UK Draft Energy Bill Avoids Banning Coal Or Gas Power 153
Bob the Super Hamste writes "The BBC is reporting that the UK's new Draft Energy Bill (PDF) avoids banning coal or gas powered plants. The bill would guarantee profits for new nuclear and offshore wind plants by putting a levy on people's energy bills. The bill does not mandate a statement that minsters had previously made about having totally clean energy within two decades. The government states that provisions within the bill will ensure a balanced diverse energy mix as well has stating that future emissions from gas powered plants will have to be captured and stored. The bill also aims to increase competition in the UK energy market by making it easier for new competitors to become connected to the grid. Joss Garman of Greenpeace states: 'By failing to set a clear goal for carbon-free electricity by 2030, ministers are opening the door to a dangerous new dash for gas that will put up both bills and carbon emissions, and increase our dependence on imported fuel. This means families and business will be exposed to rocketing international gas prices. The fastest and cheapest way to bring down bills and carbon emissions is by ramping up energy efficiency but Ministers have totally failed to deliver on this.' Additionally it would appear that the guarantee of profits for new nuclear power plants may not be legal as there is a ban on subsidies for nuclear power under European law and the UK coalition government agreement."
Note that wind projects are getting profit guarantees and not just nuclear.
Arbitrary efficiency standards lower costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
UK draft bill avoids fantasy land. Remains connected to reality.
Re:Pretty Much Expected from the Cameron Governmen (Score:5, Insightful)
One person's puppet of oil and gas is another person's guy trying not to implode the economy.
Re:Better headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
Small NUkes (Score:5, Insightful)
The nuclear industry needs to give up on the large, one off plants and come up with smaller, factory built nukes that can be installed in series, much like batteries.
These are being worked on and some already designed and in prototype stage, but taking them commercial is a regulatory hell.
People are always trying to get the federal government to "do something" that they are better off doing themselves or being done by local governments. But clearing the regulatory hurdles and standardizing these products is a perfect example of what the federal government should be doing.
Re:Better headline. (Score:4, Insightful)
UK draft bill fails to outlaw electricity. Lights still work.
Re:Why this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Guaranteed Profits (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it was just a matter of time.
1: Government builds the infrastructure.
Problem: Not profitable enough.
2: Make the government pay private companies to build infrastructure.
Problem: Not profitable enough.
3: Steal..err...privatize the infrastructure.
Problem: You still have to pay those damn progressive taxes, and what happens when you have to build new infrastructure?
4: Guarantee profits on new infrastructure and not via taxes. Instead just force the citizens to buy it so that it works like a regressive tax.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)