I hope Tonykevin that you don't make too much of what I wrote in the last post.
My comments were towards a system that could cover a much wider area
than the present national power grid covers, but it will never be able
to cope with much more than 25% of unreliable generation.

One thing that most people do not take into consideration is that
wind generation falls off to the cube root of the wind speed fall.
Re storage, it is one thing to have overnight storage, but how do
store power to cover a week of calm or very low wind speeds ?
Especially if it happens to coincide with widespread overcast days.

I think our big hope is geothermal, although it appears that
earthquakes are a problem in severing pipes. I only recently heard
of that problem.

So all in all it is not just as simple as saying run it all on
renewables. With oil depleting already we may not be able to construct
the national grid you aspire to.

tk1, speaking of abusive put downs "the dogmatic nonsense peddled here by three correspondents trying to mock leigh ewbank into silence. (obviously leigh ewbank has stung them into panic responses.)"

tk1, trying to peddle your book on this forum is a bit rich, do you mind not doing this?

Leigh, I do worry though that all this pie in the sky, "the government should do" means taxpayers money is your eventual target. It all sounds so great, but so do so many other ideas, why shuold you get our tax dollars? While we're paying for the ETS or CPRS, you want more of our money for yet another save the world scheme?

I do get it that this article is to entice contributors to your organisation.

We should put up a warning on articles like this "Caution, Salesman at Work", to partially quote another poster.

FicklePickle, no, there is a better source of energy than coal fireed power, Nuclear. You just have to give it a chance.