Re: Wind Turbines (to be built somewhere "relatively windles : Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:30 pm
knockersbumpMKII wrote:
no not convenient at all and was just one comparison, when you calculate the cost of wind energy being at least 12 times the price that still makes gas burning stations far far cheaper even over the next 20 years when the wholesale price of gas will go up without a doubt.
Obviously the point was to show that wind turbines aren't this manna, cost free bounty that the proponents are making it out to be.
If you're referring to the Russian/Ukraine issues of 06 & 09 then clearly that was a blot but unwisely investing in such massively costly & innefficient renewables is a ball & chain around the UK publics' neck pretty much forever.
Obviously the point was to show that wind turbines aren't this manna, cost free bounty that the proponents are making it out to be.
If you're referring to the Russian/Ukraine issues of 06 & 09 then clearly that was a blot but unwisely investing in such massively costly & innefficient renewables is a ball & chain around the UK publics' neck pretty much forever.
There's absolutely no point in arguing with clueless idiots like you, who have a very clear, luddite attitude.
Harnessing and distributing any new form of energy carrier has always been initially more expensive that what had previously prevailed. Coal was more expensive than wood, gas more expensive than coal and electricity more expensive than gas. Some of us are old enough to remember the promises of "free nuclear energy" and look just how "free" that turned out to be.
Unlike you, I have worked with companies who have suggested alternative energy carriers and have seen the novel (good and bad), proposals and improvements to existing carrier or transmission systems. We are only now processing oil sands and shale because the price of oil has increased to a point where it then becomes economically viable. Similarly with gas fracking.
The economic arguments against any alternatives such as PV or wind are invariably flawed, especially when there's talk of "subsidy". Anyone would think that there have been no subsidies applied to oil, natural gas or, worst of all, nuclear over the years, especially in their early development.
The reality is: we cannot continue to consume fossil fuels at the current rate. No gevernment has yet come clean over what the real cost of nuclear is. We have to continue to invest in alternative systems and that will take government subsidy to develop.
The Severn barrage has been opposed for many reasons and there are alternatives: I remember writing an article on a sub-sea array of tidal turbines that would have nothing like the ecological impact that a barrage would. The wind and PV decryers cite aesthetics, unfair subsidies, fictitious health problems etc without ever offering an alternative to the status quo, even though the status quo is patently not sustainable.
