I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...r-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...-nuclear-plant

harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse economically.

even though it's not economically viable.

Neither are your stupid solar panels in a place like yours.

Another HS2 then.

Nope.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...r-17bn-1548116

Just because some fools are too stupid to work out what makes sense...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...-nuclear-plant

Just because some fools are too stupid to work out what makes sense...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about the
choice of technology, not the choice of fuel


Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers pay
"tax"

tim

On 12/03/16 11:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
Presumably the Hitachi design mentioned in the article is the ABWR
described herehttp://tinyurl.com/zffvp8t , although I'm not clear
where it is in operation as the IBTimes article says, and it seems
it's still going through the UK Nuclear Regulation assessment for
installation at Wylfa and Oldbury. Let's hope it's path is less
turbulent than Hinkley C.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/re...aram=UK%20ABWR

will show you the progress of this particular reactor design in UK

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/re...aram=UK%20ABWR

Thanks. Site bookmarked.

I also keep an eye on Fukushima Update:

http://fukushimaupdate.com/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.
--
bert

On 12/03/16 14:04, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:39:10 +0000, bert wrote:

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

And the tidal power scheme proposed for Swansea Bay or the Severn
Barrage (can't remember which) that was going to require an even
higher price for its electricity than Hinkley C

Not to mention the knock on grid extension and storage/backup costs.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Chris Hogg wrote:

bert wrote:

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

I looked it up. £140/MWh!!

I'm paying £98/MWh for it "delivered" come wind or calm.

On 12/03/2016 07:58, harry wrote:
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

We could just burn coal, however because of people like you we have to
reduce carbon emissions and the only way to do it reliably is nuclear
which you are stupid enough to oppose. You are putting the costs up but
you are too stupid to understand it.

tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about the
choice of technology, not the choice of fuel

I wasn't talking about fuel economy.

Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers pay
"tax"

There are very few consumers who don't pay at least some VAT,
just those tho never buy anything but zero rated items and there
are damned few of those now.

And they meant subsidised by the taxpayers, they aren't
subsidised by all consumers, particularly those who are
not grid connected.

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 17:14:09 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/03/2016 07:58, harry wrote:
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

We could just burn coal, however because of people like you we have to
reduce carbon emissions and the only way to do it reliably is nuclear
which you are stupid enough to oppose. You are putting the costs up but
you are too stupid to understand it.

The cost of electricity. was always going to rise. (Whatever the source).
Which is why we have to be more efficient in using it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 March 2016 17:14:09 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/03/2016 07:58, harry wrote:
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

We could just burn coal, however because of people like you we have to
reduce carbon emissions and the only way to do it reliably is nuclear
which you are stupid enough to oppose. You are putting the costs up but
you are too stupid to understand it.

The cost of electricity. was always going to rise. (Whatever the source).

That's bull**** with brown coal that has no other use
and with nukes done using established designs.

Which is why we have to be more efficient in using it.

Even sillier than you usually manage when its produced using
nukes whose costs are mostly capital and not fuel costs.

On 12/03/2016 16:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:39:10 +0000, bert wrote:

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

I looked it up. £140/MWh!! http://tinyurl.com/j92fpey and scroll down
a bit. That's horrific. In comparison, Hinkley C is a very good deal
indeed! I suppose it's because although the likes of Harry and other
greens keep telling us how cheap wind power is, that cheap pricing
assumes 100% load factor, when in reality it's only 25% or
thereabouts. If they operated at full whack all the time, the
electricity cost might only be £35/MWh, but they have to up that by a
factor of four to cover their cost and make it profitable.

Not to mention that hideous phrase "enough to power n,000 homes", which
so effortlessly glosses over the questions about load factor, and
whether they are talking about total power, or just electric and so on.

£140/MWh Harry. Remember that the next time you try and tell us just
how cheap wind power is. It's a pack of lies!

He will tell you that's because it a "new" technology that needs subsidy
to get going...

(bit like that dozy green who when questioned about renewables defended
the subsidy on that basis, and then was asked why they do not support
subsidy for liquid fluoride cooled thorium reactor construction,
explained that was because it was not proven or mature technology... all
apparently without any cognitive dissonance!)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Chris Hogg wrote:

Andy Burns

I'm paying £98/MWh for it "delivered" come wind or calm.

The Telegraph article mentions an average price of £35/MWh. I presume
that's a wholesale price paid to the generators.

About 3x mark-up to pay for electrical losses, costs and profits at grid
and REC levels.

I assume that the figures being bandied around for Hinkley and for
the Hornsea wind farm (which, like Hinkley, isn't yet built) are
wholesale prices again.

Maybe we should wish for a couple of severe winters that delays them
installing the windmills? If they don't get 95% of the capacity
installed within 2 years of the target date "we" are allowed to wiggle
out of the committed price.

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 20:32:19 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/03/2016 16:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:39:10 +0000, bert wrote:

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

I looked it up. £140/MWh!! http://tinyurl.com/j92fpey and scroll down
a bit. That's horrific. In comparison, Hinkley C is a very good deal
indeed! I suppose it's because although the likes of Harry and other
greens keep telling us how cheap wind power is, that cheap pricing
assumes 100% load factor, when in reality it's only 25% or
thereabouts. If they operated at full whack all the time, the
electricity cost might only be £35/MWh, but they have to up that by a
factor of four to cover their cost and make it profitable.

Not to mention that hideous phrase "enough to power n,000 homes", which
so effortlessly glosses over the questions about load factor, and
whether they are talking about total power, or just electric and so on.

£140/MWh Harry. Remember that the next time you try and tell us just
how cheap wind power is. It's a pack of lies!


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

Additonally the nuclear lobby have not the slightest idea of the de-commisioning and waste disposal costs.
And no idea how to set about doing it either.
Conveniently ignored.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about the
choice of technology, not the choice of fuel

I wasn't talking about fuel economy.

Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers pay
"tax"

There are very few consumers who don't pay at least some VAT,
just those tho never buy anything but zero rated items and there
are damned few of those now.

I know but the point is the money does not come out of the taxes that I
already pay

It is an additional amount that needs to be paid



And they meant subsidised by the taxpayers, they aren't
subsidised by all consumers, particularly those who are
not grid connected.

well obvious not

but the subsidy is most definitely paid by consumers (of electricity)

it will be taken away from you by adding it to your leccy bill, it does not
come out of the common pool of already collected taxes

timn

"harry" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 20:32:19 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/03/2016 16:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:39:10 +0000, bert wrote:

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

I looked it up. £140/MWh!! http://tinyurl.com/j92fpey and scroll down
a bit. That's horrific. In comparison, Hinkley C is a very good deal
indeed! I suppose it's because although the likes of Harry and other
greens keep telling us how cheap wind power is, that cheap pricing
assumes 100% load factor, when in reality it's only 25% or
thereabouts. If they operated at full whack all the time, the
electricity cost might only be £35/MWh, but they have to up that by a
factor of four to cover their cost and make it profitable.

Not to mention that hideous phrase "enough to power n,000 homes", which
so effortlessly glosses over the questions about load factor, and
whether they are talking about total power, or just electric and so on.

£140/MWh Harry. Remember that the next time you try and tell us just
how cheap wind power is. It's a pack of lies!


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

Additonally the nuclear lobby have not the slightest idea of the
de-commisioning and waste disposal costs.
And no idea how to set about doing it either.
Conveniently ignored.

WTF are you on Harry? That's an EU report.

tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about the
choice of technology, not the choice of fuel

I wasn't talking about fuel economy.

Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers
pay "tax"

There are very few consumers who don't pay at least some VAT, just those
tho never buy anything but zero rated items and there are damned few of
those now.

I know but the point is the money does not come out of the taxes that I
already pay

Still paid by the tax payers, not all consumers, particularly
not by the consumers whose entire income is benefits,
whose only tax paid is effectively paid by other taxpayers
because of their entire income is benefits.

It is an additional amount that needs to be paid

Sure, but mostly by taxpayers, not all consumers.

And they meant subsidised by the taxpayers, they aren't subsidised by all
consumers, particularly those who are not grid connected.

well obvious not

but the subsidy is most definitely paid by consumers (of electricity)

Not directly with those whose entire income is
benefits, that is actually paid for by taxpayers.

it will be taken away from you by adding it to your leccy bill, it does
not come out of the common pool of already collected taxes

It does with those whose entire income is benefits.

IMO it's a distinction that doesn't really matter.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse
economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about the
choice of technology, not the choice of fuel

I wasn't talking about fuel economy.

Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers
pay "tax"

There are very few consumers who don't pay at least some VAT, just those
tho never buy anything but zero rated items and there are damned few of
those now.

I know but the point is the money does not come out of the taxes that I
already pay

Still paid by the tax payers, not all consumers

There was no claim it was paid by "all" consumers

It ought to be bleeding obvious even to one brain cell Wodney that the
meaning was "electricity consumers"

, particularly
not by the consumers whose entire income is benefits,
whose only tax paid is effectively paid by other taxpayers
because of their entire income is benefits.

Wrong

If they are leccy bill payer they will be paying this subsidy - it is added
to their leccy bill and (in the UK) benefits claimants are not excepted from
such charges (which we already have)

It is an additional amount that needs to be paid

Sure, but mostly by taxpayers, not all consumers.

it will all be paid by consumers - that they may also be taxpayers is
irrelevant because it is an additional charge to their taxes


And they meant subsidised by the taxpayers, they aren't subsidised by
all consumers, particularly those who are not grid connected.

well obvious not

but the subsidy is most definitely paid by consumers (of electricity)

Not directly with those whose entire income is
benefits, that is actually paid for by taxpayers.

If you are going to make that argument you could say that "normal" people
don't pay for anything themself, it is all paid for by their employer.

It is a nutty extrapolation

it will be taken away from you by adding it to your leccy bill, it does
not come out of the common pool of already collected taxes

It does with those whose entire income is benefits.

IMO it's a distinction that doesn't really matter.

Of course it does

the implication of saying in a newspaper that something is being "paid for
by taxpayers" is that it will be taken out of the funds already collected.

This is not the case here. It is an additional amount that people will have
to pay

tim

On Sunday, 13 March 2016 10:13:26 UTC, Richard wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 20:32:19 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/03/2016 16:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:39:10 +0000, bert wrote:

In article ,
harry writes
I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley even though it's not
economically viable.
Another HS2 then.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-grow-...ey-point-edf-n
uclear-deal-save-taxpayer-17bn-1548116

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...int-c-subsidy-
national-audit-office-nuclear-plant

The latest off shore windfarm deal has received an even greater
guaranteed price, but no mention of that.

I looked it up. £140/MWh!! http://tinyurl.com/j92fpey and scroll down
a bit. That's horrific. In comparison, Hinkley C is a very good deal
indeed! I suppose it's because although the likes of Harry and other
greens keep telling us how cheap wind power is, that cheap pricing
assumes 100% load factor, when in reality it's only 25% or
thereabouts. If they operated at full whack all the time, the
electricity cost might only be £35/MWh, but they have to up that by a
factor of four to cover their cost and make it profitable.

Not to mention that hideous phrase "enough to power n,000 homes", which
so effortlessly glosses over the questions about load factor, and
whether they are talking about total power, or just electric and so on..

£140/MWh Harry. Remember that the next time you try and tell us just
how cheap wind power is. It's a pack of lies!


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

Additonally the nuclear lobby have not the slightest idea of the
de-commisioning and waste disposal costs.
And no idea how to set about doing it either.
Conveniently ignored.

WTF are you on Harry? That's an EU report.

I thought he'd believe it more because it's a socialist newspaper.
(He's gone quiet now)

tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse
economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about
the choice of technology, not the choice of fuel

I wasn't talking about fuel economy.

Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers
pay "tax"

There are very few consumers who don't pay at least some VAT, just
those tho never buy anything but zero rated items and there are damned
few of those now.

I know but the point is the money does not come out of the taxes that I
already pay

Still paid by the tax payers, not all consumers

There was no claim it was paid by "all" consumers

Never said there was. It is however more accurate to say
it is paid by the taxpayers than by consumers when you
allow for the fact that so many of the consumers who in
theory are paying for it via the cost of the electricity they
pay for are in fact having that paid by the taxpayers.

It ought to be bleeding obvious even to one brain cell Wodney that the
meaning was "electricity consumers"

And I never said otherwise and given that most people are
electricity consumers that is close enough to all consumers.

particularly not by the consumers whose entire income is benefits, whose
only tax paid is effectively paid by other taxpayers because of their
entire income is benefits.

Wrong

Nope.

If they are leccy bill payer they will be paying this subsidy

No they aren't when their entire income is benefits. That subsidy is
in fact being paid by the taxpayers who are paying their benefits.

- it is added to their leccy bill

And that is paid for using their benefits which are paid
for by taxpayers when their entire income is benefits.

and (in the UK) benefits claimants are not excepted from such charges
(which we already have)

Never said they were, just who is actually paying that
subsidy when their entire income is benefits. That is
clearly the taxpayer who is paying those benefits.

It is an additional amount that needs to be paid

Sure, but mostly by taxpayers, not all consumers.

it will all be paid by consumers

Yes, but those whose entire income is benefits,
will be having the subsidy paid by taxpayers, not
the consumer whose entire income is benefits.

- that they may also be taxpayers is irrelevant because it is an
additional charge to their taxes

Paid for by other taxpayers when their entire income is benefits.

And they meant subsidised by the taxpayers, they aren't subsidised by
all consumers, particularly those who are not grid connected.

well obvious not

but the subsidy is most definitely paid by consumers (of electricity)

Not directly with those whose entire income is
benefits, that is actually paid for by taxpayers.

If you are going to make that argument you could say that "normal" people
don't pay for anything themself, it is all paid for by their employer.

That isnt true of those who are self employed or of those who no longer
work and who are retired and those who live off their investments etc etc
etc.

It is a nutty extrapolation

It isnt nutty and it isnt an extrapolation, it's a fact.

it will be taken away from you by adding it to your leccy bill, it does
not come out of the common pool of already collected taxes

It does with those whose entire income is benefits.

IMO it's a distinction that doesn't really matter.

Of course it does

the implication of saying in a newspaper that something is being "paid for
by taxpayers" is that it will be taken out of the funds already collected.

Nope, ALL it means is that it is the taxpayers who pay for the subsidy.

This is not the case here. It is an additional amount that people will
have to pay

Irrelevant to the fact that it is ALWAYS the taxpayers who are actually
paying for it.