On May 27, 7:24*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/05/13 17:03, 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nagement_and_e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Nuclear_safety

France shows that a 80% nuclear wont break the bank. Finland reckons its
the cheapest alterntaive bar none.

Areva reactors are overpriced at the moment, but they are not the only
game in town.

But even at worst case prices the Areva reactor still knocks wind/solar+
backup into the tall grass.
Cheapest generation is coal.,Cheapest zero carbon is nuclear. Take your
pick.

Renewable is neither cheap nor low carbon. Its total pants.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

We seem to be rushing headlong into total dependance on gas. We need
coal to bridge the gap between now and when we get new nuke plants
built. Time for Harry's friends to get all their objections in.

Philip