From: spscott1@gmail.com
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:27:07 -0800 (PST), gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
>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.
Just because we can is not a good reason to do it.
"More than half (56%) of Scotland's pensioners are affected by fuel
poverty,
[...] As fuel poverty bites, it's up to politicians to take the lead: our
panel agreed that energy policy should be depoliticised and that
politicians should listen to expert opinion and be willing to take
unpopular decisions to achieve a secure energy source."
What the pensioners, shop keepers and industries need is stable , low cost
energy - that doesn't come from "renewables". The price paid to onshore
windmill owners is double and off-shore wind, three times the strike price
You and I could probably afford that but not the poor who have to choose
"eat or heat". I can afford it but 56% of Scots probably can't.
Renewables are an excellent way to transfer money from the poor to the
wealthy landowners. Deben, Yeo, Huhne are leading the charge and all have a
conflict of interests, not sure about Davie. Deben is involved with the
promotion of "smart meters" All that that achieves is that you fire the
meter reader and they can disconnect you 'leccie" remotely, no energy
savings!
Since the warming trend is flat for 18 years and no statistically
significant warming for 27 years, windmills are just a vanity/ money making
project that only impacts the poorest. Obscene...
And that is my objection to the whole boondoggle.
I hope that there will be howls of rage when the left finally realise that
they have been robbing the poor to pay the rich.
http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/scotland-energy-cri
is-next-without-nuclear
Scotland's energy crisis: where next without nuclear?
--
"Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the
foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand
and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off
fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is
almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
- James Hansen, 2011
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
