Solar ... In the news

1961Nick · 20 May 2019 at 11:16AM

pile-o-stone wrote: »

The main issue with the public ownership of companies like BT, British Gas, British Rail, etc. was lack of investment. The profits from these companies went into the public purse and was spent elsewhere.

The only way re-nationalising companies will work is if they are financially ring fenced where the profits remain with those companies and are reinvested in infrastructure, training and pay.

Is the debt that is created by taking these companies into public ownership also ring fenced? If so, that debt will need servicing & the cost could be more, less or the same as paying dividends to shareholders. Perhaps I should ask Diane Abbott?:rotfl:

Martyn1981 · 20 May 2019 at 11:49AM

pile-o-stone wrote: »

The main issue with the public ownership of companies like BT, British Gas, British Rail, etc. was lack of investment. The profits from these companies went into the public purse and was spent elsewhere.

The only way re-nationalising companies will work is if they are financially ring fenced where the profits remain with those companies and are reinvested in infrastructure, training and pay.

The lack of investment is very true, and I suspect because whichever party was in power, didn't want to be seen as the one impacting our bills ...... and then our votes.

Now when energy bills go up, the government 'slags off' the companies, which is a way of raising bills, and raising votes.

I have a small amount of personal experience, as I worked for the Environment Division of the Welsh Office just after water privatisation. Folk will recall bills rising massively. The water companies had 5yr 'K's', a percentage above inflation that they could raise bills by. These would be reviewed each 5yrs, but something like a 5%k on top of 2% or 3% inflation, adds up very fast. Again, I suspect we all remember this.

But, I also got to see the other side of it, with storm overflows from sewerage to rivers being steadily removed, the building of massive sewage treatment works, Swansea (day out for us, I kid you not ..... wow the smell!), Cardiff, Barry Bathing Waters etc, all in the region of £50m. Before this, sewage was stored in tanks, having simply gone through some metal screens to remove large debris, then discharged through short(ish) sea outfall pipes at high tide. After the treatment plants (including catching and using methane) a clear liquid resembling water (but I wouldn't suggest drinking it) was discharged via long sea outfall pipes.

I'm sure there has been a lot of profit making from privatisation, but national ownership combined with political fears over bill rises is a bad combination. If such a route is taken then long (5yr+) cross party agreements should be made on bills, so no party can use them to win votes, or knock other parties, or fear good investment.

Martyn1981 · 20 May 2019 at 11:59AM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If such a route is taken then long (5yr+) cross party agreements should be made on bills, so no party can use them to win votes, or knock other parties, or fear good investment.

Just thought of a good example. In the US they have a 'gas tax' on petrol and diesel. This money goes toward infrastructure such as highways, bridges etc.

In the US, no party wants to mention raising gas tax, as they'd be the party that 'hates America' given that Americans love cars and driving.

The result is crumbling infrastructure due to under-investment - all parties agree. The solution (or part of the solution) is to raise the gas tax - all parties agree. Raising the tax would be 'bad' for the party in charge at the time - all parties agree.

So the [STRIKE]solution[/STRIKE] outcome - the tax of 18.4c/gall(US) hasn't been raised since 1993, despite inflation from 1993-2018 totaling 73%.

It seems to me that most governments are run by people who fear irrational voters, especially if they have loud voices. Plus the US also suffers from most politicians (especially Republicans) getting millions from FF interests for campaign funding (not bribes

).

KevinG · 20 May 2019 at 12:22PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So the [STRIKE]solution[/STRIKE] outcome - the tax of 18.4c/gall(US) hasn't been raised since 1993, despite inflation from 1993-2018 totaling 73%.

It hasn't been raised for nine years here either, for similar reasons.

EricMears · 20 May 2019 at 12:52PM

We of course used to have the "Road Fund Licence" - a payment in respect of every car hypothecated for provision & maintenance of roads. The name got changed when successive governments realised they could divert the proceeds wherever they wanted.

GreatApe · 21 May 2019 at 4:01PM

pile-o-stone wrote: »

The main issue with the public ownership of companies like BT, British Gas, British Rail, etc. was lack of investment. The profits from these companies went into the public purse and was spent elsewhere.

The only way re-nationalising companies will work is if they are financially ring fenced where the profits remain with those companies and are reinvested in infrastructure, training and pay.

The actual problem with nationalized companies is they have an incentive to be inefficient

I used to work for British steel at a site that had 30,000 men working
It was then privatized and the all but around 4,000 workers were fired while production actually went up

What this means is that in state hands 26,000 men were hired just to pretend to work
you had workers who had helpers whos only jobs were to carry their tools
You had workers who would come in, have nothing to do, sleep for a 12 hour shift, then go home

etc

Can a company be nationalized and not fall into the same lazy inefficient practices that existed in the past? Perhaps the government could take over utilities etc and just keep them as separate private companies and just own 85% + of the shares in the company like France does with EDF

Maybe this could work if they funded the purchase of the shares with 2% coupon gilts and got 5% dividends as a result. Spending £100 billion would provide a net £3 billion profit assuming Diane abbot the chancellor could resist meddling. There would be no price cut for customers or improved service or more investment just a simple arbitrage of gilts vs dividends

Actually the saving would be less as you'd have £3 billion less flowing to dividend would have to pay dividend taxes so maybe closer to £2 billion net

Overall I dont think its a worthwhile en devour especially as the MPs would not be able to resist making things worse with political decisions rather than business or engineering or productivity deciisons

Martyn1981 · 22 May 2019 at 12:08PM

US solar plus storage prices beating coal and new build gas. Savings for the energy firms and customers when switching to RE.

Affordable solar-plus-storage ‘hard to beat’ for coal

According to IEEFA, PacifiCorp’s coal units can’t compete with “cheaper and cleaner alternatives” despite their high power performance levels. For the firm – reportedly the largest grid operator in the US West – the savings from early closures could reach the US$248 million mark, depending on scenarios.

According to the review led by Fluence, utilities opting for solar-plus-storage can expect lower LCOEs (US$39-US$48/MWh) than comparable mid-merit NGCC plants (US$60-$116/MWh). For reference, some of PacifiCorp’s coal units feature LCOEs above the US$85/MWh threshold, based on the firm’s own stats.

Martyn1981 · 26 May 2019 at 11:53AM

France is planning a big growth in PV. They are aiming to double capacity to 20GW by 2023, then add a further 24GW by 2028. That second period is a seriously large annual growth. Nice.

The weekend read: Preparing for take-off

zeupater · 26 May 2019 at 1:12PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

France is planning a big growth in PV. They are aiming to double capacity to 20GW by 2023, then add a further 24GW by 2028. That second period is a seriously large annual growth. Nice.

The weekend read: Preparing for take-off

Hi

Does that mean that every time someone tries to convince us that we shouldn't be looking to build more PV capacity in the UK but instead follow the energy generation source strategy used in France, we have little option available other than to shrug our shoulders & chuckle at the hypocrisy and total strategic misreading that agreement would involve? ...

.... For the times they are a-changin' ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 · 26 May 2019 at 2:18PM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Does that mean that every time someone tries to convince us that we shouldn't be looking to build more PV capacity in the UK but instead follow the energy generation source strategy used in France, we have little option available other than to shrug our shoulders & chuckle at the hypocrisy and total strategic misreading that agreement would involve? ...

.... For the times they are a-changin' ...

HTH
Z

So much fuss over just a couple of letters - fission, fusion, how different can they possibly be? :whistle:

Solar ... In the news

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free