On 08/06/2013 07:09, harry wrote:
On Jun 7, 7:37 pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 07/06/2013 18:16, harry wrote:









On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/06/13 06:47, harry wrote: On Jun 6, 11:39 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

Or, to put it another way, GBP 1.63, or about what those in poverty have to pay
to you for three units of your massively subsidised licence to print money
daytime only intermittent non dispatchable electricity

--
And you think new nuclear will be any cheaper?
You need your head examining.

No, I dont think, I KNOW.

You know nothing of the sort.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...renewable_revo...

Quite misleading, but that is true of many of the sources you quote.

That article calculates the future need for nuclear plants on the basis
of the current output of 440 operational reactors, completely ignoring
the fact that only about 150 of those have outputs in excess of 1,000
MW, while a single modern station could have an output of nearly 6,000 MW.

Colin Bignell

Still a lot of reactors.

Nowhere near as many as they try to suggest and needing a lot less or
either land area (1) or raw materials (2) than renewables.

(1) Per 1000 MWe:

Solar PV: 20-50 km^2
Wind: 50-150 km^2
Nuclear: 1-4 km^2


(2) Per MWe of *installed* capacity. The figures in parenthesis are the
multipliers that must be applied to get the materials requirements for
an actual output, allowing for typical capacity factors:

Solar PV: 40 t steel, 19 t aluminium, 76 t concrete, 85 t glass, 13 t
silicon. (7 Spain to 15 Glasgow)

Wind: 118 t steel, 298 t concrete. (3 to 4)

Nuclear: 36-40 t steel, 75-90 m3 concrete. (1.25)


Largely untried technology too.

Completely proven technology that is the safest method of power
generation, by far.

Colin Bignell