Showing posts with label EDF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EDF. Show all posts

Monday, 21 October 2013

Ed Davey's disappearing press release

In October 2013 the coalition government signed up to a ludicrous multi-billion pound price-fixing deal with a consortium led by the French state owned power company EdF, in return for their construction of a new nuclear facility at Hinkley Point C in Somerset. 


For full analysis of this ludicrous price-fixing deal check out this article:
               

12 Things You Should Know About ... The Nuclear Industry Price-Fixing Subsidies


One of the 12 points in the above linked article was a demonstration that the Liberal Democrat energy minister Ed Davey had performed a quite remarkable U-turn in order to support this absurd price-fixing scheme with comments like: 


"A new generation of nuclear power stations will cost taxpayers and customers tens of billions of pounds"
And
"This is an excellent deal for Britain and British consumers ... It will increase energy security and resilience from a safe, reliable, home-grown source of electricity"
I posted a link to an old Ed Davey press release from 2006 called "Say No To Nuclear" in which he claimed that:
"In addition to posing safety and environmental risks, nuclear power will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market"
The press release had sat there on his website for seven long years, but as soon as I started directing a bit of traffic towards it, it suddenly disappeared! What a coincidence eh? It's almost as if Ed Davey was so embarrassed at having his appalling hypocrisy exposed that he deleted it to stop people from seeing!

But since such a transparent effort to hide the truth conflicts so badly with the Coalition government's commitment to transparency and accountability, we must assume that there's been some sort of mistake.

It's a good job for Ed Davey that I had the foresight to take a screenshot of his press release and to make sure that it was listed on the Wayback Machine, just in case something should ever accidentally happen to it, and that I'm more than happy to share it around for him, considering he seems to be having such technical difficulties with his own website.




Please help Ed Davey out by sharing this content as much as you can. I'm sure he'd be more than grateful for your help in spreading this important Liberal Democrat message that has accidentally been deleted from his website.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.
 

        
                                            

12 Things you should know about Tory nuclear price-fixing subsidies


Just a few short weeks after deriding Ed Miliband's plan to cap energy prices for 20 months as "price fixing" and "interference in the market" the Tory led government has signed up to a ludicrous 35 year price fixing deal with the French state run energy company EdF, in return for the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset.

The Rip-off deal


The deal that has been agreed is an absolutely astonishing rip-off for the British taxpayer. The UK government has guaranteed to buy electricity from the new reactor at £92.50 per megawatt hour, which is almost double the actual market rate. The difference between the market rate for electricity and the strike rate of £92.50 will be made up by the taxpayer using Contracts for Difference (CfDs). This means that the electricity consumer will be paying for their electricity twice; once by buying it on the electricity market, and again through the taxes necessary in order to pay for the price fixing subsidies.


Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London has calculated that these CfD subsidies will cost the taxpayer around £800 million - £1 billion per year. Over the 35 year life of the contract this will add up to a taxpayer funded subsidy of  £28 billion - £35 billion, which is double the estimated £14 - £16 billion construction cost of the entire facility!

David Cameron is lying again

David Cameron has such a shocking track record of lying to the public that it's got to the point where if Cameron says something, it's pretty safe to assume that the opposite is true. If Cameron says the NHS is "safe" in his hands, we know that it is in danger. If Cameron tells parliament that the UK has been "bankrupted", we can be sure that the UK is still solvent, and if he says that the Hinkley Point subsidies represent "an excellent deal for Britain and British consumers", we can be sure that we're getting an absolutely atrocious deal.

How divorced from reality would you have to be to state that a deal to pay £28 - £35 billion in price fixing subsidies for a piece of infrastructure that cost £14 - £16 billion to build represents an "excellent deal"?


Tory hypocrisy

I've already written a lengthy article exposing Tory hypocrisy over their opposition to Ed Miliband's energy price cap policy, so I'll be brief here.

If you are incapable of seeing how hypocritical it is to slag off Ed Miliband as a "price fixer" and "market rigger" for planning a 20 month maximum energy price to help electricity consumers, then within weeks agreeing a 35 year deal that guarantees a minimum energy price (at almost twice the natural market rate) to help energy producers, then there is something terribly wrong with you.


Ed Davey's spectacular U-turn
 
Ed Davey has certainly changed his tune since he sent out
this press release in 2006.
The Liberal Democrat energy secretary Ed Davey has done a lot of bragging about this ludicrous deal, but it is certainly worth considering his boasts alongside some of his previous comments about nuclear energy.

Here's what Ed Davey said in a press release he sent out in July 2006:

"In addition to posing safety and environmental risks, nuclear power will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market"
Davey was also behind the production of a Document called "Where will Tony Blair hide his nuclear tax bombshell" which made several assertions about nuclear energy:
"Recent international experience of the cost of nuclear power shows it remains highly uncompetitive"
"nuclear power is unaffordable and unnecessary."
It is quite remarkable that a man that invested so much energy in opposing nuclear power and criticising it as environmentally risky and highly uncompetitive is now the energy minister responsible for pushing through this rip-off deal, and talking it up with statements like this:
"This is an excellent deal for Britain and British consumers ... It will increase energy security and resilience from a safe, reliable, home-grown source of electricity"
It is almost as if the man has absolutely no principles at all that can't be bought off with a six figure ministerial salary isn't it?

Ed Davey's lie

Aside from singing the praises of a scheme that he would have been bitterly criticising had Tony Blair announced it in 2006, Ed Davey is also guily of outright lying to the public. Here's what he said:
"For the first time, a nuclear station in this country will not have been built with money from the British taxpayer"
Even if we ignore the fact that EdF only agreed to build the plant on the condition that the UK government use money from the British taxpayer to subsidise the plant by paying over the odds for electricity, this statement is still factually inaccurate.

If we look at the policy announcement in which this statement is made, we see in point five that "Hinkley Point C had been pre-qualified for consideration for a UK Guarantee. EdF and HM Treasury are in discussions regarding the terms of a potential UK Guarantee".

What this means is that EdF will borrow the money to build the plant from the UK government. The government claim that these loans are designed to fund infrastructure projects that have stalled because the commercial banks won't fund them. 


However if the market isn't lending, then government claims that these loans are being made "at the market rate" are utterly fallacious because these if the UK Guarantee loans were being made with the same conditions as the private banks, they wouldn't be made at all. If the market won't lend the money at a reasonable rate of interest, but the government will, then no matter what they claim, the government is clearly lending at below the market rate.
 

Not only will the UK taxpayer subsidise the Hinkley Point C project by paying over-the-odds for electricity for decades to come, they also look set provide EdF with a cheap supply of cash for them to build it in the first place. This means that Ed Davey is either lying through his teeth when he says that the British taxpayer won't be funding this project, or he is so incompetent that he doesn't even understand the details of the deal that has just been agreed, nor the UK guarantee negotiations that are ongoing.

Subsidising the French government

EDF is 85% owned by the French state. This means that the French state will be the main beneficiary of this price fixing deal to pay way over the odds for electricity. Perhaps the French state will use the profits from this energy price rigging scheme to reduce the cost of energy for French businesses and French households?

The Chinese are coming
 

The fact that the state owned China General Nuclear Power Group is set to have a 30% - 40% stake in the Hinkley Point C consortium means that French state won't be the only foreign government to benefit from this energy price rigging scheme.

The UK is already dangerously over-reliant upon the Chinese manufacturing sector (after decades of industrial decline in the UK, imagine how badly the economy would be hit if the flow of Chinese imports was slowed down or stopped), so handing the Chinese government control over our energy infrastructure too seems like an insane move, unless the objective is to deliberately weaken the standing of the UK on the world stage.

The Inefficient state hypothesis


The fact that the Tory led government are so delighted with the "deal" they've signed up to illustrates one thing absolutely clearly, that their privatisation agenda is a sham. It is an article of right-wing faith that the private sector is always more efficient than the state sector, however this stance is completely undermined by the fact that the UK is now reliant upon the French and Chinese states to build our energy infrastructure for them. If privatisation is necessary because the UK state is too "inefficient" to run its own energy infrastructure, then how on earth are the state sectors of other countries not riddled with the same kinds of inherent inefficiencies?

If the private sector is so efficient, why are there no private sector players lining up to out-compete the French and Chinese states? The answer is obvious. The whole idea that the private sector is inherently more efficient than the public sector is an obvious hoax.

The absurd right-wing free-market mantra that the private sector is inherently more efficient than the state, which was introduced by Margaret Thatcher and endlessly repeated by all of her successors, has left the UK in the ludicrous position where it is now reliant upon a country with a left-wing government and a communist regime to build its energy infrastructure for it, because the private sector has mismanaged the UK energy sector so appallingly over the last couple of decades.

Instead of signing deals with the French and Chinese governments to build our energy infrastructure for us, surely it would make more sense if the UK government built it themselves. If it was done that way, then at least there would be a veneer of democratic accountability to the project.


Privatised energy infrastructure

The problem with the idea that the UK should fund and build its own energy infrastructure is that so much of it has been sold off that we no longer actually have the means to do it. Take the existing nuclear infrastructure; John Major's Tory government sold off 8 nuclear power plants in 1996 for the astonishingly small fee of £2.1 billion. These facilities were run by a consortium called British Energy for a few years before they were taken over by EDF in 2009.

When these plants were sold off on the cheap, the UK state gave away its nuclear expertise to the private sector at a bargain basement price, then a few years down the line this expertise was handed over to the French state. Is it not amazing that eight fully functional nuclear plants were virtually given away for £2.1 billion, and now the UK is using price fixing measures to subsidise the French and Chinese states to the tune of £28 - £35 billion to build us a new one, and stumping up the cash for them to build it as well?

David Cameron has been bragging on about how many British jobs this price fixing scheme will create, but this is starkly contrasted by EdF themselves, who claim that most of the work can't be done by British companies because the UK energy market has been so badly neglected over the last few decades.


Here's what Ken Owen, the commercial director for nuclear new build at EdF said:

"There are a lot of critical components where quite frankly the UK has lost its capability. We don't mind that because we know there is capability from a global perspective"
The only parts of the contract that British companies are any good for according to EdF themselves, are the "muck shifting" elements. 

Had the UK invested in its energy infrastructure instead of flogging it all off on the cheap, perhaps Britain wouldn't be languishing so far behind high-tech economies?

Swimming against the tide

By commissioning new nuclear facilities the UK government is swimming against the tide. With the Fukushima disaster still ongoing, the Japanese are understandably keen to end their reliance upon nuclear power, but the French and Germans are also turning against nuclear power too. Germany has committed to ridding itself of nuclear power altogether, and even the nuclear fixated French are determined to reduce their reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% of their national capacity after a series of expensive cock-ups and nuclear shutdowns.

Perhaps such a massive investment in the nuclear industry might make some kind of economic sense if the UK still had a nuclear industry of their own and they were pioneering some kind of new nuclear technology, with a view to building up their national expertise and exporting nuclear technology to other countries, but using rigged energy prices to bribe the French and Chinese into building a nuclear power station for them makes no economic sense whatever.

  
Dirty technology 

The nuclear lobby loves to pretend that nuclear waste is
safely stored in high-tech underground facilities, but the
reality is that hundreds of thousands of tons are stored
in the form of Uranium Hexaflouride in open air facilities
like this.
As much as the nuclear lobby love to dress their industry up as clean and modern, the evidence is absolutely clear that it is a dirty and dangerous technology.

We only need to look at the ongoing catastrophe at Fukushima in Japan, which is still leaking radioactive waste into the ground and the sea two and a half years after the tsunami that crippled three of its reactors.

Even if we tell ourselves that tsunamis, earthquakes, other natuaral disasters or terrorist attacks are impossible in Somerset and look beyond the Fukushima disater, there's still the problem of nuclear waste.

Plutonium has a half-life of around 24,000 years meaning that it takes 120,000 years to become 3% as radioactive as it is today (still too dangerous to handle). Considering the fact there have been several major radiation leaks in the last few decades alone, the idea that the nuclear industry is capable of safely storing highly radioactive waste for over 100,000 years would be laughable if it were not so scary.
 
It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste in temporary storage facilities all over the world. The only country in the world that is taking their responsibility to safely dispose of this waste with any degree of seriousness is Finland*. The rest of the world are happy to continue producing tens of thousands of tons of radioactive waste every year, without even bothering to plan for its permanent disposal.


For more detail on the nuclear waste problem see this article.

 Who will pay the clean-up costs?

One of the big issues that remains completely unanswered is who will be bearing the enormous cost of decommissioning the site at the end of its productive life, and who will be paying for the storage of the radioactive waste? The official government policy document makes absolutely no mention of either of these issues, so it is fairly safe to assume that under the Tory economic ideology of "Privatise the profits and nationalise the losses", the taxpayer will end up paying for the decommissioning and waste storage on top of the tens of billions in low interest loans and price-fixing subsidies that the government are so desperately obfuscating about.


Conclusion

The slightest amount of scrutiny shows us that this is an appalling deal for the UK taxpayer, which has tied them into paying over the odds for electricity for decades. The total cost of these energy price fixing subsidies looks set to dwarf the actual cost of the project.

The fact that the UK is now reliant upon the French and Chinese governments to construct its energy infrastructure is a damning indictment of the neoliberalisation process that saw our energy infrastructure transferred into the private ownership (mainly foreign interests) that neglected to invest in the infrastructure in pursuit of shareholder profits and lucrative executive salaries, safe in the knowledge that eventually the UK taxpayer would be forced to pay for the construction of the infrastructure that they couldn't be bothered to.

Now that the UK government's hand has been forced after two decades of private sector neglect, the fact that they have turned to the French government, and to communist China to build it is a crystal clear demonstration that the beloved
"private sector efficiency" mantra of the Tories is nonsensical and economically toxic gibberish.

The fact that this vast 35 year energy price fixing deal has come just weeks after the Tories bitterly slagged off Ed Miliband for proposing a 20 month energy price freeze must surely be one of the most brazen displays of Tory hypocrisy in history.


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, it would be massively appreciated.


Flattr this



More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
     
The myth of right-wing patriotism
     
The "inefficient state" fallacy
    
  What is ... a justification narrative?
    
What is ... Neoliberalism?
                   
What is ... regressive taxation?
            
Who is to blame for the economic crisis?
        
     
Tory energy policy hypocrisy
                                          
What do Tory donors get for their cash?
                                            

Thursday, 26 September 2013

Price Freezes, energy blackouts and Tory hypocrisy

After Ed Miliband unveiled his policy of freezing energy prices for 20 months should he win the 2015 general election there was a predictable tide of vehement opposition from the Tory party and the right-wing press.

The two most commonly heard complaints from the Tories and their mouthpieces in the right-wing press have been squeals of "price fixing" and "government interference in the market". I'm going to demonstrate how utterly hypocritical these claims are.

In June 2013 the Coalition government announced that they were going to bribe the French electricity company EDF with £10 billion worth of "financial guarantees". Essentially, they will lend EDF money at a much cheaper rate than is available to them on the commercial market to fund their infrastructure spending. If that isn't "government interference" in the energy market, I don't know what is!

The coalition government is also set to agree minimum energy prices, called Contracts for Difference (CfDs) with EDF, to ensure that if energy prices fall below a certain level, the government will use taxpayers' money to top up the prices paid to EDF in order to safeguard their profits. Energy market CfDs (government guarantees to top up corporate profits) are already commonplace in the UK energy market. Here's an official government policy document which explains how CfDs are used to fix prices in the energy market, which includes a commitment to extend the practice to the nuclear industry.

EDF are arguing for extremely high CfDs before they agree to start work on building two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point, and the government looks set to give into their demands, the only point of negotiation being the level at which these taxpayer funded price fixing subsidies will kick in.

For members of the government to attack Labour for "government interference" and "price fixing" looks very hypocritical indeed when official government energy policy involves massive "government interferences" like the £10 billion worth of "financial guarantees" being handed to EDF to help them avoid having to borrow at a higher rate of interest from the commercial market, and the increasingly common use of energy market CfD "price fixing" agreements to ensure that the taxpayer will pay for any corporate shortfalls, should energy prices (and corporate profits) fall below predetermined levels.

Personally I don't think that Ed Miliband's energy price freeze goes far enough. The UK energy market has operated like a price-fixing cartel for decades, virtually since privatisation began. Everyone has seen the way that the big energy companies have repeatedly hiked their prices in unison. Everybody has seen the way they use rises in wholesale prices to raise the prices they charge, yet when wholesale prices fall back again, the high energy prices stay the same.

These largely foreign owned companies have become a parasitic drain on the UK economy. Their vast profits are generated by soaking away what should be the disposable income of millions of families, and the profits of small and large businesses all over the UK. This kind of blatant rentierism damages the UK economy by reducing aggregate demand and harming British industry.

In my view, fixing prices for 20 months isn't even a half measure because the only real solution would be large scale renationalisation of British energy infrastructure. I mean, Ed's energy price freeze has already got the Tories hypocritically foaming at the mouth, so why not go the whole hog an announce the strategic renationalisation of UK energy infrastructure?

I mean, all the Tories could possibly offer in opposition to renationalisation is a load more hypocritical hot air. Recall the £10 billion bribe they're handing to EDF. Well EDF is 85% owned and operated by the French government! The Tory stance is this (and I'm not joking): The British are such a cretinous bunch that they are utterly incapable of running their own energy infrastructure, and that is why they need to bribe the French  government to the tune of billions of pounds in order to run it for them!

EDF is not the only example of foreign governments running supposedly "privatised" British infrastructure. Other national governments own stakes in our "energy market", our public transport network, our water companies and various other bits of formerly state owned infrastructure.

What is it that makes the Tories believe that the British state sector so desperately uncompetitive that we should just let the French state run our major infrastructure projects for us instead?

The fact that so much British infrastructure has been flogged off to foreign interests by the Tories utterly destroys their "wrap themselves in the flag" claims of patriotism. Especially the fact that many of these foreign owners are actually foreign governments and foreign government controlled sovereign wealth funds. They clearly believe that it isn't important who owns British infrastructure as long as it's not the British public.

In my view, if we're going to have state run companies administering our major infrastructure projects, they might as well be run by the British state, because at least there is a veneer of democratic legitimacy and accountability about it if it is done that way.

Before I conclude I'd just like to cover one more element of the right-wing reaction to Ed Miliband's energy price freeze policy: The disgusting fearmongering. The Daily Mail claim that freezing energy prices would take us back to the "bad old days of the 1970s". The energy companies themselves are overtly threatening to inflict energy blackouts on the country if they are not allowed to continue their profiteering. And most shockingly of all, instead of condemning these efforts to blackmail the country into allowing them to continue brazenly profiteering, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary Ed Davey actually joined in the fearmongering campaign by invoking the energy blackouts in California as a probable consequence (completely failing to take account of the corrupt practices at energy companies like Enron that played such a major role in the California blackouts).

That Ed Davey would actually join in with the fearmongering campaigns orchestrated by largely foreign owned corporations to blackmail the British public, is an absolutely clear demonstration that this government has a commitment to serve corporate interests. Surely it is the job of the energy secretary to oppose energy companies that threaten to impose energy blackouts if they don't get their own way, not to repeat their threats in order to score political points against an opposition party.

Lets have a little think back to the 1980s when the coal miners went on strike. They knew that Tory plans for their industry would mean an end to their jobs and the destruction of their communities. They were fighting for their livelihoods. They were fighting for the survival of their communities. Remember how the Tories and the baying right-wing press labeled these men "the enemy within" and accused them of "holding the country to ransom"?

Now look at these largely foreign owned power companies blackmailing the UK with threats of energy blackouts if their blatant profiteering is curtailed. Are the Tories calling them "the enemy within" and accusing them of "holding the country to ransom"? Of course they're bloody not.

In conclusion, the power companies threatening to impose energy blackouts as retaliation, illustrate that Ed's energy price freeze doesn't go far enough. These largely foreign owned companies are utterly unscrupulous, and totally disinterested in what is best for the UK economy. They'll only build new infrastructure if they get massive multi-billion pound bribes and agreements that prices will be fixed in their favour (with the taxpayer underwriting their profits if energy prices fall). But if the boot is on the other foot, and the government fix energy prices for the good of the British economy, they threaten to impose energy blackouts as retaliation (even though some of them were actually offering to freeze their own energy prices until 2017 before Ed Miliband even announced his scheme!).

These largely foreign owned energy companies are clearly "the enemy within" and Ed's plans have revealed that they will quite gladly hold the UK economy to ransom if anyone dares try to curtail their obscene profiteering. At least the miners were fighting for their jobs and the very survival of their communities when they went on strike. These corporate parasites are planning to hold us to ransom just to protect their obscene profits, which are made at the direct expense of the wider UK economy.

That the Tories and their cheerleaders in the right-wing press are siding with these largely foreign companies, when they dealt so ruthlessly with the native British miners is an absolutely clear demonstration of their ideological commitment to "Profits over People". So much so that the protection of foreign profits is vastly more important to them that the protection of British people, British jobs, British communities and the British economy.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.



More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
     
The myth of right-wing patriotism  
     
What is ... Wage Repression?
    
  What is ... a justification narrative?
    
What is ... Confirmation Bias?
                   
What is ... regressive taxation?
            
Who is to blame for the economic crisis?
        
                     
The "making Work Pay" fallacy
         
What is ... Marginal Propensity to Consume?
                                          
What do Tory donors get for their cash?