O.T. Deep sea wind farms

That's why giant oil tankers are so flexible. They're basically a large floating puddle of oil with a flexible metal skin around it, with an engine attached.

Clifford Heath.

with

Whit3rd hasn't spelled out any kind of standard, so John Larkin has just in vented his own silly strawman standard to sound off about. An atmosphere co mposed entirely of water vapour isn't actively toxic, but it won't support life. If it is hot enough to sustain atmospheric pressure, it is live steam , and will kill you quite quickly - but by cooking you rather poisoning you .

Nitrogen is even more innocuous - you will die in a pure nitrogen atmospher e, but purely from oxygen shortage.

Pure oxygen was used to let premature babies breathe more easily, until it was found out that it tended to destroy the developing retina.

For adults, a pure oxygen atmosphere is a fire risk (and the US lost a coup le of astronauts to it) but it doesn't seem to be a health risk.

You do have to add numbers or the statements are meaningless.

Calling a vacuum "pollution" does illustrate a rather poor grasp of what th e word "pollution" means. Humans can't survive when there isn't enough oxyg en around, but that doesn't make the absence of any "pollutant" at all any kind of "pollution".

John Larkin is coming across as a gibbering idiot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You've ignored ALL standards to make up that list. Water vapor is not toxic,

0-100% humidity is all normal breathable range, vacuum has no 'quantity' that fits the limits-of-toxicity or pollution model in any way, shape, or form. Oxygen IS toxic, at about 1atm partial pressure, but isn't accidentally generated at pollution levels by any process I'm familiar with. I've reminded you before that 'nitrogen narcosis' is a well known toxic effect of nitrogen, but at well above atmospheric pressure.

That rebuttal ignores the meaning of words, it's just bluster.

John Larkin wrote on 10/25/2017 11:41 AM:

Channeling John Lennon?

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

As long as they are ecological...

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Do they sell sulfur credits too?

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Does not have to be offshore. In the summer we had a taifun fell the major mast of power plant on the pacific coast of TW. Taking this plant off grid and put the whole network above 90% load. An error during maintenance at another plant left Taipeh in the dark for several hours.

--
Reinhardt

George Herold wrote on 10/25/2017 8:29 PM:

You seem to be rather ignorant of the situation. I guess you think the world ends at the US borders. China along with the rest of the world is pushing ahead with reactor designs using Thorium as fuel. Oh wait, they are even doing research with a little US based company called TerraPower, chaired by Bill Gates. But I guess that doesn't mean it is "funded".

Ignorance is bliss... If coal is dirty, then gas is far from "good". The idea that gas is "greener" than coal is like saying being shot by a .22 is "healthy" while being shot by a .45 is dangerous.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Steve Wilson wrote on 10/25/2017 9:02 PM:

What??? I remember a record album called, "Steam Powered Aereo Plane" but I never realized it was real.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

I have seen published numbers for killed bats in Germany that when taken for real would have meant the whole population of bats was killed in half a year.

--
Reinhardt

I think Phil Hobbs likes them to the extent that he could make money out of them.

It would be a ridiculously expensive way of shifting network power around, and even the most ardent ecologist would recognise that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Channeling up-to-date cost-benefit analyses. John Larkin seems to get his from denialist web-sites, which never update their data when out-of-date data suits their argument better. Rather like James Arthur.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

We're all fenced in with our biases. I can't see any energy future for the next ~20+ years that doesn't use hydro-carbons as something greater than 50% of the total. Current electric,

doesn't include heating and transportation, If all the coal and oil went to NG CO2 would be cut in half, that's green to me. Your bullet analogy is silly. Why is fracking despised by liberals? Everything seems to be politicized now. The lines are arbitrary, each side holds opinions that, to me, look like political reasons. 'Cause the other side is for fracking, reducing corporate tax rates, etc... we have to be against them. Because they can never be right. The other side does the same thing.

George H.

e soon.

s

y are

The

is

That's got a lot to do with the fact that the people with money and power h ave invested a lot in the right to dig up fossil carbon and sell it as fuel . They don't like projections where solar an wind power take over fast enou ghy to devalue their investment, and spend money on keeping them out of the public eye.

This would be a conspiracy theory, if the conspiracy wasn't a real and demo nstable fact.

It's greener than burning coal, but not green enough to meet the Paris targ et of holding anthropogenic global warming to less than two degrees Celcius .

It has a nasty habit of polluting ground water.

.

It may look that way, but the lines aren't arbitrary. The political content is essentially economic - interests with money feel the need to influence the debate in a way that maximises their share of the money coming in.

The Danes have got a big chunk of the wind turbine market, and the Chinese invested a lot in being able to make cheap solar cells in huge volumes. US manufacturers don't want US customers spending money with non-US suppliers ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's only 15 miles offshore (you can see the top of the units from the shore). It's farm is a technology demonstrator, and only has a capacity of 30MW - single 33KV cable is brought ashore at Peterhead.

There is unfortunately political bullshit involved in the charges involved with connecting to the national grid. In essence a generator is charged more in transmission charges the further it is situated from London (not the nearest population centre - but London). This was a major factor in the closure of the Longannet power station in Scotland last year.

I do not know how they plan to maintain the large farm planned for the West of Ireland, but if using helicopters is the lowest cost option to ferry personnel offshore then what is the problem?

As regards floating platforms many of the North sea platforms (including drilling) are floating - it's a mature technology.

Likewise the undersea connections. In Aberdeen alone there are several companies providing marine trenching services.

It's not a bunch of amateurs who have designed this.

I had my doubts about wind power a few years back, but the rapid decrease of the costs over the last 2 years has changed my mind. I would expect the costs of offshore developments to decrease significantly once large scale deployment starts to occur.

In Scotland last year over Christmas (for a 4 day period) wind power produced more power than was required by the whole country. In Germany some regions produce so much power on occasions that the consumer is paid to consume that power.

Don't forget that in the UK nowhere is more than ~70 miles from the sea, depending on the definition of "sea".

In the UK 100 miles is a long way; in the US 100 years is a long time.

Yeah, I don't know where the costs are. How much is logistics? I can imagine that every thing at sea is several time more than the same on land. As someone else posted here (I've forgotten his name) for what ever part of your power is wind, you've got to have back up power to fill in when the wind isn't blowing... that's a cost that needs to be factored in too. Or you need storage. (a cost)

George H.