It's also worth noting that increasingly in Germany, people are putting solar panels on their roofs, without signing up to subsidy programmes. It is actually economic in Munich now to put panels up, just to lower your existing bill. The effective cost of electricity in Southern Germany is probably €0.26-27/KWh, as opposed to about €0.30 for the stuff that EON or RWE sells you.
Solar power potential is roughly the same in SW England as in Munich.
As solar panels become cheaper it will increasingly make sense to use solar in England too.
I think solar panels on rooftops (i.e. almost no transmission costs) or chimneys on rooftops with a mini wind turbine inside (i.e. almost no transmission costs) is very likely to make sense.
Brooks Newmark MP @TweetBrooks On #bbcdp 12.30pm 2day discussing blight of plan for solar panels on up to 300 acres of beautiful north Essex countryside. @BraintreeTweets
Anyone know whats wrong with solar panels now, is this some Continuity NIMBY group I've missed?
I'll tell you what's wrong with solar panels - we live in Northern Europe. It's not very sunny.
Except Germany is breaking solar production records month after month. The last time I looked at a map, their latitude was very similar to that of the UK.
And they're paying for it - and how! They've gone OTT on solar - so they need very very underutilised backup plant. So electricity has become very very expensive. They're burning more coal than ever and releasing more CO2 than ever to enjoy their lovely panels. Even their industry minister says it's time to stop and get viable power costs or Germany is fucXed. The acres of blue glass you see across Germany are evidence of failure not success. And it has cost their taxpayers an arm and a leg.
If your objective is solar at any cost this is achievable - at a cost. A very steep one. If your objective is a coherent, sustainable, low cost, reliable supply of power - well that's a different objetcive isn't it?
If your ability to mitigate the consequences requires an industrial base and your viable prevention options would a) only work if everybody did them and b) would destroy your industrial base if they don't then it would be (and is) nuts to adopt those preventive options.
a) is an exaggeration - pricier energy isn't good for the industrial base, but there are key factors like labour costs that will be more important for most industries. b) is wrong because prevention is not all-or-nothing, as we've already discussed.
..and for reference I agree with the points various posters have made about widely distributed small scale solar in buildings / on rooves etc where there is an economically positive NPV assoicated with doing it. That makes sense...
It's also worth noting that increasingly in Germany, people are putting solar panels on their roofs, without signing up to subsidy programmes. It is actually economic in Munich now to put panels up, just to lower your existing bill. The effective cost of electricity in Southern Germany is probably €0.26-27/KWh, as opposed to about €0.30 for the stuff that EON or RWE sells you.
Solar power potential is roughly the same in SW England as in Munich.
As solar panels become cheaper it will increasingly make sense to use solar in England too.
Yes, but our electricity prices are cheaper! And Germany has a very efficient rooftop solar installation industry. Put those together, and we're roughly four to five years behind Germany as far as unsubsidised rooftop solar goes.
The best Hydro option would be to ignore the greenies and hollow out some mountains (as per Dinorwig) and let renewables be used to pump water up into them. We would then be able to STORE renewable energy inputs (this is the key problem) and do some smart peak / trough demand management - stabilising load factors across the whole supply chain.
This greenie has long been trying to point that out to the renewable energy naysayers.
Worth remembering that one of the main reasons for building the pumped storage stations, such as Dinorwig, was to store the electricity produced overnight by nuclear, which you can't turn off when demand falls.
There are lots of other interesting ideas being introduced along these lines. Producing gas with excess electricity is another option for example.
Sadly for the dreamers, there is a big problem with pumped-storage: there may not be enough mountains.
The Dinorwig scheme can generate 1.7GW for a limited period, and can in total store about 9GWh. The head between the lakes is about 500 metres.
That does not sound much, but you need to find a large expanse of land to hold the upper pond, a long way (ideally in the order of 500 metres) above a water source, in an area where the ground is stable enough to take the required tunnels and caverns, and near enough to power lines, and perhaps the intermittent power sources (e.g. wind farms).
You soon start to run out of sites. For one thing, many geologies do not like massive lakes being plonked on top of them, whilst others are unsuitable to hold the required dams. The upper pound ideally needs to be in a V or U shaped valley to decrease the costs of dams.
Having said that, there is a great deal of potential in the UK for pumped storage. Just perhaps not enough.
Brooks Newmark MP @TweetBrooks On #bbcdp 12.30pm 2day discussing blight of plan for solar panels on up to 300 acres of beautiful north Essex countryside. @BraintreeTweets
Anyone know whats wrong with solar panels now, is this some Continuity NIMBY group I've missed?
I'll tell you what's wrong with solar panels - we live in Northern Europe. It's not very sunny.
Bang on.
Solar panels are fundamentally uneconomic for 'utility scale' power in Northern Europe.
It is, however, worth noting that solar is increasingly attractive in sunnier climes. Firstly, unlike wind, solar output is - effectively - peaking plant. It supplies power during the day when demand is highest and air conditioners are running flat out. This is much more attractive than wind, which tends to blow in the middle of the night, when demand is lowest.
It's also worth noting that increasingly in Germany, people are putting solar panels on their roofs, without signing up to subsidy programmes. It is actually economic in Munich now to put panels up, just to lower your existing bill. The effective cost of electricity in Southern Germany is probably €0.26-27/KWh, as opposed to about €0.30 for the stuff that EON or RWE sells you.
Solar prices are declining all the time, so even in the (Southern) UK, I would expect residential - not utility scale - to be cost effecient in about four or five years.
I have never understood (as I am sure I have said on here before) why we do not insist that every new house that is built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard. Economies of scale would mean that someone building a housing estate would be able to fit out every house at a fraction of the price it would cost to do each house individually later on. In addition if you are paying 250K to buy a new house I am not sure the extra couple of thousand would really impact on your thinking.
Brooks Newmark MP @TweetBrooks On #bbcdp 12.30pm 2day discussing blight of plan for solar panels on up to 300 acres of beautiful north Essex countryside. @BraintreeTweets
Anyone know whats wrong with solar panels now, is this some Continuity NIMBY group I've missed?
I'll tell you what's wrong with solar panels - we live in Northern Europe. It's not very sunny.
Bang on.
Solar panels are fundamentally uneconomic for 'utility scale' power in Northern Europe.
It is, however, worth noting that solar is increasingly attractive in sunnier climes. Firstly, unlike wind, solar output is - effectively - peaking plant. It supplies power during the day when demand is highest and air conditioners are running flat out. This is much more attractive than wind, which tends to blow in the middle of the night, when demand is lowest.
It's also worth noting that increasingly in Germany, people are putting solar panels on their roofs, without signing up to subsidy programmes. It is actually economic in Munich now to put panels up, just to lower your existing bill. The effective cost of electricity in Southern Germany is probably €0.26-27/KWh, as opposed to about €0.30 for the stuff that EON or RWE sells you.
Solar prices are declining all the time, so even in the (Southern) UK, I would expect residential - not utility scale - to be cost effecient in about four or five years.
I have never understood (as I am sure I have said on here before) why we do not insist that every new house that is built in the UK has solar panels fitted as standard. Economies of scale would mean that someone building a housing estate would be able to fit out every house at a fraction of the price it would cost to do each house individually later on. In addition if you are paying 250K to buy a new house I am not sure the extra couple of thousand would really impact on your thinking.
If your ability to mitigate the consequences requires an industrial base and your viable prevention options would a) only work if everybody did them and b) would destroy your industrial base if they don't then it would be (and is) nuts to adopt those preventive options.
a) is an exaggeration - pricier energy isn't good for the industrial base, but there are key factors like labour costs that will be more important for most industries. b) is wrong because prevention is not all-or-nothing, as we've already discussed.
Then i'm sure you'll agree that the great solution this country has come up with of running the national grid off 1000s of diesel generators should be as widely publicized as possible so the whole world can copy it.
How much is lost in tax revenues from the Grangemouth closure? Unite have shown that they want to turn Scotland into an economic wasteland. They have destroyed jobs, incomes and cash flows not just at that plant.
Its back to the 60s with Len and his merry men at Unite, tune in to see which firms they wreck next.
This opens a route to the nightmare scenario for UK europhiles. Miliband wins the election. Merkel demands treaty change. Labour are forced to offer an in/out referendum, in the middle of Labour's mid-term, say 2018, when both he and the EU are hugely unpopular.
Britain votes to leave the EU.
Miliband won't offer a referendum. The thinking amongst Labour politicians (As espoused by Mr Palmer here) is that voters trust Labour to make those sorts of decisions on their behalf rather than having referendums. Mr Miliband will sign us up to whatever, just like Gordon did.
Mary Creagh not enjoying Andrew Neil's review of Labour's performance on oil refinery capacity....and now he's bringing up TIMEX Dundee.....
The Socialist Party of Scotland think TIMEX was a great success
"A key lesson is that if 340 workers in Dundee could take on and fight to a standstill a huge corporation like Timex along with their allies in the police and the media, just think what a 24-hour general strike involving all workers in the private and public sectors could achieve."
This opens a route to the nightmare scenario for UK europhiles. Miliband wins the election. Merkel demands treaty change. Labour are forced to offer an in/out referendum, in the middle of Labour's mid-term, say 2018, when both he and the EU are hugely unpopular.
Britain votes to leave the EU.
Five words: quid pro quo; opt outs.
For Merkel and the EU to get their way, she'd have to offer the UK an opt-out on the budget control proposal, perhaps disguised as a general opt-out for member states not in or in the process of joining the Euro. The improved competitivity agenda is something most British governments have pushed since Thatcher and the Single European Market. A UK PM would still need to 'get something back' in order to sell it to the public. Is Miliband the man to do that? Depends on how much stress he places on (1) being liked by his EU counterparts and (2) being seen to be 'in' on the project.
What we need is a profitable nationalised power industry with private sector values, employment terms, wages and returns. No increasing YoY divis for shareholders, instead those coffers going to the nation and no Mr Mcluskeys/Unions striking.
This conversation seems a good time to give the following links to the Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident. The energies involved in these sorts of schemes are amazing, whether powered by gas, nuclear or water.
This opens a route to the nightmare scenario for UK europhiles. Miliband wins the election. Merkel demands treaty change. Labour are forced to offer an in/out referendum, in the middle of Labour's mid-term, say 2018, when both he and the EU are hugely unpopular.
Britain votes to leave the EU.
I'd be surprised if they could pass anything that fast, let alone a plan to give Germany power over national budgets. If they did, Enhanced Cooperation among Eurozone participants would be the path of least resistance. Miliband wouldn't call a referendum on a treaty he hadn't signed.
What we need is a profitable nationalised power industry with private sector values, employment terms, wages and returns. No increasing YoY divis for shareholders, instead those coffers going to the nation and no Mr Mcluskeys/Unions striking.
It's a pipe dream isn't it ?
UK energy and gas prices are already among the cheapest in Europe, so you could argue the current system is fairly efficient. What we really need to do is get people's disposable income going up so that they can afford to pay for the rise in global fuel prices, green energy commitments, etc.
So can someone explain what the hell happened in Grangemouth? I have read a few reports but none of the really explain why the union and INEOS didn't do a deal when faced with closure of the plant and a loss of over 1,000 jobs as well as 10% of Scotland's economic output and 1% of UK GDP. Is there hope of resolution, can the decision be reversed?
@MaxPB - short version - INEOS told Unite 'this plant is losing money - we need cuts to costs, including pension scheme.' Unite said 'we don't believe you - and we're going to have a strike over our union official involved in the Falkirk mess' INEOS - if you strike, the plant will lose more money & we'll have to think about closing' Unite strike then say 'lets negotiate'. INEOS - we're losing £10m/month - accept these new benefits or we'll close. Unite - you're bluffing. INEOS - we're calling in the liquidators.
Merkel may want to bring about the de facto end of nation states in the Eurozone - but it's not at all clear that the people of the Eurozone are in the same place. I don't think Redward will frace the referendum conundrum you pose. It would require the French, for example, to agree to abolish France. Ain't gonna happen.
So can someone explain what the hell happened in Grangemouth? I have read a few reports but none of the really explain why the union and INEOS didn't do a deal when faced with closure of the plant and a loss of over 1,000 jobs as well as 10% of Scotland's economic output and 1% of UK GDP. Is there hope of resolution, can the decision be reversed?
If it's the chemical plant closing and not the refinery then why is all the spin about the refinery?
I read some time back that high energy users like chemical plants and aluminium smelters were the industries that would be driven out of the country by the green taxes so i'm wondering if that is really what this is about?
"John Major - a Conservative PM that actually won an overall majority.."
ouch
Ah yes, heard that. My immediate thought when he said it was that JM and DC both became Prime Minister, which is victory by any reasonable measure. And JGB isn't any more (thank God).
What just happened in Grangemouth is that a militantly and deliberately blinkered trade union refused to accept the economic realities of the plant and insisted on not giving an inch. As ever, they fail to accept that the owner of a facility is not obliged to take losses forever and can close shop. Byebye Grangemouth. Byebye jobs.
A union that was genuinely interested in the wellbeing of its members would have moved heaven and earth to help Ineos find a way to cut costs and make even a wafer thin profit achievable. But this is the owner of the Labour party we're talking about here.
So can someone explain what the hell happened in Grangemouth? I have read a few reports but none of the really explain why the union and INEOS didn't do a deal when faced with closure of the plant and a loss of over 1,000 jobs as well as 10% of Scotland's economic output and 1% of UK GDP. Is there hope of resolution, can the decision be reversed?
If INEOS are to be believed they were losing over £10 million a month. Why would they chose to keep the plant open under those circumstances when the unions were unwilling to support their plans to cut costs?
Cameron says he wants to roll back some of the green regulations and charges.... There are four bits of a bill: wholesale prices; transmission costs; profits; and green measures.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Next question, and I think it's probably a stupid one, why the hell was the union so inflexible when faced with the loss of so many of their members' jobs? Seems like a rather irrational move from the union. The auto unions have been eminently sensible over switching to 4 day weeks and 2 shift days etc... Why was ACAS so inflexible? Especially in the face of INEOS losing £10m per month on operations.
Interesting fact - Miliband appointed 5 of the 9 members of the OFGEM board.....Cameron recovering, but Miliband had his best day in a long time today.....
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
If a last minute buyer can be found, or if it's possible, legal and financially practical, a snap-nationalisation of Grangemouth would be a masterstroke for Salmond and the Yes campaign.
Not holding my breath on the former – nor the latter to be honest.
Cameron says he wants to roll back some of the green regulations and charges.... There are four bits of a bill: wholesale prices; transmission costs; profits; and green measures.
That's the next election, that is. Cameron gets to promise a £112 cut in bills while Miliband only offers a bill freeze.
Of course, it will completely destroy investment in the renewable industry due to the investment uncertainty that it creates - which I am sure you will decry.
A very bad day at the office for Cameron, no doubt about that.
You can see what's going to happen though - The Conservatives are going to go into the next election pledging to get rid of most of the "green taxes" and the question then will be what will be Labour's response?
Thanks for the replies everyone. Next question, and I think it's probably a stupid one, why the hell was the union so inflexible when faced with the loss of so many of their members' jobs? Seems like a rather irrational move from the union. The auto unions have been eminently sensible over switching to 4 day weeks and 2 shift days etc... Why was ACAS so inflexible? Especially in the face of INEOS losing £10m per month on operations.
The professional negotiators will still have jobs tomorrow. They just move on to the next fight leaving the real workers to pick up the pieces of any result.
Easier for them to spin "the company has already made their minds up" to the media than "we compromised and only half our members' lost their jobs". They don't care about the people they are negotiating on behalf of any more than a rock cares if the sun shines. They are a statistic.
Of course, it will completely destroy investment in the renewable industry due to the investment uncertainty that it creates - which I am sure you will decry.
I think the hints could not be stronger that there is something coming in the Autumn Statement.
As for the renewables industry, it would of course depend on what exactly was proposed, but, unlike new gas-powered stations, we're not in desperately urgent need of investment to keep the lights on.
What was much better about Ed today was that for once he seemed to react to the answers and gave a better impression of being spontaneous. A much less wooden performance. What a change from last week.
Merkel may want to bring about the de facto end of nation states in the Eurozone - but it's not at all clear that the people of the Eurozone are in the same place. I don't think Redward will frace the referendum conundrum you pose. It would require the French, for example, to agree to abolish France. Ain't gonna happen.
Right, either their economies are still screwed, in which case the mainstream parties in the periphery are going to be terrified of getting killed by their respective left-wing and right-wing populists, or they're better and everything's back to normal, and Merkel no longer has any leverage.
Though the Lib's would quite like Sir John's "windfall tax" idea I'd have thought, so maybe they can do a deal where-by the government taxes the energy companies and the Lib's agree to *some* reduction in green taxes at the same time?
Shapps & Cameroons being shown up as a group of out of touch charlatans on Green taxes. What about all the other taxes, and regulations thrown on to motorists?
The killer for Cameron was Milibands line on 'Of course, John Major was a conservative prime minister who won a majority'
The Tory faces were a picture, from there on in Cameron was hanging on to the ropes begging for the round to end.
Well, Major may have won a majority, but let's not forget he also took the Tories down to their worst drubbing since the Duke Of Wellington!
So bad was the defeat that there was no recovery AT ALL until after 2005 and 2010 was made so hard for the Tories to win, primarily because they first had to take back over 50 seats that they never should have lost in the first place.
I don't think even you are expecting 2015 to be a Conservative blood-bath on that scale?
I think if Osborne were to make a bold move on cutting green bullsh1t out of energy bills the electoral response would be instant and dramatic. But...he's got European legislation and his weirdy beardy coalitionistas to negotiate around first. I'm not sure what the options really are.
Interesting that Ineos are appointing liquidators for the petrochemical plant, which presumably means that it is legally distinct from their other operations. That could mean the UK government picking up some of the tab for redundancies - and certainly means that workers will get the bare legal minimum.
Completely OT, but a few days back somebody posted a load of cobblers from the Observer or somewhere with a headline about Japanese people not having sex. This is a nice, very thorough debunking:
Holyrood magazine @HolyroodDaily 1m DAVEY: Ineos and petroChina will keep refinery open #grangemouth
INEOS have variously said that Grangemouth was losing £10m a month, £150m a year and that the Petrochemical plant was losing £50m a year (making it the lesser loss-maker by my reckoning). It certainly looks like some clarity is needed with the INEOS books.
"An indefinite shutdown of both the refinery and petrochemicals plant at Grangemouth could cost the Scottish economy as much as 2 per cent of gross domestic product."
It seems a good as thread as any to say that I just love looking at chemical plants or oil refineries especially at night. My wife only allows me one picture of a oil refinery to hang up on the wall though. She prefers flowers or parisian lover scenes and othe mushy stuff like that
Interesting that Ineos are appointing liquidators for the petrochemical plant, which presumably means that it is legally distinct from their other operations. That could mean the UK government picking up some of the tab for redundancies - and certainly means that workers will get the bare legal minimum.
Claims should only be made on the DTI if there are insufficient funds in the company to pay the liability and that seems very unlikely since the redundancy claims are preferred creditors and the company has significant assets.
I agree about the statutory minimum payments though.
One thing that is curious is why they have chosen a liquidator instead of an administrator. Presumably they or the insolvency practitioner they have consulted cannot identify a viable business here that might be saved? I must say that does seem a little surprising and depressing.
Comments
Unlike giant wind or solar farms.
If your objective is solar at any cost this is achievable - at a cost. A very steep one.
If your objective is a coherent, sustainable, low cost, reliable supply of power - well that's a different objetcive isn't it?
Sam Hodges @Sam_Hodges
Not only did Bake Off rate higher than Saturday's XFactor, it was also #BBC2's biggest show in at least a decade. #GBBO
b) is wrong because prevention is not all-or-nothing, as we've already discussed.
The Dinorwig scheme can generate 1.7GW for a limited period, and can in total store about 9GWh. The head between the lakes is about 500 metres.
That does not sound much, but you need to find a large expanse of land to hold the upper pond, a long way (ideally in the order of 500 metres) above a water source, in an area where the ground is stable enough to take the required tunnels and caverns, and near enough to power lines, and perhaps the intermittent power sources (e.g. wind farms).
You soon start to run out of sites. For one thing, many geologies do not like massive lakes being plonked on top of them, whilst others are unsuitable to hold the required dams. The upper pound ideally needs to be in a V or U shaped valley to decrease the costs of dams.
Having said that, there is a great deal of potential in the UK for pumped storage. Just perhaps not enough.
As usual, Withouthtehotair has more info:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_192.shtml
And so does the Engineer:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/grid-connected-energy-storage-a-new-piece-in-the-uk-energy-puzzle/1014536.article
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84095
"John Major's energy tax: The case for concluding that something is up is overwhelming"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100242622/john-majors-energy-tax-the-case-for-concluding-that-something-is-up-is-overwhelming/
Mr Miliband will sign us up to whatever, just like Gordon did.
The Socialist Party of Scotland think TIMEX was a great success
"A key lesson is that if 340 workers in Dundee could take on and fight to a standstill a huge corporation like Timex along with their allies in the police and the media, just think what a 24-hour general strike involving all workers in the private and public sectors could achieve."
http://www.socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/trade-union/other-news/447-timex-when-workers-fought-the-bosses-to-a-standstill
For Merkel and the EU to get their way, she'd have to offer the UK an opt-out on the budget control proposal, perhaps disguised as a general opt-out for member states not in or in the process of joining the Euro. The improved competitivity agenda is something most British governments have pushed since Thatcher and the Single European Market. A UK PM would still need to 'get something back' in order to sell it to the public. Is Miliband the man to do that? Depends on how much stress he places on (1) being liked by his EU counterparts and (2) being seen to be 'in' on the project.
It's one minute past midnight - bit late to be talking wibble like this now.
It's a pipe dream isn't it ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfW5MqT7CSA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano–Shushenskaya_power_station_accident
UK energy and gas prices are already among the cheapest in Europe, so you could argue the current system is fairly efficient. What we really need to do is get people's disposable income going up so that they can afford to pay for the rise in global fuel prices, green energy commitments, etc.
Has he hit the net ?
Merkel may want to bring about the de facto end of nation states in the Eurozone - but it's not at all clear that the people of the Eurozone are in the same place. I don't think Redward will frace the referendum conundrum you pose. It would require the French, for example, to agree to abolish France. Ain't gonna happen.
ouch
*sobs*
I read some time back that high energy users like chemical plants and aluminium smelters were the industries that would be driven out of the country by the green taxes so i'm wondering if that is really what this is about?
(Pure guess though.)
Let this stop.
What just happened in Grangemouth is that a militantly and deliberately blinkered trade union refused to accept the economic realities of the plant and insisted on not giving an inch. As ever, they fail to accept that the owner of a facility is not obliged to take losses forever and can close shop. Byebye Grangemouth. Byebye jobs.
A union that was genuinely interested in the wellbeing of its members would have moved heaven and earth to help Ineos find a way to cut costs and make even a wafer thin profit achievable. But this is the owner of the Labour party we're talking about here.
EdM 10 - enjoying himself, in control, Dave 1.5 - outflanked, picking up a bit at the end
Cameron says he wants to roll back some of the green regulations and charges.... There are four bits of a bill: wholesale prices; transmission costs; profits; and green measures.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/23/mps-question-police-over-plebgate-politics-live-blog
I think that's slightly mean - not sure Miliband needed any help!
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
I suppose we have confirmation that there will be a reduction in green taxes. It is interesting that the Lib Dems have gone along with that.
It also seems that Ed is not content with threatening future investment but wants to make our market less attractive right now.
Did Cameron not just have a pop at Huhne?
Brian Binley, a Conservative, asks Cameron to reduce the impact of Chris Huhne's renewable energy measures.
Cameron says Binley has a point. Green measures are adding £112 to bills.
A planted question, one imagines. Perhaps the Major comments were agreed in advance, as several journalists have suggested.
Very depressing to hear the anti-green rhetoric of the Tories, backed by labour.
"Bercow rules that the word conman is "unParliamentary". Bet No.10 count it as a result tho. Will ensure soundbite is on telly."
Not holding my breath on the former – nor the latter to be honest.
Of course, it will completely destroy investment in the renewable industry due to the investment uncertainty that it creates - which I am sure you will decry.
You can see what's going to happen though - The Conservatives are going to go into the next election pledging to get rid of most of the "green taxes" and the question then will be what will be Labour's response?
Easier for them to spin "the company has already made their minds up" to the media than "we compromised and only half our members' lost their jobs". They don't care about the people they are negotiating on behalf of any more than a rock cares if the sun shines. They are a statistic.
But the good man/ con man riposte was pretty poor to start off with.
As for the renewables industry, it would of course depend on what exactly was proposed, but, unlike new gas-powered stations, we're not in desperately urgent need of investment to keep the lights on.
"Bloody good idea. They thieve from the gullible and stupid."
And those who have difficulty spelling !!
Titters ....
Who are we to legislate against stupidity? It's one of the few entertainments for the rest of us in life.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/unions-vs-grangemouth/
Though the Lib's would quite like Sir John's "windfall tax" idea I'd have thought, so maybe they can do a deal where-by the government taxes the energy companies and the Lib's agree to *some* reduction in green taxes at the same time?
So bad was the defeat that there was no recovery AT ALL until after 2005 and 2010 was made so hard for the Tories to win, primarily because they first had to take back over 50 seats that they never should have lost in the first place.
I don't think even you are expecting 2015 to be a Conservative
blood-bath on that scale?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24637499
I bet Number 10 are really upset about that......
http://kotaku.com/wrong-about-japan-and-sex-1450567428?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow
DAVEY: Ineos and petroChina will keep refinery open #grangemouth
INEOS have variously said that Grangemouth was losing £10m a month, £150m a year and that the Petrochemical plant was losing £50m a year (making it the lesser loss-maker by my reckoning). It certainly looks like some clarity is needed with the INEOS books.
Happy, as always MrG, to be corrected.
I agree about the statutory minimum payments though.
One thing that is curious is why they have chosen a liquidator instead of an administrator. Presumably they or the insolvency practitioner they have consulted cannot identify a viable business here that might be saved? I must say that does seem a little surprising and depressing.
If you can get your car insuranace from Tesco and your internet from Sky, why can't you get your gas from Sainsburys?