In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

So does Scotland; the target is to produce 40% by sustainable
methods
by 2020. Hydro-generation already exists, onshore windfarms are
going up
everywhere, off-shore windfarms

Windfarms can contribute an almost negligible fraction of the energy
requirements of an industrialised country. Their sole purposes are to
salve our consciences and to make money for the investors.

and wave-farms are coming soon.

I will wait and see. They have been coming soon for almost as long as
fusion energy has been coming soon.

Yes and no. The UK is one country where those techniques ARE viable.
Not easily, but they make engineering sense, whereas solar power
doesn't. Technically, we could meet our entire energy requirements
by either wind- or wave-farms, combined with pumped water storage.
There are a few, minor, details to resolve ...

But at least the project doesn't require a rewriting of elementary
physics.

Biofuel extraction from wood waste

Biofuel does not help one iota to solve the problem of the CO2 release
rate into the atmosphere. All it might do is to protect us slightly
from the vagaries of natural gas and oil supplies.

As we agreed in another post, biofuel is at least neutral, but like
solar power it is of little use to the UK. I don't see where wood
waste comes in, but it can be used.

a couple of years back on grounds
that the process is highly polluting..so has Canada, iirc. On the
web
you can no doubt find the story of how the proposing company, Border
Biofuels, managed to rip off a huge govt grant, before going bust.

Par for the course in the energy game.
Remember cold fusion?

To be fair, that was an honest mistake. Yes, the chances of it being
real were infinitesimal, but investing it in was still worthwhile.
Chances of it being real (say) 10^-6. Benefit if it were real (say)
$10^13. Appropriate investment (say) $10^7. Standard game theory,
a.k.a. cost-benefit analysis, a.k.a. theoretical statistics.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.