http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10784905

As we all know oil and gas are finite resources, bearing this in mind should companies like Centrica be forced to invest a percentage of their profits into renewable energy and research?

Would if be possible to offer tax relief on renewable projects as an incentive to move away from the reliance on oil ad gas?

As a side issue should the profits be used to help people in fuel poverty?

Would if be possible to offer tax relief on renewable projects as an incenitve to move away from the reliance on oil ad gas?

Im all for the investment in new sources of energy. Getting a power cell on the south face of a roof and some batterys built in to everyones house should help out no end with electricity costs and if profits were fed into the development of this we could see the cost of such power sources dropping drastically.

Its not likely to happen though any time soon i shouldnt imagine.


Andy

Here's a table of the apparent spending by the big energy companies on renewable energy in ?/customer. It is provided by a company called Ecotricity, who are a green energy supplier, so hopefully the numbers aren't too skewed or incorrect.

It's a tricky one, an awful lot of the utilities companies are not UK businesses so I'm not convinced we could force them to do anything and there is also no way currently to stop them increasing the costs to offset any additional taxation.

Green energy is already massively subsidised in the UK so I'm not sure that further subsidising a non-profitable business is really viable.

You also need to remember that in the next few years we are hoping that these companies will cough up to replace most of our aging power plants at massive cost which I would rather came out of their pockets than mine as either a tax payer or customer.

Err, EON & EDF certainly spend more than that, they are behind most of the push for nuclear in this country!

Since when was nuclear renewable energy?

since it will last millions to billions of years

It doesn't matter that it's not "renewable", it will outlast the human race

Let's not get swamped in that debate here, keep it OT.

I think that there should be legislation to make energy companies invest, they could also give them tax breaks etc if they do. We need to invest more in these technologies, the UK used to be a technological pioneer, we've lost so much. Eventually, it'll make our energy cheaper too, and the environment will improve, especially pollution. Anthropogenic global warming is another debate though.

It still isn't renewable (or considered green for that matter) hence it won't be included in the above table.

By all means give tax breaks, but I don't think forcing companies to invest is a good idea. All it does is distort the market and effectively makes it more expensive or everyone.

If the technologies are worth investing in, then they will be invested in. Forcing companies to do it isn't the right way though.

It is green though, especially the fusion research being done, but even fission

I believe they're worth investing in. Not necessarily from a short term economic viewpoint, but in the long term and for environmental reasons, which are hard to put a price to. It's unlikely companies will just invest out of the goodness of their own hearts!

If they are worth investing in then you don't need to force people to invest in them. Sure encourage companies via tax breaks and the like but don't force them. Especially if something comes along that completely invalidates them, you have then in effect forced companies to waste money.

You missed my point. They don't appear to be worth investing in to the companies as they lose a chunk of their profits with no meaningful return right now. They're worth investing in for the long term economic and environmental benefits, but that's not how the companies work. Only someone above the companies (i.e. a litigator) can steer them in the right direction for our country.

On the timescale in question, it's essentially renewable.

If you want to go down that route, then no energy source on earth is renewable as the sun will eventually burn out, and no energy source int he universe is renewable as we will eventually reach heat death.

Yep. It's like the energy companies sending out energy saving light bulbs and asking people to turn their lights off. How is that possibly in their best interests?

These energy companies along with the big oil companies are all well aware that their current gravy train will end and they are taking measures to ensure when this does happen they can transition to different business models why do you think BP has purchase licensing and patent rights to loads of Solar Power research. In the meantime they choose not to invest as their is no complelling economic reason too and also no current technology available that is worth the cost. Wind is a joke, Fusion a pipe dream, Solar nothing like mature and wave/tidal in it's infancy what do you suggest these businesses invest in?

It's referring to the money spent on green energy sources. Nuclear doesn't count as green energy as it's not renewable (it's brown energy like coal, gas, oil etc).

It doesn't matter whether it produces pollution or not, green energy = renewable energy so nuclear isn't renewable, even if there is enough Uranium to last for thousands of years.

Anyway....back on topic.

If you look at the company Ecotricity, it shows that you can make money by building wind farms and supplying 'green' electricity. However, they do get a fair few millions in subsidies each year which no doubt improves their profit margins.

In an ideal world they would pump money into R&D for green energy sources, but obviously due to the risk involved this is unlikely to happen.

But wind, or tide, or solar is NOT renewable ... one day the sun will run out of fuel, go supernova and destroy the whole galaxy ... thus putting an end to your sources of energy.

The issue is the time scale, this wont occur for billions of years, much like we wont run out of fission sources for millions to billions of years, and once we have fusion that is several more billion years.

I would suggest solar power, as, on paper, it's the only one that can meet all of our predicted energy demands when it's efficient without massive sacrifices elsewhere such as setting aside heaps of land for wind farms. There are also lots of interesting developments in the research into energy capture and storage in that sector. With more funding it'll mature more quickly and be a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

No, I don't agree with your point, there is a significant difference.

If that is the case then it shouldn't be companies that are doing it, or it should be seperate companies with a much more long term interest. The problem with forcing companies down a certain route is that you then need to take responsibility if things go badly wrong. What happens for instance if someone managed to crack fission? All that money you have forced companies to spend on renewables could be completely wasted.

Yes, but you don't have to keep digging wind or the tide out of the ground, refining it and popping it in to your reactors. Nuclear isn't renewable in the sense that is widely used within the energy industry and in fact the general public.

To be clear I have absolutely no problem with nuclear and have nothing but contempt for the policies of the last several administrations on nuclear power. We need more nuclear and we should be investing in it heavily.

I understand your point, but we could argue all day about the exact meaning of renewable. At the end of the day that's the meaning used by everyone and that's what the table was referring to.

For your interest, Wiki describes renewable energy as: "Renewable energy is energy which comes from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat, which are renewable (naturally replenished)".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

Hence nuclear isn't counted as renewable as it isn't naturally replenished, but I guess that depends how much you trust Wikipedia.

Source?

I've heard a few thousands years using modern fast reactor technology, but not millions.

I have posted before in a number of threads about studies done with respect to different sources of nuclear fuel (including from seawater, and Thorium based things, plus breeder reactors and then taking it using current TOTAL energy use, and projected future use, and so on). I'm not going to go and search out for the sources again, they are there somewhere in my post history.

Once we use seawater sources (and also use the more common uranium isotopes) we are into the billions of years territory almost.
Fusion will come in WAY before then, within the next 100 years at the VERY, VERY latest.

chris Hume Mp said last weekend that there will be no new investment in nuclear power, it will all go on wind turbines.


I am looking forward to rolling blackouts

See if I care, 18-24 months and I wont be in the country any more

I think the carrot will be better than the stick here - so some kind of tax write-off that allows companies to invest in 'green' R&D (centred in the UK) for a lower level of tax or similar would probably be the way forward.

I hope so, it really is the answer. I just worry about the phenominal cost to begin with.

Do you think other countries do not have issues with energy?

As far as energy goes countries like Canada (and a few US states) are currently mostly hydro or nuclear ... and are planning for the future with wanting more nuclear builds.

I feel I must defend companies like British Gas and the Electricity generators from suggestions of excess profit.

If British Gas equals this half's profit in the second half of the year it will have made approx ?1,000m in profit. This is a seemingly tremendous amount of money, but you should have some perspective on this achievement. British gas might have as many as 20 million customers and so ?1,000m only constitutes ?50 per customer per year. To achieve this modest profit it has to bear and manage massive technical and financial risk, it will employ 10,000's of people have a cashflow of many ?billions. At the same time it is having to invest ?billions in renewing it's generating capacity and gas network with the hope of recouping those costs in the future. The same is true of the electricity companies. 10,000's of people with ?billions of cashflow and untold ?100's millions in capital investment to return a profit per customer per year of ?20-?70.

These companies also constitute significant investments for UK pension funds and the dividends they pay fund peoples lives. If no one makes any profit there is no money to pay pensions.




With regards to renewables a planning application for a 1300 turbine offshore wind farm on Dooger Bank has been made. These 10MW turbines will cost in the region of ?5000 per kilo watt of installed capacity. 13,000 time 10 MW = 13,000 MW or 13,000,000kW.
?5000 per kW times 13,000,000 is ?65,000,000,000 (a lot of wedge)

13,000MW is approximately one fifth of current winter peak demand. Now calm winter days are not an unusual occurence even in the North Sea. So some form of reserve reliable capacity will be necessary. Now in truth offshore wind farms generally manage 35% load factors over a year so assume 5,000MW from the wind farm on average over the course of a year at a mere ?65Bn. A similar capacity provided by combined cycle gas stations would barely costs over ?3Bn in capital costs but you would have to buy the fuel.

Renewables are not a magic bullet and waiting for scales of economy is no sure fire fix as lots of these things exists these days (14,000 in Gernmany alone I believe).

5,000MW for 65bn is a waste ffs, for 65bn you can generate 35750MW via EPR reactors

I agree with your first comments. Talking about a companies profit without referring to its turnover is almost pointless.