Pretty Damning Report on UK Energy Planning

[CliveH]

This is causing a stir in the "Pinks".

 

My view is that it is a long overdue comprehensive review of successive Government stupidity.

 

It is long at c. 30 pages - but well worth a read

 

http://liberum.eu.bdvision.ipreo.com/NSightWeb_v2.00/Handlers/Document.ashx?i=e7f798d1a60646efb76a03a030054be9

 

Of particular interest is pages 3 and 6 where on page 3 the likely consequences of current policy are set out in stark terms.

 

Page 6 sets out the legislation that the EU has laid down - and more importantly for us in the UK - the fact that our Governments have gone further still - "Gold Plating" such that the UK has a huge millstone around its neck.

 

This "Gold Plating" by our own UK legislators is something I have mentioned before - mainly because those in the Public Sector that do it, usually blame "Europe" - when in fact on most issues the EU simply provides guidelines.

 

An interesting point I think, on today of all days, when we go to the polls in much of the UK.

 

A couple of quotes:-

 

The author states that it is "a struggle to find a single fund manager that believes energy policy is credible... That is why they are not investing."

 

and because they are not investing (because the figures do not add up) then the government has dumped the risk onto the taxpayer!

 

Now, the idea that the Energy Bill transfers risk from the private sector to the taxpayer is a new one on me. It seems that the bail out of the Banks has given our politicians a very dangerous idea. The explanation is in the body of the report:

 

"The government will replace the existing regime with a Contract for Difference (Cfd) mechanism. This new mechanism will very largely transfer the price risk from the developer to the consumer by guaranteeing an achieved power sale price for each power station covered.

 

As every banker knows, transferring risk from the private sector to the taxpayer is good for business but bad for the country and the taxpayer. For the government to go down this road again could therefore be seen as criminal."

 

...........................

 

This report is well worth a read. - Peter Atherton is the head of utilities research at UK broker Liberum Capital. His job is to provide due diligence research for investors.

 

The underlying message to me is that corporate investors see the UK energy sector as a crock, and so too do those in the Government/Public Sector - and so realising that investment is drying up, they neatly set up a system whereby the taxpayer pays for their folly.

 

As I say - well worth a read.

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

It sure is a 'damning report' Clive, thanks for that.

 

What about this then, on the same subject:-

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/01/whatever-you-think-of-fracking

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Another cock up to lay at Maggie's door >:-)

 

For 30 years our "energy policy" has consisted of selling off vast chunks of our generating capacity to foreign, often state-owned, firms. The ironic result of the Thatcher energy privatisation was a massive transfer of strategic assets from the British citizen to the Elysée, the break-up of the Central Electricity Generating Board, and an ill-advised dash for gas that risks leaving consumers at the mercy of Russia and Kazakhstan. And now we want to build sports halls and bet the farm on a technology that to date has not boiled a single British kettle. Not serious at all.

[nowtelse2do]

Not a report on the UK Energy Planning Clive, but it still effects us if we continue our EU membership.

 

Trillion euro shortfall.

 

Investment totaling a trillion euros (£846bn) is required by the end of this decade (7yrs) if the European Union is to stave off an energy crises.

 

That's the conclusion of an eight month inquiry by the House of Lords into the EU power sector.

 

The Lords report says that a muddled Brussels energy policy is putting off investors.

 

In addition, it says there needs to be greater support for European Emissions Trading System. (ETS)

 

The Lords EU sub-committee on agriculture, fisheries, environment and energy took evidence from a range of parties including the European Commission, Power Companies and environmental campaigners.

 

Will not go into it any further, I think you get the drift. So the investors aren't interested, wonder who that leaves to foot the bill. Another good reason to get out of the EU I think.

 

Not too bad when you think about it if It's shared evenly between 27 countries and with 28 after July 1st (Croatia)

 

Cypriot government might have to raid some more of the Cypriot saver's accounts thoe.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Symbol Owner - 2013-05-02 3:35 PM

 

It sure is a 'damning report' Clive, thanks for that.

 

What about this then, on the same subject:-

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/01/whatever-you-think-of-fracking

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

 

Indeed Colin - I had not seen this in the Guardian - very interesting and balanced article. Sometimes the Guardian can carry a balanced viewpoint - but usually not! B-)

 

This in particular is worthy of note:-

 

"This is not an argument against fracking per se. The theoretical potential is there, under the carboniferous rocks of the English north-west and the Scottish central belt, for an energy revolution on the scale of North Sea oil. A recent British Geological Survey report put the amount of shale gas under the UK as 250 times that of previous estimates, enough to make us self-sufficient in gas for centuries. That deserves a big tick."

 

From what I have read elsewhere re the development of Shale gas is that the DECC is trying to restrict its development and keep its price high because even they recognise that if this new technology does what it has done for the USA, then energy prices fall and CO2 emissions also fall such that wind and solar energy have not been seen as viable alternatives.

 

But DECC is so wrapped up and bound by its dogma re Solar and Wind with high taxes paid by us all being used to pay huge FIT's to the producers for intermittent energy so unreliable we now have a rush back to Nuclear to cover the energy deficit that DECC's policies will inevitably produce.

 

The report I cited expresses the concern that as investors are failing to come forward to build the huge offshore wind farms then DECC has manipulated the system so that if those investors make a loss then we the taxpayer will prop the whole thing up.

 

Just like we have already propped up the failing Banks.

 

And we all know what a good idea that urned out to be!

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

Indeed Colin - I had not seen this in the Guardian - very interesting and balanced article. Sometimes the Guardian can carry a balanced viewpoint - but usually not!

 

On a different subject Clive, here is another fine (and balanced) Guardian article -- Larry Elliott ( their financial Editor is usually very good - see what you think of this:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/30/european-central-bank-eurozone-warning

 

The old 'Grauniad' is much more 'balanced than you might think -- so long as it is feature articles and not politics or 'women's issues' that byou are looking at!

[CliveH]

Yes thanks Colin - it is a good article - fair and accurate. So the Guardian often is with things economic. It is the paucity of their coverage of "Climate Change" that does my head in!

 

How can a paper produce such a fair and balanced article such as the one you linked to and on the next page have the likes of Monbiot stating that anyone who dares to question the dogma of catastrophic man made global warming is a "denier" akin to those who deny the holocaust and they deserve to by put of trial for crime against humanity!!

 

The later point based upon the likes of "Monbigot's " absolute certainty that we are all going to hell on the CO2 driven handcart!

 

What a shame for him and his fellow loonies that Mother Nature says bollox to such stupidity and has refused to show any warming at all for the last 15/16 years (lol) (lol)

 

I tend to have a look at the main pages of the Guardian for a "reasonable" view of world events and I balance that with a look at the Torygraph and the Observer (I still do not see the point of the Independent - it seems a waste of paper to me) - and I look at the "Environment" pages of the Guardian because with Bob Wards ridiculous frothings and Monbigots off the wall rants - it always cheers me up as I like a laugh the same as the next bloke.

 

(lol)

[Symbol Owner]

Thanks, Clive,

 

Clive,

 

It looks as though your newspaper reading habits and mine are fairly similar -- I couldn't agree more about the Independant -- I like a paper to have views and opinions -- a specific point of view -- even if I profoundly disagree with it -- not be so 'Independant' that it is akin to a soggy blancmange!

I accept your rants on 'climate change' -- I'm a 'sceptic' but not an out-and-out 'denier'. Monbiot often spouts a load of complicated analysis with no solution -- but todays article, on the politics of envy assiciated wuth the extremely rich, was, I thought, quite good:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/politics-envy-keenest-rich

 

See what you think, Clive, at least the 'Grauniad' keeps the old grey matter functioning!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

[nowtelse2do]

CliveH - 2013-05-07 12:25 PM

 

it always cheers me up as I like a laugh the same as the next bloke.

 

(lol)

 

Good to see you have a sneaky look at my paper too Clive.....The Daily Mail.... :D

 

Dave

[CliveH]

I do get the Mail sometimes on a Saturday when we are in the c'van as the TV guide is very good. But my goodness when you read the actual paper you do wonder about the state of the British media.

 

I see the Mail as the opposite but equivalent of the Guardian.

 

Both are led by those with more opinion than knowledge and both see reporting the News (i.e actual events) as secondary to their own particular "agenda".

 

I have to say - on reflection I am pretty much behind the "Pinks" - the FT in particular - that focuses on issues not agendas.

 

I stopped our regular order for a paper when the term "Newspaper" became an oxymoron.

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

CliveH - 2013-05-08 8:00 PM

I see the Mail as the opposite but equivalent of the Guardian.

 

That's just provocative rubbish, Clive -- you can hardly compare the populist rants, bile and sheer hatred (some of it class-based) in the Mail with the serious treatment of serious subjects from a quality newspaper.

Of course The Guardian has an 'agenda' -- look at its history for heavens' sake -- It arose directly as the result of the 'Peterloo massacre' -- itself a clash between the Government of the day and the forces of political radicalism. The Manchester Guardian and its present-day proud successor still fly that radical flag for campaigning journalism -- it can make it a very easy target for sneers and snipes -- it is on its own amid a blue 'sea' of right-wing newspapers -- but, when it gets it right -- as with the Murdoch/hacking business, then thank goodness that it is still 'flying the flag' -- it is still truly 'Independant' and not the 'tool' of any vested interests!

 

Colin.

[Symbol Owner]

This is the sort of thing that I mean, Clive -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/08/government-wrongly-blocked-prine-charles

 

I couldn't imagine any other newspaper in the land (or any other media outlet ) persuing this 'agenda' -- but it does need persuing -- it is vitally important in my view (and I can feel Peter James breathing down my neck!) that our future Monarch is seriously dissuaded from his 'political' shenaniggins. Only the 'Grauniad' (more 'childish' Private Eye language Donna!) could, or would, 'put its money where its mouth is' in this way , on an issue of national importance.

 

Colin.

 

P.S., Clive, sorry to have gone:- 'off topic' on this one -- but, short of starting a new 'thread' I could see now other place to put it!

 

C.

[CliveH]

Colin - please do not apologise for going off topic - I see these threads as like conversations over a cuppa or a pint! - Only the pedants complain about topic purity. It is akin to Political Correctness to them! (lol)

 

The FT sets out the score pretty well re the debacle that is our energy policy – and whilst you do have to register to read the articles – it is not behind a paywall.

 

The Mail is biased Colin and so too is the Guardian. Yes the Guardian does report some items well – but then so does the Mail (and even the Sun does on occasions ! !) With the Mail – if was Jeff Prestridge that kept on and on for fair play for Equitable policyholders – in my mind he is a Financial Journalist of HUGE clout and respect.

 

In contrast the Guardian has the likes of Monbiot who froths at the mouth as soon as anyone challenges the dogma he spouts about we awful humans destroying the planet.

 

So I stand by my analysis – the two papers are equal but opposite.

 

But getting back on subject the full FT article on the disaster that is the Governments energy policy is available here:-

 

http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2013/05/09/is-electricity-market-reform-doomed/?Authorised=false

 

A snippit that outlines my concerns re how we taxpayers are subsidising the rich land owners who get Feed In Tariffs via the Green Taxes on utility bills that will force many families into fuel poverty I cut and paste here:-

 

“ The problems facing the Government’s plan to reform the UK’s electricity market go well beyond the departure of two of the limited number of civil servants who actually understand the proposals. The reality is that the Government is losing its appetite for a scheme which is liable to disintegrate under the weight of its own complexity...”

 

“The real problem is that the plans freeze the system in aspic at a time when the market and new technology are producing dramatic changes. The prices (we are not allowed to call them subsidies) represent corporate welfare on a very big scale – a transfer of wealth from consumers to suppliers which means that those who win the lobbying battle will be celebrating for decades to come.”

…………………….

 

Indeed those suppliers will be celebrating.

 

Whilst everyone else asks why the hell are we paying such huge sums of taxpayers money so that we can have unreliable energy that when it is produced costs a ruddy fortune.

 

 

But of course – The Guardianistas love windpower. They see it as “free” – reality is not the likes of Monbiot et al’s strong points.