On 31/01/2013 12:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:45:46 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, that is surprising, for a government is it not? Erm no its not. I seem
to recall the reason in this country why a lot of companies eventually did
not embrace nuclear was due to the costs involved which mainly were a tax
from Government, disguised as a cost of decommisioning levy or some such
tosh.
Brian

IIRC, when our nuclear power industry was in private hands (British
Energy), Gordon Brown (that highly competent chancellor without whom
we wouldn't be where we are now), decided that they should pay the
climate change levy, alongside coal. The resulting increased cost of
nuclear electricity made it the most expensive form of electricity,
and as no one wanted to buy the stuff, it effectively tipped them from
profitability into loss. The govt had to take them over, as the
country couldn't survive without them, eventually selling them off to
the French. What a fiasco! No wonder we are where we are.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Energy

The "Financial Difficulties" section there is far from the full story.

My understanding is that it was the replacement of the "Pool" with the
"New Electricity Trading Arrangements" or NETA which was the real nail
in the coffin for British Energy's finances. And it was perfectly
obvious to anyone who knew anything about these that BE would take a big
"hit" when they were introduced, until the market re-balanced itself.

The Pool trading arrangements set up for privatisation in 1990 were
certainly favourable, in some aspects, to the Nuclear Plant and made it
easier for them to operate at Base Load, thus avoiding the stress cycles
which plant experiences when it is forced to stop and start, or to
load-follow.