Ali feeds the beast

Take a look at the latest budget. Here is what Alastair Tracy said about plastic bags. (pdf see page 18)

Legislation would come into force in 2009 and based on other countries'
experience, it could lead to a 90 percent reduction, with around 12 billion
fewer plastic bags in circulation.

The money raised should go to environmental charities.

Yes, the marionette gave the royal Thunderbirds are Go to shovelling a load of tax money into the pockets of the Usual Suspects, who, as they tend to do, will funnel it to their terrorism direct action division, where they will use it to further their brand of "non-violent" violence, including attacking the new nuclear power stations the government itself wants to build.

It's like giving money to Gerry Adams to organise the St. Patrick's Day celebrations.

Many environmental charities these days, particularly the more well known ones are nothing of the sort. They're political campaigning organisations masquerading as charitable organisations, who use donations made in good faith to fund illegal campaigning tactics.

And more to the point, a charity is supposed to be dependent on, you know, charity, not subsidy. A charity receiving state funding is no longer a charity, but is a QUANGO. Not only do we have enough in this country, but we certainly don't need ones which financially support criminal behaviour.

Still, it is a very effective policy by El Gordo and the marionette. By giving the revenues from the plastic bag tax to environmental charities, it means their profits are directly related to plastic bag use. I can think of nothing more likely to stop me from using plastic bags than the thought that it will be sending wads of cash straight into the pockets of Greenpeace.

Now where are resuable shopping bags my asset gave me?

Is Clegg on course for calamity?

Mike Smithson has got the scoop on public opinion to the government's green light to new nuclear reactors. Unsurprisingly, Conservative supporters are largely in favour. Labour supporters are fairly onboard too. But the funny bit is that among LibDem supporters, approval is much higher than disapproval.

Kind of goes to show how far away planet LibDem is from the real world and the people who would vote for them.

NB if you want a laugh, get a load of Tim13 in the comment thread trying to use Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry as an example of reactors polluting their surroundings.

Crunch time is here

The Cabinet has given the green light.

Now will they have the strength and competence to push it forward?

All the government should provide is a proper and sensible regulatory framework, clarity on back end processes (if the government is to handle final waste disposal, what charge is to paid for that service) and most importantly bamboo sticks to bludgeon any Usual Suspects who approach nuclear facilities.

Because Alex Salmond has control of the planning system is Scotland, he has ruled out any possibility of new reactors being built here. This of course means that Scotland's energy infrastructure will collapse in the next few years, no doubt to be replaced by natural gas and imports from England if what the government say comes to pass. Maybe in a few years time, "It's Scotland's oil!" will be replaced by "It's England's actinides!" as the new nationalist obsession.

NB you'll note in typical BBC style, right at the top of the article is a link to listen to the "Greenpeace view". As if they have anything original to say.

Crunch time approaches

Thursday is the big day. El Gordo is expected to announce that the nuclear renaissance will at last be coming to these shores directly, (verses indirectly whereby we buy electricity from Flamanville-3 in France).

On the positive side, the BBC article hints that this green light will be entirely at market discretion, with the operators picking up the bill for decommissioning and for waste handling. That is of course as it should be.

On the negative side, it still doesn't stop this Government of All the Talentless from cocking up the second review. This is exactly the kind of ammunition needed to give the Usual Suspects a chance to cause more trouble.

She said it, it must be true

This straight out of the Queen's speech.

My Government will introduce legislation to provide clean, secure and
affordable supplies of energy.

That proves it. El Gordo is going to see the construction of new nuclear power stations in Britain. That's certainly the BBC's conclusion from it. Either way, very good.

Have the Tories just saved their immortal souls?

The Conservative's Quality of Life report is coming out soon, part of the blitz of reports launched by Cammy with policy ideas for the party to pick and choose as they please (essentially a smart way of testing the waters before commiting to anything). I don't know how it got that name because it seems to be more of a report on Greeniness.

The report was written by John Gummer (eww!) and Zac Goldsmith (triple eww!). Naturally, our hopes were not set high. However, latest leaks appear to suggest it isn't as bad as we think. If these leaks are true, Gummer managed to swing Goldsmith round to accepting nuclear power.

Gummer, whose constituency includes the Sizewell B nuclear power station, will
also signal Tory support for nuclear power. Tests will be set for the industry,
but Cameron will be given an escape route from his description of nuclear power
as an option of 'last resort'.

Signing up to nuclear power marks a major shift for Goldsmith. Only three months ago, he told The Observer that he would
'fight like hell' if the party declared that nuclear power was good.

Good news! I'll give Goldsmith credit for moderated, though I would still prefer if Susan Kramer held her seat (not often I want a LibDem hold).

EDIT: Whoops! Spoke too soon.

The group will also suggest scrapping Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure
of the nation's success in favour of a model that measures people's happiness
drawn up up by Friends of the Earth.

Never mind the twatological use of "happiness" as some kind of scientifically measureable quantity, if Cammy chooses to trust Friends of the Earth's assessment of the success of the nation, then the Conservatives are due for a 97ing. But let's give him the chance to reject this first. Iain Dale has suggested Cammy is rejecting large sections of the report anyway on the grounds that G&G are muppets (it's why I'd reject it).

Time to get tactical

I said before that the nuclear vote should rally behind the Conservatives as the best hope of getting new nuclear build in Britain. The situation may have changed. Teddy Bear Brown has bounced like a ping pong ball. The Conservatives have had a row over grammar schools and have had embarassingly disappointing results in two high profile by-elections. The knives are now out for Cammy.

Whether or not Cammy holds on, the very fact that the public see the Tory desire for self-destruction reappearing once more means the next election is now lost. Given the lead they need due to the Labour bias in the electoral system, it is unlikely they will emerge from the next general election as the largest party. Therefore a Conservative government, even a minority one, is no longer on the table.

So the credible choices are Labour majority government or Lab-Lib coalition. Therefore, the nuclear vote must now rally behind Labour to ensure they hold their majority at the next election. It's our best hope.

A side note on the possible confidence motion for Cammy: what planet are these MPs living on? Do they really believe for a moment that ousting a leader mid term for the second parliament in a row would actually do anything for the party other than damage it? If the election is lost with Cammy, changing the leader will not save it. It will simply make the humiliation of defeat even worse and damage the party's chances of rebuilding in the aftermath. Not only that, but rather than allowing Cammy to be the one to fall on his sword after the election, someone else will have to do it, meaning the Conservatives are wasting a potential talent in a no-hoper election.

Whatever have to the British stiff upper lip? I thought Conservatives of all people would be the ones to appreciate that. Take your defeat like men! You can either lose with dignity, or lose in disgrace.

I was wrong

I said before that Labour was a lame duck for new nuclear power stations as characters like Harriet Harman as well as the Lib Dems rise to power in government. Well in fact I spoke too soon, amid the unsteady performance of PM Gordo, at PMQs, he did shoot down Ming Campbell's ignorant dissing of Generation III+ by pledging a commitment to ensuring energy security through maintaining our nuclear sector.

Good for him. Maybe there's hope for this government after all. We shall see.

The King has finally arrived

At long last, El Gordo has taken the throne and we're all bit starstruck. It seems somewhat exciting to finally see him as the prime minister. Suddenly, the one we thought of as the highway bandit, all of a sudden seems fresh and downright loveable, Stalinism and all.

He may be a dour Scot, but he's OUR dour Scot. Teddy bear Brown.

Now let's celebrate the arrival of the new prime minister with some new nuclear power stations.

I was right

I said before that the Cammy and the Conservatives are the best bet for seeing Generation III+ in Britain.

It turns out I was correct after all. Although Tony Blair may have been a cause for optimism, tomorrow he is gone, to be replaced by Gordon Brown. El Gordo is not someone I was that worried about either. He seemed to fairly behind Blair's position on this. However, when it comes to the Labour party, you must be careful not to confuse backing up with back stabbing.

But now, Harriet Harperson has been made the deputy leader of the Labour party and by all accounts, she is decidedly anti-nuclear. That rather wrecks everything. El Gordo might have supported nuclear power in the right circumstances, but I don't think he's that behind the cause to want to pick a fight with his new deputy.

That therefore leaves us with only one party in British politics willing to entertain the idea. All our hopes rest on Cammy.

Political and energy independence are different priorities

So it seems according to our new Exalted First Minister. Hunterston B trips after a control sensor fault. This particular development is 30 years old and is coming to the end of its life. Naturally, especially given it's an AGR, is getting a little long in the tooth. It will be shutdown for good in 2011 as planned as it is, unlike some other AGRs, not in a fit enough state to continue for much longer.

Alex Salmond has ruled out any new nuclear power stations in Scotland, a decision not likely to be reversed now the Greens are his partners in Holyrood (Will the last person to leave Scotland please turn out the lights?). This means that the home nation's position in the continental energy market will change over the coming decades. The idea that a bunch of windmills will achieve the Exalted First Minister's "Green Energy Day" is delusional. Tidal power makes reduces it from merely delusional to merely wishful thinking. Still, the fact remains there is a large energy gap to be filled. 40% of Scotland's installed capacity is nuclear. If that is allowed to disappear over the next decade or so, at the same time North Sea hydrocarbons will decline, where is the rest of the energy going to come from?

The only option is England of course. But England isn't looking much healthier either, unless some momentum builds in Westminster and soon. El Gordo is not hopeless cause in this regard, but if the deputy leadership contest is any indication, he may not be as reliable as we might hope. If Scotland does go independent, then the Conservatives are a shoe in to take control of Westminster and that may give cause for cautious optimism.

Of course, if El Gordo or Cammy are lame ducks, there is always France. Flamanville-3 on the way and President Sarkozy is a relatively safe bet for seeing more in the future.

It always comes down to the French it seems. So under Alex Salmond's leadership, Scotland may become a politically independent country, but his determination to match that with energy independence seems rather lackluster. If you made the Liberal Democrats support independence, then they would be indistinguishable for the Scottish National Party. Both are wet, populist, scientifically illiterate and like local income tax.

Incidentally, in the comments section in that Scotsman article, the Greenpeace random number generator is coming back into play with 6 figure waste lifetimes being bandied about. How sad and ignorant!

The nuclear crash

A month ago, I argued that the Conservatives were a safer bet when it comes to getting more nuclear power stations in the UK. One of my arguments was that the Conservative back benches are more favourable than the front benches meaning the pressure would be on a Conservative government to push more towards nuclear as compared to a Labour government, which may be hindered by the back benches and especially any potential coalition partners (no-one other than the Ulster Unionists like the Tories so there's no worry about coalition partners with a Conservative Hung Parliament).

Mark Field, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, validates my point by writing a neat article arguing for stronger support for nuclear power.

A lot of what he said we've been saying for ages of course, but there were a few interestings things. One point was how nuclear proponents in Britain are not attacking the opposition head on with their doom-mongering and falsehoods, but rather trying to sidestep their issues by arguing the situation with global warming and energy security is so dire we have no choice but to accept these negatives.

Another point, which got me thinking, was the factors that led to the halt in nuclear construction in the 1980s. It is easy to always blame an overburdeonsome regulatory framework, one which imposed unecessary and unproductive red tape on the industry, on this dry spell. That is of course a major factor, but there are other issues of the time, namely the oil shock, and the 1980s high interest rates.

Mark correctly points out that the oil shock caused a dramatic reduction in energy consumption. Lower than expected demand is not good for nuclear. Similarly, high interest rates affect nuclear economics far more dramatically than fossil fuels.

This is because of the difference between CAPEX, capital expenditure, and OPEX, operating expenditure. In the context of power stations, CAPEX would be the cost of building the facility in the first place, while OPEX is the cost of running the facility, including the cost of the fuel.

Comparing fossil fuels and nuclear, one thing becomes abundently clear: fossil fuels are OPEX intensive, while nuclear is CAPEX intensive. Fossil fuels need a constant supply of fuel to keep the plant going, so they have the burdeon of this constant expense throughout their life. Nuclear fuel on the other hand is only a tiny proportion of the overall cost. The energy density of uranium is so great that a few tonnes of uranium will keep a reactor going for a year. However, a nuclear reactor, with all its sophistication (anyone can burn some coal, but making uranium go critical on water is not a job for the sloppy) and its need for containment structures and the like, entails comparatively higher construction costs.

This is to nuclear's disadvantage. It's better to be OPEX intensive than CAPEX intensive. The neat thing about being OPEX intensive is that you spend your money as you are making money. Sure the incessent cost of the fuel must be a pain, but at least your generating power - and revenue - as you buy. If you're CAPEX intensive, all your money is paid up front and you have to hope your forecasts were correct because you are dependent on many years of production to earn back the money.

The drop in consumption after the oil shock is a problem for a CAPEX intensive energy source since there is less demand for its energy without a corresponding drop in investment. For a fossil fuel power station running on reduced power because of a lower than forecast market demand, at least they have the consolation of not having to pay as much for fuel, reducing OPEX. And naturally, since those fat loans are going to be used to cover CAPEX rather than OPEX, it goes without saying that the high interest rates of the 1980s were not kind to nuclear prospects.

So that's another couple of reasons to add to the grand list of factors bringing about the nuclear crash.

• The oil shock reducing energy demand.
• High interest rates.
• High regulatory burgeon.
• Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
• CND smears.

Energy quote of the day

Three days and counting until Scottish politics is potentially turned upside down. North of the border, the Scottish parties are even more wet than their national counterparts. For example, the Scottish LibDems for example want Scotland to be 100% renewable (ie energy sources they like) within 20 years. Just when you thought that party couldn't get more deluded, you go North and they surprise you.

This month's energy supplement in the Press and Journal contained some analysis and opinion about the political landscape from the perspective of the energy industry. A most excellent comment sums up the situation.

So really, these are not energy policies at all. They are, if you will
pardon the mixed metaphor, cherry-picked slices of apple pie.

How to have a British nuclear renaissance

Election season is in full spin throughout much of Britain with devolved legislatures and local councils going up for election. So who cares? The important one is the election in 2009 or 2010, which may very well see the Conservatives returning as the largest party in the House of Commons, if only in a hung parliament.

In the interests of nuclear power, that most cuddly of energy sources, would it be better to have the Blue-Green warrior in Downing Street, or would we rather keep the Dour One?

Yesterday, Iain Dale interviewed the Shadow Secretary of State for Trade, Industry and Energy, Alan Duncan MP. Yes those subjects are part of the same office. It's hard to keep track sometimes and parties keep on changing their mind how they organise their Cabinets.

Iain cut straight to the point and asked the Right Honourable Member Rutland and Melton what the Conservative position on nuclear power is. Okay, anything short of him standing up a yelling in Tom Cruise fashion that he's in love with every fissile nucleus in the universe is bound to not be enough for me.

But objectively I have to say he made the Conservative position look rather favourable. He said the LibDems have their heads in the clouds with their unequivocal opposition and that simply depending on renewables alone to fill the energy gap in the face of a need to reduce fossil fuel use is somewhat impractical.

He also said that a Conservative government would aim to streamline planning regulations to avoid prohibitively burdeonsome enquiries and that with the new level playing field, they would support any investor building a new reactor if they desired.

Still, he said Tony Blair's commitment to bring nuclear power back with a vengeance was a little too extreme. I like vengeance, but to be fair to Duncan, he was right when he said that Labour has yet to demonstrate any policy to back up that rhetoric.

Essentially, both parties are the same. They want to level the playing field for new nuclear build and depend on the market to make the choice. That's perfectly fine for both parties. While the Labour vengeance rhetoric is enjoyable, I suppose the Conservatives deserve credit for being more transparent about the reality of their policy.

So who to vote for?

To split the difference between Lab and Con, look at the wider parliamentary parties. The Labour front bench is more pro-nuclear than the back benches, meaning a Labour government may face internal strife over giving too much support. Bad. The Conservative front bench is less pro-nuclear than the back benches, meaning a Conservative government may face internal strife over giving too little support. Good!!

And then there's the LibDems. A hung parliament is the most likely outcome of the next general election. The tipping point will be who is the largest party. Ming the Merciless of the LibDums has already implied, if not admitted, that he would go into coalition with El Gordo long before Cammy. Essentially, the big competition is between a Conservative minority government and a Lab-Lib coalition (which worked so well in the late 70s).

I think it's pretty obvious which one would be better for the nuclear revival in the UK. The Conservatives are the safer bet.

Vote Blue, Go (annoy a) Green!

(See the interview with Alan Duncan at 18 Doughty Street.)

The battle for fission will be fought...

... in Richmond Park?

Cammy has been remarkably silent on the issue of nuclear power overall. On the other hand, just about every other Conservative not in his intimate circle has been positive about it. Ken Clarke has had a couple of appearances on Question Time recently in which he's pushed for more nuclear power. Then we had Michael Portillo's brilliant remark about the sinful nature of denouncing it. It did seem that following Cammy's wet rebranding exercise (which seems to have done a lot of good for the party if the opinion polls are any indication) the Tories would be getting harder on some key issues and there was hope that they, at least, wouldn't oppose it.

But things have turned ugly. Zac Goldsmith has been selected as the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park. At the next general election, he'll be standing to become their MP. Now that he's true blue, Goldsmith is to become the face of Green Conservatism. Horror!

To be fair, the stuff he says in the Telegraph is actually pretty reasonable. It's all about Pigouvian taxation and how conservation can prove cost effective (unfortunately, some evangelicals then presume that because there are many examples of when being energy efficient is economical, that this is deterministic rule for all cases of perceived energy efficiency).

Given the chumminess between Cammy and Goldsmith as well as Goldsmith's clearly preferred field, if he's elected, he will become very important to Conservative environment policy. Peter Ainsworth is the Shadow Environment Minister at the moment. Goldsmith can't take that job because he is not an MP, but I expect Ainsworth's position to be shortlived if he does become one.

And given the polls at the moment, there is a clear and present danger that Goldsmith won't be the Shadow Environment Minister, but the real one.

If Zac Goldsmith is to be the Secretary of State for the Environment, then we need all the Ken Clarke's we can get prevent the country from falling into darkness... literally!

Who dug him up?

As we continue to reel from the news about Greenpeace's High Court victory over the Energy Review, more phantoms rise on the British horizon.

The Dark Lord Meacher is going for Number 10.

This guy once said we need nuclear power like we need a hole in the head. He also said that men are like lice on the Earth, so this particular arch misanthrop would probably go for it.

He also plutonium was the most dangerous substance known to man (making him a liar).

Fortunately, El Gordo is too powerful for this moonbat to get anywhere (there is doubt over whether or not he could get enough votes to get even nominated). El Gordo has also said he supports Blair's line on more nuclear power.

Opposing nuclear power is a sin

The Church has now decided that global warming can serve the same purpose for them as it does for the Green lobby: serving as an opportunity for its elites to be smugly sanctimonious and preach upon us unwashed evil-doers (while often being the worst "sinners"). A Bishop has declared that flying is a sin.

Well alright. If global warming is the apocalypse caused by our straying from the path of righteousness then surely anything contributing to the wrath of the deity must be a sin.

Michael Portillo agreed last night on This Week. By the same logic opposing nuclear power is also a sin.

Wanted dead or alive!

The recent dash of British politicians into the Green abyss was bound to have differing consequences depending on the participent. For the LibDems, they come across as a cuddly protest party. For the Conservatives, it helps them among the soggy chattering classes but hinders them among those who want a government to deal with their more immediate concerns. For Labour, it's the most damaging since they are the ones in government.

Michael O'Leary of Ryanair is not impressed.
Ironically though, the party whose Green antics are the most damaging are in fact the party currently with the clear commitment to nuclear power.

Fingers crossed

Blair says new nuclear power stations will be built and smacks Cameron.

A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be built with enough capacity to
generate at least as much electricity as Britain’s nuclear industry does today,
Tony Blair told MPs.

Promising stuff if they can deliver (and that 'if' is larger than the power output of a French reactor when it comes to this government). Gordon Brown, the likely next Prime Minister, appears to back Blair on this one, which is good. If so, then there is the chance that something positive could come out of Brown's inevitable premiership, if they don't screw up the process leaving it a mess (and that 'if' is larger than the power output of all French reactors combined!).

As for David Cameron, what does he have to say on the matter? Well I can't find anything. Our blue/green hero seems to waffle on incoherently. He attacked the Queen's speech for only promoting fear without offering solution (Greenpeace must have written it) but he himself seems to offer sympathy without solution. Hell, if he just gave an outright "no", at least he'd be taking a firm position. At the moment, he seems to not want to commit to any solution, merely make speeches about how passionately he cares for the problem.

Oh well, there are a few years left for the Blair/Brown government. Maybe they can get something positive done (there's a first time for everything).

Edit: Blair is so dedicated, he even took a trip to Sellafield. That was nice of him.

Climate change and ad hominems

David Cameron has a problem. He pledged to go Green in the hopes of improving the image of his party and capturing votes from the Liberal Democrats. However, the Liberal Democrats are not a party of government. They are a third party, a protest vote, better suited to telling the government what it is doing wrong rather than what it should- credibly- do right. To use Greeniness to out-green the Lib Dems is an impossibility.

Green politics is a giant black hole. Say, Cameron, in a bid to save the planet by discouraging fuel use, pledged to slap a 10p levy on a litre of regular unleaded petrol over what is already taken in tax (although it probably really isn't necessary). That is quite an increase. Ming Campbell, free from any obligation to be responsible in his policy making, says that doesn't go far enough and pledges to add £1 on the litre. Cameron says, "Hold on there a minute! Let's not get carried away!"

How do you think that would be received by the Lib Dems and the media, particularly that giant of eco-hype, the Independent. The headlines are easily predictable:

"Cameron soft on climate change"
"The Tories reject tough action on global warming"
"Cameron criticises Lib Dem plan for Green taxes"

No matter how Green you try to be, there will always be someone who will say that isn't enough. That's why Cameron's plan to out-green the Greens is destined to failure. He will be asked to present solid policies by the time of the next general election and any attempt to be sensible and pragmatic, as we would expect from a party with serious prospects to be the next government, will be derided as a weak stance on the environment.

And now for another point. In light of the Stern report and it's call for higher taxation, ad hominems are once again being traded by both sides of the debate.

From the Telegraph.

Those who dispute their efficacy – including this newspaper – will be dismissed
as having fallen for tendentious science, or being in the pay of the oil
companies, or simply not caring about the viability of the planet.

It is indeed true that the derisory label "climate change denier", a more subtle example of Godwin's Law, is applied to anyone who doesn't follow the paradigm that increased and dramatic statism is the only way to deal with global warming, rather than those who simply dispute the magnitude, or even just causes, or climate change.

But the other ad hominem applied to any "climate change denier", that they must be in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal (see also a comment on that article by a Dr. Simon Dresner and hopefully, when it is approved, my response) seem to overlook one thing. What is in it for them to be "a climate change denier"? Corporate dollars? But what good is money if there is no planet on which to spend it? Do these corporate $hills have a secret spacecraft, with which they will travel to the rich tax haven of Mars Carlo to spend the money they made from denying global warming? If they, and their families, are stuck on this planet too, are they not signing their own death warrants by opposing methods to handle global warming?

If we then look at the other side of the conspiracy coin, and go with the right wingers, who say global warming is a big hoax, perpetrated by socialists to apply statism, while equally as paranoid, it isn't as inherently contradictory. After all, if there is no threat, then pulling a fast one on the population to convince them of the "necessity" of their politics, is not really costing them much.

In the battle of ad hominems, the victory is to the deniers.

Of course, all this is irrelevant to the science of global warming itself. The truth is not determined by who has the most credible conspiracy theory.

Oh yes and by the way, where is the goddamn demand for more nuclear power!?