On 08/06/2013 18:03, harry wrote:
On Jun 8, 12:10 pm, 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
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
Solar panels,
Zero maintenance, zero fuel costs, zero costs for operators/plant
attendants.
Not if you want to do it on a commercial level, as would be required to
compete with nuclear power.
If fitted to roofs, zero space needed.
Although the fire brigade may refuse to enter the house in the case of a
fire and, again, not if you want to do it on a commercial level.
Zero possibility of fuel supply being cut off.
Except at night and during bad weather.
Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.
Except at night and during bad weather.
Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.
Not particularly significant for nuclear either.
No additions need to grid as power is used locally.
Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.
Zero running pollution.
Also true of nuclear.
Zero waste products to dispose of.
Untrue. The panels themselves will eventually become waste products.
Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.
Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.
Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.
Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.
Can be installed by semi-skilled labour on piecemeal basis.
Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.
Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.
Not if you want to do it on a commercial level.
Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.
Why, if everything is as good as you say?
Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.
However, as I pointed out, huge amounts of raw material needed to make.
New nuclear (EDF) Finland is over budget and time by a factor of two
and rising.
Due to bad workmanship by sub-contractors and delays to allow the
lessons of Fukushima to be considered. Neither need be a factor in other
projects.
Colin Bignell