Somehow, strangely, Stan seems to assume that I’d advocate the fossil fuel option. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Stan should read this article:-

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2193500/osborne-moves-to-kill-green-economy-with-gas-manifesto

and understand that the sole purpose of my radical approach to marine renewables is to make gas-powered generation commercially unsustainable. Integrated (before generator) energy storage seems to be the best way to do that. High capital outlay – yes, but much lower running costs and zero carbon in operation. A WEC is also an essential part of the (more bang for your buck) solution, I think:-

Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1lPFQ)

The “unworkable” Energy Bill is trying to rig the market in order to ‘grandfather’ gas plant (without CCS) up to 2045. The UK will have to import most of that gas! – insane!

The UK Chancellor is a fool of the highest order. The Treasury and the DECC both exemplify the saying “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”. But the lunatics are fighting amongst themselves too!

I don’t see the “critical and condescending” part but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I know I express mine all the time, LOL.

To me, the article would have been better served with a slightly different title. Instead of “…Offshore Wind Turbines More Efficient” I would have replaced this with – More Cost Effective – because I believe that is what we are talking about. A more cost effective turbine is one that costs less to manufacturer, install and operate and is therefor more competitive. I guess we could then say it is a more efficient use of resources.

But by the same token Bob is correct since the output [kWh] of a turbine is based on other factors.

I think we are all talking about oranges and oranges [efficiency] but view the results differently. The English language is not always precise? LOL.

Round 3 UK windfarms are now being planned for water depths in excess of 50 metres. Obviously the foundations and towers will be getting ever more expensive, even if there can be some savings from new designs and materials.

It would be better to do away with them altogether, and here’s yet another reason why:-

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2199437/germany-delays-windfarm-because-its-not-fit-for-porpoise-yet

You are correct that dispatchable energy sometimes has higher value than does power from a non-controllable variable source, but we aren’t at that point on any of the US grids yet.

We are many years from the point at which we will need to add storage and/or backup generation in order to utilize variable input generation. We already have sufficient dispatchable generation and storage to allow our grids to become 25% (Eastern grid) to 35% (Hawaiian grid) variable renewable. EVs on line will boost that percentage higher.

In fact, those 25% to 35% limits will be shoved upwards as coal is replaced with natural gas generation.

No it’s not. The effectiveness of ANY variable renewable energy source is determined by the dispatchability of the electricity it produces. QED. The harvesting ratio isn’t a key figure – it’s irrelevant. Try starting again, Jim.

It is grossly inefficient to generate electricity when you can’t use it.

If you want to harvest more energy, what about the wave power that you have ignored?

“invest in more innovative methods for making and installing the towers and the foundations that support them.”

How about investing in sensible innovative designs that have NO towers OR foundations? How about putting your undoubted talents to work to design systems that supply electricity when there is a market demand for it?

“The use of guyed towers is just the first step for the industry to take. The second step would be to make towers in composite materials.”

Wrong steps in the wrong directions. Jim Platt – look at what the industry is already doing on floating off-shore wind and TRY to THINK ahead of them. That’s the way to go.