I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
Trouble is that they are half right. In £/Kwh for dispatachable generation* (ignoring taxes and subsidies) coal is cheaper than anything else by a country mile.
We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent), and we are still digging ourselves into an expensive energy hole rather than getting ourselves out of it - eg licensing offshore wind with strike prices greater than the current grid price.
That said, we are where we are now - local deep mined coal isn't coming back at scale - far too expensive to reopen, although there is still some opencast to be had.
Throwing up some big coal fired baseload plants and running on imported coal would probably be the straight up cheapest way forward, if we are determined to get electricity prices down. It's the only realistic way to decouple prices from the gas price any time soon. But I don't see Reform doing it.
What they might do is windfall tax all the CFD cash back - that would reduce prices (or at least, provide a big pile of cash that could be used to reduce prices). But the downside would be that no one would touch another government contract of this sort with someone else's barge pole for a very long time - and we still need people to build some sort of generating capacity.
*dispatchable - ie available when you need it, like after dark on a still winter night. Perfectly technically achievable with wind/solar + batteries, or more cheaply with wind/solar + gas backup, but all of this is more expensive than coal.
"We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent)"
Infrastructure does not last forever. A thermal power station generally has a 25-30 design life; that can be extended, but at increasing cost and reduced reliability. Most coal-fired power stations were at, or past, their lives when they were switched off and replaced (mostly) by CCGT. Mothballing is expensive as well, as is recommissioning afterwards. Any coal power station switched off more than a decade ago, and which has not been properly mothballed, would just be scrap now.
Coal is also *terrible* environmentally. The worst of the worst. The idea of going back to coal is insane. I have nothing against CCGT, though.
Most of the coal plants were at end of life when switched off. Funny that.
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
Trouble is that they are half right. In £/Kwh for dispatachable generation* (ignoring taxes and subsidies) coal is cheaper than anything else by a country mile.
We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent), and we are still digging ourselves into an expensive energy hole rather than getting ourselves out of it - eg licensing offshore wind with strike prices greater than the current grid price.
That said, we are where we are now - local deep mined coal isn't coming back at scale - far too expensive to reopen, although there is still some opencast to be had.
Throwing up some big coal fired baseload plants and running on imported coal would probably be the straight up cheapest way forward, if we are determined to get electricity prices down. It's the only realistic way to decouple prices from the gas price any time soon. But I don't see Reform doing it.
What they might do is windfall tax all the CFD cash back - that would reduce prices (or at least, provide a big pile of cash that could be used to reduce prices). But the downside would be that no one would touch another government contract of this sort with someone else's barge pole for a very long time - and we still need people to build some sort of generating capacity.
*dispatchable - ie available when you need it, like after dark on a still winter night. Perfectly technically achievable with wind/solar + batteries, or more cheaply with wind/solar + gas backup, but all of this is more expensive than coal.
"We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent)"
Infrastructure does not last forever. A thermal power station generally has a 25-30 design life; that can be extended, but at increasing cost and reduced reliability. Most coal-fired power stations were at, or past, their lives when they were switched off and replaced (mostly) by CCGT. Mothballing is expensive as well, as is recommissioning afterwards. Any coal power station switched off more than a decade ago, and which has not been properly mothballed, would just be scrap now.
Coal is also *terrible* environmentally. The worst of the worst. The idea of going back to coal is insane. I have nothing against CCGT, though.
Were not most (if not all) coal mines closed down as uneconomic, though. Back in the 90's most of them, so any miners would now be at least in their 40's. Would they really fancy going back down the pit?
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
Trouble is that they are half right. In £/Kwh for dispatachable generation* (ignoring taxes and subsidies) coal is cheaper than anything else by a country mile.
We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent), and we are still digging ourselves into an expensive energy hole rather than getting ourselves out of it - eg licensing offshore wind with strike prices greater than the current grid price.
That said, we are where we are now - local deep mined coal isn't coming back at scale - far too expensive to reopen, although there is still some opencast to be had.
Throwing up some big coal fired baseload plants and running on imported coal would probably be the straight up cheapest way forward, if we are determined to get electricity prices down. It's the only realistic way to decouple prices from the gas price any time soon. But I don't see Reform doing it.
What they might do is windfall tax all the CFD cash back - that would reduce prices (or at least, provide a big pile of cash that could be used to reduce prices). But the downside would be that no one would touch another government contract of this sort with someone else's barge pole for a very long time - and we still need people to build some sort of generating capacity.
*dispatchable - ie available when you need it, like after dark on a still winter night. Perfectly technically achievable with wind/solar + batteries, or more cheaply with wind/solar + gas backup, but all of this is more expensive than coal.
"We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent)"
Infrastructure does not last forever. A thermal power station generally has a 25-30 design life; that can be extended, but at increasing cost and reduced reliability. Most coal-fired power stations were at, or past, their lives when they were switched off and replaced (mostly) by CCGT. Mothballing is expensive as well, as is recommissioning afterwards. Any coal power station switched off more than a decade ago, and which has not been properly mothballed, would just be scrap now.
Coal is also *terrible* environmentally. The worst of the worst. The idea of going back to coal is insane. I have nothing against CCGT, though.
There's nothing insane about choosing the cheapest power source to bring down our electricity bills that are someof the highest in the world and three to five times America's.
We don't need to produce our own coal - ours is generally quite deep and expensive to extract. Also it would revive Communist mining unions. Much better to buy from friendly or neutral foreign countries that still produce lots - Germany, Australia, South Africa and the US - if that's cheaper.
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
It's curious how our nationalist friends (Reform and SNP) descend into complete unreality when energy is introduced into the conversation.
According to some SNats, the perfidious English are nicking all their wind-power - "It's Scotland's Wind" - in much the same way as they snaffled the oil. Meanwhile, they are busy making sure Scotland is completely lacking in nuclear generation.
Head south and Big Nige is going to sweep to victory in Wales next year on the back of promising to reopen the coal mines.
I don’t have a problem with England using Scottish wind power. I have a problem with them getting it cheaper than we do.
Red , they do same with everything else , why would they be fair with our power. Grifters gotta grift.
Do you have a problem with the Barnett formula consistently sending English money to fund Scottish government spending?
Grifters gotta grift
Dumbo joins the fray. You halfwitted nutter, we get back a small % of the money transferred to England. They use the rest to fund their deficits and pretend the debt is down to Scotland.
According to google, UK government spending is 44% of GDP while Scottish government spending is 51% of GDP.
You seem to be doing pretty well out of the arrangement
London numbers , we are being robbed and have been for a very long time
The country are gagging for it and that's not including the 16-18 year olds who will vote rejoin unanimously. My guess is that Starmer has already got this in mind. He's got very close to France and Germany and Canada feels like it might want to be part of the club. Very few in the UK like Trump's America and people are only now wising up to the fact that the EU is as big a power block as the US and we were top dogs in it........
The advertising would be so easy......... None of the excruciating Red Bus nonsense of Referendum !. Just 28/29 of the most beautiful and inspiring capitals in the world and we get free access to all of them for work or for play. It could look like the most alluring travel agency of all time.....
Not happening Roger.
The right wing own the news media, including broadcast media, and OfCom have no teeth. It's their game now.
It feels like that at the moment but my sense is that the right wing media and their ignorant and aging followers have had their day. Corbyn is sparking more enthusiasm than Farage. People want change and no one's looking to the Telegraph the Mail or GB News for change. Media follow the zeitgeist. Even the BBC have noticably moved in the last few weeks as have Labour. Things are in flux and that can only lead one way and that's not in a Faragist/Trumpian/Netanyahu direction
The situation is more complex than that. This analysis overlooks three things: 1) Reform lead in the polls; 2) Reform is moving to the old Labour centre, ie social democrat and high spend + also with closed borders. 'Right' is not the correct term at all. 3) If there is a new left Jezzbollah movement that gets off the ground, being pro the EU will not be high on its agenda. To the proper left the EU is a military industrial complex old boy network corporate bankers conspiracy of the haves against the have nots. (A view which is not wholly without merit.)
(2) remains questionable. Reform UK don't have much in the way of a coherent platform, but what there is can't really be described as social democrat. They say they're not high spend.
My view about (2) requires inference, common sense and prediction - this is a betting site. Agree about coherent platform, but Reform, unlike 2024 intend to win and govern. There isn't a cheap, inexpensive way to run a western democracy. This is because it has social democratic structures, and has had since 1945. That is: NHS, free education to 18, welfare safety net, social housing, pensions, NATO, regulated capitalism and a bank of last resort. This is high spend, and despite denials also = high tax.
Ask the voters of Clacton which of these they plan that they and their families do without. The rest follows.
It can of course be run better (much better) but the idea it can be run much cheaper is delusional.
Therefore Reform are in fact high spend (and therefore high tax) centrist social democrats + closed borders nationalists + fairly social conservative. Of this I am confident. I do not support them. They would be a disaster. In policy terms the nearest thing to them is 1950s/early 60s Labour.
Clacton is not social democrat, it voted for Thatcher, nor is Basildon which voted for Thatcher and famously Major 1992. Stoke is, it voted even for Kinnock and Foot and 2 out of its 3 seats even for Corbyn 2017.
That is the problem for Reform, it needs both for a majority
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
Trouble is that they are half right. In £/Kwh for dispatachable generation* (ignoring taxes and subsidies) coal is cheaper than anything else by a country mile.
We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent), and we are still digging ourselves into an expensive energy hole rather than getting ourselves out of it - eg licensing offshore wind with strike prices greater than the current grid price.
That said, we are where we are now - local deep mined coal isn't coming back at scale - far too expensive to reopen, although there is still some opencast to be had.
Throwing up some big coal fired baseload plants and running on imported coal would probably be the straight up cheapest way forward, if we are determined to get electricity prices down. It's the only realistic way to decouple prices from the gas price any time soon. But I don't see Reform doing it.
What they might do is windfall tax all the CFD cash back - that would reduce prices (or at least, provide a big pile of cash that could be used to reduce prices). But the downside would be that no one would touch another government contract of this sort with someone else's barge pole for a very long time - and we still need people to build some sort of generating capacity.
*dispatchable - ie available when you need it, like after dark on a still winter night. Perfectly technically achievable with wind/solar + batteries, or more cheaply with wind/solar + gas backup, but all of this is more expensive than coal.
"We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent)"
Infrastructure does not last forever. A thermal power station generally has a 25-30 design life; that can be extended, but at increasing cost and reduced reliability. Most coal-fired power stations were at, or past, their lives when they were switched off and replaced (mostly) by CCGT. Mothballing is expensive as well, as is recommissioning afterwards. Any coal power station switched off more than a decade ago, and which has not been properly mothballed, would just be scrap now.
Coal is also *terrible* environmentally. The worst of the worst. The idea of going back to coal is insane. I have nothing against CCGT, though.
There's nothing insane about choosing the cheapest power source to bring down our electricity bills that are someof the highest in the world and three to five times America's.
We don't need to produce our own coal - ours is generally quite deep and expensive to extract. Also it would revive Communist mining unions. Much better to buy from friendly or neutral foreign countries that still produce lots - Germany, Australia, South Africa and the US - if that's cheaper.
You miss the "Coal is also *terrible* environmentally. The worst of the worst."
This is direct pollution, into the atmosphere around the plants. I was born, and spent the first decade of my life, a couple of miles away from a coal power station. I'd never do so again, if they were built. Coal - especially some of the German brown coal - is awful stuff.
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
It's curious how our nationalist friends (Reform and SNP) descend into complete unreality when energy is introduced into the conversation.
According to some SNats, the perfidious English are nicking all their wind-power - "It's Scotland's Wind" - in much the same way as they snaffled the oil. Meanwhile, they are busy making sure Scotland is completely lacking in nuclear generation.
Head south and Big Nige is going to sweep to victory in Wales next year on the back of promising to reopen the coal mines.
I don’t have a problem with England using Scottish wind power. I have a problem with them getting it cheaper than we do.
Red , they do same with everything else , why would they be fair with our power. Grifters gotta grift.
Do you have a problem with the Barnett formula consistently sending English money to fund Scottish government spending?
Grifters gotta grift
Dumbo joins the fray. You halfwitted nutter, we get back a small % of the money transferred to England. They use the rest to fund their deficits and pretend the debt is down to Scotland.
Scottish government deficit (including oil) is 10.4% of GDP (23/24) while the UK as a whole is 4.5%.
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
It's curious how our nationalist friends (Reform and SNP) descend into complete unreality when energy is introduced into the conversation.
According to some SNats, the perfidious English are nicking all their wind-power - "It's Scotland's Wind" - in much the same way as they snaffled the oil. Meanwhile, they are busy making sure Scotland is completely lacking in nuclear generation.
Head south and Big Nige is going to sweep to victory in Wales next year on the back of promising to reopen the coal mines.
I don’t have a problem with England using Scottish wind power. I have a problem with them getting it cheaper than we do.
Red , they do same with everything else , why would they be fair with our power. Grifters gotta grift.
Do you have a problem with the Barnett formula consistently sending English money to fund Scottish government spending?
Grifters gotta grift
Dumbo joins the fray. You halfwitted nutter, we get back a small % of the money transferred to England. They use the rest to fund their deficits and pretend the debt is down to Scotland.
Scottish government deficit (including oil) is 10.4% of GDP (23/24) while the UK as a whole is 4.5%.
I've been down an interesting rabbit hole with FUKers and Dump Net Zero policy.
They're against wind and all cite the same data to prove that its more expensive than anything else. And they want it switched off tomorrow.
As Wind is a third of our generating capacity, we'd need to replace that with something else.
The best suggestion I've been told by one of their self-proclaimed energy experts? COAL. Specifically domestic coal.
Thing is, back when we had coal being dug from profitable pits, the imported stuff was cheaper, so we closed the pits. Now - so I am told - we can just reopen the pits and burn coal.
OK, lets imagine that we scrap planning laws so no cost from enquiries or any of that. Buy the land. Dig the holes. Erect the surface infrastructure, buy machinery and train men. Just to be able to access coal which used to be more expensive than imports when there was no access costs.
Coal. Is that really what they think can be done? And I used to mock Boris Johnson for "crayon policies". This lot are a whole new level of stupid.
Trouble is that they are half right. In £/Kwh for dispatachable generation* (ignoring taxes and subsidies) coal is cheaper than anything else by a country mile.
We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent), and we are still digging ourselves into an expensive energy hole rather than getting ourselves out of it - eg licensing offshore wind with strike prices greater than the current grid price.
That said, we are where we are now - local deep mined coal isn't coming back at scale - far too expensive to reopen, although there is still some opencast to be had.
Throwing up some big coal fired baseload plants and running on imported coal would probably be the straight up cheapest way forward, if we are determined to get electricity prices down. It's the only realistic way to decouple prices from the gas price any time soon. But I don't see Reform doing it.
What they might do is windfall tax all the CFD cash back - that would reduce prices (or at least, provide a big pile of cash that could be used to reduce prices). But the downside would be that no one would touch another government contract of this sort with someone else's barge pole for a very long time - and we still need people to build some sort of generating capacity.
*dispatchable - ie available when you need it, like after dark on a still winter night. Perfectly technically achievable with wind/solar + batteries, or more cheaply with wind/solar + gas backup, but all of this is more expensive than coal.
"We were insane to knock down all our coal burning infrastructure (all that capex already spent)"
Infrastructure does not last forever. A thermal power station generally has a 25-30 design life; that can be extended, but at increasing cost and reduced reliability. Most coal-fired power stations were at, or past, their lives when they were switched off and replaced (mostly) by CCGT. Mothballing is expensive as well, as is recommissioning afterwards. Any coal power station switched off more than a decade ago, and which has not been properly mothballed, would just be scrap now.
Coal is also *terrible* environmentally. The worst of the worst. The idea of going back to coal is insane. I have nothing against CCGT, though.
Were not most (if not all) coal mines closed down as uneconomic, though. Back in the 90's most of them, so any miners would now be at least in their 40's. Would they really fancy going back down the pit?
That calc seems optimistic on age. By 2005 (20 years ago) there were just 4000 miners left in the entire country. Go back to the late 1980s and there were probably more than that within 2 miles of my kitchen table. The last of all anywhere went in 2010, so 15 years ago; that was Welbeck and it was down to 410 by 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8674180.stm
I think any leftover experienced miners would now be approaching retirement. Consider that Lee Anderson was 18 at the end of the Miners' Strike and started underground in 1986, he left around 1995-6 at 28-29 ie as young as a decently experienced one would be at that time (but no idea if he was a face worker). and he is 59 this year.
Very very few would go back down, unless maybe as consultants - but consultant knowledge goes off without constant use.
Comments
NEW THREAD
We don't need to produce our own coal - ours is generally quite deep and expensive to extract. Also it would revive Communist mining unions. Much better to buy from friendly or neutral foreign countries that still produce lots - Germany, Australia, South Africa and the US - if that's cheaper.
That is the problem for Reform, it needs both for a majority
This is direct pollution, into the atmosphere around the plants. I was born, and spent the first decade of my life, a couple of miles away from a coal power station. I'd never do so again, if they were built. Coal - especially some of the German brown coal - is awful stuff.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8674180.stm
I think any leftover experienced miners would now be approaching retirement. Consider that Lee Anderson was 18 at the end of the Miners' Strike and started underground in 1986, he left around 1995-6 at 28-29 ie as young as a decently experienced one would be at that time (but no idea if he was a face worker). and he is 59 this year.
Very very few would go back down, unless maybe as consultants - but consultant knowledge goes off without constant use.