UKIP on Coal


UKIP is strongly pro-coal — as we have clearly set out in our energy policy

Coal must be a major factor in our generating mix.  And we want it to be clean coal – taking out the SOx & NOx and particulates as far as possible.  Where we disagree with the orthodox view is that we do not regard CO2 as a pollutant (if you do think that CO2 is killing the planet – please stop breathing now!  With every breath you are exhaling CO2).  Accordingly, we think that Carbon Capture and Storage — CCS — (even if it works – and many people including Greenpeace think it won’t) is simply a waste of money, and pointless.  Most of the estimates I’ve seen indicate that CCS will add around 20% to the cost of energy (or reduce efficiency by 20%, which amounts to much the same thing).  So we don’t want it.

They will tell you that CCS plants are operating in Canada.  But it’s not CCS – it’s CCU – Carbon Capture and Use.  And the use is to pump it into old oil-fields for “Enhanced Oil Recovery”.  So far as I’m concerned, if there’s a commercial use for the CO2, then CCS may make economic sense.  But not if you’re going to bury it (insecurely) in old coal mines or oil wells.

However, if we face a situation where we’re not in government, and where the Establishment insists on its suicidal green policies, we’d rather have coal with CCS than have no coal generation at all.  I can quite understand why the British coal industry (what remains of it) is pro-CCS – because they think that’s the only way that coal-powered generation will survive.

Of course we in UKIP would love to see a renaissance of British coal.  But the problem is that right now, American coal is very much cheaper than British deep-mined coal.  We’re free-traders – I don’t think we can countenance protectionist tariffs on imported coal, or a requirement for a percentage of coal usage to be British.  But it may well be that American coal will get more expensive in the medium term, when we’re through the first flush of shale gas and oil.  And secondly, we in UKIP have agreed to press for a special Commission to look at future opportunities for British coal.  I’m hopeful that new ideas might come out of it.

In addition to conventional mining, there are new techniques like Underground Coal Gasification that could be used to generate electricity from mines which are too difficult or expensive to access through conventional means – including under the North Sea, which could bring work to the North-East.

I was at a debate organised in London last Tuesday by the Energy Institute.

Discussing the cost of renewables, where DECC always assumed that rising fossil fuel prices would rapidly increase, making renewables competitive, Tory MP Dr. Philip Lee observed that in any case fossil fuels were finite, so prices would inevitably increase.  I responded that we had coal in Britain for two hundred years, if we chose to use it.

And I didn’t mention it, but it remains a fact: we probably also have decades of shale gas, and when the time comes, centuries of methane hydrates.  To quote an old adage, the Stone Age didn’t end when we ran out of stones.  So it will be with fossil fuels.  Their use will end not because of climate hysteria, and not because we run out of fossil fuels.  It will end when we have better technologies.  But it will be there for us — and for our grandchildren.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to UKIP on Coal

  1. Maureen Gannon says:

    Sorry Roger question for you nowt to do with coal etc , received a mail telling me that the EU are funding the BBC to the tune of 22 million euro’s can you confirm this for me please and if true should UKIP be letting the poor licence payers of this country be informed and are they a public body allowed to have thenm as their paymaster?

    • Mike Stallard says:

      The £22 million was confirmed after a FOI request. Reported in the Telegraph.

    • Yes. The EU is subsidising the BBC, and we are doing our best to let people know. If anyone put there has a spare £1 million, we could run a poster campaign!

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      This is the best argument for scrapping Great Britian’s TV tax. The BBC are no longer unbiased activly promoting treason with our illegal association with the EU, and the loss of our Soveriegnty to unelected monsters. Any politican who condones this is a part of our problem, and not a cure.

  2. India are planning 103 GW of new clean coal capacity in next decade. This would increase current coal capacity by 64%

  3. tapestry says:

    Capture carbon at the point of combustion. Add hydrogen. Methanol. More profit. Why is this simple process kept from pubic debate?

  4. Flyinthesky says:

    I think the fundamental coal problem is it invokes memories of times gone by, smoke, smog etc, with todays combustion technology there would be none of that. The smoke and smog is generated by incomplete combustion, we’d be all over that now.
    “I don’t think we can countenance protectionist tariffs on imported coal, or a requirement for a percentage of coal usage to be British. ” Maybe not but the actual cost of the coal itself isn’t the complete picture. I know it can’t be factored in within these commercially inspired balance sheet terms but the factor of paying people who could be employed in the mining industry to do nothing would probably offset the price differential. It’s yet another case of benefit being privatised but the actual cost socialised. Care of commercialism and globalisation these factors that should be considered are no longer possible.

    • Jane Davies says:

      Flyinthesky says “I think the fundamental coal problem is it invokes memories of times gone by, smoke, smog etc, with todays combustion technology there would be none of that. The smoke and smog is generated by incomplete combustion, we’d be all over that now.”

      Could someone let the Chinese in on this so that the inhabitants in the cities can see blue sky again?

  5. eddie coke says:

    It would be interesting to know what is actually being captured during CCS. I presume it’s carbon dioxide, not carbon, since the energy cost of resplitting the CO2 would be high, and financially cost-prohibitive.

    Which means calling it Carbon Capture & Storage is yet another scam. Since the oxygen (or “dioxide”) comes from burning fossil fuels in AIR, we might as well call it “Oxygen Mopping” or “Project Asphyxiate Mankind”.

    And since CO2 has no impact on earth climate, I’d much rather it was pumped into the atmosphere so that trees can grab it and give us the oxygen back – thanks a million, trees!

  6. Mike Stallard says:

    You are one of the very few people talking sense on our green policy.
    But the Green Blob is determined, very, very rich and powerful. And it speaks to the soul of the people who are between 30 and 50. Owen Paterson lost to it. Greenpeace is now, apparently, one of the biggest lobbyists in Europe along with Big Oil (the Greenies’ Ogre). You have absolutely no chance on the BBC to put your very sensible point across.
    Than heavens for the internet!

    • Katie says:

      Why did Owen Paterson lose out to Greenpeace? Because Cameron has gone back to being ‘the greenest government ever’ again!! He made sure Paterson went so he could continue down the green renewables route. All three parties are as bad as one another and the sooner UKIP gets a say in matters to do with energy, be it coal, gas or nuclear, the better.

  7. omanuel says:

    Regretfully, Roger, control of energy is the key to totalitarian global rule.

    See this one-page sequel to the 70-year history (1945-2015) behind the AGW scandal:

  8. Ex-expat Colin says:

    UK wants a diverse energy mix: (wants a kick up the ar*e really)

    Nuclear….when its ready and at enormous cost – profit to foreigners – risk
    Conventional Gas…somewhere in a dwindling pipe supply/interconnector (one day) or on the high seas – foreigners again – risk (Saudi Scotland – LOL)
    Coal….down big holes – foreigners again – we banned ours – risk
    Wood/Pulp…looney tunes – foreigners – risk
    Unconventional gas…on the high seas…somewhere else anyway – foreigners – risk
    Wind…when it blows – cannot be classed as adequate/reliable – foreigners – risk
    Solar…not much light around in UK (just asked my DSLR) – foreigners – risk
    Hydro…not ever enough and climate change could/might/may bring more rain ?
    Wave power…trying to fit brain wave(y) into this?
    STOR…la,la,la – stupid.
    Interconnectors…could never supply enough. France already warning on that, Belgian warnings also. France has signed up to feed Spain (knock Russian gas). Guess that might reduce the Spanish lying about solar o/p levels (aka diesels).

    And all the KW/Hs produced are filtered through about 6 suppliers who are largely foreign owned (RWE/SSE etc)

    Technology…yeah…whenever, but make sure the looney EU/Gov that we have experienced has well gone. And that dope in the US.

    You can colour the work risk in terms of failure/danger – red, amber, green. Its all well above green I’d say. But, but – banning of domestic halogen bulbs will counter coal power station closures…la,la,la!

    Who really needs power from coal…India, China, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and UK. S. Africa desperately needs it but has been blocked as regards loans to do it. That’ll be the poor again.

    The EU would like a nice tax on particular transportation for above movements – ships.

    If you pump stuff down a hole like you would with fracking whats the chance of it getting back out/up. Think I saw something about that a while ago in the US…under a lake?

    Anybody had a long think about what happens to those solar panel system handouts in Asia etc. About the price of deep cycle batteries and LED lamps on replacement. Those batteries are approx £1/AH. So a single 100AH battery is £100. (Car Batt about £90). How do you pay for that on a buck a day or less? Remember, most aid goes to Merc Benz.

    Anyway, whats more pressing is a conflict with Russia and Libya likely very soon. And Energy is right in there.

  9. catalanbrian says:

    I am afraid that you just don’t get it. Fossil fuels are finite and that means that they will run out, however much you may fuster and bluster about how wonderful coal/fracked gas/oil are and how crappy renewables are. Yes fossil fuels are convenient and with new technology they may well be stretched to last a bit longer but they will run out eventually Our descendants will not thank us for burning oils that will be needed to lubricate their machinery. Surely it is much more sensible to concentrate on increasing the efficiency of renewables and nuclear.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      And the new technology is something that will have to turn massive alternators to generate Giga/Terra watts of power 24/7. Unless its the Sun or perhaps sea water, both of which are badly positioned no new technology will ever turn those huge alternators that fossil fuels currently do. Wood pulp..WTF is that about….its money!

      Nuclear fuel is finite, very dangerous and inordinately expensive. Expensive due to numb nuts in recent governments leaving it lie for far too long.

      We here get it alright. I suggest you study engineering which is about rolling out sound scientific principles that are achievable and adequately efficient.Subsidised technology is completely wrong and profits those who are unfortunately in power and dumb enough to go along with it.

      • omanuel says:

        Nuclear energy will supply our energy needs, if we get honest about:

        1. The basic validity of Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” and

        2. The errors in Weizsacker’s “nuclear binding energy” . . .

        . . . inserted in nuclear physics textbooks after WWII to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima: NEUTRON REPULSION.

      • ian wragg says:

        Thorium is as cheap as chips and safe. China is developing a Thorium reactor which we abandoned in favour of wind. Tossers the lot of them.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      I totaly agree Brian on the Conservation of materials, and the re-use of energy when ever possible. There are renewable energy devices that need developing. Unfortunately this is not in line with the Thesis which requires the total destruction of our present order of civilisation and culture.

      If it was, we would be encouraging the World to economise and stop uplifting Nations to Carbon Production status. We had cut our own population growth to much less than replacment level since 1960. We should not now be encouraging immigration to replace our own reduced levels, with incompatable trouble makers. This has enabled new and restrictive laws to subjigate our people, and lots of antiterror laws with new hoops for us to jump through. Join the dots until the bigger picture is revealed.

  10. Maureen Gannon says:


    Read all the way to the end.

    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most
    coastal cities uninhabitable.

    * * * * * * * * *
    I must apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago.

  11. omanuel says:

    “The road to hell is paved with . . .”

    CHAOS and FEAR in AUG-SEPT 1945 frightened Good, Honorable People into

    1. Forming the UN in OCT 1945, and
    2. Forbidding public knowledge of the energy that had destroyed Hiroshima:

    Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR.pdf

    Those Good, Honorable People” may not have intended to isolate society from the reality (truth, God) of creation, but that is exactly what happened! or:

  12. Brin Jenkins says:

    All summed up by 1 Thesis, 2 Anthithes and 3 Synthesis, Greek words meaning 1-Viewpoint, 2-Problem or opposition, and 3-Synthesis, the solution or cure, that you are aiming for.

    Hegel’s thinking was, first decide what you wish to achieve! The Thesis.

    Then manufacture a problem for people to worry over, and they will demand action to stop or control this problem. The Antithesis.

    Now you can bring in the changes you wish for to achieve, your wished for result, the Synthesis!

    To establish the New World Order, create problems that need solutions and then replace the chaos with your ants nest with you in control. Very long term planning was required, I heard about it at my Grammar School in 1950/1 from one of our masters just returnd from WW2. He told us Global Communism was inevitable, but would probably be 250 years in the making. It seems to be much closer now?

    This is my understanding, please do your own research.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s