Sex Wij necro thread :)

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
UK 'Subsidising nuclear power unlawfully, says the headline from t3h beebz.

Campaigners have repeatedly said down the years that all nuclear programmes are in fact underwritten by the state whether they are government-owned or private, because the clean-up costs from major accidents are enormous and the companies involved are considered "too big to fail".

Like at Fukushima in Japan. The costs of the disaster have been nationalised - i.e. foisted on the public. Just like when the banks failed we footed the bill...

Current UK proposals call for the operator to be liable for the first £1bn of cost from any accident.
This is about a seven-fold increase on previous levels, but still a long way below the costs of a disaster such as the one that befell the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan last year.

I'd have done a search, but I'd rather Wij did all the nerco's around here ;)
 

Mabs

J Peasemould Gruntfuttock
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
6,869
i read the title and thought "there really are no depths to which wij will not stoop" :(
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Strangely, I'm not inclined to believe 'Fair Energy's figures.

And you can't compare what happened with Fuukushima to our Nuclear situation. The costs of cleaning that up were under-written by the Japanese state because it was a huge fucking NATURAL DISASTER. The piddly radiation leak has harmed noone.

You want me to Necro the Nuke thread?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Oh, and I'll take this call seriously when Caroline Lucas calls for an end to subsidies for windmills and solar pv too. Otherwise QQ more bitch !
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Nah, the nuke thread can stay where it is :)

And you can't compare what happened with Fuukushima to our Nuclear situation. The costs of cleaning that up were under-written by the Japanese state because it was a huge fucking NATURAL DISASTER. The piddly radiation leak has harmed noone.

It was a huge and predictable natural disaster - which was predicted multiple times. As for harming no-one, I don't suppose all of the families that aren't allowed to go back to their homes, ever, count then?

As for our nuclear situation - nuclear power has never stopped receiving subsidy (even though it is a long established industry). And the subsidies are far in excess that renewables (the new stuff) have ever enjoyed...
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Nah, the nuke thread can stay where it is :)



It was a huge and predictable natural disaster - which was predicted multiple times. As for harming no-one, I don't suppose all of the families that aren't allowed to go back to their homes, ever, count then?

As for our nuclear situation - nuclear power has never stopped receiving subsidy - far in excess that renewables ever have...

Yes - it was a stupid place to put a nuclear reactor. This has nothing to do with NEW UK NUCLEAR GENERATION.

They could go back if people weren't such pussies about small levels of radiation. If it's cos their homes were destroyed, the Tsunami did that.

Existing Nuclear 'subsidies' and their levels compared to the amount renewables have had over their respective lifetimes have nothing to do with NEW UK NUCLEAR GENERATION.

May I also re-iterate again that this is about NEW UK NUCLEAR GENERATION NEW UK NUCLEAR GENERATION NEW UK NUCLEAR GENERATION NEW UK NUCLEAR GENERATION.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
btw - I'm off out now. Please assume that I have trumped every future post made and act accordingly humble when I return :)
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
So, if a new nuclear reactor is built, and some fucker blows it up, contaminating british land for 30 miles all around, a billion quid is going to cover that?

Get out of that one! :)


Ah shit. I've been auto trumped :(
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
You can't blow them up. They're designed to withstand it.

/edit: REALLY going now.

*auto-trump*
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
You can't blow them up. They're designed to withstand it

As was the World Trade Centre in terms of multiple air strikes from jumbo jets.

Get out of that one! :)



Ah shit. Again :(
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
It's in our interests to have cheap and reliable power. It's in our interests keep our country clean and safe. If that means exploiting cheap/clean (relatively speaking) power via nukes and VERY occasionally having to mop some shit up then so be it.

If we can have 20% cheaper electricity for 50 years at the cost of a couple of billion quid a few times a century then I'm all for it. It doesnt really matter who pays for it as long as the companies involved are held to a high safety standard and the government doesnt let them get complacent. I'm happy to let a large company profit off that kind of system. It promotes long term thinking and allows a company to exist. If this type of "insurance" (which is what it is, premiums paid via corp tax etc) was not available then no private company could exist without the fear of going bankrupt at any moment, destroying pensions and investments the country over.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,362
It's in our interests to have cheap and reliable power. It's in our interests keep our country clean and safe. If that means exploiting cheap/clean (relatively speaking) power via nukes and VERY occasionally having to mop some shit up then so be it.

If we can have 20% cheaper electricity for 50 years at the cost of a couple of billion quid a few times a century then I'm all for it. It doesnt really matter who pays for it as long as the companies involved are held to a high safety standard and the government doesnt let them get complacent. I'm happy to let a large company profit off that kind of system. It promotes long term thinking and allows a company to exist. If this type of "insurance" (which is what it is, premiums paid via corp tax etc) was not available then no private company could exist without the fear of going bankrupt at any moment, destroying pensions and investments the country over.
This. Being ransomed over fuel in the future is not a place anyone wants to be.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
If this type of "insurance" (which is what it is, premiums paid via corp tax etc) was not available then no private company could exist without the fear of going bankrupt at any moment, destroying pensions and investments the country over.

So, let me get this straight, what you're saying is capitalism doesn't work unless large corporations are safe in the knowledge that if they fuck up on a massive scale the UK citizen will bail them out.

Or are you trying to say in a roundabout way that companies can't afford nuclear power and the market is failing to provide an alternative generation system to provide for our needs?
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
So, let me get this straight, what you're saying is capitalism doesn't work unless large corporations are safe in the knowledge that if they fuck up on a massive scale the UK citizen will bail them out.

Or are you trying to say in a roundabout way that companies can't afford nuclear power and the market is failing to provide an alternative generation system to provide for our needs?

I'm saying there are certain things to which capitalism is not ideally suited. If a project is so vast, so wide ranging, so critical to the national interest - then perhaps we need to pick an approach that ends up with the most people getting the most benefit. I don't care if it's called socialism or capitalism or communism.

What I would like is for us to face up to the reality that we are heading for an energy deficit so vast that unless we take serious, immediate action, we are condemning ourselves and our children to a world far worse than it is today.

So yes, certain classes of infrastructure are indeed to big to let fail. However, it just so happens that a very good way to run a large organisation is to put a profit incentive in place so that efficiencies are realised. OK, we will have to bail them out at some point in the 10000-1 odds scenario when something goes wrong. Assuming the reason we have to bail them out is effectively an act of god and not just total incompetence I think it's fair enough.

Do note that the banks were horrifically mis- managed and regulated. The people in charge of them were doing a pretty good job given the incentives that were in place. Who cares if the company you are running goes titsup if you've managed to extract £100m from it already? How will that affect you in the future? Not at all.
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
Glad you disagree. But with what exactly? I've made quite a few different points there.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Has anyone actually READ what energy fair are counting as subsidies for nuclear power? I have. You would not believe how far they can stretch the word subsidy :)

It's a load of shite.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Aye Wij.

MPs have urged ministers to admit they are tacitly subsidising nuclear power despite promising that the industry would not receive such support. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee's report accused ministers of disguising the subsidy and distorting the reforms.


Load. Of. Shite. :)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
And their figures for a renewables future are bollox too as they neglect to mention the space needed, skim over backup supply costs and happily slip between talking about subsidised costs, unsubsidised costs, cost without backup, peak capacity, average capacity and do on at will, whatever suits their current argument.

Total twats.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Save me retyping my reg rant:


I actually started reading some of the Energy Fair bumf.
They are complaining that because the Carbon Floor Price will push up the wholesale price of electricity (it's a tax on fossil fuels used in generation) then Nuclear will benefit. The price it can sell for will go up. That's a subsidy apparently.
They are outraged that the fuel for nuclear power, Uranium, won't be increased along with coal and gas. I think the point of the name Carbon Floor Price seems to have been wasted on them.
So that counts as a subsidy for nuclear power. The more sharp-eyed amongst you may have noticed that it will also 'subsidize' renewables. That's OK apparently.
So, in all, they're a completely unbiased outfit.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
I referred you to the report from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, not Energy Fair... :)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Since your link was broken you referred me to nothing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom