Robert Le Page has proved to be quite anti-science. What peer-reviewed articles have shown those whale deaths were a result of Fukushima? Where were the whales, and how radioactive where they? How were they contaminated?

Once again, the radioactive material is dispersing and going to the bottom of the ocean, where the 7cm rule applies.

Do you know that water stops radiation? Every 7 cm's of water stops about half the radiation getting through. Again, if the stuff has washed down to the bottom of the oceans, halve the radiation for every 7 cm. Soon none gets through, even for some of the most deadly stuff. In fact, water is so good at stopping radiation you would swim through a reactor pond! As long as you stayed away from the *deadly* nuclear waste at the bottom of a storage pond, and swam through the middle, you would experience *less* radioactivity than here on the radioactive surface of the earth because in the reactor pool the water *above* you would shield you from cosmic rays and this radioactive old planet we live on!
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Max
We are not limited to any single source of renewable power we have as primary methods hydro, wind, solar and biomass but there are numerous others not least of which is simply using more efficient equipment. It is quite practical to keep a house warm in a European winter using very minimum amounts of power.

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/town-goes-grid-achieves-energy-independence.html

It is worth emphasizing that the idea of battery backup for energy is only one of many ways that energy is and can be backed up, but it is not at this stage very practical for large power stations. The Spanish store enough heat in some of their solar thermal stations to run them over night. Also it is interesting to note that Spain actually uses slightly more electrical power than Australia but in 2013 sourced 42.8% power from renewables, it should be obvious that if they can do it in Spain, it should be even easier for us to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Spain

Quote

"Nuclear as a whole provided 23.8 percent of the country’s electricity in March, while 47 percent came solely from renewable sources"

Luciferase
If a lot more people spent time dreaming of better world, it would pay big dividends.

Thats all folks from me on this thread.

I really don't know what references to growing renewable energy penetration demonstrates. What, that it's heading for 100%? Really?

It's not ever going anywhere near 100% so why not focus on what underpins its existence at all, base-load power. Renewables could then retreat to where they are truly necessary, rather than a ridiculously expensive tilt at base-load bound for failure. The money should be spent on what will really hit AGW, not a chimera.

Furthermore, what of the cost of raising that percentage so expensively when other of other societal needs are so great?

I just shake my head. How we will rue time and resources wasted seeking the end of this rainbow.

March is what, Spring in Spain? Hmmm, interesting time to try and get a picture of RE performance in Spain. Why not winter? Why not just 'average' it out over the year, as the Spanish electricity wiki does? It just says Spain has about 25.9% renewable electricity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Spain

Wow, a quarter of all electricity from RE? Wow! Except, what does it do in WINTER? What is done with surplus electricity? Is it spilled, or sold to neighbouring countries? On a quiet, cold, winter evening when there's no wind or sun, where does the power come from? France? French nukes? Naaaah, couldn't be!

Except France exports more electricity than any other country in the world. "The country is also among the world's biggest net exporters of electricity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France
I wonder why? Naaah, wouldn't be anything to do with the rest of Europe being pro-renewable ideologues, and needing bailing out by reliable baseload power now and then?

Oh, and try and make Andasol 1, their 'solar thermal' tower that can apparently run some way into the evening, into baseload power? You'll end up paying *$25 billion* for a GW plant. That's over 10 times the price of coal. Not only that, but it would take 15 times as much concrete and 75 times as much steel and 2,530 times as much land to make that gigawatt, so there are serious CO2 emissions making all that as well.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/06/tcase7/

In "Wind farms use fossil fuels for construction and operation" Adjunct Professor Gary Johns writes (29 July 2015) that that an area the size of Italy would need to be set aside to replace the USA's coal-fired power. Italy is only about 3% the area of the USA, so that would not appear too much land to use. Also wind farms do not prevent other productive uses for land, such as farming and can be placed in shallow water.

Professor Johns writes that renewable sources cannot produce the heat needed to make wind turbines, or "just about anything else that makes the modern world modern". However, wind turbines, and most forms of renewable energy, produce electricity and electricity can be used to produce intense heat. Electric arc furnaces are used to make steel from scrap metal. These furnaces use less energy and produce less pollution than making steel from ore using coal. More than half of the steel produced in the USA today is from electric arc furnaces.

Wind turbines need electricity to operate, but this is a tiny fraction of the energy they produce, not the "large amount of energy" Professor Johns suggests. This energy can come from other renewable sources or from stored wind generated energy: it need not come from fossil fuel power. Wind turbines can be built and operate without fossil fuels.

Wind turbines alone are not a solution to global warming and we will need fossil fuels for decades to come. However, wind turbines are a useful source of renewable energy and the sooner we start action to stop global warming, the sooner we will have a solution.

Max
Actually I was not planning to comment further on this thread because it is clear we both hold entrenched positions, but I will make an exception here to clarify a few facts. The web site you linked to is out of date as the it refers to the year 2009 since then the share of renewable energy has substantial increased the last year I can find data for is 2013.

Source_ TWh_____per%_____renewables
gas_____57.1____21.05
Nuclear__56.7____20.90
wind____55.8____20.57____55.8
coal_____41.6____15.33
hydro____41.1____15.15____41.1
solar_____13.1____4.83_____13.1
Biofuel____5.9____2.17______5.9

All_______271.3___100_____115.9

Renewables accounted for 42.8% of all electrical power in Spain for 2013.
Nuclear accounted for 20.9% and falling.

Data from a pro nuclear site
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Spain/