Re: Solar, not nuclear



On Jan 9, 11:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Aidan Karley wrote:
In article <njb7q21352bifk553n6g708pigoe6kc...@xxxxxxx>, David Hansen
wrote:
Also note that slack water times are not the same everywhere at the
same time. However, in Scotland there would be a fair variation on
tidal output due to the massive influence of one area of output.
However, this variation is worth living with.

If I recall my tide tables correctly (it's been a few years
since I looked at a set to predict tides for going diving), there's the
best part of 6 hours high tide time difference just between Edinburgh
and Aberdeen, so suitable bi-directional tidal power stations at that
sort of spacing would be able to pick up the load one from the other
and stabilise the power input to the grid considerably.
(I'm not proposing this as being workable - it's just an
illustration that tidal phase is unlikely to be a total show-stopper
for tidal power, just another issue for the engineering to deal with at
the design stage.)Tidal power is certainly entirely practical but I believe the capital costs make
it very expensive.

That's what Exxon would want you to believe.
Since the idiots have so much money
tied up in the Suez Canal, that all other
energy systems, seem very wasteful.
Which is why those idiots invented
propellers, and other people
invented jets, sattelites, computers,
and submarines.





Graham

.