Jon Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Cannae see a problem with a bit of newcyilar energy meself. I'm all for green energy (wind/solar etc) but that won't provide 100% of our energy needs, so nuclear seems a good way to go, providing it's 'safe' and cost effective. We've put off these decsions for too long, and a new plant is long overdue IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Another vote for the "Can't see what the new Nuke Power Plant fuss is all about" Party. My only concern is the fixed rate price per megawat being roughly double what the current wholesale price is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 ahh but Tony that's just more right wing deflection hypocracy And that added what exactly to the discussion? as with Tony's silly post earlier (and the likes) - it certainly does show up that debate on certain matters is something that many on the right will not entertain. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 On a totally different subject I would like to hear and see what the supporters of the Gvmt, and Right wing in general, views are on the hypocrisy surrounding the Nuclear reactor scheme announced yesterday with French and Chinese backing and the costs / charges that will come from that. Finally, an actual subject to discuss. Not sure where the hypocrisy comes in but new nuclear is a decidedly good thing providing clean, sustainable and long term energy. If the problem is that the money to build and operate is coming from abroad I'm not sure why it's an issue? We don't have the money to build them ourselves at the moment and thanks to a two decade hiatus in serious energy policy planning, we urgently need the investment in energy infrastructure. Subsidising ever more wind farms won't keep the lights on so this seems like the only practical alternative that fits with de-carbonisation targets. The hypocrisy is the rhetoric we have seen recently re "socialism" comments, plus deals with France etc and comments re Green policies. Especially the former 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Cannae see a problem with a bit of newcyilar energy meself. I'm all for green energy (wind/solar etc) but that won't provide 100% of our energy needs, so nuclear seems a good way to go, providing it's 'safe' and cost effective. We've put off these decsions for too long, and a new plant is long overdue IMO. I agree with the idea of the source type, it's who and what that is supplying it and what will be the real costs that are worthy of debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 EDIT. What's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Sorry I'm not seeing the link between new nuclear power, socialism and making deals with EDF? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these tenable accusations of failings easier to defend. Edited October 21, 2013 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Sorry I'm not seeing the link between new nuclear power, socialism and making deals with EDF? Eh? So we have seen a pretty strong campaign being played out by the Tory party and it's supporters re the demonisation of socialism etc - e.g. the stupidity of the "Red Ed" name, the use of "socialism" as an attempt to insult by Cameron et al in the commons, the Marxist rubbish spewed out by the Mail (and supported by leading members of the Gvmt). This Power Station is not a EDF only thing, have you missed that? The Chinese are very much involved, and last time I looked they certainly fitted under what the same people making the allegations would classify as Communist etc The bigger argument could be are the Chinese actually glorified capitalists who are actually right wing etc? EDIT. What's the point? Good argument :-) Edited October 21, 2013 by drat01 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these actual failings easier to defend. Good post by the way. I suppose the nature of the political mess we find ourselves in is that we need to scrutinise the actions and then look against what are the motives, necessary actions and what alternatives there are / were. There are a lot of facts that certainly back up the initial accusations in the article, IMO, and it certainly is the Gvmt's responsibility t justify them with a lot more than a glib "ahhh but Labour ..." response and why they did what they did / or didn't despite saying they would etc. I think the article gives enough sticks to certainly give the Gvmt a headache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Re the Hypocrisy statement - another thing to consider is the following comment that was issued re Chinese / EDF etc "However, Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London, said "what it equates to actually is a subsidy and the coalition said they would never subsidise nuclear". He added: "It is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate to be £800m to £1bn a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their governments." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 "Eh" back at you, Drat. I think your "argument" is that France has a socialist government so because the Tories have a different political ideology it is hypocritical of them to make deals with a French energy company? I'm sure I've got that wrong because such an argument is childish to the point of being farcical. Similarly with the Chinese are you suggesting that the government are hypocritical to encourage their investment because the government is communist? Really??! If that's the basis of the "hypocrisy" allegation it's, well.... laughable, frankly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these actual failings easier to defend. Good post by the way. I suppose the nature of the political mess we find ourselves in is that we need to scrutinise the actions and then look against what are the motives, necessary actions and what alternatives there are / were. There are a lot of facts that certainly back up the initial accusations in the article, IMO, and it certainly is the Gvmt's responsibility t justify them with a lot more than a glib "ahhh but Labour ..." response and why they did what they did / or didn't despite saying they would etc. I think the article gives enough sticks to certainly give the Gvmt a headache So an article presents 100 points, 10-15% of which may be reasonable, which means it is a good article. Allrightythen. Sounds more like an utterly carp attempt at *ahem* "journalism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 MakemineVanilla, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:05 AM, said: drat01, on 20 Oct 2013 - 9:48 PM, said: Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Not to mention a lot of them link to the Daily Mail .. the same Daily Mail many posters were quite vocal about how despicable a rag it is etc ... and yet it seems people are happy to quote it when it suits 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Re the Hypocrisy statement - another thing to consider is the following comment that was issued re Chinese / EDF etc "However, Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London, said "what it equates to actually is a subsidy and the coalition said they would never subsidise nuclear". He added: "It is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate to be £800m to £1bn a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their governments." Subsidies are already being paid to green energy providers otherwise their product wouldn't be economically viable. At least paying subsidies to nuclear energy providers will result in a constant source of energy, whereas when the wind stops and the turbines are motionless the shortfall is made up by diesel generators! The bigger problem is is crippling de-carbonisation targets. Given that the UK contribution to global CO2 production is about 2% of the whole (literally a drop in the ocean), we'd be far better off securing more natural gas by investing in fracking and burning that. That the government have had to change their policy on subsidising nuclear is hardly surprising, when you set unrealistic targets then reality has an uncomfortable tendency to force that change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Awol, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:22 AM, said: drat01, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:13 AM, said: Re the Hypocrisy statement - another thing to consider is the following comment that was issued re Chinese / EDF etc "However, Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London, said "what it equates to actually is a subsidy and the coalition said they would never subsidise nuclear". He added: "It is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate to be £800m to £1bn a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their governments." Subsidies are already being paid to green energy providers otherwise their product wouldn't be economically viable. At least paying subsidies to nuclear energy providers will result in a constant source of energy, whereas when the wind stops and the turbines are motionless the shortfall is made up by diesel generators! The bigger problem is is crippling de-carbonisation targets. Given that the UK contribution to global CO2 production is about 2% of the whole (literally a drop in the ocean), we'd be far better off securing more natural gas by investing in fracking and burning that. That the government have had to change their policy on subsidising nuclear is hardly surprising, when you set unrealistic targets then reality has an uncomfortable tendency to force that change. Who on earth would be stupid enough to set such targets ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Who on earth would be stupid enough to set such targets ? To be fair the coalition didn't have the courage and/or intelligence to bin them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 "Eh" back at you, Drat. I think your "argument" is that France has a socialist government so because the Tories have a different political ideology it is hypocritical of them to make deals with a French energy company? I'm sure I've got that wrong because such an argument is childish to the point of being farcical. Similarly with the Chinese are you suggesting that the government are hypocritical to encourage their investment because the government is communist? Really??! If that's the basis of the "hypocrisy" allegation it's, well.... laughable, frankly. What? - I am sorry but you have completely lost me now. I f you see no real hypocrisy in the words that come out from the Tory party and the right wing media and support those, and then then think that deals like this are to be encouraged, I suspect that double standards are at play and really your argument is just tailored to fit the topic (and possibly the person). But thanks for the update that you see no issues with the French Gvmt or the Chinese and the ideologies that they both run under - good to see a change of views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these actual failings easier to defend. Good post by the way. I suppose the nature of the political mess we find ourselves in is that we need to scrutinise the actions and then look against what are the motives, necessary actions and what alternatives there are / were. There are a lot of facts that certainly back up the initial accusations in the article, IMO, and it certainly is the Gvmt's responsibility t justify them with a lot more than a glib "ahhh but Labour ..." response and why they did what they did / or didn't despite saying they would etc. I think the article gives enough sticks to certainly give the Gvmt a headache So an article presents 100 points, 10-15% of which may be reasonable, which means it is a good article. Allrightythen. Sounds more like an utterly carp attempt at *ahem* "journalism". No, I think you have got it exactly backwards. It is a crap article in that it does not bear close analysis but it is actually good journalism because most people will not bother to unpack it and will just see it as proof that the government are a nasty bunch of so-and-sos who have deliberately and gratuitously inflicted misery on the nation. Journalism is about arousing emotions and the list will certainly do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these actual failings easier to defend. Good post by the way. I suppose the nature of the political mess we find ourselves in is that we need to scrutinise the actions and then look against what are the motives, necessary actions and what alternatives there are / were. There are a lot of facts that certainly back up the initial accusations in the article, IMO, and it certainly is the Gvmt's responsibility t justify them with a lot more than a glib "ahhh but Labour ..." response and why they did what they did / or didn't despite saying they would etc. I think the article gives enough sticks to certainly give the Gvmt a headache So an article presents 100 points, 10-15% of which may be reasonable, which means it is a good article. Allrightythen. Sounds more like an utterly carp attempt at *ahem* "journalism". Is that what I wrote? - I don't think so, but hey ho as normal VT politics discussions are more about what you would like to see than what is actually written MakemineVanilla, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:05 AM, said: drat01, on 20 Oct 2013 - 9:48 PM, said: Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Not to mention a lot of them link to the Daily Mail .. the same Daily Mail many posters were quite vocal about how despicable a rag it is etc ... and yet it seems people are happy to quote it when it suits So Tony - you still wont discuss the points being made? - Interesting - why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts