"Germany's tax on nuclear fuel was designed 'to siphon off the profits
of the nuclear power plant operators', judges in Hamburg have ruled. The
tax exceeds government competence and contradicts the country's
constitution".

(http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...3001131 .html)

Not hard to exceed government competence, is it, these days?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

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

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"Germany's tax on nuclear fuel was designed 'to siphon off the profits of
the nuclear power plant operators', judges in Hamburg have ruled. The tax
exceeds government competence and contradicts the country's constitution".

(http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...3001131 .html)

Not hard to exceed government competence, is it, these days?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 31/01/13 10:45, 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

And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never happen.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/13 10:45, 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

And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never happen.

Except that if you let them operate without any liability they will operate
shoddily and the chances of one happening will increase substantially

tim

On 31/01/13 11:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:05:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/01/13 10:45, 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

And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never happen.

If it would never happen, the premium would be zero ?

You haven't worked for insurance companies then have you?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 31/01/13 13:28, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/13 10:45, 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

And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never happen.

Except that if you let them operate without any liability they will
operate shoddily and the chances of one happening will increase
substantially


well no, they don't operate that way - we have a nuclear regulator that
is capable of and does, fine them. And is, in the limit, able to remove
their operating licenses.

Would insurance have prevented Fukushima? No. would lack of insurance
make it more likely? No.

Would a better equipped nuclear regulator with an eye to the very real
risks of tsunami have lessened or eliminated the chance of it happening?
yes.

Have the world's reactors become safer as a result of nuclear regulators
insisting on better diversity of SCRAM cooling in reactors in emergency
conditions? Too bloody right.

How many people died as a result of Fukushima's release of radiation? None.
How many people will die? None
What is the total death count due to the *tsunami* at Fukushima nuclear
plant? Three.
What is the total death count of the Japanese tsunami?
around 20,000.
Do you think that forcing all the coastal towns in Japan to take out
insurance against a tsunami would in general have made them safer places
to live ESPECIALLY if the insurance bore no relation to the amount of
flood defences they might, or might not, have erected?

Yet Nick Cleggs argument is that there must be a total clean up
insurance fund available for an accident that MIGHT happen, although he
doesn't say HOW it might happen, to a plant in tsunami free UK, based on
a single event in Japan whose impact was far far greater than the
piffling amount of radioactivity actually released and whose clean up
will is nothing compared with et costs of rebui8lding the rest of
Japan's coastal regions.

It is pure anti nuclear politics. It is not rational.





tim





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

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.

On 31.01.2013 15:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/01/13 13:28, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/13 10:45, 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

And massive liability insurance for an accident that will never
happen.

Except that if you let them operate without any liability they
will operate shoddily and the chances of one happening will
increase substantially


well no, they don't operate that way - we have a nuclear regulator
that is capable of and does, fine them. And is, in the limit, able to
remove their operating licenses.

Would insurance have prevented Fukushima? No. would lack of insurance
make it more likely? No.

Would a better equipped nuclear regulator with an eye to the very
real risks of tsunami have lessened or eliminated the chance of it
happening? yes.

Have the world's reactors become safer as a result of nuclear
regulators insisting on better diversity of SCRAM cooling in reactors
in emergency conditions? Too bloody right.

How many people died as a result of Fukushima's release of radiation?
None. How many people will die? None What is the total death count
due to the *tsunami* at Fukushima nuclear plant? Three. What is the
total death count of the Japanese tsunami? around 20,000. Do you
think that forcing all the coastal towns in Japan to take out
insurance against a tsunami would in general have made them safer
places to live ESPECIALLY if the insurance bore no relation to the
amount of flood defences they might, or might not, have erected?

Yet Nick Cleggs argument is that there must be a total clean up
insurance fund available for an accident that MIGHT happen, although
he doesn't say HOW it might happen, to a plant in tsunami free UK,
based on a single event in Japan whose impact was far far greater
than the piffling amount of radioactivity actually released and whose
clean up will is nothing compared with et costs of rebui8lding the
rest of Japan's coastal regions.

It is pure anti nuclear politics. It is not rational.

Very well written!

Too bad that you have no grandchildren.
Wade Allison has grandchildren and want them to live in a world that
has nuclear energy. And he is not a climate denialist:
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/14...on-and-reason/
Dr. Allison has been teaching physics at the University of Oxford for
over 40 years (medical physics, radiation physics, nuclear physics,
and associated disciplines).

Dr. Allison explains nuclear power and, especially, radiation in this
must-read article posted just yesterday at the Nuclear Literacy
Project: €�You can appreciate nuclear and its safety, just read and
decide yourself.€� Take his advice, read, and decide yourself!

€œA Tragedy of Misunderstanding: There was no major radiation disaster
at Fukushima,€� invited talk at 2012 ANS Annual Meeting.

Dr. Allisons written evidence submitted to Britains Parliamentary
Select Commitee on Science/Technology, regarding Risk Perception and
Nuclear/Energy Infrastructure.
--
jo
"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely."
--James Watson & Francis Crick