The Forum > Article Comments > 'Reliable' renewables roulette > Comments
'Reliable' renewables roulette : Comments
By Geoff Carmody, published 26/7/2018When trying to mix renewables with reliability, politicians face biased incentives. The consequences of not supplying enough capacity for a given reliability standard emerge after the event.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
The proposals that are and have been suggested and trialed are failures, and should never have been allowed to get beyond the mouths of ignorant people like politicians, led by an even more ignorant mob; The greens.
I have preached ad nauseum how the technology is NOT VIABLE.
As has been pointed out again and again, the land required to harvest the amount of power required is greater than the size of the urban area it is supposed to service.
So we replace one pollution for another.
Then there is the absolute and certain lack of reliability.
It is a fool who will promote something they know in advance will NOT do what it was meant to do and at a price worth doing it.
The words, 'duty cycle' come to mind.
These fantasies will not come close to the duty cycles of coal, hydro and nuclear.
Don't even bother to try to compare reliability.
Not even close.
Wind is proving to be an expensive and maintenance horror story.
Their duty cycle must be about 5%.
So run them long and hard enough to simply create low level power, and they will still crash and burn as regular as clockwork.
That's the only thing you CAN rely on.
FAILURE!
One of the regulars on OLO has been pushing thorium salt as a basis of power generation.
From the early details, it appears to be a win, win, win situation.
It ticks all the boxes in reliability, residual nasties, (there aren't any. It's salt) base load power, and the list goes on.
Being that my background is engineering, it angers me to see good ideas sidelined because of filthy ignorant scumbags pushing a failed agenda just so they can get wealthier at the expense of the consumers.