Saturday, March 26, 2011

More interesting links

"WRONG kind of WIND blamed for renewable red-ink FAIL It doesn't blow, it sucks"
By Andrew Orlowski

His article includes this quote "And, quite often during the December cold snap, wind plants used more electricity than they generated – just when the electricity was needed the most. (Electricity is drawn from the grid for yaw control, lighting, de-icing, pumps and to power the control mechanisms.)"

Read more at this link:

Another good link from The Register:

"Fukushima's toxic legacy: Ignorance and fear
Hysteria rages unchecked as minor incident winds down"

by Lewis Page, this is another article that points out the comparison in risk between nuclear and wind power. He also says this: (quote here)

"Suppose that nuclear power were allowed to be merely, say, 100 or 1,000 times safer than coal or oil (or wind: wind power has already caused scores of deaths in a brief period while at the same time generating very little energy). In that case nuclear would become so cheap as to wipe out carbon emissions and other pollution from electricity production in the advanced nations – and it might also start to make serious cuts into emissions from other sectors such as transport, heating etc, as electrical heat became cheaper than that from gas or oil and cheap juice drove down the expense of EV charging infrastructure."

Isn't it time that we did get serious about reducing CO2 emissions, rather than talking about it?

No comments: