HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Bad planning for UK energ... » Reply #4

Response to DCKit (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:59 AM

4. Apparently that isn't all that needs to be said, eh?

The Citigroup quote is what it looks like from a different perspective when people say that large scale thermal generation drives consumption instead of conservation.

A carbon tax would be a great mechanism to promote renewables, but it needs to be accompanied by similar measures that remove subsidies for nuclear (such as shift of liability risk to public) and full accounting of externalized costs such as waste disposal. Since the renewables do not incur similar externalities a carbon tax that benefits nuclear is an additional subsidy to nuclear as it competes against renewables.

I was glad to see a blurb on one of the Citi analysis that I'd forgotten about - the quantification of how much spinning reserve would be required. 260MW is not a trivial amount.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
kristopher Dec 2011 OP
DCKit Dec 2011 #1
FBaggins Dec 2011 #2
DCKit Dec 2011 #3
kristopher Dec 2011 #5
DCKit Dec 2011 #6
Nihil Dec 2011 #7
LineLineNew Reply Apparently that isn't all that needs to be said, eh?
kristopher Dec 2011 #4
Please login to view edit histories.