Reply With QuoteI think the major issue with nationalisation is the History this country has had in the past. Excessive Union interference, industrial action,poor productivity. To name but a couple of the issues .
1K.Orger
What renewables ? I am interested in wave / tidal power and the reasons for the very slow developments / recent demise of leading players, as we have, or had the chance to be world leaders, a situation that I have my own views on, what "renewables" recieve 1.8 billion....wind or what........ or the "lot" ie money for wave / tidal developments....I would suggest that the bulk of subsidies go to wind farms " ?? Only source I can trace the 1.8 billion is the telegraph running a story on costs of electricity rising in an independant Scotland...............Originally Posted by BetterTogether
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
I think the major issue with nationalisation is the History this country has had in the past. Excessive Union interference, industrial action,poor productivity. To name but a couple of the issues .
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
It is in relation to wind farms Rob. No doubt there is a plethora of information out there on the subject.
1K.Orger
Nationalisation should always be considered seriously when markets do not deliver and are proven to be ineffecient, and never, ever on ideological / political grounds .....21st nationalisation would only occur where markets cannot deliver or fail, most banks were effectively "nationalised" werent they...why...because of market failures....markets were destroying themselves, hence the state had to step in, or as Keynes so nobly put it...in the long term we are all dead..... in a nationalisation project we would never endure the troubles of the past, ie union interference, poor productivity etc as unions have little to no power and good effective management working with staff will deliver effeciencies
1K.Orger
Rob I thinks that's a bit simplistic an in fact leads to more trouble. The market can certainly fail and destroy themselves but so can governments. Its more about effective policy and strategy than if its private or nationalised, in all spheres. To easy to attach labels to something just because its private or nationalised.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
1K.Orger
WHat is simplistic about " market failure"...markets do fail and spectaculary so...where would dealing with market failures, which affect the countr,y lead to trouble ? Economics determines all policies and strategy, I made the key point that you dont introduce "nationalisation" ( defined as state intervention where markets fail, intervening for the well being of the country ) on political ideological grounds ie previous Labour baggag,e nationalising the commanding heights of the economy, clause 4,rightfully kicked into touch. If thats simplistic then thats short hand for what economists would call Keynsian interventions. So maybe Keynes was simple ?
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
In principle I have no major objections to utilities calming under the auspices of Government control.
Electricity,Gas, Water but they would need to be run efficiently and cost effectively with a decent amount of investment going in to upgrading and maintains a national infrastructure.
What I wouldn't want to see is grossly overpaid executives awarding themselves huge bonus's just for doing what's expected.
The hard part is making sure the money is reinvested where is does the most good.
I know there is much desire for renewables to replace our ageing oil,coal and gas fired stations but I feel there is also merit in considering New Atomic Power Stations to ensure that the nation as a whole has the power is requires to remain a prosperous country.
We used to be a world leader in that field now sadly we have fallen behind.
There will always be concerns about the use of atomic fuel to produce power, but the world has progressed since the 1960s/70s and I'm sure that modern reactors would be a lot safer than those we currently have.
It's not as though we live in a geologically unstable area of the world so a lot of fears about earthquakes do not apply to this country.
1K.Orger
Nuclear power......we have the ideal place for a new reactor which will obviously alleviate the economic melt down we face post Dounreay major run down...comming soonish.....however.........????? Wonder what our new MP's take is on alleviating the Dounreay run down / Caithness post Dounreay ??
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Apart from the SNPs and Greens stance on Nuclear power being a primary obstacle to building a new power station at Dounreay.
If you consider there is already a Nuclear facility there which has proven to be a good employer over the years to the people of Caithness it would also provide ample reliable power to the Highlands and Orkney probably a lot more of Scotland as well and wouldn't blight the landscape like wind turbines currently do.
No doubt the detractors will voice the usual safety concerns but I can't see they would be much different to those we already have ( I stand to be corrected on that point if needs be ).
Consider also France has invested heavily in Nuclear power and the technology now available has improved over the years no doubt some of those concerns can be laid to one side.
So I see it would provide reliable power, boost the local economy, reverse the exodus of people from the area. Which would also provide a host of other benefits which follow in the wake of any large scale industry.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 17-Jun-15 at 17:09.
1K.Orger
I was for nuclear power, obviously it cuts carbon emissions massively and works when the wind and sun aren't doing their jobs, but in hindsight if we cna generate that level of power, and more besides from renewables, even at cost neutral, then do it simply because its easier to build, easier to maintain and easier to cleanup afterwards, and an accident might involve a few rabbits getting crushed, as opposed to a nuclear accident.
France isnt investing in nuclear power. Infact I am sure Hollande made it a pledge to shut about 20 reactors and built no more new ones, bar ITER which is obviously fusion.
I would like to see, hopefully in the next 25 years an energy mix of renewlables and nuclear fusion.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
I had to go read up on ITER as didn't have a clue what it was.
Seems a nice idea if it actually works. How about using thorium reactors I appreciate they are more expensive to construct but don't seem to have as many of the drawbacks of other types.
I agree with Rob that wave power might be worth more investment, Wind Farms don't seem particularly efficient and are a blot on the landscape if nothing else.
1K.Orger
The opportunity exits to become world leaders in wave and tidal power, create a new industry, jobs and wealth, for numerous reasons this is not happening.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
What are the problems stopping this investment happening Rob seems there's plenty of money for wind farms and you can't deny we have plenty of wave power up here.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Seems the Govt has scrapped subsidies for onshore Wind Farms.
1K.Orger
Fusion works alright and is vastly superior to fission without any of the contamination issues, its just containing it and getting power out of it. Its the process that powers the sun.
I dont know about tidal energy. I couldnt care less about windfarms on the landscape, having clean power is more important than having a nice view.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
1K.Orger
Yes ...the suadi arabia of renewables.............Basically the industry is in start up mode and is heavily capital intensive, initially government money was used as grants to lever in private investment ( usually from groups of companies ) to push developments along but development has been slow and problematic so investors are pulling out hence the demise of key operators. Another key issue holding things back is connectivity charges to the national grid which is acting as a major barrier to entry. There are many other related reasosn why wave / tidal has not got going, but basically what we have here is a market failure, relatively untested technology / devices requiring capital to advance into wider take up and manufacturing which the private sector / private investment, isnt attracted to, hence the slow down.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
So basically the industry is swallowing vast amounts of capital without showing any real progress or return on investment. I can see how that could be problematic.
1K.Orger
The industry has swallowed grants and private investment, no meaningful progress can be paid without this market failure being addressed...otherwise we will miss the boat....now...what "plans" do the scottish government have to plug the gap........as it stands pass the buck onto UK govt....or formulate a unified development strategy take wave / tidal into public ownership, ( if n ot then the absence of any long term private investment is going to hold up progress....big time..no getting around that one ) provide development finances and then sell off once things are at the manufacturing stage...ie we keep the high value the IPR and develop export markets....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks