On 26/05/2016 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 11:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dex wrote:

On 26/05/2016 09:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 08:38, Dex wrote:

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.

Do you mean 10% of electricity actually consumed? How many power
stations needed to be running on standby to cover the (frequent) times
when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow?

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.

What, 9 billion to produce one unit of electricity?

Do learn to post more carefully.

Its not lack of care, its lack of understanding. He is cutting and
pasting green crap he actually doesn't understand, and it shows.



Where as you just make stuff up and use personal insults.



One thing I've noticed from looking at these sources. The anti-green
brigade factor in the cost of manufacturing, transport and general
logistics of building renewable energy plants, yet totally ignore the
same when it comes to nuclear or coal plant costs.


Weapons grade uranium isn't exactly seeping from the ground in Cornwall.

It has to be mined, transported, refined, transported (with great cost
added for safety and security) again... Then used, the waste transported
(again at enormous cost due to safety and security) and buried in a
special place that must have cost a fortune to build... Don't get me
started on the decommissioning of the plant. Where every component that
shows any sign of radioactivity has to be handled with kid gloves.

Quite a sizeable chunk of this cost is coming from the taxpayer and
other tax avoiding schemes.