Is Wave Energy Dead In The Water?

[thplinth]

Ooooh sorry.

For wind turbine engineering, an exponential variation in wind speed with height can be defined relative to wind measured at a reference height of 10 meters as:[27]

\ v_w(h) = v_{10} \cdot \left( \frac {h} {h_{10}} \right)^ a

[Larky Masher]

Ooooh sorry.

For wind turbine engineering, an exponential variation in wind speed with height can be defined relative to wind measured at a reference height of 10 meters as:[27]

\ v_w(h) = v_{10} \cdot \left( \frac {h} {h_{10}} \right)^ a

Just cut and paste stuff, it'll save you making these embarrassing faux pas.

[Toepoke]

Just cut and paste stuff, it'll save you making these embarrassing faux pas.

[thplinth]

trolling your own thread...

[hunchy]

Out of interest how much energy is taken out of the wind by the normal wind turbines. Just wondering as surly if you take enough energy out the wind then that could have an effect on weather patterns. (I'm guessing its a fraction and it would take billions of turbines to have an effect but just had a made question moment)

[Larky Masher]

trolling your own thread...

Just offering advice and don't be embarrassed about your limitations.

[biffer]

Out of interest how much energy is taken out of the wind by the normal wind turbines. Just wondering as surly if you take enough energy out the wind then that could have an effect on weather patterns. (I'm guessing its a fraction and it would take billions of turbines to have an effect but just had a made question moment)

Nowhere near enough to have an effect. A ####tard US senator went down that route, trying ng to say it was the turbines that were altering the weather patterns. Its very easily proved that the effect of taking energy out of the atmosphere by wind turbines is negligible wrt weather.

[biffer]

Ooooh sorry.

For wind turbine engineering, an exponential variation in wind speed with height can be defined relative to wind measured at a reference height of 10 meters as:[27]

\ v_w(h) = v_{10} \cdot \left( \frac {h} {h_{10}} \right)^ a

Problem is the cost of extracting it increases with height at a greater rate. Although some.of the high altitude, kite based platforms are really promising, it'll be twenty years before we can get any kind of operational wind farm from them.

[hunchy]

Nowhere near enough to have an effect. A ####tard US senator went down that route, trying ng to say it was the turbines that were altering the weather patterns. Its very easily proved that the effect of taking energy out of the atmosphere by wind turbines is negligible wrt weather.

Don't get me wrong not trying to tarnish wind turbines like I said I was having a mad question moment as surly if you take enough energy out of the wind then there must be some knock on effects and what they would mean

[caledonian1]

Don't get me wrong not trying to tarnish wind turbines like I said I was having a mad question moment as surly if you take enough energy out of the wind then there must be some knock on effects and what they would mean

Yes, I lie awake at night worried about rising sea levels and yet the solution to this is quite obvious. The authorities should put dynamite in all the seas in an effort to kill all the fish....just imagine the space that whales occupy and the resultant lowering of the sea level when they are removed (a bit like when a fat bird steps out of a jacuzzi)

Perhaps this solution has never been tried as it would have the negative side effect of removing fish suppers from menus........

[Orraloon]

Nuclear fusion - it's going to save us all.

Only 20 years away.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is currently being built in France. They expect to spend £30 - 40 billion just to build it and they wont even start to put "fuel" into it before 2030. It is only an experimental plant and is designed to only produce 500 megawatts. It is by far the most advanced project of it's kind. It is doubtful that fusion will produce significant amounts of power in our lifetime. If we had invested in fusion at the same rate as we did with fission then we might have been much further down that route but the need for atomic bombs was deemed to be more important.

[biffer]

Fusion has been twenty years away for forty years now.

[Orraloon]

Fusion has been twenty years away for forty years now.

I think another problem might be that the current method needs significant quantities of Lithium 6 which we think is in limited supply. But you never know we might find loads of the stuff on Mars.

[biffer]

I think another problem might be that the current method needs significant quantities of Lithium 6 which we think is in limited supply. But you never know we might find loads of the stuff on Mars.

I thought the main problems were maintaing the plasma containment and maintain the fusion reaction in a stable way.

Sounds really Star Trek that.

[Orraloon]

I thought the main problems were maintaing the plasma containment and maintain the fusion reaction in a stable way.

Sounds really Star Trek that.

Aye, that as well. I think these are some of the things that the ITER plant is designed to test out. It is a long way away from a viable option.

My personal view is that there is no need for us to continue to invest huge amounts of time and money on developing nuclear technology. We have a vast fusion reactor a mere 93 million miles away, which has been proved to be a reasonably safe distance for us humans. There is far more energy there than we will ever need. We just need to learn how to harness it more efficiently, use it more efficiently and find ways to store that energy so that we can use it when we need it.