• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Who's Been Shafted by the Torie's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
As oil and gas run out as they eventually will, coal will become more important again, and there will probably be a revival in UK mining.

But I doubt it will ever be what it was, as Nuclear and renewable energy are cleaner alternatives. But even if not used on a large scale for fuel, coal will be important as a source of hydo-carbons for the chemical production of substitutes for things that still require what are now oil based products and for the manufacture of things like plastics.

In the long view it may turn out to have been a wise move to burn other peoples coal while it was cheap, leaving ours in the ground gaining value. Much British Coal was deep mined, an expensive way of extracting coal, which will make more sense as the product rises in value.

These days the world is basically one in terms of economy so except in the short term there is no point in subsidising a loss making industry, whose product can be obtained cheaper elsewhere. As the raised costs and taxation will only make other industries less competitive and move the job losses there instead.

Given the above the contraction of the British Coal industry was inevitable, you just can not carry on producing something for which there is no economic market. Even if we had had an unbroken run of Labour governments sooner or later one of them would have had to say enough is enough.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
.....Gerrymandering is the most obvious example of this IMO. The Coalition (ie: the Tories) want to move part of Sutton Coldfield (safe Tory) into Erdington (safe Labour) - I wonder why? Reduction in the number of MPs is coming from urban centres which usually vote labour
Total tosh (as usual) I am afraid.

The Committee looking at Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries is independent, unlike the one set up by Labour which was specifically designed to slant the boundaries such that the Conservative Party would need a 7% swing just to get back to equilibrium at 1997. The new Boundaries will make Constituencies more representative in size, and will remove the inbuilt bias towards Labour. Interestingly enough I believe that there are likely to be more Conservative seas merged than Labour from what I last heard.

Taken on the basis of the previous 1997 Election, the Conservatives would have had a bigger margin than Labour won with. So had Boundaries NOT been altered the Conservatives would now have had a higher proportion of the vote than Labour in 1997 even based on the lower turnout. Labour as a Political force would effectively have been finished. I think that rather sets the scene on these pathetic complaints about who people actually want in power. On that basis alone there is no argument that the Conservatives had a higher percentage of voters than that which Labour crowed constantly about giving them a "mandate to rule".


SS4 do you not think it would be more helpful to your arguments if actually opened a discussion with facts rather than inaccuracies and disingenuous distortions of the truth ?
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
As oil and gas run out as they eventually will, coal will become more important again, and there will probably be a revival in UK mining.
I don't think coal is going to be an option though due to climate change.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,795
Location
Somewhere, not in London
The irritating spent fuel problem is much higher for anything you burn, compare the tonneage of CO2 produced (that some idiots are planning to bury with CCS, proberbly the stupidest idea I've ever heard) compared to the grammage of spent fuel produced by fission...
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,754
Location
Essex
The irritating spent fuel problem is much higher for anything you burn, compare the tonneage of CO2 produced (that some idiots are planning to bury with CCS, proberbly the stupidest idea I've ever heard) compared to the grammage of spent fuel produced by fission...

The world produces about 10,000 metric tonnes of high-level radioactive waste a year. Whilst this is less than the tonnage of CO2 produced, it is the storage problem that we should be concerned about. The nuclear fuel has to be stored safely, securely and for thousands of years (sometimes millions) before it falls below safe levels.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,128
Location
Redcar
I don't think coal is going to be an option though due to climate change.

If it becomes a choice between keeping the lights on by using coal powered power stations or meeting climate goals I think I know which people are going to be choosing...
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,795
Location
Somewhere, not in London
And unlike most countries that produce a lot more of this waste than we would thanks to using more modern reactor cores, we'd be re-processing it at Sellafeild where only about 30-40% of this spent fuel is actually spent and goes to waste.

What would you rather, an atomsphere poisoned by CO2, CO, SOx and PM10/PM25 from burning coal, gas and biomass, or some radioactive waste buried underground where you'll never see it and there is a mathematically insignificant probability of it ever affecting you?

And I'm not pro any kind of generation method, I think we need a good cross section for our generating profile, and this isn't the same as Japan, it isn't the same as Germany, it's our generation profile, and it has a 60% load bias, that is reasonablly high.

The way I'm seeing forward for this country is about 30-40TW of power coming from nuclear, 15 - 20TW from offshore wind, and the remaining from OCGT, Fast Cycle Coal and Fast Cycle CCGT. That is until we start with fast cycle grid demand linked hydrogen production, then we can move to having about 70 - 80TW coming from nuclear power, and the load profile being controlled to be near flat by the use of H2 production to smooth this out (running in a fast ramping cycle). Offshore wind is all well and good, but it can't be relied upon for the base generating profile for the country, you need something like deep cycle CCGT or nuclear for that...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,128
Location
Redcar
What would you rather, an atomsphere poisoned by CO2, CO, SOx and PM10/PM25 from burning coal, gas and biomass, or some radioactive waste buried underground where you'll never see it and there is a mathematically insignificant probability of it ever affecting you?

Option B please!
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
If it becomes a choice between keeping the lights on by using coal powered power stations or meeting climate goals I think I know which people are going to be choosing...
What's better, cutting back on electricity produced or not having a habitable planet?
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
I like the idea of tidal, it may not be steady like fossil fuel and nuclear. But it is predictable so you know what is coming and can plan ahead. Also as the tides happen at different time on different parts of the coast, you can flatten off the peaks somewhat by the positioning of the various systems.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,128
Location
Redcar
What's better, cutting back on electricity produced or not having a habitable planet?

A habitable planet obviously, however given the choice between having the lights turn on at the flick of switch or not I still think most people will choose the lights.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2011
Messages
317
Location
Over there
What's better, cutting back on electricity produced or not having a habitable planet?

Who says that GW will result in an inhabitable planet?

Why is electricity generation cited as the villain? Why not private car ownership?

Could it be because those who wish to order others around, with instructions on cutting electricity consumption, do not want to have the same treatment meted out to them by being told to use public transport?
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Why not private car ownership?
I didn't say that there wasn't a case for reducing private car travel and indeed this is already high on the agenda but at the end of the day using fossil fuels for power generation is simply not sustainable either.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,795
Location
Somewhere, not in London
OK then, lets tax electricity as much as we tax petrol and diesel... then trust me, people would cut back!

Not to mention that 'carbon emissions' from private car ownership accounts for a small proportion of total...
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,795
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Half a page before I loose the will to live and point out that the major thing being shafted by the tories is the school of apostrophies...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Zoe's involved, I give it a page before we get to driverless cars.

And cars that drive themselves have been around for ages, the're called taxis...
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,754
Location
Essex
Half a page before I loose the will to live and point out that the major thing being shafted by the tories is the school of apostrophies...

And cars that drive themselves have been around for ages, the're called taxis...

Ironic ;)
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,795
Location
Somewhere, not in London
and this ...



I must stop. :lol:

That said, some good arguments though.

From he who preaches read the forum before posting a new thread and then some 10mins later does the same?

And btw. It's only by convention that the're isn't a valid contraction of they're, it isn't an innapropriate aphostrophe in there, or even their...

And if you look up the definition of loose as apposed to lose either is actually valid in that sentance, I may not have lost the will to live, but simply had it reduced.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,469
From he who preaches read the forum before posting a new thread and then some 10mins later does the same?

Now now. There is no need for that. Action was quickly taken about it, and I never said I was perfect.

And if you look up the definition of loose as apposed to lose either is actually valid in that sentance, I may not have lost the will to live, but simply had it reduced.

Get out the tape measure, quick. :lol:
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,617
Location
LBK
Half a page before I loose the will to live and point out that the major thing being shafted by the tories is the school of apostrophies...


Tories (capital, proper noun), and apostrophes. (no i)

Please accept my wink ;) as proof of lightheartedness!
 

Tracky

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2011
Messages
483
I feel I was shafted by Labour. Their tax and spend policies did nothing to help me as a young single male leaving education and entering work. They also do nothing to promote a stable family life. On leaving school I did not want to go to university - the route the education system pushes all kids down regardless of ability. It was down to me to find work and I was given no incentive other than that as a single lad with parents who had earned their money and paid a lot of tax I was entitled no nothing...

Now that I have worked hard to develop myself and do well at a job, I pay a fair amount of tax. As I see it our government following on from the last are locked into this waste beacuse they have not got the balls and I dont mean Ed, to sort things out. I want them to fulfill the ruthless tory image. I want them to reduce the size of the public sector to a more managable level, reduce state hand outs to the ****less and try and make this country sustainable again.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
The orignal poster has disappeared now, I don't think the discussion went the way he wanted it to.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,469
The trouble with a thread like this is that any party that has been in power has invariably achieved something, and also failed a section of the community. There is yet to be an example where the ruling party has managed to keep everyone happy by giving them a rich and prosperous life with plenty of opportunities for everything we desire. There will be people unhappy with Labour (new or old) for various things they have done, and others feeling let down by the Tories for other reasons. There isn't really an answer as to who has been the better one as their performances aren't really comparable, due to differing party ideologies and areas for policy emphasis.
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,754
Location
Essex
And btw. It's only by convention that the're isn't a valid contraction of they're, it isn't an innapropriate aphostrophe in there, or even their...

It's grammatically incorrect. "The're" is not a proper contraction!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top