Wanna bet?
Which means more expensive gas, with all its
The best storage solution is a pile of fuel rods. There is no need to nationalise nuclear. Just to rewrite the regulatory framework instead of slavishly following Euratom, and repeal the Climate Change act that mandates 'renewables'
A nuclear power station is practically a gilt edged investment. Pension funds wet themselves for debt quality like that.
You only need look at your electricity bill. I think Kathyrn Porter calculated it.
I've no ready answer (but AI has - give it a whirl*) - but would you include 'preventables'? Things like insulation and ASHP grants? I ask because subsidies are aften bundled.
Wider system costs
- Backup and grid-balancing for intermittent renewables adds roughly 6% to household bills
- Zonal pricing proposals could increase bills by £3 billion/year (~£100 extra per household) theguardian.com
- Industry analysis highlights a discrepancy: government estimates (£44/MWh) vs. actual production costs (£100–150/MWh), indicating higher unsubsidised costs
Kathryn Porter’s excellent report on the subject, linked in TNP’s post above, shows the true, fabulous cost of the renewables programme.
Someone is laughing all the way to the bank.
That's surprisingly low. Where can I read more about that?
Andy
As I said in the original post, AI.
It is of course bollocks.
-- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
Latest report, a rather casual approach to salvage.
It's not going to have the new car smell for much longer.
Paul
It helps if they're built adjacent to existing nukes, to take advantage of the switching and the transformers and the site safety analysis. That's how our first one will be delivering power five years from now. Shovels in ground two or three weeks ago. Construction to be finished in four years, bring-up one year, cost overrun and delayed delivery, as required :-)
I would feel much more comfortable, if I could see pictures of a prototype unit, a turbine hall, evidence of power delivery, to add credibility to the whole thing. I don't think I have yet seen one picture of an SMR (except AI hallucination).
You can see Argentinas hole in the ground, has "stuff in it". Waiting for Santa to come down the chimney and put something in the center of that hole.
Doesn't look much like the fabled "made in a factory and delivered in a 40ft trailer".
That's what I was thinking.
It's not exactly the "slab of concrete with a cylinder in the center" we were promised.
I hope it makes a satisfying "click" when they lower it into place. Imagine having to hold your finger on the button, to get it back out again.
Paul
Ah, so it was made up by an AI rather than a human.
(note my sig!)
Andy
Normally, at the end of an Ai response, is a handful of links used to create the answer. When posting an AI answer, you can also post the links at the bottom as part of the veracity.
Paul
Indeed. Although they don't copy/paste in a very readable way, at least with the AI thingy (Claude) I'm currently using.
I find AI useful in a wikipedia way - gets me in the ballpark of something approaching an answer. Anything more is much harder work.
There is a slight difference between a reactor and a power station,Andy...
'Almost identical to existing' (for the pressure vessel etc.)
I find Wikipedia far more reliable. I've had a few lots of complete crap from various AIs, and I will ignore them in future.
Andy
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required