Scargill at Climate Camp
Tom Morton | 05.08.2008 11:19 | Climate Camp 2008 | Ecology | Social Struggles | South Coast
Arthur Scargill, former General Secretary of the National Union of Miners, spoke at Climate Camp on Monday outlining a proposed energy policy consisting of 'clean coal', and development of renewable sources of energy.
Scargill's talk came after many in the mining community had expressed dismay at the camp's anti-coal position, particularly slogans such as 'no new coal', and 'leave it in the ground'. This they felt condemned the coal mining communities to dole and the 'dung heap', something they experienced in the 80s and 90s during the Tory assault on the miners.
I will attempt to sum up the arguments of Scargill and Dave Douglass, who was also speaking at the meeting on Monday and will be with us until Thursday:
Roughly half of our energy needs are currently provided by nuclear and coal. The remainder is made up largely of oil and particularly gas. Scargill stated that British reserves of gas are almost exhausted and so unless we want to develop a dependency on foreign gas reserves, whose prices and conditions of workers we cannot control, we must soon replace this gas-based power generation.
Throughout Scargill's talk he reiterated (with considerable passion) his complete opposition to nuclear energy, on grounds of safety and workers' conditions. Many Uranium miners are paid compensation for illness due to exposure to radiation, on the agreement that the company is absolved of any liability. Consequently these deaths do not appear in official figures and so the human cost of nuclear energy is hidden.
Taking gas and nuclear out of the picture, this leaves the country with a considerable energy deficit which, in Scargill's opinion, could not immediately be filled by renewable energy sources. While some efficiency measures should be taken (he mentioned insulation of all homes and workplaces), no considerable reduction in energy consumption could be achieved. With him the hippy arguments of "who needs a 30 inch plasma TV" (shouted out at the meeting), and more fundamental lifestyle changes leading to reduction in energy use are not realistic. Instead, "our children deserve the same standard of living that we have", this also being extended to the developing world where rising energy needs must be provided for.
Scargill says this energy can only be provided by British coal, mined under hard-won conditions and very low accident rate (for the mining industry), and burned in modern coal-fired power stations fitted with carbon capture technology. Combined heat and power plants can increase efficiency from roughly 30% (which is typical of Coal, Gas and Oil) to 70%, by providing cheap household heating to communities. A number of clean coal technologies were discussed, many of which were proven in the 70s and 80s in experimental power generation plants run by the Coal Board, later being shut down by the Tory government.
The plan hinges on the viability of carbon capture and storage technologies, something which many at the meeting disputed. To this he responded that these technologies needed some development but were indeed viable, and in any case had to work, because in his opinion the burning of the earth's coal reserves was inevitable considering growing energy needs globally. Put simply, China will burn its coal reserves with or without carbon capture, so the development of the technology is crucial.
Regarding the location of the camp near the Kingsnorth power station, Scargill said that he would join us in our protest if it was against the burning of foreign coal, mined in shocking conditions in countries like China, conditions British workers have not suffered in 200 years.
Concluding, Scargill reiterated that we must develop a unified energy policy, and that although the opinions of the miners and those of the camp are different, they are not that different. We are together in this class struggle.
I will attempt to sum up the arguments of Scargill and Dave Douglass, who was also speaking at the meeting on Monday and will be with us until Thursday:
Roughly half of our energy needs are currently provided by nuclear and coal. The remainder is made up largely of oil and particularly gas. Scargill stated that British reserves of gas are almost exhausted and so unless we want to develop a dependency on foreign gas reserves, whose prices and conditions of workers we cannot control, we must soon replace this gas-based power generation.
Throughout Scargill's talk he reiterated (with considerable passion) his complete opposition to nuclear energy, on grounds of safety and workers' conditions. Many Uranium miners are paid compensation for illness due to exposure to radiation, on the agreement that the company is absolved of any liability. Consequently these deaths do not appear in official figures and so the human cost of nuclear energy is hidden.
Taking gas and nuclear out of the picture, this leaves the country with a considerable energy deficit which, in Scargill's opinion, could not immediately be filled by renewable energy sources. While some efficiency measures should be taken (he mentioned insulation of all homes and workplaces), no considerable reduction in energy consumption could be achieved. With him the hippy arguments of "who needs a 30 inch plasma TV" (shouted out at the meeting), and more fundamental lifestyle changes leading to reduction in energy use are not realistic. Instead, "our children deserve the same standard of living that we have", this also being extended to the developing world where rising energy needs must be provided for.
Scargill says this energy can only be provided by British coal, mined under hard-won conditions and very low accident rate (for the mining industry), and burned in modern coal-fired power stations fitted with carbon capture technology. Combined heat and power plants can increase efficiency from roughly 30% (which is typical of Coal, Gas and Oil) to 70%, by providing cheap household heating to communities. A number of clean coal technologies were discussed, many of which were proven in the 70s and 80s in experimental power generation plants run by the Coal Board, later being shut down by the Tory government.
The plan hinges on the viability of carbon capture and storage technologies, something which many at the meeting disputed. To this he responded that these technologies needed some development but were indeed viable, and in any case had to work, because in his opinion the burning of the earth's coal reserves was inevitable considering growing energy needs globally. Put simply, China will burn its coal reserves with or without carbon capture, so the development of the technology is crucial.
Regarding the location of the camp near the Kingsnorth power station, Scargill said that he would join us in our protest if it was against the burning of foreign coal, mined in shocking conditions in countries like China, conditions British workers have not suffered in 200 years.
Concluding, Scargill reiterated that we must develop a unified energy policy, and that although the opinions of the miners and those of the camp are different, they are not that different. We are together in this class struggle.
Tom Morton
e-mail:
tomm@riseup.net
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Clean coal tech is crucial,burning less now til thats sorted is what Ccamp want
05.08.2008 12:32
We are in same boat as coal communities in fact many of Ccampers come from coal communities. Look to the hot rock programme in Durham for geothermal shaft there to heat & power nearby industry & homes. In Southampton one built radically by a labour council in early 1980's powers a hospital,shopping centre & thousands of homes,plus heats & cools them. Shafts can be drilled & dug under existing power stations to make them CHP
Plenty of work & long term work+profit for many people in geothermal, especially in areas where there is granite or deep mines that can be exploited for this, dont cap em!
Ive been involved in advicing a campaign in Annesley to save headstock there & use it for geothermal, this isnt very high tech or hard technology & its cheaper to do than drilling in the gulf of Mexico.
Wish I could afford to be a ccamp at moment, well done to those that are, lets get rockin!
For One Big Union & cooperative power!,
beyond the traditional workplace
Green syndicalist
e-mail:
sparkeee1@hotmail.com
Nuclear is the option
05.08.2008 12:32
Nuclear is the green option
nuclear power is NOT the answer
05.08.2008 13:01
I'm pro-science. Therefore, I know enough about it to be anti-nuclear.
The answer is... REDUCTION OF CONSUMPTION, and solar, geo-power, wind, wave, tidal... did anyone see the ace thing in the paper about large-scale kite-power? Yee-hah!
So many good choices, and so many numpties wanting to give tax-payers' money to huge, accident-prone French nuclear companies...
davina
Not enough uranium?
05.08.2008 13:40
Simon
@Davina
05.08.2008 14:14
So it's fair to say that nuclear fission is a natural process. (As is nuclear fusion, which is how the sun generates energy.)
However the person who says "Nuclear is the option" is dead wrong, for the other reasons you state.
CH
see also the discussion on the topic here
05.08.2008 15:22
Entdinglichung
Homepage:
http://entdinglichung.wordpress.com/
"Coal is too precious to burn".
05.08.2008 20:53
Anyone know the true source of the quote?
Has anyone thought through what has to be done to prevent people destroying all Life on the planet?
Is it too late?
Ilyan
Glad to see our Arthur Scargill's talk reported
05.08.2008 23:59
Every Kentish man and more would like to hear what he had to say. Nationally newsworthy.
But can the right wing press (including the C21 Guardian) bring themselves to report this?
Seems only the Indie gives a flying ..........
Tony Gosling
Musings on this post
06.08.2008 12:12
If these people and the recognition of this brutality are not included in the debate then the whole's thing's sadly up it's arse. I think then that's it great that Scargill showed up and said stuff and there begins to be something said about what happens to miners and families if we keep coal in the ground.
It's commonly posted here that Climate Camp lacks a class perspective. For a great introduction to what happened after Miner's Strike to those solidly organised working class villages and towns, check this one brave woman's tale:
I excerpt one segment she wrote about the devastation wrought on these communities by the State:
"20 years later gazing at all the things around me just seemed to redouble my anguish and crying. Such great hopes and 20 years later still experiencing everywhere the desolation of what the state did to us. All around the scars of defeat: the near elimination of the mining community and here I was driving through a landscape my landscape - where no pit winding gear was anywhere to be seen, except as a half wheel, sculpture-like marker, on the cross roads through Kiveton Park or a few buildings left, like the clockhouse or the pit head baths, because English Heritage had deemed them significant architectural monuments and far more important than discarded miners. Alas, our small community pit villages had become opened up, not to friends, but to new Barrett type estates appearing everywhere, unveiled as executive suites where strangers, mostly middle income personnel from all the UK, with no feel for our areas past history moved in. These new dormitory estates and towns redefined the area and were even signposted, along with other place names like Manor Park, on roads out of Sheffield city centre, under the South African name of townships, before some official thought better of it. The point is: once I knew everybody I passed on the way to the local shop, their family history, their parents, grand parents and relatives, now - almost it seemed overnight - you no longer know a lot of the people you pass in the street and its getting to the point you feel a total alien on your own stomping ground. And then to cap it all now the whole of the Kiveton pit site is in the process of redevelopment and the amazing wildlife that flourished on the spoil heaps and which we all delighted in, has been engulfed by an umbrella group under the dubious name of Yorkshire Forward. Grimly turning my head away I cannot look at the small army of dumper trucks smoothing everything out for some Design and Build business park. Sure, Yorkshire Forward proclaim their bogus ecological sensitivity when all they are doing is sending nature backwards!
Little did I realise on that fateful day Cortonwood went out on strike, all of this was about to change in a crazily chaotic way never to return to what it once had been, as everyone involved in the strike was about to be thrown into a maelstrom theyve never really gotten out of all these years later. If only it could be limited to changes in the urban landscape or to views outside the kitchen window or daily life rituals! No, it was to be much worse. As I thought of the human consequences of this brutal defeat for all of us who had the temerity to take on the state and very nearly win ,it was obvious the end result of the strike would be a far more total devastation. And what an aftermath: I personally know of many families that fell apart and disintegrated. And then all the agonies, the alcoholism, heroin, anti-depressants, the many suicides, and the increasing illness both psychological and physical often at one and the same time this defeat entailed. Reviving memories of post strike hardship as money dried up as jobs became scarcer, I thought of a family I knew who only a week previously in late February 2004 had finally managed to pay off the debts incurred during the year long uprising. I also knew their particular case was no exception. I thought of the countless, untold sufferings that rained down on the vast majority of miners, fine people who fighting for their community also spoke for others, reaching out to those who wanted the same, faced with the horrible world now beginning to take shape, a world of isolation, loss and pathological behaviour then making its debut on the world stage....
...Like many another I have had to try and live in this hostile atmosphere, yet how can I do so without real pain? At a safe distance maybe you could say its paranoia but its surprising how it did make its way into peoples heads and remains there. So you began to try and continue your existence in a world where the most important part of your life was a simple figment of an over-worked (and lurid) imagination! It amounts to a murderous assault on my psyche and sanity that simply wont ease up. Here am I daily confronting wrecked lives and an often suicidal unhappiness and yet called a misery guts because I am unable to believe in a media/designer mythology of progress and nicey, nicey, lives I am now supposedly sufficiently programmed to want and proclaim. Here I am full of a dark disposition and forebodings yet also full of a yearning for a real joyous, passionate life!"
Respect!
@
Fission vs. Fusion
07.08.2008 15:14
There are about fifteen sites where naturally occuring nuclear reactors have been found at Oklo in Gabon. Current thinking is that they burned for around a million years and then stopped about two billion years ago - interestingly, the waste plutonium has only moved about ten feet in that time. However, the "natural" status of any idea/technology is irrelevant unless you buy in to the ludicrous dichotomy of "Nature Good, Man-made Bad"
"Or are you talking about the stuff that goes on in the sun? Natural, yes, but not what we want on earth... "
Why don't we want it on Earth? The fusion reaction takes hydrogen and converts it to helium and doesn't produce the piles of radioactive waste that the fission reaction does. They also wouldn't be subject to the kinds of disaster seen at Chernobyl
"the links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and the lack of security in the nuclear industry."
There is a link between metalwork and weapons manufacture - want to ban metal? In fact, a fusion plant would be easier to inspect for weapons development as there wouldn't normally be any fissile material present so any that is will stick out like a green-glowing sore thumb. As for security, the main problems in the past have been as a result of it being run by a private company trying to squeeze more profit out of the industry.
"I'm pro-science. Therefore, I know enough about it to be anti-nuclear."
I'll see your pro-science attitude and raise you two degrees in physics. If you knew half as much as you think you do, you wouldn't be lumping fusion and fission together just because they are described by the word nuclear.
Ideally we should have the base load provided by fusion power and the rest made up from micro-generation by renewables.
MonkeyBot 5000