Energy Price Rises (2010)

November 2006

Price hikes have been examined/reported before and signals continue to suggest a dreadful future. A worse future cannot be imagined than a nuclear power future. It's very suggestive of softening up (conditioning) the people to accept nuclear power.

• Cheap
• Zero CO2 emissions

Basically, the healthy alternative to expensive fossil fuels involving decreasing oil resources and filthy coal is nuclear power. Spinning it around this sounds like a good idea. A really great idea.

• The argument is similar in principle to poor quality (cheap) 'pseudo-food' being better than real food. Those in gross denial imagine it's a good thing to be fat and unhealthy.

James Lovelock usually produces sensible argument and in his book Vanishing Face of Gaia, makes a strong case for a possible disastrous future for planet Earth in the face of commercial stupidity that focuses on the very short term thinking of making money. Yet while advocating nuclear energy as the clean way forward, totally, ironically and paradoxically at worst ignores and at best attempts to justify the issue of nuclear waste that could potentially lay waste to the very planet (Gaia) that he desires to protect. Downplaying the dangers of nuclear waste does not make them go away and concentrating nuclear sources into one place increases these (very real) dangers. Obviously, the potential to make money and sustain life are completely incompatible as concepts though the critical factor still remains the growing population, but in the

idiots' charter:

more people means more money 

even though the pathway to the future comes to an

abrupt dead-end

Interestingly (!) , or just notably, when commercial adjustments are made that almost certainly will create reduced costs that could be passed onto the customer (smart meters), the savings will enable the commercial energy supplier to retain greater profits for the same customer base. The same amount in, but less out. Cynically, a small reduction is likely to be made that gives the appearance of a generous supplier. In reality, it is more likely to be a simple gesture to create that illusion. It's a commercial business that creates profit for shareholders and it does not maximise the yield by giving too much away. It benefits (itself) by appearing to be fair and reasonable.

• More notably, the popular press (greatest consumer coverage) never expresses the obvious , but actually explicity avoids it and one interpretation of this is the suggestion of collusion against the interests of the consumer. More nauseating irony: the press behaves as a parasite and feeds off the consumer, but denies them the reasoned and important conclusion.