Historically, part of the safety problem with the nuclear industry in this country rested with the quality of health and safety management which tended to be, amateurish, ad hoc and without any strategic dimension at all. Those in operational charge were largely underqualified and under educated for the task and had advanced from labourer grades without gaining formal qualifications or any in depth theoretical knowledge. This was only possible because of the inadequate demands on them of a loose regulatory system whose operational inspectorate was largely recruited from that very group. There was no integration and little communication between engineers, physicists and health physics/monitoring services and each carried out their functions discreetly with scant reference to the other groups.
When formal, specific radiation safety education and training was introduced in the mid 60s, many individuals in the safety hierarchy were resistant to employing "paper qualified upstarts" in anything but the lowest grades because they had started at that level and had won their spurs by long service. There was resentment and a fear of the superior theoretical knowledge and insight of young diplomates and graduates with specific radiological safety practice qualifications.Thus the poor pay and uncertain promotion prospects that could be expected by well qualified new entrants discouraged the full professionalisation of radiatiological safety practice in our nuclear industry for another 15 or so years.
I think part of the problem may have been that each establishment had an academic research function and academics were involved in senior management. Academics rarely make good managers.
Incidentally the situation I have described is why, having been a health physics technician and a practicioner in radiological safety in the RN for 6 years, I started retraining in 1972 as a radiographer.
I don't disagree with anything you say but ROCs are anti competitive in that they allow energy from renewable sources to be charged at from twice to three times its cost depending on marketing conditions while there are no subsidies for nuclear or hydroelectric generation. They are also the main factor in keeping the prices of energy in this country as high as they are. It seems from the information I have been able to gather that energy from nuclear generation is actually the cheapest major component of supplied energy at the moment.
As far as ROCs not constituting a grant, yes, you are technically correct but that is only because the amount of subsidy is variable and continuous rather than finite and doesn't come directly from government financed by direct taxation. However, it is still raised by an instrument of government policy, it still comes out of the pockets of consumers, we have no other choice than to pay it and it is unrecoverable. So it is not so different from a grant as makes any difference, except semantically.
Direct grants to the renewables industry would be too apparent and would bring down opprobrium on the government. Grants are paid through taxation, the system of subsidy through ROCs is paid for by consumers and is a taxation raised indirectly and at arms length through the implementation of government policy. It is a subterfuge and deliberately so. The other Mike and I see it for what it is, a sleight of hand.
While people rail against oil and gas suppliers and the high price of energy here, and the press bangs on about the difference of energy cost increases between this country and the rest of western Europe, the government generally stays quiet about the real reasons for that difference and any statements it does make are disingenuous.
But by that measure any economic incentive is anti-competitive. The RO does cover some hydro, though IIRC only relatively small scale - however I agree with you in that the purpose of the RO was to provide financial incentives and regulatory requirement for investment in renewables at LOWEST cost to the consumer. The RO fails because it doesn't do that as it deliberately excludes some of the cheapest renewable sources eg energy from waste, large scale hydro.
I happen to think that the distinction between what comes out of taxation and what comes direct from the consumer is an important one even if the ultimate source of the money is the same ie you and me. Incidentally I wonder how the new feed in tarrifs for small scale renewables will be funded - they are the German system of fixed prices for certain renewables.
As for subsidies for nuclear - a difficult one. Historically nuclear is being subsidised because the costs for waste management and decommissioning will fall on the Govt. In the future who knows. The costs of generation from nuclear are relatively low (I can't remember if they are lower than coal or gas but certainly not huge differences IIRC), but the main problem for nuclear is factoring in a realistic cost for waste and decommissioning as we just don't know what they will be (though clearly we learn more all the time). That isn't me trying to oppose new nuclear, just a reflection of the situation.
Finally, I have no idea if it is true that our energy prices are at the current level because of the cost of renewables. I doubt it is that significant compared to the cost of gas/coal - renewables only make up a small percentage of our power generation (still around 5.5%) so even given that proportion is more expensive the net effect on prices is still relatively small.
