harry wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:03 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
Yes, it is expensive to build machines to gather renewable energy but
there is no fuel to buy thereafter.
Expensive to build and maintain, and they don't do much. In fact there
are periods when they do next to nothing, as the gridwatch site shows.
Lots of periods of several days when our 8-billyun wind investment,
rated at 4GW, produces less than 200MW. Gonna take a long time to cover
the carbon cost of manufacture, at that rate.

And we can see the economics of nuclear, the Germans have pulled out.
And TurNiP still hasn't explained how to deal with the nuclear waste.
That's not for *economic* reasons, harry, but *political* ones. And
there's not much to explain about the waste. You've obviously been
nodding off and missed it.

--
Oh? so why isn't it being dealt with?

Because nuclear energy means

- cheap energy - lower taxes
- carbon free energy - no more political fun to be had.
- an end to renewable energy - so an end to windmills, PBV panels, fat
research grants into carbon capture, alternative storage technologies
and a million other things that might JUST work on the planet zarg, and
look promising enough to fool people with no technical background into
giving them money... and a whole industry dedicated to lying about
energy for money. And an end to green jobs and Miriam clegg's company
and Camorons daddy in laws fat income stream.

So by endless prevarication, and lying about energy as usual, they can
keep their jobs and salaries and screw the ****ry(* some more.

* its called a ****ry because its suitable for endless screwing by a
bunch of dicks.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.