Jump to content

Fracking ?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh silly me, I forgot that everything that ever goes wrong is Maggie's fault, although the truth is that Scargill was responsible for more mine closures than anyone. Even his own union came to realise this eventually and disowned the nutter.

 

So let me get this straight, the reason why the UK has failed to invest in new power stations in the last 25 years is down to the PM who left office 25 years ago. That makes perfect sense. The reason why the UK has given all it's decision making powers to the EU over the last 25 years is down to the PM who left office 25 years ago. That makes perfect sense. The reason why the governments of the last 25 years have been powerless to make any decision that would make the UK more self sufficient is down to the PM who left office 25 years ago. That makes perfect sense.

 

I bow to your superior intellect. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure it has anything to do with Brussels, If our politicians had the guts to go ahead with coal fired power stations it could do, but the kick back after Maggie closed most of them would be an embarrassment too far.

 

Germany have opened 2 new coal fired stations in 2012 and another 6 are on the way and none of these coal stations will be built with Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS). So it can be done with or without an EU directive.

 

Do they take prevailing winds into account when allowing coal fired power stations. For instance in Britain blowing from the west towards Europe ,but the carbon coming from any stations over here would be a drop in the ocean compared to the carbon from internal combustion engines which is spewed out at street level.Besides we no longer have factories spewing coal produced carbon any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh silly me, I forgot that everything that ever goes wrong is Maggie's fault, although the truth is that Scargill was responsible for more mine closures than anyone. Even his own union came to realise this eventually and disowned the nutter.

 

So let me get this straight, the reason why the UK has failed to invest in new power stations in the last 25 years is down to the PM who left office 25 years ago. That makes perfect sense. The reason why the UK has given all it's decision making powers to the EU over the last 25 years is down to the PM who left office 25 years ago. That makes perfect sense. The reason why the governments of the last 25 years have been powerless to make any decision that would make the UK more self sufficient is down to the PM who left office 25 years ago. That makes perfect sense.

 

I bow to your superior intellect. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

:unsure:  :unsure: You seem to have shot of at a tangent asp. Is this a new thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Wolfie, I thought you posted this. Was I imagining things?

 

Not sure it has anything to do with Brussels, If our politicians had the guts to go ahead with coal fired power stations it could do, but the kick back after Maggie closed most of them would be an embarrassment too far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you were obviously imagining that I was blaming Maggie, but let's agree to differ over who closed the pits (although you seem to think that it was nothing to do with Maggie). The facts are that British coal mines can no longer be used (for whatever reason).

 

You blame the EU (quote We won't get anywhere as long as we have the millstone of the EU around our neck unquote).but the last time I looked Germany were part of the EU. It hasn't stopped Germany from building coal fired power stations so why should it stop Britain? The answer can only be that British politicians are afraid, of either Brussels or the electorate. In the case of the electorate there is no doubt that if Britain did start to build coal fired power stations then some would say that 'whoever decided to shut the pits' (let's agree to differ) were wrong. That, would be an embarrassment to many.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that Maggie took a part in the closure of coal mines, but would take issue with any assertion that she was the sole or even main cause. The reasons why the British coal industry has declined since its heydeys in the 50s are many, but mainly economical. My argument is that, if we do start to build coal fired power stations in defiance of the EU directives, it will still be cheaper to import coal than to mine our own. There is certainly an abundance of coal under our feet and I'm sure that one day it will become economical one day to dig it up, but until then we are where we are. The question of why our politicians are so terrified of the EU is one of life's mysteries I'm afraid, and a good reason why we should extract ourselves ASAP from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original thread: fracking could provide the time to allow a comprehensive policy decision on energy self sufficiency to be made - even for our indecisive politicians. Failiure to make a decision will mean that we will be suffering energy cuts and rising bills in the future. The idea that renewables alone (especially wind farms) can fit the bill, is total fantasy. We need to invest in all forms of energy production, to ensure self sufficiency in the future and to escape reliance on Russian Gas, Polish coal or Arab oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government policy would seem to be towards reducing demand by increasing the price rather than increasing capacity. In fact the long term aim would appear to be a reduction in capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drax used to be owned by a big generation company Asp, why do you think they sold it, yes your right it was because it had got to old and the maintenance was getting expensive, why do you think nobody was interested in buying it and it went to a management buy out, it's a sight I work on. It should have shut years ago, but due to lack of investment by government and the private sector it has been run into the ground and off loaded. I suggest you look at the history of Drax before using it as an example. It is our biggest power station, it cannot be shut down as it produces 7% of the UK's energy. But is it really cost efficient when compared to a modern power station?, My company rely on it being old as we get lots of work keeping it running. Part of it might survive in the long run, the bit they have the biomass on, but most of it will go, and even the bit with the biomass probably won't last 10 years. Might be wrong but I think the stage 2 of Drax came on line in the mid 80s, believe it or not it is one of the most most modern coal fired stations in the UK, part one is still running as well and that is mid 70s. It getting old Asp, and the maintenance costs are getting higher. If it was not for the grants it would be an ex power station. But it's a good earner for my company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Failing, no just old and inefficient and as I said lots of those profits go to keep it going, so much o that the big companies wanted nothing to do with it, that in its self Asp, tells you all you need to know. They did not see it as a good investment. I would have thought the same thing happens to ships, they become old and inefficient and not cost effective to run and are sold off, and eventually scrapped. Everything has a life cycle, The Uk's coal fired power stations have reached theirs, and most are now well past. The fact that they are still going is testament to the lack of investment by the power companies in building new. Sadly we have been let down when it comes to power, by the government and the privatised power companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Drax management disagree with your assessment, describing the power station as the cleanest and most efficient in the UK:

 

http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/

 

Just what ships have to do with this I don't know, comparing apples with hyacinths really. Ships have to deal with more testing environments than power stations. But far be it from me to try to tell you anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are the largest, The second stage is one of the cleanest, as it is the last coal fired power station to be built as I said in the 1980s, and it has just had lots of government money spent on it, to make it low emission, stage one was built in the 70s. but the fact remains its getting old and more and more money is spent just keeping it going every year.

 

So ships do not have an operating life cycle, and they don't get old and where out and become uneconomical to run like power stations and other things?

 

As you have just been on the company web site and posted the link, what were you expecting to see, A coal is dead don't  invest in us sign, or we are a management buy out as non of the big generation companies  wanted to buy us sign. If I went on the BMW car web site, I would expect to see lots of things telling me how good BMW were, not saying how bad or uncertain the future was for them. Its the same with Drax Power.

 

As Obs has just pointed out Germany invest in new, we rehash old as its cheaper in the short term, And all UK governments cannot seem to take a longer term view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money spent, you could call that investment, the Germans invest in power, We do not in the UK, we try and get someone else to invest instead, which ends up nobody doing anything, and then we get a crisis because we are running out of power stations because nobody is building any. All governments that we have had in the last 30 years have failed on power generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in my post did I suggest that ships never wear (not where) out? A life span of 20 to 25 years is normal, being dictated usually by the charterers who of course want to use the newest tonnage on the market. But you cannot compare a ship to a power station, or a power station to a fairground for that matter. different things altogether.

 

Anyway as I said I wouldn't presume to try and tell you anything because a) you believe you know everything and B) you never listen to anything anybody else says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a ship has the same expected life span as a power station, well I never, I didn't know that, seems you learn something every day :wink:

 

 

So we can now agree that, like ships, Power Stations have a life span, they might last past that point ( most of are coal fired ones are) they reach that point when the maintenance costs and down time start to have an impact on the bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think we can all agree that everything has a given life span; and it's now imperitive that we build a new generation of power stations, to ensure energy self sufficiency into the future. The problem is, the politicians can't make a decision on an action plan, with progress being clouded by the green lobby. Last I heard, the Gov were intent on a multi-type approach (so all eggs wouldn't be in one basket; but all we seem to have got on the ground (and sea bed) are wind turbines; which contribute very little in terms of our total energy needs. We need major infrastructure investments to stimulate the economy and provide jobs; at the same time we need to gain added value from what we build. In the case of Hydro, we get water catchment and distribution; in the case of Estuary barriers (tidal power), we get flood control and road routes; in the case of coal, we get to use something we've got loads of, beneath our feet, etc. Meanwhile, while (or if), the politicians can get their act together, we've now got a stop gap in fracking, to allow time to build the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDF are holding back on nuclear as their is a very large upfront cost in the building of them, they are talking to the government about a minimum price for the electricity they produce, so as they get a return on the investment they put in. the talks are going slowly. What the Germans are doing will not work in the UK as the German government have always supported their coal mining and energy concerns, by that I mean coal is very heavily subsidised by the government. It keeps lots of tax payers in work, pity are governments don't look at it the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...