Thatch closed down perfectly profitable pits as part of her strategy to destroy the NUm, knowing that more expensive coal would have to be imported from Poland etc. Always a great European was Maggie.'Tis what we do. We close or severely reduce capacity to please the tree huggers ... then import on the quiet
Last UK coal fired power station closes
- Thread starter blup
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The IEA report does says that nuclear will be increased to 2050.
Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis - IEA
Net Zero by 2050 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.www.iea.org
Make way for renewable energy generation - Crown Commercial Service
Renewable energy sources are critical to meeting the UK’s electricity needs. Does wind hold the key to meeting our electricity demands?www.crowncommercial.gov.uk
There will likely be a greater increase than stated, as many new plants are currently planned, and the political appetite has warmed to it in recent years. Not least the experience of Germany increasing its coal consumption to make up for the closure of its nuclear plants, despite investing in renewables.
Carbon capture has a history of poor performance in the US, and as you say, expensive. They are still trying to install it in the UK off the Humber, feeding from various large carbon sources such as Drax, refineries, and British Steel.
More coal mines were closed down under Wilson and Callaghan than under Thatcher.
Sponsored Links
The cost of renewables will always be high when the % of grid penetration requires large storage.Had a look around Ratcliffe on a school trip and the size of those chimneys impressed the heck out o' me. Not so keen on the smell of the place or the clouds o' crap they spat up in the air.
1960: The UK emitted 448 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MtCO₂) from coal use
2022: The UK emitted less than 20 MtCO₂ from coal use, a 5.6% drop from 2021
Old King Coal has had his day and made a fine mess of things. Time for renewable energy to take the strain of fuelling economic growth. The cost will be high in the short term but cheaper in the long run and will provide cleaner air for future generations. Go green or go home.
I'd imagine natural attrition of smaller pits needed closing once the horses were put to pasture and the local mills started using elastic-trickery.
However, the likes of the big pits in Staffs and Nott's on the other hand...Good ole Maggy.
"Ding dong the witch is dead, which old witch, the wicked witch...."
Yes there were significant closures post nationalisation. They didn't do it to profitable pits to smash the unions though.
We're they profitable ? What size of profit were they returning ?
Sstate subsidy helped, but what self respecting country wouldn't help out a key industry. German coal and steel industries, and therefore their economy, are boosted by subsidy. America federal government invests enormous sums in start ups. Maggie’s lie was the doctrine that market forces rule out out state aid. An excuse to entrench her hard right politics which are still damaging tne country today.
so they were not profitable glad we cleared that up
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,232
- Reaction score
- 1,050
- Country
The IEA are pretty awful at forecasting renewables. Given the ongoing trend for lower renewables costs and cheaper battery storage the niche where nuclear is conceivably cheaper or better keeps shrinking.
so did more miners lose their jobs under thatcher or under wilson /callaghan ?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,232
- Reaction score
- 1,050
- Country
Not really relevant, and I don't know the figures. But I guess you've checked them.
But who broke the mining industry? The big move !
As an aside, i think it's something we had to and need to, move away from. But it's ironic that it's the right wing that want coal mining back.
So why did you quote an IEA report?
There is a floor to how cheap an energy source can get. But when an intermittent supply requires too much storage to maintain constant supply, it becomes uneconomic. Which is why countries are building nuclear.
Nuclear supplies baseload supply, because that's what its good at. It could do variable load, but doesn't generally, as its uneconomic.
Meanwhile wind & solar are limited by intermittency. Again, its a question of economics.
There is no magic bullet to change this, there will never in our lifetime be a time where this isn't the case.
Nuclear can be made cheaper without compromising safety. Renewables can get cheaper, but also be more expensive depending on the % of grid penetration (the higher the %, the more storage you need, and the less economic it becomes). Also, you need far more infrastructure with renewables, spread out over a wider area.
Here is a good article about building nuclear more quickly and cheaper:
We can build nuclear reactors quickly. Here's how
Five ways to speed up nuclear construction
zionlights.substack.com
Sponsored Links
