Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

On Thursday, 10 April 2014 20:02:15 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

I don't know Harry, but reliability and dependability are far
better with nuclear than with solar or wind.

On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/


Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.

Colin Bignell

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 April 2014 20:02:15 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

I don't know Harry, but reliability and dependability are far
better with nuclear than with solar or wind.

We have not yet got into tide and wave.
We need them all plus a smart grid.
Then we will have reliability and continuity.
Plus energy efficiency.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/


Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.

Colin Bignell

Just words.
But the point is, expensive. More expensive than renewables even.
And it doesn't even include waste processing/disposal.

Notice TNP's keeping a low profile.

On 12/04/2014 09:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/


Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.

Colin Bignell

Just words.
But the point is, expensive. More expensive than renewables even.
And it doesn't even include waste processing/disposal.

Notice TNP's keeping a low profile.


You'll have noticed, of course, that the "cost" of the station given in
the article has very little to do with the operating costs, and a lot to
do with a hard bargaining owning and operating company striking a very
good (for them)deal with a load of politicians who won't be in power
when they start building the plant. One reason for them wanting a higher
price is also the excessive paranoia about safety being exhibited by the
regulators.

If a British company were to be set up to build it, with an appropriate
level of "box ticking" while building and operating, the price would be
much lower.

More harryagain claptrap.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 12/04/2014 09:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/


Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.


Just words.
But the point is, expensive. More expensive than renewables even...

Not even if the prices they claim are true, which is the point I was
making. They had to avoid comparing the cost with renewable energy to
make it look expensive.

Colin Bignell

On 12/04/14 11:19, John Williamson wrote:
On 12/04/2014 09:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/



Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.

Colin Bignell

Just words.
But the point is, expensive. More expensive than renewables even.
And it doesn't even include waste processing/disposal.

Notice TNP's keeping a low profile.

TNP has killfiled you harry, because he has a life.

TNP has also noted that the cost of Hinckley point - a very BIG power
station, is, over its lifetime a lot less per unit electricity
delivered, than any renewable source can deliver, before you even add in
the hidden costs of balancing its output with something reliable.

If you were to build a solar and gas complex to match the ability of
Hinkley to supply reliable baseload, I can assure you you would be
looking at something like £45bn or so.,

the cheapest form of power station is always the one that produces the least

I meeyslef have a power station that cost me less than 95p. Its called a
cigarette lighter.




You'll have noticed, of course, that the "cost" of the station given in
the article has very little to do with the operating costs, and a lot to
do with a hard bargaining owning and operating company striking a very
good (for them)deal with a load of politicians who won't be in power
when they start building the plant. One reason for them wanting a higher
price is also the excessive paranoia about safety being exhibited by the
regulators.

If a British company were to be set up to build it, with an appropriate
level of "box ticking" while building and operating, the price would be
much lower.

More harryagain claptrap.


--
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 12/04/14 11:27, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/04/2014 09:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/



Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.


Just words.
But the point is, expensive. More expensive than renewables even...

Not even if the prices they claim are true, which is the point I was
making. They had to avoid comparing the cost with renewable energy to
make it look expensive.

its not our problem. Thyer have contacted to deliver at a lower price
than renewables can, and if they cant make the sums add up they wont
build it.


Colin Bignell


--
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 12/04/2014 09:12, harryagain wrote:
"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 April 2014 20:02:15 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

I don't know Harry, but reliability and dependability are far
better with nuclear than with solar or wind.

We have not yet got into tide and wave.
We need them all plus a smart grid.

Smart grid is the very antithesis of reliability!

Then we will have reliability and continuity.

Bwhahahah...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Saturday, 12 April 2014 09:12:26 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We have not yet got into tide and wave.
We need them all plus a smart grid.
Then we will have reliability and continuity.
Plus energy efficiency.

I think you are far more optimistic towards these ideas than I.

In message , harryagain
writes

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 April 2014 20:02:15 UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...ain-signed-up-
for-the-worlds-most-expensive-power-station/

I don't know Harry, but reliability and dependability are far
better with nuclear than with solar or wind.

We have not yet got into tide and wave.
We need them all plus a smart grid.
Then we will have reliability and continuity.
Plus energy efficiency.


In the meant time how do we keep the lights on and the wheels of
industry turning?
--
bert

On 12/04/2014 17:45, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 12 April 2014 09:12:26 UTC+1, harry wrote:

We have not yet got into tide and wave.
We need them all plus a smart grid.
Then we will have reliability and continuity.
Plus energy efficiency.

I think you are far more optimistic towards these ideas than I.

Well, he is a person who uses the National Grid as a UPS while wanting
it to become as unreliable as his own power station.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:02:15 PM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

Surely Chernobyl counts as the worlds most expensive power station. A load of reactors sat there doing diddly squat but costing an immense amount in clean up.

Philip

On 14/04/2014 12:37, wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:02:15 PM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

Surely Chernobyl counts as the worlds most expensive power station. A load of reactors sat there doing diddly squat but costing an immense amount in clean up.

Philip

Like Fukushima, they had *many* years of successful generation behind
them, which needs to be counted as a positive benefit.

On 12/04/2014 11:19, John Williamson wrote:
On 12/04/2014 09:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/



Notable that the article has to class a nuclear power station as a
'conventional power station', to avoid having to compare its cost to
renewable power.

Colin Bignell

Just words.
But the point is, expensive. More expensive than renewables even.
And it doesn't even include waste processing/disposal.

Notice TNP's keeping a low profile.


You'll have noticed, of course, that the "cost" of the station given in
the article has very little to do with the operating costs, and a lot to
do with a hard bargaining owning and operating company striking a very
good (for them)deal with a load of politicians who won't be in power
when they start building the plant. One reason for them wanting a higher
price is also the excessive paranoia about safety being exhibited by the
regulators.

If a British company were to be set up to build it, with an appropriate
level of "box ticking" while building and operating, the price would be
much lower.

More harryagain claptrap.

Indeed. The risk for any builder these days is the government "Doing a
Germany" and destroying the value of your assets. Echoes of Cecil
Parkinson who took the (solvent) CEGB and gave most of the assets to two
parties and all the liabilities to a third, without recognising that a
technically insolvent business isn't supposed to trade.

On 14/04/14 12:37, wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:02:15 PM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Hinkley that is.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/


Surely Chernobyl counts as the worlds most expensive power station. A
load of reactors sat there doing diddly squat but costing an immense
amount in clean up.


Mmm. Except they aren't spending a lot on cleaning up anything.

Just waiting till its cool enough to encase, then waiting a lot more
till its cool enough to dismantle.

I think the casing goes on this year actually.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR...e-0104144.html

Note that the decommissioning will take 100 years in all.

Thats the cheap way. encase, and leave. Eventually just go in with jack
hammers and remove all the rubble.




Philip



--
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 14/04/14 13:31, newshound wrote:
Indeed. The risk for any builder these days is the government "Doing a
Germany" and destroying the value of your assets. Echoes of Cecil
Parkinson who took the (solvent) CEGB and gave most of the assets to two
parties and all the liabilities to a third, without recognising that a
technically insolvent business isn't supposed to trade.


Coincidentally, hot off the press..

"Germany should immediately refund some ‚¬2.2 billion in nuclear fuel
taxes collected from EOn and RWE, pending final decisions on the tax
from either the Federal Constitutional Court or the European Court of
Justice."

....

"In parallel with contesting the tax, RWE is also claiming damages from
the losses incurred as a result of the forced closure of its Biblis
nuclear power plant in 2011. The actions of the state of Hesse were
ruled to be unlawful in this regard by the German Supreme Court in
January. Another nuclear utility, EnBW, is 45% owned by the
Green-controlled state of Baden-Württembergand not contesting its
damages. Vattenfall of Sweden is fighting the shutdowns of two German
reactors in which it has stakes via international arbitration."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...s-1504141.html

Buying off the greens comes expensive...


--
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 Tuesday, 15 April 2014 23:56:01 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Just waiting till its cool enough to encase, then waiting a lot more
till its cool enough to dismantle.

When you say 'cool', do you mean literally thermally, or metaphorically radiation-wise, as in they are letting a few half-lives elapse or something?

Thats the cheap way. encase, and leave. Eventually just go in with jack
hammers and remove all the rubble.

Why not just leave it there and cover it with land fill or something?

On 16/04/14 00:02, David Paste wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 April 2014 23:56:01 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Just waiting till its cool enough to encase, then waiting a lot
more till its cool enough to dismantle.

When you say 'cool', do you mean literally thermally, or
metaphorically radiation-wise, as in they are letting a few
half-lives elapse or something?

Cool as in radiation
Mots of what's in a recator and its containment vessel is radiologically
inert after about 60 years, to the point where no special precautions
are needed in handling.

All the very active stuff has decayed completely, and all the long lived
stiff like plutonium is pretty low radiation anyway.

There is a small quantity or stuff in the multi decade half life and
above, but again though not especially nice, its not especially
radioactive either.

Normally in a reactor that hasn't spilt its guts, that's in the fuel
rods and the inner containment vessel. At Chernobyl it's lord knows where.

BY waiting 60+ years at least the reactor immediate environment is more
or less safe to operate in.

At the moment it is still very high around the reactor core.

Not instant death, but not somewhere to work for very ling before
exceeding permitted doses.



Thats the cheap way. encase, and leave. Eventually just go in with
jack hammers and remove all the rubble.

Why not just leave it there and cover it with land fill or
something?

Well indeed.

All I can say to that is that the harry's of this world would die of
apoplexy if they did.

The recieved wisdom is that reactors must be 'decommissioned' by taking
them to pieces and separating out all the 'hot' stuff and putting it in
a safe place.

And then loudly proclaiming that there is no safe place.

IN a sane world you would simply build a wall round it, fill it up with
concrete and push earth over it and say 'dont go near this for a few
hundred years'

If technology still existed to take that apart, it would presumably also
know what was inside. If its the new stone age, no one would be able to
take it apart anyway.







--
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 Wednesday, 16 April 2014 03:48:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cool as in radiation

[snip]

Thanks for clarifying that.


BY waiting 60+ years at least the reactor immediate environment is more
or less safe to operate in.

What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade
visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?


IN a sane world you would simply build a wall round it, fill it up with
concrete and push earth over it and say 'dont go near this for a few
hundred years'

Why "don't go near it"? Why not "enjoy the nature reserve, don't dig anything
up"? :-)

On 16/04/2014 15:57, David Paste wrote:
....
What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade
visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?...

They are subject to a lot of rules, such as don't sit, smoke, eat or
drink outdoors, don't wander away from the guided tour, avoid moss
(which concentrates some of the radioactive elements), don't wear
anything you don't mind losing if it gets contaminated.

Colin Bignell

On 16/04/14 15:57, David Paste wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 03:48:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cool as in radiation

[snip]

Thanks for clarifying that.


BY waiting 60+ years at least the reactor immediate environment is more
or less safe to operate in.

What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade
visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?



Pripyat is in general no more radioactive than Dartmoor.

If they went over it with geigers and bagged up all the hot flakes, it
would be easily inhabitable.



IN a sane world you would simply build a wall round it, fill it up with
concrete and push earth over it and say 'dont go near this for a few
hundred years'

Why "don't go near it"? Why not "enjoy the nature reserve, don't dig anything
up"? :-)



--
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 Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:51:18 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/04/2014 15:57, David Paste wrote:

...

What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade

visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?...



They are subject to a lot of rules, such as don't sit, smoke, eat or

drink outdoors, don't wander away from the guided tour, avoid moss

(which concentrates some of the radioactive elements), don't wear

anything you don't mind losing if it gets contaminated.



Colin Bignell

I'd have to go along weraing a Dad's Army T-shirt with "DON'T PANIC! DON'T
PANIC!" stencilled on it!

On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 18:53:26 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Pripyat is in general no more radioactive than Dartmoor

If they went over it with geigers and bagged up all the hot flakes, it
would be easily inhabitable.

Cheers.

On 16/04/2014 23:31, David Paste wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:51:18 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/04/2014 15:57, David Paste wrote:

...

What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade
visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?...

They are subject to a lot of rules, such as don't sit, smoke, eat or
drink outdoors, don't wander away from the guided tour, avoid moss
(which concentrates some of the radioactive elements), don't wear
anything you don't mind losing if it gets contaminated.


I'd have to go along weraing a Dad's Army T-shirt with "DON'T PANIC! DON'T
PANIC!" stencilled on it!

I can't really see it on my list of places to visit.

Colin Bignell

On 17/04/2014 00:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/04/2014 23:31, David Paste wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:51:18 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/04/2014 15:57, David Paste wrote:

...

What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade
visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?...

They are subject to a lot of rules, such as don't sit, smoke, eat or
drink outdoors, don't wander away from the guided tour, avoid moss
(which concentrates some of the radioactive elements), don't wear
anything you don't mind losing if it gets contaminated.


I'd have to go along weraing a Dad's Army T-shirt with "DON'T PANIC!
DON'T
PANIC!" stencilled on it!

I can't really see it on my list of places to visit.

If it were cheap enough, I'd go. Maybe. The pictures that have come out
are an interesting record of what happens when Humans leave a town to
fend for itself.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 17/04/2014 08:27, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 00:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/04/2014 23:31, David Paste wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:51:18 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/04/2014 15:57, David Paste wrote:

...

What about the town near-by? There seems to be a roaring tourist trade
visiting the place, can't be so bad, surely?...

They are subject to a lot of rules, such as don't sit, smoke, eat or
drink outdoors, don't wander away from the guided tour, avoid moss
(which concentrates some of the radioactive elements), don't wear
anything you don't mind losing if it gets contaminated.


I'd have to go along weraing a Dad's Army T-shirt with "DON'T PANIC!
DON'T
PANIC!" stencilled on it!

I can't really see it on my list of places to visit.

If it were cheap enough, I'd go. Maybe. The pictures that have come out
are an interesting record of what happens when Humans leave a town to
fend for itself.

I've no doubt it would be interesting, but there is still a lot of
Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 in the area, which is only just coming to
the end of its first half-life period. If I went, I would want to wear
comprehensive PPE, particularly an efficient dust mask.

Colin Bignell

In message ,
David Paste writes
On Tuesday, 15 April 2014 23:56:01 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Just waiting till its cool enough to encase, then waiting a lot more
till its cool enough to dismantle.

When you say 'cool', do you mean literally thermally, or metaphorically
radiation-wise, as in they are letting a few half-lives elapse or
something?

Thats the cheap way. encase, and leave. Eventually just go in with jack
hammers and remove all the rubble.

Why not just leave it there and cover it with land fill or something?
Easy as horse ****.
--
bert

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 20:13:01 UTC+1, bert wrote:

Easy as horse ****.

Imagine the rhubarb!

On 10/04/2014 20:02, harryagain wrote:
Hinkley that is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...power-station/

The most expensive ones are those on people's roofs!