Climate Change Fanatics Destroying The Steel Industry

Avatar Image
dave50 | 08:27 Thu 22nd Oct 2015 | News
28 Answers
Absolutely spot on. I said this as soon as the news of those terrible job losses were announced. They won't care though, probably think it's a price worth paying.


21 to 28 of 28rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Level playing field = 1 child per family, low wages & rice sustenance that even DHSS would baulk at
Whatever the ins and outs of this, industrial energy costs in France and Germany (both presumably subject to the same eco-fanaticism as here) are about one third of that in the UK.

"UK electricity production last quarter:

Gas - 30%
Renewables - 25%
Nuclear - 21.5%
Coal - 20.5%."

UK electricity production as I write (from

Gas: 31.4%
Coal: 24.7%
Nuclear: 22.5%
Wind: 13.3%
Woodchips: (aka "biomass): 3.5%
Other (inc. Hydro, Oil and Imported): 4.6%

Don’t know where your 25% “renewables” for the quarter comes from, Gromit. In fact the wind element is currently quite high at over 13% (4.74Gw). Looking back over the last year it rarely, if ever, exceeded 5Gw and was usually around the 2Gw to 3Gw (about 5% to 8% of total demand) mark at best – and very often considerably less than that. (I’m looking at a chart and cannot be bothered to download the dataset).

True, I haven't included the 1% or so from Hydro and I suppose you could include the woodchips (thermal efficiency about 10% that of coal by weight) being processed from felled trees and carted in bulk carrier ships from Canada to burn in Yorkshire among your “renewables”. I suppose the trees will grow again. However, I still can’t reach 25% on average however I try.

To suggest that green taxes have no effect on the steel industry's energy costs is simply laughable. The stupendous costs of producing the machinery to generate the inconsistent and unreliable 5% or so from wind is being paid by consumers. It does not suddenly appear on a balance sheet. It is quite clear that those costs, whilst not the sole contributor to the demise of the UK’s steel industry, certainly plays a big part.
New Judge,

My figures were for the 90 days 24/7 in the summer, not just a cirrent snapshot.
//My figures were for the 90 days 24/7 in the summer, not just a cirrent snapshot. //
Now.. was that an oversight or an attempt to justify an opinion, by the use of data, that is meaningless when the sun is not at its annual zenith. The link could have been provided with the original post, or did you consider it as being just an out of date snapshot. Do send us another snapshot, in say December.
Yes of course, Gromit, the burning of wood chips is also included in “renewables” – at best dubious and a somewhat preposterous contention IMHO. Also I note that household solar panel production is included in your summer figures. These contribute virtually nothing to Grid capacity (and will contribute even less in the winter) but their output is included by suppression of national demand. That’s fine except, of course, that their output is not available for industry (which is the issue under debate here).

It is wind farm construction that has gobbled up huge chunks of subsidy (paid by household and industrial users in the form of greatly increased electricity bills). Don’t rely on my snapshot (which in fact showed a greater than usual contribution made by wind). Look at the National Grid figures over a year and you will see that these installations rarely contribute 5% of the total supply and it is normally far less than that. Yet the cost to industry and households of that 5% is absolutely stupendous. Couple this with the guarantee made to the constructors of the new nuclear plants which will see payments of three times the current prices and it is easy to see why UK energy hungry industries are at such a disadvantage. And it’s “green” taxes – which provide these funds – that are principally to blame.
// was that an oversight or an attempt to justify an opinion, by the use of data, that is meaningless when the sun is not at its annual zenith. The link could have been provided with the original post, or did you consider it as being just an out of date snapshot.//

No attempt to mislead. I labelled the list as the last quarter which is the most recent quarter for which figures are available. I did not mean to imply that this was an annual figure. The point in posting the figures was to demonstrate that renewables were not negligable.
No they are not negligible. But the cost and reliability of the electricity generated from renewables is more pertinent for the purposes of this question.

Firstly, I refuse to accept “biomass” as a renewable source. To fell huge quantities of mature trees and suggest that their presence is renewable on the basis that new saplings are being planted in their stead is simply ridiculous. Yes I know the new plants will process CO2 as they are growing. But those having been felled would also have done so. And this is without considering the huge cost (in both £££s and emissions) of their processing and transport.

I’ve now downloaded the Gridwatch data for the last twelve months. Unfortunately so insignificant is the “biomass” contribution that it is not itemised separately in the dataset, but included with “other”. All I can say is that as I write it is contributing around 1.2Gw (around 3% of total supply). So, for all the tree felling, processing and shipping, 3% of the nation’s electricity is provided. Other “renewable” sources such as Hydro are similarly insignificant.

However, I’ve also looked at the contribution made by wind (which is available separately). The data shows demand and supply at 10 minute intervals (so there’s a lot of data). Over a third of those readings showed windpower’s contribution at less than 5%. Well over two thirds of the readings showed that less than 10% was being provided. Coupled with this is the fact that this supply is ungovernable and unpredictable. Now I would not dismiss 5% to 10% of the nation’s supply as insignificant. Indeed it can make the difference between the lights staying on or not. But I fail to see, from the figures I have, how more than 25% of supply comes from renewables. The figures you have quoted must be viewed with some suspicion and need some analysis before being accepted at face value.

But once again, it is the cost of this piddling amount which is the issue. It costs at least three times as much to buy a unit of (unreliable) electricity from wind as it does from coal. It is the economics of the madhouse and it is costing this country, literally, very dearly indeed as this question clearly demonstrates.
-- answer removed --

21 to 28 of 28rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.