O.T. Deep sea wind farms

Or, reduce atmospheric CO2 into carbon, and sell the carbon credit to steel plants that use coal to reduce iron ore.

Don't bet on it. Peer review isn't a joke.

Better plan. Stop burning fossil fuels.

For steel plants, use electric arc furnaces. Generate the elecricity with Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Use the waste heat to desalinate sea water for drinking and industrial use.

See Kirk Sorensen's videos on Youtube. He is very persuasive. For example,

Kirk Sorensen A Global Alternative (thorium energy via LFTR)

This has to be the way of the future. All the others are too expensive, too dangerous, and too harmful to the planet.

It is well worth your time to view some of his presentations, and compare TMSR with what we are doing now. Coal, natural gas, and petroleum are way down on the scale of efficiency and very harmful to the planet. Solar and wind are intermittent. Current nuclear reactors can suffer meltdown and have done so.

Molten salt reactors cannot melt down. They are already molten. They run

te:

f-shore waters to deep to allow solid foundations.

the power available from 1.5 W m^-2 to 6 W m^-2

er at

ll

One

scientist and layman can be summarized as follows: a layman is easily foole d and is particularly susceptible to self-deception. In contrast, a scienti st is easily fooled and is particularly susceptible to self-deception, and knows it. The ?scientific method? consists almost exclusive ly in techniques used to overcome self-deception. The first step in accompl ishing this is to recognize that biases exist. The danger of optimism and s kepticism bias (like the danger of the devil?for people who believe in such things) is that so many people are unaware of its existence. "

It won't bear the weight that's put on it nowadays, since in many fields a _lot_ of money is in play. I've been peer-reviewing papers for over 30 ye ars, and I can tell you that the quality of the submissions has tanked.

Most get published eventually.

Not confidence-inspiring.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

te:

f-shore waters to deep to allow solid foundations.

the power available from 1.5 W m^-2 to 6 W m^-2

er at

ll

One

ientist and layman can be summarized as follows: a layman is easily fooled and is particularly susceptible to self-deception. In contrast, a scientist is easily fooled and is particularly susceptible to self-deception, and kn ows it. The ?scientific method? consists almost exclusively in techniques used to overcome self-deception. The first step in accomplis hing this is to recognize that biases exist. The danger of optimism and ske pticism bias (like the danger of the devil?for people who believe i n such things) is that so many people are unaware of its existence. "

Right, That seems to be the case a lot of the times these days. Science has lost it's cred's, when it losses it's science. (science=question everything.. or something like that.)

(I can give you a link to a blog about cosmology.... it's self similar to climate science, at least that was my thought as I was reading. Science is a clumsy human endeavor, that has it's dogmatic era's.

I guess (science) is just my belief. (I also have total confirmation bias in regards to local wind energy... at the moment I'm just living in my wind dream rather than checking the facts. Still, all my electric is 'green' IMHO and I like leaving the lights on. :^)

Oh, I mostly do my own plumbing... which probably means I have a fool for a plumber. (Inexpensive though.)

George H.

te:

f-shore waters to deep to allow solid foundations.

the power available from 1.5 W m^-2 to 6 W m^-2

er at

ll

One

scientist and layman can be summarized as follows: a layman is easily foole d and is particularly susceptible to self-deception. In contrast, a scienti st is easily fooled and is particularly susceptible to self-deception, and knows it. The ?scientific method? consists almost exclusive ly in techniques used to overcome self-deception. The first step in accompl ishing this is to recognize that biases exist. The danger of optimism and s kepticism bias (like the danger of the devil?for people who believe in such things) is that so many people are unaware of its existence. "

Huh, sorry, science is still a 'good thing' to me. It's not at all perfect. Like democracy, it's only better than anything else*.

George H. (paraphrased from a Carl Sagan book I'm reading.)

Physics doesn't tolerate totally crazy theories for long. Other "sciences" do.

Well, excepting string theory.

hore waters to deep to allow solid foundations.

power available from 1.5 W m^-2 to 6 W m^-2

ay

to $70) per megawatt hour by

ys

and

f a difference.

=1

c.

We all have bias, it's hard for me not to like the first idea I have to solve a problem.

George H.

Naturally. The taxes are there to subsidize the renewable energy.

That's a possibly-unattributed Churchill mot: "Democracy is the worst syste m of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time t o time." (or something like that)

I agree that good science is a good thing. I just think it's rarer than lot s of fanbois think.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Even China is now fracking for natural gas. NG is the furure of energy for the next couple hundred years.

I have no problem with nuclear, but you're living in a dream world if you think thorium reactor design/research, is going to funded any time soon. IMHO fracking gas is green, oil is good, coal is dirty...

George H. (who burns lotsa oil heating his house and driving vehicles.)

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

a _lot_ of money is in play. I've been peer-reviewing papers for over 30 years, and I can tell you that the quality of the submissions has tanked.

Papers (mostly) suck these days.

GH

I'm sure high voltage cables will work, since they work everywhere else.

The cost numbers presumably have more to do with the number of water-based wind turbines compared with land-based. The manufacturing rule of thumb is that if you make an item in ten times the volume, you can make it for half the price.

Water-based wind turbines have become more popular in recent years, but they aren't in the majority yet. Four times the energy output per unit area may change that.

Den torsdag den 26. oktober 2017 kl. 02.18.30 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:

shore waters to deep to allow solid foundations.

e power available from 1.5 W m^-2 to 6 W m^-2

way

to $70) per megawatt hour by

ays

's

, and

of a difference.

w=1

tc.

you would think but, no. The part goes to subsidies for renewable energy is less than a third of the "tax" part

te:

re waters to deep to allow solid foundations.

ower available from 1.5 W m^-2 to 6 W m^-2

Oil platforms seem to survive.

In deep water boats don't drop anchors. The floating windmills will have to be moored to deep anchors, and the power lines are going to be routed back to land along the ocean bottom, along with under-sea communications cables which have been working fine for the last 150 years.

John Larkin's imagination has to work harder than most people's because he doesn't know much and tends to imagine where he ought to know.

Not difficult. Every wind farm has that problem, and has always had the pro blem.

That doesn't take any imagination at all, but - since John Larkin doesn't k now much, and is selective about what he chooses to learn - he prefers to i magine "giant subsidies" rather than reading about what's actually going on .

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 8:18:53 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

tem of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." (or something like that)

ots of fanbois think.

Right, it seems broken, but liberals can't say that either. I don't know the details of climate science funding, but if it's anything like solid state, then it's inbreed.

George H.

There was a proposal to put solar farms in orbit and send down the power generated via microwave beams.

Sub-sea power cables won't be as interesting to Dr. Hobbs, but they do exist (while his giant lasers of death are entirely figments of his commercially oriented imagination).

Oddly enough, it seems to miss one that I know about that ships hydroelectic power from Tasmania under Bass Strait

It's 230 miles (370 km) long, and most of it is under water.