Mission Impossible

It simply cannot be done.

It comes as an Observer investigation reveals that planning delays, long delivery times, escalating costs, 10-year hold-ups in connection to the national grid and technical problems in building offshore windfarms all threaten to derail Brown\’s ambitions. The result could be electricity shortages by 2020, failure to meet climate change and energy targets and possible hefty fines from Europe.

Building only windmills just ain\’t gonna work. We need nuclear and coal as well. Otherwise the lights go out.

Worth reading that piece actually, lots of comments like this.

\’The numbers do not add up,\’ said energy analyst Professor Ian Fells of Newcastle University. \’It is physically impossible for the industry to meet its target.

12 years to the brown outs. Thanks Greenies!

7 thoughts on “Mission Impossible”

  1. On the plus side without a functioning National Grid and rolling brown outs we may be on target to hit the 80% emissions target.

  2. Would it help if there wasn’t just one National Grid, like if there were smaller local electricity networks running in parallel, powered by private power stations that weren’t so affected by national energy problems.

  3. No, Chris, if you had that the first thing you’d do would be to build cross-connections between those mini-grids. That’s why the Australians have gone to some expense to link the grids of different states.

  4. Timmeh, what is wrong with this argument? Wind turbine projects are more expensive than originally forecast because the industry is running at capacity and steel is expensive. Also, planning permission is a problem.

    Therefore, we should build nuclear power stations. Which consist of HALF A MILLION TONNES OF STEEL-REINFORCED CONCRETE around a really big containment vessel made of really expensive high quality STEEL. Which are made by a total of three or so companies worldwide. And which are subject to planning protests that make anything over wind look like a school council meeting.

    This is just incredibly stupid and dishonest, isn’t it? Further, you live in Portugal, which is installing wind power to beat the band, and which has not experienced any of the evil consequences (chickens stop laying! the skies darken! the rain goes chubby!) you regularly promise.

    Tim adds: For your next piece of numerical geekery please tell us how much power we get per thousand tonnes of steel and thousand tonnes of concrete. If those indeed are the limitations, then we want to use the technology which is most efficient with those materials, do we not?

    I have a feeling that nuclear is more economical per watt than wind is on usage of steel and concrete.

  5. Pingback: Bonus Tim Worstall Stupidity Watch « Alternate Seat of TYR

  6. “I have a feeling that nuclear is more economical per watt than wind is on usage of steel and concrete.”

    Plus, it’s on ALL THE TIME, which is why it is called ‘baseload power’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *