David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:15:07 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

None of the renewables can match the generating
cost of conventional or nuclear power

Proof by assertion. No references where we can see where you got
this assertion from.


no need. Its everywhere you look

If windmills and oter renewables wer so cheap why would they beed
massive tarrrifs and EO funding?


and, if you do a whole life study,
when nuclear still wins out on cost, wind farms generate a lot more CO2
per MWh than nuclear.

Ditto.


and ditto to yopu.

Widmills are danegrous ineffcieint expensive, use three times the copper
and steel to make and do absouiktely the square root of **** all to
alleviate global warming.

Apart fro needing massive grid upgrades everyweher yiu look.



The SD Commission had reports prepared on this
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=337. The best
it seems possible to say is that nuclear is about as carbon
intensive as onshore wind.

Since the early windfarms of ten years ago are only just beginning to
fall to pieces, its had to say, as the life expectancy is still 'up in
the air'

It seems 10-15 years as agaiinst 60+ for a nuke, so how on earth can you
calculate that? 4 windfarms at hree times the cost that womt even
replace one nuke..

Like everything coming out of the 'renewables' lobby, its all based on
false premises that are never allowed to be challenged.

Show e ONE study that CONCLUSIVELY proves that windpower has ever
reduced *overall* carbon emissions anywhere in the world.

The Danes say it didnt, the Germans say it didn't...