http://www.popsci.com/article/scienc...ergy-2000-feet

Why stop at 2,000 ft?

MartinR

"MartinR" wrote in message
...
http://www.popsci.com/article/scienc...ergy-2000-feet

Why stop at 2,000 ft?


A planners nightmare. Certainly NIMBY, would definitely spoil the Dartmoor
landscape. Tidal and wave energy is the way to go in Britain.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

"MartinR" wrote in message
...
http://www.popsci.com/article/scienc...ergy-2000-feet

Why stop at 2,000 ft?

A planner's nightmare. Certainly NIMBY, would definitely spoil
the Dartmoor landscape. Tidal and wave energy is the way to go
in Britain.
Will

Also an aviator's nightmare. I certainly don't want to be in any
plane that flies into those 2000-foot (let alone higher) tethers
that are going to be pretty damn hard to see.

Anne B

Also an aviator's nightmare. I certainly don't want to be in
any
plane that flies into those 2000-foot (let alone higher)
tethers
that are going to be pretty damn hard to see.

People who invent spurious difficulties are the bane of
humanity and
an illimitable source of drag on human progress. Not, dear
lady, that
I would ever accuse you of being such a person.

You are correct in hesitating to accuse me of invention. That
objection came from actual personal experience, not invention. I
have been within a whisker of being macerated by an RAF
helicopter flying into a 2000-foot cable when I was in a glider
attached to the end of it. It would not have done the chopper
any good either. That was on an airfield clearly marked on
airspace charts with the symbol indicating that such cables are
regularly used there.

The recognition that cables etc, even marked with an object like
a glider, kite or parachute on the end, are hard to see is the
reason why permission is required from the Civil Aviation
Authority to deploy them, and why it is illegal for them to go
higher than 2000 feet.

Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Anne

On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 08:19:33 UTC+1, Anne Burgess wrote:
Also an aviator's nightmare. I certainly don't want to be in

any

plane that flies into those 2000-foot (let alone higher)

tethers

that are going to be pretty damn hard to see.



People who invent spurious difficulties are the bane of

humanity and

an illimitable source of drag on human progress. Not, dear

lady, that

I would ever accuse you of being such a person.



You are correct in hesitating to accuse me of invention. That

objection came from actual personal experience, not invention. I

have been within a whisker of being macerated by an RAF

helicopter flying into a 2000-foot cable when I was in a glider

attached to the end of it. It would not have done the chopper

any good either. That was on an airfield clearly marked on

airspace charts with the symbol indicating that such cables are

regularly used there.



The recognition that cables etc, even marked with an object like

a glider, kite or parachute on the end, are hard to see is the

reason why permission is required from the Civil Aviation

Authority to deploy them, and why it is illegal for them to go

higher than 2000 feet.

But you have to admit making them outstandingly ugly with radioactive paints is the way to go; just like that idiot suggested. (Nice one dawlish.)

Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will go wrong.

They would be ideal parked on London High rises and several other places where aircraft don't usually go. (Always assuming they don't pull themselves inside out or tear apart, or otherwise find ideal conditions to imitate the brickwork below.)

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 13:38:59 UTC+1, wrote:

A planners nightmare. Certainly NIMBY, would definitely spoil the Dartmoor

landscape. Tidal and wave energy is the way to go in Britain.


When I see the huge quantities of water passing in and out down the Thames every day it amazes me why we are not doing more to develop tidal energy. Unlike the wind and sun it is guaranteed

--

------------------------------
This email was sent by a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office at
80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL. Registered in England and Wales with company
number 53723.

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 13:38:59 UTC+1,
wrote:

A planners nightmare. Certainly NIMBY, would definitely spoil the
Dartmoor

landscape. Tidal and wave energy is the way to go in Britain.


When I see the huge quantities of water passing in and out down the Thames
every day it amazes me why we are not doing more to develop tidal energy.
Unlike the wind and sun it is guaranteed


Simple answer. Not enough quick money return for investors. :-(

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On 15/10/2014 7:34 AM, Will Hand wrote:
Simple answer. Not enough quick money return for investors. :-(

No simple answer Will. Tidal power in places such as the Thames and
Severn is controversial for a whole host of reasons.

Why don't we use what we already have more efficiently before embarking
on massive costly projects such as tidal barrages and all the
environmental issues that they will bring.

--
Nick Gardner
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:34:04 +0100
"Will Hand" wrote:


"Scott W" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 13:38:59 UTC+1,
wrote:

A planners nightmare. Certainly NIMBY, would definitely spoil the
Dartmoor

landscape. Tidal and wave energy is the way to go in Britain.


When I see the huge quantities of water passing in and out down the
Thames every day it amazes me why we are not doing more to develop
tidal energy. Unlike the wind and sun it is guaranteed


Simple answer. Not enough quick money return for investors. :-(


Looking at the problem of reducing CO2 production from the other
direction, there's another advance in the provision of low-power
lighting.

Press release:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cienceDaily%29
Original paper:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.4895913

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they're open". -
Lord Dewar (1864-1930)

MartinR wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/article/scienc...ergy-2000-feet

Why stop at 2,000 ft?

MartinR
-------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it be easier to put one on top of a 2000ft mountain/hill?