On low carbon generation and energy subsidies.(hacked off)

[Energetic]

I'm hacked off that the mainstream press lumps nuclear in with renewables. I'm hacked off that we keep hearing about 'renewable energy subsidies' when other generation subsidies get no mention. I'm hacked off that any stronger language than hacked off will get me censored or banned from the forum.

Broadly stating that renewables will add £100 to bills is inaccurate if this includes nuclear, which clearly isn't renewable, albeit could arguably be considered low carbon even with energy intensive mining and refining techniques.

Nuc has a 30 year payback with the current guaranteed return provided by the gubbermunt (us taxpayers). Ore is diminishing in concentration and if the whole world is going nuc there will be supply issues not to mention the current and future disposal issues...

When conference season was jn full swing there was lots of talk about 'the green agenda', now it's all 'dash for gas'... Gas will not solve our energy issues, it will merely provide a bridge to the next generation of generation...

 

[electron1]

With no renewable subsidies, I bet there would be no Windfarm or Solar Panel incomes.
This would mean Lower Energy Bills.
The so called owner of these Generation Units should fund them from their Profits, not Taxpayer and consumer.

Incidently I work in the Nuclear Industry.

 

[Gavin A]

With no renewable subsidies, I bet there would be no Windfarm or Solar Panel incomes.
This would mean Lower Energy Bills.
The so called owner of these Generation Units should fund them from their Profits, not Taxpayer and consumer.

Incidently I work in the Nuclear Industry.

do you appreciate that your point makes no sense at all?

renewables do add slightly to people's bills now, but will be reducing people's bills from some point in the next few years when we achieve grid parity - which is probably going to be the case after 2016 when the last of the cheapest dirtiest coal plants shut down.

The subsidies are needed now to kick start the industry so that we can be in a position to make a significant difference at that point and beyond.

You can't really say the same about nuclear can you, given that it's been around for 50+ years and still can't operate without significant subsidies.

Tbh though I actually think it makes sense to pay the entire nuclear cost up front from the state if we're going to go down that route, as the state can borrow at better long term rates than anyone else, so this is the cheapest option long term. What I have a problem with is what they've just done, which is announcing big nuclear subsidies but making out they're for renewables, so that in the public eye that's £5 billion going to fund wind turbines and solar, when most of it's actually going to go to nuclear and CCS projects - we get the flack, nuclear gets the money.

 

[electron1]

Yes you would say that as a vested interest in the scheme, but what of the common majority of the Bill Payers having to pay into this that do not support so called GREEN (NAIVE) Energy

 

[TedM]

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority gets £2.3 billion a year (2012/13) from the government aka taxpayers. That's in order to produce zero electricity. That doesn't look like very good value for money to me.

 

[Gavin A]

Yes you would say that as a vested interest in the scheme, but what of the common majority of the Bill Payers having to pay into this that do not support so called GREEN (NAIVE) Energy

repeated surveys have shown that the majority of the public is in favour of supporting renewable energy.

Nearly eight out of 10 respondents to the DECC survey said they supported using renewable energy to provide electricity, [FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]fuel[/FONT][/FONT] and heat, while just five per cent opposed the use of renewables.

the same can't be said for nuclear I'm afraid.

For example, 29 per cent of respondents said they thought the benefits of nuclear energy outweighed the risks, while 30 per cent thought the contrary, and 32 per cent said the benefits and risks were evenly balanced.

your point therefore is based on an entirely false premise, as the 'common majority' of bill payers do support renewable energy.

Government survey reveals strong public support for renewables - 09 Jul 2012 - News from BusinessGreen

 

[Gavin A]

Yes you would say that as a vested interest in the schemey

btw - have you worked out which bit of your post makes no sense?