Both.
Is it publicly owned? Clearly, yes.
Is it focused on energy/ power? Clearly, yes.
Is it going to be incorporated as a company? Clearly, yes.
Which of those conclusions do you disagree with?
General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
Is it publicly owned? Clearly, yes.
Is it focused on energy/ power? Clearly, yes.
Is it going to be incorporated as a company? Clearly, yes.
Which of those conclusions do you disagree with?
Is there any literature anywhere that reveals whether this organisation is allowed to generate a profit? Is it allowed to own a stake in the companies in which it invests? These are all things an ordinary "investment company" would be allowed to do.
A brief perusal of the literature leaves me none the wiser.
From reading, I expect it would do all of those things. It's presumably going to make investments in companies and project financing to support clean energy developments, similar to how many investment trusts work. Profits and returns from investments would then be re-invested back into new projects, and success will be used as evidence to raise more capital, (partially/ solely?) from the public sector.
That would be my hope, but I'd like to see this made explicit.
The bit where the only time the leader has been challenged on the policy by literally anyone in the press he called it an investment fund and specifically said it wasn't an energy company.
Just small things like that mostly.
But an investment fund that invests in energy projects is an energy company. I can't see any world where it isn't.
Vitol Energy, as its primary holdings, up until about 10 years ago never owned a single refinery, mine, oil rig, or anything in the production/manufacturing side of its vertical.
95% of its current business is still, not in that area. It's business operations that are in the manufacturing space is all done through partial acquisitions of existing businesses without wholesale ownership. (investing basically)
Do you not consider Vitol an energy company?
It’s a pointless argument. The issue with Labour plan is the profits in green energy are not big enough for the private sector to invest heavily in.
Posted this before but from 45:00 to 1:03:00 explains why Labour plan can’t work
Posted this before but from 45:00 to 1:03:00 explains why Labour plan can’t work
Apologies but that's as ambiguous as the literature they've put out so it doesn't really help much.
If they were allocating a budget for areas the private sector isn't touching then agree that sounds good. However the literature seems to say even that is in partnership so again it's back to being a subsidy. A new quango that's basically in charge of allocating a small budget for assisting private enterprise in energy projects, delegating net zero.
I care more about when we get to net zero than how. My objection isn't technicalities it's simply that it isn't bold enough, they're doing what all governments do window dressing. My interpretation is they're just saying private enterprise will fix it, well we all know that isn't true.
Sorry, I meant to listen to this last time you posted it. Thanks, interesting listen.
Like I said, I don't know enough about the subject, and would be cautious on GB Energy's chances of success. I think the interviewee makes some good points (largely, the key one on low returns in renewables), though I'm not sure why that leads to the conclusion that the public sector can't incentivise greater investment with changing the rules, incentives and investing into these projects directly. Doing that you can change the cost, revenue and capital dynamics for the end investor. There are lots of examples in history of how public policies turbocharged private sector investments, leading to positive outcomes for all parties. I don't know if that is/ isn't possible in this sector (and clearly, there are tonnes of examples where such policies have failed), but I disagree with the idea that it's not theoretically possible.
Also - the host and interviewee in that video seemed to be having completely separate conversations. Hilarious moment where the host started talking nonsense about his preferred version of communism meaning that you would have forever deflationary prices, and two minutes later the interviewee was talking about the joys of competitive private markets meaning that excess returns get competed away and passed down to the consumer.
For example, in SS's video, listen to how the role of government subsidies+private competition are explained in the energy sector at the 59:25 mark. If you have the combination of private competition, subsidies to backstop revenue levels (existing policy), and a public sector investor reducing the cost of capital for new infrastructure investments (e.g. GB Energy), that seems a pretty good combination to result in positive policy outcomes. Whether it will, I've no idea. But... I don't think that video explains why the policy can't work.Sorry, I meant to listen to this last time you posted it. Thanks, interesting listen.
Like I said, I don't know enough about the subject, and would be cautious on GB Energy's chances of success. I think the interviewee makes some good points (largely, the key one on low returns in renewables), though I'm not sure why that leads to the conclusion that the public sector can't incentivise greater investment with changing the rules, incentives and investing into these projects directly. Doing that you can change the cost, revenue and capital dynamics for the end investor. There are lots of examples in history of how public policies turbocharged private sector investments, leading to positive outcomes for all parties. I don't know if that is/ isn't possible in this sector (and clearly, there are tonnes of examples where such policies have failed), but I disagree with the idea that it's not theoretically possible.
Also - the host and interviewee in that video seemed to be having completely separate conversations. Hilarious moment where the host started talking nonsense about his preferred version of communism meaning that you would have forever deflationary prices, and two minutes later the interviewee was talking about the joys of competitive private markets meaning that excess returns get competed away and passed down to the consumer.
Vitol trades in energy, so it's an energy trading company. GB Energy won't even be doing that.
Beyond the lie of it being an energy company and that it'll bring down energy prices, because of something, reasons and stuff, it's a big ol' nothingburger.
What can they do? Renationalising is not as simple as the green lobby think it is. UNLESS its something like railways where a franchise can be left to expire. Renationalising energy requires actually buying those energy companies back and finding the expertise to run them. Neither of which are cheap to say the least.
I don't know the energy industry but i do know if we think they're going to be buying up all our old energy infrastructure, well there goes the budget for running the rest of the country.
What i would like to see is some kind of funding for building capital infrastructure like dams, offshore wind farms etc and a lease system to anybody who wants to resell the energy produced. And this is all owned by the public rather than the monarchy and various corporations like most of this stuff is today.
This is the key part.
The 'it will bring down energy prices' bit. It doesn't matter what lebel they give to it, that part is an out and out lie.
It cannot bring down energy prices. Bceause even if gb energy lowers production costs somehow (the is no detail of how that could happen), there is no mechanism in this country to force energy providers to lower consumer costs in line with those savings.
At the very best, it will increase margins for the energy producer or the wholesale energy provider.
Err, yes there is. Surely you've heard of the energy price cap?
The bet is that these investments increase supply, and production costs come down. Based on the way that Ofgem works today, with the energy price cap, that would reduce costs for consumers.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/defa...2_energy_price_caps_explained_large_print.pdf
The only things GB Energy will be generating are donations to the Labour Party from the companies who want this investment fund's money and non-jobs for their MPs to walk into when the electorate realises they've been sold a pup and vote them out.
For anyone who doesn’t know Starmer dad was a tool maker
You understand that energy market prices are currently at pre 2020 levels, and prices have barely come down from the '22 highs for consumers, right?
He doesn't understand that they laughed because he's said it 25,175 times. Not for the reasons he thinks.
By the way, my father-in-law was a precision tool maker, not many people know that.
By the way, my father-in-law was a precision tool maker, not many people know that.
I’m guessing from that comment that you don’t understand how the energy companies buy on the wholesale market?
No problem. Yeah it’s definitely interesting although a bit depressing(Most climate change stuff is). Tbh I wouldn’t also completely write off public policies having big impacts on the private sector. Although I can’t see this happening under a Starmer Labour government.
Yeah happens a lot with the host. The host also has a book on space communism where we will dig floating asteroids in the future which I’m pretty sure is impossible to do. Still the channel gets a good range of interesting guests.Also - the host and interviewee in that video seemed to be having completely separate conversations. Hilarious moment where the host started talking nonsense about his preferred version of communism meaning that you would have forever deflationary prices, and two minutes later the interviewee was talking about the joys of competitive private markets meaning that excess returns get competed away and passed down to the consumer.
Won't the progression we're undergoing towards renewables (even at the current slightly depressing rate) mean that public policies will already have an effect on GB Energy? It's in the governments hands to just continue and eventually wipe out anything but green energy from being profitable.
No, no ideea.
Are you going to explain to me that prices low now is not what they paid for th egas and electricity they are currently selling us?
Before you do, answer me this. If all that is true, why do prices for consumers go up as soon as market price rises?
Should there not be a 2+ year delay on rises too?
Probably should have just left it there tbh.
They are laughing at you mentioning it again and again you numpty.
Just explain. It can't be that hard.
"He would have turned in his grave." Muttered Keir, slipping another glazed ferret foot into his mouth. As the blood dribbled down his poorly fitting suit, his servant was waved away before he could get closer with the Peppa Pig bib. "Begone, whatever your name is. My father was a toolmaker."
"He would have turned in his grave..." Keir's mind wandered into his happy place; a formerly state owned nursery that now stored tools for a hedge fund toolmaker that made tools.
Under the tool shed, as his toolmaker father turned in his grave, his toolmaker father cried. "How could I, a toolmaker, raise such a cnut?" Thatcher's grizzled remains slithered around the undergrowth, hunting for worms like it usually did.
All I'm going to say is that my dad was a civil engineer and a mathematician, but I'm thick as shit.
Reform voters in a nutshell. Fecking racists the lot of them. It’s all become the norm now. Egged on by the Government and now Farage.
On his first state visit to whichever country he goes.
His first words to the President/PM of the country, "Did you know my father was a toolmaker?"
"Everyone in the whole f*cking world knows it!!" came the reply.
His first words to the President/PM of the country, "Did you know my father was a toolmaker?"
"Everyone in the whole f*cking world knows it!!" came the reply.
The bulk of them will die out in 10-15 years, so that's a huge chunk of the Tory and Reform base gone. Worth nothing that woman is 80 though, so to give her the benefit of the doubt she might not be in correct state of mind, or she's just lost all her inhibitions preventing her for airing her overtly racist views.
We are pretty far behind. The tories this year open 24 new oil and gas licenses -
https://theguardian.com/business/20...nds-out-24-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences
Can added in Labour dropped £28 Green pledge as a sign of the the future. Or how a number of new Labour MP’s have oil funding or how rachel reeves took money from a climate denial lord.
GB Energy is acting in the private sector and is of small scale so it’s not addressing a fundamental problem - lack of profits to be gained which private sector won’t invest in large scale.
The government would have to a lot more for this to happens Imo. Which would bring giant backlash from oil companies. I mean those dam commies in China have made a cheap electric big enough to fit the fattest unwashed American and European but the tariffs still came down.
"I'm not being personal" as she tells the journalist that she's not English and doesn't think she should be in the country despite being English.
We're not doing as much as we should, but when it comes down to it less than a third of our energy is carbon based now and it's still decreasing. We'd all like it to happen quicker though.
You're well out of touch. The young are turning far right all across Europe, you should be worried about them not the geriatrics.
"Don't come here, but I-I-I'm not being personal."
That's a weird one. Usually you'd see the "Feck off back where you came from!" chest-thumping racists but she's almost timid and reluctant with it but still has to let it out.
Maybe she approached racism with more piss and vinegar in her youth and can only muster some more muted racism in her old age. It happens to all of us.
- Status