On 06/06/2013 06:42, harry wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:42 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 18:04, harry wrote:









On Jun 5, 8:31 am, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:09, harry wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:50 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/06/13 00:47, Nightjar wrote:

There hasn't been any fuel in TMI-2 reactor for over 20 years. All
that is left now is some radioactive concrete, which will be
decommissioned with the other reactor when the site closes next year.

Oh? I wasn't aware they had de-fuelled it. Or that it was due to be closed.

MM. you may be wrong there. 20 year extension on 3MI. Due to shut in
2029. Been producing electricity for years and set to continue.
But you are right its been cleaned up. Its just a very mildly
radioactive shell now. No pint in pulling it down until teh whole site
closes in 17 years. By which time it wont even need special treatment.

Cleaned up at a cost of $2. 5 dollars and rising.

As compared to the $500 million the owners have invested in updating the
other reactor and associated plant.

Correcting the mistakes/design errors made earlier.

Wrong, as usual, Harry. That is simply the cost of routine maintenance
for a power station.

Well electricity user will pay one way or another.
Who said nuclear power was cheap?

It is as cheap as coal, half the cost of onshore wind, one third the
cost of offshore wind and up to one fifth the cost of solar PV.

Colin Bignell

Half wit as usual.
Fossil fuel based energy is cheap at the moment because we are in a
depression.

I don't know why you keep fighting this losing battle. Power station
coal prices today EUR 50 per tonne; 2006 EUR 50 per tonne; 2003 EUR 35
per tonne. There was quite a lot of swing as a result of the prime debt
crisis, when coal prices rose to around EUR 90, before dropping to EUR
40, but they are fairly stable now.

When the recession ends, demand and price will rocket.

First, energy suppliers buy futures to smooth out any major swings in
fuel price. Second, fuel is not the only cost of energy.

In 2012, Drax spent £929.2 million on fuel (partly biomass) £339.7 on
other costs of sales, such as grid charges and £212.5 million on
operating and administrative costs. By the time that electricity gets to
the user, the supply companies will have added their costs and profits.
So, even if the price of coal doubled, which is very unlikely, the end
user might see a price increase in of up to 50%, probably much less with
the plans to convert much coal fired generation to biomass. Still
cheaper than onshore wind, let alone any other renewable energy, but a
good case for nuclear, which will stay at the same price.

Sunlight and wind will always be free.

However, as I point out above, fuel is only a part of the cost of
electricity supply.

And pollution free.

Only if you ignore the fact that they have to be made. Wind power needs
around 8 times as much concrete and 30 times as much steel as nuclear
power. Making concrete is a major source of CO2 and steel produces all
sorts of pollution. Solar panels produce polluted sludge that needs to
be disposed of hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away from the
manufacturing plant, with the attendant output from the transport
required. Add to that the fact that the variable supply from renewables
means that coal fired stations run less efficiently, thereby producing
more pollution, and it is clear that they are responsible for a lot of
pollution, just not quite so obviously as conventional power.

Colin Bignell