This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.

harry wrote

This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only
came out when they were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.

Just as true of 'renewables', particularly with the cost of
what is needed when they are delivering **** all power.

And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.

Just as true of 'renewables'

The point in this is that often no proper end to end costing is done when
its a state industry. also more mistakes are made in design and manufacture
when cost is not an issue, ie nobody thinks about servicing and the
radiation in parts to be changed etc. They usually do do a reasonable job of
safety, but as I say not much else.

However there are also issues with commercial designs and builds due to
compromises to keep costs down that seemed good at the time... ahem. 3 mile
island anyone?
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harry wrote
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were
appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.

Just as true of 'renewables', particularly with the cost of what is needed
when they are delivering **** all power.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.

Just as true of 'renewables'

On 05/11/16 10:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
However there are also issues with commercial designs and builds due to
compromises to keep costs down that seemed good at the time... ahem. 3 mile
island anyone?
3MI is a classic case in point. No deaths resulted, all the safety
systems worked to limit radiation release to a very small amount, and
lessons were learnt.

And the company had to write off a huge investment.

If it were any industry but nuclear, you would be saying 'well thank
heavens the design stopped a disaster,. which is how it should be, and
the company lost a fortune, because that's also how it should be.




--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 11/5/2016 8:05 AM, harry wrote:
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.


"The CEGB conducted a detailed economic appraisal of the competing
designs and concluded that the AGR proposed for Dungeness B would
generate the cheapest electricity, cheaper than any of the rival designs
and the best coal-fired stations".

Except, of course, that the CEGB was told by its masters which answer to
chose. It was public knowledge *at the time* that calcs had to be
presented to the third decimal place before the "edge" over PWR was
apparent. No engineer would claim that such figures were "real". And of
course the commercial AGR was a very large extrapolation from the
Windscale prototype.

CEGB chairman Arthur (megawatts) Hawkins said later of Dungeness B words
to the effect that "This was a mistake we must never make again".

What matters at the end of the day is not the forecasts and the
rhetoric, but the out-turn costs.

Magnox was never expected to be commercially competitive, but it turned
out to be very much so, in part because inflation discounted the capital
costs, and partly because of the long lives achieved.

I have not seen an equivalent calculation for the AGRs, but the people
running EDF are not stupid (and no longer under UK government dictat),
they are investing significantly in life extension safety cases because
they are confident of making money out of current and future generation.

Going back to privatisation, potential investors in National Power
played hardball with the government over nuclear because they were not
just greedy, they were *very* greedy. The last CEGB chairman, Gil
Blackman, said that Cecil Parkinson and the civil servants ran rings
around the CEGB. Well, the bankers ran rings around the Tories.

And, of course, admittedly after a lot of hard work by Nuclear Electric,
the AGR fleet *was* privatised.

On 11/5/2016 10:36 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
The point in this is that often no proper end to end costing is done when
its a state industry. also more mistakes are made in design and manufacture
when cost is not an issue, ie nobody thinks about servicing and the
radiation in parts to be changed etc. They usually do do a reasonable job of
safety, but as I say not much else.

However there are also issues with commercial designs and builds due to
compromises to keep costs down that seemed good at the time... ahem. 3 mile
island anyone?
Brian

Brian

It's only nation states that can kick off really large and innovative
projects, like launching satellites and moon rockets, or transitioning
nuclear weapons programmes (both bombs and submarines) into civil
applications.

America rather cleverly insulates their civil nuclear power stations
from back-end costs by only *leasing* them the fuel, not selling it
outright.

On 05/11/16 11:30, newshound wrote:
On 11/5/2016 8:05 AM, harry wrote:
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they
were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.



.....

What matters at the end of the day is not the forecasts and the
rhetoric, but the out-turn costs.


:-)

Harry is classic doublethink. On the one hand he denies that nuclear can
ever be built better or cheaper, and on the other he insists that his
hopelessly uncompetitive solar panels and windmills can be....

I think the condition is incurable.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 05/11/2016 08:05, harry wrote:
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.


Well harry, if we didn't have the nukes there would have been a lot more
CO2 released by burning coal, etc.
This according to you would have cost the earth.
So whatever the nukes cost must make sense to you as they have already
saved the planet.

Brian Gaff wrote

The point in this is that often no proper end to end costing is done

In the ultimate it isnt even possible with the total
costs of a nuke, or a 'renewable' installation, or
even a mine or something like Heathrow or say
one of the underground rail lines etc.

when its a state industry.

Not just with state industrys, just as true of say
Heathrow or even Buck House or the royals.

also more mistakes are made in design and manufacture when cost is not an
issue, ie nobody thinks about servicing and the radiation in parts to be
changed etc.

Of course they do with nukes.

They usually do do a reasonable job of safety, but as I say not much else.

That's bull****.

However there are also issues with commercial designs and builds due to
compromises to keep costs down that seemed good at the time... ahem. 3
mile island anyone?

That wasn’t the problem there.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harry wrote
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were
appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.

Just as true of 'renewables', particularly with the cost of what is
needed when they are delivering **** all power.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.

Just as true of 'renewables'

On Saturday, 5 November 2016 13:07:42 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/11/2016 08:05, harry wrote:
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.


Well harry, if we didn't have the nukes there would have been a lot more
CO2 released by burning coal, etc.
This according to you would have cost the earth.
So whatever the nukes cost must make sense to you as they have already
saved the planet.

We need tidal projects. Every estuary in the UK.
And links to Europe.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 5 November 2016 13:07:42 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/11/2016 08:05, harry wrote:
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they
were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.


Well harry, if we didn't have the nukes there would have been a lot more
CO2 released by burning coal, etc.
This according to you would have cost the earth.
So whatever the nukes cost must make sense to you as they have already
saved the planet.

We need tidal projects. Every estuary in the UK.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And links to Europe.

Got those.

On 06/11/2016 09:02, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 5 November 2016 13:07:42 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 05/11/2016 08:05, harry wrote:
This bears a look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...eactor#History

The lies about nuclear power economics that only came out when they were appraised for privatisation.

Nuclear power has a whole history of lies about it's true costs.
And have seen the end of this by a long chalk.


Well harry, if we didn't have the nukes there would have been a lot more
CO2 released by burning coal, etc.
This according to you would have cost the earth.
So whatever the nukes cost must make sense to you as they have already
saved the planet.

We need tidal projects. Every estuary in the UK.
And links to Europe.


We don't want anything to do with an area that is going to implode, we
can't rely on getting any energy to import or getting paid if we export.