We are faced with crumbling and old infrastructure. A lack of real investment in new technology and new generations of power stations has created a reduction in the ability of countries such as the United Kingdom being able to meet its energy (electricity) needs.
The need to make a quick buck has not helped either. Investors no longer invested in statutory undertaker to make a small but steady profit but tried to maximise their returns while minimising their outlay or investment. Boards of directors and compliant management along with the lure of stock options were only too eager to jump onto the bandwagon.
Electricity generating companies have no legal obligation to provide electricity and because regulators and governments do not produce electricity themselves, they cannot guarantee the future supply of electricity.
Consequentially, in countries like the United Kingdom, the planned decommissioning of older nuclear power stations is suspended indefinitely i.e. the 1,250MW Torness nuclear power station is currently set for 2023, but its operator, British Energy, is already talking about an extension to its operating life.
To ensure that the future generating capacity can meet the demand, new generating capacity and/or further energy efficiency measures will be required beyond 2010. It is estimated that British families will face an extra £700 a year on their energy bills to replace Britain's aging power stations.
The United Kingdom imports/exports electricity from France through a 2GW high voltage direct current link under the English Channel. In 2004 the UK imported 9,784 GWh of electricity and exported 2,294 GWh.
There is also a 500 MW connection between Scotland and Northern Ireland and a 600 MW connection between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Even though renewable energy has been around for a reasonable amount of time its exorbitant price has more than often stopped most of us from pursuing its use. In 2004 3.6% of all electricity generated in the UK came from renewable energy of which 12.25% came from onshore wind farms, 1,4% from offshore wind farms and only 0.03% from photovoltaic cells. And let us not forget the inefficient use of the necessary backup gas and oil turbines being constantly throttled up and down to counter the losses and gains from wind turbines in order to balance the UK's energy requirement.
Interestingly enough the 'world's leading solar power generator' is not in sun soaked regions such as California or southern Spain. It would probably surprise you to learn that that title goes to a country whose climate is not exactly famed for its blazing sunshine and one which is not so different to Britain's: Germany.
At the time of writing, Germany had over 300,000 solar panel systems generating over 200 times more solar energy than the United Kingdom. Within four to five years, Germany will generate as much of its electricity from solar power as the United Kingdom currently generate from nuclear (around 20%).
So while Germany actually does something concrete about renewable energy the United Kingdom's government effectively helps the climate-industrial complex "steal" yet more money from captive consumers through steep gas and electricity prices.
In the United States the picture is just as bad. When the American Clean Energy Security act (ACES) passes it will cost the average American family $1,241 per year because as the Wall Street Journal put it, "the whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. The effect of ACES will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars.
An analysis carried out in Britain found that the average UK family is paying nearly $1,300 a year for the so-called carbon-cutting programs introduced there just a few years ago.
So, instead of pushing solar energy and helping home owners generate their own electricity the general idea in both the USA and the UK is to hike the price of electricity and gas to try to get you to use less energy. I think that this is contemptuous when those pushing these policies know that ultimately the cost of these policies will be passed onto the consumers in one way or another and that reductions in consumer spending will ultimately mean a decline in production and lead to the loss of jobs.
The need to make a quick buck has not helped either. Investors no longer invested in statutory undertaker to make a small but steady profit but tried to maximise their returns while minimising their outlay or investment. Boards of directors and compliant management along with the lure of stock options were only too eager to jump onto the bandwagon.
Electricity generating companies have no legal obligation to provide electricity and because regulators and governments do not produce electricity themselves, they cannot guarantee the future supply of electricity.
Consequentially, in countries like the United Kingdom, the planned decommissioning of older nuclear power stations is suspended indefinitely i.e. the 1,250MW Torness nuclear power station is currently set for 2023, but its operator, British Energy, is already talking about an extension to its operating life.
To ensure that the future generating capacity can meet the demand, new generating capacity and/or further energy efficiency measures will be required beyond 2010. It is estimated that British families will face an extra £700 a year on their energy bills to replace Britain's aging power stations.
The United Kingdom imports/exports electricity from France through a 2GW high voltage direct current link under the English Channel. In 2004 the UK imported 9,784 GWh of electricity and exported 2,294 GWh.
There is also a 500 MW connection between Scotland and Northern Ireland and a 600 MW connection between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Even though renewable energy has been around for a reasonable amount of time its exorbitant price has more than often stopped most of us from pursuing its use. In 2004 3.6% of all electricity generated in the UK came from renewable energy of which 12.25% came from onshore wind farms, 1,4% from offshore wind farms and only 0.03% from photovoltaic cells. And let us not forget the inefficient use of the necessary backup gas and oil turbines being constantly throttled up and down to counter the losses and gains from wind turbines in order to balance the UK's energy requirement.
Interestingly enough the 'world's leading solar power generator' is not in sun soaked regions such as California or southern Spain. It would probably surprise you to learn that that title goes to a country whose climate is not exactly famed for its blazing sunshine and one which is not so different to Britain's: Germany.
At the time of writing, Germany had over 300,000 solar panel systems generating over 200 times more solar energy than the United Kingdom. Within four to five years, Germany will generate as much of its electricity from solar power as the United Kingdom currently generate from nuclear (around 20%).
So while Germany actually does something concrete about renewable energy the United Kingdom's government effectively helps the climate-industrial complex "steal" yet more money from captive consumers through steep gas and electricity prices.
In the United States the picture is just as bad. When the American Clean Energy Security act (ACES) passes it will cost the average American family $1,241 per year because as the Wall Street Journal put it, "the whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. The effect of ACES will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars.
An analysis carried out in Britain found that the average UK family is paying nearly $1,300 a year for the so-called carbon-cutting programs introduced there just a few years ago.
So, instead of pushing solar energy and helping home owners generate their own electricity the general idea in both the USA and the UK is to hike the price of electricity and gas to try to get you to use less energy. I think that this is contemptuous when those pushing these policies know that ultimately the cost of these policies will be passed onto the consumers in one way or another and that reductions in consumer spending will ultimately mean a decline in production and lead to the loss of jobs.
SHARE
