From an interview with our new Minister For Eco-Fascism in today's Times:
“I’m not ideologically opposed to nuclear,” Mr Huhne insisted. “My scepticism is based on whether or not they can make it work without public subsidy. One of the things the coalition agreed with some passion in the current circumstances of fiscal restraint was that there will be no public subsidy for nuclear power.”
Even support in the event of a disaster was out of the question, he said. “That would count as a subsidy absolutely. There will be no public bailouts . . . I have explained my position to the industry and said public subsidies include contingent liabilities... It is a challenge for them, as no one has yet built a nuclear power station without public subsidy for some time... The key thing about it is that if the operators think they can make it work then they take that commercial risk... My view is that historically nuclear is prone to going over budget and as a result there has not been private commercial finance for nuclear for a long time.”
Jolly good, I couldn't agree more. I am also rabidly opposed to subsidies for anything whatsoever (above and beyond simple redistribution to fellow citizens). Similarly, we all need electricity, and we have to pay for it through our electricity bills, so all things being equal, we want electricity to be generated as cheaply as possible but without subsidies or artificially imposed costs, which for the electricity companies means getting planning permission for the power stations and overhead cables.
So if things like nuclear power stations or windmills can be self-financing, they can go ahead, else not. Ah... sorry, did I say 'windmills'?
“We ought to be able to put together a policy that is non-carbon and independent from foreign sources.” But he admitted that it is “inevitable” that Britain is going to become “more reliant” on imported energy over the next few years. In the election the Lib Dems called for 15,000 more large wind turbines. Mr Huhne thinks wind farms are “beautiful” and says: "We can do a lot more although we have to be sensitive to local communities.”
When he says 'we can do a lot more', does he mean 'the government can subsidise them a lot more'? For incredibly heavily subsidised they are: in terms of £ per kW, they are even more heavily subsidised than nuclear.
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Intellectual coherence, lack thereof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Full of fallacious reasoning (Huhne)
Not a surprise as he knows nothing about nuclear power or energy. that's OK but just don't go there if you are ignorant. Greens are the worst for this.
1) Name any energy industry that has not required a subsidy to get going. Subsidy is good if it bootstraps the need. Bad if it remains in place
2) The only reason nuclear has fallen back is due to anti nuclear and anti carbon green lobbying and interference. The defensive sums spent on keeping their perfect storm marketing campaign down is what costs and the shelving of much greater, safer, cheaper developments throughout any program you can name because of that.
3) Nuclear power is so cheap it hurts... in the end. The big problem is capital costs and need for a startup subsidy finance. Fuels is so cheap it hurts even more. And contrary to popular myth (by greens excellent marketing)has a theoretically sustainable supply till about oooh, the end of the world!
Don't believe any of this? That would be a bit like not believing core climate science. One doesn't want to. See here full evidence:
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
RS: "Name any energy industry that has not required a subsidy to get going."
Coal and oil, maybe? People didn't realise that there was an energy industry until those industries invented themselves
"Name any energy industry that has not required a subsidy to get going."
I'd take the pragmatic view - who is willing to proceed right now with new plant and without a subsidy ? Ans: no-one, they are all waiting to see how the policy shakes down !
After that, the only candidates are gas-fired & (non-CCS) coal-fired
if you want to get theological you can always argue empirically that (implicit) subsidy is required to build a national-scale grid in the first place, since this has always and everywhere been done on the back of a monopoly, which is essentially a form of subsidy
but we are starting from where we are, so that's just a parlour-game exercise
incidentally (since I am quite keen on knowing / acknowledging what's what), the history of the dash-for-gas needs to be considered quite carefully. Some folk assert it is an example of wholly unsubsidised, large-scale power-plant development: but we need to consider it in 2 phases
phase 1 (1989-1995-ish) was done with 100% private money, but on the back of long-term power sales agreements signed by the Regional Electricity Companies. The RECs by then were private co's, no government money etc - but they retained a local monopoly on sales to residential customers. It had long been the govt's plan to relieve them of this monopoly, and indeed they did: but the key point is that until it happened, the RECs didn't believe they govt would go through with it
they therefore had what they thought was a captive customer base ... = implicit subsidy for those power sales agreements they signed
BTW phase 2 was different - a bunch of crackpot US utilities saw what the Phase 1 pioneers were doing in the UK - which, they thought, seemed like Fun - and piled in to build speculative new plants (i.e. unhedged, = without full cover from these power sales agreements, which they couldn't get after the RECs lost their residential monopolies). These were indeed unsubsidised
how did it all end ?
the Phase 2 players went under - of course ! (when power prices collapsed in 2002, due to the resultant over-supply) - along with BE (who went bust for different reasons)
do we care ? no, they were morons - and the plants, which are perfectly good, soldier on under new ownership
the RECs would have gone under too, under the weight of those long-term agreements, had they not all been bought up by another wave of nutters from overseas ...
what fun, what fun
(here endeth the lesson)
ND: as ever, thanks for crash course in UK energy.
But the important question is this: "who is willing to proceed right now with new plant and without a subsidy ? Ans: no-one, they are all waiting to see how the policy shakes down!"
Exactly. So we'd need an Energy Minister who knows what he is talking about (i.e. you) who lays down what 'policy' is going to be (you can make it as simple or as complicated as you like) and then we'll see if anybody is willing to proceed.
If your rules are too strict, and nobody is, then over time, prices will tend to tick up, so sooner or later, people will be willing to step in (and vice versa).
French electricity, 80% nuclear the rest hydro, is 1/4 of our price. Such things do not require subsidy they just require government to get out of the way & not to regulate the safest large industry in the world into extra expense in the name of "safety".
NC, yes, you've pointed that out before. But there are two things to consider:
a) Direct or indirect subsidies to nuclear (or any other form of electricity generation). A surcharge on carbon emissions which ignores carbon emissions created while extracting uranium or building a power station is an indirect subsidy; not forcing nuclear power stations to insure against the teensy-tiny risk of a catastrophic failure or terrorist attack is an indirect subsidy. A guaranteed minimum price is an indirect subsidy. To what extent France has any or all of these I do not know.
b) Extra burdens on nuclear (or anything else), which is primarily getting planning permission (a barrier which applies to just about anything in the country, from building an extension on your house to increasing the capacity of an existing power station of whatever type - the Greenie-NIMBY coalition at work!)), or indeed making them over-insure against possible catastrophic events.
It may well be that nuclear is indeed the cheapest, in which case, I am sure you and Nick Drew can come up with a set of rules that levels the playing field and then we can let the experts get on with generating the electricity we want/need.
MW.
Are you really saying that the jet engine has not been subsidised fully by the miltary. Or the steam engine or the internal combustion engine by the state? How did the power generation industry get boot strapped. Of course, by subsidy.
Funnilly enough they are still subsidised. Espeically motoring by about 50%. The reason no one will vote for you if you demand the full costs from them. Completely the wrong use of a subsidy
RS; "Are you really saying that the jet engine has not been subsidised fully by the miltary?"
No, I've never said that, because it wouldn't be true :-)
"How did the power generation industry get boot strapped? Of course, by subsidy."
Now that is untrue. Some clever Victorian or Edwardian chap realised that people could light and heat their houses much more cheaply/efficiently if you provided them with mains gas or electricity, and it took off from there.
Nuclear is a different topic - the big breakthroughs were mainly during WW2 when governments were frantically trying to work out how to make atomic bombs, and Windscale was for decades just a cover story for the nuclear weapons industry.
And I don't think motoring is subsidised - all the fuel duties, vehicle licence, VAT and benefit-in-kind charges for company cars of > £40 billion per annum are far in excess of the cost of road maintenance etc (and probably rightly so).
“My scepticism is based on whether or not they can make it work without public subsidy."
This from a man who favours windmills?
Blimey. Real Queen-of-Hearts stuff, isn't it. (Six impossible things before breakfast, and all that.)
Nearly as absurd as the fellow who thinks motoring is subsidised by the State.
@ Weekend Yachtsman
To claim something as absurd you have to show it as absurd. Unless one is a weekend thinker too?
Evidence please ???
Here is mine about how motoring is nearly the most heavily subsidised activity in the UK
A cost-benefit analysis of cars and bicycles
I disagree with Mark's acknowledgement that jet engines were heavily subsidised by the stae. Certainly the state paid hevy development & production costs during & after WW2 which greatly speeded development. However the state was getting value for value for this - namely jet fighters & bombers. There is a difference between development spending & subsidy & it is whether one is getting commensurate value from it. Thus I don't regard early nuclear power development as subsidy - the state needed it if it was to get all its wonderful atomic toys - whereas windmill subsidies, which are paid to placate a noisy faction & provide money to the politically connected but do not provide significant value is a subsidy.
Perhaps Robin you in turn could produce some "evidence please" that steam trains, electric power, jet engines & indeed road vehicles (your link is hardly unbiased) are so subsidised.
@neil craig
I'm still awaighting evidence from anyone that shows that energy has bootstrapped iteslf from nothing, from observed facts.
I have offered mine, which is based on observed fact (logical induction) rather than preaccepted theory (logical deduction)
If you think that it is biased then please show me how so, using facts, and I will change my mind.
What is is about the truth you do not like ? The cost to you or your special interest group perhaps ?
WY, re windmills, that was the whole point of the post.
NC, fair point, during WW2 atomic bombs and jet aeroplanes were a good investment. The question is, did 'the state' retain the patents and copyrights which it had financed, and did they collect much royalties therefrom? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
RS, I assume the the earliest coal or oil fired power stations were not subsidised for the simple reason that pre-WW1, governments were much smaller and just let inventors get on with inventing things.
Ditto the earliest car manufacturers (we can argue over whether allowing cars to use pre-existing roads was a subsidy to them; but this would just put them on a level playing field with horsedrawn carts or cyclists).
MW
There is no need to argue about anything. All we need to do is observe the facts and not flinch when the truth hurts!
Did you read the doc?
RS, yes of course I did.
The author concludes that "Clearly the economic and social benefits of motoring are significantly mitigated if not outweighed by the disbenefits."
This is wibble of the highest order - just imagine they made cars and lorries and buses illegal as of tomorrow, would we end up better off or worse off?
In any event, it is unfair to pencil in £20 billion for cost of congestion - these costs are borne by the motorists themselves (or bus passengers) and are thus not an external cost.
Air or noise pollution OTOH is indeed an external cost, but nobody knows how to quantify it.
What idiocy Robin.
Yet again you prove that eco-fascists will tell absolutely any lie whatsoever no matter how obvious, presumably because you know you have no factual case whatsoever.
Your claim that you have here offered evidence, which would include a detailed study of its history, that the "energy industry" (a term which if taken literally would cover everything from the invention of fire to electric power) had always been dependent on government subsidy).
While I accept this claim as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which almost everybody in the eco-fascist movement aspires anybody reading your posts will see it is wholly & completely without any factual support.
I challenge you to either say where this history lesson was in your previous 6 posts or withdraw it on the grounds that it merely represents the normal total contempt for any form of honesty displayed by eco-fascist parasites.
No offense.
MW: No you did not. You read it AFTER I asked (: evidently!
"This is wibble of the highest order - just imagine they made cars and lorries and buses illegal as of tomorrow, would we end up better off or worse off?"
Well you tell me ? That statement is true. He is just asking what ARE the real costs and benefits. Your statement is making a definite claim that it is rubbish based on apparently self evident truths. A similar approach as the one that says that wages are paid out of a fixed amount of money or that there are a fixed number of jobs. Leading directly to anti immigration and climate denial wibble.
We are looking for the biggest wibble not the smallest, though doing the little things seems to be foremost in most peoples minds
Post a Comment