On 26/04/14 14:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What you seem to forget is we don't own the raw materials needed for
nuclear power.

But we need considerably *less* of it than other fuels. And with
reprocessing, considerably less than *that*.

The actual quantity matters not one jot if we don't own the source.

The oceans of the world contain 4 billyun tons of uranium. At some
point it becomes worth extracting it.

At some point 'renewables' become worth investing in too.
No they don't.

Any more than its worth investing in horse drawn carriages, hot air
balloon airlines or sailing ships with 200 crew to transport 500 tonnes.

There is always a better cheaper alternative.



And methods of
storing electricity if made from renewables which are unpredictable.


Right so we take unreliable renewables already two to five times the
true cost of nuclear and add the storage that nuclear intrinsically
has, but that renewables don't, to make it 6-10 times the cost.

Golly. I guess that qualifies for a Nobel prize in economics.


LeftyThink: Failure is a success we just haven't spent enough of
somebody else's money on ...yet.



--
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.