wolfie Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Britain is facing an energy crisis of untold proportions. We burn 60 million tonnes of coal a year but produce only 16 million tonnes ourselves. We have over 300 years worth of coal that we can't get at because Maggie shut the mines. If Scargill is a prat what does that make Maggie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 If Scargill is a prat what does that make Maggie Well everyone knows my feelings about her Should be interesting to see what her long time supporters have to say, It does seem though that time hase proved Arther right and Maggie dead wrong though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 With hindsight, it's now possible to cite Maggie as the author of our Nation's current economic and social decline. The Tories had never forgiven the NUM for the embarrasing defeat of the Heath Government (3 day week etc); and she clearly had an agenda to de-man our industrial base, end the perceived power of Trade Unions, and shift our economic reliance from industrial production (actually making things) to a reliance on the financial and service sectors, and cheap foreign imports. Yes, there was an industrial relations malaise at the time, but unfortunately, the baby was thrown out with the bath water and our industrial base decimated. A change of Government to "new" Labour, merely continued the same dogna with a velvet glove, with Bliar and Brown sucking up to the City in a surreal world of global casino banking - and then it all crashed. Now, we're in for further trauma, as the age of austerity kicks in - the eradication of wastefull Government spending is fine, but if surgical cuts develope into crude amputations, we could find ourselves even deeper in the proverbial. If it is possible for our "now" generation to actually think a couple of generations forward and plan and prepare for the challenges we're likely to face, we may have a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 So it was ok for those commie union leaders to hold the country to ransom? Because that is what red Robbo and Scargill were doing!!!. IF they hadn't been so GREEDY the proverbial wouldn't have happened. My only criticism of Maggie re. the unions, was that she went too far too fast and decimated them. It wasn't necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 "Greedy"? You've clearly no idea of greed, if you havn't observed the antics of the City of London - get it in proportion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 I agree with obs. Meanwhile, here's another disaster that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10922991 Thank heavens Mother Nature repairs itself so easily, eh? Oh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Got to say Obs is spot on on his last few posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 The number of noughts doesn't matter. It's the mind set. One government stopped the union greed, another government failed miserably to stop/prevent the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 I seem to remember back at the time one of the arguments used was that British coal produced more acid rain than imported coal. I know that?s history and that much of the effects were deemed to be vastly overstated but with the advances in de sulphurization techniques, surly British coal could soon be back on the menu. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 All resources essential to preserving our way of life need to be placed back on the menu - energy, food etc - as we need to strive for as much self sufficiciency as possible - Why? Cos this little planet is becoming over-populated and we've basically stripped it bare - so to survive as a Nation we need to be able not to rely on imports from others - EG: Gas from Russia or indeed wheat from Russia. btw Peter, greed has been and will be the main characteristic of the majority of humanity - it's the motivator of capitalism, so the noughts do matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Our soldiers have set up water power stations in Afghanistan. Rather than losing their lives for the benefit of American pharmaceutical companies profits wouldn't it be wiser to have them at home securing our future power supply needs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 I seem to remember back at the time one of the arguments used was that British coal produced more acid rain than imported coal. I know that?s history and that much of the effects were deemed to be vastly overstated but with the advances in de sulphurization techniques, surly British coal could soon be back on the menu. British coal cannot be back on th menu, we shut the mines when we should have moth balled them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 British coal cannot be back on th menu, we shut the mines when we should have moth balled them How so? Can we not just dig another pit further down the seam? No one is saying that one has to go down the same holes as before!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Yes you can, but you would need more pumps, as the water from the flooded mine would fill your new mine, it would add to the cost, If they were uneconomical then they are even more so now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 The cost back when they were closed wasuneconomical. Now however, as the costs rise, the cost of opening pits here again become more financially viable.... unless of course the clever Johnny foreigner who supplies the coal to us realises and keeps his prices really keen!! Also, why would water flood into a mine from the old shafts if there were a few thousand feet of rock between the two? It never happened before when the dug multiple shafts on the same sites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Sounds like logic Baz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=water+table Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=water+table yes..... water table...... why does that mean a mine would flood more now than it did in the 80's? Or are you going to blame Maggie for that too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted August 12, 2010 Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 Think of a flooded mine as a lake, also most rock is porous, and coal is very porous. Dig a hole it will fill with water, Dig a hole near a lake it will fill quicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.