So lets assume its all a lie

Thank you for you honest response!
Agree 100%. It is the additional CO2 that has been sequestered in FF and is now being released that is the problem. Planting more trees to counteract the effects of that additional CO2 would require more trees than were growing in 1850.

 

My problem with these schemes that rely totally on offsetting emissions is that not only will the emphasis be drawn away from food growing areas but it actually has no impact on emissions. Sure there is a reason for planting more trees but there should be more importance for reduction in removal of vegetation around the world. This impacts heavily on food growing for populace.

However, it will in no way reduce emissions by simply offsetting them.

 

IPCC originated in 1988.

However, for the most part, the general usage of "global climate change" didn't occur until the late 1990s. I've been following the arguments since before the IPCC originated. The usage has changed.

 

Industries were moved close to hydro dams. (for example, most aluminum processing is done in proximity to hydro dams). Also, wind power is much more dispersed than hydro. The transmission losses will be greater.

 

The area around every windmill is effected (noise, appearance, bird deaths). You would need a lot of windmills to replace a FF plant. That's a lot of total land area effected.

Well, first, we haven't done a whole lot of tidal energy projects, thankfully. However, they are basically dams at the end of an estuary. Any problems that dams cause (entrainment and destruction of planktonic larvae, migration problems with fish, the effects of the loss of energy in an environment (i.e. an active bay to a more stagnant bay)) can be caused by tidal. Estuarine organisms live in areas of ideal current, etc. Tidal dams will cause changes in those estuarine organism communities. Our basic record of changing environmental communities is that we don't improve them.

 

That's a big conjecture without evidence behind it.

 

That is factually incorrect. While designs do vary none that I am aware of work on a dam principle.

 

What you show extracts power from waves - not tides.

Tides power generators when water runs from a higher place to a lower place. How do you do that without a dam?

Empty a basin through a generator at low tide, fill it through a generator at high tide. That requires a dam. The height differential is really low (compared to a hydro plant), and requires high flow rate instead of pressure differential, so is inefficient.

Tapping the natural flow in and out of a bay is much less efficient.

 

how? without a dam like this...turbines could work in both directions incoming and outgoing tides...

 

that's a lot of denial without evidence behind it...

 

bull tweet...your point was conventional power plants are built near cities now you're trying to double back wind power has more flexability, hydro dams can only built where rivers run a local geography permits...wind power anywhere where the wind blows consistently... transmission losses are identical...

 

bird deaths really? this is red herring or maybe in this case a red canary...bird deaths in USA estimated at 75-250K per year...bird deaths in USA due to domestic cats 500m-1Billion per year...bird deaths in USA due to nightly building strikes estimated at another 1 billion per year...if you actually gave a crap about birds you'd be advocating for all domestic cats be leashed when outside and all buildings turn off their lights at night...

 

?!? Read my last line, you can do tidal energy without a dam, but it is much less efficient.

It only works during the actual tidal flow. Several dammed bays can provide energy 24/7 with better head pressure

Dammed high tide to low tide - best energy
Dammed high tide mid tide - lower energy
Dammed low tide to mid tide - lower energy, works at the same time as high tide to mid tide
Dammed low tide to high tide - best energy​

 

the issue was limiting damage to environment and where my earlier post was disputed ..."both can be modified(engineered) to be more environmentally friendly, neither do as much damage to aquatic life as CO2..." maximum efficiency isn't the only concern, damaging the environment is the greater overall issue, finding alternatives to FF use becomes irrelevant if the alternatives do as much damage...future dams any not be as efficient as designs of the past but to avoid ecological damage a less efficient compromise may be the only option, the same applies to tidal turbines...

 

How much total energy is available from tides? What percentag of that much can be captured?

How robust would the equipment need to be to survive a tsunami?

Tidal energy comes from that flywheel that is earth, interacting with the moon and sun (about equally). Earth rotation, via tides, is adding velocity to the moon, moving it further away, reducing tidal forces, and slowing the earth rotation.

 

Quite a bit potentially - enough to make a difference.

"A 2003 report by the European Thematic Network on Wave Energy estimates that there will be between 150 – 750 terawatt-hours (1 TWh = 1,000,000 MWh) of economically recoverable wave energy available worldwide once current technologies are refined and mature, and increases in efficiency could triple that amount in the future. An Electric Power Research Institute report estimates that there are 2,100 TW of total wave energy off the coast of the U.S., with over 50% of that potential off the coast of Alaska. Additionally, total energy from tidal friction is estimated at 2.5 TWs, or the equivalent of 2,500 one-thousand MW nuclear power plants. "

I haven't independently verified these numbers - but obviously a ton of potential here.


http://alaskarenewableenergy.org/alaskas-resources/types-renewable-energy/ocean-wave-and-tidal/

 

Not sure how that compares to the global energy consumption, but is sounds like a nice amount of power.

And, unless it requires trillions of dollars in subsidies, you won't find a single "denier" objecting.

Now, fellow liberals will find ever conceivable reason not to install them.

As far as wave power, create "V" shaped beach with the right slope, and you can get the breakers over 10' to fill a basin well above sea level, to provide a steady flow of water.

 

Again you are ignoring the cost of obtaining and using FF. If you want convince me of the superiority of FF over alternative energies, you will have to compare the problems of using FF to the problems of alternative energies; not just problems of using alternative energies. The cost of using FF is increasing so other methods to obtain energy are needed.

 

In my opinion, we would not be worse off with a federal research university system, with a campus in every State of the Union and the federal Districts; with its own dedicated super computing array and redundant fiber optic network.

Such an institution could be tasked with obtaining more perfect knowledge of such things as hydrogen fuel and cell technologies, and hypothetically, extracting ores and heat energy from within the structures of active volcanoes.

 

It's nice to hear from a "hysteric" who is curious. Most have all the answers.

I am in favor of an intelligent move from fossil fuels. We will move whether we want to or not eventually. But, when I'm hiking in the mountains, I don't tend to jump off a high rock till I see a place to safely land. Bankrupting coal, as the nitwits in the White House wants to do, and putting your faith in "green industries" is incredibly stupid. Get the technology, not the faith of the hysterics, and then we move. Windmills? Get serious. Nuclear? Hysterics won't allow that, either. Solar? Possible but that gets opposition from environmentalists--saving tortoises--and a very high cost.

Consider, Wolverine, the President who wants electricity bills to "skyrocket" also wants people to start driving electric cars. The lack of even modest logic is appalling.

Personally, now that I am retired, my kids are grown, and I have time I live where I can walk 95% of the places I need to go. When I worked, I rode a bike to work, and often at work, just because it was practical. I wasn't some nitwit feeling superior because I was "saving the planet". I consume less electricity than anyone else on this forum.

 

And you probably wouldn't send you grand kids off on a one way journey knowing they'd run out of food (energy) well before the journey is over either.