On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:20:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 01:00:45 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But at least that would be power 24/7 not just when the wind
blows.

But for how long? 10 years or so.

Design life is 40 to 50 years. The Magnox stations that are now EOL
are 40+ years old, most generated at pretty much their rated output
for the vast majority of that time starting with 1970's technology.

You're rather missing the point! WNA figures suggest that the fuel
might run out in as little as 10 years. Long term, that just as
insecure a supply as wind is in the short term. If it's strategic
security of supply you want, that means carbon-based, most probably
coal or gas from shale or coal.

Fuel? There is plenty of spent fuel sat at Sellafield but the
greenies won't let it be reprocessed but then winge on about the
storage ponds FFS! Only a tiny fraction of the available fuel is used
as it passes through a reactor. It's not like gas or coal, once it's
burnt it's gone.

Plenty? Again, this is a myth. There's a little under 400GWyrs'
worth of recyclable material in the UK. Over a 60 year plant
lifecycle, such as is planned for new nuclear, that's a mere 6.5GW.
It's nothing like enough.

I'd much rather pay 20p/unit for power that was there 24/7 not just
an *average* of 8 hours/day. Note average, There could be weeks with
virtually no power.

And may be others would agree with, I probably would myself, but
nuclear isn't going to give you such security; only carbon-based fuels
can do that, because they're the only ones for which we have supplies
indigenous to the UK.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html