Nuclear Threat to Fuel-Poor, Not Wind
Sep. 11th, 2008 12:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webfarmerThis just in. Of course you suspected as much, right? Sir David "Nuclear" King goes Palinesque with his assertions again.
Nuclear is the Real Threat to the Fuel-Poor, Not Wind Energy - Guardian (UK) - 10 Sep 08
"'Wind power could put another half million people into fuel poverty' – shock, horror! That was how BBC Radio 4 promoted last week's The Investigation into the future of wind power in the UK. Who can blame them? It got me listening. But do their figures stack up?"
". . . according to the programme, this would add £400 [700 USD] per year to the average family electricity bill. This is scary, but is it true?
Only if you make two completely false assumptions.
First, that the entire cost is loaded onto domestic consumers, even though they only use 36% of the UK's electricity production.
Second, that they pay the entire capital cost in their bills every year for 10 years.
But this is not how large energy projects are financed. Just as most people buy their homes on a mortgage, which they pay off over 20 or more years, so power companies borrow the money, and pass on the cost of servicing their loans."
"Perhaps his real problem with bringing 35% wind into our electricity supply is that it leaves little space for new nuclear power – that much wind would more than close the anticipated energy gap caused by the impending closure of our 23 nuclear stations over coming decades: their total contribution is just 80bn units a year, compared to the 133bn units we would be getting from wind."
"But for anyone worried about cost to both electricity consumers and taxpayers, nuclear power is the truly scary option. The cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear power stations has already escalated to £83bn and seems certain to keep on climbing towards £100bn – roughly the cost of our whole wind power programme."
Nuclear is the Real Threat to the Fuel-Poor, Not Wind Energy - Guardian (UK) - 10 Sep 08
"'Wind power could put another half million people into fuel poverty' – shock, horror! That was how BBC Radio 4 promoted last week's The Investigation into the future of wind power in the UK. Who can blame them? It got me listening. But do their figures stack up?"
". . . according to the programme, this would add £400 [700 USD] per year to the average family electricity bill. This is scary, but is it true?
Only if you make two completely false assumptions.
First, that the entire cost is loaded onto domestic consumers, even though they only use 36% of the UK's electricity production.
Second, that they pay the entire capital cost in their bills every year for 10 years.
But this is not how large energy projects are financed. Just as most people buy their homes on a mortgage, which they pay off over 20 or more years, so power companies borrow the money, and pass on the cost of servicing their loans."
"Perhaps his real problem with bringing 35% wind into our electricity supply is that it leaves little space for new nuclear power – that much wind would more than close the anticipated energy gap caused by the impending closure of our 23 nuclear stations over coming decades: their total contribution is just 80bn units a year, compared to the 133bn units we would be getting from wind."
"But for anyone worried about cost to both electricity consumers and taxpayers, nuclear power is the truly scary option. The cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear power stations has already escalated to £83bn and seems certain to keep on climbing towards £100bn – roughly the cost of our whole wind power programme."
