SIGN UP

Climate Change Fanatics Destroying The Steel Industry

Avatar Image
dave50 | 08:27 Thu 22nd Oct 2015 | News
28 Answers
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/613793/Tata-steel-China-David-Cameron-green
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.

Answers

1 to 20 of 28rss feed

1 2 Next Last

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.
What a lot of total tosh.
Climate change is a global issue so unlikely to cause problems just for a few country's steel industries. And the difficulties with the global steel market is also worldwide by definition. The main preventable issue with the UK steel industry was the idiocy of selling it off to a foreign interest. That way there is no incentive to keep the UK branch running when considering cutting back. But the nation never learns. Maybe no one cares.
TheChair/// What a lot of total tosh.///

Ain't.




When I see pictures of the Steel works in China churning out loads of smoke with no restriction and no worries because of the concerns of Eco freaks, then due to strict lower pollution levels, we cannot play on a level playing field. I knew Margham British Steel works well in Port Talbot. It was churning out tons of quality steel in the rolling mills but there was tons of smoke.Even when the Boss converter was installed there. No smoke. No steel especially with punitive energy charges.
The Chinese people are choking to death on polluted air with no health and safety in order to produce more steel than they require to dump it cheaply on the world market and put our men out of work, while we put out the red carpets for their leader.

You couldn't make it up could you?
Old Geezer, what would be different if it hadn't been sold off?
There would not have been other parts of the investment running elsewhere allowing sacrifice of the whole of the UK industry. When a country has control of it's industry it has an incentive to invest for the future and ensure it's necessary industry doesn't fail, in preference to some other elsewhere. And if scaling down the company is needed then the cuts can be much smaller. As it is there is no loyalty to the UK, its economy, nor its workforce. The foreign investor makes a financial decision that purely benefits itself, and the affected country can 'go hang', and sort it's own economy (the welfare costs) out.
Green taxes contribute slightly to SSI's running costs but were not responsible for ruining the industry.

Unfortunately for Teeside, a combination of several factors has made the operation unviable.
- Poor demand for the product. World steel production is still 25% less than pre financial crash levels.
- A strong pound makes our steel exports more expensive.
- Over supply has driven prices down.

Green taxes haven't made any difference at all. Manufacturing costs are higher than the sale price. Even if there was no green tax, the plant would not be viable.
I posted this 2 days ago on a different thread, I have reposted it here for those who did not read it first time around.//This article exposes the shameful policies that have destroyed our steel industry.//

//This stems in large part from one of the last decisions made by Tony Blair as prime minister, when in 2007 he signed up this country to obtaining 15 per cent of all its energy from ‘renewable sources’ — wind and solar — by 2020.

According to the then chief scientific adviser to the government, Sir David King, Blair was supposed to limit our pledge to ‘electricity’, not energy as a whole, but there were ‘very tired people in the meeting … people just took their eye of the ball’. What a shameful admission.

The result is not just that household bills must be at least 15 per cent supplied by expensive and inefficient wind and solar power (what do we do when it isn’t sunny or blowing a gale?), so must high-intensity users of energy such as steel producers.//


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3278597/



12:35 Tue 20th Oct 2015
// household bills must be at least 15 per cent supplied by expensive and inefficient [renewables], so must high-intensity users of energy such as steel producers. //

Utter rubbish. The Redcar Plant gets 100% of its energy from its on site coal powered generating station. Any excess power os put into the national grid. The power plant will continue to operate and will not be mothballed.

Electricity in the national grid comes from a varity of sources. So everyone uses some electricity from renewables, except large enetgy users who generate their own.
Where does the coal come from Gromit? Not the NE of England that's for sure.
The coal comes from Australia where it is produced, including transport, for 25% of what it used to cost for UK mined coal.
UK electricity production last quarter:

Gas - 30%
Renewables - 25%
Nuclear - 21.5%
Coal - 20.5%.
//The coal comes from Australia where it is produced, including transport, for 25% of what it used to cost for UK mined coal. //

....not to mention the environmental damage the australians don't seem to care about creating in the quest for this cheap energy.....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/01/-sp-great-barrier-reef-and-coal-mine-could-kill-it
Transporting the coal from Australia also adds to emissions. 1 ship emits the equivalent gases as 50 million cars.
Most of the UK steam coal (which is used to produce electricity) comes from Russia.
Two thirds of generating coal is imported (55% of imports come from Russia). Not great for our national energy security.
I have just been speaking to an ex work colleague, who has a son who has lived in Germany for many years, She tells me that in Saarsbruken there is the Luisenthal deep coal mine and the coal powered Volkingen steel works that run non stop. No green levies there then.
Togo, FYI

// An ecotax has been enacted in Germany by means of three laws in 1998, 1999 and 2002. The first introduced a tax on electricity and petroleum, at variable rates based on environmental considerations; renewable sources of electricity were not taxed. The second adjusted the taxes to favor efficient conventional power plants. The third increased the tax on petroleum. //
http://i57.tinypic.com/281hb7l.jpg //The Redcar Plant gets 100% of its energy from its on site coal powered generating station.//
I always understood that the Redcar steel making plant generated some electricity by burning the gases emitted as part of the steel making process. Not enough of course to be self sufficient, therefore having to 'buy' electricity, as it happens , from the nearby coal fired power station. This energy is subject to the green levies and restrictions posed on the plant one of which is the coast of reducing the carbon footprint of the plant. The link above should, I hope, give a little graphic of the comparative costs the UK is subject to.

1 to 20 of 28rss feed

1 2 Next Last

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.