Secret Nuclear tax to add 9% to bills

  wids001 06:53 19 Oct 2009
Locked

According to today's press the government is secretly preparing to tax households around 9% to fund the building of new nuclear power stations. Apparently the energy suppliers' seem reluctant to invest in these, so the answer is another Tax. So, the consumer will now fund the building of these and then once built, the energy giants will walk in and start reaping the profits!

Personally, I wholeheartedly aggree that a tax should be levied to build these power stations, but it should be aimed soley at the power companies themselves, and at the same time the government should set the price they are allowed to charge UK consumers for their power, to stop this "tax" being past on to consumers in increased charges.

  Forum Editor 08:32 19 Oct 2009

I'm not sure how this 'secret tax' can apply. All new taxation must be in the public domain; no government can tax its population by proxy, despite what journalists say about 'stealth' taxes.

  peter99co 11:13 19 Oct 2009

I thought we built them to sell to the highest bidder. (It is called asset stripping.) GB has perfected the technique.

  tein 13:26 19 Oct 2009

FE here it is i belive

click here

  Kevscar1 18:46 19 Oct 2009

If its a Nuclear Tax can I pay with Radioactive Coins

  egapup 19:00 19 Oct 2009

An annual electric bill of £500?? I wish mine was that low.

  Grey Goo 11:15 20 Oct 2009

We are going to need a lot more power stations very soon as the older ones are due to be retired.
There are mumblings about a shortage of power if a large demand suddenly occured.
If Electric vehicles become a reality for the masses this will make the creation of more generation imperative. Lets hope it all gets done in the right order.

  TopCat® 14:05 20 Oct 2009

service life so hundreds of millions will have to be spent on safe decommissioning projects, as and when the time comes. Adding this cost to that of building new nuclear stations makes the figures look extremely high. Even so, I still believe nuclear power is the futuristic way to go and I'll willingly pay my share towards it if required. TC.

  onionskin 21:19 29 Oct 2009

The thing about nuclear power stations is they cost the same to run whether they're supplying power or not. You can't have alternative sources like wind farms supplying so called green power and then switch in the nuclear power when the wind drops. Well, you can but it doesn't make economic sense.
Same goes for the system of bidding the national grid uses to choose who supplies power according to current need. It just doesn't make sense with nuclear power stations.
We either need a system of storing wind, tidal, etc. power such as large reservoirs where unused energy can pump water up to them, then they can drive turbines when demand is high, or we need to go 100% nuclear.

  onionskin 21:23 29 Oct 2009

The point of privatising the energy companies was that they'd have shareholders to fund new investment. It's a bit much that the consumer is to pay extra to fund new investment and the shareholders will reap the profit. If we are to pay a levy to fund new power stations, shouldn't we get shares in return for our investment?

  Mr Mistoffelees 22:07 29 Oct 2009

"The point of privatising the energy companies was that they'd have shareholders to fund new investment. It's a bit much that the consumer is to pay extra to fund new investment and the shareholders will reap the profit."

Do you think shareholders will pay for new nuclear power stations and bear all the costs themselves then and not expect any additional income in return?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

These brilliant Lego posters show just what children's imaginations are capable of

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment réinitialiser votre PC, ordinateur portable ou tablette Windows ?