"Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> wrote in

> "John" <yelzab8@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:p240r.63183$1V5.10947@newsfe22.ams2...
>> "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:a931bea6-397f-4d83-b625-d4720ee9e2b7@m7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com.
>> .. Not satisfied with having had HUGELY expensive and worthless wind
>> and solar projects paid for by the taxpayer, now they want more money
>> for tidal and "wave" energy. All this will do is create hundreds of
>> dangerous marine hazards that will be rusting away once they stopped
>> being used. Do NOT fund them.
>> BBC:
>> 18 February 2012 Last updated at 19:03 ET
>> Wave and tidal power need support, say MPs
>> Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
>> The government should increase support for wave and tidal power to
>> preserve the UK's global leadership, say MPs.
>> The Energy and Climate Change Committee says the UK had in the past
>> lost its early lead on wind power through lack of support, and must
>> not make the same mistake again on marine energy.
>> Its report recommends increasing funding and improving links between
>> UK and Scottish programmes.
>> The Carbon Trust recently said marine power could create 10,000 jobs
>> by 2020.
>> By 2050, it said, the global market could be worth £340bn, with the
>> UK claiming about one-fifth of the business.
>> And with the UK possessing seven out of the eight large-scale
>> prototypes deployed anywhere in the world, it was well-placed to lead
>> the global race, the MPs said.
>> "In the 1980s the UK squandered the lead it had in wind power
>> development, and now Denmark has a large share of the worldwide
>> market in turbine manufacturing," said Tim Yeo MP, the committee's
>> chairman.
>> "It should be a priority for the government to ensure that the UK
>> remains at the cutting edge of developments in this technology and
>> does not allow our lead to slip."
>> Electricity demand
>> The committee's report, The Future of Marine Renewables in the UK,
>> included an examination of tidal stream generators, where devices
>> such as big rotors are turned by the incoming and outgoing tides, but
>> excluded barrage technologies such as the mooted Severn Barrage,
>> which tend to be much more expensive and can cause big ecological
>> problems.
>> It has been estimated that wave and tidal technologies could supply
>> about one-fifth of the UK's current electricity demand, and many
>> other nations are becoming interested, in particular the Nordic
>> countries, South Korea and China.
>> But currently they are expensive - about five times the price of
>> onshore wind, for example.
>> As with other new technologies, the government expects costs to fall
>> dramatically once devices and installation become standardised.
>> But there is little chance of marine power making a major
>> contribution by 2020.
>> The government recently reduced its estimate of the 2020 contribution
>> from 1-2 gigawatts (GW) to 200-300 MW, and the committee says that
>> should be looked at again, as several industry experts have said the
>> new target can be met easily.
>> The size of the UK funding pot for marine renewables, at £20m, should
>> also be re-examined, they say. And deployment of that money should be
>> co-ordinated better with the Scottish government, which has a
>> separate £18m budget.
>> The level of subsidy companies receive up to 2017 is secure, the MPs
>> say - but longer-term clarity is needed in order to give investors
>> confidence.
>> David Clarke, chief executive of the Energy Technologies Institute, a
>> government-industry collaboration, said time was of the essence.
>> "The marine renewables industry must demonstrate its ability to be
>> cost-competitive, compared with other low-carbon technologies, in the
>> next 5-8 years if it is to engage commercial investors," he said.
>> "If it doesn't, other technologies will be built as alternatives;
>> investors will feel more assurance in them and see more opportunity
>> for return."
>> With projects such as Marine Current Turbines' tidal generator in
>> Strangford Lough showing the technologies can work with no
>> discernible impact on local ecology, the next step will be to build
>> arrays of several connected devices; but each array would cost around
>> £40-50m, the committee heard, meaning current levels of support could
>> be inadequate.
>> Another recommendation from the committee is that with many of the
>> best sites in remote locations around northern and western Scotland
>> and in the Orkneys and Shetlands, finance for grid connection needs
>> ramping up.
>> 'Fully committed'
>> Environment groups who have long bemoaned the slow pace of
>> development on wave and tidal power endorsed the committee's
>> recommendations.
>> "This report is a great reminder of the massive potential of marine
>> renewables in the UK," said Nick Molho, head of energy policy at WWF-
>> UK.
>> "Investment certainty holds the key to reducing the costs of marine
>> renewable and creating jobs; the government would be mad to miss this
>> boat."
>> A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said
>> the government welcomed the report and was studying its
>> recommendations.
>> "We are fully committed to spurring on the growth of this industry
>> and have already taken great strides to make this happen," she said.
>> I really don't understand your illogical hatred to energy generation
>> from powerful natural forces. Remember it was millions of
>> water-wheels that started the industrial age in the first place!
>> I don't believe in AGW any more than you, but that doesn't mean we
>> should shut our eyes to any possible method of generating power. In
>> any case fossil fuel will eventually run out, that's an absolute
>> certainty. Not in your lifetime, but you should be thinking about
>> your great grand children If you had been around at the beginning of
>> steam power with total crap engines of little power, you would have
>> said that steam had no future either. Nothing ever comes easy. Every
>> form of power man has ever developed has had huge problems. Nuclear
>> power is another example where it is taking a hundred years to
>> develop its huge potential safely. What we are both against I
>> suggest, is allowing the ignorant Green lobby to dictate the
>> direction of new power development as if we have a huge global
>> warming problem this minute. We do not! But a global energy problem
>> is certainly on the horizon! Are you happy to allow all that huge
>> natural unstoppable force of water and wind to go to waste forever?

> These guys are afraid the government might spend money and tax them
> for these new technologies; which, when improved, will be sold for
> nothing to the energy industry that will make billions off of them.
> They don't have a problem with government subsidizing oil and gas and
> think those resources will last forever. >

They will. Estimated reserves with fracking, sand and shale and newly
discovered conventional oil sources is 5000 years at current usage.
Meanwhile, you've got captains of ships running into rocks, and other
ships. These tidal and wave machines will place huge metal structures,
just below water level, just off coasts. I can't think of anything more