Coldest start to winter for over 30 years

[Robches]

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> Fossil and nuclear power plants do go offline for repairs and
> when there are faults, but are generally quite reliable.

Exactly, that's why they provide the baseline load. They are needed however many windmills are built, because they only provide electricity about 30% of the time.

> The real reason for nuclear power is to make isotopes for
> medical use and to make plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Not any more it isn't. Windscale was built to make plutonium for atomic bombs, but modern nuclear power is not used to make weapons grade material, it is purely about making electricity.

> I'm quite happy to pay a subsidy to finance sensible sources of
> energy like wind, wave or bio-power.

Good for you, but I'm not. The bottom line is the renewables obligation adds to the cost of electricity. It makes it harder for people to heat their homes. It will without doubt lead to more deaths in the cold weather in vulnerable groups such as the old. I don't want any part of that thanks.

> I take my hat off to people, usually farmers and people on
> industrial estates (in Europe) who have invested in wind power,
> not on a whim but because it makes money.

It's not a whim, it's a shakedown. The taxpayer is getting screwed to pay for these bastard windmills. The companies building them are pissing themselves at our expense.


> The Dutch plan to be able to power 100 K homes with wind
> turbines, better to think of it as something which takes up the
> slack, rather than something which sometimes doesn't work
> because it isn't windy.

There isn't any slack! That's the point. You have to build conventional power stations anyway, to provide the base load, because windmills will never do this. They only provide power 20 to 30% of the time, so they cannot be relied on. They are a complete waste of time and money, and money spent on them is money that can't be spent in other more useful ways.

[Robches]

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> Something which provides electricity 'only' 30% of the time is
> worth investing in.

Well it's not, that's the point. That's why it's only "worth" investing in because there is a huge subsidy which pays for it. Some of these windmills only provide power 7% of the time, 30% is the top they can achieve, which is really pathetic.


> Investing in new and I should add clean technology is worth
> paying a little extra for.

It's not a little, that's the problem, billions is being spunked away on this useless technology.

>If it wasn't energy efficient,
> nobody would be using wind turbines at all.

As I said, the only reason they are built is because of the subsidies. They are not efficient and are not a good use of resources.

[Robches]

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> So when fossil fuels become hard to come by, then it will be a
> simple of matter of using nuclear power, because that's all
> there will be, rather than hybridising a number of other energy
> sources. Even nuclear power will be a finite resource because
> the weapons grade plutonium available and natural uranium won't
> last.
>
>

Actually I think there is coal for several centuries, and in time I would hope we will get nuclear fusion. But the fact is that windmills just do not provide reliable electric power, and the only reason they are built is because electricity users are forced to pay big subsidies for them.

[JonnyHungwell]

They're still pushing the lie: Experts predict 2009 to be scorcher

I'll put money on the fact it won't be a scorcher in the UK.

Then they go on to say it'll be one of the coldest starts to the New Year in many a year - down to -10C in northern England

[jeffhaskeft]

bloody freezing today up here in yorkshire and foggy as hell
i recken we will have a wet summer in 0'9 yet again

[crofter]

I will also put money on it NOT being a fucking scorcher ... who will take my offer of 2/1 @?50,000.

All winnings to be be airmailed to me at:
Sandals Holidays Resort
Nassau
Bahamas

please mark it FAO Michael Fish.

tia.!cool!