I am very pleased to see that Brian Monteith has published my article calculating the potential costs of nuclear power on his ThinkScotland online magazine.
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12538&article=www.thinkscotland.org
2.08% of current costs.
97.92% parasitism.
(with current bill
Way below current standing charges = "electricity too cheap to meter". Though this does not include transportation costs. However if the amount of power we use goes up anything like proportionately, handling costs will go down, not quite proportionately.
I'm not standing by that exact figure though I would hold to each part as being either firm or a reasonable estimate. Nor does it matter much. If we can say at least 90% of electricity costs are state parasitism and can, over a number of years, be removed it doesn't immediately matter if another 80% reduction is ultimately possible. But if some supporter of windmillery feels the figures can be factually disputed I am sure they will do so.
If nobody in Scotland's political class feels able to point to any error, after it has been aired here on ThinkScotland, it would be difficult to conclude these figures are in error. I am sure the editor would be willing to publish a serious critical article (unlike, for example, the BBC, which virtually never allows a balancing of opinions on such subjects).
--------------------------------------
Since it has been on the respected ThinkScotland there is no way anti-nuclearists can claim not to have noticed it.
If they do reply, either in the comments section or by taking up the challenge to write a serious critical article, I will report it and carry on a serious debate.
If they don't and frankly experience suggests they won't, we can certainly label this estimate as undisputed and treat it as correct.
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12538&article=www.thinkscotland.org
2.08% of current costs.
97.92% parasitism.
(with current bill
Way below current standing charges = "electricity too cheap to meter". Though this does not include transportation costs. However if the amount of power we use goes up anything like proportionately, handling costs will go down, not quite proportionately.
I'm not standing by that exact figure though I would hold to each part as being either firm or a reasonable estimate. Nor does it matter much. If we can say at least 90% of electricity costs are state parasitism and can, over a number of years, be removed it doesn't immediately matter if another 80% reduction is ultimately possible. But if some supporter of windmillery feels the figures can be factually disputed I am sure they will do so.
If nobody in Scotland's political class feels able to point to any error, after it has been aired here on ThinkScotland, it would be difficult to conclude these figures are in error. I am sure the editor would be willing to publish a serious critical article (unlike, for example, the BBC, which virtually never allows a balancing of opinions on such subjects).
--------------------------------------
Since it has been on the respected ThinkScotland there is no way anti-nuclearists can claim not to have noticed it.
If they do reply, either in the comments section or by taking up the challenge to write a serious critical article, I will report it and carry on a serious debate.
If they don't and frankly experience suggests they won't, we can certainly label this estimate as undisputed and treat it as correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment