Les controleurs et les roucouls.

• Les controleurs qui font leurs chieurs et racistes par ailleurs... aujourd'hui un couple avec leur enfant entrent à la bourre dans le train, puis rien que pour les faire chier il demande leur titre de transport. J'ai l'impression que le seul motif était qu'ils soient noirs. Résultat : ticket non composté = amende. Puis ce chieur demande un justificatif de domicile... Yeah moi aussi je me ballade avec une facture EDF... Puis demande de justifier l'âge de la petite ( si moins de 3 ans je crois que pas besoin de ticket ). Ca se voyait qu'elle avait à peine 2 ans... salaud. 15 minutes et X dizaines d'euros d'amende... Moi qui était debout avec côté de se couple entre deux wagons je n'ai même pas été contrôlé... bizarre...
• Les roucouls! Je me pose gentiment sous les grosses poutres en métal de Saint Lazare... Erreur! Un malheureux roucoul à décider de squatter là haut... résultat, un shplok sur ma sangle de sac et un petit peu sur le jean ( heureusement que j'avais un sac! Une veste beige très claire... ).

Voilà mon petit coup de gueule inutile...

Basically, this weekend was the culmination of the trasnsfer window; a frenetic time when players are bought and sold. Because of the enormous fees commanded by top players, these transfers have a knock-on effect on the broader business of football in general. Not surprisingly, this is also a time when whole clubs (or major shareholdings in them) change hands, too.

Enter Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the sports-mad tycoon who happens to be a member of Abu Dhabi's ruling family and now the owner of a 90% shareholding in Manchester City Football Club; a snip at £210million.

The footie world is very excited about this. The Sheikh (also owner of Al Jazeera Football Club and chairman of the Emirates Racing Authority) has already moved to pump millions of pounds into British football, energising the transfer market and giving some stiff competition to other billionaire players like Chelsea's owner, Roman Abramovich. Sport- and the TV rights which support it- needs constant zing, and we need flamboyant new characters to inject some novelty and enthusiasm whenever possible.

On the business side, though, I think there are some interesting points to make.

Firstly, Al Nahyan has not bought Man City with Abu Dhabi's burgeoning sovereign wealth funds. Oh no. He's bought the club with his personal money. It's not an investment, it's a plaything. Sure, Abu Dhabi wants to better understand the sports and leisure industries, but the club is fundamentally a toy. The world is definitely dividing up into the super-rich, the comfortable, and the unbearably impoverished- and on a fully global scale.

Secondly, we need to learn from Abu Dhabi (and Dubai and her neighbours). The Emirs understand that the oil money won't last forever, and they are using their wealth to invest in projects around the world to ensure future stability. (Companies do this too- it's why petrochemicals giants like BP or EDF Energy are putting money into renewables). One of Abu Dhabi's funds, for example, now owns New York's Chrysler Building. Strangely enough, the UK has known for twenty years that North Sea Oil wouldn't last forever- and yet we find ourselves at the mercy of bumpy markets today.

Stability is - literally - worth its weight in gold to any company. If, like me, you started your company single-handedly, you'll look back and realise how you lived hand-to-mouth in the early days. I now have a modest "pot" for emergencies, and I've diversified the sorts of products I offer. All of these things are complicated to do, and take up time and energy. Yet, they're essential complications, because they smooth out the path of my business and soften any nasty surprises. Now, I know this will come as a shock... but my business isn't quite the size of Sheikh Mansour's. The principles are the same, though. Enjoy the season!

Their first year's strories were usually quite strong, but this story marks the bar high for its second.  The story is simplistic, yet elaborate.  You know quite a lot about the characters given how much you're actually told.  BASICALLY, it's a wonderful piece and you should go check it out.  And sign up to get it every day - where you might find me once again.  Hopefully.

We got an electricity bill for £314 and thought we were really poor (and I started to feel a bit guilty about all my hot deep baths) but when we read the meter it seemed like EDF actually owe us money!  I called them just now and they are cancelling our bill - but I'll only believe it when I see it as there may be more to it than meets the eye.

Back at work today and resisting the urge to go and spend, spend, spend - but there's not much else to do at lunchtime and I refuse to sit at my desk as I like the fresh air!

Note to self - car insurance and MOT due at the end of this month.  Perhaps if I have any surplus (ha ha) in my current account, that's what I'll use it for put it towards!

S'agissant de ce dernier, ayant reçu un avis de passage pour relevé des compteurs à un moment qui ne me convient pas, je profite hier de l'opportunité d'une boite vocale pour déclarer ces montants et paf, je reçois ce matin un mail avec ma nouvelle facture disponible en ligne sur mon compte. Je clique, et en plus de la commodité du système, je découvre la bonne surprise matinale, facture de -39€.

Y'a des jours comme ça qui démarrent bien. :)

L'électricité issue du vent pourrait s'avérer coûteuse pour le contribuable. L'Institut Montaigne montre dans sa dernière étude que la réalisation des objectifs de développement de l'éolien fixé lors du Grenelle de l'environnement pourrait se traduire par un surcoût d'1 milliard d'euro par an d'ici à 2020, voire de 2,5 milliards d'euros par avant après cette date.

L'Institut Montaigne a calculé que le coût annuel complet de l'éolien s'établit à 163 euro par kilowatt, si la puissance installée reste inférieure à 10 GW. Il précise de ce coût atteint 275 euros par kilowatt si les éoliennes sont installées en mer plutôt que sur une surface terrestre. Face à ces dépenses, le développement de l'énergie éolienne génèrerait 87 euros par kilowatt d'économies.

Vincent Le Biez, l'auteur de l'étude, estime que «tant que l'éolien est peu développé, ce surcoût est faible et donc aisément supportable par l'opérateur historique. Cependant, nul doute qu'in fine, il se retrouvera sur la facture d'électricité du consommateur». Il évalue ce surcoût à 100 euros par an et par foyer, si les objectifs fixés par le Grenelle de l'environnement sont atteints.

Quelque 25 000 MW devraient être produits chaque année grâce à l'énergie éolienne en 2020, ce qui représenterait 10% de la consommation française d'énergie. Actuellement, la France produit 77% de son électricité grâce au nucléaire et 12% grâce à l'hydraulique. L'Institut Montaigne souligne qu'elle se place ainsi en tête des meilleurs élèves européens en termes de modération des rejets de gaz à effets de serre.

Lire aussi :

» Les leaders de l'éolien dans le monde (avec jdf)

» Le danois Vestas a le vent en poupe

L'éolien à nouveau dans la tourmente avec l'annulation du décret fixant les tarifs de rachat

Après la publication de l'étude de l'institut Montaigne et le projet de classement des éoliennes en ICPE, le secteur de l'éolien est à nouveau chahuté suite à l'annulation par le Conseil d'Etat du décret fixant les tarifs de rachat de l'électricité.

Dans une décision rendue publique le 6 août dernier, le Conseil d'Etat a annulé le décret fixant les conditions d'achat de l'électricité produite par les éoliennes. Cette décision fait suite à une plainte déposée par l'association Vent du Bocage et se base sur un vice de procédure lors de la rédaction du texte. Le motif de cette annulation est en effet la consultation du conseil supérieur de l'électricité et du gaz en lieu et place du conseil supérieur de l'énergie.

Résultat, les projets de parcs éoliens qui devaient prochainement prendre forme sont suspendus, aucun contrat ne pouvant être signés, ce qui satisfait Jean-Louis Butré, président de l'association Vent du Bocage et de la Fédération Environnement Durable : la décision du Conseil devrait normalement entraîner l'arrêt des contrats de rachat d'électricité par EDF et la suspension du programme de construction demandée par le lobby des promoteurs qui fait actuellement fortune sur des bases tarifaires qui n'existent plus, a –t-il expliqué.

Mais le Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement Durable et de l'Aménagement du territoire (MEEDDAT) se veut rassurant en rappelant que le Conseil d'Etat n'a pas remis en cause le niveau des tarifs mais bien la procédure. Il précise par ailleurs que les contrats d'obligation d'achat signés avec EDF et les distributeurs sur le fondement de l'arrêté du 10 juillet 2006 ne seront pas remis en cause. Les services du ministère travaillent d'ores et déjà à l'élaboration d'un nouvel arrêté, qui reprendra sur le fond les termes de l'arrêté du 10 juillet 2006, de manière à permettre aux nouveaux projets de bénéficier des mêmes conditions d'achat, prévient le ministère. Cet arrêté devrait être soumis au Conseil supérieur de l'énergie et à la Commission de régulation de l'énergie.

Une mésaventure de plus pour l'éolien

Qualifiée de péripétie désagréable par le président du Syndicat des Energies Renouvelables André Antolini dans le quotidien Le Monde, cette annonce intervient alors que l'éolien a été fortement remis en question dans une récente étude de l'institut Montaigne. Selon ce rapport, le développement du parc éolien français prévu par le Grenelle de l'environnement aurait pour conséquence un surcoût annuel moyen d'1 milliard d'euros d'ici à 2020 et de 2,5 milliards au-delà. Ce qui lui fait dire que le déploiement de l'éolien n'est pas la solution économique la plus appropriée pour la France. Importation des éoliennes, peu d'emplois créés sur le territoire, faible rentabilité… les critiques ne font pas défaut.

Outre cette étude peu flatteuse, les partisans de l'éolien ont dû également faire face à la proposition d'intégration des éoliennes dans les installations classées pour la protection de l'environnement (ICPE). Ce projet de décret écarté lors du Grenelle de l'environnement mais à nouveau étudié, vise à soumettre à autorisation les éoliennes de plus de 50 mètres. Pour les professionnels du secteur et les associations, cette proposition est incompréhensible et inadmissible. Si ce projet aboutissait, une seule éolienne de 2 MW serait soumise à des contraintes et à des pénalités financières équivalentes voire supérieures à celles d'une centrale thermique (gaz, charbon ou fioul) de 500 à 1000MW !, expliquent-ils dans un communiqué.

Pour l'instant cette proposition de décret n'a fait l'objet d'aucune décision et aucune date n'est avancée.

Bonjour la solidarité !!!

En relevant le plafond pour avoir droit au tarif préférentiel à 620,58 euros par mois les bénéficiaires de l’AAH (628, 10 euros + 5% de revalorisation pour 2008 ) ne peuvent en bénéficier !!!

UN VERITABLE SCANDALE !!! Cela démontre bien que Sarkozy et son gouvernement savent bien compter comme cela les arrangent !!!

Datés du 12 août, les arrêtés du ministère de l'écologie sur la nouvelle augmentation des tarifs réglementés de l'électricité et du gaz naturel ont été publiés, au Journal officiel. Ces nouveaux tarifs seront applicables dès le 15 août. Comme annoncé début août, le prix de l'électricité augmentera de 2 % pour les particuliers et celui du gaz de 5 % (0,237 centime par kilowattheure en moyenne).

La dernière hausse des tarifs réglementés de l'électricité pour les particuliers remontait à août 2007 et s'élevait à 1,1 %. Par contre deux hausses des tarifs du gaz sont déjà intervenues en 2008, début janvier (+ 4 %) et fin avril (+ 5,5 %).14.5 % de hausse des tarifs du gaz en 8 mois ! De qui se moque-t-on !

EDF : La consommation moyenne par foyer est 1000 KWh (Cf. Insee et Edf) par an ce qui correspond à une augmentation annuelle de 237 euros soit environ 20 euros par mois !! La Commission de régulation de l'énergie (CRE) a émis un "avis favorable" sur les hausses pour l'électricité, mais un avis "défavorable" sur l'augmentation des tarifs du gaz. .(Faut penser à ces petits patrons d'EDF, GDF, SUEZ et à ces pauvres actionnaires).

Suivre les recommandations du gouvernement et manger "cinq fruits et légumes par jour" est devenu hors de prix. Entre 2007 et 2008, les légumes ont connu une hausse de 10,5 % au kilo, avec un prix moyen de 2,21 euros contre 2 euros l'an dernier. Pour les fruits, l'augmentation est supérieure puisqu'elle atteint 15,14 % avec un prix moyen de 3,65 euros contre 3,17 euros en 2007. Les matières premières (blé, etc.) malgré une très bonne récolte ne feront rien baissé au prix des denrées de premières nécessité (faut bien que les géants de l’agro-alimentaire et leurs actionnaires puissent manger tout de même). Bref, serrons nous la ceinture de nouveau, les problèmes d’obésité, cardio-vasculaires etc. vont disparaître. Plus besoin de notre Roselyne et de son ministère qui ne peut s’occuper que du sport (elle peut d'ailleurs rester en Chine). La santé est gérée par les ministres du budget, de l'écologie et de l’économie !!!

Un seul mot d’ordre : Résistance ET ACTION, avant de perdre nos dernières forces.

Life-Upgrade.com

• faire signer un contrat entre EDF et China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Company (CGNPC) avec la création d'une société commune sino-française pour construire et exploiter deux centrales nucléaires de technologie EPR et construites par Areva pour 8 milliards d'euro! (voir ici)
  Raffarin n'a pu s'empêcher de se vanter: "Je pense qu'il y a un lien entre la présence de Nicolas Sarkozy, ses discussions avec le président chinois et le contrat très important que vient de signer EDF avec le géant de l'électricité en Chine" et d'ajouter "C'est une grande victoire d'EDF. Le mérite en revient d'abord à EDF mais je crois qu'il n'est pas indépendant de l'action politique de Nicolas Sarkozy"
• vendre à une université chinoise le paquebot du FN pour une somme de 12 et 15 millions d’euros. Un vrai agent commercial digne de Century 21 pour Jean-Marie Le Pen. Voilà pourquoi ils se voyaient de temps à autre ces deux là! Le Business... (Voir ici)
  Rendez-vous compte, un président de la République en exercice qui s'occupe d'affaires privées pour renflouer les caisses d'un parti politique adverse d'extrême-droite. Si ça c'est pas de la Rupture!
• gérer la crise géorgienne à sa manière alors qu'elle n'était même pas déclarée: Louis Sarkozy, le fiston, s'est fait bisouiller affectueusement par Vlad l'Empaleur Poutine. Des frères les deux hommes! On imagine aisément l'impartialité de la France dans la guerre qui oppose la Russie et la Géorgie. Magnifique!

Franchement Nicolas, et pendant tes vacances en plus, là bravo! Dommage que ton agenda soit trop chargé pour aller dans le nord voir les sinistrés de la tornade ou serrer la pince au Dalaï-Lama. Dommage...pour les droits de l'homme, mais Business is Business

Somehow it is because they are French. Whatever.

EDF has raised prices in the UK by a fairly large margin, but in France it has only put them up by a few percent. However, this is far more complicated then the basic xenophobia of the Hate and its readers would have you believe.

The basic thing is that EDF UK and France are run as separate entities.

ON another level, however, is the actual make up of the two countries energy policies and how this affects the people. It also hits the green argument quite hard. Let me explain.

France is the second biggest provider of nuclear power in the world, behind the United States. This has been their policy for decades and is in part due to having quite scarce natural resources such as coal. Here is a handy breakdown of how France gets its power.

In turn, it is also a massive provider of renewable energy, the biggest in Europe in fact, for the same reason.

What this results in is a country whose people only have 15% of their energy provided for them by gas. The UK is more like 35%. Hence, we use far more of a commodity whose price is going up then they do. Supply and demand.

So, France is far more economically stable with regard to fluctuating gas prices then we are, although it is still open to oil as it uses a fair bit.

France also already paid more for its gas then we did and the new price changes put us on more of an even footing. We now pay more, but to say we are subsidising French energy consumption is moronic, it is nothing of the kind.

France also has one of the lowest CO2 emissions, however you measure it (GDP or per capita) of any country in the world.

This is where the greens receive a huge slap in the face.

France has huge tax credits on renewable energy measures - 40-50 per cent - and the uptake of solar power has been pretty massive, unlike this country where you are taxed for not being green, then not given any incentive to be green.

And yet France is one of the highest users of power in the world.

So let's break this down. France has low CO2 emissions and is aiming to take them lower, it uses a small amount of gas and a fair amount of oil, it has a massive amount of nuclear and it is an European leader in renewables which it actively incentivises. 

But it isn't very efficient.

So how does that tie in with green calls for no nuclear and more efficiency? I'd love to hear from someone to explain this to me.

Here is a country that is pro-nuclear, pro-renewable and pro-CO2 reduction. Yet it uses a massive amount of energy.

The message is clear. The UK must stop messing about appeasing lobbies and start being pro-active. Build a whole stream of modern nuclear power stations, implement the new wind farms already being built by British Gas, among others, and projects such as the tidal power in the Severn.

It is a mixture that results in the benefits we all want: less reliance on outside forces to provide our gas, less CO2 emissions, more renewable sources.

Efficiency is all very well and good, but it isn't the answer and isn't that realistic.

And can we please stop being so xenophobic!

The law in France restricts energy price rises to the inflation rate.

EDF has blamed the price rises on the increasing wholesale gas price, though its electricity bills have also increased sharply.

The British energy industry was privatised in 1989, and in recent times both gas and electricity prices have increased markedly. Instead of energy companies making fat profits for their executives whilst many pensioners are forced to choose between feeding themselves or heating their homes, they should be re-nationalised and there should also be an end to foreign companies having such huge stakes in the British energy market.

• Nuclear power an example of modern, science based technology
• France has nuclear capacity of over 90%
• Nuclear industry an expression of French political will
• Technological development in postwar France to establish new national identity along technocratic lines
• French engineers and the state in the late 19th and early 20th century
• National goals and the large-systems approach to engineering
• Defeat in WWII and national anxiety
• Nationalization of electricity, coal and gas industries after WWII
• Technical experts and traditional political power
• Technologists and politicians
• Technological advance, geopolitical power, decolonization and US cultural hegemony
• Electrical utility EDF and CEA, the atomic energy agency
• Conflicting goals: CEA – plutonium production, EDF - efficient electricity
• Split between civilian and military applications of nuclear power
• Divergent goals within the state
• CEA: limited monopolies, “champion” industries, EDF: competition
• CEA design: natural uranium, plutonium, military implications
• Graphite moderator, manufacturing simplicity
• CEA “policy of champions”, single contractor, incentives, consortia, on-line refueling
• EDF broke up design and contracted out to private sector
• EDF designs focused on efficiency factors (higher temperature and pressure, no on-line refueling)
• Nuclear technologies embodied particular political goals
• Technopolitics: “…politics conducted through specifically technological means”, conducted by technologists, not elected officials, deriving its power from “expert knowledge and its expression in material artifacts or practices”
• In summary, the French sought to achieve four political goals with nuclear technology after the war:
• National prestige after the defeat of WWII through technocracy
• Securing geopolitical power
• Countering the effects of decolonization
• Combating the cultural hegemony of the US

So, watch these countries, people and concers closely:

France wants new atomic reactors

Toshiba wants to build new atomic reactors

IEA wants 1,300 new atomic reactors

McCain wants to build new atomic reactors

Atomic power is NOT green

Life-Upgrade.com

The German drinking water is much more contaminated with Uranium then assumed. The Consmer Protection Organisation "FOODWATCH" (web) discorvered, that of 8000 examined data 950 have more than 2 miligram of Uranium in one liter - that's breaking the tolerance limit. A tolerance limit for Uranium? That's right! There is such a thing. It's unbelievable, but it exists. There should be only one tolerance limit: ZERO. Uranium in drinking water is dangerous for babies.

Adding to this: 150 data values are above the limit of 10 (!) miligram per liter. Is this still drinking water?

In France it would be, see the latest French atomic / Uranium scandals:

Uranium solution leaked out from French atomic power plant! - Operator: AREVA

Again! - Uranium leaked out from French atomic power plant! Operator: AREVA

100 French workers contaminated!

French atomic power plant: Worker contaminated with radiation - Again

Uranium can cause nerve damage, brain damage / Cancer, kidney damage and mutation. The IAEA would deny every link between radiation and death / mutation / cancer (excpent tyhroid cancer) or disease. They are doing this propaganda since they were founded, with the support of the ICRP - both are are profiteers of the atomic industry. So, no one wonders, why people accept tolerance limits all over the globe. It's pro-atomic-power propaganda. Have a close look at tolerance limits, ICRP and IAEA - HERE .

They were originally founded in 1954. While their foundation was going on, an atmosphere of secrecy because of the atomic weapons and the secrecy of reasons of national safety were around them. 1954 ICRP was an organisation of 13 male members.  Till 1990 the first woman came to them…

They made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which (very important!) justified the set of regulations of the IAEA. Interesting isn’t it? Here is one:
ICRP said, the tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water should be 40.000 Bq. And now the crazy progress of the ICRP: In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre. This was proved by ACES (Comitee for environmental standards). They said: Wrong housenumber, change the 7000 (Because of cancer danger). They also said: Lower it to 100 Bq in five years until you get 20 Bq / Litre. I think its a big difference between 40.000 and 20, don’t you?

Thats why we should never tolerate a number for low radiation emission from atomic power plants.

But the IAEA uses them in a very cruel way, since the Chernobyl reactor explosion in 1986. If you read through a paper from 1990, written by the ICRP you find the description “temporary radiation effect”. Effects which they did not find heavy enough in order that the effected people can be compensated. And today? Have a look at his HERE

Worst of all: The German Authorities did not inform the German people about the Uranium in German drinking water - never did.

Only Foodwatch did it.

Now, their website is overrun by concerned people, so it will impossible to visi t their website for a while. You can try it if you want and you should do it, because German authorities still do NOT react. See here: BfS website

Foodwatch's Chief Bode said, it would be no problem to filter the Uranium out of the drkinig water. But the authorities do not react. He also added, it would be a good idea to show the concentration of Uranium in driking water along with the water bill.

Funny and crazy thing: Germany has NO Uranium limits for drinking water. Nothing. Again: ZERO would be the limit.

Guess what, exactly at the same time, when Foodwatch uncovered the Uranium scandal in German drinking water, the CDU party (50% of Germany's Government and pro-atomic-power) said, that German atomic power plants should run longer than the 8 years, to be exactly: 40 years. Who said this? Well, it was Glos (member of the German Bundestag Government), have a look at him HERE. And his message HERE. Is he paid by the industry or what? No, but other Government politicians: Listed HERE.

Germany plans total pull-out from atomic energy - no wonder some people are concerned. About the money, not the health of the German people. Here is the KiKK study about rising children cancer near German atomic power plants.

This year is a total catastrophe for pro atomic power extremism. Like every year, like every week.

Life-Upgrade.com

The directors of British Energy have decided that the French offer undervalues the shares by around 30%. This was reported as killing the deal, but I doubt it. It will be worth the extra money to gain control of 25% of the UK’s future electricity supply with the Government now openly demanding that we build more and more nuclear power stations as a matter of urgency.

From the Government’s point of view the urgency is that the lights may go off in ten years without the nuclear energy; that simply shows the level of carelessness and incompetence embedded in the Government’s energy policy for the past eleven years.

Apparently the Government thought that EDF’s offer was excellent value for money. British Energy’s board, after discussing the bid with other shareholders thought differently. Unlike the Government the shareholders (the Prudential amongst them) had twigged that energy supply is inevitably going to become more and more profitable and this makes the shares more valuable that the Government thought.

John Hutton, business secretary is quoted as saying that this development is disappointing. Clearly he feels that it is more important to sell of British Energy and make a quick start on building nuclear reactors than to sell the nation’s shares in British Energy at a correct valuation. John Hutton, let me remind you is the Business secretary. This is a strange way to run a business – selling shares for less than they are worth. Did he take advice on the share value and if so why was the advice he got so different from the view of the value formed by the Prudential and other investing shareholders?

But that is a diversion. The real issue is do we want a quarter of our electricity generation (that is to say the only part of our energy generation not dependent on foreign imported fuel) to be in the hands of a foreign Government? Would the French permit it? I doubt it.

The Government wanted British Energy in the hands of EDF so as to enable the planning and building of new and as they regard badly needed power stations to be  undertaken quickly. The official line after this had been scuppered was that it would now take longer. there we have it; a demonstration of how powerless the Government is and the country will be when the real decisions are made about our national energy and power supplies not by the Government but by EDF and the Prudential.

As we head into the weekend, crises loom. EDF is backing out of the nuclear deal (is this now the future... not if there is no one to build them) because they believe they can make more out of the deal: i.e. things are getting worse so energy is going to cost more. Let's re-do the deal to reflect these speculations.  'Climate Camp 08', the slightly lame named but earnest guys (fighting for our survival) have sieged land in Kingsnorth, Kent, where the coal-fired power plant is planned to be renewed and begin it's life cycle again. E.On, the company in charge, are not worth apologising for - coal is a no, no, regardless of our needs - think about the future, and we have to see that. As hippie as it sounds, planet above business. BUT - they are taking down two more plants, and this is the only replacement (talked to today). Effectively they are decreasing their output from nearly 4 megawatts to one and a half megawatts. That's one coal-fired power station and one oil-fired power station being removed.

The moves by E.On, are however, rebutted by scientists saying that coal is not needed to fill the gap. Shame there aren't more looking out for out own back yard, than for business. FT reports.

In other news '100 Months to Change the World' campaign has started - the guys behind this unknown, as yet, group. Must be rich though, putting full page ads in most of the national newspapers. The website features a large countdown clock until our doom. I'm not rubbishing them - but I know this will only keep up the slow trend of greenness. Such as campaign didn't work effectively enough for MakePovertyHistory, and hasn't yet worked for green stuff. 

Problem is - the energy crisis which is upon us (gas up by 35%, big news of late) will force people either into coal or renewable. And coal is immediate...

There is hope...

Literal greens: Algae to the rescue... new biotechnological research, replicating the chemical composition of crude oil has come to light. Could be filling up our cars, which we will be reducing the use of at today's prices (crisis is a good incentive), within 5 years.

So hope and dispair for the environment. These changes are always slow, and often the rare few steps forward with the usual route, and steps back in crisis. This is what we are seeing now, surely.

Foresight would be useful. But in the current climate, and with good weather, and rising fears of a coming expensive winter, coal is favourite. Renewable will slowly climb the greasy pole of energy policy for now. The Brown and Miliband crisis, the everyday shennanigins of of two game-players, outshadows the rest of the days news and blogosphere, as ever.

The deal would have secured the sale of most of Britain's power stations (eight if we're counting) and would have simplified the building of countless new ones. The government, being a 35% shareholder in British Energy, was believed to be behind the deal, seeing this as an avenue for their 'greener' energy targets. Hastily determining to downplay the collapse, a spokesperson for the government announced that this was "no disaster"; which is a relief because anymore calamities swarming around Westminster at the minute and it would look like carelessness.

No, it may not be a disaster, but it's a little embarrassing no?

The proposed deal fell through because two of British Energy's major investors, Invesco and the Prudential, thought that shares in the company were worth £10 each whereas EDF thought they were worth just £7.65.

Now, if I know what it's like to be in such a colossally important meeting, and I believe I do, than I'm pretty sure the whole thing would have played out like an episode of Dragons' Den. This is the inevitable part of the show when some deluded young upstart values their business at being worth £14 billion only to have the steely dragons (the French in this case, how fitting) laugh in their face and claim that their fledgling company is worth only a measly £12 billion.

So, another snag on the green agenda front for Brown and the Labour reds then.

But what does this mean for the energy-hungry populace then? Are we in line for some New York style blackouts? Because, though the British don't often do looting particularly well (normally stuff like that's consigned to the odd shipwreck in the Hebrides), I'm sure we could could make an exception in this case.  

Well, actually, hang on a second, I wouldn't start lighting those Molotov cocktails just yet, it turns out that this might not be such a terrible balls up after all.

Though this prospective deal had taken a lot of time and money to bring to the table, many have relinquished that this slip up might not so bad. Peter Luff of the business select committee for example, when speaking on the Today Programme, claimed that the nuclear development programme was "not dependent" on this deal and that in fact, though it would make the future expansion of nuclear energy more complicated, at least one company wouldn't own such a lion's share of the country's power generating facilities. Other companies, to dangerously mix metaphors, are now free to return to the table and, evidently, still have their irons in the fire. Eon, for example, are a viable alternative to EDF and a deal here would mean that the concentration of power in the sector would not be quite so, well, pungent.

Even Brian Wilson (the former Energy Minister not the former Beach Boy), who resolutely claimed that the deal with EDF was just experiencing some set backs rather than being all out dead, relented that there would be no short term effects on us, the consumers. The real victim, it would seem, is the government. After ploughing such resource into this deal with the French only to have it then fall through makes Gordon Brown et al look like, well, a bunch of prize berks. Not that this is all their fault, naturally, but one can almost hear the Opposition clearing their throats, sharpening their knives and launching into stretched tirades about how No. 10 has managed to royally foul everything up... again.

Better batten down the hatches then Mr Brown, I think I can hear the theme from Jaws creeping up...

The sad thing about this whole episode is that we as a nation are so willing to sell our full blown in-the-national-interest companies to foreign competition.

Now, I'm not against companies buying our companies. It's a free market and that's that.

What I do have a problem with is basically nationalising our nuclear power....by the French!

Because that is what this would have been. EDF are, basically, owned by the French government. By selling them our power stations we are therefore giving all of our nuclear power to Sarkozy.

Great!

Only the Brits are prepared to do this. Try it in Germany, France, America or Russia and there would be outcry. The yanks regularly block moves of this nature because they have no intention of letting any foreign power anywhere near their largest national providers.

Our government cry foul about the EU free trade agreements. Bollocks. We are the only ones to play by these rules, the French and Germans couldn't give two shits.

We really do need to start growing some balls with companies of this nature and ring-fence them for British ownership. I normally would not advocate this for any other interest, but when it comes to who owns the nuclear reactors dotted around the country, I think we can all agree that it's a bit retarded to hand them over to a another country - not even a foreign company, an actual government.

But we won't, because the balls left a long time ago - see Gordon Brown running like a little girl from a twat like Miliband.

RSI’s Themes:  In the ETF/CEF space materials still continue to be the theme with RSI.  Latin America also makes a strong presence in the list of fund picks.  On the stock front, RSI has picked a bunch of companies that complement the afore mentioned themes.  It is certainly interesting to see RSI pick a few of the Wall Street darlings, such as XOM, NKE, RIMM, and MA.  There are five new stocks to make it to RSI's favored list.  Give them a look.  The falling knife list continues to expand, so I pared it down by boosting the volume criteria.

ETF/CEF Low Volatility:

• EDF - Western Asset Emerging Markets Income Fund II Inc.
• IJK - MidCap 400 Growth iShares
• XLB - Materials Select Sector SPDR

ETF/CEF Medium Volatility:

• EWW - Mexico iShares
• EWZ - Brazil iShares
• ILF - Latin America 40 Index iShares
• IYM - Basic Matls iShares
• UYM - ProShares Ultra Basic Materials
• XME - SPDR S&P Metals & Mining Index

Stocks Low Volatility:

• ATT - AT&T Inc. - Sr Notes
• CVS - CVS/Caremark Corp.
• XOM - Exxon Mobil Corp.

Stocks Medium Volatility:

• ATR - Aptargroup, Inc.
• ATU - Actuant Corp.
• CCC - Calgon Carbon Corp.
• DCI - Donaldson Co, Inc.
• EL - Estee Lauder Cos.
• EMR - Emerson Electric Co.
• FMX - Fomento Econmico Mexicano SAB
• GMR - General Maritime Corp.
• JOYG - Joy Global Inc.
• MON - Monsanto Co.
• NHP - Nationwide Hlth Prop, Inc.
• NKE - Nike Inc.
• PDA - Perdigao S.A.
• PX - Praxair, Inc.
• RIMM - Research in Motion Ltd.
• UBB - Unibanco Uniao De Banco
• WBC - WABCO Holdings Inc.

Stocks High Volatility:

• CF - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
• MA - Mastercard
• MEA - Metalico Inc.
• MMR - Mcmoran Exploration Co.

Stock Picks New to RSI:

• The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. engages in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of skin care, makeup, fragrance, and hair care products.
• General Maritime Corporation provides seaborne crude oil transportation services worldwide.
• Research In Motion Limited engages in the design, manufacture, and marketing of wireless solutions for the mobile communications market worldwide.
• McMoRan Exploration Co. engages in the exploration, development, production, and marketing of crude oil and natural gas offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and onshore in the Gulf Coast area.
• WABCO Holdings, Inc. engages in the development, manufacture, and sale of braking, stability, suspension, and transmission control systems primarily for commercial vehicles.

ETF/CEF Catch a Falling Knife (CFK):

AOD    Alpine Total Dynamic Dividend Fund
DIA    Diamonds
EPP    iShares MSCI Pacific Ex-Japan
EWJ    Japan iShares
EWM    Malaysia iShares
FEZ    streetTRACKS Dow Jones Euro STOXX 50 Fund
IJH    MidCap 400 iShares
IOO    S&P Glbl 100 iShares
IVE    S&P 500 Value iShares
IVV    S&P 500 iShares
IVW    S&P 500 Growth iShares
IWB    Russell 1000 iShares
IWD    Russell 1000 Value iShares
IWF    Russell 1000 Growth iShares
IWP    Russell Mid-Cap Growth iShares
IWS    Russell Mid-Cap Value iShares
IWV    Russell 3000 iShares
IWW    Russell 3000 Value iShares
IYW    Technology iShares (DJUS)
OEF    S&P 100 Index Fund - iShares
PRF    PowerShares FTSE RAFI U.S. 1000 Portfolio
RSP    Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF
SPY    S&P 500 SPDRs
VCR    Vanguard Consumer Discretionary VIPERs
VEU    Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US
VO    Vanguard Mid Cap VIPERs
VOE    Vanguard Mid Cap Value ETF
VOT    Vanguard Mid Cap Growth ETF
VOX    Vanguard Telecommunication Services VIPERs
VPL    Vanguard Pacific VIPERs
VPU    Vanguard Utilities VIPERs
VTI    Total Market VIPERs
VTV    Vanguard Value VIPERs
VUG    Vanguard Growth VIPERs
VV    Vanguard Large Cap VIPERs
XLK    Technology Select Sector SPDR
XLU    Utilities Select Sector SPDR
XLY    Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR

That wraps it up for today....Good Evening.