Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 19 February 2013, 08:29:31
-
“About 10pc of our current generation stock goes next month as coal and oil fired power stations close earlier than expected to meet environmental targets,”
Forget the stupid targets, let's just keep them open. :y
"Within three years we will see reserve margin of generation fall from around 14 per cent to below 5pc. That is uncomfortably tight.”
"...average household energy bills have already risen 159pc since 2004"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9878281/Ofgem-boss-warns-of-higher-energy-prices-in-supply-roller-coaster.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9878281/Ofgem-boss-warns-of-higher-energy-prices-in-supply-roller-coaster.html)
IMHO, this government (and the previous bunch) are guilty of killing off this country with their short-sighted, almost willful, incompetence. Bloody windmills everywhere and horrendous energy costs, which have forced many into fuel poverty. >:( >:( >:(
-
>:( >:( i bet that we are the only country that is obeying these stupid rules again >:( >:(
-
Best we build some more wind turbines then :-X :-X :-X ;D
-
Nice and sunny today! Quick get some solar panels up!!! ::)
-
Need someone(The Chinese possibly) to come up with large sums of money to build some nuclear.
Of course we still haven't bottomed out how to decommission the old ones yet. I read that the cleanup at Windscale isn't complete and there is no end date either. The bill so far £65 billion/million who knows..............
I agree successive governments have ducked this and other issues.
-
Best stock up some more wood logs for the when the gas and electric runs out , back to the dark ages ::)
-
Need someone(The Chinese possibly) to come up with large sums of money to build some nuclear.
Of course we still haven't bottomed out how to decommission the old ones yet. I read that the cleanup at Windscale isn't complete and there is no end date either. The bill so far £65 billion/million who knows..............
I agree successive governments have ducked this and other issues.
The Japanese in the form of Hitachi have agreed to build two new nuclear power stations, and I have a thought in the back of my mind that the French, in the form of EDF, are intending to build others (?).
Certainly down here in the SE, Dungeness is very keen indeed to have one of those plants built to replace the Dungeness B plant that has had it's life extended to at least 2018.
Nuclear power must be the way for mass power generation. :y :y
-
if its kept safe lizzie i think nuclear is the only way but why do we allways follow the rules to the jetter when outher eu countrys choose to ignore them and get away with it
-
if its kept safe lizzie i think nuclear is the only way but why do we allways follow the rules to the jetter when outher eu countrys choose to ignore them and get away with it
But do they?
Is it not a case that our governments have been slow over decades to update our nuclear power industry. France, who we so often love to rib, is way ahead on this game and is selling us electric and running our existing nuclear plants. They have already made provisions to reduce their carbon omissions, so are not in the same position as us. As for the rest; I really do not know. We however must look after ourselves and provide the generating capacity we need regardless of what Europe is doing. ;)
-
Oh its such a scandal. Thank god for the DT to point out the bleedin' obvious. Again.
Do they stockpile these stories for slow days? And make up stats to paint a picture by slightly abusing them?
Still, it'll be summer soon, and then Global Warming Climate Change will once again become the media's favourite.
-
The key 'So what' from this is the effect it will have on wholesale gas costs and the knock-on with LPG.....it doesn't look good :(
-
The key 'So what' from this is the effect it will have on wholesale gas costs and the knock-on with LPG.....it doesn't look good :(
Remain unconvinced, as they are based on oil prices...
-
Scope for blackouts is more concerning. But currently unconcerned about that either
-
the price of genorators will go through the roof :D :D :D
-
Nuclear power must be the way for mass power generation. :y :y
You know, I'm not so sure about nuclear... :-\
I know what they say about the safety records and the fact that it's regarded as a 'clean' energy source in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, but and I think it's a big BUT, as far as I'm aware they still havn't worked out a decent way of dealing with the waste, apart from burying it in deep deep holes..... :-\
I think we could be creating a massive time bomb for future generations and it makes me a bit uneasy, :-\ but when there's multi billion pound contracts at stake however, lets not worry about that right now hey?? ::)
-
Nothing suprises me about this announcement, they won't be satisfied until more people are out of work, & our old folk are freezing to death god knows what's in store for my grandkids.
-
Nuclear power must be the way for mass power generation. :y :y
You know, I'm not so sure about nuclear... :-\
I know what they say about the safety records and the fact that it's regarded as a 'clean' energy source in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, but and I think it's a big BUT, as far as I'm aware they still havn't worked out a decent way of dealing with the waste, apart from burying it in deep deep holes..... :-\
I think we could be creating a massive time bomb for future generations and it makes me a bit uneasy, :-\ but when there's multi billion pound contracts at stake however, lets not worry about that right now hey?? ::)
But won't we eventually decide to aim all the waste at the Sun once we have developed the space craft that can do so? Just my thought about the future of this nuclear waste. ;)
-
The key 'So what' from this is the effect it will have on wholesale gas costs and the knock-on with LPG.....it doesn't look good :(
Remain unconvinced, as they are based on oil prices...
True but gas power generation likely to go up as a result of this and I think it will be used as an excuse to bump up the prices some more. In fact I wouldn't be suprised that the recent hikes in wholesale price blamed by the likes of ASDA, etc are due to the power stations knowing they will need to produce extra power shortly.
-
Nuclear power must be the way for mass power generation. :y :y
You know, I'm not so sure about nuclear... :-\
I know what they say about the safety records and the fact that it's regarded as a 'clean' energy source in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, but and I think it's a big BUT, as far as I'm aware they still havn't worked out a decent way of dealing with the waste, apart from burying it in deep deep holes..... :-\
I think we could be creating a massive time bomb for future generations and it makes me a bit uneasy, :-\ but when there's multi billion pound contracts at stake however, lets not worry about that right now hey?? ::)
But won't we eventually decide to aim all the waste at the Sun once we have developed the space craft that can do so? Just my thought about the future of this nuclear waste. ;)
Yeah good idea Lizzie!! Let's not worry about the lights going out..... We'll have a good go at putting the sun out instead!!! ::) ;D
-
Nuclear power must be the way for mass power generation. :y :y
You know, I'm not so sure about nuclear... :-\
I know what they say about the safety records and the fact that it's regarded as a 'clean' energy source in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, but and I think it's a big BUT, as far as I'm aware they still havn't worked out a decent way of dealing with the waste, apart from burying it in deep deep holes..... :-\
I think we could be creating a massive time bomb for future generations and it makes me a bit uneasy, :-\ but when there's multi billion pound contracts at stake however, lets not worry about that right now hey?? ::)
But won't we eventually decide to aim all the waste at the Sun once we have developed the space craft that can do so? Just my thought about the future of this nuclear waste. ;)
Yeah good idea Lizzie!! Let's not worry about the lights going out..... We'll have a good go at putting the sun out instead!!! ::) ;D
Well, so what........it will go on for some billions of years yet! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
-
Not if we go firing shit into it!!! :D
-
Nuclear power stations will not be built and running for a decade or two or more. The Government has delayed it by years and are escalating costs due to excessive H & S. Remember the Energy department is run by loony and sometimes criminal Lib Dems, who as part of their climate change religion consider nuclear power Beelzebub itself. >:( >:(
This is why several companies have pulled out of building the nuclear plants the remaining European company EDF is now sitting on the fence on whether they will go ahead. :o :o
While the rest of the world is moving on nuclear technology, where we have no development program we will essentially be building last generation technology with its inherent problems, which may include not enough uranium fuel as there is predicted to be a serious world shortage by 2025. The next generation Thorium power station, known world reserves will last for over 1,000 years for present and predicted energy growth requirements.
Thorium power stations are inherently much safer and also produce a fraction of the waste with much shorter half-life particles compared to uranium. Thorium fuel needs a primer which can be current nuclear waste which it turns into usable safer material as well as generating power. Fortunately Cumbria voted out us burying it as future generations are going to want to use it.
Again it is the rising industrial stars of the 21st century in Asia that are leading development, with no major research programs in Western countries where they are all trying their hardest to see who can be the poorest 3rd world country by the end of the 21st century, but at least if the politicians have their way we will all be equally poor, with the same equality of misery.
-
Nuclear power stations will not be built and running for a decade or two or more. The Government has delayed it by years and are escalating costs due to excessive H & S. Remember the Energy department is run by loony and sometimes criminal Lib Dems, who as part of their climate change religion consider nuclear power Beelzebub itself. >:( >:(
This is why several companies have pulled out of building the nuclear plants the remaining European company EDF is now sitting on the fence on whether they will go ahead. :o :o
While the rest of the world is moving on nuclear technology, where we have no development program we will essentially be building last generation technology with its inherent problems, which may include not enough uranium fuel as there is predicted to be a serious world shortage by 2025. The next generation Thorium power station, known world reserves will last for over 1,000 years for present and predicted energy growth requirements.
Thorium power stations are inherently much safer and also produce a fraction of the waste with much shorter half-life particles compared to uranium. Thorium fuel needs a primer which can be current nuclear waste which it turns into usable safer material as well as generating power. Fortunately Cumbria voted out us burying it as future generations are going to want to use it.
Again it is the rising industrial stars of the 21st century in Asia that are leading development, with no major research programs in Western countries where they are all trying their hardest to see who can be the poorest 3rd world country by the end of the 21st century, but at least if the politicians have their way we will all be equally poor, with the same equality of misery.
As I stated earlier, has not Hitachi agreed in principle to build two nuclear plants? ??? ???
-
Nuclear power stations will not be built and running for a decade or two or more. The Government has delayed it by years and are escalating costs due to excessive H & S. Remember the Energy department is run by loony and sometimes criminal Lib Dems, who as part of their climate change religion consider nuclear power Beelzebub itself. >:( >:(
This is why several companies have pulled out of building the nuclear plants the remaining European company EDF is now sitting on the fence on whether they will go ahead. :o :o
While the rest of the world is moving on nuclear technology, where we have no development program we will essentially be building last generation technology with its inherent problems, which may include not enough uranium fuel as there is predicted to be a serious world shortage by 2025. The next generation Thorium power station, known world reserves will last for over 1,000 years for present and predicted energy growth requirements.
Thorium power stations are inherently much safer and also produce a fraction of the waste with much shorter half-life particles compared to uranium. Thorium fuel needs a primer which can be current nuclear waste which it turns into usable safer material as well as generating power. Fortunately Cumbria voted out us burying it as future generations are going to want to use it.
Again it is the rising industrial stars of the 21st century in Asia that are leading development, with no major research programs in Western countries where they are all trying their hardest to see who can be the poorest 3rd world country by the end of the 21st century, but at least if the politicians have their way we will all be equally poor, with the same equality of misery.
In the meantime, many other countries (including Germany) are currently building coal-powered stations (over 1,000 planned around the world). Not us, though. We'll just sit and await the blackouts and say that we're being very green. ::) ::) ::) >:( >:(
-
Oh its such a scandal. Thank god for the DT to point out the bleedin' obvious. Again.
Do they stockpile these stories for slow days? And make up stats to paint a picture by slightly abusing them?
Still, it'll be summer soon, and then Global Warming Climate Change will once again become the media's favourite.
It was based on a report by Ofgem published today. That's why it's on all the TV news programmes. Still, if you think it's all about the DT bringing up old stories because it's a slow news day, then carry on. ::) ::)
The fact is that we are heading for major problems and I for one will be happy if they these reports get repeated enough so that the people get angry and the government gets to grips with the situation. If we get a very cold winter next year, there could be thousands dying needlessly (especially pensioners) because they have been forced into fuel poverty. Still, as you say, summer's coming so let's forget about it. ::)
-
Monty python voice on/ "Fuel poverty is just a nasty rumour being put about by people who can't afford gas".
-
I was in Iceland for the past few days. All their heating, hot water and electricity is from natural sources. Lucky buggers.
-
If it gets really cold, we could all huddle with Gixer. Mmmmmmm........I'd like that.
-
Nuclear power stations will not be built and running for a decade or two or more. The Government has delayed it by years and are escalating costs due to excessive H & S. Remember the Energy department is run by loony and sometimes criminal Lib Dems, who as part of their climate change religion consider nuclear power Beelzebub itself. >:( >:(
This is why several companies have pulled out of building the nuclear plants the remaining European company EDF is now sitting on the fence on whether they will go ahead. :o :o
While the rest of the world is moving on nuclear technology, where we have no development program we will essentially be building last generation technology with its inherent problems, which may include not enough uranium fuel as there is predicted to be a serious world shortage by 2025. The next generation Thorium power station, known world reserves will last for over 1,000 years for present and predicted energy growth requirements.
Thorium power stations are inherently much safer and also produce a fraction of the waste with much shorter half-life particles compared to uranium. Thorium fuel needs a primer which can be current nuclear waste which it turns into usable safer material as well as generating power. Fortunately Cumbria voted out us burying it as future generations are going to want to use it.
Again it is the rising industrial stars of the 21st century in Asia that are leading development, with no major research programs in Western countries where they are all trying their hardest to see who can be the poorest 3rd world country by the end of the 21st century, but at least if the politicians have their way we will all be equally poor, with the same equality of misery.
As I stated earlier, has not Hitachi agreed in principle to build two nuclear plants? ??? ???
In the words of that famous quiz show, if: "The price is right"
From both companies it is based upon investment v return with ever increasing anal H & S planning and rules and their impact on their costs and the Government guarantees on minimum electricity prices they will be paid will decide on whether they will go ahead.
With their coastal locations and their last generation uranium based boiling kettle technology then unlike natural core cooling Thorium cores and gravity fed liquid sodium circulation so they have inherent passive safety features, things like tsunami protection has to be catered for and built into the boiling kettle designs.
-
We're doomed! Doomed I tell you.
-
If it gets really cold, we could all huddle with Gixer. Mmmmmmm........I'd like that.
I'm sure Chris will insist on: Only if you can get to Reading on summer tyres and that might be difficult with all the snow covered roads around Wakefield. :P :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If it gets really cold, we could all huddle with Gixer. Mmmmmmm........I'd like that.
I'm sure Chris will insist on: Only if you can get to Reading on summer tyres and that might be difficult with all the snow covered roads around Wakefield. :P :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
I was only joking Rods. Just trying to get him excited so I can rebuff him....again. It's a game he likes to play. ;D
-
I know, but I think Chris is even more sensitive about winter tyres, than bending over to pick up a spanner in Stoke. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Call me stupid and hit me with a big stick but why don't they simply turn off the old power stations after the new ones have been comissioned :y
-
Call me stupid and hit me with a big stick but why don't they simply turn off the old power stations after the new ones have been comissioned :y
EU regulations. The existing stations do not meet the EU green criteria. >:( >:( >:(
-
Call me stupid and hit me with a big stick but why don't they simply turn off the old power stations after the new ones have been comissioned :y
EU regulations. The existing stations do not meet the EU green criteria. >:( >:( >:(
SO WHAT ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) stuff 'em, what are they going to do kick us out ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know, but I think Chris is even more sensitive about winter tyres, than bending over to pick up a spanner in Stoke. ;D ;D ;D ;D
We could just burn the winter tyres to keep warm?
-
Not if we go firing shit into it!!! :D
Wouldn't be too long before we have lineups of pissed Men, all contesting to see who can hit the centre, or fire it the furthest... I look forward to this Nuclear Olympics.
-
I know, but I think Chris is even more sensitive about winter tyres, than bending over to pick up a spanner in Stoke. ;D ;D ;D ;D
We could just burn the winter tyres to keep warm?
Followed by worn out summer tyres. A good old burnt rubber London smog, that would get the tree huggers going. :y :y :y :y ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Call me stupid and hit me with a big stick but why don't they simply turn off the old power stations after the new ones have been comissioned :y
EU regulations. The existing stations do not meet the EU green criteria. >:( >:( >:(
Couldn't remember which EU regulation it was, so thanks to Paul Nuttall for reminding me in this article that it is the EU's Industrial Emissions Directive that is forcing the closure of nine perfectly good power stations. >:( >:( >:( ::) ::)
http://manchestergazette.co.uk/archives/12617 (http://manchestergazette.co.uk/archives/12617)
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
Unfortunately, due to Maggies industrial vandalism, where she stopped the pumps so the mines flooded when they closed, it is in many cases impossible to reopen them. We were told at the time that this would render them unusable by future generations.. She did it to stop Government authority being contested by the mining unions again, but even Lord Tebbit admitted recently, it was a step too far and could / would have repercussions for future energy policies. :o :o :o :o
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
So how can they choose to build and we agree close our gas fired............ ::)
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
Unfortunately, due to Maggies industrial vandalism, where she stopped the pumps so the mines flooded when they closed, it is in many cases impossible to reopen them. We were told at the time that this would render them unusable by future generations.. She did it to stop Government authority being contested by the mining unions again, but even Lord Tebbit admitted recently, it was a step too far and could / would have repercussions for future energy policies. :o :o :o :o
It is my understanding that there is enough Coal to out live oil and gas, we can't re-open mines but we can dig new ones, but we need to be quick or the necessary skills will be lost to a dying workforce............ ;) ;)
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
Unfortunately, due to Maggies industrial vandalism, where she stopped the pumps so the mines flooded when they closed, it is in many cases impossible to reopen them. We were told at the time that this would render them unusable by future generations.. She did it to stop Government authority being contested by the mining unions again, but even Lord Tebbit admitted recently, it was a step too far and could / would have repercussions for future energy policies. :o :o :o :o
In hindsight, it may have been a step too far but remember that Scargill was holding the country to ransom. There is also the fact that many would-be miners are not now dying of emphysema. These days, just three decades later, I would suggest that mining is safer.
-
Booker gets it: :y
"Around lunchtime last Monday, for instance, National Grid was showing that all our 4,300 wind turbines put together were providing barely a thousandth of the power we were using, 0.1 per cent, or a paltry 31MW (as compared with the 2,200MW we can get from a single gas-fired plant).
The harsh fact is that successive governments in the past 10 years have staked our national future on two utterly suicidal gambles...
...Yet, at the same time, by devices such as the increasingly punitive “carbon tax” due to come into force on April 1, they plan to double the cost of the electricity we get from grown-up power stations, which can only have the effect in the coming years of doubling our electricity bills, driving millions more households into fuel poverty."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9889184/One-day-turning-off-the-lights-wont-be-up-to-you.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9889184/One-day-turning-off-the-lights-wont-be-up-to-you.html)
>:( >:( >:(
-
Don't worry Nick this article will cheer you up no end, knowing how all these expensive wind farms are saving CO2, oh err except they don't.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html)
And just to cheer you up even further, an Australian scientist has been for sometime researching what happens when you have a significant amount of electricity generated by windmills. Well Germany has found out that you have major instability in supply in gusting winds, so much so industry has demanded the emergency building of coal powered stations, which are being built at the moment. But this Australian scientist has also found that the large numbers of base load coal and gas fired stains that you need to have running on idle ready to step in at short notice actually creates more CO2 than the wind turbines save. >:( >:( >:(
Still what the Liverpool Pathway doesn't kill along with lack of NHS care and waiting lists, will be killed by fuel poverty. I'm sure those in their 50's and 60's are really looking forward to this euthanasia their retirement. :(
-
I saw an article that said we have only mined 25% of the coal under Britain. A company is looking at a viable way of extracting coal energy(in the form of gas) without expensive and dangerous mining operations. That might help (unless we give it to the Chinese so they can sell it back..............)
-
I saw an article that said we have only mined 25% of the coal under Britain. A company is looking at a viable way of extracting coal energy(in the form of gas) without expensive and dangerous mining operations. That might help (unless we give it to the Chinese so they can sell it back..............)
Isn't that what we used to do? When every town and city had it's own gas works? ::)
-
None of the current domestic appliances would run on coal gas. So it would have to be doctored or used to supply power stations.
-
I saw an article that said we have only mined 25% of the coal under Britain. A company is looking at a viable way of extracting coal energy(in the form of gas) without expensive and dangerous mining operations. That might help (unless we give it to the Chinese so they can sell it back..............)
Isn't that what we used to do? When every town and city had it's own gas works? ::)
I don't know. Not old enough (hopefully). I do remember we used to go to the gasworks to buy coke to power our greenhouse heater. I always thought it was gas created on site. This new system pipes the created, from coal, gas out of the ground. Then could be used in power stations
-
We had a gas works in our little town and as boys we'd climb the fence at night and dare each other to climb to the top of the gasometer! ::)
The domed metal roof would cave in under the weight of a 12 year old boy and was bloody scary!! :o I guess it was some sort of right of passage! :)
-
I saw an article that said we have only mined 25% of the coal under Britain. A company is looking at a viable way of extracting coal energy(in the form of gas) without expensive and dangerous mining operations. That might help (unless we give it to the Chinese so they can sell it back..............)
Isn't that what we used to do? When every town and city had it's own gas works? ::)
I don't know. Not old enough (hopefully). I do remember we used to go to the gasworks to buy coke to power our greenhouse heater. I always thought it was gas created on site. This new system pipes the created, from coal, gas out of the ground. Then could be used in power stations
Perhaps with only a few exceptions, the coal was brought in by trains regularly feeding the town gas works, such as the wonderfully interesting one down the road from where I lived as a child, the Highbrooms Gas Works, Tunbridge Wells. In fact it was always interesting to see the coal trains come in usually by then pulled by a Standard 9F 2-10-0. In fact my Great Aunt often took me for a walk and it was either the brickworks we went past on our way to a park, or the fascinating gas works! All that smell of sulphur and smoke I can still smell, and I remember always taking note of how high or low the gasometer's were. Just great fun and they just stirred my imagination. :y :y :y
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
Unfortunately, due to Maggies industrial vandalism, where she stopped the pumps so the mines flooded when they closed, it is in many cases impossible to reopen them. We were told at the time that this would render them unusable by future generations.. She did it to stop Government authority being contested by the mining unions again, but even Lord Tebbit admitted recently, it was a step too far and could / would have repercussions for future energy policies. :o :o :o :o
That is the romantic view. In fact Maggie stopped the tremendous waste of taxpayers money in keeping open uneconomic pits that were many. It was a past age and no more did the masses use coal for the home fires or the railways use coal to pull trains. No more did many industries that had used coal to power their machines do so. In addition modern man did not want the awfully dirty, highly dangerous, and very uncomfortable job of mining coal along narrow tunnels. To keep those pits mothballed would have been highly costly, and for no reason. The country when Maggie came to power was on it's knees with outdated industries, requiring great subsidy, when the country was bust and fast "going down the toilet" as one American put it at the time with constant industrial disputes.
No, in short, if Britain wants more coal to be mined then it will be by way of vast open cast mines being operated by modern machinery and a relatively small workforce. :y :y
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
Unfortunately, due to Maggies industrial vandalism, where she stopped the pumps so the mines flooded when they closed, it is in many cases impossible to reopen them. We were told at the time that this would render them unusable by future generations.. She did it to stop Government authority being contested by the mining unions again, but even Lord Tebbit admitted recently, it was a step too far and could / would have repercussions for future energy policies. :o :o :o :o
That is the romantic view. In fact Maggie stopped the tremendous waste of taxpayers money in keeping open uneconomic pits that were many. It was a past age and no more did the masses use coal for the home fires or the railways use coal to pull trains. No more did many industries that had used coal to power their machines do so. In addition modern man did not want the awfully dirty, highly dangerous, and very uncomfortable job of mining coal along narrow tunnels. To keep those pits mothballed would have been highly costly, and for no reason. The country when Maggie came to power was on it's knees with outdated industries, requiring great subsidy, when the country was bust and fast "going down the toilet" as one American put it at the time with constant industrial disputes.
No, in short, if Britain wants more coal to be mined then it will be by way of vast open cast mines being operated by modern machinery and a relatively small workforce. :y :y
Personally, I don't disagree with what Maggie did at the time, as she was making sure Governments authority wasn't going to be threatened by unelected left wing union members, some in the employ of the KGB, from challenging the Government's authority again. After Ted Heath was defeated by the unions (worst prime minister I have lived under to date and from what we now know a vile, vile man), Maggie made sure all the powers stations were full to the brim with coal, most of it imported from Poland before the miners strike started.
Without her taming of union power we would not have had the boom years from the mid-80s until 1997, the ERM fiasco under the Tory wets being the exception. Unfortunately, from 1997 (particularly from 2000) to 2008 where Gordon Brown let rip with public spending and many tax rises, this killed the golden goose, the fallout from which has already lasted 5 years with many more years to run.
I also wonder in the future with deep underground coal whether the we might actually produce coal dust and pump it out and use this, as it is the most efficient way to burn coal in power stations where you inject it like fuel into a furnace. But it has to be handled carefully as it can cause explosions! :o :o :o
-
Get the Pits opened again :y
Daz, you may well be on to something. I think we need to follow Germany's lead, where a substantial number of coal-fired power stations are being built. ANYTHING but relying on Russian gas and French nuclear. We need to be strategically independent in energy production. :y :y
Unfortunately, due to Maggies industrial vandalism, where she stopped the pumps so the mines flooded when they closed, it is in many cases impossible to reopen them. We were told at the time that this would render them unusable by future generations.. She did it to stop Government authority being contested by the mining unions again, but even Lord Tebbit admitted recently, it was a step too far and could / would have repercussions for future energy policies. :o :o :o :o
That is the romantic view. In fact Maggie stopped the tremendous waste of taxpayers money in keeping open uneconomic pits that were many. It was a past age and no more did the masses use coal for the home fires or the railways use coal to pull trains. No more did many industries that had used coal to power their machines do so. In addition modern man did not want the awfully dirty, highly dangerous, and very uncomfortable job of mining coal along narrow tunnels. To keep those pits mothballed would have been highly costly, and for no reason. The country when Maggie came to power was on it's knees with outdated industries, requiring great subsidy, when the country was bust and fast "going down the toilet" as one American put it at the time with constant industrial disputes.
No, in short, if Britain wants more coal to be mined then it will be by way of vast open cast mines being operated by modern machinery and a relatively small workforce. :y :y
Personally, I don't disagree with what Maggie did at the time, as she was making sure Governments authority wasn't going to be threatened by unelected left wing union members, some in the employ of the KGB, from challenging the Government's authority again. After Ted Heath was defeated by the unions (worst prime minister I have lived under to date and from what we now know a vile, vile man), Maggie made sure all the powers stations were full to the brim with coal, most of it imported from Poland before the miners strike started.
Without her taming of union power we would not have had the boom years from the mid-80s until 1997, the ERM fiasco under the Tory wets being the exception. Unfortunately, from 1997 (particularly from 2000) to 2008 where Gordon Brown let rip with public spending and many tax rises, this killed the golden goose, the fallout from which has already lasted 5 years with many more years to run.
I also wonder in the future with deep underground coal whether the we might actually produce coal dust and pump it out and use this, as it is the most efficient way to burn coal in power stations where you inject it like fuel into a furnace. But it has to be handled carefully as it can cause explosions! :o :o :o
:y :y totaly agree with you their rods if she had backed down who knows what kind ot sh1t we would be in now i know its not good at the moment but it would have been 100 times as bad and we would all be comis now
-
I remember the Strike very well, living in South Durham I was aware of many people affected by it, but I could also sit in a south Durham Pub and condemn it, along with the majority..... :) However, Maggie did what Scargill (sp?) said she would, but was not believed, closed all the mines and that was stupidity, there is coal for over 200 years still available
-
Personally I think she should have had Scargill (and several others) shot in front of his family and then gave the miners the evidence that he was p1ssing up their backs.Then told them to go back to work and have a long hard think about their misplaced loyalty while they were down there.
I was a young left wing TGWU shop steward during the strike,and although I tried to be loyal and show support,it was the thing that started me thinking that maybe this was all a bit wrong.
Theres no denying that all that cheap coal would be of great benefit to the U.K. currently.
-
Personally I think she should have had Scargill (and several others) shot in front of his family and then gave the miners the evidence that he was p1ssing up their backs.Then told them to go back to work and have a long hard think about their misplaced loyalty while they were down there.
I was a young left wing TGWU shop steward during the strike,and although I tried to be loyal and show support,it was the thing that started me thinking that maybe this was all a bit wrong.
Theres no denying that all that cheap coal would be of great benefit to the U.K. currently.
But would it be cheap? If it wasn't viable to dig it out in the 1980's, why would it be viable now? :-\
Granted the price of coal has increased hugely since then, but so has everything else.... :-\
-
We are paying whatever it costs to have it shipped in from around the world.Surely it would be cheaper to dig it out of the the ground here in the U.K.
It would also stop others from holding us to ramnsom as is currently the case with energy supply.
-
Personally I think she should have had Scargill (and several others) shot in front of his family and then gave the miners the evidence that he was p1ssing up their backs.Then told them to go back to work and have a long hard think about their misplaced loyalty while they were down there.
I was a young left wing TGWU shop steward during the strike,and although I tried to be loyal and show support,it was the thing that started me thinking that maybe this was all a bit wrong.
Theres no denying that all that cheap coal would be of great benefit to the U.K. currently.
But would it be cheap? If it wasn't viable to dig it out in the 1980's, why would it be viable now? :-\
Granted the price of coal has increased hugely since then, but so has everything else.... :-\
The truth is it is only economically viable if obtained from a very large open cast mine with huge modern machines and limited manpower used. But, coal is the fuel of the past, as I stated earlier in this thread we as a nation no longer use it to power our lives and industry as we did 100 or even 60 years ago. King coal has gone!
The future is in nuclear, oil or gas power stations, with renewables as a back up. Anyone who remembers the past of almost 60 years ago, as I can and who has the ability of romancing over the past, will recall the dirty air, the dirty sooty trains, and cold houses with smoky coal fires that took maintenance to keep up the heat to heat just one room in the house. I also remember the pea souper smog's of the fifties and early sixties when living with my grandma in London, or even living in Tunbridge Wells. No one is surely thinking of going back to those days, because that would be the only way of making coal mining totally profitable? ;)
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html
-
I don't think anyone is advocating mining coal for domestic use, Lizzie, despite your nostalgic vision. China builds a new coal-fired power station every month, and the UK puts out 2% of what China emits in CO2. A couple of new 'dirty' power stationss won't really affect the world that much and, in case you hadn't noticed, we are in the shit.
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html
Yep, exactly!
I love this extract from that article which almost takes me back to the old days:
"China, industrializing a century after the United States did, now burns about half the coal consumed each year in the world. The resulting pollution literally takes the breath away. A visitor stepping off a plane after landing at the Beijing airport on a winter night is taken aback by what smells like a forest fire but turns out to be just the urban air. The visitor is lucky, of course. Many locals walking or biking along city streets strap surgical-style masks over their mouths to protect their lungs. The masks often are decorated with snazzy patterns and bright colors—fashion accessories of a society soaked in soot."
;)
-
I don't think anyone is advocating mining coal for domestic use, Lizzie, despite your nostalgic vision. China builds a new coal-fired power station every month, and the UK puts out 2% of what China emits in CO2. A couple of new 'dirty' power stationss won't really affect the world that much and, in case you hadn't noticed, we are in the shit.
But there is no reason to go back to the past from either an economic or social point of view. China is finding out what happens when you use coal extensively and they will learn eventually that cannot go on. Mind you with over 1 billion people life is cheap. However it will change one day! :y
There is no "nostalgia" from me over mass coal use as I clearly have stated more than once now! ::) ::) ::) ::)
As for using coal domestically, that would be the only way to make coal mining on a large scale pay, so it is a non-starter.
-
Are you against coal extraction for environmental or financial reasons. If it's environmental, are you worried about the planet or the wellbeing of the British public?
-
Are you against coal extraction for environmental or financial reasons. If it's environmental, are you worried about the planet or the wellbeing of the British public?
As I have stated Steve on both financial and environmental reasons I am against the mass use of coal. It is going backwards, using an outdated dirty fuel that is inefficient compared to other fuels, expensive and damaging to mine, and cannot compete with new generation nuclear power stations. ;)
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html
Yep, exactly!
I love this extract from that article which almost takes me back to the old days:
"China, industrializing a century after the United States did, now burns about half the coal consumed each year in the world. The resulting pollution literally takes the breath away. A visitor stepping off a plane after landing at the Beijing airport on a winter night is taken aback by what smells like a forest fire but turns out to be just the urban air. The visitor is lucky, of course. Many locals walking or biking along city streets strap surgical-style masks over their mouths to protect their lungs. The masks often are decorated with snazzy patterns and bright colors—fashion accessories of a society soaked in soot."
;)
Sorry Lizzie but thats a classic case of taking one paragraph out of context to reinforce your own assertions.The articel goes on to explain how coal burnt using clean burn technology greatly improves the situation and that China are doing just that. ::)
-
Are you against coal extraction for environmental or financial reasons. If it's environmental, are you worried about the planet or the wellbeing of the British public?
As I have stated Steve on both financial and environmental reasons I am against the mass use of coal. It is going backwards, using an outdated dirty fuel that is inefficient compared to other fuels, expensive and damaging to mine, and cannot compete with new generation nuclear power stations. ;)
Coal fired is better than lights out, and we're getting very close.
I do hope we all realise, by the way, that no-one in authority has any plans to mine coal. It's purely hypothetic. ;D
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html
Yep, exactly!
I love this extract from that article which almost takes me back to the old days:
"China, industrializing a century after the United States did, now burns about half the coal consumed each year in the world. The resulting pollution literally takes the breath away. A visitor stepping off a plane after landing at the Beijing airport on a winter night is taken aback by what smells like a forest fire but turns out to be just the urban air. The visitor is lucky, of course. Many locals walking or biking along city streets strap surgical-style masks over their mouths to protect their lungs. The masks often are decorated with snazzy patterns and bright colors—fashion accessories of a society soaked in soot."
;)
Sorry Lizzie but thats a classic case of taking one paragraph out of context to reinforce your own assertions.The articel goes on to explain how coal burnt using clean burn technology greatly improves the situation and that China are doing just that. ::)
No, it is still a dirty fuel in terms of mining it and burning it. China may be able to use "cleaner" coal fired power stations, but now is now and how many people will die in such a dirty environment before the powers to be get around to cleaning up all their power stations? Why not just use nuclear, oil or gas fired stations from the start? China is taking the cheap, easy option, and in the process ruining the lives of their citizens and polluting the Earth's atmosphere for the rest of us. ::)
-
Are you against coal extraction for environmental or financial reasons. If it's environmental, are you worried about the planet or the wellbeing of the British public?
As I have stated Steve on both financial and environmental reasons I am against the mass use of coal. It is going backwards, using an outdated dirty fuel that is inefficient compared to other fuels, expensive and damaging to mine, and cannot compete with new generation nuclear power stations. ;)
Coal fired is better than lights out, and we're getting very close.
I do hope we all realise, by the way, that no-one in authority has any plans to mine coal. It's purely hypothetic. ;D
Even if that was true Steve there is no time to build more coal fired power stations, and it is far better to concentrate on building nuclear or oil / gas fired stations as indeed is happening behind the scenes. If necessary to fill any gap we will import more electric from the French via EDF who are planning two new nuclear stations, as indeed Hitachi are. :y
There is no need to panic.........yet! :D :D ;)
-
No....they're not. Not unless the government can guarantee the price they'll get per unit generated.
-
No....they're not. Not unless the government can guarantee the price they'll get per unit generated.
Yes they are! It may be behind the scenes stuff as I have stated before but both Hitachi and EDF are working towards building the new nuclear power stations, although we all recognise it is never a simple process. Below is an assortment of indications of the progress going on. No one can afford this to fail, least of all David Cameron!:
"EDF is committed to securing our Energy Future by helping bridge the potential energy gap through investment in an energy mix that balances the needs of low-carbon emissions, security of supply, and affordability.
Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK. EDF Energy owns and operates eight of the UK's ten nuclear power stations and has plans to expand two of these sites, Hinkley Point and Sizewell, by building four new nuclear reactors."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474
So, stop panicking, although that seems to be a favourite past time on the OOF nowadays! ::) ::) :o :o :D ;) ;)
-
EDF (aka the French govt.)owns them because McRuin sold the UK nuclear energy industry to them.Iirc his brother is/was a bigwig at EDF.
No public enquiry on that one though. >:(
There is no scenario imaginable in which the French govt would allow a Britsh state owned company (or any other British company) to take control of the majority of their energy production and supply.We really are governed by a bunch of complete remedials.
Anyway,it will take many years to build nuclear power stations and get them up and running.Current predictions say we will run very short of energy before that happens.Hence the concern/worry/panic.
-
No....they're not. Not unless the government can guarantee the price they'll get per unit generated.
Yes they are! It may be behind the scenes stuff as I have stated before but both Hitachi and EDF are working towards building the new nuclear power stations, although we all recognise it is never a simple process. Below is an assortment of indications of the progress going on. No one can afford this to fail, least of all David Cameron!:
"EDF is committed to securing our Energy Future by helping bridge the potential energy gap through investment in an energy mix that balances the needs of low-carbon emissions, security of supply, and affordability.
Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK. EDF Energy owns and operates eight of the UK's ten nuclear power stations and has plans to expand two of these sites, Hinkley Point and Sizewell, by building four new nuclear reactors."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants)
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article (http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474)
So, stop panicking, although that seems to be a favourite past time on the OOF nowadays! ::) ::) :o :o :D ;) ;)
Panicking? I couldn't give a flying **** ;D
-
No....they're not. Not unless the government can guarantee the price they'll get per unit generated.
Yes they are! It may be behind the scenes stuff as I have stated before but both Hitachi and EDF are working towards building the new nuclear power stations, although we all recognise it is never a simple process. Below is an assortment of indications of the progress going on. No one can afford this to fail, least of all David Cameron!:
"EDF is committed to securing our Energy Future by helping bridge the potential energy gap through investment in an energy mix that balances the needs of low-carbon emissions, security of supply, and affordability.
Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK. EDF Energy owns and operates eight of the UK's ten nuclear power stations and has plans to expand two of these sites, Hinkley Point and Sizewell, by building four new nuclear reactors."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants)
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article (http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474)
So, stop panicking, although that seems to be a favourite past time on the OOF nowadays! ::) ::) :o :o :D ;) ;)
Panicking? I couldn't give a flying **** ;D
Thank goodness for that Steve! You had me worried! Normal service is resumed then; well for at least two OOF members! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
-
I think that just to simply dismiss coal as old fashioned and dirty is crazy! :o It seems that there is plenty of the stuff and in Britain the coal is of very good quality! :)
What we do need to do though is to work out new ways of using it, so that it is a cleaner energy source! :y
Whether that means extracting gas from it, pulverizing it and burning the dust, or other methods, I don't know, but I'm sure that there are clever folk out there who are working on it! ::)
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html
cough,cough. ::) ;)
-
Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
-
Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
Exactly! Coal was never clean and never will be! ::) ::) ::) ;)
If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child. :o :o :'(
I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel. :y :y
-
Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
Exactly! Coal was never clean and never will be! ::) ::) ::) ;)
If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child. :o :o :'(
I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel. :y :y
When have you been to an open cast mine Lizzie?..........and I mean exact time and date, just in case you actually have...... ::) ::) ::)
-
It's no good, Mike. She's said all she's saying on the subject. :-X
-
Care factor? Zero!
-
Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
Exactly! Coal was never clean and never will be! ::) ::) ::) ;)
If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child. :o :o :'(
I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel. :y :y
When have you been to an open cast mine Lizzie?..........and I mean exact time and date, just in case you actually have...... ::) ::) ::)
Obviously you are being sarcastic! So here is an answer for you:
I have seen a documentary on one and heard from residents who live near them and others who fear planned additions. Plus I know coal as well as anyone and know how coal dust feels, smells and tastes, in addition to experiencing streets with coal fires on and trains covered in soot. I also know what happens when it is transported by lorry or even train considerable distances. That is enough for me, so why continue an argument for an outdated fuel? Why not oil, gas and nuclear? But, no of course, some on here want to destroy the countryside and environment for the sake of pushing the coal argument. Wonderful! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
As said I rest my argument on all that I have stated already in this thread, as frankly this thread like all the others so often on this subject goes around and around. Let's move on shall we, as frankly no one on here is going to make a blind bit of difference to the outcome. We all have, and are, entitled to our opinions ;) ;)
-
Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
Exactly! Coal was never clean and never will be! ::) ::) ::) ;)
If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child. :o :o :'(
I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel. :y :y
When have you been to an open cast mine Lizzie?..........and I mean exact time and date, just in case you actually have...... ::) ::) ::)
Obviously you are being sarcastic! So here is an answer for you:
I have seen a documentary on one and heard from residents who live near them and others who fear planned additions. Plus I know coal as well as anyone and know how coal dust feels, smells and tastes, in addition to experiencing streets with coal fires on and trains covered in soot. I also know what happens when it is transported by lorry or even train considerable distances. That is enough for me, so why continue an argument for an outdated fuel? Why not oil, gas and nuclear? But, no of course, some on here want to destroy the countryside and environment for the sake of pushing the coal argument. Wonderful! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
As said I rest my argument on all that I have stated already in this thread, as frankly this thread like all the others so often on this subject goes around and around. Let's move on shall we, as frankly no one on here is going to make a blind bit of difference to the outcome. We all have, and are, entitled to our opinions ;) ;)
::) ::) :-X
-
I worked for 9 years in a foundry and 20 years in a concrete factory.Both were dirty filthy dusty noisy etc.Were I a bit younger & fitter and the money ws good,going down a mine woulnt worry me in the slightest. I long ago accepted I was too stupid to do a clever job,so dirty physical stuff was always the first option. :)
Nuclear power stations will take many years to build,burning coal in the interim period would give us cheaper energy and stop us being held over a barrell by the Ruskys,French or anyone else. ;)
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html
cough,cough. ::) ;)
Sorry Albs I meant to reference your link! ;D (Cough! :o )
-
I think that people should be a little more open minded and have a little more faith in human ingenuity. :) Just because the way coal has been used in the past, dosn't mean that it can't be used in a different way in the future. ::) I have faith that they'll find a way to use coal cleanly and safely. There's too much of the stuff down there to leave it be... ;)
But if we're going to rush to nuclear, have we worked out a sensible, sustainable and clean way of dealing with the nuclear waste? :-\
I remain deeply unconvinced on nuclear mainly for this reason, but also if there is an incident such as Chernobyl the results are catastrophic rather than merely disastrous... ::)
-
Run Coal and Nuclear power stations together.
As the coal comes out the ground, replace it with nuclear waste.
Job done.
Next problem?
;D ;D ;D
-
I think that people should be a little more open minded and have a little more faith in human ingenuity. :) Just because the way coal has been used in the past, dosn't mean that it can't be used in a different way in the future. ::) I have faith that they'll find a way to use coal cleanly and safely. There's too much of the stuff down there to leave it be... ;)
But if we're going to rush to nuclear, have we worked out a sensible, sustainable and clean way of dealing with the nuclear waste? :-\
I remain deeply unconvinced on nuclear mainly for this reason, but also if there is an incident such as Chernobyl the results are catastrophic rather than merely disastrous... ::)
Quite agree, hence my responses.... ;) ;) I am not advocating a return to coal for every household, but feel that the fact we have 100's of years of a 'fuel resource' should be born in mind. It may well be 2oo years before anyone decides to mine coal again, but one thing is almost certain, someone will some time, in MY opinion which I am allowed to have, even if it differs from others sometimes, assuming there are people around to mine it..... :D :D
-
I think that people should be a little more open minded and have a little more faith in human ingenuity. :) Just because the way coal has been used in the past, dosn't mean that it can't be used in a different way in the future. ::) I have faith that they'll find a way to use coal cleanly and safely. There's too much of the stuff down there to leave it be... ;)
But if we're going to rush to nuclear, have we worked out a sensible, sustainable and clean way of dealing with the nuclear waste? :-\
I remain deeply unconvinced on nuclear mainly for this reason, but also if there is an incident such as Chernobyl the results are catastrophic rather than merely disastrous... ::)
The next generation of fast breeder nuclear reactors will convert the nuclear waste into usable fuel, so the last thing we want to be doing is burying it where we can use it for generating power and more fuel as a seed for Thorium reactors or fuel for uranium reactors. :y
-
I think that people should be a little more open minded and have a little more faith in human ingenuity. :) Just because the way coal has been used in the past, dosn't mean that it can't be used in a different way in the future. ::) I have faith that they'll find a way to use coal cleanly and safely. There's too much of the stuff down there to leave it be... ;)
But if we're going to rush to nuclear, have we worked out a sensible, sustainable and clean way of dealing with the nuclear waste? :-\
I remain deeply unconvinced on nuclear mainly for this reason, but also if there is an incident such as Chernobyl the results are catastrophic rather than merely disastrous... ::)
Quite agree, hence my responses.... ;) ;) I am not advocating a return to coal for every household, but feel that the fact we have 100's of years of a 'fuel resource' should be born in mind. It may well be 2oo years before anyone decides to mine coal again, but one thing is almost certain, someone will some time, in MY opinion which I am allowed to have, even if it differs from others sometimes, assuming there are people around to mine it..... :D :D
I'm sure it will be a case of needs must, like it is in Germany at the moment where the Greens forced the closure of their nuclear power stations. Where they have gone for large scale wind power and have had grid stability problems as a result, German industry has basically given the German Government an ultimatum to provide stable electricity or we will move our factories to a country that can. :y
-
I think that people should be a little more open minded and have a little more faith in human ingenuity. :) Just because the way coal has been used in the past, dosn't mean that it can't be used in a different way in the future. ::) I have faith that they'll find a way to use coal cleanly and safely. There's too much of the stuff down there to leave it be... ;)
But if we're going to rush to nuclear, have we worked out a sensible, sustainable and clean way of dealing with the nuclear waste? :-\
I remain deeply unconvinced on nuclear mainly for this reason, but also if there is an incident such as Chernobyl the results are catastrophic rather than merely disastrous... ::)
The next generation of fast breeder nuclear reactors will convert the nuclear waste into usable fuel, so the last thing we want to be doing is burying it where we can use it for generating power and more fuel as a seed for Thorium reactors or fuel for uranium reactors. :y
That's all well and fine as long as it's the latest technology that gets built here, but whats the betting that it will be the last generation of reactors that actually get built... if ever? ::)
Due to our archaic planning laws, anything on the drawing board today will be completely obsolete by the time they get round to breaking ground!! ::) None of us will be around to get worked up about it anyway!! ;D