British Politics

You have a ****e infrastructure, and limited resources, and experts predicting climate change.

Do you:

A) Spend on upgrading the infrastructure in readiness.
B) Spend your resources on technology that everyone knows doesn't work in the predicted climate.

 

Captain Derpflaps and Buckfast Billy Bhoy

The Z Team.

 

Naw mate. You wait until the shìt hits the broken down fan and then you blame renewable energy supply.

You know, like wot you did ya fùcking moron!

 

So you would leave the infrastructure you know is crumbling, and focus on windmills like Don Quixote.

 

Dunning-Kruger.

 

Oh ho here comes the cavalry!

Put your teeth in if you're gonne talk to me ya pish stained hermit.

 

Wow!

Don Quixote, Well known energy supplier!

You're the gift that just keeps giving DuMDum!

 

And round and round the daft jock goes, hoping above hope he can bury yet another of his embarrassing **** ups.

 

I told him earlier that the grid in Texas is privatised, the only state with that setup in the US, and they've invested ****all in it.

He ignored that and blamed Greta again

 

Hows Brexit going?

 

Ticketyboo mate.

 

I heard on the wireless Nippy gave a Maradona '86 like performance in the Salmond inquiry.

 

He got laughed off the PL board for this exact reason. Tries to astound everyone with his knowledge, gets called out, goes into a tailspin and pretends it’s what he said all along to claim the win.

 

Better tell those tropical hotspots like Canada and Sweden, that the 10,000 odd wind turbines won’t work in there winters!

Let’s just chalk it up up to yet another subject you really know **** all about, shall we?

 

Even if that were true, it doesn't make my point any the less valid, it simply highlights you've failed to grasp it. However...

The reason for Sweden’s low emission rate is that about 80 per cent of electricity production in Sweden comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Sweden currently has three nuclear plants with eight nuclear reactors in commercial operation, but nuclear power remains a topic that divides political parties in Sweden.

Also, combined heat and power (CHP) plants account for 9 per cent of the electricity output in Sweden, and these are mainly powered by biofuels.

Renewables provide 16% of Canada's energy. 5% (of that 16%) comes from wind.

You should have used the Arctic as an example of why they were a problem in Texas.


Let’s just chalk it up up to yet another subject you really know **** all about, shall we?

 

Give it up, you failed again. You clearly said in your response, that I highlighted, turbine technology doesn’t work in extremes of temperature and more specifically the cold. I merely pointed out that wasn’t true.

 

They demonstrably failed in Texas. If you knew anything about it, you'd be describing why they failed, and why they ignored climate scientists predictions on future weather patterns, instead of ignorantly trying to bang your silly little drum.

My position is that it was an inappropriate use of resources. The fact they lost lives due to the power failures stands as clear evidence of that. They pushed an ideology and politics over science and engineering.

 

I've already explained why they failed, only you chose to ignore it. As I doubt you’ve ever even seen high voltage switchgear, let alone understand how it works, it’s probably best you give up now.

And by the way, it was nothing to do with politics or ideology, it was profit...pure and simple profit.