Do you want to pay £100 per year for Green Energy?

[youngmafbog]

Looks like you will have no choice:

http://news.sky.com/story/1015330/electricity-bills-green-power-plan-to-add-100

[jedimistress]

I'd pay £100 per year for Green Energy. Small price to pay for my children's future.

[jedimistress]

In fact I use "Good Energy" which is a company who's energy comes 100% from renewable sources. So I don't think the additional £100 would apply in my case.

[jake-the-peg]

Not just a Green issue though is it?

As Ed Davey points out in your link - there's a matter of energy security as well

Relying so heavily on imported gas is strategically shortsighted

There's also a further strategic plus in that renewables look like being a big industry in the coming decades and encouraging British industry to be at the forefront of this is a good idea.

If we can't afford it we could easily subsidise the costs by scrapping a few daft big ticket items

Trident refurbishment 35 Billion

HS2 30 Billion

[dave50]

No I wouldn't! Just build some more coal, gas and nuclear power stations and stop pandering to the environmentalists. If it was up to them all industry would go down the pan but that wouldn't matter because we would all be green then wouldn't we?

[youngmafbog]

Your right Jake, we now have to pay dearly for New Labours dithering.

Not sure I'd classify Trident refurb as daft though. Mind you, one does have to question the cost. Perhaps you woudl be happy with China or whoever stomping all over us and turning us into commies. Hang on, you probably would though

[sunny-dave]

Nuclear is the only answer - both in terms of energy security, peak oil and 'green' - just that a succession of Governments (of all political hues) have bottled out of taking the decision to build the next generation of plants. God help us if we let the bloody French build them for us now ... you think they won't be sending the output back to the motherland if times get tough?

So we will build more 'clean' (yeah right) coal and gas power stations and pray that we don't get held to ransom by the Poles/Russians/Arabs/Yanks/Klingons .... fingers crossed chaps :+(

[Gromit]

How much will it cost to clean up the Nuclear waste?

Do we have any choice?

[sunny-dave]

Not if we want the lights to be on - it will cost less to clean up the nuclear leftovers than to fix the climate change which continuing fossil fuel burning will cause.

Even if there was plenty of fossil fuel left

Which there isn't

[Old_Geezer]

A mix of fuels is the answer for now. Nuclear fission is useful in the medium term but even that relies on fuel being available. And governments of all flavours have dithered keeping that industry rolling in recent decades. Perhaps if folk are worried about costs they should consider nationalising the industries.

[emmie]

quite honestly no, get rid of the stupid wind farms for a start. The governments should have been looking at this issue many years ago, not just now when it lands in their lap. And they won't care at any rate having retired on mega pensions and other bungs and can retire to a warmer clime.

[chaptazbru]

^ well said !!!

[jake-the-peg]

Governments have been looking at this for years

the Blair Government's "dithering" has been an insistance that the UK Government would not underwrite the decomissioning costs of nuclear power.

and before we make this a party political issue That was the Major Government's position too as I recall - the Blair government wrote it into law

The Coalition started a consultation on ammending the requirements for any prospective nuclear operators to have a fully funded decomissioning plan

The requirements were changed and guess what shortly after we have plans for 2 new nuclear power stations

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/new/waste_costs/waste_costs.aspx

Anyone else smell a rat?

[youngmafbog]

"While we are scrapping big ticket items jake, what about the work shy scum budget?"

[LazyGun]

A move away from carbon based fuels makes sense in the long term.The later we leave such a transition, the more it will cost, because we become hostage to the market in a limited resource with increasing demand.

The government and energy companies both talk about moving toward a different energy solution for the future, as well as necessary upgrades in the infrastructure, but what irritates me is the energy companies bleating piously about costs to business and having to pass on such costs to the consumer. I would be far happier about paying for such upgrades if I saw some evidence to demonstrate that companies and governments were contributing their fair share into such long term projects - contributions from their profits before dividend payments for companies, and from the general revenue pool from the government.

Any such contribution from the consumer should be clearly listed on the bills as well.

I have seen no such evidence, or any such listing from the companies. This is why more action is needed from the government, in the form of tighter regulation.

[pdq1]

They've stuffed the motorist to the hilt with the fuel escalator and now they're switching their attention to the homeowner. What good has it done society? We are still suffering the floods, now in the West country, so why not spend more of this income on flood defenses instead of acting like King Canute