His Divine Shadow wrote:
The first fuel load is factored in the cost which by default includes the costs of it being mined and processed. Transport, decomissioning and final deposition are also included in the price of the electricity sold by the plant. It doesn't really affect my initial calculation by much.
Here's a diagram showing what the electricity price is and how much each thing costs:
http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/image ... ki-3-2.gif
I did not know about it, I fugured that this would only be the building price tag.
That nuclear power is much cheaper than any other is undisputed.
Wind power needs maintenance just like anything else.
Yes, but not as much as an reactor.
I would like you to prove that with numbers. It's irrelevant at any rate since the price of all this is included in the electricity being sold and nuclear is still cheaper by about the same factor as I showed.
I must partly concede this statement, I rechecked briefly in google, and they had (in 1988) an reactor in Mülheim-Kärlich, Germany which was built for 3,6 billion DM, and after 13 months had to be dismantled for 500 million DM, so it is rather one sixth in that case, and I don't have time and the will to search any further.
just to clarify, I am not anti-nuclear, I just thought that the fuel cost was not included in this calculation, and dependent on the price of fuel, the cost-efficiently will shift towards windpower, since it doesn't need fuel.
But as a matter of fact, initially, the windpower will cost twice the nuclear power.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.