Has our government just signed up to the most disastrous (on many levels - but especially financially) deal in the country's history out of sheer panic? Methinks so.

I love the idea of slagging off Miliband's price freeze proposals as 'socialist' – and then handing over a chunk of the nation's energy generation to a communist country.

France?

I thought we were getting lots of Chinese investment.

The lead is from EDF, who are of course 85% owned by the French government. 30-40% will be owned by Chinese companies. Who are of course owned by the Chinese government. A further 10% will be owned by French firm Areva. Which of course is owned by the French government.

The Energy Institute have calculated that the deal amounts to a £1bn subsidy to these companies.

So we won't subsidise our own companies, we won't allow a successful rail franchise to remain in public hands, we won't subsidise Royal Mail. We'll cut the size of the public sector in the UK. But we'll subsidise the French and Chinese public sector companies?

maybe because there is no alternative to meet future energy demands in this country? (other than covering every square inch of land in wind turbines).

Small scale generation is the way to go. The best way forward would be for the energy companies to pay rent in the form of free power to anyone willing to have them install solar panels on their house. The energy company would then sell the excess power to other users.

Or we could simply issue treasury bonds to raise sufficient capital to build and run the sodding thing ourselves

Any good digs down that way when I pitch up for that power station job?

Don't some companies already do this?

What with public ownership of utilities being so horrendously inefficient etc etc.

Hypocrisy of the highest order from our beloved government.

Good to see the Energy Secretary yesterday proclaiming this major infrastructure project as being built "at no cost to the British taxpayer". Presumably the whacking great subsidy and extortionate fixed price per unit is being funded by a whip round of the Cabinet?

You appear to have missed the point being discussed.

A solar panel of typical current construction in averaged weather might produce 1kwh per day per square metre, i.e 365kwh p.a.

So a 1km square array would produce 365,000 kwh per annum

The surface area of the UK is 243,610 km² so if it were covered with solar panels, then it could produce around 88,917,650,000 kwh pa

1 tonne of oil is equivalent to 11,630 kWh so that is - in round figures - 7.65m tonnes.

Total approx energy consumption is very broadly 200m tonnes. So, big fan of solar panels on every roof though I am, they aren't going to really help that much, though you might be glad of yours when the powercuts start!

Meanwhile, as I get letters from my supplier saying they have "done their best to protect me" from the effects of global prices, green energy, etc, at the same time it recently slipped almost entirely under the radar that the annual profits made by the big energy groups soared by 73% in the 3 years to 2012, to a derisory £3.7bn. Wasn't there a recession round about that time?

WHY have they "done their best to protect me"? They are private companies and owe a duty only to theiur shareholders, to maximise revenue. It is utter BOLLOX that they have done even one single thing to try to "protect me" but if they wanted to do that, they could cut the prices and charge me less, at the expense of say £3bn of the profit (which, by the way, is actually a helluva lot more to them, since of course they also have all their grubby fingers well in the pies of the producers and importers).

I tweeted asking our beloved PM (or his a/c anyhow!) about this. My questions were would the fact that we may be paying way over the odds increase the deficit or increase fuel prices? Furthermore, who will be paying for decommissioning costs (the companies / French / Chinese governments or us suckers!?)?

Or invest in clean coal powered stations...

Which all goes to support my long held view that the Tories hatred of nationalised industries is not just (if at all) ideological but just a means of stopping national / regional work-forces being able to strike and disrupt the country.

This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage

This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage

Quote ="Dally"This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage'" It's an interesting piece. I disagree with quite a bit of it – mostly because I think it's rather muddled for, I suspect, ideological reasons. Still worth reading, though, and far better argued than much of what is published. Can I point out right now that I've been blabbing on about a supranational corporatocracy for some years? What's most interesting, arguably, is that he's trying to seeing corporatism as different from capitalism rather than a stage of it. There's been a a fair old bit of economists, in recent years, saying: 'Oh: maybe old Charlie Marx wasn't as wrong as we thought', and the prime reason is – in essence – the analysis that capitalism will, ultimately, east itself.

Quote ="Dally"This pretty well sums up the ridiculous (and some may argue corrupt) state of affairs we currently have in this country: www.cityam.com/article/138240349 ... r_Homepage'" It's an interesting piece. I disagree with quite a bit of it – mostly because I think it's rather muddled for, I suspect, ideological reasons. Still worth reading, though, and far better argued than much of what is published. Can I point out right now that I've been blabbing on about a supranational corporatocracy for some years? What's most interesting, arguably, is that he's trying to seeing corporatism as different from capitalism rather than a stage of it. There's been a a fair old bit of economists, in recent years, saying: 'Oh: maybe old Charlie Marx wasn't as wrong as we thought', and the prime reason is – in essence – the analysis that capitalism will, ultimately, east itself.

To China presumably?

Only 29% of total UK energy consumption is via domestic use.
For house with a South-facing (-ish) roof, that house's needs can be more than met by solar panels and free the householder from rapacious power company bills.

Granted, that's not much good for houses facing the "wrong" way, or for apartments etc ... but no-one is saying that solar panels are the single magic silver bullet to solve our problems, ditto for wind power, tidal power, ground-source heat pumps, air-source heat pumps, hydro etc etc ... but it all adds up and, IMHO, just because one of them is not the total solution does not mean that they are not worth doing.
I'm not suggesting that was your meaning but there are people out there who do suggest that ... Sir Bernard Ingham is one and vigorously supports nuclear at the drop of a hat via SONE (Supporters of Nuclear Energy).
Mind you, he (yes, even he) is opposed to the deal just done. My guess is that's because SONE is funded by the UK nuclear industry who will be somewhat miffed that a deal has been done with a Franco-Chinese consortium rather than with Ingham's paymasters.

Don't see why solar panels aren't installed on every new suitable building being built. It'd add sod all to the cost of a new house.

Probably because Eric Pickles doesn't like 'em

Do we have a UK nuclear industry capable of building such a plant?

May he does like 'em but he's eaten 'em all?