steven_whThe real problem is that even by 2040 solar and wind will not be able to produce more than about 2.9% of world energy consumption. Coal, oil, and gas, will provide the bulk of world energy. Electricity from wind and solar is much smaller.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254079[/ATTACH]
Steven
steven_whThe day we learn how to store electricity for future use, much as we efficiently store food thru’ the use of electrical power, is the day that renewable sources of energy will begin to look realistic and perhaps cost effective.
Exactly. The development of electricity storage on a national scale should logically and economically have come long before anything was spent on installing renewables.
Wind and solar renewables are inherently intermittent. They require conventional generators to provide baseload power and to back then up when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. Without a viable storage scheme, renewables will not provide reliable power when fossil fuels start to run out.
Since we do not have the prospect of such a storage mechanism, they are therefore not currently a sensible proposition for the future needs of a 21st century nation.
Steven
steven_whThe Climate Change Act 2008, which gave rise to the impracticality of renewables, was based on computer climate models which projected global warming, when in actuality the global temperatures have remained level for twenty years.
The CC Act has also lumbered us with costs said to be £18bn a year for 40 years to attain an unachievable 40% renewable generation. That is a total of £720bn, and even if the computer models were correct, it would only bring a reduction of 0.006C in global temperature. The UK produces less than 2% of global CO2. The funding could have been easily used for many real and worthwhile projects.
Cost: £720,000,000,000
Benefit: 0.006C
Steven
steven_whWhy be so negative?? To me (and I suspect many more) sounds like positive news. Environmentally friendly renewables are the way forward.
Even more to celebrate when we reach 75% renewables.
You miss the point that it was not 50% of a whole day, but only for a short period. A misleading headline from BBC which is notorious for its renewables bias.
Steven
steven_whFor a few hours yesterday at the lowest demand in the early hours of the morning, wind equalled conventional sources.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]253933[/ATTACH]
Remember that wind costs between 2 and 3 times conventional, and during that short period consumers were paying 1.75 times as much for their electricity. Nothing to celebrate here.
Steven
steven_whEurofighter delivers 500th Typhoon.
Eurofighter has delivered to the Italian air force its 500th Typhoon, 14 years after it handed over the first example to the UK Royal Air Force.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]252524[/ATTACH]
steven_whGreek Army Helicopter Crash Lands Near Thessaloniki – Two crew escape unhurt
http://www.tactical-life.com/news/greek-army-helicopter-crash-lands/
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248655[/ATTACH]
steven_whThe likelihood of remaining, is more of the same. As others have said, there is no appetite for increased links with the EU, and we have an opt out from it.
I remain staggered at the stupidity of people, including, apparently 57 Tory MP’s, who genuinely believed that Osborne would issue an emergency budget immediately after a vote to leave was carried. I do wonder sometimes…
It was Osborne who said he would have a punishment budget, and Mr Corbyn has said in the HoC he would vote against it.
Commentators have succinctly analysed this move.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246520[/ATTACH]
Steven
steven_whA Remainer cogently expressing his views on hardworking fishermen losing their livelihoods because of the EU.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/15/live-hate-bob-geldof-let-slip-ugly-side-remain/
Emily Thornberry would be proud.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246519[/ATTACH]
steven_whNow the Germans are asking us politely not to leave. Probably a reaction to Schauble’s over-the-top demands and posturing.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/please-dont-go-spiegel-magazine-urges-brits-not-leave/
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246404[/ATTACH]
steven_wh…and to add, it helps if you remember that the air wasn’t really moving until it hit the leading edge of the wing.
Then it was accelerated so that its relative speed is reduced as its actual velocity increases. In other words, think backwards, and try to see the relative speed of the ‘moving’ air as resulting from how much it is not being accelerated by interaction with the wing – or more specifically, how that acceleration is being countered by an accelerative force in the other direction caused by bunching of streamlines.
…………….YES, it’s complicated, or at least an effort for anyone to get their head around – it’s not just NACA/NASA making it so. No, you don’t need to follow this to get a pilot’s license, but the question was about how it actually works 🙂
Also, no discussion on wing lift would be complete without consideration of the drag of a wing, as the effectiveness of a wing is measured by both its lift and its drag.
Add to that the explanations of how slats, flaps, and winglets work, and how they affect the basic three lift component wing theory. This could go on.
Steven
steven_whThere are three distinct ways in which an aerofoil creates overall lift, which is where the apparent contradictions and confusions come from.
A wing does not need to be cambered to create lift, a flat surface like a kite will work, where there is only the momentum change lift, and no textbook Bernoulli lift. The downwash airflow generates lift from Newton’s law of momentum change, action and reaction.
The total lift generated by a given wing design is determined by the angle of attack (AoA) to the oncoming airstream, which affects all three kinds of lift. The greater the AoA the more the lift, up to the stall point.
Hope this helps.
Steven
steven_whRe #363
More scaremongering using half-truths and flights of fantasy.
A bit like Nick Clegg’s statement, then, in that memorable debate where he was crushingly defeated by Nigel Farage, that “it was absurd to suggest that the EU was going to form its own army“.
As is so often the case on that particular “Conservative” website, all is not as they would suggest. It is not about “anti-EU” rhetoric, it is about content that is already designated as illegal and I am surprised that they are so against provision that is intended to counter terrorism.
The EU already has a law that prevents anyone with a EU pension from criticising the EU, on penalty of forfeiting the pension. The EU is ruled by a self-apppointed elite who desperately hate opposition to their manic charge into ‘ever closer union’. The move to influence Microsoft/Twitter/Facebook is not a move to clean up the Web, but to give themselves powers which can be used in other contexts such as silencing dissent, or thwarting whistle-blowers.
They also want a ‘counter-narrative’, which will consist of nothing more than the approved EU propaganda line.
steven_whEU Plans to Control the Web
If the EU gets the power to suppress thoughts they do not like and to substitute its own ‘counter-narrative’, i.e. EU approved propaganda, this will be a huge backward step against the freedoms endowed by the entire Web.
Those of us who were in at the start of the use of email and the early days of the Web and the movement to achieve globally open networking, will be alarmed and appalled at how we are seeing such progress now under threat of eradication by diktat. In the old days of the Soviet Union typewriter owners were required to provide samples of the typeface, so that typewritten subversive material could be traced back. The EU is seriously considering a modern equivalent to the same process of controlling the spread of ideas which happen to be different from the approved line.
Many of the original technologies, development systems, and applications for the Web, were inspired and implemented not just for their commericial values, but because they were perceived by their originators as providing a truly democratic platform for free discourse. A single individual’s website has the same equal access and global reach as the most massive commercial, media, or governmental systems. This is now threatened by an unholy alliance of the EU and the Web technology companies. The EU should not be allowed anywhere near acquiring such powers.
Fortunately for the UK at least, on June 23rd, our referendum voting day, we can put an end to the EU’s great leap backward, and vote to withdraw from the EU.
Steven
steven_wh64 Per Cent Of Dutch Referendum Voters Reject EU, 32 Per Cent Turnout
Looks like the Dutch have sent a strong message to the EU – ‘no’ to expansion into Ukraine.
Gives us a pointer to our own referendum on June 23rd.
Sign In
