• xkcd: Sea Level

    From Lynn McGuire@lynnmcguire5@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.comics.strips on Sat Aug 30 14:19:08 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    xkcd: Sea Level
    https://xkcd.com/3135/

    Yup, constantly changing with enormous energies expended.

    Explained at:
    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3135:_Sea_Level

    Lynn

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Christian Weisgerber@naddy@mips.inka.de to rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.comics.strips on Sat Aug 30 21:49:48 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 2025-08-30, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

    xkcd: Sea Level
    https://xkcd.com/3135/

    Yup, constantly changing with enormous energies expended.

    Somewhat related: Larry Niven, "There Is a Tide".

    (Jurer Ybhvf Jh ernyvmrf gung gvqrf ba n zbbayrff cynarg zrna gung
    gur guvat va beovg gung rirelobql nffhzrq gb or na napvrag fgnfvf
    svryq shyy bs Fynire gernfher vf ab fhpu guvat, naq lbh qba'g jnag
    gb trg pybfr gb vg.)

    The previous one...

    Wavefunction Collapse
    https://xkcd.com/3134/

    ... directly ties in with Greg Egan's _Quarantine_.

    (Jurer gur fbyne flfgrz unf orra ybpxrq vagb na negvsvpvny rirag
    ubevmba ol fbzr cbjreshy nyvra ragvgl orpnhfr jura uhznaf ybbx ng
    guvatf, yvxr gur fgnef, jr pbyyncfr gur jnir shapgvba, rssrpgviryl
    qrfgeblvat gur pbfzbf. Bbcf.)
    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From scott@scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) to rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.comics.strips on Sun Aug 31 14:35:18 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
    xkcd: Sea Level
    https://xkcd.com/3135/

    Yup, constantly changing with enormous energies expended.

    Approximately 3TW.

    Unfortunatly, uniformly distributed across the planet,
    which means it would be difficult to capture that energy
    and convert it to something useful (e.g. electricity).

    The "Capacity Factor" for capturing that energy is
    about 24% (tidal power can only be captured half
    the time). Cost is approximately $9 per average
    watt, about the same as Nuclear.

    It is a niche player, and always will be.

    (source: section 16.2, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=182)

    Later on in the chapter:
    "The foregoing text already worked out that P/l for these wave pa-
    rameters is 3,750 W/m. Now we just need to multiply by a coastline
    length. The Pacific coast of the U.S. is approximately 2,000 km long.
    Multiplying 3,750 W/m by 2,000,000 m yields 7.5 GW.
    Getting 7.5 GW on the Pacific coast, and maybe a similar amount on the
    Atlantic coast for a total of 15 GW is nothing to sneeze at. But consider
    that the U.S. electricity demand is about 450 GW, and various alternatives
    already top the upper limit of wave potential, as shown in Table 16.3.27

    Note that wind and solar are growing
    year by year, so their ultimate numbers will
    be significantly higher, still.

    Also, to get 15 GW from waves would require extracting all the wave
    energy from the U.S. coasts. Sorry surfers. Sorry marine life who depend
    on the waves for stirring nutrients and other functions a physicist can
    only guess. The point is that when a fully developed wave energy resource
    only provides a few percent of demand, while a promising thing like
    solar is already roughly matching it and has ample room to grow, we
    can be pretty confident that wave power will not become an important
    player.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Cryptoengineer@petertrei@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.comics.strips on Sun Aug 31 13:39:50 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    On 8/31/2025 10:35 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
    xkcd: Sea Level
    https://xkcd.com/3135/

    Yup, constantly changing with enormous energies expended.

    Approximately 3TW.

    Unfortunatly, uniformly distributed across the planet,
    which means it would be difficult to capture that energy
    and convert it to something useful (e.g. electricity).

    The "Capacity Factor" for capturing that energy is
    about 24% (tidal power can only be captured half
    the time). Cost is approximately $9 per average
    watt, about the same as Nuclear.

    It is a niche player, and always will be.

    (source: section 16.2, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=182)

    Later on in the chapter:
    "The foregoing text already worked out that P/l for these wave pa-
    rameters is 3,750 W/m. Now we just need to multiply by a coastline
    length. The Pacific coast of the U.S. is approximately 2,000 km long.
    Multiplying 3,750 W/m by 2,000,000 m yields 7.5 GW.
    Getting 7.5 GW on the Pacific coast, and maybe a similar amount on the
    Atlantic coast for a total of 15 GW is nothing to sneeze at. But consider
    that the U.S. electricity demand is about 450 GW, and various alternatives
    already top the upper limit of wave potential, as shown in Table 16.3.27

    Note that wind and solar are growing
    year by year, so their ultimate numbers will
    be significantly higher, still.

    Also, to get 15 GW from waves would require extracting all the wave
    energy from the U.S. coasts. Sorry surfers. Sorry marine life who depend
    on the waves for stirring nutrients and other functions a physicist can
    only guess. The point is that when a fully developed wave energy resource
    only provides a few percent of demand, while a promising thing like
    solar is already roughly matching it and has ample room to grow, we
    can be pretty confident that wave power will not become an important
    player.

    You seem to be confusing wave power and tidal power. The cartoon is
    about tides, as is Lynn's post.

    Tidal power is already a (very) small player in energy generation, but
    it is limited to coastal areas with favorable geographies. Tidal barrage
    system are most common at the moment, but tidal stream systems
    (essentially underwater windmills) are probably usable in more places.

    pt
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From scott@scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) to rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.comics.strips on Sun Aug 31 18:23:16 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

    Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
    On 8/31/2025 10:35 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
    xkcd: Sea Level
    https://xkcd.com/3135/

    Yup, constantly changing with enormous energies expended.

    Approximately 3TW.

    Unfortunatly, uniformly distributed across the planet,
    which means it would be difficult to capture that energy
    and convert it to something useful (e.g. electricity).

    The "Capacity Factor" for capturing that energy is
    about 24% (tidal power can only be captured half
    the time). Cost is approximately $9 per average

    You seem to be confusing wave power and tidal power. The cartoon is
    about tides, as is Lynn's post.

    I was responding to the "enormous energies expended", but as you
    note, wave and tidal are two different classes of generation.


    Tidal power is already a (very) small player in energy generation, but
    it is limited to coastal areas with favorable geographies. Tidal barrage >system are most common at the moment, but tidal stream systems
    (essentially underwater windmills) are probably usable in more places.

    Indeed. Also covered by Dr. Murphy, amounts to another niche player.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2