|
Yes, but thats so obvious that it doesnt need saying. Any journalist trying to make an article out of it must have an axe to grind.I obviously have to repeat: nobody says that wind (plus all the other renewables) will ever be capable of supplying all our needs. The only technology capable of doing that is nuclear. But its obvious that we should get our energy where we can. I dont want to get sidetracked into discussing successive governments and single-minded environmentalists stupid blindness in not realising that over the past 50 years or so, but the point about renewables is that they can come on-stream in a comparatively short time compared with the massive nuclear programme which were going to have to embark on. And, of course, once theyre there we might as well continue to use them.
I dont know how unreliable they are at present, not having seen the figures, but I do know the technology is still not exactly mature. Since when has unreliability been an argument against doing something important? What on Earth makes you think that reliability wont be improved, just like any other technology you care to name?Well, yes you can. Its done all the time. You dont think that all UK power stations are running at full chat 24/7, do you? And a drop in the wind across the Orkneys is just as predictable as the national brew-up during the Corrie commercial break. And there are plenty of techniques for storing power, such as pumped storage. In any case, as I keep saying, some renewables are always there.You always have to have generating power in reserve, on warm and hot standby. You do now, and you will in the future. And you dont seem to realise that increasing efficiency is only a stop-gap. It buys us time; it does not remove the problem,. And if you think that buying time is good enough, then I refer you back to when exactly the same ideas ruined our energy policy for 50 years. I suggest we dont do that again. |
|