home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   soc.culture.scottish      More than just Haggis & overt cheapness      99,776 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 97,818 of 99,776   
   Fred J. McCall to soupdragon   
   Re: Renewable energy overtakes nuclear a   
   29 Nov 14 16:06:35   
   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   soupdragon  wrote:   
      
   >gyansorova@gmail.com wrote in   
   >news:1d9ae924-ee7a-4825-ace5-3965bfc2d6c3@googlegroups.com:   
   >   
   >> On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:23:53 PM UTC+13, soupdragon wrote:   
   >>> Adam Whyte-Settlar  wrote in   
   >>> news:394b65dc-4968-4015-b828-b080fc3f6d04@googlegroups.com:   
   >>>   
   >>> >   
   >>> > Renewable energy in Scotland from wind farms, hydro power plants   
   >>> > and other clean technologies provided the single largest source of   
   >>> > electricity to the country for the first time, in the first half of   
   >>> > 2014, new industry figures will show on Thursday.   
   >>> >   
   >>> > Analysis by the trade body Scottish Renewables shows that   
   >>> > renewables produced nearly one third more power than nuclear, coal   
   >>> > or gas in the first six months of the year, generating a record   
   >>> > 10.4 terawatt hours (TWh) during the six-month period.   
   >>>   
   >>> Largely because two major power stations, one coal and one nuclear   
   >>> and both base load providers, were offline for routine maintenance   
   >>> and, as was pointed out on R Scotland by a professor in Strathclyde   
   >>> University's Dept of Electrical Eng, renewables still can't provide   
   >>> base load and will never be anything other than additional as storage   
   >>> is its not possible, with the exception of limited hydro, to store   
   >>> their energy. In response, a silly man from Scottish Renewables said   
   >>> they could store it in batteries, like those used in laptop   
   >>> computers. Really? The same professor suggested thorium reactors were   
   >>> a far more realistic route to securing energy needs long terms with   
   >>> the benefits of low carbon emmissions and low waste risks.   
   >>   
   >> I don't disagree - since I too am an EEE, but if you can get 20%-30%   
   >> off renewables then why not.   
   >>   
   >   
   >There's no reason why not, if it's cheap enough. Then it's a   
   >welcome bonus.   
   >   
      
   Except it's not usually really cheap enough, which is why it requires   
   government subsidies.   
      
   --   
   "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."   
                              -- Charles Pinckney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca