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 _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
