You have to go about two-thirds of the way through this article to get the good stuff, like this:
"Taking into account the uncertainties, most studies done on nuclear economics (including the most authoritative ones, done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and by Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs) conclude that new plants built by the private sector, with investors bearing the full brunt of risks, are not economic without subsidy."
Oh and this
Clue: look at the maintenance costs in dark blue.
The really disturbing omission, however, is that of security costs... guess which form of power gen looks worst on that cost-benefit analysis?
Nuclear power | The shape of things to come? | Economist.com:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
No comments:
Post a Comment