34theletterbetweenB&D Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 On 26/09/2019 at 10:36, APOLLO said: ...Engineering answers please. You clearly have the hotline to Boris. We're going for Fusion - which will be great if we can make the tech work. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 AND he replied !!!! https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1183854/boris-johnson-news-nuclear-fusion-plant-climate-change-british-nuclear-technology Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2019 The question of wave and tidal energy is a strange one in Britain. Apart from hell fire and damnation being summoned to fall on those who suggest estuarial barrages there seems to have been little interest and no results. Off St Ives there is an experimental area known as the Wave Hub which includes all teh connections to land needed to trst any sort of wave energy device anybody cares to bring along and place on the seabed connected to the hub. Are people falling over themselves to use it to test their bright ideas for cheap 100% renewable and long term guaranteed energy? simple answer appears to be a resounding 'no' - look at the link to the most recent 'news' on their website - https://www.wavehub.co.uk/wave-hub-site 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold D9020 Nimbus Posted September 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2019 Surprises me too. After all, we are an island and the tides are more reliable than solar or wind. Surely there must be some parts of coastline that could be used. It would be capable of providing base load power. As for fusion power, that's been a "coming" technology for many years now, but little or no progress seems to have been made. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nick C Posted September 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2019 Just now, D9020 Nimbus said: As for fusion power, that's been a "coming" technology for many years now, but little or no progress seems to have been made. Mostly down to lack of funding as I understand it - I believe the latest Tokamak that's being built in France should have been capable of producing power, except that the budget got slashed so they can't afford any way of capturing the output... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted September 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2019 10 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said: Surprises me too. After all, we are an island and the tides are more reliable than solar or wind. Surely there must be some parts of coastline that could be used. It would be capable of providing base load power. Tides are 100% reliable. But,of course, tides vary as to time each day and don't therefore necessarily correspond with the peak demand times on the grid. So they would need battery storage to be efficient. Not a big issue but an additional cost to bear in mind. Tidla barrages are expensive to build anyway but we have some superb locations to build them and the key, it seems to me, is to make them multi-purpose. So why did we build a huge suspension bridge as the 2nd Severn Crossing when it could have been a tidal barrage with road and rail crossing? Likewise the Kent Estuary and the Dee would seem like prime candidates. North Wales could be transformed by better access to Merseyside. At the risk of getting political, this is where we have always been c**p at getting the most out of our EU membership. These would all serve regions that would have been eligible for EU funding. Never mind Cameron's bungles in 2015/6 to which he has now admitted, the UK's lack of love for the EU goes way back to failures by other UK politicians (of all parties). 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 2 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said: ...As for fusion power, that's been a "coming" technology for many years now, but little or no progress seems to have been made. Indeed. So I would sincerely hope that evidence has been presented to show that a practically realisable technique is now in our grasp, to justify this decision. If it can be made economically workable, the possibilities are very exciting. The first real step in 'to boldly go' (initially to mine the asteroid belt) enters the realm of possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said: Tides are 100% reliable. But,of course, tides vary as to time each day and don't therefore necessarily correspond with the peak demand times on the grid. So they would need battery storage to be efficient. Not a big issue but an additional cost to bear in mind. Tidla barrages are expensive to build anyway but we have some superb locations to build them and the key, it seems to me, is to make them multi-purpose. So why did we build a huge suspension bridge as the 2nd Severn Crossing when it could have been a tidal barrage with road and rail crossing? Likewise the Kent Estuary and the Dee would seem like prime candidates. North Wales could be transformed by better access to Merseyside. Another prime target is the road/causeway project across Morecambe bay from Lancashire to "Lancashire over the Sands" e.g. South Cumbria. Would cut out much of the hellish A590 road to Barrow 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnarcher Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said: Indeed. So I would sincerely hope that evidence has been presented to show that a practically realisable technique is now in our grasp, to justify this decision. If it can be made economically workable, the possibilities are very exciting. The first real step in 'to boldly go' (initially to mine the asteroid belt) enters the realm of possibility. Yes, it seems to me that unless there is now a real prospect of this being a really workable technology in the fairly near future then, due to the timescale of the problem facing us, the money might be better going elsewhere? Nothing wrong with fusion if it can work, but we need things that will nbe making a real difference within 20-40 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted September 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 28, 2019 37 minutes ago, johnarcher said: Yes, it seems to me that unless there is now a real prospect of this being a really workable technology in the fairly near future then, due to the timescale of the problem facing us, the money might be better going elsewhere? Nothing wrong with fusion if it can work, but we need things that will nbe making a real difference within 20-40 years. I see that as trying to kick the can down the road somewhat, considering the potential benefits that could be reaped from it. Is one reason fusion always seems so far away because of the time it seems to take, so governments want to spend on things with more immediate return, so progress is slow, it seems slow, no money spent - viscious circle? I sometimes think I should've put more effort into my physics degree and tried to get in to fusion to try to make some effort to have an alternative to plastering wind farms everywhere (which didn't look like the future at the time). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 There was an Australian company with what looked like some promising wave generation technology, including a field test site off the WA Coast. However, there were questions about their funding and their progress and it all seems to have fallen in a bit of a hole. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10893908 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 10 hours ago, Reorte said: ...Is one reason fusion always seems so far away because of the time it seems to take, so governments want to spend on things with more immediate return, so progress is slow, it seems slow, no money spent - vicious circle? I sometimes think I should've put more effort into my physics degree and tried to get in to fusion... To everything under heaven there is a time and a season. 'We' perform as a species when the pressure is on. My opinion, it needs another group of physicists and engineers of the calibre that took atomic fission from an interesting academic exercise in early C20th, to a practical industrial technology. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 Perhaps practical, affordable energy providing fusion is beyond us - I'm a gas engineer so well beyond my ken ! Which reminds me - many years ago (early 80's) I was called out to leaking gas main outside a very nice detached house in Culcheth (just outside Warrington) - then the home of British Nuclear Fuels and other nuclear related offices. The guy who lived there was some sort of nuclear big wig and in chatting over a nice cup of tea supplied by his wife he told us (gas men) that we would all be out of work in a few years as nuclear had big plans (unspecified) for ultra cheap electricity with "revolutionary new technology" (Didn't we hear that in the 50's ?) !! Didn't happen - perhaps never will but our North Sea gas is now very depleted (past peak) mainly due to electricity generation by gas the last decade or so. LNG is now increasingly imported from unstable countries / areas (Qatar etc). Coal virtually history. Interesting times ahead for all. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted September 29, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 29, 2019 14 hours ago, melmerby said: Another prime target is the road/causeway project across Morecambe bay from Lancashire to "Lancashire over the Sands" e.g. South Cumbria. Would cut out much of the hellish A590 road to Barrow Morecambe Bay is the Kent Estuary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 29, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 29, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: Morecambe Bay is the Kent Estuary. Yes, I know that but is usually referred to as Morecambe Bay. https://www.itv.com/news/border/2019-06-07/more-details-emerge-for-multi-billion-pound-road-across-the-sea/ http://www.cumbriachamberofcommerce.co.uk/morecambe-bay-crossing-could-open-in-seven-years/ Edited September 29, 2019 by melmerby 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted September 29, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 29, 2019 2 hours ago, APOLLO said: Perhaps practical, affordable energy providing fusion is beyond us - I'm a gas engineer so well beyond my ken ! Practical - obviously I can't know for sure (otherwise I'd have invented it!) but I've enough optimisim left for that. Affordable might be an issue though. My worry is that even if it becomes reasonably affordable the temptation to go for a more cheap and nasty alternative will still be there. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 (edited) Perhaps my daughter & colleagues may be able to help sort it - I dropped her off yesterday at Lancaster University where she is a fresher studying for a masters degree in Physics - she can see a bit of Morecambe Bay from her accomodation window (as well as the West Coast Main line. Brit15 Edited September 30, 2019 by APOLLO typo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 On 25/09/2019 at 22:25, Classsix T said: Utter garbage, but at least you are admitting it. C6T. On 26/09/2019 at 09:24, Classsix T said: Fixed that link for you, you're welcome. You've stated no fact just opinion, but I'll wait for you to peruse your Brietbart/Dr. Soon/4chan/Alex Jones sources and report back how you get from concerned teenager voicing the fears of a generation to an employee of the Illuminati. Take your time... C6T. Hi Classsix T, Be as rude as you like, its all your good for !!! https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/ Gibbo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 Hi Folks, Just a link to some information that may or may not be useful, you decide: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf Gibbo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnarcher Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 13 hours ago, Gibbo675 said: Hi Folks, Just a link to some information that may or may not be useful, you decide: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf Gibbo. I haven't time to go into it in more detail now I'm afraid, but I did see this elsewhere recently and had a quick google of some of the signatories. One of them was a climate scientist, with a reputation in that field as a maverick. Others, while fitting the newspaper's description as scientists, were not actually climate studiers, a couple were geologists (one at least with close links to the oil industry). One at least (Monckton) had no scientific credentials at all - a right-leaning journalist. Maybe someone with more time could check a few more. It doesn't really alter the overall consensus among the appropriate kind of scientists - those whose expertise is in climate studies. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 13 hours ago, Gibbo675 said: Hi Folks, Just a link to some information that may or may not be useful, you decide: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf Gibbo. I loved the part about CO2 being great - the more the better. Reminds me of the logic that says "because two aspirins are more beneficial than one, 50 aspirins must be even better..." Not a single reputable climate science institution anywhere in the world agrees with the thrust of that letter. Not one. The UK signatory is a hereditary peer, known for his work for a US "think tank" which, among other interesting positions, denies the link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Er... I'm sure wholly coincidentally, one of their major funders has been Philip Morris. More recently, ExxonMobil has apparently been a big donor. Though they no longer publish their list of funders. All very transparent (not). Paul 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 It's not the planet that needs saving. Earth will continue to orbit the sun quite happily until the hydrogen reserves of the sun are depleted and it becomes a red giant. What we need to save is ourselves. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted October 1, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Fenman said: I loved the part about CO2 being great - the more the better. Reminds me of the logic that says "because two aspirins are more beneficial than one, 50 aspirins must be even better..." It's great for some things - don't commercial greenhouses sometimes deliberately have high levels of CO2? But extrapolating beyond that (i.e. "it's good for plants in controlled conditions so more everywhere!") isn't much better than saying CO2 is great because without it there wouldn't be bubbles in champagne, so let's have more everywhere! Edited October 1, 2019 by Reorte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Reorte said: ... CO2 is great because without it there wouldn't be bubbles in champagne, so let's have more everywhere! You make a very strong point. I'm in! Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 46 minutes ago, Zomboid said: It's not the planet that needs saving. Earth will continue to orbit the sun quite happily until the hydrogen reserves of the sun are depleted and it becomes a red giant... Then again Archimedes only wanted a fulcrum and lever of sufficient stability and size respectively to start moving the world around. We have a deep seated problem of wanting to fiddle with things... 5 minutes ago, Reorte said: ... CO2 is great because without it there wouldn't be bubbles in champagne, so let's have more everywhere! 1 minute ago, Fenman said: You make a very strong point. I'm in! Nah, more oxygen is what we want. It's great for breathing, and so much easier to get your barbeque up to cooking heat if you have more. Solid, proven by experiment, evidence from Purdue University. Real science... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts