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

Thus spake Malcolm <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>In article <1bzZVuWmZS1DFwYk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Charles
>Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>Thus spake Jim Webster <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>"Charles Francis" <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:4orqZoQF1Q1DFw6V@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Thus spake Jim Webster <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> >I'm not saying that the environmentalists were right or wrong, and a lot
>>>of
>>>> >their predictions were probably correct
>>>> >I merely point out that generating tidal and wave power isn't as easy as
>>>> >just using old technology
>>>>
>>>> I said old fashioned engineering. Its no big problem, just a matter of
>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>
>>>actually Morecambe bay is a big problem with old fashioned engineering from
>>>two counts
>>>1) It would be a sod to build because there is difficulty creating
>>>foundations for it
>>>2) It would silt up very quickly and you would get reduced tidal flow
>>>
>>>which is why the old fashioned engineers are no longer about and they are
>>>looking at entirely new sorts of scheme
>>>--
>>Make up your mind. One minute you say it is scotched on environmental
>>grounds, the next on economic. There are a whole raft of solutions, none
>>of them that expensive to develop. The argument against is economic. But
>>how do you build the cost of global warming in to the equation? How do
>>you build in the unknown costs of nuclear? Given the will, we can
>>develop alternative schemes faster than we can build nuclear power
>>stations. It might not appear cost effective to do so. And we might not
>>currently know the best systems or designs. But that does not mean that
>>these solutions won't be cheaper in the long term.
>>
>>Hydro schemes appear expensive, but that is because you have to build in
>>the capital cost over a number of years, typically 120. Once built they
>>are cheap. But the engineering isn't going to suddenly vanish after 120
>>years. Obviously they will maintain it in the future, and it will be
>>cheap to do so compared to building it from scratch.
>>
>>It will be the same with wind. 30 years has been built in to the
>>equations. But there is no reason the windmills won't go on much longer.
>>The sites won't be abandoned in thirty years even if the windmill needs
>>repare or replacement. If replaced, there will be a big concrete
>>foundation ready for it, and connection to the grid. I think you will
>>find in the long term most of the alternative energy sources are cheaper
>>than they seem. This is not true with nuclear. You really do have to
>>decommission a nuclear plant, and you do end up with a long term problem
>>which we can't cost, for which we have no solution, and for which we can
>>be pretty confident we never will have a solution. .
>>
>A number of onshore windfarm developers are wondering whether to
>bother, because the predicted life of 25 years has already been
>overtaken by the technology,

So systems get better. Provided they are used of course. The technology
won't develop if no one bothers to use it while they wait for it to get
better.

> not least the potential for offshore windfarms which can be much
>larger than onshore and don't, with a few exceptions, give rise to the
>environmental impact and visual problems onshore.
>



Regards

--
Charles Francis
Please reply by name
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... >>>I'm not saying that the environmentalists were right or wrong, ... >> I said old fashioned engineering. ... develop alternative schemes faster than we can build nuclear power ... It might not appear cost effective to do so. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... >>> I said old fashioned engineering. ... The new scheme has not yet had the engineering looked at in public, ... > develop alternative schemes faster than we can build nuclear power ... It might not appear cost effective to do so. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... > Francis writes ... The cost of nuclear is essentially the cost of building ... > So THORP cost essentially nothing then? ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Im hearing bad things about breeder reactors
    ... >> the cost of nuclear power. ... > through LWR's at ten times the fuel cost. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: OT: The Husband Store (humorrhoid)
    ... My boss, an engineer from the pre-CAD days, has successfully brought a generation of products from Acme Toaster Corp's engineering labs to market. ... All of us in the design department have the utmost respect for him, so I was honored when he appointed me the lead designer on the new Acme 2000 Toaster. ... Our projected cost of goods is almost $1.50 lower than our goal. ... Chuck Compguy, the new microprocessor whiz, scrapped my idea of using a dedicated 4-bit CPU. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)