Energy prices go up

[Mullardman]

I suspect coal would only ever be a short stop gap and not a long term strategy so would it be worth the cost of re-opening some mines, employing a load of people knowing that it would be shut down again in probably 10 years or so?

I saw a program and there was some argument but shale gas would appear to be regarded as having a longer term future and burns cleaner than coal.

Coal, burned simply, evolves lots of by products. But, if burned, or 'roasted' under controlled conditions it produces Coal Gas, which can be used for domestic and industrial purposes, plus chemicals from Tar to Ammonia and all points between with huge possibilities, plus Coke, which burns very hot and clean. What's not to like?
But mostly, we are sitting on mountains of the stuff so could stop our energy dependency at a stroke.

Also, nuclear but I would still rather they opt for something alternative like Thorium reactors that would have way lower disposal and management costs than current nuclear designs as well as using existing radioactive waste as a fuel. It just needs someone to bite the bullet and build one. We should/could become a leader rather than a follower but the powers that be seem too frightened to make a poxy decision and we are many years behind the curve as it is. Indecision will and is costing us more.

I dunno about Thorium Reactors but I do know that successive Govts. have hidden and lied about the true costs of Nuclear Power from day one. Inviting Chinese money to build (and profit from) UK power stations seems to me to have more in common with the sort of lunacy that brought us PFI and the looney banking which led to the 2008 crash, than anything resembling common sense.

And where do you get the 10 year figure from?

A reminder of where there are coal fields:

England

Bristol and Somerset Coalfield
Bristol Coalfield
Cheadle Coalfield
Clee Hills Coalfield
Coalbrookdale Coalfield
Cumberland Coalfield
Durham Coalfield
East Staffordshire Coalfield
Forest of Dean Coalfield
Ingleton Coalfield
Kent Coalfield
Lancashire Coalfield

Burnley Coalfield
South Lancashire Coalfield

Manchester Coalfield
Oldham Coalfield
St Helens Coalfield
Wigan Coalfield

Leicestershire and South Derbyshire Coalfield
Midgeholme Coalfield
Newent Coalfield
Oxfordshire-Berkshire Coalfield
North Staffordshire Coalfield
Northumberland Coalfield
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Coalfield
Oswestry Coalfield
Shrewsbury Coalfield
Shropshire Coalfield
Somerset Coalfield
South Staffordshire Coalfield
Cannock Chase Coalfield
Yorkshire Coalfield

South Yorkshire Coalfield

Warwickshire Coalfield
Wyre Forest Coalfield

Scotland

Ayrshire Coalfield

South Ayrshire Coalfield
Central Ayrshire Coalfield

Brora Coalfield
Canonbie Coalfield
Central Coalfield
Clackmannan Coalfield
Dailly Coalfield
Douglas Coalfield
Fife Coalfield

Central Fife Coalfield
East Fife Coalfield
West Fife Coalfield

Lanarkshire Coalfield
Lothians Coalfield
Machrihanish Coalfield
Midlothian Coalfield
Northeast Stirlingshire Coalfield
Sanquhar Coalfield
Scremerston Coalfield

Wales

Anglesey Coalfield
North Wales Coalfield

Denbighshire Coalfield
Flintshire Coalfield

Pembrokeshire Coalfield
South Wales Coalfield

I am mystified as to why we have unemployed people, rising energy costs and increasing dependency upon energy from dodgy foreign states, when our country is built on the bloody stuff.


Mull

 

[Mullardman]

No need to get our hands dirty. Plenty of gas can be got by fraccing. A hell of a lot cheaper as well. Grubbinfg about underground for coal should form no part of a first world economy.

No govt. in it's right mind will ever allow the situation to develop where one sector of the workforce can force the nation to it's knees again.

Coal mining is still labour intensive. Fraccing is not, so you pay the production guys a bloody good wage, give them bloody good conditions...job's a good un.

That is how the N. Sea has been able to operate for the last 40 years without even a hint of a stoppage due to industrial action.

Chris

No govt. in it's right mind will ever allow the situation to develop where one sector of the workforce can force the nation to it's knees again.

Oh pulreeaase. Spare us the histrionics. ISTR that it was Thatch the Bitch and her friends the Bent Coppers, who brought hard working miners to their knees and then threw them all out of work.

A case of 'nose/spite/face?'

So Chris, you prefer to put your misplaced political paranoia ahead of the country. And you'd rather put our future in the hands of Putin and the desperate 'outreach' companies of a collapsing US economy?

Oh dear...

Mull

 

[KC Cantiaci]

Where do you get the 10 year figure from?

A reminder of where there are coal fields: .....

I am mystified as to why we have unemployed people, rising energy costs and increasing dependency upon energy from dodgy foreign states, when our country is built on the bloody stuff.

Mull

Because other energy sources are supposed to be coming on stream in around 10 years so any method to try and obtain fossil fuels from local supplies as opposed to foreign may only be a 10 year stop gap solution and I wonder if it's feasible if set up with a 10 year lifespan.

We are also committed to reducing our carbon emissions and suchlike and have targets to hit. To suggest coal as a permanent solution would mean throwing the towel in on these agreements. However, I understand that Germany is building coal stations as well as India and China.....and lots of them. It does confuse me as to how this is happening when these countries are also guided by the same agreements.....or are they? So you could argue that there might be foreign customers to send our coal to but would we be competitive enough with our higher labour rates in a labour intensive industry? I doubt it somehow but maybe someone needs to do the maths.

But ultimately, we should be looking at other means of providing energy..... cleaner energy. For the sake of the planet, it can't continue can it? That's why I would like to see more solar, maybe moves to finally introduce wave/sea powered energy and my preferred new type of supply - Thorium.

 

[Mullardman]

Ultimately, we should indeed be looking for long term sustainable energy solutions.

At present, we should be looking to survive.

As you hint, there is little point in 'ickle' old Britain playing by the book when China Germany and India are putting two fingers up.

It's just about political will, but our politicians are up to their elbows in this corruption so I seriously doubt common sense has much part to play.
Mull

 

[Tony L]

I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to work down a bloody coal mine in the 21st century. Even if it wasn't dirty and inefficient I can't see many job vacancies being filled unless the pay offered was so improbably high as to make the whole idea impractical.

 

[Mullardman]

I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to work down a bloody coal mine in the 21st century. Even if it wasn't dirty and inefficient

Tony,

Unless you have been down a coal mine, or been part of a mining community, you are simply not qualified to comment.

Of course it was hard. It was bloody hard, but it created communities of people who worked hard, played hard and supported each other.

Safety in British mines was better than that on British building sites.

Dirty and inefficient? Well it was certainly not the cleanest job on Earth, but there were plenty above ground that were equally so. FWIW, I'd argue that anyone who doesn't feel the need for a shower at the end of any day's work is either a dirty bugger, or a lazy bugger.

Inefficient? Tony, I had you down as too intelligent to fall for Maggie The Bitch's utterly infantile 'economic arguments' against UK coal. Apart from which the game has clearly changed since Maggie.

Much like rail transport, coal was disposed of far too quickly, and on far too flimsy evidence.

I can't see many job vacancies being filled unless the pay offered was so improbably high as to make the whole idea impractical.

If I was a youngster in the present climate,with a young family etc., I would happily work 'down the pit' for a starting wage of £500 pw, for 5x8 hour shifts, failing any other option. That's about 7 times JSA.

Is that 'improbably high'?

Col

 

[Mescalito]

Oh pulreeaase. Spare us the histrionics. ISTR that it was Thatch the Bitch and her friends the Bent Coppers, who brought seditious, traitorious miners to their knees and then threw them all out of work.

A case of 'nose/spite/face?'

So Chris, you prefer to put your misplaced political paranoia ahead of the country. And you'd rather put our future in the hands of Putin and the desperate 'outreach' companies of a collapsing US economy?

Oh dear...

Mull

The above more closely represents reality.The miners, or at least their leadership, had it coming.

Nuclear & fraccing is the way to go.

Chris

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to work down a bloody coal mine in the 21st century. Even if it wasn't dirty and inefficient I can't see many job vacancies being filled unless the pay offered was so improbably high as to make the whole idea impractical.

+1

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

Tony,

Unless you have been down a coal mine, or been part of a mining community, you are simply not qualified to comment.

Of course it was hard. It was bloody hard, but it created communities of people who worked hard, played hard and supported each other.

Safety in British mines was better than that on British building sites.

Dirty and inefficient? Well it was certainly not the cleanest job on Earth, but there were plenty above ground that were equally so. FWIW, I'd argue that anyone who doesn't feel the need for a shower at the end of any day's work is either a dirty bugger, or a lazy bugger.

Inefficient? Tony, I had you down as too intelligent to fall for Maggie The Bitch's utterly infantile 'economic arguments' against UK coal. Apart from which the game has clearly changed since Maggie.

Much like rail transport, coal was disposed of far too quickly, and on far too flimsy evidence.



If I was a youngster in the present climate,with a young family etc., I would happily work 'down the pit' for a starting wage of £500 pw, for 5x8 hour shifts, failing any other option. That's about 7 times JSA.

Is that 'improbably high'?

Col

I have been part of a mining community. It created insular, incestuous, atavistic communities of intolerant, suspicious tribes. We are well rid of those bloody communities.

They were a perfect example of evolution in action. Anybody with any sense or gumption got out, yourself included, Mull, leaving a thicker & dimmer genetic pool behind, generation on generation.

The pit villages themselves were bloody awful places as well.

And ask any miner if he would like his sons to follow him down the pit.

I'll leave you to guess what the answer was.

The Hovis advert, soft sepia view of your average mining community was a pure myth.



Chris

 

[peter_964rs]

I suspect the increase in fuel prices is indicative of the general rate of inflation. I've long suspected that the 'basket' model for retail and consumer price indices is under-reporting true inflation, because products they measure have been reducing in size (e.g. fewer crisps in your packet of Walkers) whilst only incrementally increasing in price. Of course, we and other major economies have been printing money and show no signs of stopping any time soon, therefore inflation will rise. Then there is this massive boom in house prices to retsrat the economy....With a basic resource like fuel, hiding the cost of the rise is harder, and Voila! you get your unexpectedly high 10% increase.

 

[gassor]

I suspect the increase in fuel prices is indicative of the general rate of inflation. I've long suspected that the 'basket' model for retail and consumer price indices is under-reporting true inflation, because products they measure have been reducing in size (e.g. fewer crisps in your packet of Walkers) whilst only incrementally increasing in price. Of course, we and other major economies have been printing money and show no signs of stopping any time soon, therefore inflation will rise. Then there is this massive boom in house prices to retsrat the economy....With a basic resource like fuel, hiding the cost of the rise is harder, and Voila! you get your unexpectedly high 10% increase.

That's it, blame Walker's crisps for the price hike.

 

[peter_964rs]

That's it, blame Walker's crisps for the price hike.

Yes, its all the people at home with the central heating on munching crisps and watching Gary Linnekar instead of being outside in the cold but keeping warm by playing footie...

 

[Mescalito]

Tony,

Unless you have been down a coal mine, or been part of a mining community, you are simply not qualified to comment.

Of course it was hard. It was bloody hard, but it created communities of people who worked hard, played hard and supported each other.

Safety in British mines was better than that on British building sites.

Dirty and inefficient? Well it was certainly not the cleanest job on Earth, but there were plenty above ground that were equally so. FWIW, I'd argue that anyone who doesn't feel the need for a shower at the end of any day's work is either a dirty bugger, or a lazy bugger.

Inefficient? Tony, I had you down as too intelligent to fall for Maggie The Bitch's utterly infantile 'economic arguments' against UK coal. Apart from which the game has clearly changed since Maggie.

Much like rail transport, coal was disposed of far too quickly, and on far too flimsy evidence.



If I was a youngster in the present climate,with a young family etc., I would happily work 'down the pit' for a starting wage of £500 pw, for 5x8 hour shifts, failing any other option. That's about 7 times JSA.

Is that 'improbably high'?

Col

Almost certainly too high to make it an economic proposition when combined with the carbon capture stuff that would need to be installed.

Chris

 

[Darth Vader]

Yes, its all the people at home with the central heating on munching crisps and watching Gary Linnekar instead of being outside in the cold but keeping warm by playing footie...

Wouldn't they be healthier?

Cheers,

DV

 

[peter_964rs]

Wouldn't they be healthier?

Cheers,

DV

Healthier and wealthier

 

[Mullardman]

The above more closely represents reality.The miners, or at least their leadership, had it coming.

Nuclear & fraccing is the way to go.

Chris

Chris

Childish response Chris.

Can't you come up with a proper argument?

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

I have been part of a mining community. It created insular, incestuous, atavistic communities of intolerant, suspicious tribes. We are well rid of those bloody communities.

They were a perfect example of evolution in action. Anybody with any sense or gumption got out, yourself included, Mull, leaving a thicker & dimmer genetic pool behind, generation on generation.

The pit villages themselves were bloody awful places as well.

And ask any miner if he would like his sons to follow him down the pit.

I'll leave you to guess what the answer was.

The Hovis advert, soft sepia view of your average mining community was a pure myth.



Chris

Chris,
I don't hold the 'Hovis Ad' view and your opposite view is extreme.

Mostly though, you ignore the fact that especially after WW2 the bulk of miner's traveled to work from outside mining villages.

And whatever was the reality of the past it does not follow that any future mining operations need to be as labour intensive. I'd put money on them being more efficient too, despite us previously having the most efficient deep mines in the world.

My argument though, is less about employment than energy.

Whatever the 'green' arguments and treaties, it is clear that the rest of the world is doing as it damned well likes to source, use and profit from energy.

You are now in the curious position that your usual irrational hatred of the former miners is forcing you to renounce your own capitalist views as they apply to our use of resources.

'Hoist', 'Petard' etc.

Mull

 

[Tony L]

If I was a youngster in the present climate,with a young family etc., I would happily work 'down the pit' for a starting wage of £500 pw, for 5x8 hour shifts, failing any other option. That's about 7 times JSA.

Is that 'improbably high'?

Almost certainly. In fact I'd argue you were way, way out in cloud cuckoo land with that one! I can't see any new local mining incentive paying more than say basic army, entry-level firefighting etc. Remember there is no viable union to hold the country to ransom and no core infrastructure to withdraw in anger. This would be all fresh employment and all implemented via carefully worded contracts.

The simple reality is that there is mass unemployment, a mountain of unskilled people and an energy planning catastrophe right around the corner. The further the country lurches to the right the more I'd expect the pits to be reopened and staffed on little more than minimum wage. Maybe on zero hours contracts too. Need an incentive to get the unskilled long-term unemployed down there? They'll just remove JSA after a certain period. To be honest I bet it's only the last vestiges of green ideology and pride holding both Labour and Conservative moving in this very direction (the hateful tabloids etc would love it), and I bet they do so as soon as the lights start going out. The bottom line is it can be done a lot faster and more cheaply than building nice clean nuclear power stations, and in many ways would be an easier political 'sell' than fracking under areas where voters live.

 

[TheDecameron]

Chaps,
You moaning pinkos only have yourselves to blame if you didn't set aside pork bellies in the great years of harvest. Had you done so, you wouldn't be moaning here about energy prices, you'd be sitting comfy in your Garfield Cat slippers with the radiators turned up like me and Mrs.Smug. No point in crying now, so why don't you all bugger off and freeze quietly to death.

Cheers,

Smug.

 

[Mullardman]

Almost certainly. In fact I'd argue you were way, way out in cloud cuckoo land with that one! I can't see any new local mining incentive paying more than say basic army, entry-level firefighting etc.

Tony, I quoted £500 pw and was admittedly speculating a bit but it comes out at £26k P.A.

Entry Fire Fighter is £21,157 rising to £28,199 once trained and excluding overtime.

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/firefighter_salary.htm

Army basic is a touch lower but rises to similar:

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Rates_of_pay_Soldier.pdf

So, I think you'd agree that I'm not so far off.

Remember there is no viable union to hold the country to ransom and no core infrastructure to withdraw in anger. This would be all fresh employment and all implemented via carefully worded contracts.

Possibly, though in order to really **** things up, Govt. would have to repeal 100+ years of health and safety regs etc.

The simple reality is that there is mass unemployment, a mountain of unskilled people and an energy planning catastrophe right around the corner.

Absolutely. But you don't just open up a coal mine like a new corner shop. You need skilled surveyors, engineers, technicians, scientists, craftsmen, miners and God knows who else. You can't just pull these people off the dole. Also, given that a Govt. of either colour would be likely to turn to the Private Sector, you would no doubt have recruitment and pay practices having more in common with the oil industry than the old coal industry.

[The further the country lurches to the right the more I'd expect the pits to be reopened and staffed on little more than minimum wage. Maybe on zero hours contracts too.

Simply not practicable

Need an incentive to get the unskilled long-term unemployed down there? They'll just remove JSA after a certain period.

That's too simplistic Tony. Pay a decent wage and many, (just as with the Army) would think about it. But you simply cannot just 'set people on'.

Miners need to be trained. This is not just about their personal safety, but about the functioning of the mine too.

To be honest I bet it's only the last vestiges of green ideology and pride holding both Labour and Conservative moving in this very direction (the hateful tabloids etc would love it), and I bet they do so as soon as the lights start going out.

Agreed.

The bottom line is it can be done a lot faster and more cheaply than building nice clean nuclear power stations, and in many ways would be an easier political 'sell' than fracking under areas where voters live.

As I've said before, nuclear, though in many ways very attractive, has always cost far more than Govts have been prepared to admit. The coal is there. Now.

Let's put it this way. If you had limited choice re: food,and not much money but you had a cupboard full of baked beans.. would you go and buy imported Caviar?

Mull