"harry" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 20:32:19 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/03/2016 16:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:39:10 +0000, bert wrote:

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

I looked it up. £140/MWh!! http://tinyurl.com/j92fpey and scroll down
a bit. That's horrific. In comparison, Hinkley C is a very good deal
indeed! I suppose it's because although the likes of Harry and other
greens keep telling us how cheap wind power is, that cheap pricing
assumes 100% load factor, when in reality it's only 25% or
thereabouts. If they operated at full whack all the time, the
electricity cost might only be £35/MWh, but they have to up that by a
factor of four to cover their cost and make it profitable.

Not to mention that hideous phrase "enough to power n,000 homes", which
so effortlessly glosses over the questions about load factor, and
whether they are talking about total power, or just electric and so on.

£140/MWh Harry. Remember that the next time you try and tell us just
how cheap wind power is. It's a pack of lies!


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

Additonally the nuclear lobby have not the slightest idea of the
de-commisioning and waste disposal costs.
And no idea how to set about doing it either.
Conveniently ignored.

WTF are you on Harry? That's an EU report.