Bishop Hill Spiral of subsidy
Sep 24, 2012 Energy: nuclear Energy: wind One of the points I made in my Spectator speech was the effect of wind power on the rest of the electricity system - a familiar subject to readers here. Assuming we have no coal-fired generation in the future, the baseload power generation market will have to be divided between wind and nuclear. However, with ministers declaring that there will be an expansion of the subsidised wind sector, that marketplace does not look ripe for investment in new nuclear. Generators in that sector are therefore holding out for generous incentives of their own.
Last month, EDF told the Telegraph that they wanted a guaranteed price of £140/MWh roughly double what gas might cost us. The chief executive of Scottish and Southern today argues that a line should be drawn in the sand at £65/MWh and that nuclear generators should get their costs down.
You can see where this is heading: each generator will demand more and more support to keep them in the marketplace. A guaranteed price for nukes will have to be met by an increase in support for wind. We will end up with a disastrous spiral: subsidy after bung after price floor after graft after corruption. All paid for by you.
So here's a novel idea. How about we do away with the rules and regulations and see who is really the cheapest?
Reader Comments (65)
Martin A
You might find this PDF answers a lot of your questions:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/04/14/97/PDF/document_IAEA.pdf
Many of the words have more than one syllable and so I have not read it all ^.^
However an associated statement said: "According to some toxicity studies, the thorium cycle can fully recycle actinide wastes and only emit fission product"
Good Luck :)
I am interested in sHx's contention that the post 1970 regulatory ratcheting ,which increased nuclear prices more than fourfold, prevented Fukushima & 3 mile island. What is the evidence to support his contention that both these "catastrophe's" happened before 1970? Also what is his evidence that the zero injuries ar both TMI & Fukushima are more catastrophic than the 150,000 deaths annually, worldwide, because of coal?
Or are mere facts as irrelevent as human lives to the Luddite trolls.
Dung - thanks.
Wiki says only that Thorium produces between 10 and 10,000 times less dangerous radioactive waste.
I don't say it's untrue, but I'll believe it when I've seen the calculations. It contradicts all my intuition.
Thorium still has the advantage that the process is inherently safe, no melt downs are possible.
My understanding is that a thorium reactor produces U233 "on the fly" which is then burned in the same way that U235 is in a conventional reactor. So, for a given level of power generation 1GW, say, more or less the same mass and constitution of fission products will be produced per hour by a thorium reactor as in a conventional reactor at the same power level
If a thorium reactor looses its cooling, fission product decay heat will continue to be produced at the about the same rate it would be produced in a conventional reactor that lost its cooling.
As we saw at Fukushima, that's enought heat to melt the innards of the reactor.
Maybe my ignorance is showing, but in view of this, I don't understand how "no melt downs are possible".
Don Keiller:
So accusing "skeptics" of being legally funded from a big-oil source and accusing someone of illegally not paying taxes are equivalent on your moral compass. Hmmm.
On employment contracts, do you have any proof that they are 'dodgy' or are you just throwing more mud in the hope that some sticks? I had heard of BBC types having their own company and a contract with the BBC through that company. That differs from normal employment but is not inherently immoral and is certainly legal. In programming it is quite normal practice for freelancers to work through their own one-man limited company; they might even be obliged to (I was when I started contracting 20 years ago). Are all freelancers sleaze-balls too?
@bitbucket; please stop trolling, it seems that you are as totally ignorant of Companies House regulations as those of Lloyd's insurance. You cannot have a one-man limited company, dickhead.
Salopian, strange interjection! Does it change the argument whether the company has one director or two? Or were you just dying to indulge in some playground name calling?
As far as I am aware, the requirement for two directors was removed some years back. Although I would bow normally to the considered opinion of an expert, my view is kind-of confirmed by the web page http://www.davidsonstant.co.uk/services/specialist-services/one-man-limited-company
Salopian, Recent changes to company law mean that you can indeed have a one man company. Private companies no longer require a secretary.
The main issue with the service companies is whether they are used to hide the employment status of the individual to their advantage tax wise. A true freelancer who has multiple work sources could very legitimately use a limited company structure. Where someone works more or less exclusively for one entity the case is less clear. Certainly HMRC are taking a very jaundiced view of those that advantage themselves in this way.
Cumbrian Lad; As you say, recent changes; but bitbucket seems to claim to have been operating as such for 20 years. I wonder what Companies House and HMRC will make of that?
Tut, tut, BitBucket. Have you been avoiding paying your full share of taxes?
Of all people I would have thought you would be first in line to support "Big Government".
Bitbucket rants "So accusing "skeptics" of being legally funded from a big-oil source"
I am a skeptic, So is the Bish. So are most of those who post on this blog.
Tell me, just who do you think is funded by "Big Oil"?
I for one would have welcomed some financial support when I took on the lavishly tax-payer funded University of East Anglia and their expensive Temple- Chamber brief in Court to get the FOI-obstructing charlatans to release an email I had legitimately requested.
This charade has been going on for well over two years and despite my Court "victory", last year, they are still engaged in obstruction. I am still spending time and money- (mine I might add, not "Big Oils") to cut through the deceit they continue to weave.
I will be writing a post about UEA's activities in this matter in the near future.
By the way, did you know that UEA's Climate Research Unit was funded by "Big Oil"? As are many "Green" lunatic asylums (sorry organisations)..
Don Keiller, I made no accusations - read what I said. I don't know what you find more challenging, the English language, logic or honesty. You brought up the subject of oil funding yourself (Sep 25, 2012 at 10:36 AM) in this thread. As for your battles with UEA, I'm sure you will receive a collective pat on the back from BH for your troubles.
Bitbucket, now you have accused me of finding honesty "challenging".
That is something that I have never been accused of before, but in the happy, inclusive, shiny Green World you inhabit, I suppose anything goes- as long as it promotes your view of "the greater good".
Did you know that many single-cause crusaders, such as you appear to be, often have undiagnosed frontal lobe disorders?
It warps their view of reality and the motives of those around them.
Seriously, if I were you I would book an urgent appointment with a psychiatrist.
Failing that, you do realise that it is dangerous not to take your medication regularly?
Don Keiller:
- If you are actually intellectually incapable of understanding my posts or of following logic then I accept that you probably did not realise that you were accusing me of something I had not said. In this case, I apologise unreservedly for questioning your honesty.
- If, on the other hand, you did understand that nowhere in my posts did I accuse you or anyone of being oil-funded, then you were dishonest in attacking me for doing so.
Take your pick.
Bitbucket, I accept your (qualified) apology, but would also like to take this opportunity to remind you of what was actually said by me.
"Thus is it "OK" in your World-view for the greens to contantly smear skeptics with the "Funded by Big Oil" lie, but not "OK" for me to have the temerity to suggest that a well-paid Green hack, may not be paying all their tax."
and by you
So accusing "skeptics" of being legally funded from a big-oil source and accusing someone of illegally not paying taxes are equivalent on your moral compass. Hmmm.
Please note that the words I used were "smear" and "suggest". Somehow in your moral indignation you have conflated these with the word "accusing".
I will have no further correspondence with someone who habitually misrepresents what is said.
Yep, now I'm sure; you just could not understand...