> Aren't there heaps of Nuclear Power Stations, which are meant to be cheap
> to run, in your part of the world?
Yes, there are, and no, they are not cheap to run, let alone to build
and certainly not to close down (btw, there is not *one* real
full-scale nuclear plant dismantled yet, besides of small experiental
stations. That process will run up to at least double, probably sixfold
the construction costs, and sure that will be public (our) money to
pay for it.) Belgium has the relatively highest share of nuke el
production, and it's precisely therefore that the price is that high:
Nuklear energy, almost exclusively as electricity, is the *most*
expensive one to produce (ie. to transform into useable energy forms).
(Too long and too off-topic story here, but shortly: it needs 1.08 units
of energy - however you measure it - to produce 1.0 useable unit through
the nuclear transformation circuit, while all other transformation
processes are below the 1:1 ratio. And there's an enormously complex
system of pricing, regulation/lawmaking, and sheer "power politics" to
camouflage this simple physical fact. Belgians just pays the full price
rather directly - and a bit more, as they had a watertight monopoly
reigning in the el market hitherto - while others like the Germans,
French, British and all the rest had heavily subsidised the Nuke
industry indirectly.)
Point here (ATX, standby and the rest) is that if you raise the
systemic "ground charge" you play directly into the hands of that type
of inherent waste economy of which the nuclear lobby made a clever sales
argument.
// Heimo Claasen // < hammer at inti dot be > // Brussels 2000-10-23
The WebPlace of ReRead - and much to read ==> http://www.inti.be/hammer
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
