On 09/06/13 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

Rather ask why they don't save fossil fuel anyway, if that is what they
are supposed to do.

Show me ONE study based on DATA rather than models, that shows ANY
reduction in fossil fuels associated with high deployment on
intermittent renewable energy.

I've looked everywhere for 4 years and not found a single one.

Plenty of people CLAIM that it does ..but when examined closely, its
just claims. No one has ever measured it.

Such evidence as exists shows that massive deployment of wind and solar
in Germany and Denmark has haf little measurable impact on fossil use.
But thet evidence is abundantly clear that nuclear power makes a massive
difference to fossil fuel burn at substantially lower cost per unit fuel
saved.


There might be any number of arguments about the impact of consuming
them. But the only fundamental reason to save them is to allow their
deferred use. And that would surely only be necessary if the
renewables you go on about do not work at the levels required.

(I realise that not exploiting tar sands, or whatever, might reduce
some damage done by their exploitation. But that is not an issue of
"saving".)



--
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.