British Gas: profits set to rise again this year So how’s that privatisation thing working out for you now? You know: the one where they sold companies we already owned back to us on the basis that it would create a “stakeholder economy” and that competition was going to keep prices low. “Competition”. That’s not really the word. It has actually had the opposite effect. Once one energy company puts up its prices, all the others follow suit. A better word would be “cartel”. It’s not as if these companies are starved for profit either. British Gas increased its margins by 24% to £742 million last year. Other companies showed a similar rise. Meanwhile the regulator accused them of profiteering, suggesting that they had increased their profits for duel-fuel customers by an astounding 733% between June and October 2011 through a slew of complex price hikes. It then went on to call for simpler tariffs and clearer bills, a suggestion that was later repeated by David Cameron. Not that it has made any difference.
According to Which, the consumer magazine, profits are set to rise even more this winter, from around £40 per customer to £65 over the last three months of 2012. That’s profit not price. It’s what they are intending to take directly from our pockets, to pay their shareholders, over and above costs. A few weeks ago David Cameron promised to force the energy companies to offer customers their lowest tariffs. The following day the energy secretary contradicted him. It’s not that energy companies will be forced to give their lowest tariffs, he said, it’s that the government will legislate to “help” customers get the best deal. It makes you wonder what the point of democracy is, doesn’t it, when the government seemingly has no control over energy prices in the country it purports to rule?
British Gas was privatised in 1986 amidst great public fanfare. It is now owned by Centrica which has interests in Norway, the Netherlands, North America and Nigeria. How many of you who bought shares back then are still doing OK from the sale? Do your dividends cover your increased energy costs? If you see Sid, tell him he was conned.
Morality of Profiteering from Thirst, Warmth and Shelter
By Pam
WHAT DO WE NEED?
All people need shelter, food, warmth and water.
Most would want also comfort and love – friendship and peace, to have a mate, love perhaps and a family. Add to that a job, or a purpose in life in which to build self worth and life is in balance.
If all of that were shared around equally, most of us would live happily.
But it’s not, is it? So many don’t have access to basic human needs or rights. There is a nasty taste left behind by making massive profits from water and energy. How does the world discern the haves and the have-nots, the greedy and the needy or the parasites and their hosts? Profiteering from the basics which are denied to others is immoral – whatever your philosophy.
To know that there are people hungry, without clean water – cold and in poverty quite avoidably and yet, to continue to pursue actions which target financial profits which have a direct effect on the welfare of others seems beyond morality – whatever that means to you.
The whole point of a country having a government at all is to protect the safety, the security and the health of its citizens. During the last thirty years there has been a fundamental change from governments protecting citizens and ensuring they are provided with life’s essentials, to regarding those citizens as a source of profit and like a parasite which eats away at its host and deprives it of sustenance, so too the profiteers take all they can and leave decay behind.
Private water companies supply England and Wales with water. Some also supply both water and sewage services. In Northern Ireland and Scotland state owned companies act as the major providers of water and sewage services. Northern Ireland Water is the sole water and sewage provider in Northern Ireland while Scottish Water carries out similar functions in Scotland. A comparison shows that the privatised companies of England and Wales charge roughly twice as much as the public sector water authorities of Scotland.
During the late 19th Century water services were taken over by local authorities in England and Wales. Individual authorities ran some of these, inter-municipal authorities ran others and a few private companies remained. A simple cap of a maximum return of 5% strictly regulated their profits.
While Labour were in power in 1974, there was a Control of Pollution Act. Water supplies were reorganised into ten unitary regional water authorities and each responsible for quality, supply and sanitation. The government appointed these.
Board meetings from these, which had previously been public, were made secret by the Thatcher government in 1983. Clearly the plan for privatisation had been hatched. During this time the number of employees was cut from 80,000 to 50,000.
Various arguments were used in favour of privatization, including claims that
1. the private sector would be more efficient;
2. private companies would be better able to finance the large investments needed; and
3. privatization would create competition.
These claims were not supported by evidence from comparative studies or international reviews of the actual performance of public and private sector water companies.
The more fundamental motive was Margaret Thatcher’s government’s neo-liberal economic policy. The aim of this was to reduce the size of the state and minimize public borrowing. All of this was used as a further justification for privatization. The plan was to privatize water in 1983, but so unpopular was the policy that it was shelved until after the next General Election.
By 1988, the Regional Water Authorities in England and Wales were ripe for privatization. The sell-off was almost unquestioned as the submission of the public was achieved as they were lured by offerings of the shares in newly privatized companies.
There was a feeling of “something for nothing”, a sign of the times you could say – with little attention given to the consequences and even less of the morality. This is nothing less than sheer greed. The privatization was a give-away. The resulting companies were protected from needing to compete for business at all – not even once – they held monopolies in their regions for 25 years.
What followed were more lies. The expected expenditure was deliberately over–estimated in order to maximize profits. OFWAT was asked to set a price formula for investments that were never made.
One example of this included Southern water submitting plans for a series of sewage treatment plants which were not installed. Another example was Yorkshire Water expecting to avoid £50m expenditure on sewage treatment because the Conservative government promised to redefine coastal waters near the city of Hull as sea – where untreated sewage could be dumped – instead of estuary – where sewage would have to have been treated.
A number of companies deliberately cut their investment programmes and used the ‘savings’ to maintain or increase their dividends. The companies, which did this, include Thames Water, North West water, and Yorkshire Water.
The capital expenditure and maintenance of sewers was been a particular cause for concern. Underinvestment led to neglect of the sewerage network, with obvious negative effects on public health. All this was to boost profits. Following privatization there was a sharp rise in disconnections.
“The water companies say that they disconnect only the “won’t payers”–those who can afford to pay, but refuse to do so. I shall bring to the attention of the House some recent examples of people I know who have been disconnected : in Southampton a lady with seven children, one aged three who suffers from a heart condition ; a family of five, in which the mother suffers from a medical condition which requires a constant supply of water and whose neighbours provided that water via a hose pipe ;and a severely disabled elderly lady, whose neighbours brought her water in a variety of containers.
In south Staffordshire, a single parent on unemployment benefit was threatened with disconnection for arrears of £60.73. When the local citizens advice bureau contacted the water company to say that there was a child in the house, the company said, “So what? –We’ll still disconnect.”
Bristol Water sold to Capstone Corporation 5/10/11
Water has ceased become a local resource, monitored and controlled locally. Owners of companies are no longer regional; they are unknown investors from unknown localities somewhere around the world. How can it be moral to risk the life of people, by turning the essence of life into a commodity? Why have we allowed corporations to buy and sell and profit from the basic fundamental needs of our people?
Do any of us really know who owns the water which comes from our taps. How confident can we be that our health is in safe hands?
Today, as I write , I have discovered that the water coming from my tap has changed ownership to a Canadian Company.
On October 5th 2011 Capstone Infrastructure Corporation CSE have announced it has acquired a 70% interest in Bristol water. Numerous North American, European and Australian pension funds and other institutional investors have emerged in recent years as significant investors in the water infrastructure sector, seeking the stable, long-term cash flow and growth potential offered by water utilities.
Capstone states the deal:
Transforms Capstone into a diversified infrastructure company, adding a growing business in a new core infrastructure category and geographic region to the portfolio
Rate-regulated, inflation-linked business featuring sustainable cash flow and a strong growth profile
Purchase price represents an attractive value and return profile for a regulated water utility
Creates a strong partnership for Capstone in the water infrastructure sector where there are significant investment opportunities globally
With the assumption of Bristol Water’s approximately $440 million in long-term debt and reflecting the impact of the transaction financing, the Capstone Corporation’s debt to capitalization ratio is expected to increase from 39.3% as at June 30, 2011 to approximately 60%, an amount consistent with the low risk profile of the Corporation’s business.
In 2012, approximately 18% of the Corporation’s Adjusted Funds from Operations (“AFFO”) is anticipated to be generated by Bristol Water. This acquisition will significantly increase the size, value and diversity of the Corporation’s portfolio and is expected to deliver stable cash flow to shareholders:
Can we be certain that they will maintain the infra-structure, ensure safe quality water supplies and invest for the future? Of course not!
HOME COMFORTS
If we consider the consequences of Thatcher’s Housing Policy, of the ‘Right to Buy” policy of council houses, it is easy to see why the UK is in the midst of a housing crisis. Of course, the nation fell for the love affair with home-ownership. No longer was it about nest-building, of home comforts. It was about house-owning, selling and mortgages. The belief that house-prices would go forever upwards, that they could be a source of income, of funding an old age or children’s education. The truth is that owning a home is speculative as is doing the lottery, playing the stock market or playing poker. Maybe the odds look good one day, but one bad day, and you might find yourself in negative equity, unable to pay the mortgage, and fearing repossession and homelessness.
Tax subsidies were given to people to take out mortgages as “Buy-to-Let” because they were regarded as businesses. But for the young couple struggling to afford a home there was no subsidy, and the prices shooting upwards caused by the competition from aspiring “Buy-to-Letters” who priced their prospective tenants out of buying their own homes themselves. All this served to profit the bankers. Where there had been mutual building societies who would reinvest, there were now demutualised banks and mortgage repayments haemorrhaged from our country into off shore centres and hedge funds.
BRIGHT SPARKS
And what of the bright, clever idea to privatize our energy? The urgency of break up of the coal mining industry, the rush to gas, and privatization of electricity resources. The beginning of privatization from 1990 broke up the CEGB into three new companies. The justification was, – that like other utilities they just were not making money.
Why anyone should ever consider that provision for citizen’s fundamental needs should ever be about profit making is incomprehensible to me, yet the public fell again for the promise of a share or two, believing they would be better off.
In the event, most savings to the government came from job losses. Unemployment soared. And it was the ordinary people who the ones suffered financially. A study by the World Bank showed that it was the ordinary consumers who were the real losers in privatization, no matter how it had been sold to them. At the end of the 1990s, consumers had lost between £1.3 and £4.4 billion, a staggering figure, largely due to costs falling much faster than prices. Utility Charges: Privatisation of Utilities
By contrast, the government gained up to £1.2 billion, and those who had shares in electricity companies saw profits ranging up to £9.7 billion. There were examples of price-rigging in the past, and there are still frequent accusations of energy prices being set too high.
Ofgem: UK cannot trust energy companies to keep the lights on
Regulator says free market approach will leave UK short of energy supplies by 2015
The regulator’s most radical proposal was to set up a central energy buyer, on similar lines to the old Central Electricity Generating Board, which was abolished after privatisation. At present, the “Big Six” energy companies – Centrica, E.ON, npower, Scottish and Southern, Scottish Power and EDF – own most of the UK’s power plants, which they use to supply most of the country’s consumers.
Critics have argued that the current system is not transparent and guarantees the companies excessive profits. A central government-controlled body would smash this dominance, by requiring power plants to sell it electricity at fixed rates, which it would sell on to customers.
The main concern against privatization of utilities is about the priorities of the companies. The secrecy surrounding these companies is significant. What is the price of silence? It is the vehicle for corruption; it is the potential for a lack of investment. Decisions can be made which increase risks to service quality. Priorities are to the shareholders. Decisions are made in order to maximize profits. Justification given by Margaret Thatcher for the privatization of the utilities is exposed as a sham. The taxpayer has to dig deeper, the consumers struggle pay bills, while the rich continue to profit at our expense. We must say, “No More!” Furthermore we are not facing up to the imminent Oil Crunch, having under invested in renewables as it was not a priority for the financial institutions.
Reflecting on all of this, and to contemplate on Thatcher’s statement, “There’s no such thing as society”, only deserves the response that in her Neo-Liberal politics there was no morality, no sense of right or wrong, and how that is still true today.
Why did the Labour Party not reverse privatization policies when given the opportunity? Why was there not a renationalization of utilities. The media had branded socialism and public ownership unpopular and politically dangerous. Tackling the press became insurmountable. There was further fear of more defeat. All this pressed Labour to desert their roots, to turn their back on socialism.
It is a shameful history, which Labour must now take on board, which Ed Miliband has offered apologies for. But there can be no forgiveness for the resultant poverty, hypothermia, homelessness, deaths, and disease. Labour must finally turn its back on neo-liberalism, and reject selfishness and greed.
The time is well overdue. Our Labour Party must protect the people of this country and sweep aside the greedy immoral profiteers. These utilities are not luxuries, they are needs fundamental to life, and we must ensure that the organizations who provide them are accountable, that clean water and sewage, energy and homes are affordable and available to all. There must be controls over further scientific developments, assurances for public safety and pollution control.
Labour must take back into public control and public ownership providers of the basics of life.
Oct 21st 2011 is 45 years on from Aberfan disaster: It is an apt time to reflect on Mining as a Heritage for Socialists. But is it really the future?
Men dug anthracite, that Black Stuff out of the coalmines, but it was not just coal which came from those mines – so did Trade Unions and British Socialism. It was Tredegar miner Aneurin Bevan, who led miners to socialism, admired by many and loved for his NHS. Another miner, socialist favourite Dennis Skinner worked as a miner for 20 years in Clay Cross, Derbyshire. There is no doubt that the Labour Party’s heart came from the miners, and their comradeship.
The conditions the miners endured below ground were horrendous, thick dust breathed in leading to pneumoconiosis and other respiratory diseases. Mines were owned by profiteers, who were not adverse to cost cutting and risk taking, which meant deathly pit accidents were feared and witnessed. One of these happened on my grandfather’s shift, in a Pit in the Rhymney Valley, not far from Tredegar. He was lucky to survive; many did not.
But it is the words of the grandmother I never knew whose words haunt me. Seven sons survived to adulthood. Her best hopes were that they were to go to war; she knew the alternative was to go down the mines. She’d lost enough loved ones that way. She wasn’t prepared to risk more. So, they went to war – and they all came home.
The comradeship of men who worked below ground, each dependent on one another for their very survival, was so strong. Never frightened to stand up for the rights of the working class, they were the enemy of the parasitic-over-privileged. So it was then, as it is now – the fear of the loss of that privilege and wealth accumulated from others’ toil and sweat, generates the lengths that those in power will go to, – the history of silencing those who resisted or spoke out, is violent and bloody.
We can read here of rebellions, uprisings and strikes in South Wales. One example reported was on :
“November 4, 1839, Chartists from the valleys converged on Newport. They marched down Stow Hill, and at least 22 were shot dead by the army during a disturbance at the Westgate Hotel. The eight leaders were sentenced to death, which was commuted to imprisonment or transportation. Queen Victoria knighted the mayor who ordered the random execution.”
As I child, I listened to tales of the Valleys, and the one I remember was about Winston Churchill. He, yet another very privileged man turned his wrath on the miners of South Wales. In 1911, as Home Secretary, Winston Churchill sent in troops against British Citizens.
“There was open fighting between workmen and the police, shops and other properties were destroyed. After the rioting, the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, sent troops into the area to keep the peace. They stayed there for weeks and this made him unpopular in the area for many years. The workers were on strike until October 1911 when they were forced to return on the owners’ terms and conditions.”
My own memory, is being horrified, as a child in 1966, 21st October when the News came of a slag heap slipping onto a school in Aberfan South Wales, burying a whole generation. I visited Aberfan, a few years ago, the saddest place, forever haunted and grieving for a lost generation.
In total, 144 people were killed – 116 of them children. The last body was recovered nearly a week after the disaster happened.
The National Coal Board said abnormal rainfall had caused the coal waste to move.
The Inquiry of Tribunal later found that the NCB was wholly to blame and should pay compensation for loss and personal injuries.
The NCB and Treasury refused to accept full financial responsibility for the tragedy so the Aberfan Disaster Fund had to contribute £150,000 towards removing the remaining tip that overlooked the village.
This was finally repaid in 1997 on the instigation of Ron Davies, the then Secretary of State for Wales.
Maggie Thatcher knew that the miners’ plight had formed socialism, and she knew to break the heart of socialism, she had to break the miners. Arthur Scargill played into her hands, the future of the coal industry was inevitable. Lord Kinnock speaks and tells us how this was planned here:
The miner’s strike of 1984 – 1985, culminated in victory for Maggie Thatcher, the disintegration of the Trade Unions, and the beginning of a long era where the rich profited, unemployment soared, and many families lived in poverty with little hope.
The loss of the coal industry went straight the heart of socialism, it was mourned by the membership who saw no alternative. The move to the right in the political arena. Arthur Scargill had alienated so many. After years of Thatcher, and the disappointing loss in 1992 Labour lost its roots, and Tony Blair saw a Labour Party desperate to regain power and took the opportunity. Labour continued in the wilderness of neo-Liberalism, oversaw an ever widening gap between rich and poor, and the working class now have no-one to represent them.
While writing this article, four men lost their lives, in a tragic pit accident having become trapped 90m (295ft) below ground in the flooded Gleision Colliery near Pontardawe (Swansea Valley) on 15th September 2011 Think Left are saddened to learn that more lives are being lost below ground, and our thoughts and compassion go to the families of these four men, to the survivors, to the communities, and to those who tried in vain to rescue them. These deaths did not initiate this article, which was already being written .. but for them and others, it will be concluded.
RIP : Charles Breslin, 62, David Powell, 50,
Garry Jenkins, 39, and Phillip Hill, 45.
Where are we Now? Have we Moved on?
Riots in London and other inner cities mirror the unrest in the mines in 19th century. Still those in power seek to silence.
We face another crisis. The energy-rich oil, which the west has come to depend on, is running out. It is now predicted that there will be an Oil Crunch, the oil reserves will have peaked by 2015 … and if we to avert wars, poverty, unemployment… we must face up to it.
Is coal the answer?
There are arguments that the coal beneath our feet – and there is plenty – may be the answer to our energy needs. The environmental and climate effects of continuing to mine coal would be catastrophic. Many countries have depended on fossil fuels, which are worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Even with proposed Carbon Capture and Storage methods, which might be adopted in future, there would only be a 70 to 80% reduction in emissions and it would require a great deal of extra energy to be supplied for the process. Indeed, it is doubtful with the extra costs of disposal of waste whether it would be financially viable at all. If CCS is developed, the extra cost of disposal of carbon dioxide captured must be considered and until CCS is commercially viable, any newly commissioned coal-fired power station would be adding more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In extracting coal and utilising coal, we have to consider several factors:
How to remove acid creating gases (sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides)
Reducing carbon emissions.
Economic feasibily
Risk to workers
Damage to the environment, visibly and to wildlife
Long term energy
Employment
Acid Gases
The removal of acid creating gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from emissions from coal fired power stations comes at a cost; funds which if diverted into setting up renewable energy projects would be a better investment in the long run, with much lower maintenance costs.
The latest iteration of IGCC is the FutureGen project, proposed by a public-private consortium. Touted as “the world’s first near-zero emission coal-fueled power plant,” it’s set to be built (pending federal approval) at Mattoon, Illinois, at a cost of nearly $2 billion. The project’s backers claim they can deliver 99 percent sulfur and ash removal, 90 percent mercury removal, and low nitrogen oxide production. Plus — and this is what gets everybody’s attention — the plant supposedly will capture carbon, too.
Controlling the toxic pollutants should be doable; the techniques involved are fairly well understood, if pricey. The coal’s sulfur content will be converted to hydrogen sulfide and ultimately to marketable elemental sulfur. Mercury will be captured in a bed of activated carbon, which will then be landfilled or reprocessed to extract the mercury for storage or sale. Lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals will be removed by water scrubbing and captured in the plant’s water-treatment system. Ash will be captured as molten slag or light fly ash and landfilled. Ideally the leftover chemicals you mention will be safely burned off in the combustion process.
Reducing Carbon Emissions:
“More challenging will be the stated goal of capturing 90 percent of FutureGen’s carbon dioxide, which is a clean emission only if we can figure out what to do with what we capture. Some carbon compounds can be sold for industrial use, but the main idea is to inject CO2 into subterranean oil or gas reservoirs or porous rock formations. This technology is still in its infancy — as of late 2009 not even a dozen significant projects were under way worldwide. Risks include slow leakage of stored gas plus the occasional full-on blowout”
Global warming and the melting of the ice-caps are indeed a major concern, and while some of the proposed technological processes regarding reducing air-borne pollution from coal power stations (such as CCS currently under review) would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, it would not remove it entirely. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas which emanates from the process of coal mining and energy production from it.
There will also be the costs and dangers of carbon dioxide storage when it is developed. If they use spent oil fields for storage they will have to provide a pipe-line many miles out under the sea. Consideration must also be given to methane. The unpredictability of the release of methane from working seams, and particularly with regard to safety of underground mines and the risk of explosive gases being released. The climate-warming effect of methane is 15 times that of carbon dioxide.
“Fugitive emissions are unintended emissions, (including both carbon dioxide and methane) that arise during the production, processing, transport, transmission of fossil fuels such as black coal, oil, and natural gas or liquefied natural gas (LPG)
Fugitive emissions arise during the coal production/extraction process where previously trapped methane and carbon dioxide gas is released into the atmosphere as coal seams are mined. The level of fugitive emissions varies from mine to mine. Factors that influence the amount of fugitive emissions from a coal-mine include geology, depth and type of mine, amount and type of gas contained in the coal and whether all gas is automatically released or a portion is retained in the coal.
The problem with fugitive emissions is not new for coal mining firms. Methane is wholly combustible when in the mine and therefore a safety risk. Most coal companies will drain as much methane gas from coal seams before mining commences to prevent the risk of outbursts and control gas concentrations as mining progresses. In underground mines, once mining commences the workspace is continually ventilated to dilute any methane present to safe levels. This is often referred to as ventilation air methane and is typically vented to the atmosphere.”
Economic Feasibility
Economically, the cost of disposal of these pollutants must be taken into the equation. There are so many who have a vested interest in fossil fuels that persuading them is no mean task. However, common sense tells us that re-opening the coal mines is not a solution for any one other than the power companies who want a quick centralised fix…their profits would dissipate with the adoption of a distributed network of microgeneration and other renewables. If we take everything into account, coal is not cheap. Coal requires construction of pits and power stations, ongoing transport of coal with associated Greenhouse Gas emissions. Miners and power workers to be paid and compensated for health problems. I have concerns as to whether all health and safety concerns would be adequately funded. There are also environmental costs and slag heaps that would have to be cleared, made safe and landscaped. There would also be conservation cost with the destruction of ecosystems.
Compare all this with the one-off costs of construction of a wind turbine or solar panels, after which there are simply the costs of maintenance. Wars in the middle East have been fought over fossil fuels , but we must face up to the fact that oil is running out , and unless we do so we will all lost this war on want. Jeremy Leggett warns us that the Oil Crunch is coming very soon, before 2015.
From July 2010, Bloomberg reports that the global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf that for renewables tenfold.
Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.
“One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. “This analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the subsidy for renewables.”
Risks to Workers and Communities:
The dangers of mining as an occupation are well known, and the health risks extensive and even if risk is minimised, it cannot be eradicated. Furthermore, there are unknown dangers in disturbing previously worked seams. The risk of causing old workings to collapse is difficult to gauge. The risk of explosion and flood is ever present. Use of coal in the home has direct and negative effects on childhood growth.
Science Daily (Feb. 8, 2011) — Children raised in homes using indoor coal for cooking or heating appear to be about a half-inch shorter at age 36 months than those in households using other fuel sources, according to a report posted online that will appear in the June print issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
Ed Miliband consulted with opponents to the Kingsnorth Power station, and as a result , the plan was wisely shelved. Please refer to this article from Think Left where this was discussed.:
Diverting subsidies and investment away from fossil fuels and nuclear fuels towards major renewables will not only ensure sustainability, but in the long term it will be more economically cost effective. Consideration should be given to harnessing more energy from the sun. It has been shown that the cost of photovoltaic technology is much cheaper than widely believed. Falling prices of Solar PV Panels means that electricity generated by solar PV systems could cost the same as that produced by conventional methods as early as 2020, with some countries achieving this by 2013. Consideration should be given also to harness solar energy from equatorial areas, the world’s deserts. A new national and international grid of high voltage direct current (HVDC), with the cables buried underground and under oceans could connect renewables together, securing continuity of supply and redistributing energy around the world, without polluting the planet.
“Off the northernmost tip of Scotland, where the turbulent waters of the Atlantic Ocean meet those of the North Sea, sits a chain of 70 mostly uninhabited islands collectively known as Orkney. Best known for its wildlife and Neolithic historical sites, it isn’t the first place you think of as a centre for cutting-edge science. Yet it is at the heart of what could soon be a renewable energy renaissance.
The strong tides around these islands have led the European Union-funded European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) to use Orkneys’ waters as the world’s largest test bed for a renewable energy source that has been stalled for years: tidal power”
What of The Wider Environment?
Open cast mining disrupts the landscape. Mining it is noisy and ugly, and polluting. A report from The Manila Times on (September 16 th 2011)
Washable Coal is washed in the Coal Washing Plant to get rid of contaminants, with a 60 percent average recovery. So where do the washed contaminants go, dare you ask? The residents said coastal resources including mangroves have died or have been contaminated by wastes coming from the coal washing plant a wide area of their seas, on which residents depend for their livelihood, is slowly being destroyed because hectares of their mangroves and seagrass are slowly dying. These have been contaminated the water and marine resources. Silt has covered their coastline and mangroves as waste coming from the company’s coal washing plant goes directly to the sea because the siltation pond has not been operational for a long time. The washing plant removes soil and rock coal before it is utilized or marketed. Mangrove trees have already died because the silt that has covered the waters has reached more than a foot deep.
UK Coal want to start a surface mine (opencast) in the Pont valley. This area comprises both coniferous and deciduous woodland and one less common type of habitat; ponds. Ponds are forgotten havens of biodiversity. Hedgerows got a bit of publicity a few years back, people have camped in trees to save them from road expansion but to my knowledge there has never been a Save Our Ponds campaign. In the planning application for opencast UK Coal said that they would relocate several mature ponds to a location in the valley that does not lie over a coal seam. Recovery would take decades. It would be impossible for plant species and invertebrate populations to be relocated effectively and the gradual increase in biodiversity over time would need to start all over again. This is known as secondary succession.
In consideration of these factors, I conclude that all of our energy needs can be satisfied without the use of fossil fuels of any kind, and without nuclear fuels. We should be actively minimising use, and the government should be facilitating and encouraging this. Research such as this at Oregon University indicates how much wasted energy might be harnessed.
We have so much to thank past miners for, – for our heritage which brought us socialism, votes and rights for working people. We should not feel that we are our turning our backs on the miners by now looking for alternatives to coal. We have not betrayed them; on the contrary, we owe their descendants a clean future and a sustainable future. Miners led the way for us. Science leads the way forward. Working together in solidarity, we must not accept that we can risk our planet to satisfy profiteers. Why should working men risk their lives so others can line their pockets? Why should we live in a dirty world? Why risk more wars over oil? Investment in green industries, homes and energy can lead to employment which is safe, clean and ultimately more financially viable.
The Labour Party therefore must….
Recognise that the supply of oil will peak in the near future and we must act to avoid a total supply collapse.
Ensure a Labour government will invest in green energy, not fossil fuels and nuclear.
Nationalise utilities and transport. These should be at the heart of Labour Manifesto.
Seek to provide full employment as a priority where there are now areas of high unemployment, such as former coal mining areas by provision of green-related technologies such as manufacture of Photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, tidal/wave turbines etc.
Invest in Science in our Universities and our Industries.
But we should consider how much energy we are wasting in every thing we do. Yes, don’t leave the telly on standby, and remind the kids not to leave the lights on. But what about the heat on the bonnet of your car? In fact, a car only uses about one third of the energy supplied. Factories waste phenomenal amounts. But this could all change because of skutterudites.
ScienceDaily (Sep. 21, 2011) — More than 60 percent of the energy produced by cars, machines, and industry around the world is lost as waste heat — an age-old problem — but researchers have found a new way to make “thermoelectric” materials for use in technology that could potentially save vast amounts of energy.
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Thermoelectric generation of electricity offers a way to recapture some of the enormous amounts of wasted energy lost during industrial activities.
And it’s based on a device found everywhere from kitchens to dorm rooms: a microwave oven.
Chemists at Oregon State University have discovered that simple microwave energy can be used to make a very promising group of compounds called “skutterudites,” and lead to greatly improved methods of capturing wasted heat and turning it into useful electricity.
A tedious, complex and costly process to produce these materials that used to take three or four days can now be done in two minutes.
Most people are aware you’re not supposed to put metal foil into a microwave, because it will spark. But powdered metals are different, and OSU scientists are tapping into that basic phenomenon to heat materials to 1,800 degrees in just a few minutes — on purpose, and with hugely useful results.
This is an example of how investment in Science in our universities and in our industries can really help provide solutions to the crisis we face. We cannot hide our heads in the sand, we must face up to the Oil Crunch which is imminent. But we can do it without fossil fuels, without nuclear fuels and without risking our children’s future or the planet.
Labour must address this.. We cannot trust the Tories. They are not “The Greenest Government ever” Far from it. Their priorities are their own short term interests and those of their friends.
Think Left’s priorities for a Labour government should include:
More government funded research into Renewable Energy
Investment in Green Jobs particularly in areas of unemployment
