Just as with our gas supply, diversity of sources increases our energy security: renewables, fossil fuels and nuclear are not mutually exclusive. They work together to make our energy system more resilient.
Our aim is a policy that is technology-neutral. We want to encourage competitive tension between all forms of generation, to get the best deal for the consumer. So we are reforming the electricity market, to allow us to use whatever blend of low-carbon energy turns out to be cheapest.
Then why in fucking buggery do you have different prices for electricity produced from different sources?
Why are these prices determine by an 8% return on capital on the costs of those specific technologies?
If you actually wanted to be technology-neutral you would take the social costs of carbon (that $80-$120 a tonne CO2-e from Stern), apply it equally to all technologies and then stand back.
But you don\’t, you\’ve one price for solar small, another price for solar large, one for windmills, one for windmills in ponds, and so on: you\’ve even got a special price for \’leccie produced by restoring 14th century water mills*.
You are in fact doing exactly the opposite of what you claim you\’re doing. Something which makes you either ignorant, stupid or lying and most definitely a twat.
* Only a slight exaggeration: there are different prices for different sizes and types of hydro.