tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post4910058586163820174..comments2023-04-16T23:43:11.235+08:00Comments on Mirror Signal Move: 2nd Letter On Fukushima FalloutMike Faganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-50041950457153963922011-03-22T11:35:58.159+08:002011-03-22T11:35:58.159+08:00"I hope the Taipei Times don't print this...<i>"I hope the Taipei Times don't print this because you have misrepresented what I said."</i><br /><br />The more I reflect on this sentence, the lower you sink in my opinion David. The letter made only incidental reference to you and your claim, with several other points raised against the press agencies and politicians in conjunction with the substantive that abolishing nuclear power in Taiwan would be economically destructive.Mike Faganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-63642139461001966462011-03-22T10:24:19.327+08:002011-03-22T10:24:19.327+08:00David,
Never let it be said that I will not admit...David,<br /><br />Never let it be said that I will not admit my mistakes - I have accordingly made a slight correction to the letter which you can see above (the parenthetical "along with other renewables"), and have resent it to the TT. The "misrepresentation" was intended: in assessing your financial argument against nuclear plants, I wanted to compare the salient plant here in Taiwan to the strongest of the renewables, which was and is solar.<br /><br />Of course no solar plant would have absolute costs similar to a nuclear plant; but it would have a similar financial cost - power output <i>ratio</i>, so that, today, even if built on a much smaller scale as it inevitably would be, a solar plant could not give substantially more value for money than a nuclear plant. And in 1997 likely worse than today. <br /><br /><i>"...the experience of building it would have contributed to cheaper and more efficient plants being built down the track."</i><br /><br />Perhaps, yes. But that is the beauty of my comparison to the California plant which uses more modern tech - barring some major technological miracle, these improved plants would <i>still</i> not have offered better value for money than Longmen even with improvements. Don't you see?<br /><br /><i>"Your calculations miss a key point."</i><br /><br />But it isn't a key point, because as I've said, I was trying to make the strongest case for the renewables. You'll notice I also did this in one of my comments to you on EROEI and FROI - I made the strongest case for you, and still showed you to have been wrong. <br /><br /><i>"It shows that you lack understanding of some key factors involved in power generation."</i><br /><br />Please. What your mention of it does show is your apparent failure to see what I was doing to your "financial argument" and perhaps your own lack of good grace in continuing to argue the toss over the marginal points and refusing to concede.Mike Faganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745281285031316740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2840508226007630755.post-44727124007717342192011-03-22T09:15:34.435+08:002011-03-22T09:15:34.435+08:00I hope the Taipei Times don't print this becau...I hope the Taipei Times don't print this because you have misrepresented what I said. I never said Taiwan power should have invested in "a solar power station" in 1997. I wrote, "What if that same amount of money had been invested in renewable energy projects beginning from 1997?" I envisage that TaiPower could have invested in a number of renewable energy projects over a period of a decade. No single solar power plant would have a capital cost equivalent to a large nuclear power plant. The costs of both wind and solar have reduced significantly over the past decade. The technology has also improved. The solar station built in 1997 might not have been very efficient, but the experience of building it would have contributed to cheaper and more efficient plants being built down the track. <br /><br /><br />Also the numbers you have presented comparing nuclear and solar actually put solar on par with nuclear. Your calculations miss a key point. A nuclear power plant will operate at around 80% of it's maximum capacity. A solar power plant will operate at about 30%. This actually makes the economics of nuclear much more attractive than solar. It shows that you lack understanding of some key factors involved in power generation. <br /><br />I really don't feel like debating any further. You are welcome to question or argue against anything I write. However, please don't misquote or misrepresent what I write.David on Formosahttp://blog.taiwan-guide.orgnoreply@blogger.com