Micheal Foot down
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Biker Guinea Pigs wanted!
Next: =A320 fine for leaving your engine=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?running=3D3F?=3D
From: Champ on 5 Mar 2010 12:03 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:45:04 -0000, "'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> Hog, is that you? > >Hey who is the Trade Onion member in this discussion! Do you write 'Micro$haft' too? -- Champ We declare that the splendour of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. ZX10R | Hayabusa | GPz750turbo neal at champ dot org dot uk
From: Andy Bonwick on 5 Mar 2010 12:04 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:48:49 -0000, "'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: snip> >It went as badly as it did because Scargill was hung up on principles and >not on results. Had he played it intelligently and been prepared to >compromise the results would have been far better for many of the miners and >most of us. There was never any way he could "win" on his terms. > >We wouldn't be in so much hock to the Ruskies for natural gas. Do you think we'd have built new coal fired power stations? The bad decision was not to go further along the nuke route but given that existing stations weren't due to be de-commissioned for quite a few years and commissioning new sites is a nightmare you can understand the decision to go with gas.
From: SaladDodger on 5 Mar 2010 12:21 On 5 Mar, 14:55, "'Hog" <sm911S...(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > We often hear accusations that industry moves elsewhere "for cheaper > labour". That is a very narrow perspective. Look at steel manufacturing, > the raw materials are 75% of the cost, electricity, gas and infrastructure > make up most of the rest. Labour is a smaller part. Yet steel manufacture > has moved elsewhere. "carbon credits" "India" "Corus" "back-hander" "Party funding" "BBC cover up"
From: 'Hog on 5 Mar 2010 13:20 Andy Bonwick wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:48:49 -0000, "'Hog" > <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > snip> > >> It went as badly as it did because Scargill was hung up on >> principles and not on results. Had he played it intelligently and >> been prepared to compromise the results would have been far better >> for many of the miners and most of us. There was never any way he >> could "win" on his terms. >> >> We wouldn't be in so much hock to the Ruskies for natural gas. > > Do you think we'd have built new coal fired power stations? > > The bad decision was not to go further along the nuke route but given > that existing stations weren't due to be de-commissioned for quite a > few years and commissioning new sites is a nightmare you can > understand the decision to go with gas. I agree with the former but not the latter. Chernoble made it impractical though. -- Hog
From: Andy Bonwick on 5 Mar 2010 13:35
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:20:40 -0000, "'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Andy Bonwick wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:48:49 -0000, "'Hog" >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >> snip> >> >>> It went as badly as it did because Scargill was hung up on >>> principles and not on results. Had he played it intelligently and >>> been prepared to compromise the results would have been far better >>> for many of the miners and most of us. There was never any way he >>> could "win" on his terms. >>> >>> We wouldn't be in so much hock to the Ruskies for natural gas. >> >> Do you think we'd have built new coal fired power stations? >> >> The bad decision was not to go further along the nuke route but given >> that existing stations weren't due to be de-commissioned for quite a >> few years and commissioning new sites is a nightmare you can >> understand the decision to go with gas. > >I agree with the former but not the latter. Chernoble made it impractical >though. They're already hitting a brick wall named technical queries at the design stage. |