When will THEY listen to US??

I agree overall but whilst this sort of thing happens there will always be doubts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Agreed, i would argue however that research and development would have mitigted some of the risk inherent in older designs.
That does not address the issue of security and poor (risk) planning along with the question of regime stability and responsibility.

And don’t forget Snafu doesn’t accept the companies’ statements and is hot on the trail of ” larger profits”!!

Not what i actually posted charles.

One doesn’t make ones argument stronger by mis-representing others. (There’s enough of that goes on in the modern military forum, let’s not pollute this one as well.)

I’m still wading thorough the annual reports, will post some figures once i’ve compiled them.

I am sorry you inferred optimism from my remark. I meant literally that it will be “interesting”, whatever is said. And whatever is said will no doubt generate a flurry of posts here.

It will be interesting to hear what is said in Committee today.

I deeply admire your optimism

Moggy

CD – thanks, but I am not sure we have learnt anything new, but the figures omit two key criteria. Firstly the costs within the distribution costs of the cabling for the built and planned wind turbines to be fed into the system, the additional diesel generation required for some of the back up required when the turbines are not generating, typically 70 % of the time, and secondly the cost of the subsidies paid to the owners of the turbines and the landowners on whose land they are built.

It will be interesting to hear what is said in Committee today.

Guess we have come full circle, and back to Shale, and Fracking, They can destroy vast swathes of land by building the new rail link for HS2, but, not a few holes that would do the Country, and occupants more good. I know which I would prefer.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Some actual figures from the BBC for us to ponder:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24238708

Common sense from you Tony, but that is not a trait shared by our political leaders and the “greenies” who are driven solely by dogma.

The last coal power station shouldn’t have been decommissioned (Draycott), the thing could have been converted to run on Gas… EU laws on pollution are mad, I can understand wanting to ban fossil fuels, but let’s face it, when the oil is gone we will be back to burning coal again, the farce about the coal burning pollution laws is the one near me that closed was bought and shipped to China, so is still churning out the stuff, just EU proof now.

It’s barking to shut down power stations for no other reason than pollution, especially when you haven’t got a viable replacement in place.

Moggy don’t forget the quango’s £70K per head is the going rate I believe.

Just about to post and came up to Moggy’s post – he beat me to it!

I wouldn’t say that socialism is the answer to all economic problems, but in the case of utility companies, there has to be more of a balance between social obligation and profit…

So, back to the question I asked earlier: do the sums balance? Can the public sector deliver all this on only the 5% profit margin that the private sector have? Frankly, I doubt it.

If it was so easy wouldn’t the ‘socialists’ have taken the ‘socialist’ solution?

As I said…..like the BBC, or any number of other public bodies, it wouldn’t stop the accusations of ‘fat-cats’.

….and there will not be any ‘fat-cat’ managers to support

Are you mad? Have you not seen the salaries paid to the level after level of managers in the public sector, not to mention the diversity officers and outreach specialists?

And then the gold-plated pensions?

Moggy

If you want to pay sky high prices fair enough, however, FIRST close the loopholes that are allowing the Big 6 to escape paying their correct amount of tax, I have to pay MY full Taxes, and so do the rest of you lot, so why should they exploit the Tax regulations, and get away with it?,
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Nationalise it ?…………………:)
Jim.
Lincoln .7

You mean the utility companies would be run for the benefit of consumers as well as shareholders? There could be something in that…

I wouldn’t say that socialism is the answer to all economic problems, but in the case of utility companies, there has to be more of a balance between social obligation and profit. Right now, they have a licence to print money and the profits they are allowed to make at the expense of the old and the vulnerable are an obscenity.

And, to have this inexcusable situation defended by the likes of Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail simply defies logic.

Nationalise it?

Well, that is one approach, and there is no economic reason why it cannot be done but would it actually make electricity cheaper?

Firstly, the government will have to buy back the energy companies; that will be expensive and as the government is in debt money will need to be borrowed or taxes raised.

Secondly, the government will have to take responsibility for future growth in demand and replacement of older generating-capacity as it becomes uneconomic (or environmentally unsound); that will be expensive too and more money will need to be borrowed or more taxes raised.

The state no longer has the expertise or capability to carry-out this upgrading of the generating-capacity so this part, at least, will require the assistance of the profit-making public sector.

On the plus side the new nationalised energy utilities will not have to make a profit (or a loss!), they will not have to pay any shareholder dividends and there will not be any ‘fat-cat’ managers to support (unless they behave like the BBC – sorry, couldn’t resist!).

So, the question is: do the above sums balance…..can we pay for all that out of a 5% profit margin?

And people don’t want just to balance public against private…..they want cheaper electricity!

What a nationalised energy utility cannot do is somehow make coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind or wave electricity-generation magically cheaper; electricity is still going to cost just as much.

The rest is politics; some of us are bemoaning the lack of investment in nuclear-power and a loss of expertise but how was that investment funded…

…a nuclear ‘levy’ on our electricity bills perhaps?

We can cut the ‘renewable’ or ‘carbon’ levies from our bills but does that mean that the UK will be missing-out in the emerging energy technologies? Will, once again, our badly thought-out future plans leave us relying on foreign energy technologies while our own industries wither and die through lack of investment?

And have no gas or electric because of constant striking? No thanks!

Government owned utilities only seems to fuel militant unionism. I’d rather pay more on my bills than revisit than unpleasant part of our past.

Nationalise it ?…………………:)
Jim.
Lincoln .7

…but the Government won’t listen to us will they, hence my Post, “WHEN will they listen to US”.

OK Jim, the forum is the government for a day; we’re listening…..you tell us how to make electricity cheaper!

I fear you are right and they will live to regret it should they give him the chance. Are people really that gullible? How do they imagine the energy companies will recoup their losses through continually increasing costs thanks in part to Milliband when he was Minister responsible? What irony!