Re Paul C's [6034]: > In Britain for most of the last 25 years, oil fired power stations have > been the last to be switched on when demand for electricity is high. > The ranking is normally nuclear, hydro, gas, coal oil. There are a lot of issues behind this ranking. In no way can we infer from it which technologies are the most efficient or cost-effective. For example, when examining the price of coal and oil (and hydro), we have to consider *rent*. In no way, can we assume that these commodities are sold at their value. As for nuclear power, I don't believe that it has ever been shown to be a cost-effective technology for producing electricity. One must recall that (for political and military reasons in addition to questions relating to economic self-sufficiency), the nuclear power industry has been *very* heavily subsidized by nation-states (and, of course, the technology itself is a by-product of military research undertaken by the state). Moreover, the actual costs of dismantling nuclear power stations and storing radioactive waste (for thousands of years!) are unknown (or, at least, unknown to the public). The costs associated with 'accidents' (like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) are unknown but *huge* (and, indeed, from the perspective of public safety, it has never been shown that nuclear power generation is relatively 'safe' or controllable). So, instead of looking at some statistic like the price of a KW at any point in time, one has to factor into all of the costs over the 'lifetime' of a facility (and beyond!) to calculate the real costs and whether it has been shown to be cost-effective. One might, for instance, note that the 'downtime' for nuclear power plants is much greater than for plants that use other forms of energy for electrical generation (and, if there is an 'accident', then the financial liability could be much greater than for 'accidents' at plants using the other sources of energy generation that you mention). > It all depends on oil price. Recall the plans during the Carter period to > develop gasoline from coal and shale after the oil price rises that followed > the first Opec oil price hike in the 70s. As far as I can recall, those proposals were never shown to be either technically feasible or cost-effective. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 02 2001 - 00:00:03 EST