Time for state owned Nuclear Power

smartn

In my opinion nuclear is critical to our long term energy supplies and unfortunately we can no longer be held to ransom by private sector companies. I'm not a fan of state controlled anything but could this be the exception. Nuclear has to be safe first and foremost and this could be better handled by our own state nuclear industry. I'd welcome opinions from both sides of the fence.

ILW

smartn wrote: »

In my opinion nuclear is critical to our long term energy supplies and unfortunately we can no longer be held to ransom by private sector companies. I'm not a fan of state controlled anything but could this be the exception. Nuclear has to be safe first and foremost and this could be better handled by our own state nuclear industry. I'd welcome opinions from both sides of the fence.

We don't have a state nuclear industry.

Generali

The state gave us WW1 and the Gulag. Free enterprise gave us Thalidomide and the GFC but at least they did it efficiently.

Chernobyl was state run. 3 Mile Island was probably privately run but I CBA to look it up.

smartn

ILW wrote: »

We don't have a state nuclear industry.

Not at present we dont. We certainly used to. The problem we have now is we can be held to ransom by companies like EDF.

Mallotum_X

ILW wrote: »

We don't have a state nuclear industry.

Exactly, hence the suggestion that perhaps we should?

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

We don't have a state nuclear industry.

Who is running the existing sites?

Who is funding the run down of the existing Magnox sites?

It may have a private front end but who effectively underwrites it and governs ultimate strategy?

Who will end up responsible for the waste?

I do wonder whether EDF will take their dirty waste back to France or just tip it over the fence at Sellafield.

MS1950

ILW wrote: »

We don't have a state nuclear industry.

We do - but it's owned by another state....

The French state still owns 85% of EDF:

http://shareholders-and-investors.edf.com/edf-share/shareholding-structure-42691.html

grizzly1911

MS1950 wrote: »

We do - but it's owned by another state....

The French state still owns 85% of EDF:

http://shareholders-and-investors.edf.com/edf-share/shareholding-structure-42691.html

I find it interesting that we weren't interested in any direct state control in our energy generally but both German and French governments were.

[Deleted User]

I am no great fan of nuclear power, but I confess that I have been wondering about this too. We are constantly being told that the private sector is preferable to the public sector, as the profit motive ensures lower costs and more efficiency.

Why would the same person work more efficiently simply on the basis of who his boss was? Can no structure be thought up where a "public sector" company employs the same people on the same salaries and bonuses as would be paid in a private sector company, and on the same conditions of service - discipline/performance etc - to produce energy for the public good but without the profits distributed to shareholders?

Serious question. After all the work of charities or not for profit social enterprises are lauded - when they do things that public sector employees used to do; so why can't the same public spiritedness come forward in the energy sector? Or is this sort of thing ok as long it doesn't significantly affect large companies and their profits? Or if the statement about the French government owning 85% of EDF is true, why is it ok for UK consumers to contribute to the French Government's coffers but not to those of the UK?

WR

N1AK

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Why would the same person work more efficiently simply on the basis of who his boss was? Can no structure be thought up where a "public sector" company employs the same people on the same salaries and bonuses as would be paid in a private sector company, and on the same conditions of service - discipline/performance etc - to produce energy for the public good but without the profits distributed to shareholders?

A public sector company won't fail and go bankrupt and generally doesn't have a profit motive. Those are typically the two things that lead to the kind of inefficiencies public organisations are often criticised for.

Many private businesses are inefficient and thus go out of businesses. Theoretically that should ensure that private businesses are normally efficient. Public institutions don't have that filtering mechanism. If the NHS was massively less efficient than it could be it continues to run, when if it was a private organisation it would be forced out of the marketplace.

There are ways to moderate this. Just look at what Hitler did with hospitals and healthcare in the mid-late 1930s; public organisations competing against each other and the weakest being closed down.

IronWolf

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I am no great fan of nuclear power, but I confess that I have been wondering about this too. We are constantly being told that the private sector is preferable to the public sector, as the profit motive ensures lower costs and more efficiency.

Why would the same person work more efficiently simply on the basis of who his boss was? Can no structure be thought up where a "public sector" company employs the same people on the same salaries and bonuses as would be paid in a private sector company, and on the same conditions of service - discipline/performance etc - to produce energy for the public good but without the profits distributed to shareholders?

Serious question. After all the work of charities or not for profit social enterprises are lauded - when they do things that public sector employees used to do; so why can't the same public spiritedness come forward in the energy sector? Or is this sort of thing ok as long it doesn't significantly affect large companies and their profits? Or if the statement about the French government owning 85% of EDF is true, why is it ok for UK consumers to contribute to the French Government's coffers but not to those of the UK?

WR

Its to do with management. In a public company the CEO needs to do well otherwise he'll face a shareholder revolt and get sacked. That filters all the way through to the middle management.

That just doesn't happen in the public sector, they get given a budget and then decide how to spend it. There is no active market to pressurise upper management like in PLCs. Also CEOs in PLCs will have a large amount invested in share themselves, alligning their interests with the efficiency of the company.

Individual workers wont be any more productive in the private than public sector, but if the organisation is designed efficiently by the management, and the number of staff is controlled well than it will be more efficient as a company.