"rick" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2016 17:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/10/16 13:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:










Last announcements,were that the private company (in it for the money`)
wanted government to guarantee a fixed price per MWh .... higher level
than that for Nuclear.

They claimed in their initial prospectus that they needed a strike price of
almost twice that of Hinkley

They have been offered a take it or leave it deal a few pounds different to
Hinkley, and are, apparently, seriously considering that (though there still
seem to be some panning hurdles to overcome)

That they initially seem to have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the
regulator (or whoever it is who decides this) and can consider going ahead
at half of what they originally wanted is seen, by some, as indicative of a
bad agent who shouldn't be allowed to continue with the project on a point
of principle.


All just makes no sense to me ...... especially as it was going to a
Chinese company for construction - this should be British jobs

I'm sure that they will be requirements for construction staff to be
recruited locally

This isn't West Africa, they won't be allowed to bus in thousands of chinks

tim