View Full Version : The folly of nuclear
soulsurfer
04-Feb-13, 09:44
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117
Further proof; if it were needed. Too cheap to meter??
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65679000/jpg/_65679936_65679687.jpg
MerlinScot
04-Feb-13, 11:22
People who think the scaremongering of nuclear is useful live in a separate reality...
Nobody is going to keep you out of radioactivity, especially with France having a high number of plants.
Then if you live in Thurso (as I do) we got radioactive when Dounreay opened and never stopped since. Update yourself.
The folly of no nuclear: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/25/national/abe-looking-to-renege-on-emissions-pledge/#.UQ-Mw6VAcTP
MerlinScot
04-Feb-13, 11:33
Good post Flynn. As someone said in one of the comments, it is nice these articles are ignored by the anti-nuclear brigade.
Ah - so the fact the Japan isn't using nuclear just now and could miss emissions targets is one in the eye for the anti nuclear 'brigade'? Don't really think so.
Not that settled on any side of the argument but Fukoshima is hardly a gleaming example of best practise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117
Further proof; if it were needed. Too cheap to meter??
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65679000/jpg/_65679936_65679687.jpg
Not only that but you have got to look at build costs as well. In 2005, EDF said they would build a new nuclear power station for £3.3 billion, now they say it is going to cost £14 billion! An increase of 400%!
Sustainability is another big problem. Currently, nuclear only supplies ~3.5% of all our energy. So, if we stopped using nuclear, what would be the impact on our carbon emission? Very little in real terms. Nuclear also has a carbon footprint which is not appreciated, a MWh of nuclear has 85-130kg of CO2 attached to it. Even at current consumption rates of uranium, world resources will last only about 80 years (although more prospecting would mitigate that figure) which is well within the lifetimes of our children. Using nuclear can only be seen as a useful stop-gap until we go fully renewable, unless we go nuclear fusion or fastbreeding, which is very unlikely in terms of both economics and the environment.
France is now going away from nuclear and going renewables, the current government is comitted to phasing it out altogether. The reasons for this are complex but the ultimate reason is that it is not sustainable.
France is now going away from nuclear and going renewables, the current government is comitted to phasing it out altogether. The reasons for this are complex but the ultimate reason is that it is not sustainable.
I think you'll find that's Germany, not France. France gets 75% of its electrical energy from nuclear power stations.
I think you'll find that's Germany, not France. France gets 75% of its electrical energy from nuclear power stations.
France as well as Germany. Germany immediately shutdown its reactors but France is phasing them out or that is the policy of the present government, whether that becomes a reality is another matter.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/hollande-victory-signals-shift-in-frances-renewable-energy-policy
[QUOTE=Rheghead;1005384]France as well as Germany. Germany immediately shutdown its reactors but France is phasing them out or that is the policy of the present government, whether that becomes a reality is another matter.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/hollande-victory-signals-shift-in-frances-renewable-energy-policy[/QUOTE
Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK
Germany is way ahead of us on the very path our politicians want us to follow –
and the problems it has encountered as a result are big news there. In fact,
Germany is being horribly caught out by precisely the same delusion about
renewable energy that our own politicians have fallen for. Like all enthusiasts
for “free, clean, renewable electricity”, they overlook the fatal implications
of the fact that wind speeds and sunlight constantly vary. They are taken in by
the wind industry’s trick of vastly exaggerating the usefulness of wind farms by
talking in terms of their “capacity”, hiding the fact that their actual output
will waver between 100 per cent of capacity and zero. In Britain it averages
around 25 per cent; in Germany it is lower, just 17 per cent
Having poured hundreds of billions of euros in subsidies into wind and solar
power, making its electricity bills almost the highest in Europe, the picture
that Germany presents is, on paper, almost everything the most rabid greenie
could want. Last year, its wind turbines already had 29GW of capacity,
equivalent to a quarter of Germany’s average electricity demand. But because
these turbines are even less efficient than our own, their actual output
averaged only 5GW, and most of the rest had to come from grown-up power
stations, ready to supply up to 29GW at any time and then switch off as the wind
picked up again. Energy-intensive industries are having to install their own generators, or
are looking to leave Germany altogether.
In fact, a mighty battle is now developing in Germany between green fantasists
and practical realists. Because renewable energy must by law have priority in
supplying the grid, the owners of conventional power stations, finding they have
to run plants unprofitably, are so angry that they are threatening to close many
of them down. The government response, astonishingly, has been to propose a new
law forcing them to continue running their plants at a loss.
Meanwhile, firms such as RWE and E.on are going flat out to build 16 new
coal-fired and 15 new gas-fired power stations by 2020, with a combined output
equivalent to some 38 per cent of Germany’s electricity needs. None of these
will be required to have “carbon capture and storage” (CCS), which is just an
empty pipedream. This makes nonsense of any pretence that Germany will meet its
EU target for reducing CO2 emissions (and Mrs Merkel’s equally fanciful goal of
producing 35 per cent of electricity from renewables).
I thought this thread was about nuclear. I hope it doesn't turn into another anti-wind rant, regurgitating the same old rubbished propaganda from Christopher Booker.
France as well as Germany. Germany immediately shutdown its reactors but France is phasing them out or that is the policy of the present government, whether that becomes a reality is another matter.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/hollande-victory-signals-shift-in-frances-renewable-energy-policy
If France was to phase out its nuclear generation capability the UK would be right up the Swanny without a paddle. We buy most of our electricity from the French.
If France was to phase out its nuclear generation capability the UK would be right up the Swanny without a paddle. We buy most of our electricity from the French.
We currently import just 1.5% of our electricity.
Not only that but you have got to look at build costs as well. In 2005, EDF said they would build a new nuclear power station for £3.3 billion, now they say it is going to cost £14 billion! An increase of 400%!
Sustainability is another big problem. Currently, nuclear only supplies ~3.5% of all our energy. So, if we stopped using nuclear, what would be the impact on our carbon emission? Very little in real terms. Nuclear also has a carbon footprint which is not appreciated, a MWh of nuclear has 85-130kg of CO2 attached to it. Even at current consumption rates of uranium, world resources will last only about 80 years (although more prospecting would mitigate that figure) which is well within the lifetimes of our children. Using nuclear can only be seen as a useful stop-gap until we go fully renewable, unless we go nuclear fusion or fastbreeding, which is very unlikely in terms of both economics and the environment.
France is now going away from nuclear and going renewables, the current government is comitted to phasing it out altogether. The reasons for this are complex but the ultimate reason is that it is not sustainable.
As you can see it was yourself that mentioned renewables first
and it seems if anybody does not agree with your thinking it's propaganda, These are facts from Germany
Why do you think so many Farmers in Caithness are putting up turbines, it's certainly not because
the are worried about climate change
15 to 20% tax free returns for the next 25 years and free electric paid for by you and me.
Fantastic deal if you can get it.
As you can see it was yourself that mentioned renewables first
and it seems if anybody does not agree with your thinking it's propaganda, These are facts from Germany
Why do you think so many Farmers in Caithness are putting up turbines, it's certainly not because
the are worried about climate change
15 to 20% tax free returns for the next 25 years and free electric paid for by you and me.
Fantastic deal if you can get it.
No, mentioning renewables is not the same thing as making them the singular subject of a post which wasn't your own words or your opinion or facts but it was a cut and pasted opinion piece from the biggest bender of factual information, aka Christopher Booker. Propaganda pure and simple.
captain chaos
04-Feb-13, 20:27
Rheghead
I dont know where you get your information but if you look at the www.gov.uk (http://www.gov.uk) electricity trends for 2012 quarter 3 ie the latest information.....nuclear provided 22% (you quote ~3.5%) of the uk demand and we imported 5.1% (you quote 1.5%) from outside the UK mainly France and the Netherlands
Key results show:
Electricity generated in the third quarter of 2012 fell by 2.8 per cent to 81.0 TWh from 83.3
TWh in the same period a year earlier, the lowest level of generation in 14 years (Chart
5.1).
Renewables’ share of electricity generation increased from 9.1 per cent in the third quarter
of 2011 to 11.7 per cent in the third quarter of 2012 (Chart 5.2).
Nuclear’s share of generation increased from 18.9 per cent in the third quarter of 2011 to
22.3 per cent in the third quarter of 2012 due to increased availability after outages last year
(Chart 5.2).
Gas’s share of generation fell from 46.3 per cent in the third quarter of 2011 to 28.2 per cent
in the third quarter of 2012 due to high gas prices. It was gas’s lowest share of generation
for the third quarter in at least 14 years. Coal’s share increased from 22.9 per cent to 35.4
per cent over this same period (Chart 5.2).
The UK remains a net importer with 5.1 per cent of electricity supplied from net imports in
the third quarter of 2012 (Chart 5.3).
Final consumption of electricity during the third quarter of 2012 was 0.8 per cent lower than
in the same period last year, while domestic sales fell by 0.6 per cent to the lowest level for
13 years. (Chart 5.4).
England had a share of 76.5 per cent of the UK’s electricity generation in 2011. Scotland’s
share was 13.9 per cent. Wales’s share was 7.4 per cent and Northern Ireland’s share was
2.2 per cent (Chart 5.6).
Rheghead
I dont know where you get your information but if you look at the www.gov.uk (http://www.gov.uk) electricity trends for 2012 quarter 3 ie the latest information.....nuclear provided 22% (you quote ~3.5%) of the uk demand and we imported 5.1% (you quote 1.5%) from outside the UK mainly France and the Netherlands
Key results show:
Electricity generated in the third quarter of 2012 fell by 2.8 per cent to 81.0 TWh from 83.3
TWh in the same period a year earlier, the lowest level of generation in 14 years (Chart
5.1).
Renewables’ share of electricity generation increased from 9.1 per cent in the third quarter
of 2011 to 11.7 per cent in the third quarter of 2012 (Chart 5.2).
Nuclear’s share of generation increased from 18.9 per cent in the third quarter of 2011 to
22.3 per cent in the third quarter of 2012 due to increased availability after outages last year
(Chart 5.2).
Gas’s share of generation fell from 46.3 per cent in the third quarter of 2011 to 28.2 per cent
in the third quarter of 2012 due to high gas prices. It was gas’s lowest share of generation
for the third quarter in at least 14 years. Coal’s share increased from 22.9 per cent to 35.4
per cent over this same period (Chart 5.2).
The UK remains a net importer with 5.1 per cent of electricity supplied from net imports in
the third quarter of 2012 (Chart 5.3).
Final consumption of electricity during the third quarter of 2012 was 0.8 per cent lower than
in the same period last year, while domestic sales fell by 0.6 per cent to the lowest level for
13 years. (Chart 5.4).
England had a share of 76.5 per cent of the UK’s electricity generation in 2011. Scotland’s
share was 13.9 per cent. Wales’s share was 7.4 per cent and Northern Ireland’s share was
2.2 per cent (Chart 5.6).
I said energy, not electricity.
From your source:-
5.6 Net imports in 2011 were up by 134 per cent on 2010, to 6.2 TWh. This was due to imports
rising by 22 per cent, and exports falling by 45 per cent, the highest level of imports and lowest level of
exports since 2008. This followed successive falls in net imports in 2009 and 2010, with net imports in
2010 at a seven year low, and just a quarter of the level of 2008’s eight year record high. In 2011, net
imports from continental Europe more than doubled, to 6.5 TWh, with the French interconnector
providing 4.7 TWh and the newly opened Netherlands interconnector 1.8 TWh. Continental Europe
accounted for 99 per cent of imports to the UK. A 6.3 per cent rise in net exports to the Republic of
Ireland was also seen, which accounted for 15 per cent of UK exports in 20111. Net imports
contributed 1.7 per cent of electricity supply in 2011, up from 0.7 per cent in 2012.
You may have misread the web page as the information was on Table 5.1
We currently import just 1.5% of our electricity.
err................:D
err................:D
Yes, do you doubt it?
captain chaos
04-Feb-13, 21:07
Okay you say nuclear provides 3.5% of (energy) but you do quote our import as (electricity)
I have attached the 2012 Energy sources pie chart below.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/energy-sources-pie-chart-500x311.png
captain chaos
04-Feb-13, 21:10
Oh and no need to worry about uranium running out. Last International atomic energy report states 200 years of known and working mines and at least 3 times that of Thorium which can be used instead of uranium.
captain chaos
04-Feb-13, 21:12
Yes I doubt I just gave you the latest goverment figures that show we import 5.1% of our electricity not 1.5%
captain chaos
04-Feb-13, 21:19
Well have a look for yourselves and see what it says
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65835/3945-energy-trends-section-4-electricity.pdf
I think you will find the import graph on section5.3
Oh and no need to worry about uranium running out. Last International atomic energy report states 200 years of known and working mines and at least 3 times that of Thorium which can be used instead of uranium.
Does it state what grade/concentration/difficulty in extraction in relation to cost? How will nuclear help to combat climate change when it counts for so little of our energy needs and it will increasingly be less energy efficient to extract?
captain chaos
04-Feb-13, 21:26
Oh apology accepted No.... as it stated these were reserves from existing mines and did not take into account unknown fields or extraction from seawater, just the stuff that can be easily mined at present. And around the world the nuclear counts for quite an amount of energy. Look at the emerging countries like india and china who are building nuclear power plants almost monthly
Well have a look for yourselves and see what it says
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65835/3945-energy-trends-section-4-electricity.pdf
I think you will find the import graph on section5.3
OK, sorry, we were looking at different pages, my info was https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65818/5955-dukes-2012-chapter-5-electricity.pdf
Your source does indeed say 5.1% was imported but just for the 3rd quarter of 2012, which does seem very large. I'm sure that is not representative for the whole year or what is expected in the future. Adding the 4 last quarters from the graph seems to indicate ~2.5% was imported which is way higher than previous years.
it stated these were reserves from existing mines and did not take into account unknown fields or extraction from seawater, just the stuff that can be easily mined at present. And around the world the nuclear counts for quite an amount of energy. Look at the emerging countries like india and china who are building nuclear power plants almost monthly
Well I did look on the IAEA and it said uranium resource is to last 'over 100 years' at current requirements, for a trade organisation that is optimistic, also saying that resources should last well through to 2035 and the foreseeable future. :eek: The report also says demand is set to double in the coming years which will reduce how long those resources will last.
Read into that what you want, but the growth in uranium production was all in Kazakhstan where the Chinese and India hold sway.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2012/prn201219.html
ywindythesecond
05-Feb-13, 00:03
Okay you say nuclear provides 3.5% of (energy) but you do quote our import as (electricity)
I have attached the 2012 Energy sources pie chart below.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/energy-sources-pie-chart-500x311.png
I have done a quick check on the NETA website and in round terms our electricity over the last 3 months has come from Gas 24%, Coal 45%, Nuclear 19%, Wind 6% (understated because only directly connected to grid plant is counted but for this illustration it doesn't matter) hydro and pump storage 2%, French interconnector 2% Dutch interconnector 2%.
We used to get more from France until the Dutch interconnector became live and now they seem to share that part of the UK market. But how does Holland generate its electricity? Has it done a deal with France and simply sells on Frances nuclear electricity at a profit?
luskentyre
05-Feb-13, 00:04
almost everything the most rabid greenie could want.
I think that sentence alone should tell you this is hardly an unbiased article!
I have done a quick check on the NETA website and in round terms our electricity over the last 3 months has come from Gas 24%, Coal 45%, Nuclear 19%, Wind 6% (understated because only directly connected to grid plant is counted but for this illustration it doesn't matter) hydro and pump storage 2%, French interconnector 2% Dutch interconnector 2%.
We used to get more from France until the Dutch interconnector became live and now they seem to share that part of the UK market. But how does Holland generate its electricity? Has it done a deal with France and simply sells on Frances nuclear electricity at a profit?
I don't know if you've noticed but the profile of energy generation has changed in the last 12 months. Coal useage is more and less load following and gas useage is less and more load following.
secrets in symmetry
05-Feb-13, 00:27
No, mentioning renewables is not the same thing as making them the singular subject of a post which wasn't your own words or your opinion or facts but it was a cut and pasted opinion piece from the biggest bender of factual information, aka Christopher Booker. Propaganda pure and simple.Yes, it's typical Booker lies. It was posted on forums all over the internet - so much that it's often quoted by deniers.
People are more frightened of things they don't understand, so effective advocacy of nuclear power requires making the effort to bridge the information gap. Also people find concentrated acute harm scarier than dispersed chronic harm, which is why the idea of a plane crash is more disturbing than the larger number of people killed in road accidents. If I thought nuclear power etc was a folly I won't be routinely going to work everyday, the safety involved with in the nulcear industry is that intense you won’t believe.
ywindythesecond
05-Feb-13, 10:22
I don't know if you've noticed but the profile of energy generation has changed in the last 12 months. Coal useage is more and less load following and gas useage is less and more load following.
No big surprise there. There is much more wind generated electricity being used and as the govt says it must be used when it is available, something has to give and gas is the easiest to turn off and on. BUT if you owned a gas power station wouldn't you get a little peeved that your investment was going to waste, so in future we wil be paying lots more for less gas just so we can pay lots more just to use wind generated electricity. http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
This last couple of days have been financially disastrous for electricity bill payers. Lots of gas turned off to make way for lots of wind and no doubt very high constraint costs because of high wind production and low demand over the weekend. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
No big surprise there. There is much more wind generated electricity being used and as the govt says it must be used when it is available, something has to give and gas is the easiest to turn off and on. BUT if you owned a gas power station wouldn't you get a little peeved that your investment was going to waste, so in future we wil be paying lots more for less gas just so we can pay lots more just to use wind generated electricity. http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
This last couple of days have been financially disastrous for electricity bill payers. Lots of gas turned off to make way for lots of wind and no doubt very high constraint costs because of high wind production and low demand over the weekend. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
The official reason for it, high gas prices, is much different to your reason.
People are more frightened of things they don't understand, so effective advocacy of nuclear power requires making the effort to bridge the information gap. Also people find concentrated acute harm scarier than dispersed chronic harm, which is why the idea of a plane crash is more disturbing than the larger number of people killed in road accidents. If I thought nuclear power etc was a folly I won't be routinely going to work everyday, the safety involved with in the nulcear industry is that intense you won’t believe.
Has there been any more advance in Pebble Bed Reactors?
Do we have a nuclear future in the UK? Centrica have joined E.on, SSE and RWE in pulling out of building new reactors in the UK. That leaves the Japanese with Hitachi, the Spanish with Iberdrola, the Franch with EDF and IDF Suez.
It is like 10 green bottles, who's gonna fall next? There's talk of the Chinese and the Russians taking a lead. Where's all the British?:roll:
Plus we're sending troops to Mali. Nothing to do with Mali's Uranium deposits though…
Do we have a nuclear future in the UK? Centrica have joined E.on, SSE and RWE in pulling out of building new reactors in the UK. That leaves the Japanese with Hitachi, the Spanish with Iberdrola, the Franch with EDF and IDF Suez.
It is like 10 green bottles, who's gonna fall next? There's talk of the Chinese and the Russians taking a lead. Where's all the British?:roll:
I presume there is not enough subsidy in it for them.
I presume there is not enough subsidy in it for them.
Exactly, EDF are now hanging by a thread in the game and threatening to follow Centrica because the UK government won't guarantee the profitability of new nuclear with a direct subsidy. I am not convinced that a subsidy will push up our bills too much, I am sure many anti-nuclear groups will falsely claim different, just like anti-wind groups do the same.
However, the UK government do have hidden subsidies in place for new nuclear by capping the expense of which the new nuclear utilities will have to pay to clear up the waste, we are already seeing that with the planning proposals for a repositary in Cumbria, that got rejected by the way.
Better Out Than In
06-Feb-13, 15:25
Aren't we getting lost in this argument:
(a) World demand for energy keeps going up. You either have to supply it or start reducing size of population
(b) Carbon based energy is damaging the world. You either need to reduce it, remove it or accept the consequences.
(c) Coal, Oil and Gas are cheaper (for now) than nuclear and renewables but discharge their waste. If they had to clean up their waste they become more expensive.
(d) Fissile based reactors will suffer from Euranium shortages in similar timescales to O&G
(e) Nuclear reactors are safe. Nobody has been killed in Japan from the danage to their reactors. I don't recall anyone being killed at Three Mile Island. Chernoble did kill a few. Don't know about Windscale. Regardless nothing compared to the thousands upon thousands killed by other industries, motoring, domestic accidents etc. More have been run over and killed by police than killed by Nuclear.
(f) Renewables on their own are not sustainable - even with a world or Euro wide network
So you can have:
(a) cheap carbon based energy and a deteriorating world
(b) expensive clean carbon energy or nuclear backing up renewables
(c) reduce the population of the world
(d) stop using energy.
piratelassie
07-Feb-13, 00:48
I believe the government has already ruled out nuclear, so why the discussion?
I believe the government has already ruled out nuclear, so why the discussion?
Are you expecting this dictatorship to last forever?
piratelassie
07-Feb-13, 17:49
I presume by that stupid remark you are referring ot our Scottish Government. If so it only fuels the argument for home rule.
Are you expecting this dictatorship to last forever?
I presume by that stupid remark you are referring ot our Scottish Government. If so it only fuels the argument for home rule.
Why is it stupid? The SNP have ruled out Nuclear, no one else so the next government may well back it. And for you, anything fuels the the argument. :roll:
midgemagnet
07-Feb-13, 21:38
Hmm....where to start with this one.
The original article is about the huge cost of decommissioning Sellafield. There is an NAO report which describes the way the Sellafield contract is being managed as unsatisfactory (huge cost escalation, high salaries, plans, jam tomorrow).
The folly really is in the poor contractorisation and supervision of a Government body formed to manage and minimise a large nuclear liability. This has doubled and little progress seems to have been made at Sellafield. The contractors concerned have been paid huge fees for little apparent progress, and a disproportionate amount of work awarded to themselves.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/sellafield_risk_reduction.aspx
Nuclear decommissioning, under contract can be done cost effectively - the technology is there and shown at a number of sites around the UK, including our local one.
As for the broader issue of nuclear power in the UK...I've not had time to look at cost escalations from EDF from Rheghead but I'm not sure if we're comparing apples with apples on those costs (per unit, per site or a total UK investment) thought I've no doubt there has been escalation. Before any Company will invest such huge sums of money for the long term - they will want to see a good "business case" to make the investment case worthwhile - else they will go and play in Countries who will. This uncertainty is bad for the UK and yes it probably is "hanging by a thread".
Germany - yes has stopped nuclear with no real strategy - they will end up importing nuclear generated electricity from France.
France - is nuclear, some initial government statements but now somewhat muted. They have a huge nuclear generation infrastructure and thats not going to change for decades.
Renewables are great....I think they have a place but their value is overrated - they don't provide baseload (yet) in the same way a gas/coal/nuclear station does.
If there were a clean, secure renewable energy source which could supply baseload electricity we would be using it ! Nuclear power sure has its down sides for sure but does provide huge amounts of baseload electricity for a small footprint....clearly this has got to be safe, secure and well managed.
Longevity....uranium stocks hundred years maybe two, more using fast breeders, even more looking at alternative reactor & fuel technologies - I've seen estimates of a couple of thousand years.
Enough for now.
piratelassie
07-Feb-13, 22:49
The remark was stupid because you referred to the Government as a dictatorship.
Why is it stupid? The SNP have ruled out Nuclear, no one else so the next government may well back it. And for you, anything fuels the the argument. :roll:
secrets in symmetry
08-Feb-13, 00:26
Hmm....where to start with this one.
The original article is about the huge cost of decommissioning Sellafield. There is an NAO report which describes the way the Sellafield contract is being managed as unsatisfactory (huge cost escalation, high salaries, plans, jam tomorrow).
The folly really is in the poor contractorisation and supervision of a Government body formed to manage and minimise a large nuclear liability. This has doubled and little progress seems to have been made at Sellafield. The contractors concerned have been paid huge fees for little apparent progress, and a disproportionate amount of work awarded to themselves.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/sellafield_risk_reduction.aspx
Nuclear decommissioning, under contract can be done cost effectively - the technology is there and shown at a number of sites around the UK, including our local one.
As for the broader issue of nuclear power in the UK...I've not had time to look at cost escalations from EDF from Rheghead but I'm not sure if we're comparing apples with apples on those costs (per unit, per site or a total UK investment) thought I've no doubt there has been escalation. Before any Company will invest such huge sums of money for the long term - they will want to see a good "business case" to make the investment case worthwhile - else they will go and play in Countries who will. This uncertainty is bad for the UK and yes it probably is "hanging by a thread".
Germany - yes has stopped nuclear with no real strategy - they will end up importing nuclear generated electricity from France.
France - is nuclear, some initial government statements but now somewhat muted. They have a huge nuclear generation infrastructure and thats not going to change for decades.
Renewables are great....I think they have a place but their value is overrated - they don't provide baseload (yet) in the same way a gas/coal/nuclear station does.
If there were a clean, secure renewable energy source which could supply baseload electricity we would be using it ! Nuclear power sure has its down sides for sure but does provide huge amounts of baseload electricity for a small footprint....clearly this has got to be safe, secure and well managed.
Longevity....uranium stocks hundred years maybe two, more using fast breeders, even more looking at alternative reactor & fuel technologies - I've seen estimates of a couple of thousand years.
Enough for now.What is this post doing on this forum?
Your post is rational, and you seem knowledgeable and sensible! :cool:
Welcome to the thread - there aren't many of us with your qualities on this forum! :cool:
The remark was stupid because you referred to the Government as a dictatorship.
Any government of any flavour with an absolute majority can dictate in parliament what gets discussed, passed into law, and effects our lives. That is why I call it a dictatorship. That and ecky acts and looks like a dictator. :lol: Which would be funny if it wasnt true.
Longevity....uranium stocks hundred years maybe two, more using fast breeders, even more looking at alternative reactor & fuel technologies - I've seen estimates of a couple of thousand years.
Yes, we could go down the fast breeder route if we wish. Lots of energy there, despite the cost. A lot of folk here have an emotional attachment to the technological achievement in the 50s &60s. However, if we do then other countries will not be able to do so due to security considerations. What signal will that give out to them? Do as we do or do as we say? Not a good start for the 'In it together on climate change' slogan, is it?
secrets in symmetry
08-Feb-13, 11:24
Yes, we could go down the fast breeder route if we wish. Lots of energy there, despite the cost. A lot of folk here have an emotional attachment to the technological achievement in the 50s &60s. However, if we do then other countries will not be able to do so due to security considerations. What signal will that give out to them? Do as we do or do as we say? Not a good start for the 'In it together on climate change' slogan, is it?Yes, proliferation of potentially-dangerous technology and the associated materials is an argument against a massive worldwide breeding programme. We would look a little hypocritical if we do it ourselves, yet we try to stop most other countries doing likewise.
Do you know much about alternative fuels - such as thorium? The folklore is that we developed reactor technologies based on uranium and plutonium in order to make bombs, whereas thorium (for example) has many advantages for reactor technologies - but you can't make bombs with it. Does anyone know more about this?
Do you know much about alternative fuels - such as thorium? The folklore is that we developed reactor technologies based on uranium and plutonium in order to make bombs, whereas thorium (for example) has many advantages for reactor technologies - but you can't make bombs with it. Does anyone know more about this?
Yes I've not much of an issue with Thorium technology on prima facie evidence. But one thing that does keep me off the idea is that India, a country of well over a billion in population and a potential economic super power, has the majority of the global resource and are heavily investing in developing it for civil energy purposes. Due to the one sided distribution of thorium across the Globe, it is not subjected to a global market so I assumed that the UK will be pretty restricted in exploiting thorium as a sustainable energy source.
secrets in symmetry
08-Feb-13, 11:43
Yes, that's why India is pushing the technology so hard!
Could there be huge deposits elsewhere in the world? Has anyone looked lol?
piratelassie
08-Feb-13, 18:45
A dictatorship is not elected, so please stop being a silly billy.
Any government of any flavour with an absolute majority can dictate in parliament what gets discussed, passed into law, and effects our lives. That is why I call it a dictatorship. That and ecky acts and looks like a dictator. :lol: Which would be funny if it wasnt true.
A dictatorship is not elected, so please stop being a silly billy.
Are you saying Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were never elected ???
A dictatorship is not elected, so please stop being a silly billy.
I didnt elect this one
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 15:08
Are you saying Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were never elected ???Stalin wasn't elected. Mussolini was elected to parliament, but he took power in a coup. Hitler tried to take power in a coup, but he failed. He was elected to parliament, and he later led the largest party, but the last steps he took to gain absolute power were essentially a coup.
MerlinScot
09-Feb-13, 23:17
What is this post doing on this forum?Your post is rational, and you seem knowledgeable and sensible! :cool:Welcome to the thread - there aren't many of us with your qualities on this forum! :cool:That was what I was wondering when I read that post... lol!
I thought this thread was about nuclear. I hope it doesn't turn into another anti-wind rant, regurgitating the same old rubbished propaganda from Christopher Booker.
But at the end of the day, is it not all intertwined, Rheghead. Nuclear is not "renewable" but is certainly less "carbon emission producing" ....which is the whole ethos dictating the eternal whine about the need for renewable energy to combat global warming. So the obvious way to reduce carbon emissions is to build power stations which don't emit carbon, and close those who do......or stop spending silly money on pointless wind mills and pump that money into researching and introducing CCS to clean up the coal fired power stations (if we were really serious about reducing carbon emissions and not just all about handing out money on expensive sticking plasters applied by energy companies.)
You say a MWh of nuclear has 85-130kg of CO2 attached to it...and a coal-fired power station emits around 907 kg of carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour generated, which is almost double the approximately 498 kg of carbon dioxide produced by a natural gas-fired electric plant per megawatt-hour generated. Seems to me to be a complete no brainer as to the most sensible option if anyone is at all serious about the need to reduce carbon emissions.
With the best will in the world, anything which doesn't work 24/7/365/decades is simply that... a sticking plaster on a punctured artery. Care to tell me how many carbon emitting power stations have been closed down anywhere in the UK as a result of the 4,366 turbines in operation in the UK providing 8.2GW of power, enough to power 4.5 million homes for a year..and how many do you think will be closed once the 7,843 turbines that have been approved come on stream?
The IPPC, after all, is a high-profile single-focus organization whose very existence depends on its own reports....so they should be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted as the gospel truth. It has, naturally, a vested interest in promoting claims that will guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence..not a lot different, in fact, to any other pressure group on any other subject who relies on the "scaring the crap out of/irritating the crap out of the population" to ensure their ongoing income and therefore the pay of those involved...and who manipulate/exaggerate/interpret information to make their point and achieve their aim.
Explain to me the benefit reaped in the great scheme of UK carbon reduction from windmills/wind farms which only produce energy if the wind is blowing...and only if the wind is blowing within certain limited parameters?
Given, also that in 2009/20010, we handed out, in subsidies to wind industries, of what amounted to £54,000 per worker..heck one wind farm company in 2011 was paid £1.2m not to make electricity for eight hours. So a nuclear power station will cost 14 billion at current inflated prices.....seems much better value than the new proposed rail link to get people a half an hour faster to/from Leeds/London, doesn't it....and even better value than the £9 billion spent on the Olympics if the criteria is to be benefits for the poor sods paying for it
Care to tell me how many carbon emitting power stations have been closed down anywhere in the UK as a result of the 4,366 turbines in operation in the UK providing 8.2GW of power, enough to power 4.5 million homes for a year..and how many do you think will be closed once the 7,843 turbines that have been approved come on stream?
Now that is a bit of a silly question, probably barking up the wrong tree as well. No utility will close down a fully working power station regardless of whether it is polluting or not until it gets to the end of its safe/functioning life expectancy. So I'd expect no announcements to the effect that there is so much clean energy around that they're going to have to close the coal power stations down.
I will expect though that there will be more constraint payments to coal fired power stations to compensate them for not producing energy as the inventory of renewable energy increases.
The IPPC, after all, is a high-profile single-focus organization whose very existence depends on its own reports....so they should be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted as the gospel truth. It has, naturally, a vested interest in promoting claims that will guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence..not a lot different, in fact, to any other pressure group on any other subject who relies on the "scaring the crap out of/irritating the crap out of the population" to ensure their ongoing income and therefore the pay of those involved...and who manipulate/exaggerate/interpret information to make their point and achieve their aim.
Total rubbish.
The IPCC was set up to investigate the growing evience from the few existing climate scientists that were claiming greenhouses gases were responsible for raising global temperatures. The IPCC was set up (on the insistence of the USA who had most to worry about and didn't want global warming to be a stick to hit the USA) with a broader skill range to destroy the false notion that it is just the climatologists making it all up for their own benefit.
The IPCC reports are evidence-based and peer reviewed. If you think they are scaremongering and they gain consensual acceptance amongst climate scientists then you should be very scared indeed.
You say a MWh of nuclear has 85-130kg of CO2 attached to it...and a coal-fired power station emits around 907 kg of carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour generated, which is almost double the approximately 498 kg of carbon dioxide produced by a natural gas-fired electric plant per megawatt-hour generated. Seems to me to be a complete no brainer as to the most sensible option if anyone is at all serious about the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Yes nuclear, at 85-130kgCO2/MWh is much less carbon polluting than coal. But it isn't enough. Wind is about 32kg/MWh. Current overall carbon footprint of our electricity is 430kg CO2/MWh. Targets are to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The lower carbon footprint of nuclear is not low enough to 'dilute' the overall average to achieve our goals. It is only a stop gap, at best, until we have to go fully renewable.
ywindythesecond
10-Feb-13, 23:35
Targets are to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The lower carbon footprint of nuclear is not low enough to 'dilute' the overall average to achieve our goals. It is only a stop gap, at best, until we have to go fully renewable.
Is the target a good idea? Don't we need to go back to basics and re-examine what we are doing? I am not scientist but I have the distinct impression that that is what a scientist would do from time to time?
Now that is a bit of a silly question, probably barking up the wrong tree as well. No utility will close down a fully working power station regardless of whether it is polluting or not until it gets to the end of its safe/functioning life expectancy. So I'd expect no announcements to the effect that there is so much clean energy around that they're going to have to close the coal power stations down.
I will expect though that there will be more constraint payments to coal fired power stations to compensate them for not producing energy as the inventory of renewable energy increases.
That, if you don't mind me saying so, is a whole crock of crap! Why would anyone continue to run and finance a fully functioning anything until it died if it was not doing anything to justify the cost of its existence?
So when do you expect that windmills/farms, which only work if the wind is between specific parameters, will be in a position to remove the need for back up facilities for when the wind is not obliging enough to hit the windmill blades within those specific parameters?
So you are saying, in effect, that, in future not only are we going to have to pay windfarm owners not to produce electricity, we are also going to have to pay power stations not to do it either? Great way to cut pointless government spending isn't it.....NOT?
Total rubbish.
The IPCC was set up to investigate the growing evience from the few existing climate scientists that were claiming greenhouses gases were responsible for raising global temperatures. The IPCC was set up (on the insistence of the USA who had most to worry about and didn't want global warming to be a stick to hit the USA) with a broader skill range to destroy the false notion that it is just the climatologists making it all up for their own benefit.
The IPCC reports are evidence-based and peer reviewed. If you think they are scaremongering and they gain consensual acceptance amongst climate scientists then you should be very scared indeed.
Excuse me...but I do logical and don't have the kind of mindset which takes anything as truth until nobody with any appropriate knowledge disagrees with it, and that is not the case with scientific assessment of global warming....which is why I don't do religions, because there are as many opinions as there are religions and people who would like to start religions. The IPCC relies on computer models which are only as good as the software running the model in the first place, the info found, the way the info is interpreted to apply within the model parameters and the info subsequently input..and which of those facts make it total rubbish which negates my contention that the IPCC members are a high-profile single-focus organization whose very existence depends on its own reports?
Why would anyone with a lick of sense not assume that a computer model which has produced up to 40 different scenarios regarding the effect of carbon emissions under specific parameters, and the conclusions are disputed, to a greater or lesser extent, by many scientists has any more credence in this world than the plethora of religions has...unless people believe in them as they believe in religion, for no other reason than they believe it?
Yes nuclear, at 85-130kgCO2/MWh is much less carbon polluting than coal. But it isn't enough. Wind is about 32kg/MWh. Current overall carbon footprint of our electricity is 430kg CO2/MWh. Targets are to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The lower carbon footprint of nuclear is not low enough to 'dilute' the overall average to achieve our goals. It is only a stop gap, at best, until we have to go fully renewable.
Actually, wind, once the turbine is up and running, may be about 32kg/MWh.
Care to tell me, for, I think, the third time of asking...just how many conventional power stations will be closed down by our growing plethora of wind turbines? If we cut carbon emissions by 80% by using wind turbines, which appears to be Government fixation atm, that would assume a lot of specifically suitable wind most of the time with conventional power stations sitting waiting ready to go or running on reduced capacity just waiting for the percentage of time when the turbines are doing nothing or running too fast for safety...so that we can all still boil our kettles, watch our tellies and post on here on our computers. Those facilities if used mainly as back-up, will probably, if turned off and on to suit the vagaries of the wind, produce more emissions, much the same as it takes more leccy to heat up a hot water boiler from cold if you only put it on once a week as opposed to having it running all the time....and if it has to be kept running all the time, or has to be started and stopped to suit the wind levels.....how do you make the carbon cost of wind, once a turbine is up and running 32kg/MWh. If you want to do accuracy, shouldn't you also be including the carbon cost of the conventional power stations you can't close down because wind power can't provide base-load into your calculations?
I don't have a problem with trying to cut carbon emissions or trying to conserve some of our scarce resources for use by future generations.......but I kinda think where to start isn't by covering the country with windmills, especially when that means pouring concrete into peat bogs and cutting down trees, and definitely not when they are erected in places where it is going to cost silly money to get the product from the turbines to where it is needed, but by doing something to cut down the numbers of private cars, particularly 4x4s, to cut back on the carbon cost of foreign holidays when traveling by air, the carbon cost of importing food we don't need but just want, reducing our heating levels so we need a jumper to sit around the house rather than sit in the living room in a t-shirt. ...stuff like that.
I lived in a caravan with a grid-connected 2.5 KW turbine when I lived in a croft up here....and you know something, we still had to use the grid...and all we had was a telly, a couple of computers and a couple of mobile phones to charge, and lighting running on electric. I still have the figures for our production, and even if we had stored that production in batteries when the wind blew, as opposed to taking from the grid when the wind wasn't suitable, the caravan wouldn't have been powered 24/7/365..and theoretically if you are going to go by the wind-turbine hype....A 1.5 kW (kilowatt) turbine can produce 4,000 kWh (kilowatt hours) per year, a 2.5 kW turbine 2,500 to 5,000 kW per year and a 6 kW turbine, 6,000 to 12,000 kWh per year. The average UK household uses around 4000 kWh a year...so you'd have thought a 2.5 KW turbine would have powered a caravan.....wouldn't you? So the possibility of going fully renewable, ever, is what exactly?
Is the target a good idea? Don't we need to go back to basics and re-examine what we are doing? I am not scientist but I have the distinct impression that that is what a scientist would do from time to time?
It does no harm to go back to basics from time to time.
But if observations on climate reaffirms what we already know and fear then we may need to firm up our comittment.
It was surprising for me to learn that January was one of the warmest on record.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2012/1/2012_1_MaxTemp_Anomaly_1981-2010.gif
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-13, 09:59
So you are saying, in effect, that, in future not only are we going to have to pay windfarm owners not to produce electricity, we are also going to have to pay power stations not to do it either? Great way to cut pointless government spending isn't it.....NOT?
Although it pains me to say it OQ, in this respect Reggy is right. Every time National Grid asks a generator to shut down for balancing purposes then NG pays for the electricity it is unable to sell. However, the bigger picture is shown here. http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6808/graph11thfeb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/graph11thfeb.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
The orange bars are wind electricity. That has replaced the green bars which are gas electricity. The gas turbines are still there and need to be paid for. If we don’t pay for them the owners will shut up shop and do something else for a living and they won’t be around when the wind drops, (which it did last week - 82MW out of a possible 5800 or so MW, about 1.4% of capacity at 10.30pm on 8th February. The previous virtual absence of wind electricity was at 2pm on 11th December 2012 at 78MW).
There is an Energy Bill going through Westminster at the moment and something tells me that I should be looking more closely at it.
BTW, none of it is Government money, all of it is electricity bill payers' money.
Oddquine, I'm not going to comprehensively answer you as you just rant on and I tire very easily. suffice to say the problems that you mention are either irrelevent or will be tackled by more energy storage, grid management and other mitigating measures that we don't need as yet. You are just ramping up the old tired anti-wind arguments without any logic or reason. I refer you back to my previous answer.
Although it pains me to say it OQ, in this respect Reggy is right. Every time National Grid asks a generator to shut down for balancing purposes then NG pays for the electricity it is unable to sell.
I appreciate the support, no matter how begrudgingly it was given, but I'm not convinced that constraint payments for fossil fuel generators are equivalent to the total cost of electricity. 80-90% of the cost of their electricity is down to the cost of fuel, the remainder or peripheral costs is profit, wages etc. So the constraint payments will only reflect the peripheral operational costs of the electricity so they won't lose business by being constrained. Much more cost effective to consumers as well.
In the case of nuclear and renewable payments then I'd expect the constraint payments will reflect a bigger proportion of the cost of electricity as their proportion of peripheral costs are much higher. But I'd also expect that payments to those will be less frequent as grid gets upgraded and it suits nuclear to be run at ~100%.
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-13, 19:55
I appreciate the support, no matter how begrudgingly it was given, but I'm not convinced that constraint payments for fossil fuel generators are equivalent to the total cost of electricity. 80-90% of the cost of their electricity is down to the cost of fuel, the remainder or peripheral costs is profit, wages etc. So the constraint payments will only reflect the peripheral operational costs of the electricity so they won't lose business by being constrained. Much more cost effective to consumers as well.
In the case of nuclear and renewable payments then I'd expect the constraint payments will reflect a bigger proportion of the cost of electricity as their proportion of peripheral costs are much higher. But I'd also expect that payments to those will be less frequent as grid gets upgraded and it suits nuclear to be run at ~100%.
Typically Reggy you have cherry-picked the words you want whilst ignoring the main message, which was as follows:
However, the bigger picture is shown here. http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm (http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm)
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6808/graph11thfeb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/graph11thfeb.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us/)
The orange bars are wind electricity. That has replaced the green bars which are gas electricity. The gas turbines are still there and need to be paid for. If we don’t pay for them the owners will shut up shop and do something else for a living and they won’t be around when the wind drops, (which it did last week - 82MW out of a possible 5800 or so MW, about 1.4% of capacity at 10.30pm on 8th February. The previous virtual absence of wind electricity was at 2pm on 11th December 2012 at 78MW).
There is an Energy Bill going through Westminster at the moment and something tells me that I should be looking more closely at it.
BTW, none of it is Government money, all of it is electricity bill payers' money.
I don't think you understood my post or you chose not to.
I don't think we pay for the electricity that they don't produce as 80%+ of the cost is the fuel. We don't pay for fuel which they don't use or that would be money grabbing racket so they go on a reduced standby payment. Once they go to power then they should be paid at the full rate which includes the cost of fuel.
Therefore constraining fossil fuel generation will have minimum impact on consumer bills.
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-13, 22:18
I don't think you understood my post or you chose not to.
I don't think we pay for the electricity that they don't produce as 80%+ of the cost is the fuel. We don't pay for fuel which they don't use or that would be money grabbing racket so they go on a reduced standby payment. Once they go to power then they should be paid at the full rate which includes the cost of fuel.
Therefore constraining fossil fuel generation will have minimum impact on consumer bills.
I did understand your post. I was pointing out that you ignored the main point of mine and chose to discuss the lesser item.
However, let's address your reply.
When fossil fuel generation is constrained off for grid balancing purposes, then National Grid pays the generator for the lost sale of electricity at market value and the generator refunds National Grid the value of the fuel saved. All fair and reasonable.
However when National Grid constrains off fossil fuel generation because of renewable generation displacing it on the grid (because Government says it must) then we buy renewable generated electricity at the higher cost and compensate the fossil fuel generator.
In very round terms, if the basic cost of electricity generation is 5p per unit and we use fossil fuel generated electricity, it costs us 5p.
If we use renewable generated electricity it costs us 10p a unit because of the subsidy we have to pay.
When National Grid has to constrain off fossil generated electricity to allow us to use renewable electricity, it costs us 10p for the renewable stuff plus 5p for the fossil stuff we can't use, less the cost of fuel saved, say 3p, equals 12p per unit, excluding all the costs of getting it to you.
So back to the main point of my previous post, all the wind generation we have to use instead of gas (because of Govt policy) is costing 12p a unit, not 5p a unit for the basic cost of electricity.
Well it seems we are saying the same thing but you are overstating the negatives and I maintain the cost increases are trivial when reasoned against the other negative impacts of continued fossil fuel burning. If we put real numbers in then we can get the real impact of increases on consumers bills, but then we need to take off the mitigation of fuel price increases which renewable energy brings.
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-13, 23:13
Well it seems we are saying the same thing but you are overstating the negatives and I maintain the cost increases are trivial when reasoned against the other negative impacts of continued fossil fuel burning. If we put real numbers in then we can get the real impact of increases on consumers bills, but then we need to take off the mitigation of fuel price increases which renewable energy brings.
Go ahead then. Put real numbers in and show us "the mitigation of fuel price increases which renewable energy brings".
Go ahead then. Put real numbers in and show us "the mitigation of fuel price increases which renewable energy brings".
That is a big unknown. Over the next coming decades it is going to get worse and worse. In your ideal case, very little mitigation so bigger fuel bills. Historical data shows costs of coal doubling every decade while costs of wind are tumbling. These are the trends that are sure to continue. It is reasonable to suggest that the trends will cross in the near future.
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-13, 23:48
That is a big unknown. Over the next coming decades it is going to get worse and worse. In your ideal case, very little mitigation so bigger fuel bills. Historical data shows costs of coal doubling every decade while costs of wind are tumbling. These are the trends that are sure to continue. It is reasonable to suggest that the trends will cross in the near future.
Reggy, stop waffling and put the "real numbers" in. It was your idea in the first place. "If we put real numbers in then we can get the real impact of increases on consumers bills,"
Your words, not mine.
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-13, 23:54
That is a big unknown. Over the next coming decades it is going to get worse and worse. In your ideal case, very little mitigation so bigger fuel bills. Historical data shows costs of coal doubling every decade while costs of wind are tumbling. These are the trends that are sure to continue. It is reasonable to suggest that the trends will cross in the near future.
Please explain "costs of wind are tumbling ". Please do explain it. Please don't divert the topic.
Real numbers are out there in blogosphere, they are done by proper teams of investigators who abide by rules of investigation, not some old retired CEO or operator of a utility who always seems to be objecting to an nearby wind farm from their home.
This thread is about the folly of nuclear. We've done the costs of wind to death in other threads. I think anyone who thinks about the subject seriously and dispassionately knows that wind costs are tumbling and the costs of all other forms of generation are going up.
If you really want to pursue this subject once more then I will indulge you in another thread.
ywindythesecond
12-Feb-13, 01:59
Real numbers are out there in blogosphere, they are done by proper teams of investigators who abide by rules of investigation, not some old retired CEO or operator of a utility who always seems to be objecting to an nearby wind farm from their home.
This thread is about the folly of nuclear. We've done the costs of wind to death in other threads. I think anyone who thinks about the subject seriously and dispassionately knows that wind costs are tumbling and the costs of all other forms of generation are going up.
If you really want to pursue this subject once more then I will indulge you in another thread.
Fine Reggy,start another thread. Apparently you can't explain your statement "costs of wind are tumbling". Am I wrong? Can you give us some figures? With references to support them? Please?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.