I read this news on the BBC today that annoyed me immediately, and so I am taking to my blog to protest.
​
Please read this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-49083179

The government is proposing that the electricity customers in the UK (that’s you and I) should provide funds to the electricity generating companies to be used to assist the building of new nuclear power stations.

As electricity customers, we should be charged more, and in advance of the plants being built, in order to help companies like EDF overcome their investment barriers.

Why is this? Because proper “investors” (not end customers like you and I) don’t want to handover their funds to finance long term projects that are plagued with over runs and rising costs. And no bloody surprise if you ask me.

So, as members of the public, we don’t get to be consulted on whether we even want more nuclear power stations, and yet it is proposed that we pay up front for the benefits we may never even receive. And if the project planners get it wrong (which is inevitable), we then part fund the overruns and the extra costs too.

And what about the power plants at the end of their lives? Will all electricity end user customers pay towards the decommissioning too? The costs associated with decommissioning Sellafield have been astronomical and out of control.
​
But, cynically, it’s okay because other “investors” would then be able to receive dividends during the construction phase of a new plant. Oh and one day, us electricity users may save some money.

The Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding method for nuclear projects is being consulted on by government over the next 12 weeks. Here’s the paper, read it for yourself and then think about contributing to the consultation. Or go and hassle your MP.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819214/rab-model-for-nuclear-consultation.pdf

Here’s where you take part - https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/energy-strategy-networks-markets/regulated-asset-base-rab-model/

​Or you can email your comments to RABconsultation@beis.gov.uk

I can’t be alone in wondering if the government has got a proper grip. To illustrate, if UK plc can’t generate enough electricity with the infrastructure we have, then why the hell is the government then championing electric vehicles - which will inevitably increase the demand for electricity generation. Some thinking isn’t joined up. Diesel has been demonised, the car industry battered and our economy damaged for environmental advantages that we can’t actually realise with the investment/power generation structures that we have.

The consultation paper details the desire for pension companies (proper investors) to invest. Well if the RAB initiative goes through, I’ll be very prescriptive with my pension managers about my fund not having anything to do with electricity generation ever again.

And if we all stand for this RAB initiative, what next I wonder? A RAB for every single rail passenger to pay a premium to realise the undoubted benefits HS2 (another disastrous project). Or every single person that ever gets on a plane to pay a premium to fund exploration to Mars.

And in the race to Mars is key to this, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and all their sponsors have no issue sinking significant funds into space travel – you don’t see them keen in investing in UK nuclear power stations. If the numbers don’t stack up, then why are we doing it at all.

My feedback to the DBEIS is this – “you have got to be kidding” and “NO”. I was inclined to lace the comments with expletives, but will restrain myself.

Please share this post if you agree with me.

I am going to contribute to the consultation right now and I urge you to do the same. You’ve only got until the 14th October though.
​
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home

It’s all going to be alright, we don’t have to worry. Donald Trump thinks Boris would make a good PM, he even likes him apparently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49052373

There was me feeling decidedly nervous (see earlier post) about Johnson getting the top job … and there was no need. Silly me.

We haven’t heard from Putin yet, but he’s probably okay with the imminent appointment too. He and Trump are buddies, or so we are told.

On Tuesday we will know for sure, but it looks pretty clear that Boris is going to get the gig.

Maybe having a privileged, self-obsessed, womaniser with wild blond hair and historic connections to the German aristocracy and our Royal Family, is just what the UK needs in order to achieve a decent Brexit outcome.

But then again…

Sir Alan Duncan (currently of the Foreign Office) previously stated Mr Johnson was "the last person on Earth who would make any progress in negotiating with the EU at the moment." And that he described himself as Johnson’s "pooper scooper" at the FO, clearing up mess Boris had created.

I am no fan of the Guardian, but this old piece, from a chap with a decent insight into Boris’ character, is a thoroughly entertaining read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/boris-johnson-unfit-to-be-prime-minister

Max Hastings, who used to be the editor of the Telegraph (and Boris’ employer), had the following to say in October 2012:

“He is not a man to believe in, to trust or respect, save as a superlative exhibitionist. He is bereft of judgment, loyalty and discretion. Only in the star-crazed, frivolous Britain of the 21st century could such a man have risen so high, and he is utterly unfit to go higher still.” 

But even discounting the significant value of Trump’s personal endorsement, Johnson’s farts must smell of roses because it seems that Higher Still is where Boris is heading.

Blog Home
Blog Library
Home

There aren’t many instances when I’d be quite happy to be five or ten years older, but the 50-year celebrations of the first moon landing have fascinated me so much that I wish I could have experienced the excitement first hand back in July 1969.

Maybe it’s a “bloke thing”, or maybe it’s a “blokes of a certain age thing”, but watching the media’s excellent efforts (BBC “8 days to the moon and back” “Neil Armstrong” and “Stargazing”: ITV “The day we went to the moon”) to bring the moon landings back into the public consciousness has genuinely excited me. And though I watched all the programmes on my own (Mrs B. and the kids don’t seem to have quite my level of enthusiasm), I can’t be alone in feeling awestruck.

I have spoken to my parents and my older work colleagues to find out if their excitement at the time matches mine now. My mum’s feedback is that the coverage now is so much better than it was then and she has actually found the moon landings more interesting now than she did at the time.  I’ll be honest, I really wasn’t expecting that.

I have found myself overwhelmed by the bravery and calmness of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins. They really didn’t know if they’d get to the moon … or back. There were so many things that did, and could have gone wrong, that there was every chance that they had signed their own death warrants. And the technology that they were relying on was solid state and less powerful than a modern-day scientific calculator. Yet the astronauts strapped themselves to the most powerful rocket ever constructed and hoped for the best. Wow.

Listening to the wives/children of the astronauts talking about their husbands/fathers blasting off into the unknown had me reflecting on the bravery and resilience of the families that were left behind. I can’t imagine my mum being able to cope with the stress of my dad taking such risks when my sister and I were still in short trousers.

For Michael Collins, he took all the risks and never even got to set foot on the moon. There was a strong possibility he’d have to have made his back to earth on his own if Armstrong and Aldrin got stranded. Hearing him interviewed in 2019 about his thoughts and state of mind was/is inspiring.
 
When it came to the actual landing, Armstrong had to land the lunar module, something he had never even flown before, on the moon’s surface himself because the computer had targeted a boulder field as a landing zone. On top of that, the computer was overwhelmed and triggering alarm codes and the lunar module only had 17 seconds of fuel left. Again … wow.
   
The media all over the world was all over the launch and mission failure would have been very public indeed. Hearing about the pre-planned back-up media stuff if it all want wrong was a poignant reminder of the very real dangers the Apollo 11 crew faced. Thank everything that’s holy that the crew all made it back intact and the alternative press releases and announcements weren’t necessary.

When the astronauts returned to earth, thanks to all the media coverage, they had become global celebrities and subsequently toured the world promoting the mission and uniting people in wonder. I can’t think of anything in my lifetime that has been so enthusiastically embraced by so many countries and cultures.

As well as celebrating past achievements, the media programmes have also addressed the future of space travel. In addition to NASA’s endeavours, the work of companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will get more folk into space, and the moon is being earmarked as a suitable location for a base with permanent habitation. All that is very cool indeed.
    
And on the subject of cool, I have been to The Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics (Moscow) and the National Space Centre in Leicester. When I can finally get to The Kennedy Space Centre at Cape Canaveral and see the Saturn five, I swear I’ll be as excited as a child in a toy shop. In fact, I’ll be over the moon.

Blog Home
Blog Library
Home