Java Jive wrote:
I note that yet again you provide no supporting evidence for your
assertions.

Mackay p168/178: "nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of
power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the
fuel."


Correct. That's what I said.

As power-station construction is in the immediate future, it's cost
can be reasonably accurately estimated although ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...r.nuclearpower

"""
Much has been made by the nuclear industry of the new reactor,
Olkiluoto 3, being built by French construction giant, Bouygues
Travaux Publics, some 155 miles north west of Helsinki in Finland
(next to two other reactors built in 1978 and 1980) as a model for the
nuclear energy renaissance they would like to see develop globally.
But the reactor has had serious problems in construction, with
concrete and welding problems, as well as a serious fire, with the
result that it is already two years behind schedule. This is bad news
for the showcase 1,600 MW EPR (European pressurised prototype
reactor), which is based on a design concept developed by nuclear
giant Areva, a Franco-German consortium formed by Framatome ANP and
Siemens. Olkiuoto 3's original budget of £2.5bn has already overrun by
an extra £1bn.
"""


Still cheaper than windmills.

... however, decommissioning will take place in the fairly distant
future, so it true cost cannot be accurately estimated. Who is going
to pay for it? Currently UK decommissioning is paid for by the
taxpayer.


Thats because the stations were built 50 years ago.

Modern stations are REQUIRED to leave 15% in some form of guaranteed
fund for decommissioning, that being the approximate cost.

They ONLY exist commercially *because they are SUBSIDISED*.

The same article itemises other examples of hidden subsidies and ends:

"""
Back in Britain, in the September edition of Prospect, Tom Burke,
formerly executive director at Friends of the Earth, pens a
excoriating critique of the optimism of the nuclear sector that an
atomic renaissance is within their grasp. He wrote:


well he would, wouldn't he?

You shouldl see the lies that greenies tell in Mackays book, assuming
you actually have read it, rather than cherry picked the bits that at
first glance appear to suit your arguments.


The government has pledged that there will be no subsidies for new
nuclear construction. But this was never credible,

It has not and will not subsidise it. Its sold British energy - or its
stake in it - to EDF. EDF will build stations without any subnsidies.


and it is already
possible to detect signs of retreat. In 2006 the government bravely
promised to 'make sure that the full costs of new nuclear waste are
paid by the market'. By 2008 this had mutated into the more nuanced:
'The government will [set] a fixed unit price [for] waste disposal at
the time when approvals for the station are given.' This effectively
caps the costs of nuclear waste disposal to the operator and transfers
the risk of cost overruns on to the taxpayer.


More snide lies from the green****ers.

How MUCH are the scottish windpower lobby expecting te ENGLISH taxzpayer
to spend ion national grid extensions so their unwanted intermittent
power can be carried to English consumers at 3 times the price of
nuclear power?

EVERY time a windmill turns, you spend a penny on the electricity, and
tuppence on taxes to get it to you.


Burke concludes: "It is hard to argue that this is not a subsidy."
"""


Thats rich. EVERTYTHING about windpower is a subsidy.