[LINK] Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK'

[David Boxall]

On 24/11/2014 8:09 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> On 24-Nov-14 8:17 AM, Andy Farkas wrote:
>> "Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
>> Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
>
> Looks like nuclear is the only realistic option. Fission then fusion,
> maybe.
>
Realistic? Just a different bunch of problems; arguably, worse problems. 
The article reads like yet another nuclear power industry puff-piece.

Most 100% renewable scenarios posit efficiencies which I find difficult 
to believe. Then, for example, the Sydney opera house cuts its power 
usage by 75% 
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-02/sydney-opera-house-makes-environmental-upgrade/5861248>. 
Maybe the experts do know what they're talking about.

In global warming, the nuclear power industry sees hopes of reviving 
their moribund technologies. Reality keeps raining on their parade.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  When a distinguished but elderly
                                |  scientist states that something is
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  possible, he is almost certainly
                                |  right. When he states that
                                |  something is impossible, he is
                                |  very probably wrong.
                                                  --Arthur C. Clarke