Re: Erm
@I am David Jones
"Read my comment again, slowly if need be."
I quoted direct from your comment-
hence it undeniably *helps* to provide "a reliable, diversified and affordable supply of energy", specifically the latter two aspects.
Which I clipped to- "a reliable, diversified and affordable supply of energy" and then laughed at reliable and affordable while my previous comment demonstrated the irrelevance of 'diversified' if the source isnt reliable see-
"Yes, which is nullified completely by the lack of reliability. You can diversify it with people generating energy by peddling exercise bikes and somehow hooking that to the grid, doesnt make it a viable energy source nor reliable.".
So please feel free to go back and read my comments again, slowly if need be.
"And the US dept of energy says it is cost effective, in America at least. Do you disagree with them?"
Yes I disagree. Militwit also claimed it would save the UK money and reverse ferreted on that promise. We were promised cheaper energy due to 'green investments' which has made energy much more expensive (remind you I am in the UK). Even simply thinking through the problem- unreliable wind requires reliable energy generator backup. Often fossil fuel which is exceptionally cheaper than wind. Hence cheaper to run just the reliable energy generator and not the wind.
AND wind requires serious infrastructure upgrades because energy isnt generated where it is needed, it needs to be transported from wherever it generates. AND is still waiting for a magical technology that still doesnt exist to store sufficient energy to make up the weeks of low/no wind.
So yes, it seems reality even disagrees with them.