Glorious Compass!

If the building of new nuclear plants goes ahead we will all be expected to pay an extra levy on our bills to pay for it, this could be as much as 10% extra. This demonstrates how wrong the balance between private and public contribution is and the urgent need for greater equilibrium between the two.

….

We should be investing vast sums in decentralised and renewable energy. Generously subsidised micro-generation in every single home across the country, coupled with a much more ambitious mass programme to insulate our homes and offices must become absolutely central to the government\’s energy strategy.

Nuclear\’s bad because it requires subsidy. Therefore we should have renewables which require more subsidy.

Err, yes…..

Why are these people taken seriously?

11 thoughts on “Glorious Compass!”

  1. JuliaM-
    Wish it were so, but there are many in the USA Congress that will think this is a wonderful idea.
    Demonstrable idiots shouldn’t matter, but…. Especially if General Electric takes an interest.
    Don’t you think it will be exciting to have your average household or housing unit generating their own electricity? I mean, what could go wrong?
    And of course, they will want to still be connected to the grid for back-up/standby service.

  2. Tim-
    Is that supposed 10% a subsidy, per se-or just the normal “Construction-work-in-progress” and/or “Interest on Construction” typical types of electric service rate provisons?

  3. Going off at a tangent but inspired by this excellent blog. Something has been confusing me over this ecology thing:

    I keep hearing about the terrible carbon foot print or whatever about a third runway at Heathrow. As I understand it the crazies don’t wont it built because it is bad for the environment.

    So this is my question and I am sure some good Samaritan out there will enlighten me. If the crazies get their way and a third runway is not built then it will go somewhere else and nothing will have been accomplished as far as the carbon footprint is concerned?

  4. Antisthenes
    You may well find that a goodly number opf the protesters live in the flight path of the new runway.

  5. Dizzy Ringo, So their arguments about carbon foot print are worthless and so much smoke screen? So why is this not pointed out, so ending the objection once and for all?

  6. @6, it is, frequently.

    However, the carbon-based argument of the Plane Stupid lot (who, in fairness to them, tend not to live in the flightpath) is that if we don’t expand LHR, that will actually lead to a reduction in aviation’s overall growth – particularly if their friends in the Netherlands and Germany work similarly to block expansions at AMS and FRA.

    Congestion will persuade people to shift to rail for domestic and near-Europe flights; at the same time, airlines will dump short-haul flights so they can use their slots for more profitable (and less substitutable) long-haul, leading to further modal shift to rail for shorter journeys.

  7. Thank you John b, I have now got the picture. So in the real world if switching from air to rail was practical and economic it would happen anyway if not it would not.

    So surely the argument now has to be what impact to the environment a third runway would have in terms of cost and impact, so :
    1. The impact question is unknowable because current scientific knowledge is too imprecise and can not prove evidentialy cause or effect.
    2. The cost of not having the runway may exceed the cost of having it financially in terms of future cost of any damage it may incur environmentally (the cost of prevention may exceed the cost of the cure at some later date if there is any need for a cure, which no one knows).

    If my analysis is correct then the “plane stupid” need to be ignored until such time that they can come back with coherent and valid arguments that prove that the financial and environmental costs in the future of having a third runway far exceed the costs of not having one.

  8. “coupled with a much more ambitious mass programme to insulate our homes and offices”

    I don’t know whether you’ve been keeping up with the results of our subsidised insulation scheme in Australia. An unlimited, no co-payment, non-means tested rebate of something like $AU1600 per household. Which of course resulted in the following
    – Armies of briefly trained installers going door to door touting free insulation.
    – No quote under the cap of course.
    – Several houses burning down due to improperly installed insulation, either fibreglass plonked over halogen lighting or foil electrified by contact with wiring.
    – And of course, now that they’ve pulled demand forward for virtually every job in the country, the existing industry is fucked for the next ten years and all the people who were briefly employed in the sudden expansion go back to the dole.
    – But they can always rehire them to do all the inspections and repairs that are going to soak up the remaining money in a $3b programme.

    The government is trying to claim that it’s the employers’ fault that things went bad – and so it is. But if you dump a heap of free money into one sector you’re going to see cowboys taking advantage of it. They couldn’t see that coming?

  9. Actually Ltw, from what I have read that insulation has been implicated in several hundred house fires, and it has killed four people. And now no-one who has had this foil insulation installed can now feel secure, because if their roof isn’t live now, it could become so at some time in the future, and there is no non-lethal way of finding out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *