I said that wind power is a waste of time, which it is. You don't agree and nothing I can say will change your mind so I'll not bother. It must be very satisfying to have the Cajun clodhopper batting for you!
Yet you think it makes more sense to store it at the nuclear facility!!
No that's not what you said, I'm not even taking the effort to go back two pages to get your original quote on this. Because I'm sure everyone already read it. I used to have a dog that believed if she hid her head you couldn't see the rest of her body. I suppose that's sorta like believing if a post you wrote is two pages back no one can see it...but it was much cuter, cause you know, she was a dog.
A valid question.
What is in it for most of the right wingers who oppose most anything that reduces oil consumption?
Massive unpredictable variations in the amount of energy coming from the wind would combine with the much more regular changes in demand and in possible tidal power projects to produce an energy market described in the study as "volatile". If there were enough thermal plants in existence to cope with rare (but nonetheless certain to occur) events such as nationwide calms during winter evenings, some of these plants would almost never be in use. They'd sometimes go years without running for more than a few hours.
In order for energy companies to build those thermal plants, necessary to avoid power cuts, they'd need to be sure that they could charge enormous, outrageous prices during the brief periods when they were actually in operation. According to the report's authors:
In our opinion, it is likely that the sort of price 'spikes' needed to reward the risks for such plant will stretch the market design to its utmost... Equally a market with spiky and volatile prices is one where the risk of operation is greatly increased: it is unlikely to send clear economic signals to new investors.
In other words, nobody would want to build and maintain a power station with no reliable idea how much it would get used from one year to the next (the report reveals that the UK's annual wind output could be expected to vary by no less than 13 per cent). A certainty of enormous rewards when the kit was finally needed would be required in investors' minds - but there could be no such certainty. The spot electricity price would need to soar to such levels as to introduce even more risk, in the form of government intervention to protect energy distributors from going bust and consumers suffering from vicious price surges.
No that's not what you said, I'm not even taking the effort to go back two pages to get your original quote on this. Because I'm sure everyone already read it. I used to have a dog that believed if she hid her head you couldn't see the rest of her body. I suppose that's sorta like believing if a post you wrote is two pages back no one can see it...but it was much cuter, cause you know, she was a dog.
No that's not what you said, I'm not even taking the effort to go back two pages to get your original quote on this. Because I'm sure everyone already read it. I used to have a dog that believed if she hid her head you couldn't see the rest of her body. I suppose that's sorta like believing if a post you wrote is two pages back no one can see it...but it was much cuter, cause you know, she was a dog.
where did I say that????
She may be a dog but she has you for an owner.
I often get the impression that those protesters seem to think that they just want to dig a dirty great hole and tip the lot into it.
Are you drunk posting tom?
Are you drunk posting tom?
He's deflecting so he doesn't have to address BP's criminal negligence. He'd rather talk about you, tuna, nukes - anything but the actual topic.
Far from it, although I am planning to go get some red wine now. Thanks for reminding me.
He's deflecting so he doesn't have to address BP's criminal negligence. He'd rather talk about you, tuna, nukes - anything but the actual topic.
Well heavy drinkers never really sober up.
Need I remind you that it was you lot that veered the subject away in the first place. I have been over this subject endlessly and I can't be bothered to go over it again.
'Can't be bothered'. Does that work in dimwitted circles? I suppose it does and that's why you're attempting to use it here. Obviously, your projections of me and others being 'naive' and 'emotional' sank like a lead balloon, so now you just 'can't be bothered' to directly address the topic and related questions concerning your obvious bias and willingness to minimize and/or dismiss BP's criminal negligence. You asserted that BP 'faced up' to its obligations and when I posted linked proof to the contrary, you've been silent on the subject ever since. From that I surmise that it's the truth with which you 'can't be bothered'.
Nice try.Let me ask you a question, if the fishing stocks are forever contaminated as you hilariously assert. Why is it that the fallout from the Pacific nuclear tests of the 50s and early 60s, which was many billions if not trillions of times more radioactive than anything from Fukushima not caused all fishing to be banned.
Let me try to inject some science here, it is sadly needed. 1gm of radium 226 is equal to 1 Curie, there are 3.7×10[SUP]10[/SUP] Becquerels in 1 Curie. In other words, there are 37 billion Becquerels to a Curie, I doubt that there is even one Curie of radiation in all of the tuna in the Japan Sea, you are totally scientifically illiterate and I've no time for idiots.
Yet you think it makes more sense to store it at the nuclear facility!!
Nice try.
I never said all the fish in the ocean are contaminated.
I said that the only two breeding grounds in the world for Giant Bluefin Tuna were both contaminated by unsafe energy sources.
I have no time for shills.