Can I assume that a graph simply excluding fossil fuels would be different?
I was thinking specifically about France and its nuclear production.
Ah, OK. Depending on what criteria you look at, noocular is either a good thing or a bad thing, whereas once it was mostly considered a bad thing. Though the fact that the French reactors are getting long in the tooth, renewables are very much a good thing, I'd have thought.
You can have too much of a good thing.
Is that a bad thing?
Ah, OK. Depending on what criteria you look at, noocular is either a good thing or a bad thing, whereas once it was mostly considered a bad thing. Though the fact that the French reactors are getting long in the tooth, renewables are very much a good thing, I'd have thought.
View attachment 16911
It'll be interesting to see what she does with that, given how Trump-brown Bezos's nose is.
Provided their in someone else's backyard I believe (I passed signs objecting to another solar farm yesterday - I could understand the objection this time as it would have detracted from the glorious view over Llanwern steelworks).
I never understood the objection to solar farms.
They are low rise, quiet and it means nothing else will get built there.
But they are not natural. They ruin the work nature did to get the British countryside to look the way it does, or something.
Well, yes. You could have a play yourself, rather than assume, if you want to.
View attachment 16907
View attachment 16908