On 11/08/2019 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/2019 13:09, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 12:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the nuclear lot want to put all our eggs in the one basket...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested on large nuclear power
station to
serve the entire country

I am perpetually amazed at the extraordinary statements made by
lefty****s, ecotards and remoaners. I mean they are nonsense even to
someone with subnormal learning skills.

And I'm even more amazed by how the likes of you don't understand a
common
enough saying.

But perhaps given the standard of your posts, you don't understand the
difference between an egg and eggs.

You miss the point.Â* It is the increased vulnerability of the one basket
we are querying.

And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

I was aware of the numbers but missed out the 'millions'! Expensive to
extract but only 10 times the current market rates for Uranium.

There is also the consideration that more Uranium is leached out of
rocks such it would take longer than 5,000 years to deplete.

Ther is 10 years worth of plutonium sitting at Sellafield


Lots of eggs and numerous baskets come to mind.