MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

grahamc2003

albyota wrote: »

please answer these questions.

how much does a nuclear power station cost to build?

how much does it cost to service and maintain in its lifetime?

how much will it cost to safely decommission?

who is going to pay for this?

And

When can we have one?

I can answer the last bit - about 10 to 12 years.

Could I ask you a question. What other alternatives to Nuclear are there for the bulk of our future generation?

The answer is there are no long term alternatives

I'm sure others will disagree.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. In the coming years, with many roofs covered in solar and the countryside dominated by windmills, people will be confused as to why they have their electricity turned off on a regular basis and why their bills are so incredibly high. A good dose of electricity shortage driven planned power cuts in a few years will soon have people demanding proper solutions instead of the current ideological nonsense. Perhaps only then will people realise what intermittency means, and how their solar panels are useless at the exact time people want lots of electricty.

Mart, my bff, you seem to have missed Cardew's implied question of whether you have a vested interest in promoting solar.

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

When you look at it from an objective point of view you'll really see that the viewpoints forwarded by Graham are mainly totally sound when looking at it from a current economics 'value for money' engineering solution position. Cardew has a full set of excellent viewpoints too .... many/most I actually agree with, the only real difference we have is on subsidy, I see it as a temporary necessity which is funded globally in order to accelerate volume production and economies of scale as opposed to being an unaffordable tax aimed uniquely at the UK's poor and elderly.

HTH
Z

Thanks, but just to clarify a little bit - engineering views are more than 'value for money' views, which means analysis and solutions talking into account all factors, (including informed environmental concerns) not solely cost.

Properties like duplication and unintended redundancy are obviously extremely wasteful on resources (and hence not environmental at all).

albyota

albyota wrote: »

please answer these questions.

How much does a nuclear power station cost to build?

Between £2.7bn and £4bn for a 1.6GW plant

How much does it cost to service and maintain?

£18m?? / year

How much will it cost to safely decommission?

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has said the cost will be £72bn over 20 years - up from an estimate two years ago of £56bn.

Who is going to pay for this?

All of Us taxpayers

And

When can we have one?

In ten years time....2022

All the work going to French and German companies...no work for the British.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Real_Cost_of_Nuclear_Power.php

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NuclearFinancialandSafetyNightmare.php

so long as we know what it will cost.......

albyota

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I can answer the last bit - about 10 to 12 years.

Could I ask you a question. What other alternatives to Nuclear are there for the bulk of our future generation?

The answer is there are no long term alternatives

So, lets think short to medium then, do you not think tidal wave power or undercurrent power is a goer?
or Biomass steam generators, or compressed air storage, and spinning reserve, or the many other alternatives we have all listed, wind, solar, hydro etc?

or as an 'Engineer' do you just have the one book?. the one that says 'this is the way we've always done it, so lets carry on'? :eek:

Come on think outside the box, like the clever engineers around the world.

grahamc2003

albyota wrote: »

So, lets think short to medium then, do you not think tidal wave power or undercurrent power is a goer?
or Biomass steam generators, or compressed air storage, and spinning reserve, or the many other alternatives we have all listed, wind, solar, hydro etc?

or as an 'Engineer' do you just have the one book?. the one that says 'this is the way we've always done it, so lets carry on'? :eek:

Come on think outside the box, like the clever engineers around the world.

You don't understand - you should only change things for the better, not for the worse.

Quite disappointed in that post Al. What a shame.

albyota

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You don't understand - you should only change things for the better, not for the worse.

Quite disappointed in that post Al. What a shame.

OK Graham, [STRIKE]sorry for that[/STRIKE], actually I do understand, but you haven't suggested a solution......and I want to know what your views are....

Martyn1981

Cardew, I thought that nuclear came under the carbon reduction side(s) of the green tariff. But I will admit to being unsure. So apologies if I've misled anyone. However the relatively high cost of nuclear is part of our bills.

Given the constant supply role of nuclear, and the fact that I can't see any short term (or possibly even long term) replacement, I can certainly see the current need for the subsidisation of nuclear.

My point being that it's hard to approach this discussion without the need for subsidies.

As post #179 points out, how else do we expect to tackle the looming problem.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Graham, yes I completely missed any hidden agenda in Cardew's post. Perhaps I'm being a little naive about the purpose of such discussion forums as these, but even after reading your suggestion, I'm still not sure that Cardew was having a personal attack on me.

Can I ask why you persist in such remarks. A couple of weeks ago, when I refused to bend to your opinion, and suggested that a discussion where some posters are reasonably negative, and some are reasonably positive would lead to a 'reasonable discussion'. Your responses were first to accuse me of being a political lobbyist for the PV industry. Then to accuse me of an extreme green agenda. Are you now accusing me of having an anti nuclear agenda? I'm just trying to enjoy and join in these discussions.

I simply fail to understand what this achieves. For a while I succumbed to a tooth for tooth and eye for an eye sillyness, but quickly realised that the only net result is to spoil these threads for everyone else.

Why can't I have long term concerns about our energy supply?
Why can't I have long term concerns about our environment?
Why am I not allowed to post these reasonable concerns without your personal attacks?

Can we please end this sillyness, as the recent posts, last few days have been very interesting and constructive.

Lastly, to answer your questions regarding nuclear, I'm not actually against it. It concerns me both on health and financial grounds, but like you I can't see what the short or medium term alternative is. So I therefore accept its role and the large costs that it places on UK households - I find it reasonable.

Hopefully we can now move on - if you want more details about my personal circumstances then I'll give them, I have nothing to hide, I'm extremely boring! I'm happy to supply any info you'd like on my PV system too if you'd like. It's not one of the better or cheaper ones, but I have lots of numbers, breakdowns etc. I find some of the numbers interesting, most people would probably find them boring.

Martyn.

HalloweenJack

thats figure of £56 (or £72) billion , for the main includs the cost of cleaning up after nuclear weapons research - and closing of the reproccessing plant at sellafield

Martyn1981

Albyota, I've always found the Severn tidal barrage extremely interesting. Parents used to to take me and sis to one of those little chalet home things, near Lavernock Point, one of the suggested ends of the full size barrage.

Have to do some digging, but I think it could deliver 13GW!

Terrifying price, but that kind of infrastructure project has been used before to help with recessions (eg FDR's schemes, such as the Hoover Dam).

Completely splits environmentalists. Habitat destruction v's co2 reductions. I think FoE are against, but ex head is for it. Personally, I think they need to move over, if that is, it's financially viable. £30bn?

Not only does it top the UK's top 20 list of such schemes, but I think it's bigger than all the rest combined. Mindblowing. And could (correct me if I'm wrong) delay release for several extra hours to help it co-ordinate with evening peak when possible.

What do you mean by spinning reserve in this context?

Thanks.

Mart.