Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By the way predictability is irrelevant. We knwo the sun always goes
down at sunset and isn't there much in winter. That's predictable. It
doesn't mean that solar power is any the more useful as a result. We
still have to burn the coal in winter and at night to cover its
deficiencies.

By predictable renewables I was referring to tidal barrages. I
wouldn't rely on solar, even in midsummer, or wind on a windy day. If
the tides stop then we have more serious concerns than keeping the
lights on.

Supposedly in Oz they're planning these giant solar jobs (290MW each)
that use the heat to not only drive gennies but melt salt too. The salt
gets up to about 700C and during the night energy from it (down to 300C
or so) drives the gennies.

But then they have:

a) enough waste land (i.e. desert) to do that, relative to population
b) enough reliable sunshine

And a green brained PM.

Its MASSIVELY expensive. Look at the costs vis a vis nuclear - and they
HAVE the uranium, and the coastal strips are where the populations are -
not the flippin deserts! AND they could always stuff the waste back
where the uranium came from in the first place. In the middle of bugger
all where no one goes anyway.