Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Al 1953 wrote on 24/03/2010 :
I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in my
new house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper than
gas heating after they build the new nuclear power stations. I think
that's what happened in France, isn't it?

You will be looking at a lead time of 10 to 15 years before any new
nuclear stations were to come on line and it will take many of them,
before they make any difference to the methods of generation.

No.

That is wrong. One nuclear power station more would probably out perform
all the installed base of windmills. 30 nuclear power stations would
generate all the current electricity we use. 100 would generate enough
energy to run all the non-electrical stuff off electricity. Including
transport.

And still cost less than we have lent to bail out the banks, or run the NHS.

A typical modern set is several GW. Our peak consumption is 70GW right
now for electricity, or about 300GW total in terms of all energy used by
the nation on shore.

Going all nuclear on current electricity would reduce our onshore carbon
footprint by about 50GW out of that 300GW, or about 16%. More than
enough on its won to meet our CO" reduction targets. Start to use
electricity for things its not cost effective to use it for now, and you
could get to a lot more than that.


Costs will
not come down until their build has been more or less paid for, so I
would stick to gas and invest in good levels of insulation.



Even sillier statement.

A nuclear power station is effectively never paid for until its
decommissioned. What sets its costs are the costs of *borrowing the money*..

Its like a bank. Deposit money into (building) a nuclear power station,
and get a lifetime pension fund from selling its electricity.

The cost is about £3000 per kilowatt capital outlay over 60 years.

Which means that I personally, could e.g. theoretically pay £10,000 to a
nuclear company for all the electricity I will ever need in my life.

A deal which I would instantly take up should it ever be offered.

My investment in a nuclear fund has already made 10% in less than a year.

Although a lot of that is due to the tanking pound.

Its a massively good investment IF the government stops monkeying around
with the rules , especially on decommissioning and waste disposal. There
is no shortage of pension fund and private capital to fund them either.

The FACTS of the matter are that a nuclear set every 18 months IF we
could have started 7 years ago, would be easily enough to see us through.

The actual costs at - say £3000 per kilowatt - with is conservative - to
build 70Gw of capacity is £210 bn. Or about £1000 per head of population.


Bailing out Fred the Shred and his pals has cost twice that, with far
less returns, other than a crippling tax debt we will never escape.


To totally electrify the country is probably £3000 per head. Maybe
£5000. That's assuming electric cars, and the infrastructure to make
them work effectively, etc as well as build nuke sets.

Which would you rather do? spend £5000 on traffic wardens, drop in
Afro-Caribbean lesbian day care centers, Duck islands, Liars for Hire,
affordable homes for thieving pikey *******s, or free electricity and
fuel for the rest of your life?