Power cut and ken livingstones comments

[Horgy]

Since 1998 electricity wholesale prices in the UK have fallen by around 40% with much of that saving passed on to businesses and householders - British Energy, which has higher costs than its competitors, could no longer compete.

No. It could no longer compete BECAUSE of the lower prices. Because there is hardly any regulation of the price of power, companies continually "play each other off" against each other to lower prices and win more customers. This lack of regulation also ensures that each penny is accounted for, and we see no upgrading of the power infrastructure. Then you get results like this weeks power cuts, and people scratch their heads and think - "Why did this happen?"

It's NIMBY principle. Everyone is FOR a new rail link, or FOR redevelopment, or FOR investment in ailing industry - but when it hits their own pocket, or it's near them, they suddenly don't want it.

If I said to you, I could offer you a railway that ran perfectly to time, that could get you to the other side of the country in an hour, in comfort and affordably, would you let me build it in a field behind your house?

Something to think about.

Horgy

[Goingnorth]

Yeah let British energy go under and AES while your at it. We'll all be back in the stone age in a couple of weeks with all the blackouts.

Private companies are cheaper and more efficient? Hmn, gross over simplification there. Take the Rail industry 4 time more expensive for a start. It all depends on where these costs are being saved TBH. Lack of investment perhaps? Paper thin safety margins? And what about all these bail outs for NATS, BE, RT and so on?

All these companies are essential to all our lifestyles...yes, even the railways that carry seventy odd percent of commuters to work in London and fuel to power stations. Just letting them go bust not an option, and they know it. Just because it's cheap, doesn't mean it's good. Nor on the other hand if it's expensive, is it any good.

It's value for money and a RELIABLE service...with BT, NTL, the water companies, the railways, air traffic control,the post office (because of competition from the private sector), tittering on the brink of collapse every now and again it's hardly success is it?

Sure, become more efficient..Good management will do that...

We don't want the unions running business, but neither do we want greedy fat cats.

[anakha]

No. It could no longer compete BECAUSE of the lower prices.

British Energy was going bust because of lower electricity prices and it's own high costs when compared to other companies generating and selling electricity. As I understand it, when British Energy asked the Government for it's £400million+ bailout, the wholesale price of electricity was about £16 per megawatt hour and British Energy needed about £19 to make a profit. If British Energy was unable to reduce its costs so that it could make a profit why should it be rescued with ever increasing amounts of taxpayers money?

Because there is hardly any regulation of the price of power, companies continually "play each other off" against each other to lower prices and win more customers.

Why should the price of a megawatt of electricity be regulated? If a company can generate electricity and sell it cheaper than another one why shouldn't that company win more customers and make more profit? You make it sound like lower prices are an evil to be avoided at all costs - what benefit is there in distorting the market by aiming for higher prices so that inefficient companies can be kept afloat?

This lack of regulation also ensures that each penny is accounted for, and we see no upgrading of the power infrastructure. Then you get results like this weeks power cuts, and people scratch their heads and think - "Why did this happen?"

There is no link between privatisation and the power cut last week. Didn't National Grid say the problem was that there were 2 almost simultaneous equipment faults and the last time this happened was in 1987. You can't take a situation that occurs every few years and hold that up as evidence that the whole system is falling apart due to under-investment or degrading of infrastructure. In-fact National Grid has made substantial investments in transmission and the UK has a margin of about 20% spare capacity over normal demand.

Additionally, it would be daft to demand that National Grid have some sort of backup or duplicate system to get round such problems when they occur in the future. It's a question of cost vs benefit - if someone buys a house with a central heating system would it be sensible for that person to install a second boiler, second set of pipes and a second radiator in every room in case a bit of the primary system failed?

[anakha]

Yeah let British energy go under and AES while your at it. We'll all be back in the stone age in a couple of weeks with all the blackouts.

Letting British Energy go bust would not have led to any power cuts at all. Firstly, if the company had gone bust and gone into receivership, any receiver would certainly have kept the plants running with the aim of selling them as a going concern. Even if British Energy's nuclear plants had been shut down, there is enough excess generating capacity in Britain to keep power supplied. For example, according to Ofgem there is currently 22% surplus supply and Powergen recently mothballed two units (amounting to 1,320 megawatts) at the Isle of Grain which could be brought back on-line.

However, with the loss of British Energy that excess would fall and the wholesale price for electricity would rise. That would cut demand, and encourage companies to build new plants, revive other mothballed ones or increase imports of electricity from France.

Private companies are cheaper and more efficient? Hmn, gross over simplification there. Take the Rail industry 4 time more expensive for a start. It all depends on where these costs are being saved TBH. Lack of investment perhaps? Paper thin safety margins? And what about all these bail outs for NATS, BE, RT and so on?

According to a 1997 study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA), in 1979-80 33 state companies, all later to be privatised, absorbed £500m of public funds as well as more than £1 billion in loan finance. By 1987, these same companies were contributing £8 billion a year to the Treasury in share sales, tax receipts and dividends. There are clear individual achievements. British Steel, which received an annual subsidy of about £1 billion on a turnover of less than £3 billion before privatisation became one of the lowest-cost steel producers in the world.

It was also reported that most customers were paying less for their utility bills. Since privatisation, the average telephone bill had declined in real terms by 49% whilst the average domestic gas bill had fallen by 31% since privatisation, and the average domestic electricity bill by 20%.

Additionally, NERA stated there had been widespread and sustained improvements in occupational safety in most privatised industries. Pretty strong evidence to suggest that the benefits of private ownership outweigh state ownership.

[Goingnorth]

Yeah let British energy go under and AES while your at it. We'll all be back in the stone age in a couple of weeks with all the blackouts.

Letting British Energy go bust would not have led to any power cuts at all. Firstly, if the company had gone bust and gone into receivership, any receiver would certainly have kept the plants running with the aim of selling them as a going concern. Even if British Energy's nuclear plants had been shut down, there is enough excess generating capacity in Britain to keep power supplied. For example, according to Ofgem there is currently 22% surplus supply and Powergen recently mothballed two units (amounting to 1,320 megawatts) at the Isle of Grain which could be brought back on-line.

However, with the loss of British Energy that excess would fall and the wholesale price for electricity would rise. That would cut demand, and encourage companies to build new plants, revive other mothballed ones or increase imports of electricity from France.

Private companies are cheaper and more efficient? Hmn, gross over simplification there. Take the Rail industry 4 time more expensive for a start. It all depends on where these costs are being saved TBH. Lack of investment perhaps? Paper thin safety margins? And what about all these bail outs for NATS, BE, RT and so on?

According to a 1997 study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA), in 1979-80 33 state companies, all later to be privatised, absorbed £500m of public funds as well as more than £1 billion in loan finance. By 1987, these same companies were contributing £8 billion a year to the Treasury in share sales, tax receipts and dividends. There are clear individual achievements. British Steel, which received an annual subsidy of about £1 billion on a turnover of less than £3 billion before privatisation became one of the lowest-cost steel producers in the world.

It was also reported that most customers were paying less for their utility bills. Since privatisation, the average telephone bill had declined in real terms by 49% whilst the average domestic gas bill had fallen by 31% since privatisation, and the average domestic electricity bill by 20%.

Additionally, NERA stated there had been widespread and sustained improvements in occupational safety in most privatised industries. Pretty strong evidence to suggest that the benefits of private ownership outweigh state ownership.

Strong evidence, but it's still a management issue rather than anything else.

I wouldn't have thought that if the cost of generator nuclear powered electricty was greater than the going rate (probably because of the H&S requirements) there would be many buyers. This would force the government to take over control until new stations could come online.

The alternative would be probably gas or coal. Both are not ideal solutions because gas is really a short term source and coal has serious environmental implications. Moreover, as many of the mines have been shut, it's likely that we would have to rely on overseas sources. Again not an idea situation.

[johndibben]

I'm always wary of figures as nuclear power has been proved to be the most ecomoical and the least economical form of power generation within a few years.

It's also easy to prove something is cheaper by leaving out hidden costs, albeit in good faith without any intention to deceive.

I'm off for a glass of milk which may or may not be good for me.

What day is it? Monday. It's normally OK on mondays

[Goingnorth]

Oh yeah, it's all manipulation of figures and stats to prove a point.

Simple example

Rail is the safest form of transport if you look at passenger journeys

Air is the safest form of transport if you look at passenger KM travelled.

Oh, could someone tell me with more people now at work, all these industries in the private sector, and more cars on the road paying tax...just why we are paying more tax than just about at any time?

[ianmacmillan]

I remember being told that British Steel, British Leyland, NCB etc were losing a million pounds a day.
I've always wondered what happened to all the money that was saved when they were privatised.

[Horgy]

Because there is hardly any regulation of the price of power, companies continually "play each other off" against each other to lower prices and win more customers.

Why should the price of a megawatt of electricity be regulated? If a company can generate electricity and sell it cheaper than another one why shouldn't that company win more customers and make more profit? You make it sound like lower prices are an evil to be avoided at all costs - what benefit is there in distorting the market by aiming for higher prices so that inefficient companies can be kept afloat?

OK. Well let's all buy our cigarettes from black market dealers then shall we? He can provide it cheaper than the government, so lets price the government out the market. And to hell with them because they can't provide it cheaper.

See how your point becomes almost idiotic? Everything needs regulation. Your post talked about the power REGULATOR OFGEM. That in itself is regulation.

My point was not that low prices are evil - it's a case of "Have one marshmellow now, or two tommorrow.." - People are simply choosing one now, and will see problems later on.

This lack of regulation also ensures that each penny is accounted for, and we see no upgrading of the power infrastructure. Then you get results like this weeks power cuts, and people scratch their heads and think - "Why did this happen?"

There is no link between privatisation and the power cut last week. Didn't National Grid say the problem was that there were 2 almost simultaneous equipment faults and the last time this happened was in 1987. You can't take a situation that occurs every few years and hold that up as evidence that the whole system is falling apart due to under-investment or degrading of infrastructure. In-fact National Grid has made substantial investments in transmission and the UK has a margin of about 20% spare capacity over normal demand.

Additionally, it would be daft to demand that National Grid have some sort of backup or duplicate system to get round such problems when they occur in the future. It's a question of cost vs benefit - if someone buys a house with a central heating system would it be sensible for that person to install a second boiler, second set of pipes and a second radiator in every room in case a bit of the primary system failed?

No. But for essential services, an entire portion of a city should not be put into a blackout situation. If this is going to happen every two years, then there is obviously a problem.

You also misunderstand the UK's spare energy margin. We ON AVERAGE, have that much spare. But at peak times, we actually have a deficit - hence the big cable under the Channel from France. During the rush hour we have to import energy from France to cover our losses. What would happen if I removed that cable? We'd be up . creek, because we are running on a system that does not have ENOUGH excess built into it. And a fine example is our recent powercut.

By basing your post on figures you become credible, but figures can be misused. The actual situation in the UK is at peak times we are teetering on the edge of constant brownouts, yet during the night, we have a 40% surplus.

Horgy

[johndibben]

I remember being told that British Steel, British Leyland, NCB etc were losing a million pounds a day.
I've always wondered what happened to all the money that was saved when they were privatised.

We stopped giving them money and bought stuff from overseas, like coal.

It was cheaper. If you forget the miners and the industries and shops that depended on them and the security of producing your own raw materials and not open to be held to ransom when our industries are irreversably lost

I was told we'd all be oil shieks by 1980. Many can only afford a tent to live in, so I suppose it wasn't a complete lie

[ianmacmillan]

"Made in England"

replaced by

"Made in China by Children"

[johndibben]

And the UK preaches to other countries and helps to destroy them.

Earth shattering hypocrisy

I still have a pair of scales which has 'Foreign' stamped on them.

I remember that was the law for imported goods many years ago.

Anyone know when?

[60085]

German coal is . anyway. It's not quality sh!t like the seams under the North Sea.
Why couldn't they be satisfied with us buying their cars and beer.


60085 "MANNA".

[bjdick]

Britain pioneered nuclear power for one reason only,to get weapons grade plutonium.

After the Windscale fire(simple air cooled reactors),the public was sold on the lie that if gas cooled steam raising reactors were built,at 100% cost to the same public,electricity would be so cheap,it wouldn't be worth metering it to consumers.

The generating thermal efficiency of a nuclear plant is the same as a coal fired plant as they both use steam turbines.Indeed a nuclear plant could have a lower thermal efficiency,as the steam conditions may not have as high a superheat as a coal\oil fired installation.

[60085]

Still, it isn't accompanied by thousands of miners going on strike or marching down to London from Jarrow.

What we need is Fusion reactors. They only cost 50,000 Simoleans and are 3 times as efficient as the Fusion reactors in Simcity .


60085 "MANNA".