Re: OT No more wind farms on land.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:36:28 +0100, Tim Streater
<timstreater@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

He's supporting my comment that there are many periods lasting days when
wind produces bugger-all.

And both he and you missed this ...

HINT: It's not a question of either wind or nuclear, and nothing
else.

....

But you haven't said anything, that's the trouble. You haven't explained
how we can support the existing population using unreliable and
intermittent sources of energy.

In a previous reply when challenged by Tony Sayer, I gave a scenario
for doing this, which is more than any of the pro-nuclear lobby here
have bothered to do.

And, en plus, support that population *in the manner to which it has
become accustomed* - without riots, that is. Hmmm, we could rerun WW2 I
suppose.

Our being accustomed to something now does not imply that it can be
sustained indefinitely into the future. Things change, and it is
obvious to anyone who gives the matter a moment's thought that we can
not guarantee to our children the cheap-energy lifestyle that our
generation have enjoyed. In refusing to acknowledge that, you are
deluding yourself. I'm not particularly concerned about you deluding
yourself, but I am concerned that you may be deluding others when you
try to maintain the delusion by restating it ad nauseam unsupported by
scientific references or numerical reasoning.

Pity TNP doesn't populate this ng;)...

It's no great loss. In reading most of the original thread in
uk.d-i-y again, it's clear that throughout most of it he peddled
unsupported assertions as though they were facts, and when called to
account over this many, many times, ended up being abusive, to the
extent that in the end I plonked him.

If the pro-nuclear lobby in this and other ngs want to convince other
sceptical people that their views are right, they need to:

+ Use rational arguments supported by credible references, and,
where appropriate, numerical calculations to show feasability.

Just like you do, you mean? Well, get on with it then.

If you look back at the previous threads on this topic, you will
certainly find more supporting references and numerical calculations
from myself than all the pro-nuclear lobby put together.

Except that nuclear doesn't involve "vast quantities", certainly not in
comparison to the amount of oil we import.

This is quite an old document now, but it was the best and most
relevant I could find:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39568.pdf

"4.02 Today around 90% of the UK?s energy needs are met by oil, gas
and coal. Renewables and other low carbon technologies will play an
increasing role in our energy mix over the longer term; however,
fossil fuels will continue to be the predominant source of energy for
decades to come. In fact, global fossil fuel resources are still
plentiful, and markets are well-developed to deal with increased
trade. By 2020, fossil fuels are expected to still supply the great
majority of UK energy needs (see Figure 4.1).

4.03 While the UK has benefited from indigenous reserves of oil and
gas for many years, as the North Sea matures, we will become
increasingly dependent on imported energy. By 2010, gas imports could
be meeting up to a third or more of the UK?s total annual gas demand,
potentially rising to around 80% by 2020 on the basis of existing
policies. The UK is also already a net importer of oil, and by 2020
imports could be meeting up to around 75% of the UK?s coal demand."

I've shown, giving links in previous posts, that currently we don't
*NEED* to import any oil, gas, or coal at all because we still have
many years supply waiting to be extracted here. Until recently, we
have *CHOSEN* to import what originally were relatively small
percentages, because it has been cheaper to do that than extract our
own. Unless market conditions change significantly, this imported
proportion will continue to rise significantly, but the fact still
remains that we still have our own sizable reserves of all three, and
while we are importing we are de ipso facto conserving these reserves
against bad times.

And, further, I'd rather
import uranium from Oz than oil from our current suppliers, if you're
talking about security of supply of raw material.

But, as the figures in the above reference above show, nuclear energy
currently contributes only 3% of the total. Further, again as
previously linked, its cost-effectiveness is currently borderline, to
the extent that bidders for new nuclear plants are getting cold feet,
and trying to persuade the UK government to underwrite costs, to
subsidise it in fact. It is utter madness to think it can ever be a
cost-effective alternative for the vast majority of UK electrical
energy needs, let alone total energy needs.

Is the nuclear scenario perfect and satisfactory in every way? No, but
it would be in most of them. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for you to
put forward a *viable* alternative to the nuclear scenario.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • OhTee: Clinton Offers Relief for Record Gas Prices
    ... Hillary Clinton will visit a gas station in Pittsburgh to discuss her ... "I think it's time we kicked the oil men out of the White House. ... Unfortunately, despite a lot of talk about clean energy, Senator Obama ... Hillary would give oil companies a choice: invest ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Hillary Offers Relief For Gas Prices --- Kick The Greedy Republican Oilmen Out Of Office
    ... Hillary Clinton will visit a gas station in Pittsburgh to discuss her ... "I think it's time we kicked the oil men out of the White House. ... Unfortunately, despite a lot of talk about clean energy, Senator Obama ... Hillary would give oil companies a choice: invest ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Energy Supply and Demand: By the Numbers
    ... America's Energy Supply and Demand ... GAS PRICES ... OIL DEPENDENCE ... double the profit for the same quarter of the previous year. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration
    ... I guess I simply do not understand how any one of them could on one hand complain about the cost of gasoline and our dependence on foriegn sources of oil and then turn right around and prevent the United States from exploiting the known oil we do have. ... open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. ... With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 ... "Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: Ethanol Rant
    ... Suv's are not responsible for anything including high gas prices. ... and green policy is responsible for sky rocketing energy cost's and if you ... I need a small Suv. ... to get to oil previously unreachable. ...
    (rec.music.makers.percussion)