Cameron pulls out of green speech

[biffvernon]

Part of the omnishambles:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoff ... an-energy/

[clv101]

Indeed. I was at a rather interesting lecture last week about nuclear power - the speaker (an academic from Cambridge - physicist who's research is focused on the electricity market) suggested that building nuclear power doesn't make comercial sense, until the day you turn it on, then it makes a lot of sense. He suggested the only way to get new nuclear power stations would be for the Government to build them (underwrite construction costs and risks) then as soon as they are operational, sell them, recouping the cost. He also said nuclear only really makes sense if we are committed to a 80% emission cut by 2050.

Go back a few years the key energy policy driver was to be green - secondary concerns were affordability and security. Today that main driver is to be affordable, with green and security secondary concerns. Nuclear isn't affordable so is only likely to happen if green and 80% emission targets become the main driver.

[biffvernon]

If the Government can recoup the costs then so can a non-government financier. He can't have it both ways. Pension funds should be able to take a long enough view so this would be an ideal investment for them if it's so good.

only likely to happen if green and 80% emission targets become the main driver

I think you have to delete green from that line. I understand the 80% but 'green' needs to include the unsolved issues of waste disposal, the percieved (we've seen them explode) risks during operation and the skewing of industry towards large centralised operation. There is much more to 'green' than carbon emoissions.

[clv101]

If the Government can recoup the costs then so can a non-government financier.

Government itself a significant source of risk, so having the Government money in there does reduce the risk. But, yeah, the other risks remain. Government is better placed to absorb risk than non-government financiers though, see bank bailouts.

There is much more to 'green' than carbon emissions.

Not a lot more - using their terms of reference.

[emordnilap]

80% emission targets

Does that include the environmental costs of fuel extraction and processing?

[clv101]

80% emission targets

Does that include the environmental costs of fuel extraction and processing?

Only if it's in this country, otherwise no, those emissions are associated with the source country.

[biffvernon]

Government is better placed to absorb risk than non-government financiers though, see bank bailouts.

There is much more to 'green' than carbon emissions.

Not a lot more - using their terms of reference.

Government can absorb risk by inflation and taxation with default a last resort. Corporations can go bankrupt, destroying shareholder value, but the directors might walk away with their pensions intact.

Not in my terms of reference.

[SleeperService]

Indeed. He suggested the only way to get new nuclear power stations would be for the Government to build them (underwrite construction costs and risks) then as soon as they are operational, sell them, recouping the cost. He also said nuclear only really makes sense if we are committed to a 80% emission cut by 2050.

Go back a few years the key energy policy driver was to be green - secondary concerns were affordability and security. Today that main driver is to be affordable, with green and security secondary concerns. Nuclear isn't affordable so is only likely to happen if green and 80% emission targets become the main driver.

What he REALLY means is government builds them then sells the lease for a fraction of the real cost, which then expires when the decommissioning comes around. Then, magically it becomes affordable for the big 6 at least. Just like PFI really.