taking from the poor and giving to the rich

[An_Inspector_Calls]

"great, now we can frack and use shale for the next 100 years"

Well that's not a policy you've had from me - see the 'other thread'. But I would send renewables back to the lab. for more development as none of them, bar hydro, are fit for purpose at present.

Calum seems intent upon climate change and a supposed Marshall scandal . . .

[ahinton]

Well that's not a policy you've had from me - see the 'other thread'. But I would send renewables back to the lab. for more development as none of them, bar hydro, are fit for purpose at present.

Calum seems intent upon climate change and a supposed Marshall scandal . . .

.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

no i am intent on not letting you off with your statements AIC

here is a reflection on Marshall in 1986 when he had been head of CEGB for 3 years

In February 1981 the Select Committee on
Energy reported on this policy change. This report
was followed by a Monopolies and Mergers
Commission (MMC) report on the investment
decision making record of the Central Electricity
Generating Board (CEGB). The Select Committee
supported the cancellation of two further AGRs
at Heysham and Torness and were ‘unconvinced’
that the CEGB and the Government had made out
a solid case for such a big nuclear programme.
They were joined by the MMC in criticising the
CEGB’s investment appraisal and demand
forecasting assumptions and procedures.

from the excellent document linked to above i commend the reading of all of it to you ... Marshall was ennobled by Thatcher for his part in defeating the miners in the 80s ..... actually all i think he cared about was nuclear energy and he may well have been right in that

the argument about subsidies is difficult and not nearly as simple as you make it AIC; you take a very narrow view of the subsidies, along with the City economists; they are intended to both broaden the range of supply; enable reduction in carbon emissions in line with our international agreements, and create new industrial sectors and employment ... all of which if realised would help the poor rather more than the City and its apologists ...

i am arguing that in the energy field, just as in the economic and financial, the arguments are publicly framed to mask the consequences for the poor and to hide how the misappropriation of wealth occurs .... if the City is complaining about wind subsidies it is only because they miss out on the deal ... if there was loot in it for them they would not be so vociferous....

oh and try this for light reading AIC

i promise to make no further reference to the climate or the CEGB on this thread but i may start another one as AIC has provoked as pell of further reading for which many thanks!

[Dave2002]

Well that's not a policy you've had from me - see the 'other thread'. But I would send renewables back to the lab. for more development as none of them, bar hydro, are fit for purpose at present.

Calum seems intent upon climate change and a supposed Marshall scandal . . .

Sorry, but I thought you were tending that way. We may be in agreement over some things, but seeming to praise the US for a rapid CO2 reduction brought about by fracking ignores the different situation in the US compared with the UK and Europe. The US is still one of the major polluters. It is good that they have made improvements at least partially due to fracking, but we are almost certainly in a different place.

In relative terms gas based generation plants seem better than coal regarding some environmental factors. If, for example, it were feasible to replace Drax by gas turbine generators, that would probably be a good thing. Mackay has pointed out that it would be very hard to sustain the UK using renewables, but that doesn't mean that renewables shouldn't be part of an energy mix, and they should over all reduce pollution and CO2 output. I note the concerns about adding renewable generation reducing the overall efficiency of the fuel burning generators and the operation of the grid because of the need for stand-by generation. It could be worth responding to the challenges, rather than returning to business as usual.

Sorry, we are back off topic again. There might be an effective transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich or better off due to subsidies in energy production, and these are at both large and small scales. I say "might be" because some of the subsidies are to encourage better off people to invest in renewables, but these may still require an up front investment, with a suggested break even period of 10-20 years even with the subsidies. If these "investments" work out (for example, for PV or solar water heating for domestic users), then the well off should over a long period get a benefit, though in the short term they are worse off. The poor are penalised by having to pay extra for electricity and gas to support any payouts, and they probably don't get any long term benefit either - if we ignore issues about CO2 and pollution.

I think similar considerations apply to larger scale investments and subsidies. There could be an argument that everybody loses with "investment" in renewable energy systems, though this may not be known yet. We do know that some projects are projected to have a pay back period of hundreds of years, if indeed they ever do break even. If the supposed benefits of reduction of pollution and CO2 do not materialise, so that we might just as well have continued with the burning of fossil fuels, then that would clearly have been a poor investment. Even if there are benefits in reduction of pollution and CO2, those who do not care about this, or who think that these have no effect on climate, will still see this as a poor strategy.

Perhaps it is still too early to tell. It might still be better for the well off to make what might turn out to be poor investments in renewable energy systems, rather than to indulge in more serious polluting activities, such as flying round the world, though advocates of "trickle down" might suggest that even this can have economic benefits which impact the lives of poorer people.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs. However, I was not ignoring the different conditions in the US (albeit rural Pennsylvania is lovely countryside), nor the scale of US emissions but they were irrelevant in context. If we really want renewables in the generation mix then, given the present poor quality of windmill design and PV performance I'd build the Severn Barrage. It's the cheapest renewable available, will last more than 100 years, provides flood mitigation and improved communication links, would have high reliability, provide a solid basis for pension fund investment, would be predictable, despatchable and even capable of providing secondary response, and would also generate firm, skilled job opportunities throughout its life.

But all that should be on the other thread.

[amateur51]

I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs. However, I was not ignoring the different conditions in the US (albeit rural Pennsylvania is lovely countryside), nor the scale of US emissions but they were irrelevant in context. If we really want renewables in the generation mix then, given the present poor quality of windmill design and PV performance I'd build the Severn Barrage. It's the cheapest renewable available, will last more than 100 years, provides flood mitigation and improved communication links, would have high reliability, provide a solid basis for pension fund investment, would be predictable, despatchable and even capable of providing secondary response, and would also generate firm, skilled job opportunities throughout its life.

But all that should be on the other thread.

It's not immediately clear to whom you are making a reply, AIC

[Beef Oven]

I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs. However, I was not ignoring the different conditions in the US (albeit rural Pennsylvania is lovely countryside), nor the scale of US emissions but they were irrelevant in context. If we really want renewables in the generation mix then, given the present poor quality of windmill design and PV performance I'd build the Severn Barrage. It's the cheapest renewable available, will last more than 100 years, provides flood mitigation and improved communication links, would have high reliability, provide a solid basis for pension fund investment, would be predictable, despatchable and even capable of providing secondary response, and would also generate firm, skilled job opportunities throughout its life.

But all that should be on the other thread.

Your ideas stink of savvy.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well i think AIC has a relevant point just too narrow; it is clear that the energy sector and especially fossil fuels benefits from huge subsidy from the tax base , but the recipients of subsidy are large corporations not the poor ... on a global basis

and this may prove illuminating

energy, agriculture, food, guns, pharma ... the corporate vested interest along with finance drive and own our politics ..... they have no wish for light to be shed either on their influence or how their real business models [hardly free market capitalism for these guys, oligopoly rule eh] work

the managerialist culture of rewards without accountability, agency capture of stakeholder interests [think bbc salaries under Thompson eh] and just plain old corruption are draining the life out of our country ....the public sector is pilloried or drained of cash by preying multinationals; our private sector is a joke ...north of Watford there is not one really, just a stretch of jobbing sheds getting by on little ... [and unlike the Archbishop of Cantebury i do believe in locking these crooks up ....]

the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of our country's elites is i believe the worst we have ever seen ... our political system can not address our problems ... we do not need new policies, nor to argue about this or that since it is idle.... there is no agency that can deliver solutions in the UK .... and likely the whole EU as well ....we are in very dangerous times .... this is i believe what concerned my young friend in his relentless intellectual demolition of any optimism ....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

“the central lesson of the last 30 years is that an economic model that allows the richest members of society to accumulate a larger and larger share of the cake will eventually self-destruct. It is a lesson, it appears, that has yet to be learned”.

from

[aeolium]

the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of our country's elites is i believe the worst we have ever seen ... our political system can not address our problems ... we do not need new policies, nor to argue about this or that since it is idle.... there is no agency that can deliver solutions in the UK .... and likely the whole EU as well ....we are in very dangerous times ....

Here is a telling report on austerity, its effects and discontents.

[amateur51]

Thanks for posting, aeolium

[Serial_Apologist]

Socialism is, of course, being written right out of any possible equation - even if it takes demeaning the least offensive. least tangible exemplar of socialism that the British Labour Party has yet managed to come up with as its leader, after any number of internal culls almost, one would think, designed to root out constructive analysis let alone any meaningful alternative.

I wonder if David Harvey has anything extra to say.

[eighthobstruction]

oh dear....

[amateur51]

Perverse charity from the people who bring us ASDA over here ...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/18/2960371/walmart-food-drive/

Cameron and IDS and Gideon are not fooled by Food Banks of course

[Serial_Apologist]

Perverse charity from the people who bring us ASDA over here ...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/18/2960371/walmart-food-drive/

Cameron and IDS and Gideon are not fooled by Food Banks of course

Maybe, in times of cuts, it's easier for some to feel good about themselves if charities replacing welfare state provisions have displays in supermarkets, in front of which one can make a show of one's generosity being more important than considering the volunteer/paid work dilemma, than by quietly voting for higher taxes?