Re: Wind scam revealed

[Davey]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:47:56 +0100
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> Just a big con job.
>

I don't need to follow any links to know that.
--
Davey.

[The Natural Philosopher]

+1.

Just listen to harry.

One lie after another.

I think he is Chris Huhne and I claim my £5.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[harry]

On Jun 15, 10:47 pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> Just a big con job.
>

So what is the figure for nuclear power?

Not many people are needed to run a wind turbine, They run largely
unattended.

Why relate costs of a wind turbine to the amount of jobs created?
They are not labour intensive.
This is just drivel.

[Brian Gaff]

Yesterday was international Wind day apparently.
Whatever that might be..
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:timstreater-5BB3...@news.individual.net...

> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> Just a big con job.
>

> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
> imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

[Nthkentman]

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message news:kpjrgp$87v$1...@dont-email.me...

Yesterday was international Wind day apparently.
Whatever that might be..
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:timstreater-5BB3...@news.individual.net...
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> Just a big con job.

Well I did my bit for Britain.... Farted loads all day

[The Natural Philosopher]

On the contrary they are highly labour intensive. They need repairs
every few weeks. The mean time between failure of most turbines is 6
weeks or so. That may not be a crucial show stopper, but if the turbine
is not regularly maintained it can and will fail completely. Over their
lifetime the capacity factor of wind turbines falls from 'what the wind
is doing' to 'how many turbines are actually still capable of
functioning' and by the time they are 10 years old its gettng cheaper to
replace them rather than fix theme. At million quid a megawatt capacity.

And there are a lot OF them

I don't know what the operational staff of a nuke is, but it's one
plant that replaces 40,000 windmills. I'd guess at less than a hundred
to *keep it going*. They do run themselves. Of course if there is a
problem, and it goes into 'unplanned outage' the operational team simply
shuts it down, takes it off line and then the engineers arrive to
investigate it and fix it. That could be anything from replacing a pipe
that's leaking, to replacing an entire boiler assembly, or in the limit,
closing the entire plant forever if the cost of fixing it is beyond the
value of the thing. As hjas happened to all but one of the MAGNOX reactors.

Even with massive subsidies, many US windfarms are simply left to rot,
because the income left in them isn't worth the cost of fixing them.
They have never been decommissioned.The same applies to solar plant.

The fact is that renewable energy is high capital cost, high maintenance
cost, high energy cost in manufacture, low capacity factor and
unreliable capacity availability, that falls overtime as the kit wears
out..

I spent Christmas in the Århus area years ago,next to 10-12 big
turbines. Usually 3-4 were not turning.

Its not unusual to see similar on any windfarm whose turbines are 'out
of guarantee'

So you are as usual talking pure lies harry.

[Brian Gaff]

No you got it wrong, that contains greenhouse gasses, that will make things
worse. You need to adapt an enema kit so the gas goes into storage and then
you can use it to heat a foot warmer in the winter.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Nthkentman" <nthke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:EPKdnQHAYu906SDM...@bt.com...

[Martin Brown]

On 16/06/2013 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 16/06/13 07:09, harry wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 10:47 pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
>>>
>>> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>>>
>>> Just a big con job.
>>>
>>
>> So what is the figure for nuclear power?
>>
>> Not many people are needed to run a wind turbine, They run largely
>> unattended.
>>
>> Why relate costs of a wind turbine to the amount of jobs created?
>> They are not labour intensive.
>> This is just drivel.

> On the contrary they are highly labour intensive. They need repairs
> every few weeks. The mean time between failure of most turbines is 6
> weeks or so. That may not be a crucial show stopper, but if the turbine
> is not regularly maintained it can and will fail completely. Over their
> lifetime the capacity factor of wind turbines falls from 'what the wind
> is doing' to 'how many turbines are actually still capable of
> functioning' and by the time they are 10 years old its gettng cheaper to
> replace them rather than fix theme. At million quid a megawatt capacity.
>
> And there are a lot OF them

I regularly pass some particularly unreliable ones near Elwick on the
A19 where 2 out of 3 are frequently feathered and dead in the water.
Fairly good windy location as well with classic old windmills on some of
the hills nearby. It is not a lack of wind that is the problem.

The Samsung plant near Gateshead is the best maintained windfarm I have
ever seen manages to keep 9/10 working most of the time which is quite
impressive. Theirs were pre-owned and so possibly a good buy. They did
at one point result in the A19 being closed after one caught fire.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2005/12/24/The+North+East+Archive/7153299.Car_plant_windfarm_fire_forces_motorists_off_A19/

> I don't know what the operational staff of a nuke is, but it's one
> plant that replaces 40,000 windmills. I'd guess at less than a hundred
> to *keep it going*. They do run themselves. Of course if there is a
> problem, and it goes into 'unplanned outage' the operational team simply
> shuts it down, takes it off line and then the engineers arrive to
> investigate it and fix it. That could be anything from replacing a pipe
> that's leaking, to replacing an entire boiler assembly, or in the limit,
> closing the entire plant forever if the cost of fixing it is beyond the
> value of the thing. As hjas happened to all but one of the MAGNOX reactors.
>
> Even with massive subsidies, many US windfarms are simply left to rot,
> because the income left in them isn't worth the cost of fixing them.
> They have never been decommissioned.The same applies to solar plant.
>
> The fact is that renewable energy is high capital cost, high maintenance
> cost, high energy cost in manufacture, low capacity factor and
> unreliable capacity availability, that falls overtime as the kit wears
> out..
>
> I spent Christmas in the Århus area years ago,next to 10-12 big
> turbines. Usually 3-4 were not turning.
>
> Its not unusual to see similar on any windfarm whose turbines are 'out
> of guarantee'

Sadly I have to agree with you there.

> So you are as usual talking pure lies harry.
>

Is that so unusual?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[harry]

On Jun 16, 11:47 am, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

You make these stories up as you go along.
Arhus is the Danish wind turbine centre of technology where many new
designs are tested. So if some aren't running it's hardly surprising.

[harry]

On Jun 16, 1:47 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2005/12/24/The+North+East+Ar...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't know what the operational staff of a  nuke is, but it's one
> > plant that replaces 40,000 windmills. I'd guess  at less than a hundred
> > to *keep it going*. They do run themselves. Of course if there is a
> > problem, and it goes into 'unplanned outage' the operational team simply
> > shuts it down, takes it off line and then the engineers arrive to
> > investigate it and fix it. That could be anything from replacing a pipe
> > that's leaking, to replacing an entire boiler assembly, or in the limit,
> > closing the entire plant forever if the cost of fixing it is beyond the
> > value of the thing. As hjas happened to all but one of the MAGNOX reactors.
>
> > Even with massive subsidies, many US windfarms are simply left to rot,
> > because the income left in them isn't worth the cost of fixing them.
> > They have never been decommissioned.The same applies to solar plant.
>
> > The fact is that renewable energy is high capital cost, high maintenance
> > cost, high energy cost in manufacture, low capacity factor and
> > unreliable capacity availability, that falls overtime as the kit wears
> > out..
>
> > I spent Christmas in the Århus area years ago,next to 10-12 big
> > turbines. Usually 3-4 were not turning.
>
> > Its not unusual to see similar on any windfarm whose turbines are 'out
> > of guarantee'
>
> Sadly I have to agree with you there.
>
> > So you are as usual talking pure lies harry.
>
> Is that so unusual?

Conventional power stations catch fire.
Tilbury, Didcot and Kingsnorth most recently
Motor cars catch fire every day.

What's your point?
Why do you bring up these irrelevant things?

[harry]

Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/733548.stm

[The Natural Philosopher]

Weaselling up to usual standard.

These were not R&D machines harry, we werein a village 20 miles away,
and these were pure commercial turbines.

[Scott M]

harry wrote:
> Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/733548.stm

13 years ago.

And whilst being, and due to, being decommissioned.

Yep, you've convinced me.

Scott

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:47:58 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

> I regularly pass some particularly unreliable ones near Elwick on the
> A19 where 2 out of 3 are frequently feathered and dead in the water.

The ones on the M6 near Lambrigg normally have 2 of the 5 dead,
that's assuming any are going round at all, 2 out of 3 times I pass
'em they ain't 'cause there is no wind.

Was up near Tow Law the other week again several of them feathered.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:18:47 +0100, Scott M wrote:

>> Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/733548.stm
>
> 13 years ago.
>
> And whilst being, and due to, being decommissioned.

Story dated "2 May, 2000", text in story:

"Trawsfynydd was taken out of commission in 1993 with the last of the
spent fuel being removed from the site two years later."

So five years after the fuel was removed. Non-story if ever there was
one.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Steve Firth]

Fire caused by a welding torch. Presumably Harold Halfwit considers
Polesden Lacey and Windsor Castle fires to have been nuclear incidents.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Davey]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
harry <harry...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 1:47 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:

snip

> > Sadly I have to agree with you there.
> >
> > > So you are as usual talking pure lies harry.
> >
> > Is that so unusual?
>
> Conventional power stations catch fire.
> Tilbury, Didcot and Kingsnorth most recently
> Motor cars catch fire every day.
>
> What's your point?
> Why do you bring up these irrelevant things?
>

Good question. Why do you, harry?

"Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire."

--
Davey.

[harry]

On Jun 16, 4:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>

So they weren't in Arhus at all?
The story was a fabrication (as usual)

[polygonum]

On 17/06/2013 07:42, harry wrote:
> So they weren't in Arhus at all?
> The story was a fabrication (as usual)

Poster wrote "Århus area" - which, to my mind, could quite reasonably
include a village 20 miles away.

--
Rod

[news]

On 16/06/2013 16:27, harry wrote:
> Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/733548.stm
>

That's not a "Nuclear power station caught fire". Its a "demolition
site caught fire"

--
Chris

[John Williamson]

It *was* a Harry link.

For balance, would Harry like to link to any of the dozens of wind
turbine fires that have happened quite spontaneously while in service?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Martin Brown]

I prefer the brake failure explosive demolition ones myself. eg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

But there are plenty of nice spectacular fireworks ones too.
These are some of the most picturesque image...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ovHFTSBQ54

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Davey]

Didn't a judge recently allow turbines to be erected within less
distance of existing properties than the local council wanted? I would
be really worried after watching that first one.
--
Davey.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Big story last year 'French nuclear plant catches fire';

It turned out that a small fire in a reprocessing plant had happened,
nowhere near anything radioactive, and pretty much put out by a few men
with fire extinguishers. No one even got a blister

'chimney catches fire, two feared dead' is not international headline
news, however.

Its not hard to see who is pushing a corrupt biased agenda.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Look harry,. its up there [lain to see. Århus area. I never said I was in Århus, and in fact the reason for sayting Århus area was to make the point that it was simply an area of Jutland in the vicinity of Århus which was the nearest major town (if there is auch a thing in Demnanmark at all).

It is not my fault that you simply can't read or understand English. I
am not enough of a stupid socialist to think that your being a thick
cunt is my problem.

I am not lying, just because you didn't bother to read what I wrote.

Or are unable to understand the English language.

Every post you make shows you up to be a liar.

But keep at it. If more evidence that those that support renewable
energy and are anti-nuclear are a bunch of thick stupid liars were
needed, you are the best person to provide it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 17/06/13 09:16, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 17/06/2013 08:53, John Williamson wrote:
>> news wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2013 16:27, harry wrote:
>>>> Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire.
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/733548.stm
>>>>
>>> That's not a "Nuclear power station caught fire". Its a "demolition
>>> site caught fire"
>>>
>> It *was* a Harry link.
>>
>> For balance, would Harry like to link to any of the dozens of wind
>> turbine fires that have happened quite spontaneously while in service?
>
> I prefer the brake failure explosive demolition ones myself. eg.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o
>

You are a luddite NIMBY if you don't want one of *those* in your back
garden.

> But there are plenty of nice spectacular fireworks ones too.
> These are some of the most picturesque image...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ovHFTSBQ54
>

Look at all that CO2 being emitted!!

[The Natural Philosopher]

the range over which a lethal chunk of ice might be thrown by a turbine
blades is several hundred yards.
They are supposed to detect out of balance and icing. But then the are
supposed to detect overspeed and hot gearboxes, too.

Pity they are not subject to the same sort of industrial regulation that
- say - the nuclear industry is. Oh. But that would mean no one would
ever build one anywhere wouldn't it.

[Davey]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:49:24 +0100

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> They are supposed to detect out of balance and icing. But then they

> are supposed to detect overspeed and hot gearboxes, too.
>

Banks aren't supposed to go bankrupt, either.

> Pity they are not subject to the same sort of industrial regulation
> that - say - the nuclear industry is. Oh. But that would mean no one
> would ever build one anywhere wouldn't it.
>

Well, yes, why would anyone kill that goose, laying all those golden
eggs in Green Energy developers' bank accounts? The mere thought of it!
Meanwhile, we have to live with these gigantic monstrosities. Yes there
two huge ones not far from here:
http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/in-focus-new-wind-turbines-in-eye-1-4748001

They can be seen for miles. Thank you, Mid Suffolk District Council.
--
Davey.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yup. Town didnt want em. Tory country council overruled em.

And they wonder why UKIP polled about 30% in Suffolk.,

[Davey]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:09:30 +0100

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/06/13 11:59, Davey wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:49:24 +0100
> > The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >

snip

> >>
> >
> > Well, yes, why would anyone kill that goose, laying all those golden
> > eggs in Green Energy developers' bank accounts? The mere thought of
> > it! Meanwhile, we have to live with these gigantic monstrosities.
> > Yes there two huge ones not far from here:
> > http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/in-focus-new-wind-turbines-in-eye-1-4748001
> >
> > They can be seen for miles. Thank you, Mid Suffolk District Council.
> Yup. Town didnt want em. Tory country council overruled em.
>
> And they wonder why UKIP polled about 30% in Suffolk.,
>
>

I was close to voting UKIP, but the Conservatives were the only party
who even acknowledged our existence, so UKIP lost several votes in
this nearby village.
--
Davey.

[whisky-dave]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:18:49 AM UTC+1, Nthkentman wrote:
> "Brian Gaff" wrote in message news:kpjrgp$87v$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> Yesterday was international Wind day apparently.
>
> Whatever that might be..
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> --
>
> From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
>
> "Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timstreater-5BB3...@news.individual.net...
>

> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
>
> > Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> >
>
> > Just a big con job.
>
>
>
>
>

> Well I did my bit for Britain.... Farted loads all day

I thought yesterday was fathers day, not farters day, but is there a differnce ;-)

[whisky-dave]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:47:11 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 16/06/13 07:09, harry wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 10:47 pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>

> >> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
>
> >> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> >>
>
> >> Just a big con job.
>
> >>
>
> >
>

Pity hot air and lies can'

[The Natural Philosopher]

That's a shame. UKIP internal organisation has been outstripped by its
phenomenal growth :-(

Get in touch and form a local party organisation.

[Davey]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:40:06 +0100

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/06/13 14:08, Davey wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:09:30 +0100
> > The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/06/13 11:59, Davey wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:49:24 +0100
> >>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> > snip
> >>> Well, yes, why would anyone kill that goose, laying all those
> >>> golden eggs in Green Energy developers' bank accounts? The mere
> >>> thought of it! Meanwhile, we have to live with these gigantic
> >>> monstrosities. Yes there two huge ones not far from here:
> >>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/in-focus-new-wind-turbines-in-eye-1-4748001
> >>>
> >>> They can be seen for miles. Thank you, Mid Suffolk District
> >>> Council.
> >> Yup. Town didnt want em. Tory country council overruled em.
> >>
> >> And they wonder why UKIP polled about 30% in Suffolk.,
> >>
> >>
> > I was close to voting UKIP, but the Conservatives were the only
> > party who even acknowledged our existence, so UKIP lost several
> > votes in this nearby village.
> That's a shame. UKIP internal organisation has been outstripped by
> its phenomenal growth :-(
>
> Get in touch and form a local party organisation.
>

Oh, there is one, and a friend is in it. But we heard not a squeak from
them as a party down here before the election.
--
Davey.

[SteveW]

On 16/06/2013 16:27, harry wrote:

> Oh and here's a nuclear power station caught fire.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/733548.stm

It is an ex-nuclear power station. In effect it is now just a shell and
the fire was no different than that which can happen in any
construction/demolition project at any old factory. It wouldn't have
made any more than the local paper if they hadn't been able to connect
it to something nuclear for the shock/horror value.

SteveW

[SteveW]

On 16/06/2013 09:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Yesterday was international Wind day apparently.
> Whatever that might be..
> Brian

I thought I was feeling very bloated!

SteveW

[Vir Campestris]

On 17/06/2013 15:59, whisky-dave wrote:
> I thought yesterday was fathers day, not farters day, but is there a differnce;-)

Not to a German. (the V is pronounced as an F)

Andy

[harry]

> two huge ones not far from here:http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/in-focus-new-wind-turbi...

>
> They can be seen for miles. Thank you, Mid Suffolk District Council.
> --
> Davey.

Oh, would you rather have a coal mine then?
Or a nuclear power station/waste dump?

[Dave Liquorice]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:30:51 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

> Oh, would you rather have a coal mine then?

We have several within couple of miles, not to mention the many
abandoned lead ones. Whole countryside is marked by spoil heaps and
is honeycombed with old shafts and adits.

> Or a nuclear power station/waste dump?

30 miles down wind of Sellafield, not bothered. I'd rather have a
nuclear waste dump close by than a domestic waste landfill.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Davey]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:30:51 -0700 (PDT)

Sizewell is within a few miles, so no problem with the nuclear power
station. And it is a sight more reliable than wind turbines, it
doesn't care what the weather is doing.
--
Davey.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes, definitely.

Next question?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Damned right. They are operated to a much tigther set of regulations.

[dennis@home]

On 18/06/2013 08:30, harry wrote:

> Oh, would you rather have a coal mine then?
> Or a nuclear power station/waste dump?
>

I would go for the safest option and go for a nuclear power station.

[Bill Wright]

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:47:58 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I regularly pass some particularly unreliable ones near Elwick on the
>> A19 where 2 out of 3 are frequently feathered and dead in the water.
>
> The ones on the M6 near Lambrigg normally have 2 of the 5 dead,
> that's assuming any are going round at all, 2 out of 3 times I pass
> 'em they ain't 'cause there is no wind.
>
> Was up near Tow Law the other week again several of them feathered.
>
Doncaster Free Press readers� letters.

(Attached is a picture of Marr turbines taken from my kitchen window.)

Dear Sir,

From my kitchen window I have a clear view of the four wind turbines at
Marr. At first I thought they looked rather magnificent. Bathed in
sunlight they are a tribute to man�s engineering brilliance. But then I
started to wonder why they don�t actually seem to do much. When they
were at the planning stage we were told that they would provide power
for 6,700 homes. All I can say is, I�m glad I don�t live in one of those
homes, because it would be very cold and dark for a lot of the time. The
turbines don�t turn when it isn�t windy; they don�t turn when it�s very
windy; and often they don�t turn when you�d think the wind would be just
right. A few weeks ago they were stationary from the Tuesday to the
Friday, and quite often some but not all are operating. I�m beginning to
wonder if all they really generate is subsidies from the taxpayer. I
just can�t see how something that only works when it feels like it can
be used to provide the nation�s electricity. A tribute to man�s
engineering brilliance they might be; but it seems to me they are also a
monument to man�s political stupidity.

Bill Wright

[george - dicegeorge]

On 15/06/13 22:47, Tim Streater wrote:
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>
> Just a big con job.
>

comparing wind and solar to the cost of oil,coal, and gas
is unfair
as the fossil fuel costs do not include the costs of their pollution
and CO2 damage causing climate change and flooding of isalns and coastal
towns etc

[george]

[The Natural Philosopher]

that's because its too small to measure
Anyway, renewable energy doesn't actually reduce it anyway.

AS is the subject of a European Court hearing.


> [george]

[harryagain]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:kq4u0b$s8d$1...@news.albasani.net...

> On 22/06/13 20:09, george - dicegeorge wrote:
>> On 15/06/13 22:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-
>>> Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html>
>>>
>>> Just a big con job.
>>>
>> comparing wind and solar to the cost of oil,coal, and gas
>> is unfair
>> as the fossil fuel costs do not include the costs of their pollution
>> and CO2 damage causing climate change and flooding of isalns and coastal
>> towns etc
>>
> that's because its too small to measure
> Anyway, renewable energy doesn't actually reduce it anyway.
>

Bit here about the true cost of nuclear power.
No solution in sight for nuclear waste storarge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Prerequisites_for_radioactive_waste_management

Also shows what a half wit you are TurNiP.