LETTER To Telegraph
Posted: October 7, 2019 Filed under: Climate Change, Energy Poverty, Renewables, Solar, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: Climate Change, Energy Density, Energy Poverty, Global Warming, Green Energy, Intermittency, Paul Homewood, PLF, Renewable energy, solar, Telegraph, unreliables, Wind Energy, Wind Farms, wind power 4 Comments
UNreliables – Climatism
“It is unfortunate that politicians and environmental campaigners are ignorant of the technicalities of energy supply, or wish to ignore them. MPs may have the power to change the laws of the land, but not to change the laws of physics.”
MEANWHILE, China continues to manufacture UNreliables (wind/solar) for the gullible, CO2-theory-obsessed West, using “dirty” coal as the catalyst.
LET that sink in.
A very good letter in today’s Telegraph:
SIR – As a chartered engineer who worked in the electricity supply industry for 39 years, I despair to hear politicians like Rebecca Long-Bailey claiming that renewables will provide for most of our energy needs by 2030.
Renewable generation – solar, wind and tidal – is, by definition, non-synchronous and it is technically impossible to operate our electricity transmission system solely on non-synchronous generation. There is a real danger of system instability and consequential widespread blackouts once non-synchronous generation exceeds around 30 per cent of total generation at any one time.
The National Grid report on the recent major outage makes numerous references to the lack of inertia in the system. This resulted from insufficient large synchronous generators (nuclear, coal, gas) being connected.
Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the only option is to increase significantly nuclear build rapidly. Both Labour…
View original post 66 more words
The only error in that very good letter is towards the end, implying that there is a need to reduce CO2. There isn’t. CO2 is not an emission, it is a fundamental part of the cycle of life. If we could extract more of what has been sequestered into the ground, it would be a boon to life. Just saying.
With regards from Roy Pentland via the inter web thingy on my phone.
________________________________
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree, Roy. Obviously.
Think an “apparent” was needed in that sentence, to flush what is an excellent and accurate letter. Jamie.
LikeLike
[…] über LETTER To Telegraph — Climatism […]
LikeLike
Great letter (apart from the “Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide” bit, we don’t). Anyone though with any rational thinking ability can easily work out that wind, sun or tides simply do not supply to the same schedule as our demand, so can never work beyond a smallish percent. You then have to ask, why even bother. Isn’t it far more economical to use the traditional generation technologies & fuels, using the well tried and tested adage: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
LikeLiked by 1 person