For harry
 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/

rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.

--
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.

For harry
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/

rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.



Yeah right.
I wonder where they "hered" that from?
You get your information from no-brainers that can't even spell?

All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except renewables
which are free.
I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?

The only reason our fossil fuel generated electricity prices are where they
are now is because the power stations are old and the capital cost is long
written off. Wait 'til we get our new (nuclear?) power stations, they will
want the money back ASAP. THEN you'll see some price rises.

And the last concluding paragraph is drivel.
The cost of modifying the gas grid will arise from the huge and continuous
alterations needed to link in the frack gas wells which are depleted in a
few years/months and replacement wells have to be drilled.

What the fuel companies and government don't want people to realise is that
the new frack gas industry (If there is any) will involve a continuous
rolling program of drilling, spreading across the country (a well every ten
of fifteen miles) massive amounts of waste generated, new roads, lots of
heavy lorries and tankers, new pipelines laid across the countryside (Above
or below ground?) Oh and holding tanks/lagoons for the fracking fluid.

Land will be requisitioned, if you live nearby, your home will be worth less
and your insurance may cost more. The roads will be filled with trucks and
tankers and all the associated muck and potholes.

The rush will be on to expeort surplus gas to Europe via existing pipelines
to coin in the cash ASAP. So the Frogs etc will have gas while we have all
the muck. (Fracking has been banned in many EU countries.)

And of course we may have the odd earthquake/ground water pollution
incident. (This may be a red herring produced to distract the public from
the real facts.)

You "hered" it from me. This is what will happen.

For harry
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and maintenance
costs of the device which generates the electricity from the renewable.

I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

On 19/07/13 19:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.
Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and maintenance
costs of the device which generates the electricity from the renewable.

I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?
They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

If hary had read the article, he would have seen that gas prices have
not risen in terms of bulk spot prices. But retail prices have.

The reasons are almost completely 'green' government initiatives.


--
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.

For harry
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and maintenance
costs of the device which generates the electricity from the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy is?
I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.
Exraction costs will be much higher here too.

For harry
 

Harry Greenarse spewed forth the following ****e

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.
Exraction costs will be much higher here too.

The extraction of your head from your arsehole?

For harry
 

harryagain wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

harryagain wrote:

All primary energy costs will go up

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.

The USA is preparing to export fracked LNG ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23317370

For harry
 

On 19/07/2013 13:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/


rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.

Does the quote :

"So it has not been and will not be "gas prices" or corporate greed that
will have taken several thousand pounds extra (on average) away from you
by the year 2020. It will be the owners of windfarms and solar panels
skinning you"

bring anyone to mind I wonder?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

On 19/07/2013 18:13, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/

rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.



Yeah right.
I wonder where they "hered" that from?
You get your information from no-brainers that can't even spell?

All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except renewables
which are free.
I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?

You are right, If we bring on shale gas production following the US
model, they ought to go down.

You "hered" it from me. This is what will happen.

Reassuring... based on past experience, we take can that comfort in the
opposite point of view then.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

On 20/07/2013 09:00, Gazz wrote:
Harry Greenarse spewed forth the following ****e

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.
Exraction costs will be much higher here too.

The extraction of your head from your arsehole?

That might be too far up even with modern drilling techniques...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and
maintenance costs of the device which generates the electricity from
the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.

Care to explain that one?

Exraction costs will be much higher here too.

Much higher than buying in gas from abroad?

I'd suggest you do some serious research.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

On 20/07/2013 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and
maintenance costs of the device which generates the electricity from
the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of
the other costs, the fuel costs nothing.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of
the other costs, the fuel costs nothing.

And it's an ideal example. Older readers will remember it being said that
electricity generated from nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't be worth
metering it.

Perhaps harry believed that too.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

On 20/07/13 12:52, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/07/2013 09:00, Gazz wrote:
Harry Greenarse spewed forth the following ****e

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.
Exraction costs will be much higher here too.

The extraction of your head from your arsehole?

That might be too far up even with modern drilling techniques...


Pump his arse with water and lubricant and frack his crack - head will
pop out like a Royal baby...


--
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.

For harry
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Then he's a fathead. As I've pointed out, that was never said about
fission-based nuclear power, but about fusion.

Are you sure about that? It was bandied about by politicians of the time
when nuclear started in the UK. While fusion was just a distant hope. As
now.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
harryagain wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

harryagain wrote:

All primary energy costs will go up

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.

The USA is preparing to export fracked LNG ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23317370


Quite right.
When it is up and running, the local surplus will disappear and their prices
will rise.

For harry
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and
maintenance costs of the device which generates the electricity from
the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

I wonder why the half wits think gas prices will remain the same?

They have tumbled in the US with shale gas and will likely do the same
here. But certainly won't increase at the rate of the last few years.

They will not tumble here because they can export gas to Europe.

Care to explain that one?

They will export it to Europe via existing pipelines


Exraction costs will be much higher here too.


In the USA the fracking is done out in the wilderness. Here the cost of the
infrastructure will be much higher.
The government is already having to offer tax breaks (=subsidies)

Much higher than buying in gas from abroad?

It will be sold for the same price, ie into the spiral.
They won't sell it any cheaper to us.
The amount we might find is miniscule compared with Qatar and the Russians.

For harry
 

harryagain wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote:

The USA is preparing to export fracked LNG ...

Quite right. When it is up and running, the local surplus will
disappear and their prices will rise.

They probably need higher prices, either let a few frackers go to the
wall, or export some - didn't I hear that their gas price actually went
negative briefly this week? Can't find any reference to it ...

For harry
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 20/07/2013 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and
maintenance costs of the device which generates the electricity from
the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of the
other costs, the fuel costs nothing.


We have to buy the fuel. It has to be mined and refined.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...ng-uranium/402

We also have to pay for the waste storage, processing and diposal (cost
unknown)
But continuing for millenia.

For harry
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary
energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of
the other costs, the fuel costs nothing.

And it's an ideal example. Older readers will remember it being said that
electricity generated from nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't be worth
metering it.


Quite right. A lie they have told for years.
Cheap or for nothing.

They knew it was a lie at the time. There is no lie they won't tell in
pursuit of their schemes.

Perhaps harry believed that too.

I can just remember it. I had no opinion at the time.
I expect TurNiP still does believe it.

For harry
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary
energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost.
Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of
the other costs, the fuel costs nothing.

And it's an ideal example. Older readers will remember it being said that
electricity generated from nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't be worth
metering it.

Perhaps harry believed that too.

Then he's a fathead. As I've pointed out, that was never said about
fission-based nuclear power, but about fusion.



Oh it was said. I distinctly remember that on the news on the occasion the
Queen opened Calder Hall.
Pathe News in the local cinema

And it would be a lie about fusion power too.
A long history of lies and hidden things in the nuclear industry.

For harry
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Then he's a fathead. As I've pointed out, that was never said about
fission-based nuclear power, but about fusion.

Are you sure about that? It was bandied about by politicians of the time
when nuclear started in the UK. While fusion was just a distant hope. As
now.


You are quite right.
A bit about how it came to pass here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

For harry
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/07/2013 13:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/


rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.

Does the quote :

"So it has not been and will not be "gas prices" or corporate greed that
will have taken several thousand pounds extra (on average) away from you
by the year 2020. It will be the owners of windfarms and solar panels
skinning you"

bring anyone to mind I wonder?

So you don't think building new nuclear power stations will have an even
greater effect on your electricity bill?
You're dafter than I thought.

The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have been
built.
The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to pay.
YOU.

For harry
 

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
harryagain wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote:

The USA is preparing to export fracked LNG ...

Quite right. When it is up and running, the local surplus will
disappear and their prices will rise.

They probably need higher prices, either let a few frackers go to the
wall, or export some - didn't I hear that their gas price actually went
negative briefly this week? Can't find any reference to it ...



The USA is bent on destroying the economies of the ME countries that produce
gas and oil.

They have suddenly realised that economic warfare is more effective than
military.
They are nearer to Europe/China/Japan than the ME so have an advantage.

For harry
 

On 20/07/2013 18:37, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary
energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost.
Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of
the other costs, the fuel costs nothing.

And it's an ideal example. Older readers will remember it being said that
electricity generated from nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't be worth
metering it.

Perhaps harry believed that too.

Then he's a fathead. As I've pointed out, that was never said about
fission-based nuclear power, but about fusion.



Oh it was said. I distinctly remember that on the news on the occasion the
Queen opened Calder Hall.
Pathe News in the local cinema

And it would be a lie about fusion power too.
A long history of lies and hidden things in the nuclear industry.

And the difference with the "renewable" industry? less years, more lies.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

On 20/07/2013 18:21, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 20/07/2013 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and
maintenance costs of the device which generates the electricity from
the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of the
other costs, the fuel costs nothing.


We have to buy the fuel. It has to be mined and refined.

Even when that is true, its an insignificant cost compared to the rest
of the operation.

However we have stockpiles of "spent" fuel available for reuse, thorium
being dug up with other rare earths and stockpiled until someone can
find something to do with it, and loads of weapons grade fuel under lock
and key waiting for "disposal". (which some clueless ****wits like to
big up into a "problem" and mutter nonsense about "ongoing costs" for
"millenia" and other dribblings of shallow thinking, and general lack of
nous. The bleeding obvious solution to everyone else is to stick them in
a LFR or PBR etc and use them up generating power)

http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...ng-uranium/402

We also have to pay for the waste storage, processing and diposal (cost
unknown)
But continuing for millenia.

Only if we don't do it properly, and let ourselves be influenced by
"green" numpties with an axe to grind.

Go build some reactors that can consume 99% of the "waste", vitrify and
bury the rest back where it came from. If the greenies object, bury them
with it.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

On 20/07/2013 18:44, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/07/2013 13:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/


rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.

Does the quote :

"So it has not been and will not be "gas prices" or corporate greed that
will have taken several thousand pounds extra (on average) away from you
by the year 2020. It will be the owners of windfarms and solar panels
skinning you"

bring anyone to mind I wonder?

So you don't think building new nuclear power stations will have an even
greater effect on your electricity bill?
You're dafter than I thought.

It will have an effect, but we will be building it anyway. Sooner or
later we are going to run out of generating capacity (especially if we
keep closing functional coal facilities before their actual end of life
for political reasons), and people are going to learn that no amount of
renewables will keep the lights on.

So not only will we pay for the pointless renewables, we will pay again
either for the hot reserve capacity to make them useful or for
"compensation" to the renewable owners for non generation, and finally
we will pay a third time for the proper solution when the greenies
change their minds and decide they really quite liked the days when they
had electricity available all day every day.

The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have been
built.
The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to pay.
YOU.

Well with luck the tax payer will get shafted, and then you too can
enjoy paying for your power twice like the rest of us.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

harryagain wrote:
When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to pay.
YOU.


They could always do away with FITs. That should help build a station or
two.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

For harry
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay. YOU.

At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make it.

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Oh it was said. I distinctly remember that on the news on the occasion
the Queen opened Calder Hall. Pathe News in the local cinema

So some Pathe News dweebs said it, and mugs like you swallowed it up.

No. It was a notable (UK) politician. Widely reported on the news of all
types at the time.

Whereas the originator of the phrase was referring to fusion power.

Who originated the phrase ain't actually important.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Then he's a fathead. As I've pointed out, that was never said about
fission-based nuclear power, but about fusion.

Are you sure about that? It was bandied about by politicians of the
time when nuclear started in the UK. While fusion was just a distant
hope. As now.

Look up "too cheap to meter" in WinkyPedia.

I long ago realised Wiki is *not* the font of all knowledge.

And WTF d'ye think politicians know about it?

Not a lot, then as now. But it never stopped others quoting them where it
supports their views.

--
*By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary
energy is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost.
Only those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion
of the other costs, the fuel costs nothing.

And it's an ideal example. Older readers will remember it being said
that
electricity generated from nuclear would be so cheap it wouldn't be
worth
metering it.

Perhaps harry believed that too.

Then he's a fathead. As I've pointed out, that was never said about
fission-based nuclear power, but about fusion.

Oh it was said. I distinctly remember that on the news on the occasion
the Queen opened Calder Hall. Pathe News in the local cinema

So some Pathe News dweebs said it, and mugs like you swallowed it up.
Whereas the originator of the phrase was referring to fusion power.

You are full of ********. He made no reference to fusion power.
He was full of ******** too.

That's the trouble, harry, when you open your mouth all that comes out is
bumper stickers. So you're all ready to believe those said by others.

I especially don't believe you

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

For harry
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/07/2013 18:21, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 20/07/2013 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
All primary energy costs will go up, whatever the source. Except
renewables which are free.

Nothing is free. You have to take into account the capital and
maintenance costs of the device which generates the electricity from
the renewable.

That applies to fossil fuels also. Don't you know what a primary
energy
is?

Don't you know what 'free' means? Everything like this has a cost. Only
those ******s with an axe to grind would describe it as free.

It would equally fair to call nuclear power free - as a proportion of
the
other costs, the fuel costs nothing.


We have to buy the fuel. It has to be mined and refined.

Even when that is true, its an insignificant cost compared to the rest of
the operation.

However we have stockpiles of "spent" fuel available for reuse, thorium
being dug up with other rare earths and stockpiled until someone can find
something to do with it, and loads of weapons grade fuel under lock and
key waiting for "disposal". (which some clueless ****wits like to big up
into a "problem" and mutter nonsense about "ongoing costs" for "millenia"
and other dribblings of shallow thinking, and general lack of nous. The
bleeding obvious solution to everyone else is to stick them in a LFR or
PBR etc and use them up generating power)

http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...ng-uranium/402

We also have to pay for the waste storage, processing and diposal (cost
unknown)
But continuing for millenia.

Only if we don't do it properly, and let ourselves be influenced by
"green" numpties with an axe to grind.

Define properly. Explain your qualifiacation to be such an expert where
no-one else knows a solution.

Go build some reactors that can consume 99% of the "waste", vitrify and
bury the rest back where it came from. If the greenies object, bury them
with it.
\

It's not possible to "bury it back where is came from" What a juvenile
idea.

For harry
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/07/2013 18:44, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/07/2013 13:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...up_your_bills/


rising energy cost are overwhengly down to renewable energy and other
green subsidies.

Does the quote :

"So it has not been and will not be "gas prices" or corporate greed that
will have taken several thousand pounds extra (on average) away from you
by the year 2020. It will be the owners of windfarms and solar panels
skinning you"

bring anyone to mind I wonder?

So you don't think building new nuclear power stations will have an even
greater effect on your electricity bill?
You're dafter than I thought.

It will have an effect, but we will be building it anyway. Sooner or later
we are going to run out of generating capacity (especially if we keep
closing functional coal facilities before their actual end of life for
political reasons), and people are going to learn that no amount of
renewables will keep the lights on.


You still haven't red the links I posted have you?
Clearly beyond education.


So not only will we pay for the pointless renewables, we will pay again
either for the hot reserve capacity to make them useful or for
"compensation" to the renewable owners for non generation, and finally we
will pay a third time for the proper solution when the greenies change
their minds and decide they really quite liked the days when they had
electricity available all day every day.


You dopey bugger. There will be no "hot reserve" You don't even know what
the term means do you?

The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been
built.
The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay.
YOU.

Well with luck the tax payer will get shafted, and then you too can enjoy
paying for your power twice like the rest of us.


So the rest of your argument falls down.

For harry
 

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

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay.
YOU.

So you obviously think someone else should pay. And who might that be?


Another dopey bugger.
We will ALL pay for ANY new capacity.
Can't you get that into your thick skull?

And further all primary energy sources are subsidised. Except renewables
None more then nuclear.

The government is offering subsidies/tax breaks for frack gas before we
even have any.
(Yes, it's that financially viable).

We subsidised uneconomic coal mines for decades.

And the way the ME is going, soon there will be no oil from there. Hence
the desperation over frack gas.
Renewables can't be cut off by crazy ayatollas etc in the ME.

For harry
 

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:
When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay.
YOU.
They could always do away with FITs. That should help build a station or
two.

Is that the best you can come up with?

For harry
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The reason electricity is cheap is because few new power stations have
been built. The capital cost of the old ones is long written off.

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay. YOU.

At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make
it.


You are almost the dopiest here.
There are two costs.
Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)
Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)
Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy cost
is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.

And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut
off/curtailed.
(Except for renewables.)
Hence the desperation over frack gas and renewables. (The renewables won't
run out either the frack gas will be expended in a decade).

For harry
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
At least that's a start. You seem to have admitted there's more to the
costs of producing electricity than the cost of the energy used to make
it.


You are almost the dopiest here.

Crikey. This from one with his head in the clouds.

There are two costs.
Cost of converting the fuel. (Any fuel)

I'm with you there.

Costs of the fuel (free in the case of renewables)

Yup.


Renewables will utimately be the cheapest in total because the energy
cost is free and the price of fossil fuel will rise.

You're looking in your crystal ball again. Wind power seems to be the
flavour of the month as regards renewables, but no *accurate* long term
figures are available. And what you seem to ignore is that if fossil fuel
prices rise, so will the costs of building and maintaining any 'renewable'
plant, since that's where so much of the raw materials are derived from.

And then there is the (strong) possibilty our fuel supply will be cut
off/curtailed. (Except for renewables.) Hence the desperation over frack
gas and renewables. (The renewables won't run out either the frack gas
will be expended in a decade).

You're using that crystal ball again...

--
*The best cure for sea sickness, is to sit under a tree.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

For harry
 

On 21/07/2013 06:04, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/07/2013 18:21, harryagain wrote:

We have to buy the fuel. It has to be mined and refined.

Even when that is true, its an insignificant cost compared to the rest of
the operation.

However we have stockpiles of "spent" fuel available for reuse, thorium
being dug up with other rare earths and stockpiled until someone can find
something to do with it, and loads of weapons grade fuel under lock and
key waiting for "disposal". (which some clueless ****wits like to big up
into a "problem" and mutter nonsense about "ongoing costs" for "millenia"
and other dribblings of shallow thinking, and general lack of nous. The
bleeding obvious solution to everyone else is to stick them in a LFR or
PBR etc and use them up generating power)

http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...ng-uranium/402

We also have to pay for the waste storage, processing and diposal (cost
unknown)
But continuing for millenia.

Only if we don't do it properly, and let ourselves be influenced by
"green" numpties with an axe to grind.

Define properly. Explain your qualifiacation to be such an expert where
no-one else knows a solution.

Get a grip harry, this is really not difficult. We have plenty of
workable solutions, that have been built, used, and proven. However
generally we don't use them, almost exclusively as a result of
governments being influenced by pressure groups, or simply by lack of
political backbone or ability to come to a decision.

FBRs will consume "waste" - however they are more expensive to build
than normal PWRs, and in the wrong hands can be used to manufacture
weapons grade fuel. Since we have dedicated facilities for doing this
anyway, plus more weapons grade fuel than we need, the "proliferation
risk" is just a bit of green FUD as far as the UK is concerned. But a
proven technology anyway.

We have reprocessing, works ok, could be a much larger source of foreign
income for us than it currently is, but the greens get their knickers in
a twist. So economically and politically its cheaper to take new uranium
and refine it than to reprocess the existing, hence that is what is
done. Now if storing the "waste" was actually a real problem, then the
costs would not be biased in this way.

You have been directed to read about Liquid Salt/Fluoride Fuel Cycle
reactors several times, I suggest you go do so, rather than to keep
repeating the same stuff here that makes you appear so clueless.

Here is a simple explanation of managing waste using one:

http://energyfromthorium.com/lftr-vs-nuclear-waste/

Again these are proven devices, that have been run for many years. There
are also new designs available based on the same concepts. They are
capable of extracting pretty much all of the energy content of the fuel
in the first place, and can also consume all manner of different types
of so called "waste". They are also an inherently safe design (no
pressurised containment required) and can also be used to drive high
temperature industrial processes directly if desired.

Go build some reactors that can consume 99% of the "waste", vitrify and
bury the rest back where it came from. If the greenies object, bury them
with it.
\

It's not possible to "bury it back where is came from" What a juvenile
idea.

It came out of a hole in the ground, I think you will find that it is
possible to stick it back into a hole in the ground. For clarity, it
does not need to be the *same* hole. Just choose somewhere with
appropriately stable geology, vitrify it so there is no particulate
material that could contaminate anything, even if it did contact ground
water etc, and job done.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

For harry
 

On 21/07/2013 06:19, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"harryagain" wrote:

When/if serious new construction gets under way, someone will have to
pay.
YOU.

So you obviously think someone else should pay. And who might that be?


Another dopey bugger.
We will ALL pay for ANY new capacity.
Can't you get that into your thick skull?

And further all primary energy sources are subsidised. Except renewables
None more then nuclear.

The government is offering subsidies/tax breaks for frack gas before we
even have any.
(Yes, it's that financially viable).

We subsidised uneconomic coal mines for decades.

There are good reasons to offer incentives on various fuels..
you get reliable power when you need it.

Unlike wind and solar where you don't get reliable power.

You now have to offer incentives as the financiers will just invest in
unreliable renewables as they provide a greater return and people like
you don't mind having no power at certain times of the day fo you.


And the way the ME is going, soon there will be no oil from there. Hence
the desperation over frack gas.

Probably and the best reason to invest in nukes as it gives us reliable
power even if the ME self destructs.

Fracking is only needed because of greenies delaying nukes for so long.

Eventually we will get the nukes as the alternatives are going to kill
thousands one of these winters.

Renewables can't be cut off by crazy ayatollas etc in the ME.