Guess I'd better get an allotment so I can grow strawberries, chillis and bio-deisel.
I certainly agree with the point that we are not looking after the world properly for future generations.
|
I'm sure when I worked for the Coal Board in the 70s we used to say that oil would run out in the 90s whereas coal had an indefinite future.
There were about 230 mines then, down from (I think) 900+ in the late 60s. I don't think there are 50 mines left today, and even the Selby complex which was going to take us well into the 21st century is on its last legs (or has gone).
I suppose coal was superseded, rather than exhausted. A more economic product became readily available at the right price. Which is what could happen to petrol.
(One other fact I remember which always used to amaze me was that it was cheaper to import coal from Australia than mine our own. They had a lot of opencast "quarries" where they just scooped it up, whereas we had very well paid men travelling 2 hours each way to dig it out from under the North Sea)
|
|
I believe that a lot of European countries subsidise coal extraction. Anyway, we have large untapped reserves waiting for future use once we've burnt all that foreign coal, oil and gas.
|
So what if the oil runs out eventually. There are many more means of propulsion available, just that industry has not yet put major investments into developing them because there simply has been no need.
As for coal, thank god that stuff became virtually obsolete. Remember the smogs of old that killed thousands every winter, the number of men whose lives were ruined from years of mining it?
And Arfur Scargill, of course.
|
|
|
Sadly the mines were closed down with no thought at all of being reopened in the future. Many will have collapsed and/or been flooded making any attempts at reopening very dangerous and hugely expensive.
I guess North Sea oil and gas helped prop up the failing British economy, but wouldn't it have been nice if they'd turned the taps off while coal was flowing cheaply and we could buy cheap foreign oil and then when it got in short supply and expensive, open the taps.
|
|
|
|
I suppose coal was superseded, rather than exhausted. A more >> economic product became readily available at the right price.
No it was totally politically motivated, engineered to look as if it was market forces, allegedly. The downfall of the coal industry was deliberately engineered by Thatcher to a) pay back the miners for bringing down the Heath Govt, b) break the unions generally. Fact
(One other fact I remember which always used to amaze me was that it was cheaper to import coal from Australia than mine our own. They had a lot of opencast "quarries" where they just scooped it up, whereas we had very well paid men travelling 2 hours each way to dig it out from under the North Sea)
Cost of opencast Oz brown coal AUD 1.5 / tonne !!!!!! ie <£1 at the "pithead."
As for oil running out, for a long time the Production to Reserves ratio has remained constant. By that I mean that as fast as oil has been consumed more reserves have been discovered or technology developed to make existing known reserves economically recoverable. Now we have been in the position for a few years where that ratio is decreasing quite markedly, ie the day the oil runs out is getting closer.
The next big fuel source for vehicles will be, IMO, gas based. Not LPG but synthetic fuel made from methane, probably mainly compression ignition (diesel) engines. This is still fossil based BTW.
Hydrogen as a vehicle fuel will never take off until 2040. I'll have handed in my driving licence by then, perhaps already blatting down that big special stage in the sky. Flat in Fifth naturally!
Don't vote it only encourages them
|
|
No, FinF, that is not Fact. It is your opinion, or what you prefer to believe. I admit it is a possible scenario, but to label your statement Fact in the hope that your readers will believe you is arrogant.
|
|
The down fall of the coal industry was in fact partly engineered by the general public. With the exception of those who still have coal fires rather than having installed central heating, that is.
|
|
|
Andrew T, with respect you don't know the source of my information.
---------------
Don't vote it only encourages them.
|
"..you don't know the source"
Only a single source, then..? :-)
|
Only a single source, then..? :-)
Nice one JBJ! One does appreciate a good topical leg pull.
Answer: No but with a tinge of Yes. Make of that what you will.
---------------
Don't vote it only encourages them.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really wishing to start a debate on the UK coal industry (not least because it doesn't belong here)...the unions demanded (and got) higher wages and better conditions but wouldn't ever concede to different working practices which would have made UK coal production more economically viable. They knew they had the country in the palm of their hand. So alternative means HAD to be found to reduce their power. (Remember the 4 day week? Power cuts by rota?).
Coal was heavily subsidised by the UK govt as well as other European govts.
Inefficiencies included the four hour return journey to the coal face. Considerable offers were made for mineworkers to extend the shift to 10 hours, thus getting six productive hours instead of four. These were all rejected.
The unions brought it upon themselves, I'm afraid. Not totally dissimilar to the recent firemen's actions.
|
In fact many of our pits were economic in a free market sense but the subsidy they received was nowhere near as high as competing coal-producing countries. Cheap Polish coal was cheap only until our pits closed. After that we bought dirtier coal for more money. Aren't we clever? I'm with FiF on this one: I remember the huge and steaming stockpiles at powerstations that started to accumulate two or three years before the strike. Somebody had a plan alright.
But as for oil, well the North Sea produced/produces expensive high quality oil better suited to plastics than fuel--for that we need the Middle East. Oil generally will run out, but not any time soon. It's just a matter of what we want for the future. I'd prefer to put biodiesel in my car but for all kinds of reasons--for one, whatever they say, Western governments would hate to see Africa take off growing oil crops--I don't think it will happen. I would be very anxious about fuel cells as I have no intention of going off with a loud squeaky pop; hydrogen leak sensing technology is currently very expensive and temperamental.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - at the time the economics made coal no longer viable, so why weren\'t the very best pits put on \'hold\' rather than closed irrevocably ?
To keep this thread on a motoring footing - I don\'t know about the chemistry but I do know that many many vitally products (plastics, pharmaceuticals etc., etc.) are derived from oil and whereas there is no easy alternative for producing these (I believe) there are alternatives for petrol etc. about which very little seems to be being done. So why are we continuing to waste vast amounts of oil in our cars when we should be reserving its use for more important things and running our cars on alternatives, especially when we tend to make so many relatively unimportant journeys by car.
Again, I don\'t know about the chemistry but I heard an \'expert\' on the radio a few weeks ago talking about coal and how it was possible to produce clean coal which avoided all the pollution issues which did indeed arise in the 20th C.
|
"..there is no easy alternative for producing these"
At the moment, no, but these things are always driven by supply and demand, and when the oil looks like drying up (and/or becomes much more expensive) then ways will be found. Look at the progress that was made during WWII - interesting to speculate how far behind we would be now without that incentive!
I agree that it's a shame about the coal, though. Politicians are never too good at long-term planning - 5 years maximum usually...
|
Over the years there have been stories about genius inventors who have produce engines that run on water etc..
It has usually been claimed that the successful ones have been bought out by oil companies, anxious to protect their interests, with strict gagging clauses as part of the deal.
If/when oil supplies start to dwindle, will any of these emerge?
|
Over the years there have been stories about genius inventors who have produce engines that run on water etc.. It has usually been claimed that the successful ones have been bought out by oil companies, anxious to protect their interests...
When I read this, I initially wrote-it-off as conspiracy theory nonsense.
Then I remembered that the American car industry once purchased the subway system in a large city (Detroit?) and promptly closed it to encourage vehicle use....
|
|
|
Manufacturers also sit on many patents and ideas.
Did you notice when the new car tax regs appeared how suddenly a load of FSI (Audi/Ford/GM), turbo (Rover) and supercharged (Mercedes) et al appeared. All much lower fuel consumption and subsequently emissions? Plenty more where they came from.
There is no incentive whatsoever to implement these changes for an auto company unless there is a legal requirement or significant market pressure to do so.
|
There is no incentive whatsoever to implement these changes for an auto company unless there is a legal requirement or significant market pressure to do so.
totally agree Dan. The problem is that politicians / legislators are the least qualified to direct such matters in a sensible direction.
---------------
Don't vote it only encourages them.
|
|
|
OK, so there are alternative fuel sources for cars. Ships can be nuclear or coal powered. But what about aircraft?
I was having this conversation just a few weeks ago with a friend. If you look at where we are at the moment with technology, will long distance travel be necessary in the future, save for goods transport and leisure.
With the ever expanding growth of internet technologies, before long it wont be necessary for office workers to commute, as they will be able to telework. No need to build more roads, as people won't be commuting.
People can then move away from the cities, thus stabilising house prices, further reducing congestion etc. We should also see a re-emergence of the corner shop, unless of course we are all shopping online. Then again, retailers could have local 'colletion points', a bit like a corner shop, to further save on delivery costs to the door.
Someone else metioned in this thread that polmers and medicines are derived from oil and questioned alternatives. The earth is abundant in natural resources, and scientists will always come up with new ways synthesis materials.
We came up with more along this kind of line, but I don't have the time, nor I suspect will you have the inclination to read it.
I am a great believer in evolution, and I see the past 100 years technological development as a massive evolutionary step, and I think that the next 100 will be even more so. It's the way that mankind is meant to go.
|
"It's the way that mankind is meant to go."
Wiped out by our own progress, you mean? Very probably...
(Further reading: After Man, by Dougal Dixon)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
