Quite a spectacular fail in fact.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php...nnish-nuclear/

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 24/06/2013 15:55, Steve Firth wrote:
Quite a spectacular fail in fact.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php...nnish-nuclear/


I thought The Economist's description of the German energy policy as
being Quixotic particularly apt.

Colin Bignell

On 24/06/2013 20:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 24/06/2013 15:55, Steve Firth wrote:
Quite a spectacular fail in fact.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php...nnish-nuclear/



I thought The Economist's description of the German energy policy as
being Quixotic particularly apt.

Colin Bignell

That might tilt the argument.

--
Rod

On 24/06/13 17:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article

g,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa

n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/

Let's see how harry spins *this* one.

Like a bloody teetotum


--
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.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

g,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa
n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/

Let's see how harry spins *this* one.

Easy. This is just more drivel.
How do they know the total cost of the nuclear plant since it is not even
near completed?
They might not even get one at the end of the day.
Nothing mentioned about decommissioning costs either.
No mention of operating/maintenance costs. Near zero in the case of PV
panels.

Also none of our existing nuclear plants have lasted sixty years (or the
French ones), why should this one?

I wonder where they get seven cents/Kwh, the frogs want a lot more than that
at the proposed Hinkley point project?
Oh look at this, that figure is ********. There's a surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...tion#Economics

Surprised you are so easily taken in by the utter tosh in this atricle.

"harryagain" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa
n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/

Let's see how harry spins *this* one.

Easy. This is just more drivel.
How do they know the total cost of the nuclear plant since it is not even
near completed?
They might not even get one at the end of the day.
Nothing mentioned about decommissioning costs either.
No mention of operating/maintenance costs. Near zero in the case of PV
panels.

Bull****. Solar panels need constant maintenance to brush off the dust for
a start.

Also none of our existing nuclear plants have lasted sixty years (or the
French ones), why should this one?

As predicted by TNP, harry spinning like a top.

Meanwhile, in the real world, EDF has applied for a life extension to
60-63 years for all AGRs and for an extension to 67 years for Sizewell B
PWR.

The Magnox reactors were designed for fifty years use which is why they
aren't around sixty years later.

There are very few subjects on which Harold the Halfwit cannot speak fluent
********.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:12:28 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Meanwhile, in the real world, EDF has applied for a life extension to
60-63 years for all AGRs

Got a source?

http://news.hse.gov.uk/onr/2012/12/e...ion-statement/

"Hinkley Point B in and Hunterston B until 2023" (which equates to 47 years)

and for an extension to 67 years for Sizewell B
PWR.

Has it. Did someone tell the ONR?


The Magnox reactors were designed for fifty years use which is why they
aren't around sixty years later.

25 Years

http://www.neimagazine.com/features/...tension-story/


--

The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:12:28 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Meanwhile, in the real world, EDF has applied for a life extension to
60-63 years for all AGRs

Got a source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom

"EDF announced it expects 7 year life extensions ... across all AGRs ... a
20 year life extension ... for ... Sizewell B"


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:12:28 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Meanwhile, in the real world, EDF has applied for a life extension to
60-63 years for all AGRs

Got a source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom

"EDF announced it expects 7 year life extensions ... across all AGRs ... a
20 year life extension ... for ... Sizewell B"

If you go to the source, or at least a bit closer to it.

http://www.neimagazine.com/news/news...ns-for-uk-agrs

"EDF expects to increase the average life extension from five to seven years"

So that is seven minus five = two more years, and given the previous life
extensions, the start of commercial operation, previously announced intended
closure dates, and engineering issues that cannot be solved it is nowhere near
'60 - 63 years' - 47 years maybe and at least one *will not* reach 35.

"A 20-year life extension has previously been announced as the strategic target
for the Sizewell B PWR"

20 years possible extension + 40 years original design life = 60 years, not 67

Also there has been nothing heard in 16 months since that announcement either by
EDF or by the ONR.


--

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:12:28 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth

wrote:

Meanwhile, in the real world, EDF has applied for a life extension to
60-63 years for all AGRs

Got a source?

http://news.hse.gov.uk/onr/2012/12/e...ion-statement/

"Hinkley Point B in and Hunterston B until 2023" (which equates to 47
years)

and for an extension to 67 years for Sizewell B
PWR.

Has it. Did someone tell the ONR?


The Magnox reactors were designed for fifty years use which is why they
aren't around sixty years later.

25 Years

http://www.neimagazine.com/features/...tension-story/


There yah go.
Mr Firth caught out again. There's a surprise.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa
n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/

Let's see how harry spins *this* one.

Easy. This is just more drivel.
How do they know the total cost of the nuclear plant since it is not even
near completed?
They might not even get one at the end of the day.
Nothing mentioned about decommissioning costs either.
No mention of operating/maintenance costs. Near zero in the case of PV
panels.

Bull****. Solar panels need constant maintenance to brush off the dust for
a start.


Unless near horizontal, the rain washes off any dust, the glass is self
cleaning.
You're full of crap for someone who doesn't own any.

On 25/06/2013 19:31, harryagain wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
....
Bull****. Solar panels need constant maintenance to brush off the dust for
a start.


Unless near horizontal, the rain washes off any dust, the glass is self
cleaning....

It doesn't work that way for my car or house windows. Both always need
extra cleaning.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2013 19:31, harryagain wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Bull****. Solar panels need constant maintenance to brush off the dust
for
a start.


Unless near horizontal, the rain washes off any dust, the glass is self
cleaning....

It doesn't work that way for my car or house windows. Both always need
extra cleaning.

Colin Bignell

I don't suppose your windows are self cleaning glass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_cleaning_glass

Nightjar wrote:
On 25/06/2013 19:31, harryagain wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Bull****. Solar panels need constant maintenance to brush off the dust for
a start.


Unless near horizontal, the rain washes off any dust, the glass is self
cleaning....

It doesn't work that way for my car or house windows. Both always need extra cleaning.

harry tells lies, no one surprised.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"harryagain" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"harryagain" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa
n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/

Let's see how harry spins *this* one.

Easy. This is just more drivel.
How do they know the total cost of the nuclear plant since it is not even
near completed?
They might not even get one at the end of the day.
Nothing mentioned about decommissioning costs either.
No mention of operating/maintenance costs. Near zero in the case of PV
panels.

Bull****. Solar panels need constant maintenance to brush off the dust for
a start.


Unless near horizontal, the rain washes off any dust, the glass is self
cleaning.
You're full of crap for someone who doesn't own any.

That's ********. The solar farms near my home employ teams to keep the
panels clean. And if it's raining solar panels are barely working.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"harryagain" wrote:

I wonder where they get seven cents/Kwh

By taking a factual look at costs, not hysterical greeny******** made up
costs.

The Royal Academy of Engineering costed nuclear at 2.26p/kWh.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 25/06/13 07:53, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

g,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa
n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/
Let's see how harry spins *this* one.
Easy. This is just more drivel.
How do they know the total cost of the nuclear plant since it is not even
near completed?

Golly that hard one.

How do you know the cost of a windfarm that isn't completed? Or a solar
panel installation that isn't completed?

I think you may have hit on something there harry.

We should stop any further renewable energy pojects because no one knows
how much they are going to cost.

They might not even get one at the end of the day.
Nothing mentioned about decommissioning costs either.
Included in the costs silly boy
How much does it cost to decommission a solar farm and return it to
green field?
And dsipsose of the toxic waste that lasts billions of years.

No mention of operating/maintenance costs. Near zero in the case of PV
panels.
Near zero in the case of nuclear, too.

Also none of our existing nuclear plants have lasted sixty years (or the
French ones), why should this one?
Perhaps because it was designed to do so?

I wonder where they get seven cents/Kwh, the frogs want a lot more than that
at the proposed Hinkley point project?
Oh look at this, that figure is ********. There's a surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley...tion#Economics

Surprised you are so easily taken in by the utter tosh in this atricle.

Not surprised you are as usual lying.






--
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 25/06/13 07:53, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article

g,
Steve Firth wrote:

Quite a spectacular fail in fact.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php.../cost-of-germa
n-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/
Let's see how harry spins *this* one.
Easy. This is just more drivel.
How do they know the total cost of the nuclear plant since it is not even
near completed?

Golly that hard one.

How do you know the cost of a windfarm that isn't completed? Or a solar
panel installation that isn't completed?


It doesn't take decades of escalating costs to build either of the above
that's why.
And they are not prototypes that might not work properly at the end of the
project either.