Friday, July 18, 2008

once again, in case anyone missed it, both 'safe nuclear generation' and 'the hydrogen economy' suck goat cock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The nuclear bit.

The hydrogen bit.

12 comments:

  1. Supegrids

    http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2008/02/renewable-future.html

    and massive investment in renewable generation

    http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2007/11/like-we-didnt-already-know-that.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Forgive my laziness but he puts it much better than me:

    "The unreality of our energy policy is now such that the Government talks about building 10,000 giant turbines offshore - at a rate of more than two a day - when it knows that neither the technical nor practical resources exist to achieve more than a tiny fraction of that figure.

    Furthermore, as was recently admitted by Paul Golby, the chief executive of E.ON, one of our leading energy companies, even if we could build all those turbines, we would have to build dozens of conventional power stations to provide 90 per cent back-up for when the wind is not blowing. [Or when it blows too hard with which the turbines cannot cope - DD.]

    [...]

    I have spoken before of "the great wind scam", and how its only beneficiaries are the developers, who now make nearly twice as much money from the derisory amount of electricity their turbines produce as the companies that provide 99 per cent of our power by conventional means.

    For each megawatt of capacity, a windfarm developer gets on average £130,000 a year from selling his electricity to the grid, plus another £109,000 a year in subsidy paid by the rest of us in higher electricity bills under the Government's "renewable obligation" scheme."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2207.xml

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you aware that the term "renewable generation" covers more than one source of generation?

    Are you also aware that quoting the opinions of the director of E.ON hardly counts as evidence?

    Are you also aware that the article you linked to is straight from an acolyte of the "The Daily Mail School of Reactionary Drivel" and has little or no rational basis?

    If you have any reasonably objective evidence to support your position of Renewable Energy Nihilism (you are a REN, by the way) I will be happy to read it. There is oodles of such material linked to on this blog that demonstrates that a network of different renewable technologies, installed overcapacity, has the potential to power the continent, let alone the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am happy to sit at the feet of the master, you being clever and all that, so perhaps you could tell me whether the chairman of E.ON is correct, or not, when he tells us that because wind turbines only work when the wind is at certain levels, therefor, standby power stations will be needed to take up the work when the turbines stop. A 'Yes' or a 'No' will suffice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I provided you with two links to blog entries here which themselves contained links to websites explaining how renewable generation could power the continent without the need for base load supply.

    You obviously haven't read them so I see no reason to continue to engage with you if you refuse to do me the honour of following my arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I asked a specific question concerning wind turbines which you have avoided so I assume the answer is 'Yes'.

    I did follow your link, only to be faced with a brief post that said nothing substantive but containing a further NINE links. Life is too short, and at my age getting shorter by the minute, for me to plough my way round the web and anyway I am conversing with *you* and attempting to elicit *your* opinions. Apparently you have them but either you do not feel the necessity of substantiating them yourself, or you are unable to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you actually cared about the truth of the matter you would invest the time. At 'your age' I imagine you have little better to do. Ergo you do not care, leading me to conclude that you are commenting on this blog for reasons of pure malignancy, not for the purpose of elucidating the facts of the matter.

    Therefore, unless you comment on the material I linked to in an objective and informed fashion I will not indulge your mendacity further and will delete any further irrelevant comments.

    Good day, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't make a comment, I asked a straightforward question: Do wind turbines require stand-by power stations for the times when the wind is either too low or too high?

    It is not an unreasonable question to ask, and you having some knowledge of the subject should not find it difficult to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do not find it difficult to answer. Your continued insistence that I answer a clearly rhetorical question is condescending and offensive. I am not your personal energy consultant. A clearly reasoned rationale is laid out in the material I have linked to. Answering your question does nothing to broaden your understanding of the necessity to massively expand our renewable generation capacity and shut down fossil- and nuclear-fuelled power stations.

    Last chance: Do your own research and stay on topic or I will end this pointless little squabble. I have better things to put my mind to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I have better things to put my mind to."

    Yes, of course, I mean, you being "pretty clever" and all that, sorry to have disturbed you, I'll try not to make a noise as I leave.

    Anyway, I'll take it as a 'Yes'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apology accepted.

    Now fuck off.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.