On May 27, 10:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/05/13 21:10, tim...... wrote:









"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
harry wrote:

On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-

a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi

s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is
comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to
notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK * * *62.1 TWH/pa
France *387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold?

But that's completely irrelevant to the argument posit that the
"French" nuclear price is, or in this case isn't, the achievable price
in an unsubsidised world

tim

government calculated cost price of nuclear was 6-8p a unit.

IF you don't shut it down tax it out of existence, make owners sign in
blood on massive insurance policies designed to rebuild the country from
scratch if someone drops a fuel rod and decomission to a level where its
less radioactive than the inside of an empty lead box after you have
finished etc etc.

ALL of which have been proposed by the Liberal 'democrats'.

All reasonable concerns that could cost the taxpayer.

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.