On 15/10/16 18:27, tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."

wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have
no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike
price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k,
that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not
withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output
is, against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one
else's. The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the
intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes
getting approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that
makes them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but
they are undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering
knowledge whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

it comes from the population

(Rightly or Wrongly)

tim


A government with the right expertise

and where are we going to get that from?

pay peanuts, get monkeys (or in this case, people with a long term aim
to convert their parliamentary "fame" to someone with a snout in the
trough")

You want honourable "qualified" people in Government you have to pay the
going rate for their expertise, and every time the idea of paying MPs
more is raised it is quickly stamped on


If you want honorable people in government you will get them by paying
NO salary AT ALL.

Then they are there because they care.

tim








--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.