On 26/05/16 11:11, Dex wrote:
On 26/05/2016 09:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 08:38, Dex wrote:
On 26/05/2016 07:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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've given it the green light.




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?

Here is the full page

http://www.carbonbrief.org/seven-cha...ecords-in-2015






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*,

Only been that high for a few years and not 2020 yet, so far short of
the *trillions* you said have been spend.

4 years at that level is easily one trillion.


One... you used the plural.

Oh dear, Is that the best you can do? that 2.5 trillion per decade, and
renewables have been having money poured into them for two decades

Germany's Energiewinde *alone* is reckoned to be over 28 billion per year

http://energytransition.de/2015/09/2...-energiewende/







Plus renewables contributed 22% to global generation of electricity.
0.000% from fusion.



That is 90% hydroelectricity. And a bit of waste burning. None of which
reprsenets significant recent investment.


Renewables supplied 10% of global electricity, excluding large hydro.


So you admit you are being economical with the truth there then


Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance/UNEP Global Trends in Renewable
Energy Investment 2016.



Solar and wind, which have recieved all the recent 'investment',
contributed the square root of sweet fanny adamnms.

Standard green 'ies and fact twisting

Kettle, pot, black

Nope.


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.

Because according to some China are building one coal-fired power
station a week.


Why? When renewable is so ****ing good?

Cheap and easy to build. Plus they don't give a f*ck about their people.

Just like the EU then...except we dont even get power stations that work.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/wo...hs-a-year.html




Of course your statement betrays the fact that you haven't a clue what
'carbon intensity' is...

How many tonnes of CO2 are emitted for each unit of energy supplied...

Global. China went from 3 billion to 9 billion tonnes in a decade.

Per megawatt hour?

You really haven't a clue. Go back and play in the sandpit,.






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


Like the £92.50/MWh EDF will be getting? That is just one of many
nuclear power stations you want built.

That's less than half what solar gets...and less than I have to pay for
electricity.


You pay the same for it if it comes from solar or coal, the taxpayer
foots the rest.


NO, *I* foot the rest. *My* bills go up to pay for *YOUR* solar panels.

What a clueless **** you really are...


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal