Time for state owned Nuclear Power

[Deleted User]

I'm sure that those in fuel poverty will be relieved that the present energy generation and distribution arrangements are working out so well for them.

WR

Thrugelmir

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Exactly, hence the suggestion that perhaps we should?

Without the technical expertise then it's a no-goer.

antrobus

IronWolf wrote: »

...That just doesn't happen in the public sector, ...

In the public sector, it seems that you can even kill as many as as 1200 of your customers and still keep your job.

ILW

antrobus wrote: »

In the public sector, it seems that you can even kill as many as as 1200 of your customers and still keep your job.

Guaranteed promotion.

CLAPTON

it's competition that leads to innovation and efficiency

monopolies, whether private or state run have few incentives to reduce costs, innovate or run a lean ship.

Jamie_Carter

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

Te tax payer is most likely paying for decommisioning of the old magnox sites, and disposing of the waste. But EDF are most likely making a nice profit out of generating electricity.

I still think that alternative energy sources need to be explored more.

Sweey_as_a_nut

One thing I have found out during the last week since Margaret Thatchers demise is we are now paying 10% more for our power and gas thanks to the sell off of those state owned industries. So that's one reason why you would not wish to manufacture in the UK, And of course it will keep going up and up, apart from the cost of the raw product there is that lovely little incentive for us to switch, a bottle of wine, a crate of wine, £30 cash back and they will think of more as time goes on. I wonder who'll bear the cost of that little lot?

ILW

Sweey_as_a_nut wrote: »

One thing I have found out during the last week since Margaret Thatchers demise is we are now paying 10% more for our power and gas thanks to the sell off of those state owned industries. So that's one reason why you would not wish to manufacture in the UK, And of course it will keep going up and up, apart from the cost of the raw product there is that lovely little incentive for us to switch, a bottle of wine, a crate of wine, £30 cash back and they will think of more as time goes on. I wonder who'll bear the cost of that little lot?

What do you base that statement on?

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

In the public sector, it seems that you can even kill as many as as 1200 of your customers and still keep your job.

I take it you mean in a hospital where sick people with chromic illnesses and critical emergency cases go?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's competition that leads to innovation and efficiency

monopolies, whether private or state run have few incentives to reduce costs, innovate or run a lean ship.

Competition that leads to corners being cut to maintain that competitive edge or selling needless products at high prices to gullible consumers.

Often monopolies have to provide consistent, safe, resilient, reliable, continuously available services that are available on demand. Providing that means increased overhead.