---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

LOL!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

I wonder if global warming willput this part of the country underwater?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

LOL!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



It looks like you AV is getting pre-emptive of its use of your email
client as a Bill Board platform. :-(

--
Johnny B Good

On 28/07/16 22:00, Brian Gaff wrote:
I wonder if global warming willput this part of the country underwater?
Brian

Not for a couple of hundred thousand years, no.

It might get covered in ice tho



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

dennis@home wrote:


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


I thought they weren't quite building it yet?

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 20:11:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Oh, is that so?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904

Pity posts can't be cancelled eh Den!

Sounds like they're having second thoughts about the whole business with this outdated, expensive untried white elephant.
Not surprising.

On 29/07/16 08:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 20:11:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Oh, is that so?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904

Pity posts can't be cancelled eh Den!

Sounds like they're having second thoughts about the whole business with this outdated, expensive untried white elephant.
Not surprising.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

And I wouldn't be in the least bit sorry.
The game now is whether paying the penalty to EDF and cancelling the
contract and switching to ABWR is cheaper than paying EDF 9,8p a unit ...


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 29/07/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/07/16 08:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 20:11:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Oh, is that so?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904

Pity posts can't be cancelled eh Den!

Sounds like they're having second thoughts about the whole business
with this outdated, expensive untried white elephant.
Not surprising.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.

Can you blame them? Slapped in the face like that by the UK government
at the exact moment where EDF were agreed and ready to sign the deal.
How long have they been prevaricating over new build nuclear power now?

The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

And I wouldn't be in the least bit sorry.

I am inclined to agree. They priced the future electricity at the
absolute top of the market with an addition premium on top of that.
Shame we don't have capacity to build our own nuclear kit any more.

Not often either of us agree with Harry.

The game now is whether paying the penalty to EDF and cancelling the
contract and switching to ABWR is cheaper than paying EDF 9,8p a unit ...

And you expect this bunch of muppets to negotiate a successful Brexit?
What a mess! I suppose the one thing EDF can rely on is that if they
walk away now then it won't be French homes that have winter power cuts.

We are going to have to be very very nice to Hitachi shortly...

I aim to be able to run off grid before regular power cuts become an
unwelcome part of British life. This time caused by monumental bad
planning, massive prevarication and incompetence at the highest levels
rather than by bolshy coal miners as it was in the late 70's.

Professor Fells of Newcastle has been warning successive governments of
the risks of delays on new nuclear build for well more than a decade
now. They can only continue to bodge the remaining aging AGRs for a
limited period of time beyond their nominal use by date. There isn't any
room for more delays.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-...n-2001157.html

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense. As is
using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the ones under
contruction.

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

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

On 29/07/16 10:52, Martin Brown wrote:
They can only continue to bodge the remaining aging AGRs for a limited
period of time beyond their nominal use by date. There isn't any room
for more delays.

Its an interesting point. IIRC the limiting factor in AGRs is loss and
cracking of the graphite bricks

http://theconversation.com/extending...ergy-gap-27617

Its possible that they could be kept going a lot longer.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 29/07/16 11:45, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:08:30 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense. As is
using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the ones under
contruction.

Presumably (and I don't know), the cost paid by the consumer is a
weighted average of costs paid to the various producers. A lot of fuss
is made about the price of electricity from Hinkley C, but as I said
in an earlier post, the build cost per MW is comparable with that of
several offshore wind-farms in the North Sea. Also, the Strike Price
for some of these wind farms is even higher than the quoted figure for
Hinkley C (£92.5 per MWh). For example, this from Utility Week
04/12/2013 (Can't post a direct link or a TinyURL as they insist on
linking to a log-in page. Worked OK from Google!):

"The starting strike price for offshore wind is still pegged at
£155/MWh, but it will drop less steeply than previously advised to
£140/MWh in 2018/19, instead of £135/MWh. Onshore wind will get
£95/MWh, falling to £90/MWh; while large scale solar PV receives
£120/MWh, coming down to £100/MWh."


The whole CfD thing may well be ditched anyway - ex of the EU, we are
fee to set whatever 'renewable' policy we like up to an including
phasing out all subsidies.

It all depends on how much in the end the voting public believe in/give
a **** about carbon caused 'climate change'.

Arguably decarbonising electricity in the UK wing make much difference
to global emissions, and arguably decarbonising global emissions wont
make much difference to global temperatures, and arguably the cost of a
little bit of climate change is way less than the cost of renewables.

The whole CO2 thing is coming off the rails all over the world. In a
decade it will be history and so will renewable energy


Whether that's comparing apples with apples, i.e. the Hinkley C figure
is also a Strike Price, I don't know,

It is, yes.

and as it says in the quote the
prices paid for offshore wind are falling, but still higher or in the
same order as Hinkley C.


Yes.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 28/07/2016 23:10, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



It looks like you AV is getting pre-emptive of its use of your email
client as a Bill Board platform. :-(


I just did a manual update of it and forgot to turn it off.
I hope its OK now.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 29/07/2016 12:50, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of
committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense.

Double the current rate might look cheap in 50 years.

It was/is index linked.

--
F

On 29/07/2016 10:52, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/07/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/07/16 08:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 20:11:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Oh, is that so?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904

Pity posts can't be cancelled eh Den!

Sounds like they're having second thoughts about the whole business
with this outdated, expensive untried white elephant.
Not surprising.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.

Can you blame them? Slapped in the face like that by the UK government
at the exact moment where EDF were agreed and ready to sign the deal.
How long have they been prevaricating over new build nuclear power now?

The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

And I wouldn't be in the least bit sorry.

I am inclined to agree. They priced the future electricity at the
absolute top of the market with an addition premium on top of that.
Shame we don't have capacity to build our own nuclear kit any more.

Not often either of us agree with Harry.

harry is still wrong.

I would imagine that the government has realised that AGW is cr@p and is
going to frack a lot of gas and will use that to generate electricity
for a few decades.

The only real need for nukes ATM is if AGW is actually true.
Who knows in a few decades we may have fusion or thorium reactors.
You would still have high level waste to deal with, but harry will have
been long gone.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 29/07/2016 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense. As is
using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the ones under
contruction.


We have committed to producing electricity at far higher costs, look at
the solar panels and windmills and what they cost.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 29/07/2016 12:53, Tim Streater wrote:

Well, we'd be getting Hinckley C for nothing, wouldn't we - just paying
for the volts, AIUI. Whereas for the windfarms we pay for them to be
built as well as paying through the nose for the volts produced -
whenever they deign to produce it.


Who pays for them to be built?
Its not the tax payer AFAIK.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 28/07/2016 23:10, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



It looks like you AV is getting pre-emptive of its use of your email
client as a Bill Board platform. :-(


I just did a manual update of it and forgot to turn it off.
I hope its OK now.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Not very competent, are you?

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of
committing to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a
nonsense.

Double the current rate might look cheap in 50 years.

It might. And it might not. Who knows what new technology might be around
by then? Even cheaper nuclear reactors.

As is using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the
ones under contruction.

This is more of a concern.

It certainly is. Far too many negatives for my liking.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 29/07/2016 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of
committing to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a
nonsense. As is using untried technology - known to be giving problems
on the ones under contruction.


We have committed to producing electricity at far higher costs, look at
the solar panels and windmills and what they cost.

Do we know the totals spent to date on wind power? I've not been able to
find figures. And we don't know the final cost of Hinkley C either.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

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

On 29/07/2016 13:26, Richard wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 28/07/2016 23:10, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



It looks like you AV is getting pre-emptive of its use of your email
client as a Bill Board platform. :-(


I just did a manual update of it and forgot to turn it off.
I hope its OK now.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Not very competent, are you?

More competent than you will ever be harry.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 29/07/2016 13:26, Richard wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 28/07/2016 23:10, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



It looks like you AV is getting pre-emptive of its use of your email
client as a Bill Board platform. :-(


I just did a manual update of it and forgot to turn it off.
I hope its OK now.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Not very competent, are you?

More competent than you will ever be harry.

Considering that I will never be harry, I guess you'll never be competent.

On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:16:44 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/07/2016 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense. As is
using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the ones under
contruction.


We have committed to producing electricity at far higher costs, look at
the solar panels and windmills and what they cost.

The cost of these is falling.
The cost of Hinkley continues to rise.

On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:33:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of
committing to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a
nonsense.

Double the current rate might look cheap in 50 years.

It might. And it might not. Who knows what new technology might be around
by then? Even cheaper nuclear reactors.

As is using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the
ones under contruction.

This is more of a concern.

It certainly is. Far too many negatives for my liking.
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What we need is the Severn Barrage plus other estuaries too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 28/07/2016 23:10, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:11:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



It looks like you AV is getting pre-emptive of its use of your email
client as a Bill Board platform. :-(


I just did a manual update of it and forgot to turn it off.
I hope its OK now.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Nope, still there.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/07/2016 10:52, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/07/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/07/16 08:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 20:11:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Oh, is that so?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904

Pity posts can't be cancelled eh Den!

Sounds like they're having second thoughts about the whole business
with this outdated, expensive untried white elephant.
Not surprising.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.

Can you blame them? Slapped in the face like that by the UK government
at the exact moment where EDF were agreed and ready to sign the deal.
How long have they been prevaricating over new build nuclear power now?

The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

And I wouldn't be in the least bit sorry.

I am inclined to agree. They priced the future electricity at the
absolute top of the market with an addition premium on top of that.
Shame we don't have capacity to build our own nuclear kit any more.

Not often either of us agree with Harry.

harry is still wrong.

I would imagine that the government has realised that AGW is cr@p and is
going to frack a lot of gas and will use that to generate electricity for
a few decades.

It would be stupid to do that. Makes a lot more sense to use
that gas as a transport fuel than to generate electricity with it.

The only real need for nukes ATM is if AGW is actually true.

That's not true. It also keeps the gas for use as a transport fuel.

Who knows in a few decades we may have fusion or thorium reactors.

Fusion is unlikely and thorium mainly makes sense for countrys
that you dont want to be able to produce nuclear weapons.

You would still have high level waste to deal with,

Nope, that can be used when reprocessed or used in breeders.

but harry will have been long gone.

Plenty just as silly will replace him.

On 30/07/16 11:08, Chris Hogg wrote:
Nameplate capacity of Hornsea One is 1.2GW; estimated annual
production will be 4.1TWh http://tinyurl.com/ztsua4s , so load factor
4,100/365/24/1.2x100 = 39%

and that will only be years 1-5 before the turbines start to fall apart.

Drove past our local 5 year old 'windfarm' of 12 or so large turbines.
Tow slewed across the. wind blades feathered and hubs locked. That's
pretty normal.

I don't think I have ever seen all the turbines working at one time


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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What we need is the Severn Barrage plus other estuaries too.

Ah, you mean where you pay £20 billyun before getting a single volt
out, it's intermittent power (not proper baseload like nucular), and it
silts up in 10 years.

We can be fairly certain when the tide comes in - and when it happens
round the country. So it might not be impossible to get a regular supply
using this technique.

Not quite sure why you think it ok to spend many billions on a nuclear
power station using technology that hasn't been proved to work, though?
And at a cost which is simply bound to be more than the estimate?

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

On 30/07/16 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
See Chris Hogg's comments in another post about costs. Don't imagine
that so-called renewables are such a good deal.
True costs of renewables is, with the backup and grid enhancements at
least 2p a unit more than the headline cost of building them.

And then there's the hidden environmental costs.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Ah, you mean where you pay £20 billyun before getting a single volt
out, it's intermittent power (not proper baseload like nucular), and it
silts up in 10 years.

We can be fairly certain when the tide comes in - and when it happens
round the country. So it might not be impossible to get a regular supply
using this technique.

This is your guess, is it? All that tidal gives us is *knowledge* of
when the intermittency occurs. Interesting that no one has designed a
set of tidal barriers around the UK to produce xGW with reasonable
constancy, for a cost of £yB, and told us what x and y are, and how to
mitigate issues such as shipping access, silting, interference with
wild-life, etc.

Ah. The because it hasn't been done before it is impossible approach.

Let's just go back to coal fired using our own deep mined coal. That is
tried and tested.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

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

On 30/07/16 15:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:55:50 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Ah, you mean where you pay £20 billyun before getting a single volt
out, it's intermittent power (not proper baseload like nucular), and it
silts up in 10 years.

We can be fairly certain when the tide comes in - and when it happens
round the country. So it might not be impossible to get a regular supply
using this technique.

This is your guess, is it? All that tidal gives us is *knowledge* of
when the intermittency occurs. Interesting that no one has designed a
set of tidal barriers around the UK to produce xGW with reasonable
constancy, for a cost of £yB, and told us what x and y are, and how to
mitigate issues such as shipping access, silting, interference with
wild-life, etc.

Ah. The because it hasn't been done before it is impossible approach.

Let's just go back to coal fired using our own deep mined coal. That is
tried and tested.

Or even deep-drilled gas, AKA fracking. Bring it on. Yeah!

But back to tidal barrages, there's an analysis of the various energy
options here http://tinyurl.com/hq4g2ku I've just come across it, so
not read it in detail, but they seem to like nuclear, offshore wind
and tidal barrages.

Tidal Lagoon Power
Pillar & Lucy House
Merchants Road
The Docks
Gloucester
GL2 5RG

says it all.

And you expect it to be unbiased?

Purlease

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 30/07/16 15:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:15:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/07/16 15:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
But back to tidal barrages, there's an analysis of the various energy
options here http://tinyurl.com/hq4g2ku I've just come across it, so
not read it in detail, but they seem to like nuclear, offshore wind
and tidal barrages.

Tidal Lagoon Power
Pillar & Lucy House
Merchants Road
The Docks
Gloucester
GL2 5RG

says it all.

And you expect it to be unbiased?

Purlease

chuckle sorry, I missed that bit!

First thing I do is see who wrote it, and figure out why.

Especially when the tidal power figures were way off...


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On Saturday, 30 July 2016 12:06:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/16 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
See Chris Hogg's comments in another post about costs. Don't imagine
that so-called renewables are such a good deal.
True costs of renewables is, with the backup and grid enhancements at
least 2p a unit more than the headline cost of building them.

And then there's the hidden environmental costs.

But no fuel to buy ever again.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

Ah, you mean where you pay £20 billyun before getting
a single volt out, it's intermittent power (not proper
baseload like nucular), and it silts up in 10 years.

We can be fairly certain when the tide comes in - and
when it happens round the country. So it might not be
impossible to get a regular supply using this technique.

This is your guess, is it? All that tidal gives us is *knowledge* of
when the intermittency occurs. Interesting that no one has designed a
set of tidal barriers around the UK to produce xGW with reasonable
constancy, for a cost of £yB, and told us what x and y are, and how to
mitigate issues such as shipping access, silting, interference with
wild-life, etc.

Ah. The because it hasn't been done before it is impossible approach.

He never said anything about impossible, just
that it's a lousy approach compared with nukes.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

What we need is the Severn Barrage plus other estuaries too.

Ah, you mean where you pay £20 billyun before getting a single volt
out, it's intermittent power (not proper baseload like nucular), and it
silts up in 10 years.

We can be fairly certain when the tide comes in - and when
it happens round the country. So it might not be impossible
to get a regular supply using this technique.

Pity about how comprehensively the environment is ****ed in the process.

Not quite sure why you think it ok to spend many billions on a nuclear
power station using technology that hasn't been proved to work, though?

Because they don't **** the environment and there are plenty of
designs of nukes that are known to be very reliable indeed.

And at a cost which is simply bound to be more than the estimate?

Just as true of anything.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense.
It is. So why are we contemplating even more expensive off-shore wind
farms? At least nuke is available 24/7.
As is
using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the ones under
contruction.

For once I agree with you. Whilst I am very much in favour of nuclear it
does seem a bit foolish to begin building a 3rd example when the first
two are in deep trouble.
We should crack on with known proven designs even if that means another
Sizewell B or three.
--
bert

In article ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 12:06:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/16 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
See Chris Hogg's comments in another post about costs. Don't imagine
that so-called renewables are such a good deal.
True costs of renewables is, with the backup and grid enhancements at
least 2p a unit more than the headline cost of building them.

And then there's the hidden environmental costs.

But no fuel to buy ever again.
Except the fuel required to manufacture the panels - which is more than
they produce in their lifetime. And how are you going to dispose of the
dangerous waste from defunct panels? Same way as we are disposing of the
dangerous chemicals in cfl light bulbs I expect - in landfill.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , harry
writes
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 12:06:45 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/16 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
See Chris Hogg's comments in another post about costs. Don't imagine
that so-called renewables are such a good deal.
True costs of renewables is, with the backup and grid enhancements at
least 2p a unit more than the headline cost of building them.

And then there's the hidden environmental costs.

But no fuel to buy ever again.

Except the fuel required to manufacture the panels - which is more than
they produce in their lifetime.

That's a lie.

And how are you going to dispose of the dangerous waste from defunct
panels?

There is no dangerous waste from defunct panels.

Same way as we are disposing of the dangerous chemicals in cfl light bulbs
I expect - in landfill.

Yes, and that is a very viable approach.

On 30/07/2016 21:59, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the French don't now pull out.
The project was always on a knife edge with then financially, and
they'll take this deferment as a slap in the face. As I've said here
before, Hinkley C will probably end up being built by Hitachi, to the
same design as those they're proposing for Wylfa and Oldbury.

Don't know anything about power station design, but the idea of
committing
to a electricity unit cost double the current rate is a nonsense.
It is. So why are we contemplating even more expensive off-shore wind
farms? At least nuke is available 24/7.
As is
using untried technology - known to be giving problems on the ones under
contruction.

For once I agree with you. Whilst I am very much in favour of nuclear it
does seem a bit foolish to begin building a 3rd example when the first
two are in deep trouble.
We should crack on with known proven designs even if that means another
Sizewell B or three.

My understanding as that the problems with the French reactors have been
down to delays due to strikes (particularly by welders) and faulty steel
in the pressure vessel, that failed testing and needed to be replaced.
Are there other problems with them that are design specific?

En el artículo , Steve Walker steve@walker-
family.me.uk escribió:

My understanding as that the problems with the French reactors have been
down to delays due to strikes (particularly by welders) and faulty steel
in the pressure vessel, that failed testing and needed to be replaced.

At Flamanville they've already built the concrete containment building
around the pressure vessel, so if it's decided to condemn and replace
the vessel they need to demolish the outer containment building too.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")