On 25/09/2019 00:34, newshound wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:38, Cynic wrote:
On 24/09/2019 19:11, harry wrote:
Â*Â*https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49804455
One interesting observation from the reports on the recent power cut was
just how much area the Hornsey windfarm covers. OK, it's around a GW so
quite a useful amount of generation. But what can we get if we cover the
North Sea and the Irish Sea with them?

Massive electricity costs?

I'm prepared to believe that offshore wind might get down towards
nuclear, even allowing for load factor, on the decades timescale.

Depndd how expensivce they choose to make nuclear BUT headline costs are
not the issue. UYou dont pay headline costs on your bills, you pay total
costs - grid upgrades to handle peak fluctuating loads, OCGT sets to act
as emergency backup on windless says, battery storage for the same
reasons...and top add grid stability..
Holistic cost of wind is about twice that of Hinkley


I'd
still go for fracking, myself, even with a carbon tax. I don't
personally hold much hope for swinging back to nuclear much before the
end of the century, although I would like to be proved wrong. All
depends on China really.

Oh they will have to swing back to nuclear - if civilisation is to
contiunue,. which it may not.

25% of EU nations electricity is nuclear?



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.