development of
unobtainium because in the UK all political parties seem to be in favour
of building more and more wind farms which only increases the problems
when the wind doesn't blow for a week or more.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18/04/2022 15:16, Andrew wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 18:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>>
>> There will be no magic discoveries that save us all, except in your
>> fantasy-land.
>>
>
> Sadly the only recent magic 'discovery' (nRNA vaccinations) has
> only 'saved' the global population so that that they can continue
> to destroy the planet due to their sheer weight of numbers.

Was that a magic discovery? I understood that it was a natural evolution
of a decade of research. What changed was the speed of adoption as a
result of Covid. Without Covid these types of vaccines may have taken
another 10 or 20 years to be introduced.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 20:49:21 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Tim Lamb wrote:
>
>> Someone more adept than I will kindly fix this URL!
>
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991351>

There's also this, from 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y574dd4w . Despite
some early successes (and failures, probably sorted by now) they don't
seem to be making a lot of money. MeyGen had big plans a few years
ago. More about them here. https://tinyurl.com/8kh3tprc

The seas around John O'Groats and the Orkney Islands are subject to
strong tidal currents, as the ebbing and flowing of the Atlantic Ocean
pushes it's way around the north of Scotland and on into the North
Sea. There aren't too many like it around the UK. But as with all
renewables, it's intermittent so needs another power system to back it
up.

--
Chris

On 18/04/2022 21:54, Jock wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 04:06:49 +1000, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>
>> and, of course, there would be no imports - and the country cannot
>> feed itself, even with current production levels, without imports.
>
> But WW2 proved that that is a solvable problem.

With a population of around 40 million and rationing until 1954.
However, little obesity and diabetes.

There is a concern these days that the land wouldn't be able support the
population without heavy use of artificial fertiliser and the
alternative of "sustainable" farming would result in much lower yields.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:18:44 +1000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 18/04/2022 21:54, Jock wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 04:06:49 +1000, Steve Walker
>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>> and, of course, there would be no imports - and the country cannot
>>> feed itself, even with current production levels, without imports.

>> But WW2 proved that that is a solvable problem.

> With a population of around 40 million

Yes, tho lots of the land was used for airfields and other military stuff.
Not clear what population those used for food would support now.

> and rationing until 1954.

But that clearly wasn't due to the lack of imports,
more due to currency problems.

> However, little obesity and diabetes.

Not sure that is true. Certainly people ate rather more healthily.

> There is a concern these days that the land wouldn't be able support the
> population without heavy use of artificial fertiliser

Not convinced about that with most food like meat, potatoes, fruit trees
etc.

> and the alternative of "sustainable" farming would result in much lower
> yields.

Again, not convinced about that with most food like meat, potatoes, fruit
trees etc.

On 18/04/2022 22:46, alan_m wrote:
> In some respects we don't even have to consider future development of
> unobtainium because in the UK all political parties seem to be in favour
> of building more and more wind farms which only increases the problems
> when the wind doesn't blow for a week or more.

Staggering figures collected by a WUWT contributor. Just shy of a
billion a year in subsidies, plus excessively high prices anyway for
intermittent renewables.

<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/19/roc-windfall-profits-hit-923-million-in-uk-december-2021/>

Politicians can't hand wave that away with 'renewables are the cheapest'

We all know the only realistic answer is nuclear power: All that remains
is the story they will settle on to explain why they have plundered
billion of tax payers money and put it into renewable operators pockets.

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:39:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 18/04/2022 22:46, alan_m wrote:
>> In some respects we don't even have to consider future development of
>> unobtainium because in the UK all political parties seem to be in favour
>> of building more and more wind farms which only increases the problems
>> when the wind doesn't blow for a week or more.
>
>Staggering figures collected by a WUWT contributor. Just shy of a
>billion a year in subsidies, plus excessively high prices anyway for
>intermittent renewables.
>
><https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/19/roc-windfall-profits-hit-923-million-in-uk-december-2021/>
>
>Politicians can't hand wave that away with 'renewables are the cheapest'
>
>We all know the only realistic answer is nuclear power: All that remains
>is the story they will settle on to explain why they have plundered
>billion of tax payers money and put it into renewable operators pockets.

Whatever happened to CfD's? Presumably they've been superseded in some
way, otherwise the generators would surely be paying handsomely into
the exchequer, and Sunak could well afford to relax both direct and
indirect taxation and still pay for increases to the NHS.

--
Chris

On 18/04/2022 21:15, alan_m wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 09:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Now: how d'ye propose to deal with that? Our solution is lots more
>>> nuclear.
>>> What's yours?
>>
>> Arm waving!
>>
>
> Will that produce enough wind to turn the turbine blades?
>

No, but it might start the diesel engine that is needed when
there is no wind.