In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
Bambleweeny57 writes:
[]
Yes, we already have backup capacity but its already "spoken for" by a
combination of variations in load and redundant capacity to cover for
maintenance and failure. Shaving a few points off that backup capacity
just increases the scope for large scale, systematic failure.
[]
If it never represents a significant percentage of the whole it's only
ever going to be a distraction from the real issue of how we cater for
our energy need for the next 50 years.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, on the earlier
area: I think a small amount is worth having, and because it _is_
such a smaller amount, the threat it poses to the stability of the
rest is small - it'll just mean the rest of the system will use
slightly less fuel for some of the time.


why should I subsidise a horse and cart, so that it is there if the car
breaks down?
[]
A better analogy would be, why should a distribution depot keep a
solar-charged van? There's no way (especially in this country!) such a
vehicle could replace the normal truck fleet, but equally, it's free for
what little it could do.

(Actually not a bad analogy [to wind power], in that setup costs are
significant; I happen to think that, with current costs [and
efficiencies] of solar cells, such a van _would_ be _totally_
uneconomic, whereas I think that - in certain limited circumstances -
wind power has a chance of being.)

Your horse has high maintenance costs. (The cart less so.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something.