In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
Pete C wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Don't be stupid.
It wasn't Thatcher that turned a pay dispute
into a political fight.
It was the hag herself. Her government got rid of the coal industry.
With a lot of help from Scargill; during the strike a lot of pits got
flooded and so had to close anyway.

Check who paid for the propaganda that you read.

Jesus. Do you *ever* contribute anything useful and relevant?
References to such would be appreciated.

It wasn't my quote. I know the facts are wrong which is why I asked Pete to
check his sources. At a guess we paid for it through illegal government
payments to a Tory Party disownable propaganda organisation.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:04:09 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:


"Matt" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:03:31 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Incidentally the clean coal research was mainly to allow us to burn cheap
imported coal and not the stuff that is still in the ground.

Not sure where that idea came from, the whole basis of the program was
to enable the use of high sulphur coal commonly found IN the UK! They
sited the large scale test facility where it was for precisely that
reason!


Was this the fluid bed combustion system which I vaguely recall reading
something about at one time?

Yes, now sadly siezed by the Yanks as "invented there"


--

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:04:07 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:

Being relatively local to the Selby coalfield and having watched all the
billboards in the area proclaiming "British Coal - one hundred years of
energy!" or similar wording I was amazed to see the mines on this coalfield
shutdown.
Hopefully McGregors ideas of leaving it in the ground until conditions were
right mean that we have a source of UKenergy after others are depleted

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again, long term disruption of the gas import routes might wake
someone up to a the benefits of a diverse energy policy not reliant on
tinpot overseas regimes. I can't ever see the playstation generation
square eyed zombies going underground though. More likely we will end
up something a bit more high tech with controlled underground
burning/gasification.


--

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:04:08 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:

When it was in existence the CEGB used to produce a year book with a great
deal of valuable analysis figures for the UK generation and grid capacity.

Is there a similar publication presently available as a central information
source?

That would probably be the Electricity Association (EA) Yearbooks,
although the CEGB did have a great input into them. I'm not aware of
any public source of this information other than the highly fragmented
and filtered stuff that comes out of Ofgem or National Grid.


--

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:21:39 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Why is there never any discussion of pebble bed reactors, currently
under development in many parts of the world, notably China?

Damn good question.

However when Blair buys our new nukes (whether we want them or not)
they're almost certain to be obsolete PWRs from his American friends.

We should have developed pebble bed reactors years ago.

The Germans should have continued developing them, after Julich.

_Europe_ should see their collaborative development as one of its major
communal priorities.

On 26 Nov 2005 12:49:31 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Err, no. The concept is totally flawed. All it does is move the pollution
about. They're certainly no more energy efficient than a small diesel of
similar performance.

The overall efficiency is improved too, for short journeys in typical
dense urban traffic. I'm not claiming that pure batteries are
particularly useful (given our current geenration technologies) or that
they're a solution for long-haul motorway driving.

In article ,
dennis@home writes

Don't be stupid.

Being stupid is Drivel's raison d'être.

In article , Matt
writes

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

Pete C wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Don't be stupid.
It wasn't Thatcher that turned a pay dispute
into a political fight.

It was the hag herself. Her government got rid of the coal industry.

With a lot of help from Scargill; during the strike a lot of pits got
flooded and so had to close anyway.


Check who paid for the propaganda that you read.


Jesus. Do you *ever* contribute anything useful and relevant?
References to such would be appreciated.


It wasn't my quote.

That's obvious if you look at the little "" characters on the LHS.


I know the facts are wrong which is why I asked Pete to
check his sources. At a guess we paid for it through illegal government
payments to a Tory Party disownable propaganda organisation.

Exactly. Do you *ever* contribute anything useful and relevant?

FU set.

Andy Dingley wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Why is there never any discussion of pebble bed reactors, currently
under development in many parts of the world, notably China?

Damn good question.

However when Blair buys our new nukes (whether we want them or not)
they're almost certain to be obsolete PWRs from his American friends.

We should have developed pebble bed reactors years ago.

The Germans should have continued developing them, after Julich.

_Europe_ should see their collaborative development as one of its major
communal priorities.

Unfortunately I think you might be right about Blair, although
he'd probably be better off approaching the Chinks or South
Africans (the Yanks are researching, too).

Continue in alt.energy.nuclear?

The message
from Mike Tomlinson contains these words:

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Mike Tomlinson contains these words:

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

--
Roger Chapman

Did you see the 'Mat' cartoon on yesterday's Telegraph?
It depicted a couple standing in the garden of their
isolated detached house with the wife(?) saying;-
'I'm really glad you opposed that 'Wind Farm' proposal,
it'd have spoilt the view" - But, the house is overshadowed
by a n-ginormous and adjacent Nuclear Power Station.

--

Brian

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
In article ,
dennis@home writes

Don't be stupid.

Being stupid is Drivel's raison d'être.

Mr My Arse, my arse!!

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Tomlinson contains these words:

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

Otto Frisch got there first with his short story - well worth reading:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susa...f/ottrfrsc.htm

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Roger wrote:
I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output.

Perhaps. But I'd say it wasn't anywhere near top of the agenda. Gas *was*
just so much cheaper.

Coal is not going to make a come-back until the better options are
exhausted.

Yup. Of course if gas prices continue to rise this might be sooner rather
than later...

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:32:24 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Mike Tomlinson contains these words:

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

The dash for gas was purely due to a very localised short term gas
price advantage over other fuel sources. The CO2 released was of
absolutely no concern to any power producer and would have
realistically formed no part in a decision to invest as there were no
economic advantages in doing so (any incentives to go down this route
have only emerged around 3 years ago) The UK's earliest combined cycle
gas fired station commenced generation some 10 years earlier in late
1992.

Yes, in most cases they are much more efficient than 60's and 70's
generation coal and oil fired stations leading to a lower release of
CO2, but gas is a clean fuel that can be burnt far more efficiently in
homes, commercial properties and by industry to directly provide heat
(increasing effective utilisation of that resource by around 50%)

Using it for electricity generation, particularly when it was
abundantly clear that the rate of consumption greatly exceeded the
rate of getting new sources into production was always going to be
very short sighted, but with no one keeping overall control, as long
as the revenues from the taxes associated with abstraction were
flowing no one really cared in government what the hell was going on,
I think the words commonly used by the clueless are "The market will
decide" Unfortunately that, combined with the short term export
market that made some people very rich is now coming back to bite us
in a big way.

Calling gas "a better option" is always going to be an extremely
foolish statement as far as electricity generation is concerned
(unless of course you live in somewhere like Siberia, Algeria or
Libya)



--

The message
from Matt contains these words:

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

The dash for gas was purely due to a very localised short term gas
price advantage over other fuel sources. The CO2 released was of
absolutely no concern to any power producer and would have
realistically formed no part in a decision to invest as there were no
economic advantages in doing so (any incentives to go down this route
have only emerged around 3 years ago) The UK's earliest combined cycle
gas fired station commenced generation some 10 years earlier in late
1992.

But the political imperatives to reduce CO2 have been around for that long.

Yes, in most cases they are much more efficient than 60's and 70's
generation coal and oil fired stations leading to a lower release of
CO2, but gas is a clean fuel that can be burnt far more efficiently in
homes, commercial properties and by industry to directly provide heat
(increasing effective utilisation of that resource by around 50%)

Efficiency is not the main issue.

Using it for electricity generation, particularly when it was
abundantly clear that the rate of consumption greatly exceeded the
rate of getting new sources into production was always going to be
very short sighted, but with no one keeping overall control, as long
as the revenues from the taxes associated with abstraction were
flowing no one really cared in government what the hell was going on,
I think the words commonly used by the clueless are "The market will
decide" Unfortunately that, combined with the short term export
market that made some people very rich is now coming back to bite us
in a big way.

I am in almost total agreement on that. But that sort of
shortsightedness is not the sole preserve of the thatcherites.

Calling gas "a better option" is always going to be an extremely
foolish statement as far as electricity generation is concerned
(unless of course you live in somewhere like Siberia, Algeria or
Libya)

I think you have missed the point. Gas is not a better option because it
is easier to burn efficiently. It is a better option because burning it
produced less CO2 than coal for the same energy output. AIUI natural gas
is basically methane - CH4 while coal is basically carbon -C alone.

I believe similar considerations apply to the comparison between petrol
and diesel. Diesel will produce 25% more CO2 than the same volume of
petrol. (Or is it that petrol will produce 25% less?)

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
I think you have missed the point. Gas is not a better option

You've got plenty of it, why not blow it off somewhere more relevant.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Mike Tomlinson contains these words:

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

I don't think we should burn coal at all.
It produces CO2 which we don't want.
It can be used to make plastics, etc. which would be a much better use once
oil has gone.

Nuclear for power until we can drill a deep enough bore hole to tap the
cores heat.

The message
from Chris Bacon contains these words:

Roger wrote:
I think you have missed the point. Gas is not a better option

You've got plenty of it, why not blow it off somewhere more relevant.

Thart's rich coming from empty windbag like you.

In the 200 odd postings in this thread still on my computer you are in
double figures while I have made just 2 contributions and the 2nd only
to clear up a misunderstanding on the first. Over on that other OT
thread on rats the situation is much the same.

--
Roger Chapman

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. ..

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Mike Tomlinson contains these words:

Maybe the benefits of coal being mined in the country will be seen
again,

I think it will, it's a matter of economics. Imported gas and coal
will
rise in price to the point that it becomes economic to re-open our
coalfields, even if the power stations have to have emission scrubbers
installed.

Don't forget that one of the reasons for the decline in coal generation
and the 'dash for gas' is the lesser quantity of CO2 produced for the
same energy output. Coal is not going to make a come-back until the
better options are exhausted.

I don't think we should burn coal at all.
It produces CO2 which we don't want.
It can be used to make plastics, etc. which would be a much better use
once
oil has gone.

Nuclear for power until we can drill a deep enough bore hole to tap the
cores heat.

Some experts say the core of the earth is cold. The lava is from surface
plates moving. well below that it is very cold. What they say, not me.