In reply to anonymouse:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
> I don't understand this. Surely there is a consumer need for low-carbon energy generation.
Is there? I don't really believe this to be the case at the moment. I don't actually think many consumers know that there's a difference in emissions between coal and gas - they might know that there's a difference between coal and gas and renewables, but I think that's about as far as it goes. Despite the fact that all electricity suppliers offer green tariffs, I don't think it's a key driver for all but a small proportion of consumers, especially at a time when prices are very high - the key driver is price, regardless of source.
> If there is a need, companies should provide it.
Why? Why should companies do something if that act depresses their profits?
> If a number of companies do this then there will be competition and therefore incentives to drive down the costs of low-carbon energy sources.
Correct - if a number of companies do this. But if E.ON are the only big company in the market for a big new coal-fired station, why should they stick their necks out with expensive new technology if all the other generators, using old generating plant, are carrying on as they are.
> What the energy companies want is for the government to build them a great big safety net so that consumers are forced to take the cost of the associated risks and the companies can protect their profits. This just seems like another situation where the notion of the free market has gone wrong.
I'm not sure that the case with new coal-fired generation - I think it's more a case of wanting everyone to have to play by the same rules so that competition is fair. However, I'm sure it is the case for new nuclear build, and it's one of the reasons why there are still no concrete proposals for new nuclear build in the UK, despite the Government expressing its support - the generators want the cost of decommissioning to be taken of, and the Government has (so far) demurred from this idea.