White Papers Waffle and Waste Planning time and Money.

I wrote this, and showed my chart, in 2007, asking Government for change. Nothing happened, yet surely White Papers are drawn up because the Government wants to tell us something. The White Paper here was a total failure in this respect, and presumably there is a Statute somewhere that gives the Authority for spending money on such expensively written White Papers.

The Future is bleak. The DTI (or the BERR) published a White Paper in 2007 “Meeting the Energy Challenge” in which all they did was frighten everybody off investing at all, because they would not risk investment themselves. It said that we are due to lose 22.5GW of electricity generation through shut-downs of capacity by 2020, and details in para 5.1.13 that a new 25 GW of capacity is needed to be operating by 2020, and a further 10GW by 2030.

It presents 91 pages of waffle in Section 5.1 (Electricity Generation – Investment Framework) of the White Paper, with only one chart – showing minimal renewables growth over the last ten years and no chart at all about the predictable future. The whole section talks endlessly waffling about the need to invest, and the support that investors need over resource prices, and the electricity market prices, but nothing is said about those prices or investment returns, presumably because there is risk in every prediction and the Government was avoiding commitment itself. Is OFGEN up to the Long Term Investment Job?

White Papers need to be brought up to Industry Standards – they need clear charts and just a few pages of clear and concise text. It took me a while to construct my Investment Chart attached here, because the data was not easily available (and virtually nothing in the totally inadequate Energy White Paper where it should have been of course), and it was easiest to collate and draw it for nuclear power, but its concept is equally applicable to every other Project that anybody is asked to invest in. The negative cash flow region is of course that required to build the Project, during which time there is no Sales Income, and the Bank and Stock Market returns were those prevailing in 2007. It is time the Government reduced costs by reviewing White Paper Strategy based as it must surely be on Law and Policy, and by planning for the Country clearly enough.

The chart helped me to understand why Investment in Energy of any sort is so slow – the returns shown are simply not good enough in comparison with other investments.
 

Why is this idea important?

The chart helped me to understand why Investment in Energy of any sort is so slow – the returns shown are simply not good enough in comparison with other investments.

And now I find the "Your Freedom" website will not allow me to add the chart – so I describe it – the vertical axis is minus six to plus 10 billion pounds, the horizontal axis is zero to twenty five years.

There is a bottom line running from zero pounds at zero years to minus two billion at eight years, which is the build cost investment line. This line continues at a slightly different slope indicating the continuing running cost to about minus six billion at twenty five years.

From the minus two billion eight year point, there is an income (from the consumer) line, rising to plus three billion at twenty five years, and a doubled income line rising from that minus two billion at eight years to plus ten billion at twenty five years. The cruncher is the FTSE 100 Investment Line which rises from zero pounds at zero years to ten billion at twenty five years, based upon investing the 2 billion cost of the Project in other averaged FTSE 100 Stock. Only a DOUBLED income approaches that return.

Why is this type of clear Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

The Government must review the Law which Authorises White Papers, to make them more effective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *