....of a Government f*** up........and guess who will probably end up paying for it in taxes or on our electricity bills?? BBC News - Ineos boss says Hinkley nuclear power too expensive
The deal looks like a pretty sensible one, if you take ALL the facts into account (not just the headline). The question is, does the UK want to go on having nuclear power stations in the future or not? If the answer is yes, this is the only feasible deal for getting them built (apart from the government simply paying to build them, obviously). So would you like to explain what you mean by your allegation of a government fuck up?
Well, as had already been said when the deal was announced a while ago (I guess you missed it Pete, so do a bit of Googling will you?); the Govt have signed up to the full whack and have promised the rate will be paid (which as has been said is way OTT), this means there will be a shortfall on the agreed amount which will be paid by the consumer. As I understand it.
The only comparison is the guy has just done a deal with the same French provider, for energy from France, for <€50 something like 55% cheaper. Thats the story
No it isn't. The story is that the predicted cost of energy over the period starting in 2023 and running on to 2058 is about double the current cost of energy in 2013. If you can call that a story. Can a private investor be expected to invest £6billion over the next ten years (2013 to 2023) without being sure whether they will be getting a return on their investment? No; although the risk is low, the amount is too large. The only way the UK government could feasibly get any new nuclear power stations built (apart from paying for them directly) is to offer a guaranteed return to the investors, i.e. shoulder the risk. Since the risk is low, the chances of the taxpayer having to subsidise the energy after 2023 are small, and the current cost of the deal is nil. Nobody can possibly know with certainty what the price of energy will be in future decades, but it is a reasonable bet that it will be a lot higher than today; and if perchance it isn't, we won't be complaining! It is not at all surprising that the head of a rival energy company should try to rubbish the deal - his motives are not at all obscure. It is only surprising that anybody would swallow this rubbish.
But is it also the truth that the last lots who were in dithered and couldn't make their mind despite being in power since '98 and like any good businesses are now in a position to dictate prices in the full knowledge that we will be short of energy sooner rather than later.Energy prices will go up faster than income and that's I'm afraid a given.
Yes it is. The story is that the use of this type of guaranteed return will mean UK industry will not compete as it pays potentially twice the market rate. Whether right or wrong, that is the story the media are pushing. second agenda, this guy likes shale and is considering bidding to do his own...got PR story written all over it. And given how he smashed the unions in Scotland, he's most editors shining star
Very true. Successive governments since 1990 have been unable to decide whether to follow France (build lots of nuclear power stations) or Germany (close them all down). Dithering has become institutionalised, as it so easily does. This year, 2013, at last we have a definite policy - follow France.
We do here in the Channel Islands , a cable link , but still need to keep the local power station ticking over , electric here is not cheap , .
