On Jun 8, 8:33*pm, 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.
Zero possibility of fuel supply running out.
Zero possibilty of fuel price increases.
No additions need to grid as power is used locally.
Zero running pollution.
Zero waste products to dispose of.
Zero chance of disruption by terrorist attack.
Minimum disruption if one installation goes faulty.
Can be installed by semi-skilled labour on piecemeal basis.
Zero disruption/inconvenience during installation.
Owners are incited to economise on electricity use.
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...

--
Tony Sayer

Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?
Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

We need as many different renewable technologies as possible to
overlap.