On 16/12/12 02:07, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:12:22 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:


... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/

We've got the wind here but not the solar...

Don't you just love statements like "could" provide....?

By 2030 these proponents will likely have retired or gone on to
propose other far-fetchèd possibilities, no doubt publically funded
too.

The name of the game is to provide a plausible excuse to the
addle-brained politician to keep funding these ridiculous white
elephants, and give the Faithful something 'academic' and 'peer
reviewed' (by another fully paid up renewable 'scientist') so that
Greenpeace and FOE, and any other Luddites of the Left- also full paid
up and in the pocket of the big businesses - can carry on lobbying for
things that simply don't work.

"You mission, should you choose to accept it, is to produce a document
that shows how we *could* have an almost entirely renewable grid by
2030: Any assumptions you need to make about science, technology, the
laws of physics and the availability of infinite supplies of money,
advances in technology beyond your wildest dreams, and the existence of
a world government capable of stabilising most of the planet to achieve
geographical diversity, should be made to produce a plausible document.
What matters is the headline"

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.