On 08/06/13 12:10, Nightjar wrote:
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
that is about right. 20-50W/sq meter
Wind: 50-150 km^2
That is wrong: its more like 500-1000sq km. (1-2W/sq m)
Nuclear: 1-4 km^2
That's a bit high. Sizewll including the old magnox reactors is 750mx
500 m, and 1.2GWe so that comes down to 0.35 sk km so you are out by a
factor of up to ten.
Power desnity is density is 3,400 W/sqm
(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)
And remember because on average a nuclear power station produces 3
times as much electricity on average as a wind turbine of equivalent
*capacity* and ten times as much as solar farm over a period of three
times as long as wind power. Or solar.
So per unit electricity generated a nuclear power station is likley to
generate 10 times as much electricity over its lifetime as te same
capacity wind farm so the ratio of materials for wind to nuclear is
something like 32 times more steel and (assuming you meant cubic meters
not tonnes of concrete), 4 and a bit times more concrete.
You will also be likely to use around ten times as much copper per unit
electricity generated.
Largely untried technology too.
Completely proven technology that is the safest method of power
generation, by far.
Exactly.
Colin Bignell
--
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.