Talk:British government considering new nuclear power stations

Ping

• The numbers in the Sunday Times article don't match the DUKES figures. DUKES is the most up-to-date and authorative source of UK energy stats, so I used its figures in preference. Dan100 (Talk) 16:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If anyone cares, I was going to put this in:

This week, Oxford Economic Research Associates will publish a study claiming that meeting the 20% carbon dioxide reduction target would cost £4.4 billion using nuclear energy, but would require an investment of £12 billion to be met using wind power.

from the Sunday Times source. However when I double-checked I saw that the OXERA study wasn't referring to the 20% CO2 reduction target, but a seperate 20% renewable energy target. Of course, nuclear power is in no-way 'renewable', nor does the DTI regard it as such, so I think someone has slipped up here. Dan100 (Talk)

<hmms and decides to be disputatious for the fun of it> Breeder reactors, while not precisely 'renewable', produce fuel whilst consuming it. - Amgine/^talk 18:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite :). They still operate on the principle that E=mc^2 - the mass of the fuel is less than when it went in. It's that the converted mass is itself usable afterwards. Dan100 (Talk) 20:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)