[Closed] George Monbiot on nuclear

[img] [/img]

Evidence for what you nutter? I have not read a single word of this, I just know that nukes + TJ = 500 posts of hectoring bullish behaviour in which a million statistics are retrofitted to the requirements of the combatants. I thought I would help by breaking up the text with silly pictures of smileys.

It is worth noting though that it seems to be TJ vs the world on this one and we have some pretty serious physicists amongst us. You and I are not amongst them however.

X

Dear Teh Modz,

Wasn't me what tagged that up there. I assume the culprit has receieved a warning, however.

Yours, etc

CFH

🙂

Massive building programme for up-to-date Nuclear power stations, please. Quick as possible

I'm all for it. For maximum efficiency they should be sited as close as possible to where most electricity is used, so preferably right in the heart of major cities. We can start with a new nuclear power station in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff and go on from there.

Wired
chops - I am quite happy for it to be considered a worthwhile experiment as I have said several times.

I personally don't believe it will ever produce worthwhile amounts of electricity and the claims about waste are mendacious,. Decades of research into this has produced very little electricity at enormous cost produced huge amounts of waste

Torminalis - it would be nice if the pro nukes could actually produce something to back up their claims.

But so far I hear nothing from the Anti nukes that is of any consequence. My fridge runs on nuclear power and no one has died? Quelle problem?

TJ, but given the worthiness of the outcome, it's worth pushing more money into it. I don't know the details of the research, the budgets and the programs which have overseen these research projects. If you do and you have close links with the teams working on it then I'll stand aside, but your manner really does provoke endless streams of needless argument on here. I for one am really interested by this technology and would be interested to hear other people's (laypersons) opinions. Your combative approach stifles discussion. Let it go.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Dear Teh Modz,

Wasn't me what tagged that up there. I assume the culprit has receieved a warning, however.

Yours, etc

CFH

What's the score?

Well, as another of the "usual combatants" on such threads, I can't really help myself. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but I would suggest that as an environmental scientist, I do have some background in reasoned scientific questioning and judgement, rather than belief.

[u]So TJ, I'll ask you this:[/u]

If no nuclear, what else is there to fill the gap that's been invented in the past couple of months since we last had this tedious argument? Coal seems a good bet, but what do we do about the waste (oh, that's right, let it go up the chimney and forget about it, which obviously isn't an issue at all 🙄 ). Then there's gas, which not unlike the above, has some serious waste issues of its own, and will also run out soon.

Anything else proven on an industrial scale?

Hydro maybe? Trouble is we've run out of places for dams.

Anything else???

Perhaps we could all use less? Perhaps, but I refer you to the rather apparent public discontent at a few hundred pounds disappearing from some peoples' pensions. Just imagine what would happen if people were told they could only watch TV on wednesdays....

Zokes, I often puzzle over the same thing. As our technology improves and energy efficiency gets better, it just means we can cancel out the energy saving by using said technology more.
Half fat cake?! I'll have twice as much! Modern society isn't geared up for a (seemingly) regressive step with regards to energy use.

thisisnotaspoon -how much elcricity has been generated by this IFR tech? nore or less than by wave and tidal.

Well according to your wiki article 2 billion french fracs worth by that one plant which never got upto full power. Probably not a profit, but still a considerable ammount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

This one's been running at 560MW (compared to your wave generators 0.17MW) since 1980.

TandemJeremy - Member
I personally don't believe it will ever produce worthwhile amounts of electricity and the claims about waste are mendacious,. Decades of research into this has produced very little electricity at enormous cost produced huge amounts of waste

Believe away, you may as well declare the world flat while your at it.

Its the same answers as before.

Look at the whole of the UKs carbon production and go for a radical energy conservation measures. CO2 output could be reduced dramatically.

Clean conventional and Reneawables to ocover the reduced demand.

Spend the cost of one nuclear power station on insulation you reduce energy consumption by as much as that generator produces.

Conventional nuclear can never be a significant part of teh solution - there is not enough fuel and no one will share the tech with large parts of theworld

Conventional nuclear can never be a significant part of teh solution - there is not enough fuel and no one will share the tech with large parts of theworld

so whats wrong with a modern fast breed reactor, built in a GE-H factory, and producing no wepons useable waste?

Look at the whole of the UKs carbon production and go for a radical energy conservation measures. CO2 output could be reduced dramatically.

"radical measures" - example?

oh, and no-one cares about CO2 anymore, didn't you get the memo?

Conventional nuclear can never be a significant part of teh solution - there is not enough fuel and no one will share the tech with large parts of theworld

"not enough fuel" - for what time scale? - long enough get the hang of breeder reators? (and then use the 'conventional' waste to get us through another couple of hundred/thousand years)

Clean conventional and Reneawables to ocover the reduced demand.

Spend the cost of one nuclear power station on insulation you reduce energy consumption by as much as that generator produces.

But what if half those people keep leaving the back door open, and their TV's on stand-by. You know what they're like?

Spend the cost of one nuclear power station on insulation you reduce energy consumption by as much as that generator produces.

Great, except nuclar plants produce elctricity, not gas which is what most people heat their homes with. And what about the rest of the energy, we'll be a lot more than 1 station short over the coming years.

Its the same answers as before.

No TJ, you didn't read. (Not unusual mind you). I think you'll find that my post was a question.

Care to answer it with a truly viable alternative? One that would be workable in a democracy where governments making unpopular decisions tend to get voted out after a while...

We need to insulate, reduce usage, become more efficent AND run some nukes, I reckon.

I struggle to see your reasoning re new nuclear tech. You are saying that because some experiments got cancelled and a full scale reactor hasn't been built, that means the entire concept is a write-off and should be discounted from the solution?

We need to work on bringing these new nuclear ideas online. That clearly doesn't mean ignoring reduction and renewables.

I don't know why you are so dismissive.

tinas

LOOK AT THE TOTAL CO2 PRODUCTION OF THE COUNTRY AND REDUCE THAT! It matters not where it comes from - what matters is that we reduce the total amount.

energy conservation is about a lot more than reducing gas used in domestic heating

TJ,
Completely agree, we have to reduce our energy demands. Needless energy usage does my head in. It's a long road though, but it's absolutely essential. That doesn't necessarily rule out nuclear though does it. Especially one as tantalisingly awesome sounding as fast breed. At least the leaflet popped through my letterbox from AWE says it's ace.

Look, like TJ I dont really know a whole lot about this stuff, but arent we signed up to reduce our carbon emmissions by some huge number? Like 80% by 2050?

Zokes - I answered it. Its perfectly viable to reduce CO2 output without causing energy shortage. Its low tech and does not produce vast profits for the energy companies which is why its ignored. consuming less does not go down well in capitalist sytem

Molgrips - you cannot base the nations future energy supplies around an experiential and unproven tech. Treat it as an interesting experiment.

Unfortunately we do have a finite amount of money to spend - wasting it on nukes means less for other areas. Renewable research has far less money spent on it than nuclear - a tiny %.

wiredchops - it means the nuclear is not needed.

and instead rely on coal and gas?

(the only proven technology capable of meeting our demands - other than nuclear - of any kind)

LOOK AT THE TOTAL CO2 PRODUCTION OF THE COUNTRY AND REDUCE THAT! It matters not where it comes from - what matters is that we reduce the total amount.

energy conservation is about a lot more than reducing gas used in domestic heating

No need to shout.

If I turned off the heating to my house that'd be about half my annual energy usage, so lets say insulating it beyond all practial limits halved that. You're not going to convince people never to turn on the TV, lights, and to cook only microwave meals for 1 as they're more energy efficient than cooking at home are you?

If you could produce all the countrys energy needs and more, with no drawbacks other than the costs, what's the problem? Why build 3300 of your sea snake wave generators which only work some of the time, when 1 "experimental" and ignored by you 30 year old Russian reactor can do the job? Or even better, one with 30 years more tech and producing even less waste?

Zokes - I answered it.

Really?

consuming less does not go downwell in acpitalist sytem

Ah. That's your problem then.

We can all reduce our consumption, not many will. Couple this to an increasing global population, a move to electricity to replace oil for transport and gas for space and water heating and what happens? That's right, we need more electrical energy.

The only possible tool that would make this not the case would be increasing the price of energy to the point of making it bite in the biggest users' pockets. That's not going to be popular, seeing as you'll have plunged a heck of a lot of people into energy poverty first. Don't forget, just about everything you eat or use required energy to make or get it to you, so it will all be much more expensive.

Targeted subsidies may solve energy costs for the poor in such a scenario, but I'm not sure how they'd make just about everything else which relies on energy (i.e. pretty much everything) affordable.

There are plenty of other measures as well to drive down energy usage. yes a fiscal incentive is one way and many mechanisms are possible to do this. there are other mechanisms other than fiscal as well. Subsidised insulation for all old homes for example. Outlawing commercial organisation from leaving lights on all night. reducing streetlighting.

a move to electricity to replace oil for transport

it requires a government committed to reducing energy consumption tho. reduced energy consumption = reduced CO2 output. Nuclear only provides a very small % of out countries energy consumption and efficiency measure can easily reduce the countries energy consumption by a greater amount - thus meaning the nukes are redundant and CO2 production is down.

but arent we signed up to reduce our carbon emmissions by some huge number? Like 80% by 2050

Did you not notice everyone s****ing behind their hands as they signed the Kyoto agreement. The Americans didn't even sign it. They actually drew a schoolboy doodle of a spunking cock and big hairy pair of balls

Your position is just as flaky as Monbiot's, TJ. No matter how many times you repeat it as some kind of hardcore fact.

We need energy reduction AND nuclear, in my view. Simple.

Nuclear needs research - let's do the research, spend the money, and build the reactors.

it requires a government committed to reducing energy consumption tho. reduced energy consumption = reduced CO2 output. Nuclear only provides a very small % of out countries energy consumption and efficiency measure can easily reduce the countries energy consumption by a greater amount - thus meaning the nukes are redundant and CO2 production is down.

No, by your argument it's one or the other.

Keep the current power generation infrastructure, turn off the nukes and insulate everything and put your finger in your ears whenever anyone mentions increacing energy demands.

Or, make everything as energy efficient as practicaly possible, build some nuclear power stations as part of a mizuture of low carbon emission energy generation sources and slowly but surely switch everything over to electric power, producing minimal CO2.

We can't keep driving arround in fossil fuel powered cars, it's not sustainable, so the only alternative is electric, whther thats by storeing electricity in a battery, or storing it as hydrogen for a fuel cell makes no odds tot he fact you'll need a lot of wind farms to keep the M1 moving!

No its not TINAS

Nuclear produces a very small amount of the countries energy . reduce the total amount of energy used by more than that small % which is easily achievable then you can have no nukes and a reduced CO2 output.

I don't really like these aggressive arguments but I thought I'd chip in a point, gently.

I saw a documentary with Patagonia founder Yyvon Chouniard and he said at one point something along the lines of: “if you're going forward towards a cliff what do you do? Do you keep going forwards off the cliff, or do you turn 180degrees and keep going forward?”

I think we need to reimagine our society with less energy and see it not as going backwards but as going forwards in a different direction. I don't know enough about energy sources to say about nuclear, but I just hope I can make a difference in my personal life, and that there are scientists working objectively on what will be good for our survival and our planet. Peace, all.

Why don't we make everything wind-up like those torches? And the radio's they listen to in Africa. Then we could also reduce obesity as everyone takes it in turns running around in the house of an evening, winding everything up

And it'd solve the problem of leaving stuff on stand-by. A move which, according to environmentalists will, in itself, save every Polar Bear and about 30% of the penguins on the planet. And some Puffins. Probably

There are plenty of other measures as well to drive down energy usage. yes a fiscal incentive is one way and many mechanisms are possible to do this. there are other mechanisms other than fiscal as well. Subsidised insulation for all old homes for example. Outlawing commercial organisation from leaving lights on all night. reducing streetlighting.

Re-read what I wrote in full, then comment, eh? (Seeing as you're having trouble, here's the bit I'm referring to: "[i][u]Targeted subsidies may solve energy costs for the poor in such a scenario, but I'm not sure how they'd make just about everything else which relies on energy (i.e. pretty much everything) affordable.[/u][/i]")

[a move to electricity to replace oil for transport] is never going to happen on any significant scale without a major breakthrough in tech.

Well, oil will run out, and 'breakthoughs' in tech are coming along quite well. Hardly difficult to concieve that given the small but growing current crop of ever-improving hybrids, battery and hydrogen power, things in this field will improve greatly. But with the exception of the hybrid, they all still need electricity for power, something which petrol / diesel (i.e. fuels that will run out) powered cars do not. What about heating (which your selective quoting clearly missed out, despite it being in teh same sentence)

it requires a government committed to reducing energy consumption tho.

I refer you to the problem you've already identified:

consuming less does not go downwell in acpitalist sytem

And finally:

Nuclear only provides a very small % of out countries energy consumption and efficiency measure can easily reduce the countries energy consumption by a greater amount - thus meaning the nukes are redundant and CO2 production is down.

Great, what does the rest? Coal, or gas? You see, this argument is cyclical when you refuse to take your stubborn mind forward and realise how these forms of generation dispose of their waste.

[quote}

We need energy reduction AND nuclear, in my view. Simple.

why?

Its a small % of the countries energy usage and an even smalle % of the worlds energy usagge. at current rates of usage of the fuel we only have few decades left thus we do not have the fuel for the massive worlwide expansion of nuclear that would be needed to reduce CO2 output to say nothing of the fact people don't want to share nuclear with other countries.

far better to put the effort and money into renewable an energy conservation

the whole case for nuclear is as full of holes as a sieve

Nuclear produces a very small amount of the countries energy

20% is small is it?

And what happens to our elecrickery usage when everyone's got nippy little plug in cars that charge up overnight? Are we all going to have [s]pointless token gestures[/s] small wind turbines in our gardens?

Zokes - and you will not read or listen to the answers that I have given you many times.

the whole case for nuclear is as full of holes as a sieve

You've still not addressed how as a modern, democratic, energy intensive, growing, capitalist society we're going to use less electricity. Especially given the logical supposition that transport and heating will increasingly rely on electricity for their energy demands.

far better to put the effort and money into renewable an energy conservation

So lets do this to get rid of the worst polluters such as coal.

Zokes - and you will not read or listen to the answers that I have given you many times.

I think in my last couple of posts I quoted and responded to just about every point you made. Talking to you about nuclear power and expecting a sensible, reasoned response is like talking to Osama Bin Laden about the fact that Allah might not exist.

binner - ENERGY CONSUMPTION not electricity.

TJ, do you really not have anything better to do today?

(Semi-serious post. I do think you'd do well to stop arguing so much. Would make you a happier smilier person! 🙂 )

Zokes

I have but you don't want to hear,

this

Especially given the logical supposition that transport and heating will increasingly rely on electricity for their energy demands.

Dr Lovelock has a very simple solution. Build nuclear. That'll give us the 50 years we need to develop renewable to be a viable replacement. Then turn off the nukes.

CFH - well its certainly pointless isn't it - no one wants to listen for sure so its al rather pointless.

Zokes - do you actually want to try to understand or is all you are interested in is trying to argue me down.

if you are genuinely interested then I will take the time to explain

is pure supposition. Teh tech is simply not available

I have a fan heater and an electrical immersion heater. I believe these have been around for some time.

Several cities have fleets of hydrogen-powered buses, and the city council here use electrically-powered cars.

I have but you don't want to hear,

So what is it that I don't want to hear (apart from your wilful lack of sentient thought on the topic)?

I'm pretty sure more people die falling off ladders but we don't suggest burying them in the ground for 10,000 years and then get all worked up about what if someone in the future digs up a ladder, tries to climb up it and falls off?

Nuclear kills very few people e.g. a Tsunami and Earthquake strike an ageing reactor and 4 people die from the wave impact - deaths / serious injuries from the reactor melting down = 0. Deaths from car crashes in Japan each year >>>>>> 4.

my parents have an electrically heated shower, imagine that, an ELECTRIC shower.

it gets better, they've even got an electric hob (or 4).

it's like an episode of star-trek at their house...

i'd be curious to hear how much more electricity we'd need to produce if we replaced all the gas hobs/showers with electric ones -which is something we'll have to do eventually.

CFH is right.

So suddenly some way of making electric transport viable is going to appear?

Zokes - you appear not to want to hear how energy conservation will work. are you interested in this? I can explain it to you and point you to decent studies on it. However if all you are going to o is rubbish me on the basis of what you claim I say not on what I have said then its pointless.

So suddenly some way of making electric transport viable is going to appear?

[img] [/img]

Just a bit longer 😀

So suddenly some way of making electric transport viable is going to appear?

tada!

[img] http://www.picturenation.co.uk/image/view/preview/132759/electric-train-strathclyde [/img]

no, sorry, electric trains are dangerous, they're un-proven tech, they require [s]more[/s] different maintenance, we'll just have to write them off as a bad idea.

clearly, they just don't work.

i'd be curious to hear how much more electricity we'd need to produce if we replaced all the gas hobs/showers with electric ones -which is something we'll have to do eventually.

That was my point, even if energy consumtion drops, electricity consumption is going to skyrocket. There are a few electric cars available now, and probbaly many more in the not too distant future. BIL works for Tesla and says they've finished development of the loss making but public perception changing sports cars and now concnetrating on 4 door saloons with ranges comprable to a tank of Petrol.

In an ideal world everything would be solar, win, wave, tidal powered, but that like saying we should go back to the good old days of making stuff ourselves in the shed rather than working in a factory making better more reliable and larger quantities of 'stuff'. You'd need a lot of sheds/ineficiency/wind turbines to compete with one facotry/not quite so nice power station/nuclear project.

We supply 'bits' for Nuclear power stations and looking at the tenders flying round the office in the last year there are going to be new plants built.

thankfully.

There will be more built Monkey Boy. I think that's due to the people in charge of this type of thing living in the real world. As opposed to on a magically, tidal-powered, winged dream carpet

We supply 'bits' for Nuclear power stations and looking at the tenders flying round the office in the last year there are going to be new plants built.

Good, I was seriously beginning to worry that this countries energy policy was being driven by badly researched Guardian opinion pieces and Daily Mail-esque "we're all going to glow in the dark" hysteria. Maybe there is some hope after all. I bet most of the work and profits go to overseas companies though.

Nee nukes? Ordering parts before planning has been granted or contracts signed?

here is an interesting bet - Scotland is going down a very different path in major investment in renewable and there will be no new nukes in Scotland. England is going for nukes not renewable. ( neither is going for conservation in any meaningful manner)

Which way will the electricity be flowing across the border in ten years? 20? I bet Scotland is supplying England significant amounts of electricity in ten years

STW runaway thread powers entire city shock !!
rabid posters to be harnessed for future projects 🙂

For God's sake TJ we're not trying to argue you down, we're trying to help you understand.

We need energy reduction AND nuclear, in my view. Simple.

why?

We don't just need to reduce CO2 emissions, we need to get them as close to zero as possible. We might be able to meet those from renewbales, but why not work on nuclear as a solution?

And yes I know you've posted up your answer to this before, but I don't consider your answer satisfactory.

Which way will the electricity be flowing across the border in ten years? 20? I bet Scotland is supplying England significant amounts of electricity in ten years

In 20 years the financial system will have gone into meltdown and we'll be bartering with chickens so the the whole arguments irelavent.

My moneys on Salmond not being in charge in 20 years and Scotland building nuclear power stations allong with the rest of the world, wither that or it'll join the arc of prosperity with Iceland and Ireland and be bartering potatoes for haggis.

Most of the new plants will be built 'next to existing ones by the look of it, havent read much of the above but if nuclear waste is your deal check this out....(probably seen it anyway)

there was a programme about it few months back on TV, one part of it was discussing what 'signage' they would have outside once it was finally sealed from the outside world.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo#Onkalo_waste_repository ]WASTE[/url]

After the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act[22] was amended in 1994 to specify that all nuclear waste produced in Finland must be disposed of in Finland, Olkiluoto was selected in 2000 as the site for a (very) long-term underground storage facility for Finland's spent nuclear fuel.

The facility, named "Onkalo" ("cave" or "cavity")[23] is being built in the granite bedrock a few miles from the Olkiluoto power plants. The municipality of Eurajoki issued a building permit for the facility in August 2003 and excavation began in 2004.[24]

The plans for the facility consist of four phases:[citation needed]

Phase 1 (2004–09) will focus on excavation of the large access tunnel to the facility, spiraling downward to a depth of 420 metres (1,380 ft).
Phase 2 (2009–11) will continue the excavation to a final depth of 520 metres (1,710 ft). The characteristics of the bedrock will be studied in order to adapt the layout of the repository.
Around 2012, Posiva Oy, the agency responsible for the facility's construction, plans to submit an application for a license to construct the repository and any adaptations it requires. This is expected to take up to three years.[citation needed]
Phase 3, the construction of the repository, is expected to begin about 2015.
Phase 4, the encapsulation and burial of areas filled with spent fuel, is projected to begin in 2020.

molgrips - Member

For God's sake TJ we're not trying to argue you down, we're trying to help you understand.

How patronising!

From my point of view its you that does not understand. I do understand that there is not enough nuclear fuel to power the world and that the nuclear powers will not share the tech. I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale.

I do understand that there is not enough nuclear fuel to power the world

Yeah but the point is that with different tech (ie not cold-war tech) we could change that.

And I don't see anything wrong with trying.

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale

Does that necessarily mean they never could? (note don't answer that, it needs a scientist involved in the research, not a nurse or a computer programmer)

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale.

Nor has wave power, but you have faith in that.

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale

I refer the honourable gentleman back to where we answered this a few pages back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor <

There probably does exist enough potential across Europe to meet demand through renewables alone. (Scotland, Norway, Denmark - wind, Spain and Greece solar. Tidal has a a lot of potential too)

Trouble is this would require serious cross goverment co-operation and huge infrastructure projects not just to generate the power but to distribute it as well. Pan European intergration on this scale doesn't exactly have a brilliant track record. Also politically would the UK government be happy with having to rely on sunshine in Greece to guarantee power to the houses in the Home Counties when its a calm day in the Highlands?

Also what about China, India, Brazil etc. Do we just say sorry lads the the party's over you can't have any cheap energy. I abso-fricken-lutley guarantee they will be using nuclear. So we can either embrace it as a technology and work on better more effecient reactor tech for ourselves and potentially to export to massive new markets. Or we ignore it and stand by the technological sidelines - again

Nuclear energy must be great. The Iranians are hell-bent on developing it. And they've got ****-loads of oil and natural gas!

richmtb - where is the fuel for this massive expansion of nuclear going to come from?

We could of course instead become world leaders in renewables if we put all that money and R&D effort into it

richmtb - where is the fuel for this massive expansion of nuclear going to come from?

Isn't the whole point of IBR/FBR and many other similar reactor designs that they use the 99.2% of the fuel that previous generation reactors didnt use, thus providing 99x more energy and solving the waste problem.

As for becoming a leader in renewables, whenever a developing coutnry builds a renewable project (I'm thinking 3 Gorges Dam etc) we decry them for killing millions of inocent lesser spotted rarified dung beatles. Theres not much we can do to make renewables more efficient, the best we can do is build loads of them, and that takes, time, money and countryside.

We could of course instead become world leaders in renewables if we put all that money and R&D effort into it

Why are they mutually exclusive?

Did anyone say that you need to use a lot of carbon fuel to extract mine and refine your nuclear fuels? especially as you can't rely on a steady stream of decommissioned warheads any more?

Oh I did - last time we had this discussion.

If we allow the wholesale cost of electricity to rise naturally it'll reduce consumption. I reckon this has already happened with Petrol...

Did anyone say that you need to use a lot of carbon fuel to extract mine and refine your nuclear fuels?

For which reactor design?

If we allow the wholesale cost of electricity to rise naturally it'll reduce consumption. I reckon this has already happened with Petrol...

Yes because energy poverty is a great idea. Hypothermia anyone?

Did anyone say that you need to use a lot of carbon fuel to extract mine and refine your nuclear fuels? especially as you can't rely on a steady stream of decommissioned warheads any more?

Physics fail? In general the reactors convert uranium to plutonium, plutonium being used in warheads.

If there realy was more energy used getting uranium out of the ground and into a reactor than it produced in the reactor we'd just fuel the power stations with diesel!

And the whole point of FBR over erlier genration reactors is they use the WASTE from the firt gen much more efficienctly so require NO NEW FUEL.

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

thats easy for you to say

you have now changed tack on each successive page of this thread.

seek help.

Me?

How have I changed tack?

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

A brief summary purleez Uncle Jezza.....

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

Yes, but we generaly hate it. The news last month was full of stories about how energy tarrifs were overly complicated, can't see increacing that complexity making any new friends.

Agree with you on principle though as the current system of chageing X for the first few units then Y for the rest (where X>Y) is a regressive system, even if it does accurately reflect the energy suppliers costs.

binners - domestic consumers as consumption rises so does the price.