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

On Monday, in article
<pYwul+YqhS1DFwb4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Charles Francis" wrote:

> Thus spake Jim Webster <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >"Charles Francis" <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:CPNUwxNfZQ1DFw+v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >> >>Among other things they have some lovely video of a wave machine
> >> >>currently feeding the grid off orkney. There is reckoned to be a huge
> >> >>amount of tidal power around the UK but only about 30 sites worth
> >> >>developing.
> >> >
> >> >I know, but it actually has to happen.
> >> >
> >> Prototypes are happening. As far as I can tell the main reason they
> >> haven't happened earlier is too many people poor scorn on the ideas, and
> >> no one can give accurate costs.
> >
> >and obviously no one actually cares enough to spend the money anyway to
> >prove them wrong.
>
> Actually people do. That is the only reason we have prototype wave
> systems in operation. You are talking of threats of powercuts in 20
> years if we do not build huge amounts of nuclear. There is an
> alternative, but it is left to the private pockets of a few enthusiasts.
> Is that really sensible?
>
> >People have poured scorn on a lot of ideas but it often just spurs the ideas
> >people onward
>
> Oh yes, starve the ideas people of devolopment money, and they will work
> much faster. I'm sure.

We've wasted thirty years, but we know a great deal about building
nuclear plants.

Lets say we need to build the equivalent of 20 nuclear plants in 20
years. The secondary loop is ordinary steam plant, standard turbo-
generator sets, the sort of tech that's been built in the UK for more
than a century. Not quite production-line, but the companies making the
parts can be given the contracts and left to get on with it.

The reactors and primary loop, the radioactive side, almost certainly
needs a lot more experienced workers to build. We have designs which
have been running for years. We could start slow, building up the skills
needed during the first two or three. Making the fuel elements might be
a bottleneck.

But the whole process is using designs and skills that, as a country, we
have. It gives us pretty solid predictions, and with sensible slack in
the planning.

Wind power is in much the same state. We can make good predictions of
how much we can build when. As a power source, it's inherently less
predictable.

My suspicion is that we can't much increase hydro power. The micro
schemes can add up, and pumped storage would be worthwhile as a part of
the overall system, but but does this country have enough water?

Wave and tidal power have been under-resourced, and have to operate in
the most hostile environments. I'd put tidal power ahead of wave power,
because there is a little long-term experience, and because there are
some well-tested elements. But the construction programme just can't be
as predictable as nuclear power. We can throw money at the problems, but
that doesn't tell us when we find the solutions.

So I think that any plan for the next half century has to include new
nuclear plants, and an increase in the total generating capacity. It's
what we can be sure of.

But we have to get the renewable energy technologies to work. We have to
spend the money on that, and that should have been done long since.



--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
.