1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Pit Opening Program?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by redcogs, Feb 21, 2011.

  1. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    People will recall that Coalmine closures were a major part of the Tory imposed industrial vandalism of the 1980s.

    Today, with Middle Eastern economies being steadily reshaped along more democratic lines, one strong short term possibility is that the UKs energy supplies are likely to be less reliable than they have been hitherto.

    Thatcher's true legacy can now be seen for what it was.. All her venomous lies about pit closures and her vindictive ideological assault on the trade unions made it a certainty that UK incorporated would become not only totally dependent upon oil/gas from international sources, but also a further inevitable consequence of deindustrialisation was the placing of almost absolute power in the hands of the corrupt spivs and liars and crooks who run the banks and all the other financial institutions that are rapidly dragging society back to the slump days of the 1930s.

    With hundreds of years of indigenous fuel reserves under our feet, how long before coal is king again (perhaps with clean burn technology this time)?
  2. matt j

    matt j pfm Member

    There's a snowball in hells chance of them re-opening pits.

    There's too many people with snouts in the trough hoovering up over inflated energy profits who wouldn't let it happen.
  3. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    We need more nuclear power. The government should embark on an FDR scale public building program IMO - push through the recession by creating energy independence for the future.

  4. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    !! ??

    Did no one ever mention the half life of plutonium to you Tony?
  5. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    Its 24,100 years..
  6. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    Chernobyl is still fizzing and popping and will be troublesome again according to some sources.

    Are you wanting a plant in Liverpool? North of the Mersey perhaps?
  7. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Given the options, i.e. greenhouse gas generating fossil fuels or woefully inefficient wind power it's pretty much the only option left until we find a way to really harness wave energy. Nuclear certainly represents the most logical stop-gap until that point and I'd back it long before reopening coal pits. Safe storage of waste just needs to be built into the model.

    My parents live up in the Lake District, maybe 5-10 miles away from Seascale Cumbria. They ain't cooked yet.

  8. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    Impossible. 24,100 years of safe storage? Earthquakes, revolutions, floods, wars, unknown and unpredictable factors, etc etc.

    24,100 years is quite a long time.
  9. russel

    russel ./_dazed_and_confused

    What we need is some nice clean coal, only killed 12,000 people in the Great Smog and is killing an estimated 600,000 people prematurely each year in China

    How many died in Chernobyl?.

    Nuclear power, bring it on, as well as the Severn Barrage. If we hadn't bailed out the sodding Banks we could funded that, Nuclear Fusion and still had change for a shot at Mars.
  10. Bob McC

    Bob McC Living the life of Riley

    How many leukemia victims do they know?
  11. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    The 'hot spots' for genetic malformation damage is across the sea in Ireland i believe.
  12. mudlark

    mudlark nearly half a clue

    What we need tony is fusion power, about 50 years away. coal is a useful source of power. it's only old trees.....
  13. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    It is, and I'd even question the figure. The world's worst exposure to nuclear fallout (Hiroshima & Nagasaki) are both perfectly safe and have been for a very long time. You are assuming any disaster would involve a huge great leak, this is exceptionally unlikely as any storage system would be designed to prevent exactly that scenario. A lot will have been learned since Chernobyl etc.

  14. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    Even LP12s malfunction, and they are simple devices designed to rotate at a given speed.

    24,100 years without fault for a complex design full of the most deadly poison imaginable is impossible. i thought i was the idealist hoping for a democratic egalitarian world order within my life time.

    Anyone who imagines a machine facility which can remain fault free under all circumstances for 24,100 years needs a lie down and an asprin.
  15. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    my neighbour burns coal. Its hot, it looks nice in the hearth, you can toast marshmallows on it. When its spent the ashes can be spread on the garden.

    Try doing any of that with a plutonium chunk.
  16. mudlark

    mudlark nearly half a clue

    the spent fuel sites are designed to be passively safe. iE IF someone forgets about them they will cause no trouble. if the plutonium is glassified and put in a place where heat can't build up, then it's safe. the sites for disposal will be safe over geological time....

    a good example is the fact that man has evolved on the planet with loads of asbestos about. the stuff has always been there. there is a lot more asbestos than plutonium.
  17. mmterror

    mmterror pfm Member

    As a UK Coal shareholder I fully endorse this.

    24100 years is a blink of an eye in eath lifespan terms. Hardly there really. We just always think in narrow human terms.
  18. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    Maxey Flat, Kentucky was considered safe. Until it rained.
  19. zener

    zener fluff

    you really dont want things like that hanging around. At the moment we have very little , in real terms , of radioactive waste .If we go Nuclear with our energy programme , we will have far more to deal with , in say 2000 years time... I am involved on the edge of this stuff ...its a short term fix and thats all way do you want it around for thousands of years ... yeah leave it for the next generation ...thats the selfish outlook and there appears to be a few selfish folk one here.. you nasty lot.
  20. Mullardman

    Mullardman Moderately extreme...

    I think we need both coal and nuclear in the short and medium term.

    Huge lies were told by Thatcher about the alleged cost of 'cleaning up' coal fired power stations. Utter crap. We had gasworks 150 years ago which managed to roast coal and recover assorted by-products, ranging from tar & gas to useful chemicals, all without major emissions. 'Scrubbing' the emissions from a power station would be a piece of cake and also recover useful stuff.


Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice