Last UK coal fired power station closes

[carmanmemoranda]

Given how difficult nuclear is to deal with, long term, after its energy production, I'm still not sure it's the way to go.

It looks like tomorrow's problem, just like we are now dealing with yesterday's problems.

Natural sources, sun, wind and water have to be the way forward. Even if we don't know the route or can't harness enough power yet.

 

[gas112]

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 !

Scargill split and broke the mining industry whilst continuing to line his own pockets for decades . Thought that was pretty common knowledge

 

[IT Minion]

Nuclear supplies baseload supply, because that's what its good at. It could do variable load, but doesn't generally, as its uneconomic.

It's uneconomic as baseload. While nuclear can 'load follow' it does that by throwing away power, just like turning off a wind farm.

It isn't dispatchable power like Biomass, which would actually complement renewables.

If we could build nuclear cheaper we would be.

 

[wobs]

It's uneconomic as baseload. While nuclear can 'load follow' it does that by throwing away power, just like turning off a wind farm.

It isn't dispatchable power like Biomass, which would actually complement renewables.

It is very economic as baseload. Which is why countries with many nuclear power stations have generally cheap electricity. We will always need baseload supply.

Its a common claim that it's uneconomic, but this is based on levelised cost, which is a poor way of measuring it.
An in depth discussion into why is here:
https://zionlights.substack.com/p/what-is-the-true-cost-of-energy

If we could build nuclear cheaper we would be.

The link I showed shows this to be false. Over regulation has made it more expensive than it needs to be. Also, South Korea showed that its possible to bring the costs down. France didn't do a bad job either, by replicating a design.

But by your argument, renewables won't get any cheaper either.

If you are serious about decarbonising the grid (and we should be) in an economic way, we need to invest in far more nuclear.

 

[blup]

so they were not profitable glad we cleared that up

They were profitable after state subsidies, pit closures were often as a result of decreased demand, and high cost per ton of extraction. Polish coal was also profitable after subsidy. We’d have been without power as a country if profit was the only factor.

 

[gas112]

They were profitable after state subsidies,

So as i said they were not profitable

 

[Dereekoo]

When you hear of all the past miners saying they wouldn't want their kids to work down the pit is a bad thing they closed them down? The again saying it and weighing that against the sight of greenbacks in your hands what's a few accidents/mishaps/illnesses along the way matter.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Scargill split and broke the mining industry whilst continuing to line his own pockets for decades . Thought that was pretty common knowledge

He didn't break it on his own.

I thought that was common knowledge too, but maybe not

 

[Brigadier]

It is very economic as baseload. Which is why countries with many nuclear power stations have generally cheap electricity. We will always need baseload supply.

Not as economic as the big, blue, wobbly thing that surrounds this sceptred isle:

How tidal range and tidal stream projects could play a key role in UK energy mix | New Civil Engineer

The Environmental Audit Committee’s January report into how to accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero determined that “tidal and other marine energy

www.newcivilengineer.com

As long as we have the Moon, we'll have tides.
And the UK is blessed with some of the most potentially-productive tides in the world.

 

[blup]

So as i said they were not profitable

Not that simple. Plenty of private sector companies, including international corporate giants, shift costs to inflate profits. Some, like Thames water, even saddle themselves with debt to create profit. Its called globalisation, the Donaald and Far-rage are big fans. Why should the public sector be different, at least the cross subsidisation is honest and for a purpose.

 

[gas112]

Not that simple. Plenty of private sector companies, including international corporate giants, shift costs to inflate profits. Some, like Thames water, even saddle themselves with debt to create profit. Its called globalisation, the Donaald and Far-rage are big fans. Why should the public sector be different, at least the cross subsidisation is honest and for a purpose.

. Cut an pasted
The NCB Annual report and accounts for 1983–84, published today, demonstrate the serious financial situation of the board. Last year it made a loss, before deficit grant, of £875 million, equivalent to 18 per cent. of the board's turnover. In the last four years the NCB has lost nearly £2 billion.


. 2 billion seems pretty simple

 

[blup]

. Cut an pasted
The NCB Annual report and accounts for 1983–84, published today, demonstrate the serious financial situation of the board. Last year it made a loss, before deficit grant, of £875 million, equivalent to 18 per cent. of the board's turnover. In the last four years the NCB has lost nearly £2 billion.


. 2 billion seems pretty simple

Grants to privatised coal mines continued for years after the 84 strike, it was never about subsidy, it was about an ideological objection to nationalised industries and the trade union movement.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I’m remember driving past Ratcliffe on Soar power station back in the day.

..and I remember working there. I put in a massive experimental salt water tank system, used as a resistance dropper.

 

[wobs]

Not as economic as the big, blue, wobbly thing that surrounds this sceptred isle:

How tidal range and tidal stream projects could play a key role in UK energy mix | New Civil Engineer

The Environmental Audit Committee’s January report into how to accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero determined that “tidal and other marine energy

www.newcivilengineer.com

As long as we have the Moon, we'll have tides.
And the UK is blessed with some of the most potentially-productive tides in the world.

There would still be intermittency, which would either have to be covered by a boiler (fossil fuels/biomass or nuclear), or storage.

And it would have to provide those peak demands at neap tide multiple times a year, and when the tidal patterns of multiple sites provide the minimal amount of power. An example here:

From this report:

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Then there are other externalities such as habitat loss, disruption to shipping, silting etc. The most obvious site would of course be Seven Estuary, but this has been turned down multiple times over the years. Its worth noting why it was rejected the last time: Such large scale projects are not transferrable to other sites to replicate. They would be individual projects with little to no repeatablility to make the next one cheaper. This is why they built Hinkley Point C - it is repeatable technology.

Tidal power was discussed at quite some length here some years ago:

Hinkley Point C - C stands for CON

See my previous post. Tidal power output from various locations in real time, shows you are wrong. It is not comparable to nuclear power as it is intermittent, and suffers from not getting cheaper the more you build. What is the cheapest form of electricity production currently and potentially...

www.diynot.com

 

[Trazor]

When you hear of all the past miners saying they wouldn't want their kids to work down the pit is a bad thing they closed them down? The again saying it and weighing that against the sight of greenbacks in your hands what's a few accidents/mishaps/illnesses along the way matter.

Wait till you watch your Father in law die of pneumoconiosis/Emphysema it's horrific.

An old saying in Wales was "If you drew your pension you weren't a Miner".

The pits were replaced with other industries. and the dirty filthy landscapes have gone.