The thing about all three of the current top gear guys is that they are utter toss pots. And its not Clarkson that has make it work. Its the producer with some of the best editing and camera work in the industry.

This is already covered. Brakes fail, tires blow out, mechanical failures happen. They kill people. Its been something that has happened plenty and gone trough the courts many times. Precedent has been set.

Its a tide. Its 5m. For an average of 2.5m.

Pump storage can't be built everywhere. And the capacity needed is insane for a a 100% renewable grid.

But they need to be about 200C to work. This is not very good for domestic applications.

Actually its not. The TFA makes the same comparison so many do with solar. That is per watt installed. Which is total bullshit. That watt of installed power will only produce 1 watt, for about 30min on just one perfectly fine day in the summer, if its in space. I like to call them brochure watts. Since real installations are probably never ever going to get that claimed watt in any real life conditions.

The average power you get out of 1GW of solar panels is at best 32% of the peak (in practice it is quite a bit lower, like 25%), and only in summer. It is much lower in the winter months, and you will often need to "time shift" all that energy.

When someone says i can give you a working toyota gearbox, i would expect it to be well a working toyota gearbox i can fit into my toyota. If they said *model* or *scale replica* then perhaps i would expect the the toy they did make with the *help* of 3d printing. You do know that car enthusiast have and do make real gear boxes without jumping on the 3d printing bandwaggon.

These 3d printer nut jobs are going around saying things like "you will be able to just print that soon" and post articles like this. It gets tiresome. 3d printing is 20 years old and it can't even print the metal case to a iPhone (its forged to get the correct micro structure). It is useful for some parts and prototyping, but stop with "printed a real working gearbox" bullshit already.

Only Americans think that every issue can be summed up with partisan politics.

2.5 is not 1/20 of 100. And still the math is way way off. Your claiming you could run *all* of Britain with the lagoon claim, while my calculations match claims that papers have made and doesn't have lots of math mistakes.

And you think its going to sit there just working for 25 years without maintenance? And yea if there is just 1 crane in the world that can do what you need to do. Expect to pay a perimuim, and have very long lead times. don't forget the expensive underwater cables as well.

I approximated the bay as a triangle so its half the volume. 2.5m of height is 1000kg*g*h for a potental energy of 24500J per m3. That is far less than .272kWh. 1kWh is 3.6MJ. So you over estimated the potential energy of a m3 of water by a very large factor. Also where did 100 million come from?

Those numbers seem off. Lets assume you not cutting it off right out at the sea, but a bit closer in, for the simple reason that a dam 50km in length is well probably not going to work in the deeper areas, ecologically or economically. Closer however we can assume a triangle shape and lets be optimistic and assume 20km wide and somehow the greenies sign off on that (seriously ecologically this is a really hard sell). That 20km wide 20km long with a 5m head. This is very unrealistic, we are assuming we can empty and fill the lagoon instantly at peak head: 20kmx20km/2*5=1Billion m3. Potential energy with a 5m drop, rise x2 drop x2 is 1e11J. Or 27MWh per day. This is no where near 25% UKs power needs. Wiki claims average consumption of 840GWh per day.

Ships cost a bit to buy. But cost far more to run. Running costs is everything. A crew of 50, boom just salaries are costing a lot and charge out rates need to cover the costs when the ship is not in use, and for technical ships crews are typically larger, highly skilled and well paid. It would easily be 100k + per day and wouldn't take much to get it into the 1M per day.

It is based on a bit more than 2 things. Early elemental abundance, cosmic microwave background radiation, large scale structure or lack thereof... etc.

Or perhaps there mega stars theory is correct (whatever its called). It has more metal that expected. There are many things that could account for this. But early on massive stars may have been possible and would burn out very fast into huge supernovae, populating a very young universe with metals earlier than expected.