UK Coal Mining

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Just goes to show we are not living in a free market economy.

Don't blame me. I didn't pass the Climate Change Act. But you can't have a low carbon economy and coal mining. One of them has to go.:)

michaels

Generali wrote: »

For discussion of merchant banking in the UK.

Some suggested ideas:

1. Should non-buyers of merchant banking services subsidise buyers of mercahnt banking services?
2. For how long should an industry be subsidised reasonably?
3. Do we really want to pay a subsidy for more market manipulation?
4. Should the nationalised banks be kept open?
5. At what level of too big to fail losses should the bond holders and depositors take the loss rather than the tax payer?

Have fun kids!:money:

Fixed it for you

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

Don't blame me. I didn't pass the Climate Change Act. But you can't have a low carbon economy and coal mining. One of them has to go.:)

Just saying and it's not just the subsidy to wind. As for coal power stations there's carbon capture.

michaels

ukcarper wrote: »

Just saying and it's not just the subsidy to wind. As for coal power stations there's carbon capture.

Please point me at three commericial coal ccs stations in operation....

cells

The_Last_Username wrote: »

stator
Really? :think:
Does that statement include the waste products of fission; their storage and ....... disposal?
Does that statement include events at Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Nothing is risk feee but nuclear is as close to it as you can get

The risks of radiation are often trivial so much so that 16 year old children get to play with alpha beta and gama sources in class aonlong as they take physics inatead of travil and tourism

chris_m

antrobus wrote: »

Dunno. How do they compare to the emissions caused during manufacture, transport to site and installation of a coal-fired power station?

I wouldn't know -what I do know is that the statement "it does not produce C02 emissions. Neither does it produce any of the other carp that burning coal chucks into the atmosphere" is largely, if not completely, inaccurate.

Manufacture, transport and installation will definitely produce CO2 emissions and may well produce some of the other carp too.

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

Please point me at three commericial coal ccs stations in operation....

As far as I know there aren't any but that doesn't mean that with a subsidy there couldn't be.

cells

michaels wrote: »

Please point me at three commericial coal ccs stations in operation....

Every other one

since over half the human burnt !!!!!! don't show up in the atmosphere at the end of the year the tooth fairy or some other force of nature ia CCSing most of what we add

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

If offshore is recovering £100/MWh subsidy
Thats equal to about £50/ton of coal

This years CfD auction will result in a subsidy of approximately £70/MWh for off-shore wind, and £30/MWh for on-shore wind (and large scale PV). Costs are still falling.

Coal is also subsidised in the sense that coal generation doesn't currently have to carry the cost of health impacts. The health impacts of coal emissions in the EU are estimated at 23,000 deaths per year, and the cost of coal pollution (in the EU) is so great at an estimated €15bn to €42bn pa, that it actually makes nuclear/nuclear costs look good to some environmentalists.

Mart.

The_Last_Username

cells

Nothing is risk feee but nuclear is as close to it as you can get

Hmm .... evidence anywhere of area rendered unusable ( and for how long ) in comparison to Chernobyl/Fukushima?

In comparison with output though, true enough; NO production of electricity is going be entirely problem-free.

Though I wonder ....... why we (including Europe) are so determined to stick to the letter of the Kyoto Protocol when so much of the world is not (really) interested?

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/03/un-urges-countries-to-ratify-kyoto-protocol-extension/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Especially given that the natural air currents around our planet means that - in effect - our "cleaner" air heads off towards to those countries that do not subscribe to the treaty whilst we get in return their "dirty" air!