>From March 2nd.
Found in passing

Re comparing nuclear with solar on an equal footing.

> Rustle, I am disappointed.  Where are the hard figures ( 
> or at least
> good estimates ) that I know you love to provide ?  I do 
> not think
> you have made your case without them.

I doubt your disappointment.
BUT I was not trying to make a case.
I was simply introducing stage one of a process - first find 
out how level the playing field is and see what it will take 
to allow a gorillas-gorillas comparison. This is, of course, 
an extremely hard task in this case (as in many cases) and I 
would be utterly wasting my time in putting any figures on 
it. Those with Plutonium on their breaths would with a wave 
of the hand (or a spent fuel rod) dismiss any such figures 
with nary a further thought. Those hugging trees would pause 
from doing so long enough to add a 0 on the end of all my 
results. Status quo would prevail.

What I rather sought to do was provide some mental filter 
opening over the sort of issues that would need to be 
considered if you ever wanted to do serious comparisons. I 
listed some finite areas for consideration. Which of these 
do you so lightly dismiss and why?

If you (whoever) are serious about addressing these issues 
do NOT use the points below which miss some detail - respond 
to the original.

Synopsising from the original:

>> Firstly let both bear their own regulatory and management
>> costs. If it costs more then it pays more.

>> Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered 
>> against
>> prosecution or liability. [Ask for an open market 
>> insurance quote for a nuke plant. Go on. Just ask :-) ]

>> Next add the true cost of greenfielding the site when the
>> economic lifetime is over.

>> Next add any costs for extras such as requisite security 
>> for
>> sites or products or whatever.

>> You can allow a positive contribution for outputs other 
>> than
>> power per se as long as the prices are paid by fully non
>> subsidised customers. (eg not military of any shade or 
>> governments)

>> Now add the cost of fuel, production etc.

>> Now add all that up and calculate true cost per unit of
>> electricity.

I'd wager, if I wagered, that the cost of nuclear is liable 
to be double what you expect, even if you allow for this 
rule.

At present solar is cost marginal against semi-available 
alternatives. Solar will get cheaper. Many alternatives will 
get dearer with time. Solar is not necessarily the best mass 
energy source, but it is a viable one. It just depends on 
whether we are happy to pay for our energy at a fair rate 
now or would rather pay for it at a rather higher rate later 
on.



        Russell 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist