It's all Thatchers fault.

baileysbattlebus

*MF* wrote: »

Agree with you on that belief, in part because we rightly fear being held hostage over our energy needs, in part because hopefully "clean coal" technology can be proved (our coal as opposed to imported coal has a noticeably greater level of pollutants - as I understand it), and lastly because we can develop carbon capture not least by using the pipelines we already have for oil extraction to reverse the flow and fill the holes left. There are also (again I believe) huge reserves of coal under the North Sea, where similar extraction and reverse capture can be developed.

I agree with you about "clean coal" technology and carbon capture. I just hope the money needed for the investments will be made available. I would imagine in the coming years it will be.

I knew there were large reserves under the North Sea but have very little idea on the size of the reserves. Between the land based and sea based reserves I imagine there would be enough to meet our energy needs for several hundred years.

baileysbattlebus

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The problem with coal now is that the costs of reopening pits to access these reserves would be prohibitive. For the money we'd have to spend we might as well import it from Brazil. THAT is the criminal part - the "free market" was rigged against UK industry. If you compare the price of subsidised foreign coal vs non-subsidised UK coal is it any wonder that the foreign coal looks cheaper at that moment? But even ignoring the blatant disparity between the two figures, didn't anyone consider what might happen to the import price once we're utterly reliant on it?

I know the cost of reopening pits is prohibitive - but IMO, in the future there will be new pits. As you say what will happen if we become 100% dependant on imports. We will be over a barrel.

What galls me about the whole miners thing - was the fact that the goverment knew there were billions of tonnes of coal that could be extracted with the available technololgy. But they chose to do nothing but finish the industry off.

Which makes me think the decision was more political than economic and they didn't give a toss about the energyy in the future.

If that is really the case they need to be put up against a wall and shot - they have probably set us back years in investment and research into clean coal and carbon capture.

*MF*

It's mining - but not as we know it, lol

For those interested:

Underground Coal Gasification in the UK

UCG is the partial in-situ combustion of a deep underground coal seam to produce a gas for use as an energy source. It is achieved by drilling two boreholes from the surface, one to supply oxygen and water/steam, the other to bring the product gas to the surface. This combustible gas can be used for industrial heating, power generation or the manufacture of hydrogen, synthetic natural gas or other chemicals. The gas can be processed to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) before it is passed on to end users, thereby providing a source of clean energy with minimal green house gas emissions.

More here:

http://www.coal.gov.uk/publications/miningtechnology/ucgoverview.cfm


*EDIT*


Recent report on carbon capture and storage:

The North Sea could store "potentially all" of Europe's carbon dioxide emissions well into the next century, industry has said.

ScottishPower made the statement on Friday, following the publication of a study looking into carbon storage potential of Scottish waters.

Commissioned by the Scottish Government and its industry partners, the research by the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage has identified the largest sites to date in underground caverns beneath the North Sea.

The study suggests that the sites could hold all of Scotland's emissions for the next 200 years.

The caverns, which comprise a number of saline aquifers beneath the seabed as well as depleted oil and gas fields, could be used to store carbon dioxide emissions taken from coal-fired power stations using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

More here:
http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=2584

torontoboy45

just as an aside: on the last night of her premiership thatcher was very much in a minority of one within westminster. the grovelling, swooning adulation of her backbenchers and cabinet was just a distant memory. later, this self-same rabble would queue up to pour lavish praise on her ( a bit like some on here ), but on the night in question she was friendless.
so much so, that when she felt the need to talk openly with someone she picked up the phone to a labour mp: frank field, who nipped around to no.10 for tea and a chat.
the tory parliamentary party had wearied of her incessant boastfulness, her strident arrogance, her snide belittling of her ministers. now it was alarmed by her insistence in pushing ahead - against all the advice - with the poll tax. she had lost touch and everyone knew it.
she had governed the country for the benefit of the few, ensuring the affluent became even wealthier, but at the same time careful to see that lesser mortals gained a few of the crumbs left over.
once out of gov'ment she assured major that she'd be a 'very good backseat driver', then released press statements at carefully chosen moments, calculated to undermine him, especially over europe.
politics back then was def. more interesting, but was she a good PM?
I say no. trade union reform would have come anyway; it was widely accepted that the country couldn't continue as it was. her econ. policies split the UK. her created 'cult of the individual' altered the national character for the worst. her longevity in office owes more to luck than political acumen; she was lucky that labour had turned on itself; lucky that the falkland campaign went so well; lucky to have survived westland.
to point to other mediocre PM's and say 'she was good by comparison' damns her with faint praise.

here endeth my 2p worth.

kennyboy66_2

*MF* wrote: »

(our coal as opposed to imported coal has a noticeably greater level of pollutants - as I understand it),

.

I always though UK coal was of a fairly high quality ie more anthracite which burns more efficiently than lower grades of coal.

The sulphur content (presumably the pollution content you mentioned, and which causes acif rain) varies.
Selby coal was low sulphur and was used at Drax power station, the pit was closed and Yorkshire coal had twice the sulphur content. The sulphur can be removed by "scrubbing" - but there is a cost, hence we import coal that has a lower sulphur content than the Yorkshire coal.

Madness

JayScottGreenspan

davilown wrote: »

Penicillin and it was discovered by Alexander Flemming in London in the 1940's when he left a plate of bacteria on the window sill over a weekend. When he got back he discovered a fungal growth on the plate that show bactericidal capabilities.

That's what I was taught at school. Urban myth, unfortunately.

It's difficult to argue either that he noticed its properties first (others beat him to it by at least 50 years) or that he first turned it to medical use (again, beaten to it) or that he first adpated it to mass produced medical use (he tried, but failed; Howard Florey's team succeeded).

bo_drinker

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I know the cost of reopening pits is prohibitive - but IMO, in the future there will be new pits. As you say what will happen if we become 100% dependant on imports. We will be over a barrel.

What galls me about the whole miners thing - was the fact that the goverment knew there were billions of tonnes of coal that could be extracted with the available technololgy. But they chose to do nothing but finish the industry off.

Which makes me think the decision was more political than economic and they didn't give a toss about the energyy in the future.

If that is really the case they need to be put up against a wall and shot - they have probably set us back years in investment and research into clean coal and carbon capture.

I think the time will come when some pits will be re opened. If we are sat on it and it can create jobs surely with a little investment it's a no brainer . At the same time other countries would not have us over a barrel re pricing and we could still import if needed.

stephen163

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

And today you could say the same about the banks, why should a specific industry like banking be protected from bankruptcy and competition. It has cost the UK taxpayers billions of £'s.

Why should the government have to virtually nationalise the banks, because if they didn't we probably wouldn't have a banking industry - morally it was the right thing to do.

Banks are like the police force or the fire service, a country need them. The developed world's banking system has collapsed, nationalisation is a necessary evil as a temporary fix before a better regulatory framework is in place.

Coal is different. You can pick it up on the open market for wholesale price.

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

But not having a mining industry was different wasn't it? The deal at the end of the miners strike was for the government to set up a reveiw body, which they did, but they specifically denied the review body the right to look at the social implications of the closures.

Social implications of coal? We can discuss that but you can't have it all your own way. Coal is a massive pollutant and its market price is set ridiculously low compared to the true cost it imposes on society. I could go on...

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

In 2006 the Coal Authority estimated that there were 600 million tonnes of coal that was in established areas that would be accessible and economical to extract.
In 1992 it was estimated that there 190 billion tonnes of coal underneath the UK - 45 billion tonnes of which could be extracted using technology available in 1992. From 1853 to 2006 22.7 billion tonnes of coal has been extracted and used in the UK. That should give some idea of what is left.
She shouldn't have just closed the mines - money should have been invested in the industry to allow access to the billions of tonnes of untapped coal.

First fact is that the profitable mines did stay open. Second fact is that there was absolutely nothing stopping the prvate sector getting involved. If coal, as you say, was so profitable, why didn't a large mining company step in to exploit this pot of gold? The fact is, comparative advantages in other countries mean that no amount of investment would make coal viable in most of the mines. Now, the scenario is different because the price has skyrocketed...and, as you would expect, the private sector and expressing interest in re-opening the mines. This is the free market at work.

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

As Anuerin Bevan said: "This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could run out of coal and fish at the same time"

Those words are still relevant - why are we importing billions of tonnes of coal from abroad when we are sitting on island of coal. That coal should, and dare I say it, will be used to meet our energy needs of the future.

Where did you get billions from? The UK produces about a third of the coal it uses (around 20m tonnes) and imports the rest (about 43m tonnes). This is the most economic thing to do. A lot of people ignore that the UK was practically self sufficient for coal until the late 90's, i.e., we produced what we needed, but did not export. How can we export coal when the wholesale price is less than our producion costs? Should the taxpayer, from a moral standing, really be expected to cover the shortfall so 170,000 coal miners can stay in their job?.

Market forces should decide if we mine coal or not, not a perverse system of social wefare.

Do not blame Thatcher for the decline in British coal or manufacturing, bame the global economy, blame the private sector for allocating resources efficiently....

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

It was theoretically possible to get an income tax bill that was greater than your entire income!

Is this really true ?

When ?

baileysbattlebus

torontoboy45 wrote: »

she picked up the phone to a labour mp: frank field, who nipped around to no.10 for tea and a chat.

I understand it was Frank Field who told her she was finished and that she should resign, before "they (Tories) tore her apart in the commons"

I like Frank Field he is one of the few honest MP's imo.


He is for welfare reform - one of the things he wants is a 2 tier benefits system for the unemployed, one rate for those that have worked all of their lives and paid into the system for 10, 20, 30 years and a lower rate for those who have never paid into the system.

I would vote for that.

When the new Welfare Reform bill got through the commons in March without a vote - he wanted to vote against it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/welfare-unemployment-and-employment-statistics


I