Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:24:48 am

Login with username, password and session length

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: OFGEM  (Read 2557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

danumdon

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2343
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #60 on May 19, 2022, 03:55:35 pm by danumdon »
You and your buddy should know, so why don't you tells us.

It seems that quite a few have already formed that opinion about you and your echo chamber.



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13582
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #61 on May 19, 2022, 10:36:22 pm by SydneyRover »
 :thumbsup:
You and your buddy should know, so why don't you tells us.

It seems that quite a few have already formed that opinion about you and your echo chamber.

So this is what it comes down to if anyone challenges your comment and is correct you revert back to foetus status and sling mud cos you're wrong, what a waste education was for you. You cannot have a debate with someone that has different values.

SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13582
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #62 on May 20, 2022, 06:54:30 am by SydneyRover »
And right on cue

''UK nuclear power stations’ decommissioning cost soars to £23.5bn

Failures in government’s investment strategy mean taxpayer has contributed £10.7bn in just two years''

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/20/uk-nuclear-power-stations-decommissioning-cost

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29201
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #63 on May 20, 2022, 08:18:27 am by drfchound »
:thumbsup:
You and your buddy should know, so why don't you tells us.

It seems that quite a few have already formed that opinion about you and your echo chamber.

So this is what it comes down to if anyone challenges your comment and is correct you revert back to foetus status and sling mud cos you're wrong, what a waste education was for you. You cannot have a debate with someone that has different values.

Jeez Syd, that statement could have been written by plenty of others about you cobber.
Glass houses etc.

BobG

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 9715
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #64 on May 20, 2022, 10:51:24 am by BobG »
But facts are facts irrespective of whether or not some folk can't see objective truth.

BobG

albie

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3611
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #65 on May 20, 2022, 12:57:51 pm by albie »
Hinckley Point falls another year behind schedule, and costs rise again way beyond the initial forecast.
https://www.egi.co.uk/news/hinckley-point-c-costs-rise-by-another-3bn/

Nuclear is a fool's investment that is high on cost and always subject to delays in delivery.
Which makes the position of Labour beyond all understanding.

In favour of a one off windfall tax, despite knowing that a further increase in prices is due in October, on the grounds of helping the vulnerable with the cost of living emergency.

At the same time, in favour of Sizewell C, which will repeat the Hinckley fiasco, cost at least 4x as much as a renewable solution (and that cost difference will increase).

The nuclear option will hard wire high energy costs into consumer bills, because of the new RAB funding mechanism passing those costs to consumers. Under the strike price for nuclear at Hinckley, the "contracts for difference" finance auction left EDF France with the infrastructure bill.

So against high bills for consumers, but no price cap to prevent them, and support for the most ruinous expensive electricity supply option.........it makes no sense at all, Rachel Reeves!
« Last Edit: May 20, 2022, 04:37:11 pm by albie »

ravenrover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 9511
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #66 on May 20, 2022, 04:50:53 pm by ravenrover »
As i understand it EDF pick up the bill for the overspend

albie

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3611
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #67 on May 20, 2022, 06:25:38 pm by albie »
RR,

Yes, that's correct for Hinckley.
That is why the Tories have changed the rules so that consumers will pick up the bill in future for Sizewell C and others.

This is about liability for the infrastructure cost.

There is a second consideration in the cost of electricity per unit produced by the facility.
High prices for nuclear leccy are required to give return on investment for private capital.

The same unit of leccy produced from renewables is way cheaper, so that can be reflected in bills.
Why Labour can't understand this is a mystery!

danumdon

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2343
Re: OFGEM
« Reply #68 on May 20, 2022, 08:10:10 pm by danumdon »
But facts are facts irrespective of whether or not some folk can't see objective truth.

BobG

Bob,

Can you tell me where in the quote below i have offended facts or objective truth?


Quote from: SydneyRover on May 19, 2022, 02:22:36 pm

    dd-

    ''The point i was trying to make was that renewables will require a zero emission backup until such a time exists that we don't need it, this cannot be any carbon based alternative so at this time it can only be nuclear power?''

    well maybe you should have said that instead of this and stop being a complete dick.

    ''More nonsense, when in your utopian world the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, you've run out of battery storage because you've raped the world of all it precious trace elements and your beloved pressure groups have rendered gas, biomass and coal redundant what are you going to do.

    Ill stick to my nuclear reactors whilst you ask your aboriginal friends how to dig for grubs and bugs.





 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012