Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?

Thus spake John Beardmore <wookie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>In message <3DacOuy+S3yDFwQQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Charles
>Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>Thus spake Torsten Brinch <iaotb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:37:30 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>><Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>This isn't particularly relevant. Nuclear, wind and coal all have the
>>problem that they cannot easily be tuned to demand - nuclear not at all.
>
>Why ever not ? Rods half in ? Half the reactors off line ?

No. When working properly they produce at full power all the time. That
does not reflect demand.
>
>
>>This is not true of hydro. When supply exceeds demand we pump water from
>>a low lying lake into one high in the mountains. The hydroelectric
>>installation is entirely buried in the mountain, which pleases the
>>environmentalists, I guess.
>
>Until they work out the volume of concrete...

What the hell is the environmental objection to buried concrete?
>
>
>> When everyone gets up to make a cup of tea
>>go or to the toilet during the advertisements in a football match, and
>>huge demand is placed on water pumping stations the hydro generators can
>>be switched on in a fraction of a second. There must be loads more sites
>>where these schemes can be implemented if we ever need more flexibility
>>than we currently have.
>
>Really ?

Yes. Really. I know of two such stations open to the public, one in N
Wales I have seen, and I think the one near Crieff is also open.
Fascinating. You should go and visit when you get the chance.
>
>
>> I think Scotland has scope
>>to build huge vertical axis wind turbines, which can potentially
>>produce far more power than the conventional windmill type (after
>>improvements to the original design which was not sufficiently robust in
>>storms).
>
>Hmmm... There has been more than one design. The largest horizontal
>axis machines I know of are about 4.5 MW. Are there serious attempts
>to exceed this with vertical axis ?

I can't remember the figures, but I think it is a factor of about 10.
>
>
>> I have no sympathy for the opponents of such turbines. Even at
>>400 foot high, at the distances from which they are seen they would just
>>be decoration to the landscape.
>
>Yes, agreed, though there might be quite a lot of such 'decoration'.
>
As I say, I have lived near Aberystwyth, regarded as "wind farm
capital". The land could take an awful lot more decoration without
starting to look bad at all.e


Regards

--
Charles Francis
Please reply by name
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... >>> wind only. ... >>so what do you back it up with, this is where I see nuclear being the ... problem that they cannot easily be tuned to demand - nuclear not at all. ... This is not true of hydro. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: "Nuclear energy not the solution to global warming"
    ... lot's wind, subsidized by coal and nuclear ... nuclear and gas fired plants. ... You need a strong on demand (who ... That is idiotic) supported grid to ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Relay tx post DSO - why only 3 muxes?
    ... I've been out in the Fens where there are quite a few wind ... fired power station that was sitting idle? ... Have a look at the total UK energy demand and forecasting at NETA ... interconnects between France and Ireland and the demand forecasts for the up ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: "Nuclear energy not the solution to global warming"
    ... lot's wind, subsidized by coal and nuclear ... nuclear and gas fired plants. ... You need a strong on demand (who ... Denmark could build wind capacity to> 100% of demand.- Hide quoted text - ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: "Nuclear energy not the solution to global warming"
    ... lot's wind, subsidized by coal and nuclear ... nuclear and gas fired plants. ... You need a strong on demand (who ... Denmark has an even better advantage, ...
    (sci.energy)