In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
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

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'

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

... and none likely.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Dex wrote:
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.

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.

You have to realise that nuclear is worth it at *any* cost - and
preferably using designs that are as yet unproved. The cost of electricity
to the consumer from them simply doesn't matter.

Cheaper than wind farms.
--
bert

In article , Brian Gaff
writes
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve this.
The economy of scale etc.
No market forces would kill off solar as a wasted investment.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology is not
being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years without any
fuel, I mean...
Brian


--
bert

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 09:36:57 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 07:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system€˜s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc.
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Harry is a real ostrich isn't he?

That basic fact that a solar panel doesn't make enough electricity to
construct its replacement is just brushed aside.

Not renewable, not sustainable, not actually overall producing any
energy at all.

Hey harry, if the wind and sun are free, how much is God charging for
Uranium these days?


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

No you're the ostrich.
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-h.../pvpayback.htm

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that systems efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

Usual drivel.
This matter has been considered years ago.
http://www.heetma.org/2015/04/embodi...oltaic-panels/

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.


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


Do you like making things up?

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.

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.


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



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.



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.

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.



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.

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

Standard green 'ies and fact twisting

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?

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


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.





--
"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

On 25/05/16 23:26, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes

We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.
We do not "need " any renewables. We can have a 24/7 energy supply with
nukes.
--
bert

Exactly.

With the exception of hydro, 'renewables are expensive, and make almost
no contribution to carbon emission reduction - not that that's a problem
anyway.

Its all about power, politics and profits.

And harry is either a 'useful idiot' or a profiteering SPIV.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 25/05/16 23:31, bert wrote:
EDF have got cold feet and are probably prying for Brexit as an excuse
to cop out. We should build to the latest proven design in the first
instance.
EDF have a not very good design thats over complicated. I used to like
the look of CANDU, but I thunk they are not even in the frame these days.

a good ole pot of boiling water is ok tho. ABWR.


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

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.




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.

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


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.

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.




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.

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 23:26, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes

We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.
We do not "need " any renewables. We can have a 24/7 energy supply with
nukes.
--
bert

Exactly.

With the exception of hydro, 'renewables are expensive, and make almost
no contribution to carbon emission reduction - not that that's a problem
anyway.

Its all about power, politics and profits.

And harry is either a 'useful idiot' or a profiteering SPIV.

I suspect the construction costs of hydro are not minimal

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

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.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 26/05/16 11:38, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 23:26, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes

We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.
We do not "need " any renewables. We can have a 24/7 energy supply with
nukes.
--
bert

Exactly.

With the exception of hydro, 'renewables are expensive, and make almost
no contribution to carbon emission reduction - not that that's a problem
anyway.

Its all about power, politics and profits.

And harry is either a 'useful idiot' or a profiteering SPIV.

I suspect the construction costs of hydro are not minimal

No, but then neither is the power output. IN Ontario which (used to be)
hydro and nuclear alone, they reckoned on about 2c/unit levelised cost.
Of course now they have 'gone green' its several times that.

Hydro is a 100 year plus payback investment.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 26/05/2016 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 11:11, Dex wrote:


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

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



Personal insults? Is that the only way for you to try and win? What a
sad person you are.

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.

On 26/05/16 11:53, Dex wrote:
On 26/05/2016 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 11:11, Dex wrote:


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

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



Personal insults? Is that the only way for you to try and win? What a
sad person you are.
No insult. Just factual description.
Is that the only way for you to try and win?
What a sad person you are.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 26/05/16 11:57, Dex wrote:
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.

Oh dear.you don't run powerstations on weapons grade uranium. More
clueless ****ism.

Due to the MASSIVE energy density of uranium, even AFTER the processing
and manufacture of fuel rods, the fuel itself is less than 16% of the
total cost of EDFs nuclear electricity which wholesales at around 0.04c
a kWh.




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.


All in that less than one penny a unit price.

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

Oh dear oh dear,. Whose been reading Greenpeace and the Guardian again.

The old 'tax rebate' chestnut!

ROFLMAO.






--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 25/05/2016 23:31, bert wrote:
In article , Dex writes
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.

That is less than the latest contract for off-shore wind.

Which will cost £2.5 billion to build. EDF have already pored £2 billion
of taxpayers money into Hinkley Point.


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.

EDF have got cold feet and are probably prying for Brexit as an excuse
to cop out. We should build to the latest proven design in the first
instance.

The only one with cold feet was the finance director, he quit.

On 26/05/16 12:09, Dex wrote:
On 25/05/2016 23:31, bert wrote:
In article , Dex writes
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.

That is less than the latest contract for off-shore wind.

Which will cost £2.5 billion to build. EDF have already pored £2 billion
of taxpayers money into Hinkley Point.


You really are a card! That's because the offshore wind will on average
produce less than a stale fart in comparison.


Every line you post is a weaqsel? Pure ****ism!


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.

EDF have got cold feet and are probably prying for Brexit as an excuse
to cop out. We should build to the latest proven design in the first
instance.

The only one with cold feet was the finance director, he quit.

Maybe his wife has cancer. Maybe he is having an affair with his secretary.

More ****ism on every line.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 25/05/2016 08:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:32:00 -0700, tabbypurr 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.


NT

Which is probably the rarest.


I have solar thermal.
It does work in the summer, not so well in winter even with vacuum tube
panels.

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.

It does.
It reduces the energy input from the grid by a significant amount.
It can return more energy than needed to make and install it unlike
solar PV.

On 26/05/16 20:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/05/2016 08:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:32:00 -0700, tabbypurr 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.


NT

Which is probably the rarest.


I have solar thermal.
It does work in the summer, not so well in winter even with vacuum tube
panels.
If you want to say £50 a year at a cost of £5000 capital, be my guest.

Frankly you get better returns in a traded fund.


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 26/05/16 20:08, dennis@home 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.

It does.
It reduces the energy input from the grid by a significant amount.
It can return more energy than needed to make and install it unlike
solar PV.


WEll no, not really.

I know someone who paid a few thousand too have it installed, and the
savings are pathetic

People say 'I don't need to use the immersion heater in summer' not
realising how cheap a few hundred litres of hot water actually are.

Winter solar gain with triple glazed picture windows facing south helps
reduce heating bills in northern climates, but triple glazed picture
windows are effin expensive





--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 26/05/2016 11:57, Dex wrote:


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.

That is just plain untrue. There is lots of comparisons which are end to
end costs.



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

There is enough mined uranium and processed fuel to keep britain in
electricity for many decades.


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.

Virtually all solar and wind is coming from taxes in the form of the
renewable levi on electricity.

In article , Dex writes
On 25/05/2016 23:31, bert wrote:
In article , Dex writes
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.

That is less than the latest contract for off-shore wind.

Which will cost £2.5 billion to build.
So why is it necessary to pay such a high price for the output?
EDF have already pored £2 billion of taxpayers money into Hinkley
Point.


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.

EDF have got cold feet and are probably prying for Brexit as an excuse
to cop out. We should build to the latest proven design in the first
instance.

The only one with cold feet was the finance director, he quit.
So you think it will go ahead.
--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 23:26, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes

We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.
We do not "need " any renewables. We can have a 24/7 energy supply with
nukes.
--
bert

Exactly.

With the exception of hydro, 'renewables are expensive, and make almost
no contribution to carbon emission reduction - not that that's a problem
anyway.

Its all about power, politics and profits.

And harry is either a 'useful idiot' or a profiteering SPIV.

I suspect the construction costs of hydro are not minimal

It's lifetime cost v output that matters.
--
bert

On 26/05/2016 20:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 20:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/05/2016 08:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:32:00 -0700, tabbypurr 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.


NT

Which is probably the rarest.


I have solar thermal.
It does work in the summer, not so well in winter even with vacuum tube
panels.
If you want to say £50 a year at a cost of £5000 capital, be my guest.


It didn't cost £5000 and the RHI just about covers the cost.
It also means I get a tiny bit of harry's cash and yours, so that should
pee you both off.

On 27/05/2016 14:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 26/05/2016 20:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 20:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/05/2016 08:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:32:00 -0700, tabbypurr 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.

Which is probably the rarest.

I have solar thermal. It does work in the summer, not so well in
winter even with vacuum tube panels. If you want to say £50 a
year at a cost of £5000 capital, be my guest.

It didn't cost £5000 and the RHI just about covers the cost. It also
means I get a tiny bit of harry's cash and yours, so that should pee
you both off.

You mean you're another FIT crook like harry?


No RHI.
Its a much smaller scale and only lasts for 7 years, just enough to pay
for the kit.
It doesn't need spinning backup either so that has saved you some cash.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 21:33:04 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put
into the system once constructed

The whole point of the article was that you can't ignore that bit. If
when you include that construction cost you end up with a net energy
sink then the whole enterprise is worse than useless.

to be converted to (say
electricity) Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

But can't be collected "for free".

Can't be made dispatchable "for free"

No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No CO2 emitted.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No transport costs.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No clear up cost
For the fossil fuel mining ****-fer-brains'

What you leave the place covered with dead solar panels?

for mining etc. No health costs

What about the disposal of toxic materials in the EOL equipment?

During operation ****-fer-brains.

to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from
us/cut off.

Unless the earth were to rotate on its axis... oh hang on a mo?

And it predictably doesn't stop rotating


No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).

And all worthless if the net energy generated is less than zero!

Brain dead as usual I see. See my other post.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:27:52 UTC+1, Dex wrote:
On 25/05/2016 08:18, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost has not
fallen further by now with the greater number being made and sold. One might
expect this to have happened by now.
Brian


Tories cut funding by 65% last year while doubling that of nuclear
research and development.

Yet we still can't have nuclear reactors at Hinkley.
Funny that.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:06:22 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve this.
The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology is not
being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years without any
fuel, I mean...
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dex" wrote in message ...
On 25/05/2016 08:18, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, yes, its not a secret though, and I oftne wonderd why the cost has
not
fallen further by now with the greater number being made and sold. One
might
expect this to have happened by now.
Brian


Tories cut funding by 65% last year while doubling that of nuclear
research and development.



Because it would not be cheap. Or safe.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:40:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 16:06, Brian Gaff wrote:
But according to the tories market forces should be able to achieve this.
The economy of scale etc.
Watching that programme last night on the nuclear submarine and their
reactors on Yesterday, I simply do not understand why this technology is not
being deployed around the world to make cheap leccy. 33 years without any
fuel, I mean...

Because it threatened Big Oil, and now it threatens Big Green, and Big
Gas and because it was linked to nuclear weapons, so the Russkies poured
billions into anti-nuclear propaganda and all the hippy tree huggers
without a science degree to their name swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Brian



--

Degrees in science and lies.
Nuclear has proved to be total humbug.

On 28/05/2016 07:30, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 21:33:04 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put
into the system once constructed

The whole point of the article was that you can't ignore that bit. If
when you include that construction cost you end up with a net energy
sink then the whole enterprise is worse than useless.

to be converted to (say
electricity) Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

But can't be collected "for free".

Can't be made dispatchable "for free"

No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No CO2 emitted.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No transport costs.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No clear up cost

For the fossil fuel mining ****-fer-brains'

Where do you think the energy comes from to manufacture your Chinese
panels then?

Where do you think you get the titanium dioxide, the boron, and
phosphorus from?

Where do you think the energy comes from to dispose of your panels, and
associated electronics then?

What you leave the place covered with dead solar panels?

for mining etc. No health costs

What about the disposal of toxic materials in the EOL equipment?

During operation ****-fer-brains.

So the general thrust of you argument seems to be if we ignore all the
inconvenient embedded energy and material costs, then they are a really
good idea?

I can see how that would appeal to the simple minded.

to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from
us/cut off.

Unless the earth were to rotate on its axis... oh hang on a mo?

And it predictably doesn't stop rotating

So you mean they are predictably useless for at least half a day every day?

No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).

And all worthless if the net energy generated is less than zero!

Brain dead as usual I see. See my other post.

Why would I even want to see your other post? You make it sound like it
might contain some useful information, or be a credible source of
information! Yet based on your track record of posting a constant stream
of unscientific drivel, half truths, and folk law, its seems fairly
likely its more of the same wank.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 16:30:07 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/05/2016 07:30, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 21:33:04 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 07:31, harry wrote:

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put
into the system once constructed

The whole point of the article was that you can't ignore that bit. If
when you include that construction cost you end up with a net energy
sink then the whole enterprise is worse than useless.

to be converted to (say
electricity) Eg solar power. Arrives for free.

But can't be collected "for free".

Can't be made dispatchable "for free"

No pollution cost in extracting it or converting it.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No CO2 emitted.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No transport costs.

Only if you ignore the energy cost rolling it out in the first place.

No clear up cost

For the fossil fuel mining ****-fer-brains'

Where do you think the energy comes from to manufacture your Chinese
panels then?

Where do you think you get the titanium dioxide, the boron, and
phosphorus from?

Where do you think the energy comes from to dispose of your panels, and
associated electronics then?

What you leave the place covered with dead solar panels?

for mining etc. No health costs

What about the disposal of toxic materials in the EOL equipment?

During operation ****-fer-brains.

So the general thrust of you argument seems to be if we ignore all the
inconvenient embedded energy and material costs, then they are a really
good idea?

I can see how that would appeal to the simple minded.

to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be taken from
us/cut off.

Unless the earth were to rotate on its axis... oh hang on a mo?

And it predictably doesn't stop rotating

So you mean they are predictably useless for at least half a day every day?

No maintence costs (apart from a light dusting).

And all worthless if the net energy generated is less than zero!

Brain dead as usual I see. See my other post.

Why would I even want to see your other post? You make it sound like it
might contain some useful information, or be a credible source of
information! Yet based on your track record of posting a constant stream
of unscientific drivel, half truths, and folk law, its seems fairly
likely its more of the same wank.


You really are brain dead aren't you?

http://sunlightsolar.com/studies-sho...-in-1-3-years/

http://www.heetma.org/2015/04/embodi...oltaic-panels/

On 26/05/2016 11:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/16 11:38, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 23:26, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes

We need all form of renewable energy.
Especially tidal as things stand.
We do not "need " any renewables. We can have a 24/7 energy supply with
nukes.
--
bert

Exactly.

With the exception of hydro, 'renewables are expensive, and make almost
no contribution to carbon emission reduction - not that that's a problem
anyway.

Its all about power, politics and profits.

And harry is either a 'useful idiot' or a profiteering SPIV.

I suspect the construction costs of hydro are not minimal

No, but then neither is the power output. IN Ontario which (used to be)
hydro and nuclear alone, they reckoned on about 2c/unit levelised cost.
Of course now they have 'gone green' its several times that.

Hydro is a 100 year plus payback investment.

and lets not forget that for all their "green" credentials, hydro dam
failures have resulted in quite spectacular loss of life in the past...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

and lets not forget that for all their "green" credentials, hydro dam
failures have resulted in quite spectacular loss of life in the past...

There's a lot of people nervously watching the Mosul Dam in Iraq. Built
on the geological equivalent of Swiss cheese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Instability_and_remediation

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

Dex wrote:

EDF are demanding £92.50/MWh

Maybe EDF should subsidise Hinkley Point by selling more of the "zingy"
toys, people seem dumb enough to pay up to £40 for them ...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_mPrRngCbx=1&_fspt=1&rmvSB=true&LH_Complete =1&LH_Sold=1&_sop=16&_nkw=zingy%20edf