Â鶹ԼÅÄ

I am pleased, why do we need to rely on foreign companies such and EdF, RWE or E.ON for investment.
Come on Centrica, show some ambition and bid for BE - what are your other options!?

As a British Energy shareholder I am delighted that this sale appears not to be going through. How absurd it would be to see the greatest energy source of the long term future effectively nationalised by The French government. If BE is sold to a foreign interest there will never again be a British owned nuclear industry, all pioneering research and development for commercial uses will be done abroad. Ofcourse, this lousy government wants to sell, it is desperate for everyone penny it can lay its hands on. If it had any care for our long term future it should be investing in the industry not selling.

There is an arguable case that British Energy should be regarded as so strategically important as to be ring-fenced for UK ownership.

This has been allowed to go largely unaddressed by Government. They have for the last 20 years or more looked only at the short-term gain to the Treasury (privatisation, PFI, etc.) and most of the media has never pursued this vigorously.

Discuss.

p.s.

The same case can be made for other essential national infrastructure. Especially but not limited to the railway system.

White paper 2003 identified the energy gap problem.The renewable energy foundation in may pointed out that the governments strategy requires everything to go their way.If this is about the long term taking the right decisions etc we need help .Expensive electricity and power outages will be the agenda onwards.We haven't much time and the govt is still driven by the financial position struggling for every £ 2/3bn to shore up the present.We need the grants restored for micro home generation (another farsighted strategy sacrificed)but I don't hold out much hope. Plan B for me getting a generator to reduce the risk.

Is there a futures market in candles? Or should it be called tallow futures?

Ho hum? Back to the three day week!

Pilsen

I too am thinking about getting a generator.

The problem is we all want the lights to go on whenever we click the switch but always oppose any kind of power station when it is proposed near where we live.

Coal - dirty, etc.
nuclear - dangerous, waste problems
gas - waste of premium fuel
wind - visually intrusive on any significant scale
Severn barrage - ecologically damaging
waste incinerator - lorry traffic, carcinogens
etc.etc.

Look at Kingsnorth. I bet most of the people trying to block a new coal station don't live in yurts with only a small wind generator.

It's not NIMBY any more, it's BANANA - built absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.

#6 badgercourage wrote:
The problem is we all want the lights to go on whenever we click the switch but always oppose any kind of power station when it is proposed near where we live.


As someone who grew up in a house where the view from the back garden was of cooling towers, I get really wound up when people complain that wind turbines ruin the view.

Personally, I think we should just nationalise it. Leaving something with such potential for disaster in the hands of people whose only motivation is profit is asking for trouble. All the problems that Sellafield has had have come from cutting corners to push up the profit margin.

More coal burners please..... Collect the CO2 and hydrogen produced by offshore wind driven electrolysers and create Methanol to replace petrol..

I am dismayed at what this country is become:

* A government that will do almost anything to get its hands on more money to themselves cling to power. Forget about strategy, value for money, long term benefit - they want money now to prop up their failed policies, social engineering and bloated administration.

* The bungling incompetence of BERR - even their bungling is bungled. I have met a lot of people in this wretched organization - and I wouldn't any of them to run a sweet shop! For God's sake, let's get rid of these tiresome and incompetent bureaucrats. We are far better off without them!

* Nuclear energy is the future - clean, abundant, free from geopolitical risks. Yet we have been pussyfooting around the decision until we risk having the lights go out.

* We used to be world leaders in technology, including nuclear technology. Sadly not any more. Despite the government wasting billions upon billions of our money, much of our technology-base is going abroad mainly because of poor government decision making (government is bad at policy - and a bad customer) and the fact that the UK is not an economically attractive place to develop technology businesses.


Is there anyone left in this country with vision and competence?

Or have they all left before the lights go out?

If they will let me I'll share a few experiences.
We have oil heating as no gas supply.We
invested? in solar water two years ago.
I have become a fan of microgeneration because it makes you think about supply and demand.We save money by not heating as much outside the solar window it is the kettle syndrome always boiling more than you need!
I tried costing photovoltaic but it looked like
£15000 for 3.2kw system and you just can't
make it pay.Oddly enough part of the payback was that i would have carbon credits to sell !I am now on costing combined heat and power for when the boiler is replaced.My logic is that the transmission and base load costs are high and the grid is being stretched.The customer will have to pay more in the longterm.

Surely if we want to protect our country's ability to provide power for heat for its aging population it makes sense to keep nuclear generation within domestic control. Maybe it is more expensive than it has been to generate power from gas and oil but...

Look at the problems with oil and gas where we can be and are being held 'over a barrrel' and made to pay sky high prices for these resources.

Those of us who are lucky enough to be still in early middle age will be grateful in 20 years if we have built and kept control of our own new generation of nuclear power stations.

BE should not be sold to EDF because

1. EDF is 85% owned by the French government. What happens to our independence of supply, we already rely too much on Europe for or energy; gas (from Russia) and electricity (from France, probably EDF).

2. Recently EDF has had a very poor safety record in its nuclear power stations. Are these one-off events or due to a long term lack of investment or the poor design of the French reactor they would want to build in the UK.

3. If EDF owned BE they would build the French design of reactor. Who’s to say this is the best, safetest, most economic, what happened to competition, what about diversification of design preventing common mode failure.

4. A French built reactor would not generate as many jobs in the UK nuclear industry as the alternatives. Jobs would be created in France helping the French economy not that of the UK.

5. EDF already own two potential nuclear licensed sites, let them build there and keep the market open to competition.

6. BE is the largest single producer of electricity in the UK. EDF already own some non-nuclear power stations in the UK. The deal would give EDF (a French government owned company) too much share of the UK electricity market and in partnership within Centrica, too much influence over energy pricing in the UK.

7. Both EDF and Centrica have announced significant increases in energy prices. Hence, the BE share price is probably undervalued. Profit from increased energy prices should stay in the UK rather than going to the French, along with jobs, or other foreign investor.


The decision is convenient for the government the UK must have independence of supply away from the influence of a foreign goverment.

Just in the nick of time.
As energy prices are soaring and look as if they will continue to do so the last thing we want is a another foreign business taking over even more of our fuel supplies.
This gives us a bit of a breather to look at other options.
This country needs to put its house in order fast and not rely on too many foreign investors who can hold us to ransom whenever they choose.
Globalisation has failed and in its wake has left this country vulnerable.
Those against using coal need to think again.
We closed down coal mines because coal was not competitive against cheap oil and gas.
The mines are still there and could be opened up fairly quickly.
Concentrate on clean coal fired power stations. The technology is nearly there.
We need to be self-sufficient.
As a country we have an abundance of the most vital commodity. Fresh water! What an export opportunity.
Rethinking and action are needed fast and the priority in the short term is to keep the the country supplied with affordable energy.

Dear Robert

Britain is nothing but a magnet for foreign firms, who are buying uo our industry, and then exploiting it to make a profit. We are held to ransom over gas and oil because the government sat back and did nothing to safe guard Britain PLC. WE are now the Poor man of Europe ripped off by Russia, and France and the rest of Europe. on energy charges, you can see why BP is being kicked out of Russia, so the Kremlin can nationalise the Oil, The Economy is in freefall, and if you look at the history,of the economy you will see this happens almost every ten years, and it is "engineered Purposely by the banks, and the money men, so they can make a profit out of the chaos they cause. the old way of doing things was to go to war. WELL! --- truth

Here's the dilema, do we want Centric a succesful UK company to continue to make profits that upset the press and public but may give it the funds to purchase BE. Or do we prefer to have another failing UK company that is in effect taken over by the French Govenment?

I wonder why the government apparently believe they cannot build nuclear power stations themselves. Is this due to a sudden rush of modesty to the head? Have they suddenly discovered the limits to their own knowledge and power?
Or, being more cynical, have they simply decided that getting the French to build them means whatever goes wrong with them won't be their fault, and cleaning up the radioactive mess afterwards can be billed to them as well?
The latter sounds more likely but is still worrying, as in political terms it seems even less likely that the French government (or French private industry, for that matter) will worry as much about future polution in England than the current English Government does . . .

A very brave decision by the investors not to take a profit.

Brave, because they will get little support from the government who always sit on the wall when it comes to nuclear.

Eventually, when oil and gas diminish and prices soar then maybe just then will government wake up. Thinking a French state company should shoulder responsibility is madness.

Trouble is it takes 10 years to get nuclear off the ground so it takes very forward thinking and investment. Something neither investors and especially a British government will commit.

They are too busy spending money on wars and developing other countries for political kudos.

There are three key issues with the UK nuclear energy industry: energy security, decomissioning/nuclear waste and 'keeping the lights on'.

One solution might be for British Energy, under the auspices of BERR, to enter into a series of partnerships with utilities like EDF, E.ON, Centrica etc to build new reactors at British Energy's existing sites.

The profits generated from the sale of the nuclear output would be divided between British Energy and the utility, and a dividend would be paid to the government, who would ringfence the money into the waste and future decommissioning costs.

Whether this government is capable of implementing this remains to be seen.

I didn't think I would need to point out that over the next few years energy will become very, very important strategically and from a national interest point of view. Therefore, energy supplies are best kept within some form of national control. *All* the countries throughout Europe and the world, including France, Russia and the US understand this. Britain, for some reason, has no clue.

We're also a country that practically invented nuclear power with a wealth of experience over many decades. I'm not sure why we need to get a French company to buy our nuclear industry for a paltry sum to do it for us.

Let's just face facts - our energy supply industry has become a magnet for foreign companies who see the opportunity to make very, very easy profits from a captive market, all while a regulator and our givernment stands by and does nothing at all to actually regulate the industry for our benefit.

Do NOT sell BE but rather make new power stations BRITISH built - Owned- Operated and do it RIGHT NOW.

If Government - Treasury cannot do this then just GO AWAY and get someone who can - I say again DO IT NOW - Do you understand DO IT NOW or leave office

I am very happy that this deal foundered. Long may it remain dead! To have the UKs energy generation capacity owned and controlled by a foreign country is an appalling thought.

Typical of the straits that Labour have got the economy into that they would sacrifice this control for a few more quid in the coffers!

Labour should change its name to the Judas Party.

Why is it, when they can find the funds to secure up to £100 billion of debts in a single northern bank, can they not find the funds such that the UK can finance the new reactors and keep control of a vital energy source?

There is no question that the capital outlay would be recovered very quickly, given the high price of energy is expected to remain for the forseeable future.

It just illustrates how successive governments have failed to understand the strategic nature of energy security.

We have lost our lead in nuclear technology (at a time when there is renaissance in the nuclear industry), deprived the UK of superior technical skills (that the Germans, French and Swiss have retained) and consistently seem willing to make ourselves dependent on energy imports.

I am sorry to say, and the political parties wont admit it, that they have destroyed the UK. Our extreme laissisez faire attitude to all matters (and our willingness to embark on unnecessary overseas adventures) have all contributed indirectly to a broken and bankrupt society..................

We are told the UK econony is a success. It is not.

A report produced for Greenpeace and WWF, by independent energy consultants, has just discovered that if Britain delivered on its renewable energy promises, and acted successfully to improve energy efficiency in line with its National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, there would be no gap to plug.

Moreover, the report finds that this strategy would reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions by up to 37% by 2020.

Why is this government finding it so hard to invest in energy efficiency and renewables and so determined that the only answer for improving energy security is more centralised, inflexible and expensive nuclear power?

The latest NAO estimate for the clean up of our existing nuclear waste commitments has just increased to £73 billion, from £56 billion in 2005 and £35 billion in 2001, and Greenpeace has estimated that this could exceed £100 billion... If the clean up costs are factored in then nuclear power looks like a very expensive option to me.

Looks like Labour have got it all wrong again. The seemed to have backed the sale thinking it was politically insignificant but a story that was originally presented as negative has attracted no posts supporting the sale to EDF and plenty opposing it.
I really hope that British Energy remains in domestic ownership but finds the funds to invest in new Nuclear plants, perhaps BP, Shell and Centrica could spend some of their 'windfall' profits on buying it or entering joint ventures? Certainly I'm sure that they have a better idea of how to invest this money than the goverment have so don't take it off them with a 'windfall' tax.

What a relief this hasn't gone through. It woul of been another nightmare of this country's resources slowly being sold off to foreign investment.

Can someone please explain how over the last 10 years we seem to have given up on running anything. Our defence system has been sold to the Americans (even the development of new weaponry is now done by an American company, so we have no secrets what-so-ever), our energy infrastructure has been bought by the French (to the extent that we sell our gas to them on the cheap, they store it for a bit, and then sell it back to us at a profit), our airports are owned by the Spanish (and we've all seen what a debacle that has been), and our football teams are run by Americans, Russians, and a myriad of other foreign investors, basically anyone who is not British.

So where are all the British investors, and what are they doing? If all of our above resources are so attractive, why aren't British investors buying into it. Why are we selling ourselves to the rest of the world lock, stock and barrel?

Gordon Brown, you are a blithering idiot. You sold our gold for 1/3rd of its value today. You rode the crest of a wave during your time as chancellor, and now you wish to destabilise the future of this country by selling off all of our stragetic assets. Would the french ever sell their nuclear energy to us? Never in a million years! The Spanish own our airports, the French will own our Energy, whats next? The Germans owning our water companies?

Time to emmigrate I think...

We are in soooooo much trouble, what a disaster this government are.

Please resign Gordon

Gordon Brown has become inconspicuous by his absence, the economy is failing, Labour policies have all but failed and the bills mount. Where is Gordon? He’s on holiday FFS!

At a time when nuclear power is going to be built,the decision to sell westinghouse,who have a reactor design on the board, available within a couple of years and proven,shows what the policy of the government is.

The Government have also sold off nuclear waste management to a US led consortium which living where i do fills me with dread.They have a very poor track record on nuclear safety and scant disregard for regulation.
My biggest worry living where i do is that they will import waste .
I have no problem with us storing and dealing with our own but these companies are not here for the good of our health they have a profit driven agenda and will use us as a tool to achieve this.They are already bribing the local politicians with dreams of new hospitals and colleges and they are falling for it hook line and sinker,we deserve the facilities irrespective of who owns or runs sellafield.

I find it quite appalling that our generation capacity is being considered to be sold to a firm that is basically state owned by another country it really does show how desperate the UK is for cash.

All nuclear stations can and must be kept in house they do FAR too an important job to be left too market forces.It is criminal to leave back bone generation in the hands of another country.
Whats next are we going to have the army sold off ????

Really how are these utilities valued? It seems to me that (eg the Water Companies) they are all involved in an inch by inch gouging of their captive consumers, by steadily raising prices every year. The resultant increased cash inflows are then translated into a higher valuation of the company evey year. Resulting in above average capital gains year in year out at vrtually no risk !!

No wonder we have a lot of Australian and foreign investors lining up to control such businesses that are really a 'turkey shoot' for them. All along of course the ignorant Labour Party appointed regulators are busy chewing away at their meat pies in Manchester.

This is just another failure in a consistent record of complete ineptitude and bungling that has characterised this government since it came to office - and this one cannot be blamed on "international conditions". Another case of moving too late and having to play catch-up while at a strategic disadvantage.

Labour seem incapable of long-term policy thinking outside the confines of spending huge sums of borrowed money on the bricks and mortar of "schools n' ospitals" (and then without any real service improvement).

Anything else, transport, energy, security, industrial and they have just been a dead loss.

I believe strongly in foreign companies investing in Britain and vice versa. However, the French Government owns the majority of EDF shares, ensuring it has all the benefits of a nationalised company (its costs of funds are cheap as the market knows it will never be allowed to go bankrupt). Moreover, no company from outside France would ever be allowed to purchase EDF. Accordingly, I find its practice of international expansion hypocritical.

There is no level playing field when the French are involved!

So the French government’s strategy is to support Nuclear Power and indigenous expertise to the extent it can buy out all of British nuclear power stations, whilst the British government’s strategy is to sell off what nuclear power stations we have and in the process reduce expertise to a level where we are wholly dependant on foreign companies to build and run our generating industry. What’s wrong with this picture?

Why wont this government grasp the nettle and invested in NP? It fiddles whilst Rome burns, it has no concept of a technological Britain – it is mired in service and financial industries. The treasury is run by a bunch of penny-pinching accountants with no vision beyond getting it’s hands on 4.5 billion pounds by selling assets cheaply.

Nonetheless we are where we are, and bearing in mind the long term disaster that EDF purchasing BE could have been, then this is the best outcome. Let us now hope that EDF disappear and that this opportunity to do something to improve our own rapidly diminishing industrial resource is not squandered. The government should devise a strategy for allowing BE to invest in at least three new nuclear power plants, these should go to tender, and when assessing the tenders, weighting should be given to advanced technology, price and UK participation in the design and build. That would allow us to gain expertise that we’ve sadly lost and keep much of the money spent in the UK. At the end of the day what’s the difference between spending taxpayer’s money on creating service sector jobs or technology jobs designing and building power stations? None except the technology job brings some long term benefit to the economy by improving our potential to sell worldwide.

I can't say I am surprised at the bungling of the government.

On a personal basis I want to see renewable energy to the forefront. Until somebody explains how they are going to get rid of the waste safely and how much that will cost I retain my hostility to new generations of nuclear plants.

Its unreal that we have not gotten rid of the old waste and Gordon is proposing more. I want to hear him saying during election time, if he is still there, we will take a storage site in my consitituency!

I have read all your comments, and it's been very interesting to notice how as british citizens, you're afraid of the global energy supply in the UK being taken over by a foreign country like France.

I really do understand your concerns, it's never comfortable to not be in control of what we need, let's say electricity for example.

One of the usual question here is: Why don't the UK produce its own energy, doesn't invest in nuclear energy?

Well it took 20 years to France to get to this level of nuclear energy production, France has been investing for decades ... Actually if i remember well, at the time, when France started investing in nuclear energy, we weren't followed by anybody, we were told that it was way to costly with no real future; it has turned out that we were right, but we have really had to stick to it.

Just to say ... If you want the UK to invest and produce its own nuclear energy, it'll take at least 15 years, the time to catch up technologically and develop your own nuclear plants and i don't think you can't afford such an amount of time.

Another solution for the UK could be to invest in and develop renewable energies ... The problem is, so far, it has never been a way to fill up the energy needs of a whole country.

Currently, the nuclear energy is undoubtedly the cheapest in a long term and cleanest way to work out your energy deficiencies. France has been the most advanced and experienced country so far in this matter. Plus, we're neighbours, this is the kind of partnership we could have.

I think the british government has been well aware of it and this is why wants this deal to happen.

It would be useful if some of the funds earmarked for Nuclear were to be be spent on assisting more people to set up their own microgeneration plants.

How much is actually spent on research into more efficient Solar and Wind power ?

Microgeneration could make a much more significant contribution to power needs than it does today, and on a shorter timescale than big Nuclear projects.

This may sound daft, but has any serious consideration been given to water power, ie harnessing river flow to generate Electricity?

Watermills made Britains early Industrial Revolution happen, is there no scope for them to be part of a wider power revolution?

Thats enough from me for a Friday.

A bit off subject but what's all this rubbish about windfall taxes on oil companies?

I dont recall any mention of windfall tax on the banks when they were coining it - I guess all the money went on executive bonuses.

British oil companies such as Shell (partially) and BP are about the only thing holding the economy together. Taking away their profits will just hinder new investment and be bad for Britain in the long term.

Everything they touch this government just messes up. Please let us have an election so we can tell you through the ballot box exactly what we think of you.

Some years back I became aware of something called the Gas Converter whereby, and because UK has insufficient storage facilities, our excess gas is sold to EEC . When UK requires this gas we have to pay a greater price than we sold it earlier. Has anyone studied this and is able to enlighten me (us) as to a) price diffrentials and b) EEC storage cost element.

EDF is 85% state owned therefore British Energy would have been bought and owned by the French Government

Does anyone recall last years spin on 'the government of all the talents'. Now we realise how desperate he was.

We have has a lucky escape. Getting in bed with the French to our problems.

I fear it is now too late to stop the lights going out in about 2014....

Under pressure from the Treasury, it disposed of 450m BE shares to raise £2.34bn - a third less than the shares are worth today."
"
Was this sale anything to do with raising a bit of cash for Alistair Darling, after all that's why the earlier sale was done?

Mind you Alistair Darling has a mortgage with Northern Rock which says a lot.

This whole situation is the direct product of the dubious accounting at the Treasury.

If they only understood the simplest of accounting principles that distinguish between revenue and capital expenditure they we would not have this whole PFI/PPP sell off mess.

Britain's Nuclear assets are exactly that Britain's Nuclear assets. Flogging off bits of them for a knock down price to some financial institution or other (generally both foreign) is mortgaging our future energy security - this was said widely at the time and now the Nuclear chickens are coming home to roost!

There are certain types of assets that are natural monopolies and vital to the Nation's interest and they should not be sold off under any circumstances - but they have done it and thus blown a huge strategic hole in our security (energy and otherwise). It is the accounting of the madhouse!

Whilst EDF might have useful experience with nuclear operations (given that France's proportion of electricity generated by nuclear fission is one of the highest), I am concerned about giving the profits for a crucial source of energy to another country so easily. Surely the UK has the capacity to develop nuclear power by itself.

There is an electricity export facility that runs from France under the English Channel to the UK. It is slated for an upgrade to increase its operating capacity.

Why not let the French who already have 70% of their electricity generation as nuclear build more stations in France for electricity export to the UK or the rest of Europe?

We are no longer self-sufficient in nuclear engineering terms. Everybody has retired leaving a know-how vacuum in its place.

Mary had a little lamb; she tied it to a pylon, 110,000v went up its b*m and turned its wool to nylon.



Shocking!

In reply to the comment number 12 made above, I would like to point out the following :

It is incorrect to say that EDF has not had a poor safety record. You may consult safety inspection reviews made by the French Safety Authorities at the website : asn.fr. Reports are in English. The 2007 review is not yet translated into English but the French version summarizes a "positive appraisal" for the year 2007. If you are referring to the recent events at Socatri, on the Tricastin complex in the Rhone Valley. This is not a power station and does not belong to EDF. Socatri is an effluent treatment plant for the uranium enrichment process (UF6).
The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) is the latest generation of Pressurised Water Reactors - PWR - which represent over 60% of nuclear reactors in the world. They have a long safety record. The new EPR may be of "French design" but has used German and French expertise. The first PWRs built in France were originally of American design (Westinghouse) and were constructed under licence.
New power stations, whoever the constructor/owner, will bring jobs for "local" firms. A power station project may bring up to 3 ou 4,00O workers for the construction period, over say 5 to6 years. Then operating a power station implies an on-site work force of about 1,000 people (depending on the station's size), not forgetting further maintenance staff for programmed shutdowns etc.. A power station may then be in operation for 40 or 50 years.

"British Energy's advisers, Rothschild and JP Morgan Cazenove, weren't able to warn the company's board"
Why is it that the crooks of the New World Order can so blatently be involved without anyone noticing or passing comment.

Quote from history
"The FED has been an effective tool of the Illuminati and the Rothschilds, creating crisis such as the Great Depression (which J.P. Morgan, Jr was very involved in creating). "

As an English guy who has lived in France for 13 years the negative comments regarding French ownership of BE do not surprise me. The ideal solution obviously would be for the UK to build its own plants. However, as I understand it, the necessary expertise has been lost, so what is the least worse option?

It's amusing, in a way, that those who fear French control of British energy production seem sanguine about our oil being at the mercy of undemocratic Middle Eastern Kingdoms, and our gas supply largely controlled by Russia who has repeatedly shown that it is prepared to turn the taps off to achieve its political ends, and is even now trying to oust BP by very dubious methods.

Still, at least Saudi Arabia, famous for beheadings and Russia famous for its gulags are better than the beastly French.

I really think a lot of my compatriots live in some sort of make-believe world, and I find that very sad.

@20, Raceice

God no, not British built. They'll be overpriced, over budget and outdated by the time they're built.

Just look at the two aircraft carriers that are being "British Built" - £2 billion each. For that price the US gets a Nimitz class supercarrier with more than an order of magnitude better capability than what we'll eventually get.

'British' used to a marque of quality, now its anything but.

So, we have a situation where Invensys/Prudential value their shares in British Energy higher than the Government value their (our) shares.

What this raises for me is the question of how exactly does the Governmant place a value on such things. There have been frequent comments that the Government sells assets off too cheaply, or that it makes bad bargains, by committing future administrations to over-expensive payment for benefits in the present.

For an unscrupulous Government there is, obviously, a temptation to generate present kudos by adopting a have now/pay later philosophy, and it is not difficult to formulate a policy for achieving this by applying a high discount factor on future costs. Of course, what this does in addition to promoting have now/pay later is that it also has the effect of discouraging the idea of pay now/have later.

I think that applying a high discount to future benefit flows also, inevitably, has the effect of cheapening the present value of Government held assets, because, obviously, actual undiscounted cash now is at a premium compared with discounted benefit flows in the future.

It's not correct, I feel, just to assume that this is wrong. After all, is it actually wrong to place more importance on getting the present right than on making abundant provision for a future that's uncertain? But there has to be a balance, and I would suggest that this balance ought to be something that's left to the population as a whole, and not left to Governments for whom there is a definite conflict of interest.

So is there something to be said for having some form of statutory body, guaranteed independent of Government control or influence, that is responsible for the cost/benefit analyses of Government activities involving financial flows? And where a Government is legally obliged to follow the findings of such body?

The Government has over the years poured an endless stream of cash into education and health. Both are important but equally and arguably more important areas are either sold off or neglected. The utilities and railways should never have been disposed of for what was always going to be a short term gain. You can only sell an asset once. Politicians are the wrong people to make these decisions as they have no reason to look long term - they are only focused on the short term and re election.
Our Government have a duty to ensure that this nations infrastructure is fit for purpose relying on a foreign owned company to play this role is simply stupid.

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it looks like another example of Labour selling something off for buttons to any sharp-suited spiv that's related to a government minister.

On the other hand, the French do at least know their stuff. There's been such a massive decline in British manufacturing skill that jumping back in at the deep end with nuclear power seems like a recipe for disaster.

I'd go for tidal power. It's fairly easy to build and maintain, the only issue is the scale of the construction. Baby steps back to the world of technology.

No 46, people don't really believe in illuminati anymore do they?

Business cliques, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of those, but I would be very surprised if there were any genuine Illuminated Conspiracies at large in this world.

In Hollywood maybe !

I think this is good that this deal has collapsed. It might bring in a new era without nuclear power.

The government has already stated that it would not subsidise nuclear power in this country. With the additional and ever rising costs of the decomissioning of nuclear sites, nuclear does not seem to have much of a future.

The most unfortuante concequence for our country, appears to be that this government is not able to follow one path regarding our energy and how we produce it. I can't help but feel that will leave us all in a dire predicament very shortly.

One a personal level I do believe that Wind power has the ability to bridge the energy gaps which we will face. Unforunatly, in many people's eyes its biggest failing is that it looks unsightly.

So on balance it has the ability to give us our own power which is clean and if you builf enough it gets around the problem of lack of wind in some areas. One the negative side to some people they look ugly.

It really it time we got our priorities straight.

I have read all who are concerned about French ownership of our strategic national asset - nuclear power, UK jobs for the nuclear industry, short-sightedness/incompetency/leadership by our government and monetary greed by the large BE shareholders.

Let me recommend some future actions:

(1) Provide BE with the proper and appropriate regulatory and financial environment to build our nuclear power stations in the most reliable and safe manner.
(2) Get the NII to provide proper resources as they are woefully under-resourced for the licensing and oversight of the new nuclear building.
(3) Make sure that private and large shareholder ownership has the best long term strategic interests for the UK in their decisions.
(4) Be nationalistic in the UK best interest but also cooperate with the most appropriate supplier of the technology and nuclear generation components.
(5) The government needs to engage and empower voters and stakeholders in the future nuclear development while limiting the craziness of individuals suddenly becoming experts and being pedantics.

Do not assume that either the private sector with now large shareholders of BE nor government can fully chart the best course in the future. Some mix of both private and public ownership and decision-making seems to be the best answer.

r.e. comment 47, are you saying that the blogs on Le Figaro or Le Monde would be overjoyed if a British company were about to purchase EDF? (Assuming that the French ever relinquish their protectionist ways that would prevent such a sale).

Having lived in France for 2 years (my wife is French) I saw first hand that the French are often worse than us when it comes to ill-informed national bickering.

But most of the comments on here aren't singling out a French company as an unsuitable suitor, they are merely pointing out (as the French also realise) that somethings are too important to be left to overseas owners who are only interested in profit.

#54 madprophet


It all boils down to having somebody in charge that you can trust.

Do you trust politicians, like Mother Brown who has never had a proper job?

Do you trust regulators, who if they were any good would still be in industry?

Do you trust academics, whose grant funding depends on them toeing the government line?

Do you trust industrialists whose companies' need to make good returns from the investments they have made over the years?

Do you trust Johnny Foreigner who needs to get his technology accepted internationally if his backers are to prosper?

Presumably you would not trust voters who would likely make a decision based on the design of company logos.

Would you even trust yourself?
How many decisions have you made in the past which have turned out wrong?

What makes you think that experts are actually better than you?

Dear Robert
Energy requirements for the future, are going to be exhausted by 2020.
Unless we bulld ten new NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS, OR BETTER FIFTEEN.
iTS NOT THE BUILDING OF THESE THAT IS THE PROBLEM, it is the decision making and the lack of committment by Governemnt this should have started five years ago,and it is a-typical of the British establishment, and those who are responsible for this section of the Infrastructure, the "Im alright jack syndrome"
Unlewss this is done now THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE HELD TO RANSOM BY rUSSIA AND THE EU FOR DECADES TO COME.

Robert:

With all of the current discussion of nuclear power, does anyone remember the sale of Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC)?

I understand that this was owned by the UK government (through BNFL). It was put up for sale in 2005 and sold in 2006 - no-one had the foresight to think that we might need nuclear technology in the future! - with a reported asking price of USD1.8bn (GBP1bn).

So the UK sold a leading nuclear technology company in 2006 and now needs a French semi-state-owned company (EDF) to build a new generation of reactors.....

Even the valuation was dotty - rather than the asking price of USD1.8bn, the successful bidder (Toshiba) bought WEC for USD5.4bn.

Financially, where misreading of the market is concerned, it's on a par with the sale of our gold reserves.

Strategically, it was ultra-short-termism at its worst.....