The true cost of wind...

So where is the data and the details of how they fudge it. Its not anywhere you have linked to.

How many present arguments against GW caused by man?

To show that you didn't have a point.

But we can create global policy without any facts and then impose that view on everyone and stifle the opposition by any means possible.

as they don't make their methods and data public why should anyone not think that?

But you keep saying the models its based on are rubbish. What sort of person looks at cr@p models and data and decides the results are facts?

What general evidence? The only thing that links GW with man is the models you think are cr@p. What else do you think links it?

This one needs over 38 kW on a windy day and those sort of exterior temps. That's just from oil it doesn't include the E7 or portable gas fire to even out the pxy storage heaters...

Over it. 100 A @ 230 V = 23 kW. That's assuming you have a 100 A supply. I *think* that's the norm now but 40, 60 o 80 A are common. But's not so much the individual supply as the upstream substation. Diversity and short term loads rule, if every one started pulling even half their supply rating for 8 hours the substation wouldn't be able to cope.

It's not unknown when there is a prolonged gas supply failure and they issue each household with a fan heater for the local substation to trip, or worse catch fire, after a few hours. Not just from the issued electric heaters but all the ones people have in the back of a cupboard...

The ones that question it don't get money for research and so you only end up with those who are pro climate warming.

It's very much like current media reporting that all fracking is bad and it will cause earthquakes, possibly resulting in a UK tsunami that will overwhelm our coastal nuclear stations.

That's up to you, but I suspect you won't be posting it much more.

Perhaps that's because your argument isn't good enough

OK, so you've got some numbers. Let's see how you bring your scientific expertise to bear on them.

Just like offshore oil, gas, wind.

So, let me see if I have this right.

Your Great Debunking Argument is BASED ON A GUESS.

The rest has been snipped as irrelevant.

Not on the basis of wishing it away, sunshine.

So, I'm not wrong, then.

And the Great Debunking Argument was brought to you by someone who claims this:

"As I've mentioned before, I do have scientific training. Perhaps that's why I'm consistently able to out argue you. But then, that's not exactly difficult, is it? Your standard of argument below is about that of a five year old child or worse. In your case, it would be better by far to keep quiet and let everyone think you are fool, than to keep making such posts and thereby remove all shadow of doubt"

Permit me to laugh my socks off.

Perhaps Java Jive should heed his own words, only substituting 'anti' for 'pro':

"If people were rational rather than pseudo-religious in their mindset, this subject would NEVER have been mentioned again after its first debunking, but this is what always happens in these debates, the anti-nuclear quasi-religion has taken over peoples' minds to the extent here that its adherents conveniently 'forget' those facts and calculations that don't support their quasi-religious beliefs".

QED

Believe it or not, there is still a "Flat Earth society".

Except maybe the ones selling fossil fuel.

Where is that reported?

Most of the ideasr evolve around dissolving it in water and pumping the water into redundant oil wells. Dunno what the energy usage would be to achieve this. Sounds bollix tome.

So what happens whenwe run out of holes in the ground? I don't believe carbon capture is feasible in the slightest.

No it isn't. There has been a failed project in a special chamber cut in salt.. A salt mine is usless for the prpose anyway.

In any event, storage is not permanent disposal.

What drivel. There have been several attempts which have failed to date.

In article , Dave Liquorice scribeth thus

Is that continuous demand or peak demand or over what time period?.

Surely not 24/7 ?...

Yes it is for new supplies..

Around a couple years ago on a winters afternoon I was at a distribution point where a fuse had blown on a large "ish" housing estate quite densely populated, and was surprised to see that on each phase the load was averaging out at around 50 to 80 amps, this being a Sunday around half one in the afternoon...

well right now its not warming appreciably. Especially in the northern hemisphere.

well it almost certainly is an insignificant factor.

Er no, the argument has moved on as to whether there is anything to do about it worth actually doing.

Except maybe the ones selling renewable energy.

Face it Harry, you are just an out of date denier peddling crap technology that never worked to fail to solve a problem that never existed!

Yet more proof you don't have a clue. There is nowhere that I have said climates don't change. Its obvious that they do as you can see it. It doesn't mean that the reasons you claim for it are correct. I expect you are more likely to be a flat earther as you don't understand the concept of evidence and scientific method.

As opposed to those wanting to get green subsidises?

Seems so ...

Irrelevant to the point ...

It's based on a reasonable assumption. But if you like, try doubling that assumption, the figures still don't work out. Your problem is that the rate of return of yellow cake per unit area per unit time is at least an order of magnitude, probably two, less than it needs to be to make a workable system.

You've snipped it because it makes your idea look the absurdity that it really is.

More to the point, the technology is not going to work just because you wish it to do so.

You are wrong. The yield is at least an order of magnitude below what would be required, and that gap is unlikely to be sufficiently eroded by technological development, especially as when I last looked none appeared to be taking place anyway, while the environmental impact to get such a pitiful amount is absurdly out of proportion. People who vaunt nuclear have a habit of talking about its energy density - for a given amount of power: how many acres of open cast uranium ore vs how many acres of open cast coal, how many acres of spoil heaps, how much ash; or how many acres of wind turbines, etc. You can't get much less dense energy than the amounts of uranium in seawater. Using this method, there is effectively not the slightest chance of our achieving security of uranium supply within the ten year timescale required by WNA figures.

Getting uranium from the sea in sufficient quantity to be useful is no more realistic than covering the land with windmills to provide all UK's electrical energy needs. That is why it is a myth, and that is why here it is wheeled out as a last resort, when other arguments are failing.

In article , Java Jive scribeth thus

Nooo.. Its the taking part rather then the winning;!)..

BTW do you ever do any DIY at all?...