HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Just outline to me how you think that would work for building, say, a 50 MW solar farm co- located with a battery or a 100 MW wind farm. How would you go about doing it?
YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!
- Thread starter Chris_Boro
- Start date
Zoophonic
Well-known member
Yes that remarkable forecast by @exiledinboro (who is seemingly no longer around )does look rather daft now - Sunak has proved to an even worse PM than Bozo if that were possible.
Scrote
Well-known member
How would the private financiers go about doing it?
I'd do it exactly the same way. It would probably cost more on paper up-front but you have to start somewhere and the privately financed big-projects always overshoot by the odd billion or so.
Struggling to follow your point here HC. Are you saying you don't think Labours GB Energy policy should even be as much as it is?
I'd prefer they invest in infrastructure, then have some sort of nationalised entity (equivalent to what the NHS is for healthcare, or state pension is for pensions) that people could have as their energy supplier. Ideally it means the state ends up with a profit making asset, people get lower bills, and less money leaves the country via foreign owned energy firms.
Labour's policy is they still invest in infrastructure, but then private firms gets to own it. The profit all goes to the companies, and only if they voluntarily lower their profits will bills going down.
You're saying...? Private companies are compelled to cough up to invest in infrastructure? How does that happen? Big tax breaks or something? Why is that better?
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I think the renewables industry in the U.K. is so big and complex now that a government entity could only hope to tinker around the edges.
Starmer and Reeves will know this and it amounts to a bit of a gimmick in my opinion. My understanding is that it will potentially help fund newer marginal technologies which will struggle to attract mainstream finance because the returns are too risky or cannot be demonstrated in normal appraisals.
There is a benefit private companies bring to the party in that only the renewable projects which make economic sense and can raise finance on the open market will ever be put forward, there is a danger if the civil service gets involved that they talk well but don’t know what they are doing.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Yes but finance is only a part of a project, how would the government know how to get a viable renewables project like a wind farm or solar farm to the point of even needing finance to build them out?
It takes 5 to 10 years to develop a wind farm.
Scrote
Well-known member
How does the government know how to do anything?
From my perspective the answer would be that they don't. That's not what government is for.
They should engage with the experts in whatever field and allow the civil service to make decisions in the best interests of the country as opposed to how they might bounce through the revolving door.
We've had 14+ years where the governmental infrastructure has been ripped to pieces. None of this is going to be easy but Labour, assuming they get the landslide that's being predicted, will be in a position to push through the legislation required to make the country work.
The funding should be the easy part.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
You do appreciate that engaging with the experts is a colossal task, I’m sure you do, and all those experts will want it to be worthwhile, particularly the companies and shareholders involved?
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
You can engage with companies who design and construct the things you need but they don't get to own them.
Unravel_Morrison
Well-known member
You employ specialist companies depending on the industry.
If it's energy then you deal with EDF (owned by the French government),
Need some trains moving? Use DB (owned by the German government).
If it's energy then you deal with EDF (owned by the French government),
Need some trains moving? Use DB (owned by the German government).
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Yes but to pull a power station together involves far more than design and construction - land rights, grid connection, planning, community liaison to name a few, your average design and construct companies cannot do any of that and it takes years and years to do. There has to be decent reward for it or nobody will bother their **** to do it.
But really my point is that the system is complex, there is no magic wand to change it overnight within the economic system we have, it is naive to think otherwise.
Scrote
Well-known member
I'm not sure where you're headed with this. No-one has ever suggested overnight fixes but any change has to start somewhere.
You appear to be saying that no UK government from now until the end of time can make any changes to the way they procure large infrastructure projects?
As I said above, some of that would mean higher up-front costs but as long as the legal framework prevented future governments from once-again selling the nations assets from under our feet then it would be worth the outlay.
You just have to look at HS2 and Hinkley C for proof that the current system doesn't work.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I was originally responding to Superstus post which I think was about nationalisation of the energy industry. I was just highlighting how difficult that would be to achieve with a few reasons.
I accept I am delving into actual policy delivery rather than just sound bites and popular views.
at least you're modest...The difficulties you've chose to highlight are bizarre to me HC. You've said the funding and choosing which projects to go for. When the government can just legislate as much money as they want into existence, have half a million civil servants at their disposal, can set up commissions or bodys at any time.
The bizarre thing is, these two points are exactly what Labours GB Energy will still do anyway. Literally the plan is to choose big green energy infrastructure projects and fund them. The only thing I said should be different is that the state should then reap the profits when the new green energy farms are built.
Scrote
Well-known member
There are loads of ways to deliver policy - I accept that it's going to be difficult but that applies across the board. The problem is with ideology.
I've no problem at all with a government opening up contracts to the private sector as long as the rewards aren't overly generous (e.g. Hinkley C) and the regulations are sufficently strict with actionable consequences (e.g. water companies).
PFI was a disaster - and one of the things the left fell out with Blair over because it was easily predictable. Why go down a similar route when there is no need, other than being scared of the right-wing press? All that Starmer is doing right now is showing that he'll bow to pressure from that direction.
The 'invisible hand' (assuming you're happy with that theory?) hasn't worked out that climate change etc. is going to be bad for the economy. It needs nudging. Relying on the private sector to 'do the right thing' is pointless as the markets will dictate that green energy isn't as profitable as digging up coal and burning gas. We know that already so why pander to it?
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
If that is what you were saying then fair enough but government funding of a project will be different to actual ownership. Think of it like you getting a mortgage from the government to do a self build house on a plot of land you have found and got permission to build on, it’s still your idea and your house at the end of it.
The difficulties you've chose to highlight are bizarre to me HC. You've said the funding and choosing which projects to go for. When the government can just legislate as much money as they want into existence, have half a million civil servants at their disposal, can set up commissions or bodys at any time.
The bizarre thing is, these two points are exactly what Labours GB Energy will still do anyway. Literally the plan is to choose big green energy infrastructure projects and fund them. The only thing I said should be different is that the state should then reap the profits when the new green energy farms are built.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
You are talking about a different matter altogether. The government policy to shift towards green energy has been in place with various incentives for many years.
I was talking about government ownership of the power industry with full control over consumer pricing (which I think is really the issue) and how difficult that would be in the prevailing system, so why should posters expect Starmer to wave a magic wand over it?
Okay, except don't think about it as me getting a mortgage. Think of it as the government just giving me the money to build this house. Should I then immediately be able to sell the house? Should I be able to rent out the house? Even if I've been the one to get the land, and then pursue any planning permission, and even if I've done something like pay an architect to draw up the plans for the house, the biggest cost is going to be actually building the thing isn't it? So for the government to cover that cost, to me makes it seem a bit like they should then be the one getting the return on it.
As I originally said, I do still think this policy is better than doing nothing. Without all the costs/risks covered and a freebie boost to their profits, private companies just won't make the necessary changes unfortunately. And government grants exist in a bunch of other fields, so essentially its just more of the same.
TBF it's probably all a moot point, it's likely the next pending U-turn anyway.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Putting the pending u turn to one side, I think the reason it won’t work as you suggest is that the original developers regard the intellectual property of the idea as theirs and if they are not allowed to profit from it they will just turn to something else instead where they can make the profit.Okay, except don't think about it as me getting a mortgage. Think of it as the government just giving me the money to build this house. Should I then immediately be able to sell the house? Should I be able to rent out the house? Even if I've been the one to get the land, and then pursue any planning permission, and even if I've done something like pay an architect to draw up the plans for the house, the biggest cost is going to be actually building the thing isn't it? So for the government to cover that cost, to me makes it seem a bit like they should then be the one getting the return on it.
As I originally said, I do still think this policy is better than doing nothing. Without all the costs/risks covered and a freebie boost to their profits, private companies just won't make the necessary changes unfortunately. And government grants exist in a bunch of other fields, so essentially its just more of the same.
TBF it's probably all a moot point, it's likely the next pending U-turn anyway.
Labour are right in that there will be scope for government to help with marginal generating technologies and then retain some of the ownership for the benefit of the state and the people.
I don’t disagree with your underlying view that the power industry in this country should be run for the people rather than shareholders, I was just trying to point out why that, in my opinion, is so difficult to achieve.
Scrote
Well-known member
Which just proves the point I'm making. Incentives haven't moved the market far enough. Now we're being told that tax-payers need to take on the burden but private developers will rake in the profits.
Changing the system is possible as we've done it a different way before. It just needs political will. No one said it would be easy.
If the choice is some profit or no profit the companies would surely be obliged, through shareholder laws, to go the some profit route (massive oversimplification accepted).