No-one can afford the price.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...hin-weeks.html

On Mar 5, 8:50*am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Supposing it all happens.

On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when I'm
pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to get
and he wanted to pay.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower per
unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life, and an unwillingness
by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can be processed and
re-used many times. They insist on it passing once through the reactor,
then want to keep it for ever.

If the same standards for radioactivity were applied to other situations
as are applied to the nuclear industry, Aberdeen and Dartmoor would have
to be evacuated due to the radioactivity levels there, and they would
never have been allowed to build Edinburgh Waverley station.

If the same standards were applied to the clean-up and pollution, then
coal would cost *much* more than it does, and wind farms would be
totally uneconomical, as the massive, invisible from outside, concrete
foundations would have to be removed and disposed of.

If the appearance standards were applied uniformly in planning, then
very few renewable energy sites would be in existence, including most
domestic solar panels of all types.

Supposing it all happens.

It has to, or we'll be having power shedding at peak load within a few
years.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the government
don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when I'm pricing my
services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to get and he wanted
to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower per
unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up to
amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

Sorry this is a cost of doing business. It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory" and
then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that they
leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that this has
been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other countries
doesn't make it right!)

and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can be
processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once through
the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the costs
of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few people go
marching with banners!"

tim

On 05/03/2013 10:34, tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...


Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when
I'm pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to
get and he wanted to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

Not when I'm doing a recording for a band as a contractor.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

Then can we please apply the same rules to coal, solar PV and wind as to
nuclear? And to the railway companies who are still getting a massive
government subsidy to operate and rebuild their train sets?

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower
per unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

Yes.

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

I doubt it. The subsidy being requested is, to put it bluntly, a bribe
to bring jobs to the UK and to EDF.

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

The standard being demanded is higher than that demanded of any other
business.

Sorry this is a cost of doing business. It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory"
and then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that
they leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that
this has been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other
countries doesn't make it right!)

To demand the same standard of other types of power generation would
make them more expensive than nuclear.

and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

As sure as I can be, working on published information from all sides.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"

It's called politics. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

It's the same reasoning that got the French high speed rail link from
Paris to Calais built and operating six months before the tunnel was
finished, while it took us over a decade of court battles to get ours
from London to Dover built and another few years to get it operational.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 05/03/13 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

No harry. 10p a unit tops is what the guvmint are saying.

compared with 45p for solar


Supposing it all happens.



--
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.

On 05/03/13 10:34, tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...


Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when
I'm pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to
get and he wanted to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower
per unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

depends on how you do the accounting.
and whether you consider a half solution - intermittent renewables - to
be equal to a full solution of dispatchable baseload power.

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

because wind farms aren't.

Sorry this is a cost of doing business. It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory"
and then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that
they leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that
this has been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other
countries doesn't make it right!)


so add a decommissioning levy to wind farms and solar farms then.

and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

its the result of mined uranium being so cheap its not profitable to
recycle it.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"


well you should, because 95% of waste disposal costs are pretty much on
that account.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf


tim





--
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.

On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs around
$0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not to be
published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal, including
construction, running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

Colin Bignell

On 05/03/2013 13:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...


Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs around
$0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not to be
published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal, including
construction, running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

Colin Bignell


Ratio of 4.5; near enough to TNP's UK ratio of 5.5. Lets say 5 for the
sake of argument.

On Mar 5, 11:29*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 08:54, harry wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV *I expect.

No harry. 10p a unit tops is what the guvmint are saying.

compared with 45p for solar

Er 16p it is now for solar.
Try to keep up.

On Mar 5, 11:33*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 10:34, tim..... wrote:









"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, *wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when
I'm pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to
get and he wanted to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV *I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower
per unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

depends on how you do the accounting.
and whether you consider a half solution - intermittent renewables - to
be equal to a full solution of dispatchable baseload power.

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

because wind farms aren't.

Sorry this is a cost of doing business. *It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory"
and then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that
they leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that
this has been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other
countries doesn't make it right!)

so add a decommissioning levy to wind farms and solar farms then.

Someone would pay to take one away.

So as the most recently built nuclear were for inside submarines, could we
not just modify these designs and shove several together at one site?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"newshound" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 05/03/2013 13:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...


Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs around
$0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not to be
published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal, including
construction, running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

Colin Bignell


Ratio of 4.5; near enough to TNP's UK ratio of 5.5. Lets say 5 for the
sake of argument.

John Williamson wrote:
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
[snip]

If the same standards were applied to the clean-up and pollution, then
coal would cost *much* more than it does, and wind farms would be totally
uneconomical, as the massive, invisible from outside, concrete
foundations would have to be removed and disposed of.

That bit I don't quite understand. A few years ago I was involved in the
design of structures that have to take considerable wind loads and support
a massive cantilever. The design solution for those was screw piling as
used for Victorian piers. Looking at how long those structures have
survived why would one go for an inferior design involving concrete?

If the appearance standards were applied uniformly in planning, then very
few renewable energy sites would be in existence, including most domestic
solar panels of all types.

If solar PV had to work to nuclear standards it would cost several times
what it does now. Not only is it impossible to meet requirements for the
site to be visually attractive or even neutral, but the manufacturing
process is energy hungry and filthy.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 05/03/2013 14:49, newshound wrote:
On 05/03/2013 13:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...



Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs around
$0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not to be
published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal, including
construction, running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

Colin Bignell


Ratio of 4.5; near enough to TNP's UK ratio of 5.5. Lets say 5 for the
sake of argument.

His figures may include running costs. There has to be some cost,
possibly considerable cost, in keeping the panels clean.

Colin Bignell

On 05/03/13 17:04, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/03/2013 14:49, newshound wrote:
On 05/03/2013 13:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...




Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs around
$0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not to be
published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal, including
construction, running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

Colin Bignell


Ratio of 4.5; near enough to TNP's UK ratio of 5.5. Lets say 5 for the
sake of argument.

His figures may include running costs. There has to be some cost,
possibly considerable cost, in keeping the panels clean.

Colin Bignell
his figures are based on te subsidy and or IIRC someone somewhere
reporting them as such.

Remember also, the figures for running costs need to include the cost of
constructing and running backup plant as well.

This is a tricky one to do. All one CAN do is take the overall costs of
combined plant - e.g. 1GW solar (peak) and 1GW gas , add them together
and then take that fraction of the cost that can be assigned to the
solar AVERAGE output.

That turns out something like 20 a unit for a 25% capacity factor
intermittent, and maybe 4-5p for a 10% factor like solar.



--
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.

On 05/03/13 15:01, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:29 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 08:54, harry wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

No harry. 10p a unit tops is what the guvmint are saying.

compared with 45p for solar

Er 16p it is now for solar.
Try to keep up.

No, its 45p for ALL the extra tax breaks carbon credits FITS ROCS and
******** that the green rent seeking swine grab.

--
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.

On 05/03/13 15:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
So as the most recently built nuclear were for inside submarines, could we
not just modify these designs and shove several together at one site?

Brian

wrong safety standards Brian.

And not very cost effective.
Small modular reactors are on the cards tho.

--
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.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power stations,
are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs around $0.22 per
kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not to be published,
compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal, including construction,
running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

I still contest that they simply cannot do that calculation with any
accuracy because no-one yet knows how much decommissioning will cost. The
figures that they assume today are likely to be huge underestimates

(though I do agree that PV is not the best alternative)

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 10:34, tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...


Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when
I'm pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to
get and he wanted to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower
per unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

depends on how you do the accounting.
and whether you consider a half solution - intermittent renewables - to be
equal to a full solution of dispatchable baseload power.

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

because wind farms aren't.

I bet they are

Sorry this is a cost of doing business. It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory"
and then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that
they leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that
this has been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other
countries doesn't make it right!)


so add a decommissioning levy to wind farms and solar farms then.

I suspect that the removal costs are the responsibility of the operator as
they are tiny by comparison (with nuclear decommissioning)

and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

its the result of mined uranium being so cheap its not profitable to
recycle it.

When including the ongoing costs of storing the spent fuel forever?

I have no idea but I can't see it as likely.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"


well you should, because 95% of waste disposal costs are pretty much on
that account.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

Is there a specific point that is relevant here. The general point that
"people don't like nuclear stuff in their backyard" doesn't apply

tim

On 05/03/2013 18:23, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs
around $0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem not
to be published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal,
including construction, running and, for nuclear, decommissioning.

I still contest that they simply cannot do that calculation with any
accuracy because no-one yet knows how much decommissioning will cost.
The figures that they assume today are likely to be huge underestimates

(though I do agree that PV is not the best alternative)

tim



Sue Ion did a fairly good job of explaining the difference between
legacy and modern systems to Jim Al Khalili


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...tific_Sue_Ion/

On 05/03/13 18:23, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...



Notice the word "subsidies". I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear
electricity will cost? More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs
around $0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem
not to be published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal,
including construction, running and, for nuclear,
decommissioning.

I still contest that they simply cannot do that calculation with any
accuracy because no-one yet knows how much decommissioning will
cost. The figures that they assume today are likely to be huge
underestimates


of course they can put a figure in decommissioning of NEW nuclear,
because its built into the design, and it is relatively trivial,

The problem is with the legacy kit that wasn't built to be dismantled
easily.

In a modern reactor whip out the rods and store in tanks, leave a couple
of years. Off to sellafield.

Then remove all the turbine kit/boilers and scrap.
And then leave the reactor pressure vessl and containment for about 30
years, then bulldoze it.

Or if sane standards were in force, don't wait 30 years : just bulldoze it.

All the radioactivity is in the fuel with just a bit on the steel
pressure vessel and an infinitesimally small amount in the concrete.

The pressure vessel will be slightly 'hot' from neutron absorption but
not forever.


We have to dismantle the old Magnox and AGRs and FBRs so not having new
nuclear doesn't make the cost there any the less.

But new nuclear is a simple job, because its deigned that way. The
opportunity cots is less the more stations we have coming online. They
help pay for the decomissioning of the old, if they are co sited.

AS they represent an active skilled and equipped workforce who can
babysit the old stuff till its simply a demolition job.

IN short having new nuclear will in the end cost less overall than not
having it.

The same arguments apply to Sellafield. The problem already exists: we
need a new facility, we might as well make full use of it.


(though I do agree that PV is not the best alternative)

tim





--
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.

On 05/03/13 18:30, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 10:34, tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...



Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when
I'm pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to
get and he wanted to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower
per unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

depends on how you do the accounting.
and whether you consider a half solution - intermittent renewables -
to be equal to a full solution of dispatchable baseload power.

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

because wind farms aren't.

I bet they are

go on then, do the research and prove me wrong. Show me one legal
contract that says that every last nut boplt and lump of reinforced
concrete will be removed from an offshore or onshore windfarm in 20
years when they are all beyond economic repair ?

Show me the trust fund of money set up to cover this cost.



Sorry this is a cost of doing business. It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory"
and then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that
they leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that
this has been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other
countries doesn't make it right!)


so add a decommissioning levy to wind farms and solar farms then.

I suspect that the removal costs are the responsibility of the operator
as they are tiny by comparison (with nuclear decommissioning)

yeah right, that's why each one is a shell company that can be allowed
to fold once the wind farm is no longer profitable eh?

You must be very green..


and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

its the result of mined uranium being so cheap its not profitable to
recycle it.

When including the ongoing costs of storing the spent fuel forever?


why would one worry about storing spent fuel forever (we wont of course)
when we have to store e.g. coal ash forever, or mercury forever or lead
forever..

I have no idea

Aint that the truth...


but I can't see it as likely.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"


well you should, because 95% of waste disposal costs are pretty much
on that account.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

Is there a specific point that is relevant here. The general point that
"people don't like nuclear stuff in their backyard" doesn't apply

Can you write that in English so I can understand it?

I assume you didnt read the link.

People - many people., myself included DO like nuclear stuff in their
backyard, especially when the alternative to a square mile of nuke and
10p electricity prices is an area the size of greater London covered in
windmills and 5-6 gas power stations and 15p-30p a unit electricity.

id be unequivocally in favour of ANY nuclear development round here,
provided it was done to benefit the local area. Even waste storage.

Its only people who are ignorant and/or prejudiced who think its a bad idea.

The fact that that's slightly less than half te population doesn't make
it less wrong, either.



tim




--
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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 18:30, tim..... wrote:




and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

its the result of mined uranium being so cheap its not profitable to
recycle it.

When including the ongoing costs of storing the spent fuel forever?


why would one worry about storing spent fuel forever (we wont of course)
when we have to store e.g. coal ash forever, or mercury forever or lead
forever..

Because nuclear waste is dangerous. I accept that it isn't all as dangerous
as claimed but some of it is.


I have no idea

Aint that the truth...


but I can't see it as likely.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"


well you should, because 95% of waste disposal costs are pretty much
on that account.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

Is there a specific point that is relevant here. The general point that
"people don't like nuclear stuff in their backyard" doesn't apply

Can you write that in English so I can understand it?

I assume you didnt read the link.

I didn't read 14 pages, no

It's unreasonable for you to expect me to

I read the summary, it said that people didn't trust nuclear. There was
nothing in the summary to suggest that people had actively voiced their
opinion about spent fuel (not) being reused, which was the point at issue
when you posted the link.

People - many people., myself included DO like nuclear stuff in their
backyard, especially when the alternative to a square mile of nuke and 10p
electricity prices is an area the size of greater London covered in
windmills and 5-6 gas power stations and 15p-30p a unit electricity.

id be unequivocally in favour of ANY nuclear development round here,
provided it was done to benefit the local area. Even waste storage.

Its only people who are ignorant and/or prejudiced who think its a bad
idea.

The fact that that's slightly less than half te population doesn't make it
less wrong, either.


I'm not discussing whether it is right or wrong

I'm discussing whether the people who build the power stations should be
expected to include the costs of clearing up after them in the cost of
providing the energy, and it seems obvious to me that they should.

If after they have done that it is still the most economical solution I have
no problem with it.

Until they do, I have

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 18:23, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...



Notice the word "subsidies". I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear
electricity will cost? More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs
around $0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem
not to be published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal,
including construction, running and, for nuclear,
decommissioning.

I still contest that they simply cannot do that calculation with any
accuracy because no-one yet knows how much decommissioning will
cost. The figures that they assume today are likely to be huge
underestimates


of course they can put a figure in decommissioning of NEW nuclear,
because its built into the design, and it is relatively trivial,


Decommissioning is not just taking apart the building. It includes the safe
storage of all of the bits of it that are still dangerous.

As we have so far failed to find a solution to what we already have to
store, we have absolutely no idea how much it will cost to store twice,
three times ... as much

tim

On 05/03/2013 21:23, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


of course they can put a figure in decommissioning of NEW nuclear,
because its built into the design, and it is relatively trivial,


Decommissioning is not just taking apart the building. It includes the
safe storage of all of the bits of it that are still dangerous.

As we have so far failed to find a solution to what we already have to
store, we have absolutely no idea how much it will cost to store twice,
three times ... as much

tim


If you read the Wade Allinson article carefully you would see that many
of the current arguments and strategies related to radiation protection
are, at the very least, dubious. At the moment we are still in the "Red
Flag
Act" era. It is not difficult to make above ground storage just as secure
as we want it to be. The barriers to long term storage are political,
not technical.

On 05/03/2013 10:52, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/03/2013 10:34, tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...



Notice the word "subsidies".

Yes, EDF want paying a lot of money by the government, and the
government don't want to pay it. I do the same with my employer when
I'm pricing my services. We settled somewhere between what I wanted to
get and he wanted to pay.

That an employer-employee relationship.

Not when I'm doing a recording for a band as a contractor.

EDF are a commercial company who are expected (general rule) to fund
investments on the basis of future sales gained by that investment.

There should be no aspect of the government "paying" them in any such a
deal.

Then can we please apply the same rules to coal, solar PV and wind as to
nuclear? And to the railway companies who are still getting a massive
government subsidy to operate and rebuild their train sets?

It isn't simply about a straight subsidy anyway. From what I've heard,
EDF's concern is that they could invest huge amounts of money and then
find that a future government decided to change the rules and make them
unprofitable. They are simply asking for a guaranteed price per unit, so
that they can be sure that they are not pouring all that money in, only
for a future government to subsidise something else and make the nuclear
stations unable to compete.

Anyway, why should nuclear be the only low CO2 generation that must
compete without subsidy - surely it either should be subsidised or the
subsidies should be removed from competing generation.

I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

The actual cost of building and operating the stations is much lower
per unit of electricity than any form of renewable power.

Is it?

Yes.

Are the being offered that level of subsidy? (I have no idea)

I doubt it. The subsidy being requested is, to put it bluntly, a bribe
to bring jobs to the UK and to EDF.

What makes it expensive is the requirement that the site be cleared up
to amazingly high standards at the end of its life,

and why the hell not!

The standard being demanded is higher than that demanded of any other
business.

Indeed. Much of it is based on the very outdated assumption that the
graph of damage to cells vs radiation levels is a straight line. Recent
evidence has shown that it is not, due to the body's defence and repair
mechanisms and the lower end of the graph therefore tapers off. This
means that the "safe" levels are anything up to 1000 times the ones the
industry has to work to. Hence why the populations of Cornwall and parts
of Scotland are not all dying off at a phenomenal rate.

Sorry this is a cost of doing business. It is simply not right that
commercial organisations should take the profit from running a "factory"
and then expect the tax-prayer to clean up the environmental mess that
they leave when the factory ceases to be useful to them. (the fact that
this has been allowed to happen in the past, and still happens in other
countries doesn't make it right!)

To demand the same standard of other types of power generation would
make them more expensive than nuclear.

and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

As sure as I can be, working on published information from all sides.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"

It's called politics. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Activists have certainly worked hard to prevent re-processing and the
provision of fast breeder reactors - knowing that it would lead to the
wider use of nuclear power.

It's the same reasoning that got the French high speed rail link from
Paris to Calais built and operating six months before the tunnel was
finished, while it took us over a decade of court battles to get ours
from London to Dover built and another few years to get it operational.

I must state a vested interest, as I work within the nuclear industry,
although my skills are easily transferable and I could move into many
other industries at any time, so it is not simply self-interest.

If we are to reduce CO2 emissions, I personally consider large scale
nuclear as the only reliable, affordable way to ensure adequate,
affordable power throughout the UK.

SteveW

On 05/03/13 21:23, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 18:23, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...




Notice the word "subsidies". I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear
electricity will cost? More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs
around $0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem
not to be published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal,
including construction, running and, for nuclear,
decommissioning.

I still contest that they simply cannot do that calculation with any
accuracy because no-one yet knows how much decommissioning will
cost. The figures that they assume today are likely to be huge
underestimates


of course they can put a figure in decommissioning of NEW nuclear,
because its built into the design, and it is relatively trivial,


Decommissioning is not just taking apart the building. It includes the
safe storage of all of the bits of it that are still dangerous.


Do you fancy a job teaching my grandmother...

As we have so far failed to find a solution to what we already have to
store, we have absolutely no idea how much it will cost to store twice,
three times ... as much


Absolute ignorant tosh.

The ONLY long-lived radionuclides in ANY quantity are in the fuel rods,
in a modern react6or. 99% of these are recyclable into fuel. Of the rest
the quantity is vanishingly small, and, being long lived the radio
activity is negligible.

Even dounreay which was about as awash with fast neutrons as its
possible to get, will be cool enough to bulldoze in a decade or two.




tim





--
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.

On 05/03/2013 23:50, SteveW wrote:
....
Indeed. Much of it is based on the very outdated assumption that the
graph of damage to cells vs radiation levels is a straight line. Recent
evidence has shown that it is not, due to the body's defence and repair
mechanisms and the lower end of the graph therefore tapers off. This
means that the "safe" levels are anything up to 1000 times the ones the
industry has to work to. Hence why the populations of Cornwall and parts
of Scotland are not all dying off at a phenomenal rate.
....

The evidence from studying people who live in areas with very high
levels of natural background radiation is that, far from being harmful,
low level radiation may actually have some beneficial effects.

Colin Bignell

On 05/03/13 21:20, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 18:30, tim..... wrote:




and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

its the result of mined uranium being so cheap its not profitable to
recycle it.

When including the ongoing costs of storing the spent fuel forever?


why would one worry about storing spent fuel forever (we wont of
course) when we have to store e.g. coal ash forever, or mercury
forever or lead forever..

Because nuclear waste is dangerous. I accept that it isn't all as
dangerous as claimed but some of it is.


I have no idea

Aint that the truth...


but I can't see it as likely.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"


well you should, because 95% of waste disposal costs are pretty much
on that account.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

Is there a specific point that is relevant here. The general point that
"people don't like nuclear stuff in their backyard" doesn't apply

Can you write that in English so I can understand it?

I assume you didnt read the link.

I didn't read 14 pages, no



It's unreasonable for you to expect me to

Good grief.

If you are not prepared to read well researched factual information,
from an expert in the field, how is anyone sup[posed to take anything
you say seriously?



I read the summary, it said that people didn't trust nuclear. There was
nothing in the summary to suggest that people had actively voiced their
opinion about spent fuel (not) being reused, which was the point at
issue when you posted the link.


I really fail to see the point. Which is, if te cost of storage is
higher than the cost of burning it, you burn it in new reactors.

People may say thedint want to store it and they don't want to use it it
new nuclear, but that makes them little better than a spoilt 2 year old
who wants what he thinks he wants without any hope of ever getting it.
No doubt you too will throw your toys out of the pram. It wont alter the
reality one iota..



People - many people., myself included DO like nuclear stuff in their
backyard, especially when the alternative to a square mile of nuke and
10p electricity prices is an area the size of greater London covered
in windmills and 5-6 gas power stations and 15p-30p a unit electricity.

id be unequivocally in favour of ANY nuclear development round here,
provided it was done to benefit the local area. Even waste storage.

Its only people who are ignorant and/or prejudiced who think its a bad
idea.

The fact that that's slightly less than half te population doesn't
make it less wrong, either.


I'm not discussing whether it is right or wrong

I'm discussing whether the people who build the power stations should be
expected to include the costs of clearing up after them in the cost of
providing the energy, and it seems obvious to me that they should.


Well a moment ago you were discussing something totally different. e.g.

"There was nothing in the summary to suggest that people had actively
voiced their opinion about spent fuel (not) being reused, *which was the
point at issue* when you posted the link."


Frankly your attitude is like a spoilt brat that is spoiling for a clip
on the backside.

I will try once more, in case their lurlks a nascent adulyt mnind.

The cost of dealing with legacy systems is going to happen whether or
not new nuclear is built.

The cost (of dealing with the legacy watse)can be leveraged into far far
more electricity production at very little extra cost if the same
facilities are used for new nuclear and indeed the problem of what to do
with ten tonnes of plutonium vanishes if its required to be used as fuel
for the next generation of reactors. And the non radioactive (or so low
radioactive that its not classed as 'nuclear waste' U238 that is left
over can if uranium prices rise, be bred into more fuel.

Leaving very little to store at all.

It is not FAIR however for NEW nuclear to pay for disposal of OLD
nuclear that it did not build. Which is why that is funded separately by
the taxpayer. Since a lot of it is in fact nothing to do with nuclear
power, and rather a lot to do with atomic warheads, its even less fair
that the nuclear POWER industry has to fund it.

To respond directly to your point, the GOVERENMENT built the magnox and
AGR stations, and the SOLD them.

So its is the GOVERNMENTS responsibility to clean them up, which it is
slowly and cost effectively doing. And we as a nation have had 40 years
or more of bloody cheap electricity out of them and still do.


It is disingenuous and vicious to imply that
- the cost of dealing with the waste from power stations designed to
minimise and even burn waste and be decomissioned easily, will be the
same scale as the legacy costs.

- the because the government is picking up the tab for reactors it
built, it will be expected to pick up the tab for new nuclear.

There is an inevitable overlap, because it doesn't make sense to build
reprocessing treatment and storage facilities for old waste funded by
government and build additional facilities for new waste, just to be
able to say 'its all being handled by the nuclear power industry, not
the government. Sellafield is I think still government owned, but there
is no reason for it to remain so forever, and a revamped Sellafield
would be a profitable business.

Of course it suffers from the usual government disease of chronic
underfunding - it needs to be thoroughly modernised, but remember it has
processed fuel from all over the world. Its an export business.

Ultimately no one has any reason not to allow people final choices in
nuclear energy, but they must be informed choices.

Talking to you reveals that you at least are chronically under-informed.


Which is why I passed you a linke. to read. I had assumed you has some
interest in nuclear power and your nation beyond acting like you knew it
all because you had read it in a comic strip (aka The Guardian) .


If after they have done that it is still the most economical solution I
have no problem with it.

Until they do, I have

tim







--
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.

On 05/03/2013 21:20, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

why would one worry about storing spent fuel forever (we wont of
course) when we have to store e.g. coal ash forever, or mercury
forever or lead forever..

Because nuclear waste is dangerous. I accept that it isn't all as
dangerous as claimed but some of it is.

I'll snip there.

Sure, nuclear waste is dangerous. Recent information seems to imply that
the low level stuff isn't dangerous (The Taiwan cobalt-steel apartments
for example) however even if it is the low-level stuff contains less
radiation than coal ash.

Even with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima the nuclear power
industry has killed far fewer people than coal, mercury or lead.

If you really care about the environment of course you'll be worrying
about all the birds killed by wind farms... where the major advantage of
offshore is that the corpses don't lie on the ground underneath.

Andy

On Mar 5, 5:20*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 15:01, harry wrote:







On Mar 5, 11:29 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 08:54, harry wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV *I expect.

No harry. 10p a unit tops is what the guvmint are saying.

compared with 45p for solar

Er 16p it is now for solar.
Try to keep up.

No, its 45p for ALL the extra tax breaks carbon credits FITS ROCS and
******** that the green rent seeking swine grab.

These are the current rates TurNiP

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...r%202012 .pdf

Head up your arse as usual.

On 06/03/13 10:46, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:20 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 15:01, harry wrote:







On Mar 5, 11:29 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 05/03/13 08:54, harry wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...

Notice the word "subsidies".
I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear electricity will cost?
More than Solar PV I expect.

No harry. 10p a unit tops is what the guvmint are saying.

compared with 45p for solar

Er 16p it is now for solar.
Try to keep up.

No, its 45p for ALL the extra tax breaks carbon credits FITS ROCS and
******** that the green rent seeking swine grab.

These are the current rates TurNiP

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...r%202012 .pdf

Head up your arse as usual.

that's just the FIT harry.


--
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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 21:23, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 18:23, tim..... wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2013 08:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:50 am, harry wrote:
No-one can afford the
price.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...9908734/Talks-...




Notice the word "subsidies". I wonder how much/Kwh new nuclear
electricity will cost? More than Solar PV I expect.

Figures from the USA, where they have commercial solar PV power
stations, are that, over the life of the station, solar PV costs
around $0.22 per kWh, excluding any running costs, as these seem
not to be published, compared to around $0.04 for nuclear and coal,
including construction, running and, for nuclear,
decommissioning.

I still contest that they simply cannot do that calculation with any
accuracy because no-one yet knows how much decommissioning will
cost. The figures that they assume today are likely to be huge
underestimates


of course they can put a figure in decommissioning of NEW nuclear,
because its built into the design, and it is relatively trivial,


Decommissioning is not just taking apart the building. It includes the
safe storage of all of the bits of it that are still dangerous.


Do you fancy a job teaching my grandmother...

As we have so far failed to find a solution to what we already have to
store, we have absolutely no idea how much it will cost to store twice,
three times ... as much


Absolute ignorant tosh.

If you wish to make your argument polity, I will listen to you and consider
it

But I am not going to do that if you are just point blank rude to me

That's the response of a bully who thinks that his position is right because
he is bigger than me, so if you are going to act that way I can only
conclude that it is because your position is wrong.

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 21:20, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/13 18:30, tim..... wrote:




and an unwillingness by the activists to accept that nuclear fuel
can
be processed and re-used many times. They insist on it passing once
through the reactor, then want to keep it for ever.

Are you sure that this is the result of activists and not what is
scientifically the best?

its the result of mined uranium being so cheap its not profitable to
recycle it.

When including the ongoing costs of storing the spent fuel forever?


why would one worry about storing spent fuel forever (we wont of
course) when we have to store e.g. coal ash forever, or mercury
forever or lead forever..

Because nuclear waste is dangerous. I accept that it isn't all as
dangerous as claimed but some of it is.


I have no idea

Aint that the truth...


but I can't see it as likely.

I can't believe for one moment that we are saddling ourselves with
the
costs of storing "spent" fuel that isn't really spent, because a few
people go marching with banners!"


well you should, because 95% of waste disposal costs are pretty much
on that account.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

Is there a specific point that is relevant here. The general point
that
"people don't like nuclear stuff in their backyard" doesn't apply

Can you write that in English so I can understand it?

I assume you didnt read the link.

I didn't read 14 pages, no



It's unreasonable for you to expect me to

Good grief.

If you are not prepared to read well researched factual information, from
an expert in the field, how is anyone sup[posed to take anything you say
seriously?

I am if it was clear that it answered the single point in question

It wasn't at all clear that it did that.


I read the summary, it said that people didn't trust nuclear. There was
nothing in the summary to suggest that people had actively voiced their
opinion about spent fuel (not) being reused, which was the point at
issue when you posted the link.


I really fail to see the point.

The point was that you posted a link to a 14 page document to substantiate a
claim that a particular thing was (or was not) true and made no attempt to
point me to the bit in the document that was relevant

Which is, if te cost of storage is higher than the cost of burning it, you
burn it in new reactors.

I agree. But I don't know if it is or not, because no-one has said anything
about costs.

All that have said is that we store it because some ninnies in sandals
protest if we re-use it. I claimed that i didn't;'t believe that was the
reason that we stored it. No-one has yet show me any proof of this.

People may say thedint want to store it and they don't want to use it it
new nuclear,

People may say lots of things, but that doesn't usually dictate government
policy does it.

Even when people do protest with banners about more significant things than
this government policy does usually change, does it (Poll tax being the only
obvious exception)

but that makes them little better than a spoilt 2 year old who wants what
he thinks he wants without any hope of ever getting it. No doubt you too
will throw your toys out of the pram. It wont alter the reality one iota..

I haven't stated a position on this, I was simply asking for justification
of what what someone stated as a fact.





People - many people., myself included DO like nuclear stuff in their
backyard, especially when the alternative to a square mile of nuke and
10p electricity prices is an area the size of greater London covered
in windmills and 5-6 gas power stations and 15p-30p a unit electricity.

id be unequivocally in favour of ANY nuclear development round here,
provided it was done to benefit the local area. Even waste storage.

Its only people who are ignorant and/or prejudiced who think its a bad
idea.

The fact that that's slightly less than half te population doesn't
make it less wrong, either.


I'm not discussing whether it is right or wrong

I'm discussing whether the people who build the power stations should be
expected to include the costs of clearing up after them in the cost of
providing the energy, and it seems obvious to me that they should.


Well a moment ago you were discussing something totally different. e.g.

"There was nothing in the summary to suggest that people had actively
voiced their opinion about spent fuel (not) being reused, *which was the
point at issue* when you posted the link."

With respect you confuses two completely separate points that I was
discussing

I have made both of those points.

But the item that you pasted was in response to second and therefore I
reasonably conclude that it was only relevant to that point

Frankly your attitude is like a spoilt brat that is spoiling for a clip on
the backside.

How is telling you that the link that you posted did answer the point that
it was pasted after, being a spoilt brat?

Once again you are trying to win the argument by being a bully!

I will try once more, in case their lurlks a nascent adulyt mnind.

The cost of dealing with legacy systems is going to happen whether or not
new nuclear is built.

I never said otherwise

The cost (of dealing with the legacy watse)can be leveraged into far far
more electricity production at very little extra cost if the same
facilities are used for new nuclear and indeed the problem of what to do
with ten tonnes of plutonium vanishes if its required to be used as fuel
for the next generation of reactors. And the non radioactive (or so low
radioactive that its not classed as 'nuclear waste' U238 that is left over
can if uranium prices rise, be bred into more fuel.

Leaving very little to store at all.

It is not FAIR however for NEW nuclear to pay for disposal of OLD nuclear
that it did not build. Which is why that is funded separately by the
taxpayer. Since a lot of it is in fact nothing to do with nuclear power,
and rather a lot to do with atomic warheads, its even less fair that the
nuclear POWER industry has to fund it.

To respond directly to your point, the GOVERENMENT built the magnox and
AGR stations, and the SOLD them.

So its is the GOVERNMENTS responsibility to clean them up, which it is
slowly and cost effectively doing. And we as a nation have had 40 years or
more of bloody cheap electricity out of them and still do.


It is disingenuous and vicious to imply that
- the cost of dealing with the waste from power stations designed to
minimise and even burn waste and be decomissioned easily, will be the
same scale as the legacy costs.

- the because the government is picking up the tab for reactors it built,
it will be expected to pick up the tab for new nuclear.

There is an inevitable overlap, because it doesn't make sense to build
reprocessing treatment and storage facilities for old waste funded by
government and build additional facilities for new waste, just to be able
to say 'its all being handled by the nuclear power industry, not the
government. Sellafield is I think still government owned, but there is no
reason for it to remain so forever, and a revamped Sellafield would be a
profitable business.

Of course it suffers from the usual government disease of chronic
underfunding - it needs to be thoroughly modernised, but remember it has
processed fuel from all over the world. Its an export business.

Ultimately no one has any reason not to allow people final choices in
nuclear energy, but they must be informed choices.

Talking to you reveals that you at least are chronically under-informed

This doesn't entitle you to be rude to me (and to base that rudeness on an
assumed position of mine which is you have guessed wrongly)

Good bye Mr Bully you have lost the opportunity to convert a genuinely
undecided person

tim

On 06/03/13 13:09, tim..... wrote:
That's the response of a bully who thinks that his position is right
because he is bigger than me, so if you are going to act that way I can
only conclude that it is because your position is wrong.


No, its because you are behaving EXACTLY like a spoilt infant as the
above shows.

Its all about you, isn't it?

Not about nuclear power at all.


tim






--
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.

In message , tim.....
writes
I'm not discussing whether it is right or wrong

I'm discussing whether the people who build the power stations should
be expected to include the costs of clearing up after them in the cost
of providing the energy, and it seems obvious to me that they should.

If after they have done that it is still the most economical solution I
have no problem with it.

Until they do, I have

tim
So what is your proposal for a long term secure electricity supply for
the UK - and please please don't say wind farms or solar power or any
other renewable source.
Is it coal, gas or nuclear? The first priority is surely supply, cost
comes second.
We used to be world leaders in nuclear energy but 40 years of
prevarication by politicians of all parties has lost that and now we
have to plead with the French/Chinese/Japanese to come and build them
for us. Maybe you like the German approach - be all moralistic and close
their own nukes - and buy their power from the French.
--
bert

On 06/03/13 15:19, bert wrote:
So is it to be coal, gas, or nuclear?

Yes.

As long as there is no wind or solar we won't be wasting time and money.

Short term keep coal running.

Medium term build more coal and gas.

Long term build more nuclear.


--
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.

On 06/03/2013 09:42, Andy Champ wrote:
....
Even with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima the nuclear power
industry has killed far fewer people than coal, mercury or lead...

or, per TWh of capacity, wind farms.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:15:34 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:

That bit I don't quite understand. A few years ago I was involved in
the design of structures that have to take considerable wind loads and
support a massive cantilever. The design solution for those was screw
piling as used for Victorian piers. Looking at how long those
structures have survived why would one go for an inferior design
involving concrete?

Cost and simplicity I should imagine. Screw piling would have to take
into account the ground structure at each individual site and presumably
have individual piles made for each one. Also more often than not
windmills are built on mountain sides with very little soil/subsoil
cover. Can you screw pile into the bed rock?

Concrete is a much more "one size fits all" solution, work out how big
the mass of concrete has to be for your turbine, dig hole (blasting bed
rock if required), fill with concrete, wait for cure, job done.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mar 6, 9:17*pm, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/03/2013 09:42, Andy Champ wrote:
...

Even with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima the nuclear power
industry has killed far fewer people than coal, mercury or lead...

or, per TWh of capacity, wind farms.

Colin Bignell

But reduced the lives of tens of thousands. And it's only been around
for forty years, during most of that time miniscule.
The deaths and accidents have increased as it became more common.
What was the economic cost of Fukushima or Chernobyl?
When was the last time a coal power station blew up/melted down?