On Jun 8, 10:05*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 08/06/13 20:33, tony sayer wrote:









In article
.com, harry scribeth thus
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.

******** If fitted to roofs, zero space needed.
Zero possibility of fuel supply being cut off.

every night it gets cutoff and most of te winter.

Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.

runs out every night. See above.

Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.

every possibility of interest rate rises No additions need to grid as power is used locally.

******** it is. Only if the sum output is so pathetic it doesn't affect
anything.

Zero running pollution.

smae as nuclera then. Zero waste products to dispose of.

********

Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.

********. I'll have a brick through yours in short order.

Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.

since it doesnt generate anything anyway...

Can be installed by semi-skilled labour on piecemeal basis.

so can an IED.

Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.

Bollockjs

Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.

neighbors are incited to use it as an airgun target.

Zero export of currency to obtain fuel supply.

There's probably more too.
Zero output at night when it's overcast and when it's raining and
snowing...

Ideally NOT suited to UK use...

Basically 90% of harry's claims are out and out lies...

You are fullof ******** TurNiP.
For a non-owner you come up with a lot of **** on a topic you have
zero knowledge about.
But then that's true about nuclear power too.