Redcar Steel plant

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

A mix, yes indeed. Fossil fuels, nuclear power, tidal...but greens dislike the last option at least as much as the first two because it might give a sea slug a headache. They want to return developed nations to localised medieval lifestyles. Madness.

We have no need of renewables, some in positions of authority want renewables. They're foolish.

Renewables simply cannot work

Agreed.

But that website in the link you provided - makes PH look almost, well, normal.

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

turbobloke said:

A mix, yes indeed. Fossil fuels, nuclear power, tidal...but greens dislike the last option at least as much as the first two because it might give a sea slug a headache. They want to return developed nations to localised medieval lifestyles. Madness.

We have no need of renewables, some in positions of authority want renewables. They're foolish.

Renewables simply cannot work

Agreed.

Fair enough, but...

legzr1 said:

But that website in the link you provided - makes PH look almost, well, normal.

Like PH, websites are frequently nothing more than secondary sources.

The primary source content at the webpage I linked to above clearly isn't/wasn't authored by WUWT, so while you're entitlted to your view of it as a website, as a secondary source it's irrelevant to the fundamentals.

[Scuffers]

mix - yes, BUT

Wind/Tidal/wave/etc are simply not viable (even with massive subsidies)

Nuclear should be, but they have done it in such a way to front-load everything the costs have just got stupid, over the 3 years we have been talking about Hinckley, the costs have gone from £12B to £25Bn, even at £12Bn it's made-up numbers.


some history:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nucle...

Estimates now put cost ~$14Bn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

still £14Bn at the end of 2013:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hi...

One year on and the costs jumps to £24.5Bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29536793

it's simply laughable, might just as well be using a dice...

on top of that, they are talking price guarantees for 35 years at silly money/Mwh

So, by the numbers, it's a 3,200Mw Nuc, so that's some 28Twh per year

35 years = 980Twh

if it costs £25Bn / 980Twh = £25.51/Mwh

some serious scope for profit there then! (even assuming the £25Bn figure is actually real)

[turbobloke]

The Moon's gravitational field is going nowhere. No taxpayer subsidies though.

[Scuffers]

turbobloke said:

The Moon's gravitational field is going nowhere. No taxpayer subsidies though.

how does that help?

(and please don't bother with tidal bull)

[Esseesse]

The 1975 EEC referendum No campaign warned of the kinds of things we see in the steel industry today, as a result of being in the common market and not being able to balance our trade.

This is from the No campaign leaflet...

[s2art]

Du1point8 said:

Scuffers said:

s2art said:

First they would have to get permission from Brussels, as it would contravene EU competition law. May not be as easy as it sounds.

has not stopped both Italy and Germany doing such?

Was it not Labour and more importantly Winky that who signed the Lisbon Treaty which made such things as making steel a protected industry completely illegal with quite massive fines for ignoring them, which of course the UK is the only one to ever pay fines imposed on it.

Also see;

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/21/uk-auth...

[FiF]

s2art said:

Du1point8 said:

Scuffers said:

s2art said:

First they would have to get permission from Brussels, as it would contravene EU competition law. May not be as easy as it sounds.

has not stopped both Italy and Germany doing such?

Was it not Labour and more importantly Winky that who signed the Lisbon Treaty which made such things as making steel a protected industry completely illegal with quite massive fines for ignoring them, which of course the UK is the only one to ever pay fines imposed on it.

Also see;

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/21/uk-auth...

You only have to know the details of the EU decision 31997D0021, commonly referred to as the Tubacex case to know that some countries, and the EU thanks to dedeals in smoke filled rooms, pretty much turn a blind eye to state aid when it suits..

In this case, purchase of land by public funds without putting to tender and at uncommercial prices.
Loans at uneconomic rates of interest.
Financial aid by allowing significant tax debts (Social Security fund payments) to be suspended and lifting of mortgages and embargoes on property and land due to said debts.

[s2art]

FiF said:

s2art said:

Du1point8 said:

Scuffers said:

s2art said:

First they would have to get permission from Brussels, as it would contravene EU competition law. May not be as easy as it sounds.

has not stopped both Italy and Germany doing such?

Was it not Labour and more importantly Winky that who signed the Lisbon Treaty which made such things as making steel a protected industry completely illegal with quite massive fines for ignoring them, which of course the UK is the only one to ever pay fines imposed on it.

Also see;

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/21/uk-auth...

You only have to know the details of the EU decision 31997D0021, commonly referred to as the Tubacex case to know that some countries, and the EU thanks to dedeals in smoke filled rooms, pretty much turn a blind eye to state aid when it suits..

Given that we made a request to the EU in 2014, with nothing forthcoming, we can safely say it doesnt suit someone...

[Digga]

Sadly, I doubt whether that cock-in-a-suit CMD will achieve anything with the EU. Every time he's due to put the UK's case forward there seems (mysteriously) to be a pre-announcement in the press about what he can't do. You wonder where his priorities lie...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34654797

Anyway, for those struggling to see the significant, strategic need for steel manufacture in the UK, consider the recent development in the scrap metal industry; now facing paltry returns for steel as the global market has slumped, merchants are renegotiating the rate they will pay and, for some smaller firms, are even beginning to talk of charging to take scrap away.

The need for a domestic outlet for scrap has two advantages;

1. more environmentally and cost efficient recycling is best done locally - the "proximity principle".
2. lower recycling costs (or better yet, having people prepared to pay for scrap) reduces fly tipping.

Low scrap prices are unlikely to stop our traveling friends stealing the more expensive cabling from our infrastructure - paying nothing for something that you can sell, even at a reduced rate, still returns a decent margin. Even if it is legally and morally wrong.

[Scuffers]

Problem is our dear governments (of all colours) consistently keep placing big orders oversea's claiming cost savings (but totally ignoring the costs of NOT buying british)

back in 2012:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13049368.Foreig...

More recently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488

and

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shameless-tor...

it would appear we simply don;t understand joined up thinking in government.

No surprise I guess after the massive Intercity Express Programme contract going to Hitachi:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-bus...

then when the steel plants face closure, they all cry nothing they can do etc etc...

[V8 Fettler]

Scuffers said:

mix - yes, BUT

Wind/Tidal/wave/etc are simply not viable (even with massive subsidies)

Nuclear should be, but they have done it in such a way to front-load everything the costs have just got stupid, over the 3 years we have been talking about Hinckley, the costs have gone from £12B to £25Bn, even at £12Bn it's made-up numbers.


some history:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nucle...

Estimates now put cost ~$14Bn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

still £14Bn at the end of 2013:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hi...

One year on and the costs jumps to £24.5Bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29536793

it's simply laughable, might just as well be using a dice...

on top of that, they are talking price guarantees for 35 years at silly money/Mwh

So, by the numbers, it's a 3,200Mw Nuc, so that's some 28Twh per year

35 years = 980Twh

if it costs £25Bn / 980Twh = £25.51/Mwh

some serious scope for profit there then! (even assuming the £25Bn figure is actually real)

Sizewell C cost estimate in the mid-1990s was c£4billion as I recall. The Sizewell B team was still in place at that time, now long dispersed and typically retired.

[Scuffers]

V8 Fettler said:

Sizewell C cost estimate in the mid-1990s was c£4billion as I recall. The Sizewell B team was still in place at that time, now long dispersed and typically retired.

interesting...

it;s amazing that at the time, the same old arguments were being talked to death:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1990/jan/...

that's from 1990 arguing the case for Sizewell B!

[Strocky]

Scuffers said:

Problem is our dear governments (of all colours) consistently keep placing big orders oversea's claiming cost savings (but totally ignoring the costs of NOT buying british)

back in 2012:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13049368.Foreig...

More recently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488

and

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shameless-tor...

it would appear we simply don;t understand joined up thinking in government.

No surprise I guess after the massive Intercity Express Programme contract going to Hitachi:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-bus...

then when the steel plants face closure, they all cry nothing they can do etc etc...

It also doesn't help that the scale of our steel making capacity has been reduced over the years by successive governments to the extent that we can't tender for large infrastructure as a sole supplier

Tata was part of the losing consortium bid for the Forth Road Crossing, the winning bid came in at £400m under budget

IIRC Dalzell only had the capacity for a 1/3 of the plate requirements for the Forth Crossing

Also Tata isn't a UK company but a privately owned multinational with plants in the UK

[Scuffers]

Strocky said:

It also doesn't help that the scale of our steel making capacity has been reduced over the years by successive governments to the extent that we can't tender for large infrastructure as a sole supplier

Tata was part of the losing consortium bid for the Forth Road Crossing, the winning bid came in at £400m under budget

IIRC Dalzell only had the capacity for a 1/3 of the plate requirements for the Forth Crossing

Also Tata isn't a UK company but a privately owned multinational with plants in the UK

yes, but with Tata's plants etc it could have made up the required qty.

Also, Yes Tata are not british, but their plants are and that's the important bit, much like Jaguar Landrover.

I do take your point about not being about to bid for the really big stuff, but that's not really such an issue with stuff like bridge and ship building as they are not stuff that get's done at the drop of a hat, look how long we are still faffing about with the two carriers (and I wonder where the steel for them came from?)

[Digga]

Strocky said:

It also doesn't help that the scale of our steel making capacity has been reduced over the years by successive governments to the extent that we can't tender for large infrastructure as a sole supplier.

I really do worry that with successive governments, all broadly illiterate to the same degree in terms of engineering and industry, we are sleepwalking into a strategic cul de sac which may be impossible to recover from.

The legislators and bureaucrats keep on blithely loading UK business up with legislation, red tape and costs. They argue that one small concession here or there won't hurt, industry will adapt, become more competitive, but in reality they are inflicting death by a thousand cuts (or should that be elected s?) on the one hand, whilst dreaming up ever more convoluted and over-optimistic "pro-business" schemes to be run by yet more quangos.

They really, really do not get it. The whole "Northern Powerhouse" thing is a crock of st. No such blunt, government-backed instrument is ever likely to actually build a business of the scale of the ones we are losing.

[FiF]

At the risk of repetition, politicians and managerialists, know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

They mainly have no long term vision, only considering the short term headlines or the next move onto another project. Never had to stick at anything for the long term.

[Digga]

FiF said:

At the risk of repetition, politicians and managerialists, know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

They mainly have no long term vision, only considering the short term headlines or the next move onto another project. Never had to stick at anything for the long term.

Totally.

Add into this that a lot of recent daft legislation comes from the place many want to go between their post in government and retirement - i.e. the EU - and you can see the problem. The poachers have already recruited the gamekeeper.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised that some of the usual suspects who might know better - like Lord Digby the amazing business breakfast/lunch/dinner consuming Dog - aren't more vocal.

[Strocky]

Digga said:

Strocky said:

It also doesn't help that the scale of our steel making capacity has been reduced over the years by successive governments to the extent that we can't tender for large infrastructure as a sole supplier.

I really do worry that with successive governments, all broadly illiterate to the same degree in terms of engineering and industry, we are sleepwalking into a strategic cul de sac which may be impossible to recover from.

The legislators and bureaucrats keep on blithely loading UK business up with legislation, red tape and costs. They argue that one small concession here or there won't hurt, industry will adapt, become more competitive, but in reality they are inflicting death by a thousand cuts (or should that be elected s?) on the one hand, whilst dreaming up ever more convoluted and over-optimistic "pro-business" schemes to be run by yet more quangos.

They really, really do not get it. The whole "Northern Powerhouse" thing is a crock of st. No such blunt, government-backed instrument is ever likely to actually build a business of the scale of the ones we are losing.

Yep as an example, CE Marking that became mandatory last July is costing small fabricators in the region of £10-£20k for accreditation, for some with a small turnover, it's simply a cost that wasn't worth absorbing

[KarlMac]

FiF said:

At the risk of repetition, politicians and managerialists, know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

They mainly have no long term vision, only considering the short term headlines or the next move onto another project. Never had to stick at anything for the long term.

They'be been trying to modernise and improve since the 80s. At some point you have to stop throwing good money after bad.

It's yet another traditionalist, heavily unionised industry that's going to the wall. I'm yet to be convinced it's the fault of management or politics.

In my scenario I can buy steel from China and get a comparable product and be treated like a valued customer, or I can produce it in house and it will be out of spec and late