On 26/05/16 07:10, Dex wrote:
On 25/05/2016 12:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 11:10, Dex wrote:
On 25/05/2016 09:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 08:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:20:01 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We need all form of renewable energy.

the only one that actually delivers real benefit afaik is solar
thermal.

No, even that do9esmn't.
The only renewable energy that anything like works is water up a hill -
hydroelectricity. Thats because a reservoirs ois a storage devicve.

Biomass works, becaus enio9mass is a storage decice.

energy that is generated by intermittent sources with no storage is
almost completely useless.

And we dont need 'renewable' energy. WE have ten thousand years of
fertile and fissionable materials at least,


They've put the price at £18billion just to build Hinkley Point. EDF are
demanding £92.50/MWh, nearly twice what we pay now, which will be linked
to inflation during the construction period, as well as money from
French taxpayers.


Yep. Its amazing how much the eU and teh greens combined can add to teh
cost of a steel pot containing uranium full of boiling water

Not the EU, EDF, plus several other foreign firms. The European
Commission approved state aid for Hinkley Point, so when it does start
to supply electricity to your home remember to thank them.

The EU wont ever let it be built.


They haven't even began to pour concrete into the construction yet have
already shelled out over £2billion of taxpayers money and their Chief
Financial Officer has resigned.

Current estimation for completion (power generation) are in 2023.

and we haven't even started
on fusion.

Billions have already been spent on it worldwide, no worthwhile results
yet.

Depends on what you mean by 'worthwhile'

Energy production.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor has a cost of
$20billion and will never supply electricity. It is a "proof of concept"
project.

EU is going to pay around 45% of it.

http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/und...tribution.aspx


Trillions have already been spent on renewable energy worldwide, no
worthwhile results yet...


Not even close.

http://assets.carbonbrief.org/wp-con...sset-class.png



WTF has a graph without labels got to do with what we are talking about?

Did you think no one would click on the link?
Try this instead.

"The MTRMR main case forecast sees *annual* investment in new renewable
capacity to 2020 averaging around USD *230 billion annually*, lower than
the near USD 270 billion in 2014. This trend is driven mainly by slowing
capacity growth, but also by decreasing investment costs for the most
dynamic technologies. Onshore wind and solar PV comprise nearly
two-thirds of new investment.

https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTrenew2015sum.pdf


Do you like making things up?

Not half as much as you do.

The fact is trillions have been spent on renewable energy, and the
carbon intensity of electricity production has not changed one iota as a
result.

But a lot of people have got rich...and a whole lot more a bit poorer
due to higher energy costs.



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.