Guest 694- Registered: 22 Mar 2010
- Posts: 778
#1
Ok.. i am being silly , because i can, but do you think if i tell the government that , they may support me buy more... then i can charge more to make more profit?
Or is that NOT whats being proposed by the gvt for the energy companies?
I am confused.
We.. are going to support the energy companies to build nuclear power stations, and then to add insult to injury, WE the consumer will have our bills go up to pay for it ....
Or am i wrong...
( just a note... Wedding dress shortage? Not yet!! )
Guest 694- Registered: 22 Mar 2010
- Posts: 778
#2
And we all know I cant spell tonight... ohh dear..
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
LOL Jenni....
Nuclear power is capital intensive to build the power stations but the ongoing cost of energy is low but the capital costs must be passed on over the lifetime of the power stations along with the high costs of eventual decommissioning. It is the capital costs that are a problem here, I remember when the first nukes were commissioned they claimed it would provide cheap power, but that simply did not factor in these costs.
We have a number of problems here.
Firstly the demand for energy internationally is increasing expedentially pushing up the costs of fossil fuels. 'Alternative energy' sources are often unproven and, wind farms in particular, inefficient and do not offer a solution to the UK power needs.
Nuclear power is needed urgently and quickly to prevent out lights from going out as existing power stations come to the end of their lives and alternatives cannot bridge the gap.
More and more fossil fuel power generation is also not the answer because of the cost reasons explained, added to which are the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, or perhaps I should say what some scientists have identified as problems. Future supply could also be a problem with the massive increase in demand.
Our only hope is an expansion of nuclear power and it has to be paid for and we will have to pay for it one way or another. If not via our power bills then through our taxes by subsidy, or both.
It is essential for us to get our electricity generated in a number of different ways as well, for strategic purposes. To be over-reliant on one form of generation would make our economy vulnerable.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#4
No matter what, if time continues in a straight line, energy will always get more and more expensive. Now that the whole system is in private hands the profits must ever increase, whether usage falls or not and costs will also increase over time. (The costs to the public;taxpayer and consumer.)
We may end up, again according to those who imagine time stretches out in front of us like some US highway, with a country forested with wind-turbines or carpeted with nuclear power stations and the factories that they serve, or both. And far(ish) beneath it all, vast storage caverns humming with radioactivity or Iraq/Iran/Gobi desert/Serengeti 'national park', one or more or all piled high with nuclear waste.
Accidents do happen, so don't worry your pretty little head about anything along the lines of 'population explosion'. Any explosion is sure to counter any increase in population.
Add to all this the fact that we in the UK no longer make the steel necessary in the construction of nuclear power stations and that few places do and that they have a very long waiting list as things stand. Not to worry though. As money is no object (the Conservative and New Labour philosophy) the highest bidder can surely leap the queue.
It was Michael Heseltine when opening the West-Way fly-over in Paddington who remarked, when asked by a bystander about electricity prices now that we have Nuclear, that "it would be virtually free".
That is a direct quote and shows that he was an a-hole all along.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
This is nothing to do with private, Tom- it is all about the world markets and strategic supply. A nationalised monopoly would face exactly the same problems but would, as experience has shown, be a lot less efficient leading to even higher prices.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#6
Higher prices are always the responsibility of the other guy. So you say.
There is a great deal (there is a small witticism there...read on) to be learned about the strength or otherwise of your constant imaginary comparisons by viewing the TV programme 'Four Rooms'.
There each of four dealers is ready to inform the prospective seller that s/he, and s/he alone, is the person they should sell to and at the price they alone offer...no better deal will be found.
Getting back to all that I have written in #4.
I take it that I am entirely correct in what I say, prices and costs shall ever increase? Acre upon acre of the land that is contaminated above ground will be more that matched by that contaminated below? etc. etc.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.