IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Osborne asks each household to set aside £450 of their future earnings to pay for losses on Hinkley Point C loan guarantees
Topic Summary: Nuclear Lessons Learned or Nuclear Lessons Not Learned - What do you think?
Created On: 28 July 2013 04:16 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 28 July 2013 04:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Using the full authority of the law Osborne has demanded that each household in the country (total 22.5 million households) set aside a sum of £2200 as an insurance bond to cover defaults on loans given to energy corporations without any collateral of their own.

A fifth of this money (£450 per household) or £10 billion in total has now been officially promised to guarantee just one costly nuclear project - the Areva EPR at Hinckley Point C. This effectively means that the UK tax payer will buy a failing project off EDF and other potential investors at full investment cost with no write downs. With this promise (and without a haircut of say 50%) it paradoxically becomes more likely that bad judgements have no cost to the investors and that the project will fail as a result.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...-charm-offensive.html

What are the statistical chances of everyone facing tax rises if the limited liability subsidiary of EDF proposing to build the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station, defaults on its loans?

Well I can't find a way of reducing this to below 100% at the moment given the facts publicly available to us all:

1) None of the 4 EPR Nuclear electricity generation stations has yet been finished. There are no credible plans being made available to the public telling us when they will be completed.

2) One major problem is that the original Control and Electrical Systems for the EPR could not have been designed by engineers with experience of safety critical control systems used in industrial chemical or petrochemical settings, let alone more stringent nuclear settings.

If the original design engineers attended courses like the IET Safety Critical Systems Residential Course, then they must somehow found a way of ignoring the core philosophy underlying this whole field of engineering study.

It is unclear whether the Chinese have accepted the original incompetently designed control and electrical schemas. If they have they should review this decision with great urgency.

3) The Generic Design Assessment was not completed in the fashion originally promised to the engineering community. Remember the report "Nuclear Lessons Learned".

http://www.imeche.org/docs/def..._Learned.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Many more design decisions than expected, including in regard to the control and electrical systems and its ongoing redesign have been pushed into the build phase of the Hinckley Point C project increasing the likelihood of construction delays.

Read John Large's final report on the GDA assessment of the EPR conducted by the ONR
http://www.largeassociates.com/

Nuclear Lessons Learned
or
Nuclear Lessons Not Learned

What do you think?

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 28 July 2013 05:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

By the way the government has so far promised not to use any sort of insurance bond to reduce the costs of the green deal interests rates.

Green Deal Interest Rates >7% with other costs included so the banks can rake in huge profit margins on this business.

Hinkley Point C Loan Interest Rates likely to be much closer to the bank bank of england base rate of 0.5%

DECC has always been run by people who mistake the public good, for the selfish interests of large corporate lobbyists and subsidy farmers. The Treasury is now becoming infected with this same malady.

What is the attraction of the Tony Blair like kudos of getting appointed to a ridiculously well paid part-time construct of a 'vanity' job as soon as they leave government?

Even for an underclass low level achiever like me, the implicit message of Former Prime Minister Tony Blair's $5m a year for a part-time post at JP Morgan (almost as soon as he left office), was "We [the large corporate banks] will look after you [the top level public servant], if you look after us [at the expense of the public]!"



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 29 July 2013 06:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Ah yes, the 'Blair Rich Project'. This has now become the template career path for all senior civil servants - particularly in energy / climate change. Witness the cosy arrangements of Huhne, Yeo and Deben.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...-released-prison.html

http://order-order.com/tag/tim-yeo/

http://bishophill.squarespace....e-deben-conflicts.html
 29 July 2013 08:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Also in regard to the banks and loan swaps


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_to_defraud

"The standard definition of a conspiracy to defraud was provided by Lord Dilhorne in Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner,[1] when he said that


it is clearly the law that an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be entitled and an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of his, suffices to constitute the offence of conspiracy to defraud.[2]

Conspiracy to defraud therefore contains two key elements; that the conspiracy involved dishonesty, and that if the conspiracy was undertaken, the victim's property rights would be harmed."

In the loan swap debacle affecting 20 to 40 thousand small businesses, the Serious fraud office should have been investigating the whole issue as banking organised crime.

It is conspiracy to defraud if to two or more parties conspire dishonestly. In terms of the loans swaps there were always at least two parties, the high street or retail banking arm of the bank and the investment banking arm of the bank, each with their own completely separate corporate identity. These two distinct companies conspired together with the holding company (again having its own completely separate legal identity) so that the victim's property rights and legal rights to redress would be harmed.

The FSA should have acted with the Serious Fraud Office to bring down the full force of the law on Bob Diamond and his co-conspirators, along with the architects, leaders and co-conspirators in other banks.

In my view the whole banking system has corruptly conspired against the SME business sector.

If I could I would use the Serious Fraud Office to put all of them in the dock for conspiracy to defraud or for aiding and abetting the banking corporate conspirators: like the FSA, now the FCA, the Bank of England, the Treasury, the banking ombudsman, and also the people who took the payoffs to look the other way like Tony Blair etc.

This is our collective common law right I believe!

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 29 July 2013 08:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Ah yes, the 'Blair Rich Project'. This has now become the template career path for all senior civil servants - particularly in energy / climate change. Witness the cosy arrangements of Huhne, Yeo and Deben.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...sed-prison.html



http://order-order.com/tag/tim-yeo/



http://bishophill.squarespace....e-deben-conflicts.html


Another one to add to the energy conflicts of interest list

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/29/tory-minister-charles-hendry-donor

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 01 August 2013 11:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: jarathoon

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary



Ah yes, the 'Blair Rich Project'. This has now become the template career path for all senior civil servants - particularly in energy / climate change. Witness the cosy arrangements of Huhne, Yeo and Deben.







">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...html







">http://order-order.com/tag/tim-yeo/







http://bishophill.squarespace....e-deben-conflicts.html




Another one to add to the energy conflicts of interest list



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/29/tory-minister-charles-hendry-donor


Yet another one to add to the energy conflicts of interest list

"Minister Nick Boles loses wind farm role because his brother works for turbine firm"

"David Cameron's planning minister has been stripped of his responsibility for wind farm policy because his brother works for a major turbine manufacturer."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...for-turbine-firm.html



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 10 August 2013 08:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Yet another one to add to the energy conflicts of interest list...

Chris Huhne, Former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who was publicly exposed as a liar and a cheat and then sent down for perverting the course of justice has turned his back on the usual route to slowly rebuilding a public reputation (unpaid or low paid charity work) and has joined the Blair Rich Project instead.

[[ I unfortunately have to say unpaid or low paid in relation to charity work here, because in the Blair era, charities became the plaything of new class of meritocrats (merit in this case being judged on an ill-defined system of ethics in some fashion related, the Blairite system of ethics), which in turn led to increasing numbers of executives in the charity sector being considered worthy of six figure salaries. This seems to be because Blair's new model army of executives have the sort of moral aptitude to counternance and encourage strange and unethical new ways of raising cash on the street and the door-step in return for a nice big cut of the proceeds and a personal expense account.

Blair's new model army of executives look up to Blair and hope one day to be promoted from the meritocracy to the temeritocracy. The temeritocracy includes people of extreme merit, that have the temerity to charge thousands of pounds to speak at charity raising dinners. I expect some would prefer to call it the extrameritocracy.

Anyway charity mugging (or chugging as it is now known) is one of these strange and unethical new ways of raising cash on the street and the door-step. It is justified simply on the grounds of being effective. The chuggers have their vocal chords specially trained and re-engineered so that they can fire off a unrelenting blitzkrieg of guilt trips upon their victims, for several minutes at a time. This holds people hostage, paralysed in a state of confusion and ever increasing mental stress, until they become convinced somehow that giving up their credit card/debit card/bank account details is the only way to escape and at the same time get a good night's sleep ]]


Oh I'm sorry for getting diverted, I was talking about Chris Huhne, the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the fact he has joined what we all now know as the 'Blair Rich Project' by bagging an energy job with the absolute minimum six figure salary that will qualify him for gold card membership.

These sorts of appointments are against the wider public interest and we should discourage them.

This is so important I will say it again in a slightly different way.

These sorts of appointment are against the wider public interest and firms employing such senior people directly or indirectly should be barred from getting government contracts and public subsidies. The trouble is how do we stop this now that the government is full of people on secondment from the private sector gaining favour, contacts and special influence on their path to joining the elite Blair styled meritocracy and temeritocracy.

Everything there is to know about dealing with DECC in terms of getting to talk to DECC civil servants for advice and in terms of making applications for subsidies should be made available to everyone equally. If I, other members of the public and SME business community have to wait weeks for a nonsensical reply from DECC, then so should the big subsidy farmers aswell. If no one gets a good service from DECC then it is has to reform.


Telegraph story below...

"Chris Huhne employed as £100,000 a year energy executive"

"Chris Huhne has landed a £100,000 job as an executive of an energy company just three months after leaving prison."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...energy-executive.html

http://www.zilkha.com/about-us...ent-team/chris-huhne/



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 11 August 2013 10:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: jarathoon
Chris Huhne, Former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who was publicly exposed as a liar and a cheat and then sent down for perverting the course of justice has turned his back on the usual route to slowly rebuilding a public reputation (unpaid or low paid charity work) and has joined the Blair Rich Project instead.

Once a person has paid their debt to society that really is an end to it unless they reoffend. I may think the sentence was not long enough or else there should have been some other punishment but he got caught and he went through the court system and he served his punishment. His punishment was not, for example, you will serve 2 years in prison and then after you will undertake charity work for 2 years. I am not a Chris Huhne fan by the way!
This seems to be because Blair's new model army of executives hqave the sort of moral aptitude to counternance and encourage strange and unethical new ways of raising cash on the street and the door-step in return for a nice big cut of the proceeds and a personal expense account.

Let's be honest most of the general public would look after themselves as well if they could, it is a part of the DNA is today's society. However there are still also a lot of good people in the world. I have no issue with what Mr Blair does after leaving office, he makes his money legally and that is fine with me. I do have issues with his time in office but that is now history.
which in turn led to increasing numbers of executives in the charity sector being considered worthy of six figure salaries.

Yes this is an interesting one generally. There used to be an argument that you need to pay top salary to get the top people and yet the senior people in the financial institutions were paid the very best salaries and yet made a bit of a hash of it. We now also have council leaders and others in public service who get extremely good salaries and yet are found wanting and yet are not then held to account. It's a difficult area to get things correct, because some people are worth the top salary.

If I, other members of the public and SME business community have to wait weeks for a nonsensical reply from DECC, then so should the big subsidy farmers aswell. If no one gets a good service from DECC then it is has to reform.


There are 65 million members of public and so you will never receive your reply as quick as say a bigger fish, that is life so deal with it. You need to take your argument to the internet and public arena and then if it gains favour you will get a bigger say, else you need to run for public office and then you will become a bigger fish.

The Government will do what it does and some things they will get correct and somethings they will ge incorrect. The other group who sit opposite them in the HoP will try to exploit the things they get incorrect and play down the things they get correct, but at the same time keeping quiet on the things which are negative but common to whichever party is in power. Turkeys do not vote for Xmas. There are too many different opinions with regards to energy policy and the way forwards with regards to new energy supplies etc., and the monies etc., have to come from somewhere. So even if you were PM you would still make mistakes and you would still have your cronies and you would still blame the last guy and you would still have a lot of people speaking against you. Utility costs are for the most part going in one direction only and that will be the same even if you become PM and if you do not believe me then run for office and prove me wrong.

Regards.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.