On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:24:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I calcluated a lake the size of loch ness 1000 feet high could keep
britain going for a couple of weeks..

Cost would probably exceed cost of 20 nuclear power stations that could
keep Britain going indefinitely.

Well now, let's see ...

Let us assume that only our electrical energy needs to be stored, not
as originally stated by TNP all other forms of energy, and let's call
that 50GW. The cost of nuclear stations to supply that at the Hinkley
C price of £7bn/1.6MW = 50000 / 1.6 * 7 £bn or £218,750bn!

And far from keep Britain going indefinitely, they would run out of
fuel in 10-15 years, possibly sooner, given that the huge increase in
demand they would cause may have the knock-on effect of panic buying
and stockpiling by other countries eacy trying to ensure security of
its own supply.

Almost makes wind look viable by comparison ...

Renewable energy is just a cosmetic solution. Lipstick on an old whore's
face. It doesn't actually do anything useful at all.

No, you are conflating all forms of renewable energy into your
peculiar personal form of bigotry. Hydro has served us very well over
the years.

Its already twice the price of nuclear, and adding storage to make it
work doubles the price again

As previously shown, new nuclear is about the same price as onshore
wind.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html