?

Log in

brossen99 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
brossen99

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

UK Economic Stimulus Project ? [Dec. 29th, 2011|11:21 pm]
brossen99
 
I can bet that none of your alleged radical ideas will include projects like making the water companies build a virtual " National Grid " for water starting with two pipes one from Keilder to London with one from the Lake District intersecting in Yorkshire. Our cement industry is currently running inefficiently both in manpower and energy but if we were to specify concrete pipes plenty of jobs could be created. That's not including the pipeline itself which could be started at multiple sites across the route and provide much needed employment for only semi-skilled workers. No need to import anything so no problem with our balance of payments deficit, spread the work out over the next ten years and ensure the south east never faces problems with drought. A true green climate change adaptation measure and perhaps the public investment in Keilder in the 1970s will have been worthwhile, the original steel works it was designed to supply having been closed.

We get our water through three big pipes from the Lake District ( about 50 miles away ), the pipes continue from here in the Ribble Valley across the back of Accrington and then into a tunnel trough to a big reservoir north of Bury. Its a tunnel through the hills just to the back of us, I can remember seeing the last one being built when I was a small child, over 40 years ago. It was all done by Manchester Corporation public works department, they had a base at Gt Harwood where the bloke who trained me my scientific engineering aspects was employed up to the completion of all the works. Old buses were used to take the men out to site from the bigger mill towns, employed loads of local people as well, even decent wages you could actually save on. No pumps required anywhere even though it crosses under the river Ribble about 500 ft below where it goes into the tunnel to Bury.  All I know is that Keilder is higher than north London and the lake district is higher than the part of Yorkshire where both pipes would need to intersect, both are higher than London so no excuse for pumping anything !

The question is who is going to pay for it, the obvious answer is the private water companies and consumers in the areas likely to benefit.  Of course one would expect that Thames Water and other south east companies would pick up the lions share of the bill for the new water grid but they have been short all the way down the east from Lincolnshire this year. There is nothing to stop anybody using said water for agriculture either, farmers down the east side of the midlands have been stopped from irrigating this year, our most productive and fertile farming areas. Perhaps Severn and Trent could pick up a proportion as well and its not that long ago that Yorkshire were forced to use tankers from Keilder. Even the North West is not immune, a couple of years ago the Leeds Liverpool canal was closed due to local drought, the Yorkshire link could work both ways in theory.  However, it should not be used as an excuse for yet even more development in the South East.
linkpost comment

Letter to my Local Paper [Dec. 21st, 2011|09:25 pm]
brossen99

Regarding the recent job losses announced at Castle Cement, they are not the only ones to fall victim to the current C02 Climate Scam, almost our entire aluminium smelting industry is being closed down due to the increased energy costs due to following alleged " Green " policy.  And the Climate Scam doesn't end there, last winter the statistics prove more UK people died because they could not afford their household energy bills than died on the roads for the entire year.  Perhaps Chris Huhne will go down in history as the key architect of the Green Holocaust, no need for anything like expensive concentration concentration camps, just freeze and starve all lower income people to death in their own homes.  What we must ask ourselves is how this can be allowed to happen in an alleged civilised society, but it would appear that even our alleged Christian church has apparently sold its soul to the eco-fascist CO2 quasi-religion.
  
The simple fact is that the CO2 link to global warming is now far further from being proven, especially if you take into account the most recent research which the UK media and especially the BBC is attempting to hide.  The CERN " cloud " project data released earlier this year clearly proves that the Sun has a far greater influence on climate via cloud formation than ever admitted yet known about all along ( 1996 ) by the " warmist " camp.  Similarly the latest NASA data on heat escaping the earth's atmosphere, far in excess of the data used in all the climate prediction computer models which in combination with the CERN results render all the climate models the politicians use to justify alleged green policy pure fantasy.  In one of the recently released " climategate 2 " e-mails the sender states that " if we said it was all natural they will kill us ", perhaps not so dramatic as that but they would be sure to lose most of their current featherbed research funding.

The result of our collective democratic stupidity over the years is that it would appear that the UK is now effectively locked into various alleged " green " investment scams which our nation can ill afford and at the end of the day do nothing to reduce our global energy consumption.  When the UK aluminium smelters close there will no longer be anywhere local to recycle drinks cans, perhaps the only thing actually worth recycling before incineration anyway, never mind plenty of loads back for now empty containers for China.   If Hitler had sent " fifth columnists " with the intent of sabotaging our economy in the 1930s he could hardly have done better job than the various key UK alleged environmental groups.  Our economy can never recover until Ed Miliband's 2008 Climate Change Act is repealed, if the current political stupidity continues ( 250 million pledged to help energy intensive industry is just a sticking plaster " there was an old woman who swallowed a fly " policy ) we could have FIVE Million unemployed by the next general election, and we will never get our perhaps deliberately closed and asset stripped essential industry back !
linkpost comment

Why Train Fares are so Expensive [Dec. 20th, 2011|08:46 pm]
brossen99

I could go back to the turn of the 20th century and the impact of the First World War to trace railway history from an engineering aspect.  However, perhaps a convenient point to start would be Nationalization ( first proposed at the grouping in 1923) which had nothing to do with politics.   The simple fact was that the railway companies owed a fortune on government sponsored low interest loans.  Said loans had been taken out in the 1920's and 30's   It was just like Railtrack 2000, in 1927 a local train derailed just outside my local station, the track simply disintegrated under the locomotive.  Money was spent on new track and rolling stock ( of which my particular interest is locomotives ) and by 1939 the UK had probably the best railway in the world.

The railways contracted to provide war transport at a fixed price, when the government had to pay up the country was totally bankrupt.   The thing was that the railway companies owed the government a similar amount and as neither could afford to pay each other nationalization was the only sensible answer.  

By the 1950's things were looking up, ( non stop Kings Cross to Edinburg in six hours and a half )  Riddles the BR Chief Mechanical Engineer had introduced his excellent low maintenance standard steam locomotives and had plans to electrify all the more busy lines as money allowed. Steam locomotives were cheap to build, a Black Five cost about 16k, the equivalent electric cost 37k, but the equivalent LMS diesel electric cost 87k.   Riddles warned the now Tory politicians that dieselization would cost so much that the railways would never be able to afford mass electrification.  Of course the politicians took no notice and started ordering diesel multiple units ASAP, Riddles resigned in 1951, HG Ivatt former CME of the LMS and the man behind the design of the LMS diesels having gone in 1950.  The SR also built a diesel electric which was later to form the basis for the very successful English Electric Type 4 BR Class 40, one of which is still fit for mainline running but many are preserved. 

An interesting development was the 4-8-4 Fell Locomotive, which had four engines driving though differentials to achieve automatic gear change.  Although teething troubles left it running as a 4-4-4-4 it ran in regular service until 1957 when its train heat boiler set on fire.  Apparently it was quite good, running express trains through the Derbyshire peak district with long gradients either side of the summit.  An old friend of mine was actually on one train hauled by it, he said it performed just as well as any good steam locomotive.  No comparative costings survive to my knowledge, the politics pointed to diesel electric traction and wanted no obvious competitors.

With 1955 came the " modernization plan ", perhaps more focused on winning the general election with the promise of jobs in marginal constituencies.  It set off quite sensible, about 200 " pilot scheme " locomotives were ordered but the Western Region wanted German inspired diesel hydraulics ( to avoid having an electrical department despite the fact that electronics are required to control the system ).  Manufacturers included English Electric, BR itself and Brush where Ivatt was a consultant engineer.  North British built the Hydraulics with the equipment built under license from Germany.  The engines were particularly unreliable, apparently NB had not been supplied with the " limits and fits " so just made them up perhaps down to the accuracy of their ancient worn out machine tools.  They were all scrapped in the early 1960s, a diesel electric version of the Type 2 was also an early withdrawal.

The point was the brakes were taken off the " pilot scheme " and mass orders placed perhaps again to swing marginal seats like Loughborough ( Brush ).  The original Brush Type 2 had Mirlees engines which started fracturing their crankcases, a slightly more powerful English Electric engine was fitted to the whole 250+ class in the 1960s, yet more unnecessary expense.
The thing was that that by 1962 they had cumatively ordered enough motive power to run the entire pre Beechin network.  The Class 14 0-6-0 600 hp diesel hydraulic intended for great western branch lines had a very short life prior to purchase by private industry.

On the DMU order front the older low power units had been replaced with a half decent Rolls-Royce power unit.  Even then they were probably no better than a Class 4 steam engine in overall performance.  If my experience with road transport engines is anything to go by the AEC and Leyland powered units of the earlier DMU's would have been less than reliable.
The advent of the diesel locomotive had negative effects on the then built up track.  I am informed that in steam days the Stainforth ganger would walk to Ribblehead and be finished any work by lunch time.   When the diesels appeared on the scene he was working endless overtime to keep the track safe for express speeds.

By the 1970s all the hydraulics and other " non standard " diesel electrics had been withdrawn, what remained were Class 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 37, 40, 45, 47 and 55 Deltic.  I deliberately omit class 50 because they were introduced in 1967 as a stop gap to Crewe-Glasgow electrification in 1974.  I believe that there advanced electronics were troublesome, but that was English Electric problem as they were leased to BR.  They were eventually rebuilt with conventional control gear, replacing the " Western " Class 52 diesel hydraulics.

Is it any wonder that despite selling millions of pounds worth of equipment for scrap the railways consistently failed to even break even due to servicing the 1bn LOAN taken out to fund the alleged money saving " modernization plan "   The HST was a revolution, but is it worth the extra cost to get there that bit quicker.  However the HST is a continuing success but one has to question the latest air operated doors for alleged easy disabled access.   The safety fascists were paranoid about people opening the door and falling out, but to make the doors open inwards like the NSWGR XPT in Aussie was surely the cheaper option.


In summer 1981 a friend and I spent the entire week on BR doing an all line rail rover for £80, only coming home for a bath on Tuesday.   Slept on the overnight trains, often Mk1 corridor stock where you could lie flat across three seats.  The whole week went like clockwork, never missed a train until we read the time table wrong, yet managed to substitute the agenda easily.  The railways looked in good fettle, even freight was doing relatively OK.   Things were little changed in 1985 when I did a Freedom of Scotland pass, which was to prove the template for a three month Austrail Pass nov 1987-feb 1988.   The suburban system around Sydney was excellent, only £10 a week for an area the size of Lancashire.  I can't help speculating that the fact that they were still using 1925 designed electric stock on some services, the bulk of trains were 1960's double deck EMU stock allowed the low fares.


Three foot six guage rush hour suburban trains at Perth used 1920's mainline stock during the rush hour hauled by 1950 English Electric loco's.  Likewise Brisbane, but 1960s steel stock, the five foot threeAdelaide system was fairly run down 1950 DMU's only but dirt cheap, ( not included in Austrail pass )  Melbourne suburban was pretty impressive.  It was a pain having to book long distance journeys in advance.

Freight Interlude

Even though in 1981 there were no tachgraphs at the time, the EU 8 hour driving hours wrecked freight transport efficiency.  Industry in central Scotland was decimated when the tachographs eventually came in, mostly due to Dumfries & Galloway police rigidly enforcing the 40 Mph HGV speed limit on the A74.   Srathclyde had a spell at it also but could see the damage to the economy, didn't help rail freight either.  Now there were lots of empty wagons in central Scotland who couldn't get home for a load the next day so spend the rest of your day loading one to take back.  Stuff like spuds and whiskey, basically anything not in a particular rush and you could use traditional railway stock.   The yard of the garage where I worked backed onto the Blackburn-Hellifield line so you couldn't miss what was going on.  The trains just got shorter and shorter, Scotch wagons were also taking stuff back in the other direction.  The final nail in the coffin was the APT and the need to take the catch points out of the WCML  so all partially fitted trains were withdrawn. 

The result was even more wagon's on the road and everyone had to buy new more powerful equipment, then they did it again in 1985, new 38 tonne weight limit when they should have gone straight to 44 tonne and allow a " full " 40 foot ISO container to be handled by road.   The only problem is that much of the current road freight is low density stuff like Stobart's empty beer cans to Worcester and full cans back to Carlisle, which could make such traffic more " eco friendly " ( fuel efficient ) by road.

Perhaps the future is a network of road / rail container interchange depots, with regular trains running between the extremes stopping of on route to interchange traffic.   For instance if you had a consignment of goods ( container ) from the south west for destinations in the north east you would intersect the train at somewhere near Preston and deliver ( perhaps several drops ) to as far as Newcastle the next day.  Reciprocal from the east coast route, arrange things to make the best use of both rail and road transport.  For instance a road vehicle sent from Preston could collect goods to go by rail from a north east depot as part of a working day.  It just needs clever organization, computers are not really up to it yet if rail ticketing software is anything to go by.

On the passenger side they introduced the four wheel Pacer DMU's yet four wheel coaching stock was abandoned by the late Victorians.  Their " bucking bronco " ride could be described as exciting if not frightening.  The Sprinter's are underpowered, only the same engine as a typical late 1980's 38 ton artic yet weigh almost 50 tons.  With hindsight the sensible thing to have done would have been to convert and refurbish redundant Mk1 and Mk2 coaching stock for push-pull working and use refurbished withdrawn freight locos as motive power.  They do it in the United States, and even Network Rail now have push pull test train sets hauled by class 31 and 37 locomotives.  Once again the politically correct disabled access argument comes in to muddy the waters, but once upon a time station staff would pick you up and carry you on if at all infirm.

By the 1990s neglect of the track infrastructure made privatisation the easy political option, but was done in the most inefficient of ways, everybody had to expensively lease everything from the Banks and their stock market parasites.  It would appear that the whole object of the exercise was once again false economic growth and we all know what happened with Railtrack. 

I have never believed the alleged passenger statistics claiming that train journeys increased.  I suspect most of the alleged gain is in double counting of passengers using more than one company to complete their journey.  Now many split their journey to save money, how does that reflect on passenger journeys. Crammed into a three car DMU like sardines when in the 1980's the same service would have been loco hauled with up to 10 coaches ?

The result of consistent political mismanagement of our railways since the 1950's means that many people can no longer afford the essential democratic activity of being able to just walk on to a long distance train.  We must not let the politicians continue to interfere, new ( imported, stock market parasites change money ) trains ordered to replace the HST's when there is no true need yet.   Its up to groups like Cfbt to prevent the HST's being scrapped and instead used on services like Edinburgh / Glasgow - Birmingham currently covered by sardine can latest DMU's.   There must be enough coaching stock stored around the country to provide push pull sets ( up to 8 coaches proven ) perhaps utilizing loco's currently in preservation as motive power and replace the remaining Pacer's and cover overcrowded rush hour trains.

The future needs to be targeted investment, make do and mend, only then can fares come down in real terms.   Perhaps a modern equivalent of the Fell Locomotive needs to be investigated, no expensive copper and heavy duty electronics.   Railways need to get back to the basic first principle of a simple locomotive hauling cheap to build rolling stock.  At least Network Rail are doing a good job replacing the worn out track, but all their debts need to be written off.  With the track sorted expanding freight could help subsidise passenger services like it did pre war.
linkpost comment

Future UK Energy Policy ? [Dec. 20th, 2011|08:41 pm]
brossen99

Current UK energy policy has been poisoned by the eco-fascists, we should have been a lot further down the road to increasing the output of Nuclear Power. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were a factor in the UK almost abandoning nuclear due to safety fears, yet Chernobyl was due to the operators experimenting, Three Mile Island to bad design.

The latest reactor designs are " fail safe " and produce far less waste than the older generation of reactors. The beauty of nuclear is that you can reprocess the fuel, and the UK has the infrastructure to do it. The potential negative health effects of the waste are probably exaggerated, people and wild animals still live in the most highly contaminated zone at Chernobyl with no health problems. If the eco-fascists were to be believed everyone would have died of cancer and there would be birth defects in animals, neither of which is the case even though some small animals are now highly radioactive themselves. The waste can be securely stored without posing any specific damage to public health or the environment. A large proportion of alleged " nuclear waste " is produced by hospitals anyway.

Likewise energy from Coal, The eco-fascists always attempt to portray how bad burning coal is as far as causing global warming is concerned. However, basic combustion science suggests that burning coal emits far less Water Vapour than burning gas or oil. Given that water vapour is said to be just as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2, does the lack of water vapour when burning coal cancel out the increased CO2 to some extent ?

( source British Transport Commission Hand Book for Steam Locomotive Enginemen )

I did a quick Google search and this popped up

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

It would appear that water vapour is being considered as a pollutant by some people, and if it is self regulating as you claim ( could be eco-fascist Aristotle based ) why therefore is CO2 not " self regulating either. As a rough guide I was taught that burning one gallon of petrol produces one gallon of water, all this water has to go somewhere either in increased rainfall or raising the sea level. Unfortunately I not up to speed on the science of how much heat is released when water vapour is condensed into rain in our atmosphere.

I don't trust the eco-fascists on science, after all they did support the introduction of traffic calming which doubles the potentially toxic alleged asthma causing pollution from motor vehicles on our roads. CO2 production is also vastly increased.

Handbook for steam locomotive enginemen was written by true engineers, not the university trained idiots we have today attempting to appease their corporate funders quasi-religion. Whatever you say, the eco-fascists can't get around the traffic calming causes pollution problem. I have been pointing it out since 1995, only now have the facts been recognized only to be " less pregnant " with 20 Mph zones as the alternative, and then only to sell average speed camera technology. Eco-fascism is all about selling new products and new " tech " company share price speculation, nothing to do with protecting the environment.

We have enough coal to last us at least 200 years even if we increase production significantly. It is foolish to use natural gas to generate electricity when it is far more useful for direct home cooking and heating. If liquefied it can also be used as transport fuel, and we now only have limited UK reserves, gas will need to be mostly imported by 2020.

If we move towards Electric Cars our generating capacity will need to be significantly increased. It is possible that we could get up to 10% of our electricity base load from Waste Incineration. The Isle of man already do it in a state of the art incinerator which emits very low levels, if any toxic pollution. The eco-fascists squeal about the ash, but it can be safely disposed of in landfill.

Back in the 1990s I was a member of a local protest group concerned about serious pollution being generated by or local cement works. The main factor was the use of toxic waste printing solvents as fuel, but I had suspicions all along that it was also the quality of the imported coal. I know about coal due to an early interest in mining, and having carted the stuff around in wagons for much of my working life. Some of the coal being used by the cement works was so bad that even the docker's didn't nick it for free use at home. I suspect that the waste toluene etc was needed to make the coal burn at all under some conditions.

Anyway, to get back to the story the group was in dialog with the then HMIP and the cement company, I attended the meeting where it was agreed that the latest Flue Gas Scrubber would be installed at the cement plant. They also changed the coal and went back to cleaner British stuff after I mentioned it at the said meeting.

Combustion technology has moved on over the past 20 years, Flue Gas Scrubbers remove all the sulphur emissions ( and any other toxins ) from coal fired power plants and produce Gypsum, Drax send two trains a day to the plaster board works at Kirkby Thore in Cumbria. If waste incinerators were built in more rural locations there would be the potential to heat many acres of glasshouses and grow the exotic vegetables we currently import mostly on air freight. Building waste incinerators away from main centers of population gets around one potential major problem, the smell, although this could be kept to a minimum with just in time deliveries of waste.

The whole object of the exercise is to reduce the price of energy to a minimum, energy companies need efficient regulation, but the main problem remains the stock market parasite energy dealers.  Would also need to scrap any form of Carbon Trading or carbon floor price.

From ROBINOVITCH

Ed Miliband's pursuit of windpower as even part of our energy mix is sheer lunacy. Wind power is a complete disaster says Michael J. Trebilcock, Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. Here is a summary of the key points he made in his Toronto Post article dated 8th April 2009.

1. Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.

2. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind powers unpredictability.

3. Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmarks largest energy utilities) tells us that wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

4. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that Germanys CO2 emissions havent been reduced by even a single gram, and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

5. Recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.

6. Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Take the Danish experience:-

a. Danish electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe;
b. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.
c. Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it a terribly expensive disaster.

7. In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green:-

a. Firstly - the environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately. (From Ed Milibands comments on Newsnight tonight, he is one of these).

b. Secondly - the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever the relative impact of such projects on greenhouse gas emissions.

Both groups have one point of convergence - their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (particularly wind turbines).

ROBINOVITCH

linkpost comment

Citizens Income ( Revised ) [Dec. 20th, 2011|08:18 pm]
brossen99

I am probably thinking right outside the box, but in the event of the government having to nationalize all the banks perhaps we have the opportunity to create a brand new sustainable stakeholder economy. The creation of a Citizens Income could overcome the current state benefits stigma, and would replace the complication of all current benefits including the Old Age Pension.The object of the exercise would be to give every person ( over 25 or ten years legal income tax paid residence ) in the country a virtual 100,000 quid in a national savings account which paid say 10% interest. This would equate to a " citizens income " and people would be able to be employed to increase this as they pleased.

Income tax could be 50% after the first 5000 but it would be possible to allow tax relief on the purchase of your own home. Children could also attract tax relief, 7500 for the first, 5000 for the second but only 2500 for the third and extra children.There would also need to be a maximum income, say 10 times the citizens income, anything above that would be subject to 100% tax. However some tax relief could be given for every full time person directly employed.The object of the exercise would be to achieve maximum income via saving throughout life up to retirement. Obviously people in high paid jobs could retire earlier ( after having paid in full for their house ). Perhaps they could continue to work part time as consultants in their chosen field.

To prevent depreciation on consumer goods there would be no credit allowed on any product not capable of ( with maintenance ) lasting 30 years.Inheritance tax would be 100% on cash savings but all property including business equipment and land could be tax free.This policy could make it worth voting for the working class, although I expect that the stock market parasites would object so no chance of their puppets like Cameron or even given the chance Ed Miliband doing it.

·We could easily be on the brink of a total global stock market meltdown, which will inevitably cause all the Banks to go bust, and with them lots of FTSE listed companies. Of course if we idly stand by and do nothing the result could end in serious civil unrest, but perhaps we need to take the following approach.

1. Nationalise all the UK listed Banks, and then if the companies they have lent to can't stump up the cash, ( no asset stripping allowed ) nationalise them also.

2. Introduce a Citizens Income at a level where everybody can afford to keep warm and dry and have a full belly.

3. Introduce a tax system where it pays dividends in tax credits to employ people and prescribes a maximum wage for those not directly employing others.

4. Established small business should be able to stand on its own feet, but the individual units of FTSE companies need to be converted over time into workers cooperatives.

5. All mortgages which go into default converted into National Council Houses, and their occupier charged a suitable rent, ( no need to throw anyone on the street )

By doing the above it should be possible to reach a position where all cash savings are valid up to the 85k bank limit, all National Savings accounts retain full value.

In this way the National Bank will have money to invest in our future !

Rough outline anyway, anybody else got any ideas ?
link3 comments|post comment

EU Inspired False Economic Growth [Jan. 16th, 2011|09:52 pm]
brossen99

Many of those who actively promote the " Corporate Nazi " ideology's apparent guru Milton Freidman allegedly wrote something like that the one and only one social responsibility of any business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits.   ( Just so long as it stays within the theoretical moral rules, that is to say it uses free competition and avoids any potential deception or fraud ? )
 
The only problem with the above is that large corporations have consistently lobbied government ( particularly in the UK ) to change or ignore any rules.  The rot probably first set in after Dennis Healey took out the IMF loan in the mid 1970s.  Ever since pure science and engineering has been increasingly infiltrated by corporate politics and been misrepresented in order to produce the most profitable outcome from research in order to generate false economic growth on the stock market.
 
My personal business ideology was formed as I was brought up in a village corner shop which made its own ice cream.  Also before leaving school I worked part time at a local small haulage contractor, despite being one of the top performing students on the technical side I dropped out of tech in the final year when they tried to indoctrinate me with corporate business theory, but stayed long enough to get the general idea. 
 
My first real exposure to the corporate world was whilst working as a HGV driver delivering metal pressings to Ford plants in the mid 1980s.  I was on friendly terms with the owner of said engineering business who would openly admit that he would make far more money if he had his capital investment in a building society.   His main problem was getting paid on time by Ford, they owed him for several months work but he couldn't take any action to get paid as they would have instantly cancelled his contract.  He had to buy all the steel from Ford at their price ( they could probably justify this on quality control grounds ) but when one really bad quality batch of Ford Cargo cab back panels went rusty as soon as they were pressed, he had to pay to try to clean them up.  Said engineering company arranged all their transport but then Ford demanded that they use Ford's own corporate haulage sub contractor at extra expense and inconvenience.  We lost the haulage job but it was said about  a couple of years later that Ford had sent in a team of managers to run said engineering works which then soon went into administration.   Although we technically lost our jobs due to Ford transport policy our union ( T&G ) did nothing to help us even though our replacements were in foreign built vehicles and consistently breaking the drivers hours regulations.
 
In between hauling metal pressings we did muti drop chemicals throughout the UK.  You could tell how a company treated its workforce by the way they dealt with you as far as getting quickly unloaded.  It was always a pleasure to visit ICI sites, but that was in the days before most of the company was sold off and then virtually asset stripped for instant profit.  Large companies like ICI always managed to retain their share price whilst providing decent working conditions and terms for their workforce, at least until the 1987 stock market crash.  I can't remember whether the following is in strict chronological order, but I was informed first hand that when Guinness took over Distillers ( in a dodgy deal ) the rent of small arable farmers in west Lancashire was doubled overnight, a pattern which was to become all too familiar in the 1990s.
 
On the politics side, it would appear that Thatcher would not play their false economic growth to plug the black hole in the stock market game and so they tricked her into introducing the Poll Tax after which she was compelled to resign.  Just as soon as Major got elected in his own right the false economic growth regulations were trotted out regularly.  As far as personal experience was concerned we were hit by new sheeting regulations at the quarries, Tilcon must have know it was in the pipeline as they had sold the majority of their road haulage sector to Fewston, a company set up by the banks and profit based on sub letting haulage work to smaller haulage contractors.  Tilcon had always bought several new British built Foden eight-wheelers every year but Fewston switched to Swedish Scania, the haulage rates never went up to cover the costs of sheeting, many experienced drivers left due to the health implications ( including myself with back problems ).  The net result was the Sowerby Bridge Disaster in which several people lost their lives after a Fewston wagon ran away down the steep hill, given the evidence almost certainly caused by an inexperienced incompetent ex-police ( just recently passed HGV test driver ) " pumping " the air brakes after they " faded " on the long hill down into Halifax.  Of course Tilcon escaped any vicarious liability at the time but the ministry of transport came in and got the haulage rates increased, after which Tilcon was subsequently taken over.  All to prevent a bit of harmless dust getting onto the ten bob fat cat yuppies who had moved into the Dales new BMW's.
 
Then came Traffic Calming, and it in not simple coincidence that Hyndburn ( the first local authority to introduce widespread traffic calming ) was one of the first local authorities forced to sell its corporation bus fleet.  One first rate coachbuilder I knew left ( Stagecoach ) Ribble Blackburn depot to become top man at Hyndburn Transport, only to leave after a couple of weeks later because the urgent repair workload ( due to running over traffic calmed streets ) was impossible to keep up with, he was such a good man that Ribble instantly gave him his old job back.  Corporate Stagecoach picked up Hyndburn Transport on the cheap in a bent deal arranged with the bent Labour leader of the council who pushed the traffic calming in the first place, the first class engineering depot ( on a prime site ) was asset striped and sold.  Other corporation transport operations have fallen to the corporates since due to being unable to even break even, and not being able to access new investment for more modern vehicles. 
 
Another false economic growth investment scam was " disabled access to public transport ", the corporates were all for it after sorting a bent deal with the minister in charge who's son was employed in a top management position by one of them.  Just for the extra interest payments alone it would have been possible to provide a 24/7 dial up free taxi service to anywhere in the UK for anybody claiming DLA.  Perhaps this prime example of politically correct lunacy is the main reason why its far cheaper per mile to run your car than use public transport because the fares are so high now in many areas.  We have now reached a point where local authorities are forced to subsidise the majority of bus services using the council tax, the corporate bus operators taking the angle that if they can't turn a fat profit they wont run the service.   Thatcher's bus privatisation plan has been amply proven an abject failure, short of total re-nationalisation the way forward now is efficient regulation with the bus operators turned into virtual road haulage contractors to the local council, who would collect all the fares and organise all the timetables.
 
Both the above false economic growth generating scams come via the EU but more recently motor industry funded alleged charities have been set up to demand legislation on the grounds of " road safety ", but their impact has been nothing compared to the influence of environmental NGO's on government policy.  Perhaps their first major victory was when Ken Clarke introduced the Road Fuel Tax Escalator, of course big business said nothing perhaps because they were prepared to run with anything which could prevent the top rate of income tax being increased and the resultant drop in funds to their " stock market parasites ", ( hedge funds and the like ).   It didn't have any real impact at first but Labour was favourite to win the 1997 election and if there was a working brain between them they must have realised the RFTE made particularly northern manufacturing industry uncompetitive.  However, Brown just carried on with it and by 1998 I can recall that hundreds of once well secure job for life " household name " manufacturing jobs were being lost every week.   This continued until the Farmers For Action fuel protests and ending of the RTFE in 2000, but by this time the " stock market parasites " had got it into their DNA that asset stripping British industry was far more profitable in the short term than actually trying to run it efficiently.  By this time global big business had organised itself into a virtual Corporate Multinational Cartel ( CMC ) which prevented any real competition in an alleged " free market ", with direct services to the public contracted out to franchise holders in many cases.   I suspect that the general public have no idea what the vast majority of FTSE listed companies actually do anymore, and therefore it is impossible for members of the public to take any direct " consumer action " against them by withholding their trade.  Take the toxic waste dumping in Africa more recently, it is impossible to decipher which major company was actually responsible, almost everyone in the chain escapes vicarious liability with the investment in the " shell company " which probably goes bust to pay the fines being insured by credit default swaps etc.  The sting in the tail is that if it was not for alleged environmental groups bleating about non existent toxic pollution from waste incinerators with the latest technology we could have created well paid sustainable jobs in the UK.
 
That neatly brings us onto the next eco scam, household / industrial waste incineration or lack of it as far as the UK is concerned.  Eco groups have bleated so loud over the last 20 years about toxic emission that most brain dead politicians ( at least where engineering or science is concerned ) have done everything they can to appease them.  Many councils are now contracted to mega expensive " waste treatment plants ", which probably cause anyone local far more noxious smell than any incinerator could ever do.   The most logical way to dispose of waste is to incinerate and generate electricity, in rural areas where the potential smell is well away from residential areas but also to allow the construction of glasshouses in order to use any waste heat in order to grow the exotic fruit and vegetables currently imported by environmentally damaging air freight.  Of course the UK is not allowed to do this because it hits the CMC in two areas, the energy sector ( electricity from incineration could reduce market prices ) and the airlines which indirectly hits the oil section of the cartel.   Environmentalists have made a big noise about disposable carrier bags and other alleged excess packaging but if they were burnt to generate electricity we could reduce demand on other fuels.  The UK has 300 years supply of good quality coal in the ground yet the environmentalists say we should not use it because there would appear to be doubts about the practicality of the most expensive option for capture of CO2.  CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants can be significantly reduced growing Chlorella, a fast growing Chinese pond slime which itself can be used as fuel, yet no UK research as I believe Shell hold the rights and they would prefer investment in gas ?
 
Despite all the environmentalist's rhetoric about standing up against big business it would appear that most of the policy they promote is in actual fact increasing the influence of the CMC over the UK economy, oil companies want an alleged low carbon economy in order to force up the market price of gas.  Similarly the alleged environmentalists pushed for the introduction of traffic calming in towns which probably increases road transport pollution emissions by at least 10% on a national basis.   The main question is how have the alleged environmentalists managed to get Carbon Dioxide classed as a pollutant in the first instance, the man made global warming theory is based on dubious science to say the least, but like most science I expect that research is skewed to reflect the interest of the CMC.   Meanwhile its likely that implementing the Climate Change Act will result in the mass asset stripping of UK manufacturing industry on a scale not seen since the RFTE before 2000, it doesn't help that foreign aid money is allegedly being used to buy up mothballed UK machine tools on the cheap for export via third world countries.
 
Meanwhile UK citizen stakeholders are being sold short by the politicians for the benefit of the " stock market parasites " and false economic growth which continually increases the " financial apartheid " between rich and poor.  Within the next 10 years the energy industry will fall to the same fate as Railtrack after the Hatfield crash in 2000, wind farms are a pointless waste of scarce investment.  Evidence from Denmark and Germany shows that they have not closed a single fossil fuel plant, in fact Germany has had to open new fossil fuel plants to prevent power cuts.  ( probably not helped by the fact that Germany also backs up Denmark )  The main thrust of the wind farm scam is probably designed to inflate the world price of copper, its probable that you need far more copper per unit of energy produced in wind farms rather than fossil or nuclear power plants.  Copper related mining shares appear to have been the main driver of the current recovery in the FTSE index, I suspect that all the hedge funds are in there borrowing up to the hilt to speculate in mining shares and thus denying scarce investment to real productive UK companies. 
 
The UK faces the real possibility of regular power cuts which could precipitate total anarchy in our larger towns and cities, the situation is not helped by the fact that if anyone dare open a new power station or gas storage facility the alleged environmentalists are round there quick sharp with a fleet of corporate lawyers demanding a public enquiry.   It would appear that the primary focus of mainstream alleged environmental groups has nothing to do with protecting the overall ecology of our planet ( export pollution to China and India ) and everything to do with inflating the cost of living in the UK, false economic growth which can be expressed as an increasing number on stock market indices.  The UK can simply not afford to continue on the same false economic growth policy of the politicians always opting for the most inefficient and expensive option of achieving anything vital for the continued success and relative prosperity ( and now that its been left to go on for so long perhaps the survival ? ) of our nation and its citizens.

linkpost comment

Cumbria Shootings ? [Jun. 4th, 2010|09:36 pm]
brossen99

Having seen the emerging circumstantial evidence around the West Cumbria shootings I can't help speculating that the majority of Bird's victims were not in fact random.  Among the dead are far too many minor local celebrities, for instance the taxi driver he killed had been on TV for specially painting up his cab to support  the  England football team in  2004.
 
One of the women he killed was allegedly running a " bird sanctuary " and I believe had been on TV perhaps protesting about a proposed cull of allegedly radio-active pigeons at Sellafield.  Perhaps she stopped sports marksmen participating and even getting paid for said cull, perhaps took a fairly high profile anti sport shooting line in general line.
 
Then there was the cyclist, allegedly shot his back wheel out first to stop him before the actual fatal shot.  Here again said cyclist had appeared on TV in some unspecified capacity, but he was on his regular daily run and perhaps Bird knew where and when to find him.  Said cyclist was also big in the union at Sellafield from which Bird was sacked for alleged theft back in 1990, their paths could have crossed.  My first instinct in this case was that every professional driver at sometime in their career thinks to themselves that they would have loved to have shot a " cyclist " who needlessly impeded their progress.  However, Bird let another cyclist who happened on the scene of another incident escape without even firing a shot at him.
 
Sellafield must be key in a number of cases, retired former gateman shot on his daily trip down to the bookies.  Retired ( perhaps ex security guard ) shot outside his house while regularly exercising his new hip replacement, then his wife ( apparently big in the local church ) shot just down the road.  Both men could have been key figures when Bird got sacked from Sellafield, in addition the gateman could have given Bird a hard time in his job as a taxi driver.
 
Perhaps the only exception which proves the rule was the young " estate agent " but plod couldn't decide whether it was the shot or the resulting car crash which actually killed him.  There are other examples of relatively minor injuries, perhaps a deliberate near miss with the shotgun, all the evidence suggests that Bird was a good shot.  Similarly the teenage girl who went over to offer directions to Bird when he pulled up in his car beside her.  She was shot at twice but both perhaps intentionally missed, perhaps just wanted to give her the fright of her life.
 
It is certain that this case need proper thorough investigation with nothing ruled out, I suspect that there are " Corporate Nazi's " out there who are already angling for a complete whitewash to attempt to amend the gun legislation and damage the rural economy as much as humanly possible.   There must be lessons to be learnt on how to reduce the possibility of future similar occurrences, with the pending economic situation there must be plenty of once fine upstanding people out there facing total destitution due to potential business failure etc.   At least last night's Newsnight got it out into the open that many people are being forced to work for far less than minimum wage under the guise of " self employment ", no chance of getting JSA etc if you have any decent cash savings from better times.  Perhaps the only technical amendment needed to the gun laws is that anybody in real danger of becoming " insolvent " must hand their guns into police custody, to only be released at a later date when all financial problems are resolved ?

link4 comments|post comment

Electric Cars ? [May. 22nd, 2010|07:27 pm]
brossen99

( thinking with a long head to solve any potential problems with cheap effective solutions )

I have been considering the various construction, operating and economic factors relating to practical mass market electric cars.   It would appear that most potential manufacturers are locked into designs which need massive investment in new tooling, use possibly the most expensive batteries on the market.  Overall family practicality sacrificed on the altar of style and the aerodynamics quasi-religion when its unlikely to be driven long periods at high speed.
 
The first cost of any practical electric family car is prohibitive to most people, then the range is only perhaps 60 miles.  Most people need a car capable of longer journeys, and as far as I can see the most practical solution is to use cheap lead acid battery pack on trailers.  Its not a new idea, Ribble Motor Services ( Preston ) built and tested a prototype electric Leyland National bus in the 1970s, the batteries were carried on a trailer.
 
It could be possible to build a national network of battery trailer interchange stations on a scale similar to the number of small petrol garages in the 1950s.   Each station could hold a stock of trailers to interchange and charge batteries on site, perhaps even using local renewable sources.  The trailers would need to be hired out on a common user basis, the value of the energy included in the hire price.   It would also be beneficial to provide trailer park / interchange sites on the outskirts of town so that you could rely on the ( perhaps smaller ) vehicle battery alone for the trip into town itself.
 
Perhaps a radical departure away from " traditional " mass production car design is needed considering the investment by potential owners.  To be true " green " any mass production need to be capable ( with maintenance ) of lasting at least 30 years.  Buy an electric car in your 20s and then hand it on to your kids when they first pass their test and start driving independently.  There is proven vehicle technology capable of doing this, the ERF SP truck cab with sheet mould compound plastic panels on a strong steel frame.  Using the SP cab design as a basis it could be possible to build a vehicle which fits the above criterion.  If it was thought about properly you could even send your vehicle in for refurbishment and have it returned with different body styling.   Such a vehicle would be likely to retain its second hand value long term, unlike current mass production designs which are normally " knackered " at under 15 years old, even if you could theoretically still get the required spares.
 
I have been thinking about ways to reduce power consumption  and improve regenerative braking in electric road vehicles for several years now.   I have a PTII motor vehicle technicians certificate ( from 1982 before the syllabus was dumbed down ) with distinction and in my spare time over the years swatted up on railway locomotive engineering.   My idea is based on the principle of the Fell Locomotive ( Built 1950 ) using four diesel engines driving through differentials to provide automatic gear changes.
 
It would probably not be practical to use four small electric motors for a car, but you could use two medium sized  driving through a differential.  At low speed one motor would be idle and locked, the diff providing a reduction of 2 to 1, at above say 20 Mph the second motor was unlocked and came into use to provide additional power and acceleration at higher speed up to a max of around 70.
 
Furthermore, when braking the second motor could be locked spinning the remaining motor faster thus providing potential extra regeneration to the batteries.  I do have some practical experience of electric motors but only in model railways, some of my models are fitted with Protescap motors.  Push a dead one fairly fast along the dead track and the electricity generated will move another slowly.
 
It would be relatively easy to do using the latest electronics and could be the key to improving range especially on a vehicle like a taxi engaged on mostly slow speed city work.

link1 comment|post comment

TOLL ROADS BY STEALTH ? ( screw our environment ) [May. 15th, 2010|05:20 pm]
brossen99

There is undoubtedly far more chance of Average Speed Cameras being " rolled out " with the Lib-Demmics getting into bed with the Tories in government.
 
The following may be difficult to comprehend by the majority of the general public with a poor overall science / engineering education.   At least 25 years of green / safety-fascist propaganda probably hasn't helped either, but the basic facts remain. 
 
Earlier last year the safety-fascist / investment scammers were proposing a satellite based automatic speed limiting system ( ISA ) for all roads, the following is admittedly a selected quote from the government report.
 
" In the two modeled urban networks, increasing ISA penetration had a small detrimental effect on both CO2 emissions and fuel consumption, increasing both by up to 3%. The detrimental effect is stronger at levels of ISA penetration above 20%. This is because cars tend to operate most efficiently at speeds above 30 mph. "
 
Fair enough you could probably save fuel limiting the motorway speed limit to 70 Mph, but on the current rules that means 79 on the 10% + 2 criteria used by plod.  That means that you can legally do indicated 80 considering that most car speedometers read 10% fast anyway.  Most of the few cars travelling faster than indicated 80 are probably potentially more efficient at high speed anyway.
 
Average Speed Cameras are most likely to have a greater impact on increasing emissions than any ISA system, satellite or ground based.  Everyone must be aware of the fact that many drivers quite significantly slow below the posted speed limit when passing current fixed speed cameras.  Traffic movement on any roads fitted with Average Speed Cameras is likely to be significantly slower than the posted limit, therefore increasing the chance of congestion.  Put HGV's limited to 40 Mph on NSL single carriageway " A " roads into the mix of traffic and you significantly increase the potential for fatal head on overtaking accidents.
 
At the end of the day Average Speed Cameras ( at 150k a pair )  are just another " Corporate Nazi " inspired vehicle to promote false economic growth which in turn increases the financial apartheid between the rich and relative poor.   They are also a vehicle to introduce the technology for ground based road pricing by stealth, there must be far more important things for our taxes to fund, rather than to be squandered on Average Speed Cameras anyway. In any case the company likely to benefit and currently receiving research funding is the US company that makes the cameras, PIPS Technology.   So no benefit to British industry to be gained and so why are British taxpayers funding this especially considering the current government deficit.
 
Road pricing was soundly rejected four to one when put to a referendum on the Manchester proposals.  Similarly 1.8 million signed the Downing Street petition against any form of road pricing.  There must be ways to invigorate our economy without even considering ideas which could put our relative basic human rights back into the 18th century.   At the end of the day having to constantly take your concentration off the road ahead to keep a check on your speed is not a " safe " thing to have to do.
 

link1 comment|post comment

How The Politicians Sold UK Stakeholder's Short [Apr. 24th, 2010|06:41 pm]
brossen99

Quote from Friedman
 
" there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engage in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
 
 
The only problem with the above is that large corporations have consistently lobbied government ( particularly in the UK ) to change the rules.  The rot probably first set in after Dennis Healey took out the IMF loan in the mid 1970s.  Ever since science and engineering has been increasingly infiltrated in order to produce the most profitable outcome from research in order to generate false economic growth on the stock market.
 
My personal business ideology was formed as I was brought up in a village corner shop which made its own ice cream.  Also before leaving school I worked part time at a local small haulage contractor, dropped out of tech when they tried to indoctrinate me with corporate business theory but stayed long enough to get the general idea. 
 
My first real exposure to the corporate world was whilst working as a HGV driver delivering metal pressings to Ford plants in the mid 1980s.  I was on friendly terms with the owner of said engineering business who would openly admit that he would make far more money if he had his capital investment in a building society.   He had to buy all the steel from Ford at their price ( they could probably justify this on quality control grounds ) but when one really bad quality batch went rusty as soon as it was pressed, he had to pay to try to clean it up.  Said engineering company arranged all their transport but then Ford demanded that they use Ford's own corporate haulage sub contractor at extra expense and inconvenience.  We lost the job but it was said later that Ford had sent in a team of managers to run said engineering works which then soon went into administration.   Although we technically lost our jobs due to Ford transport policy the union did nothing to help us even though our replacements were in foreign vehicles and consistently breaking the drivers hours regulations.
 
In between hauling metal pressings we did muti drop chemicals throughout the UK.  You could tell how a company treated its workforce by the way they dealt with you as far as getting quickly unloaded.  It was always a pleasure to visit ICI sites, but that was in the days before most of the company was sold off and then virtually asset stripped for instant profit.  Large companies like ICI always managed to retain their share price whilst providing decent working conditions and terms for their workforce, at least until the 1987 stock market crash.  I can't remember whether the following is in strict chronological order, but I was informed first hand that when Guinness took over Distillers ( in a dodgy deal ) the rent of small arable farmers in west Lancashire was doubled overnight, a pattern which was to become all too familiar in the 1990s.
 
On the politics side, it would appear that Thatcher would not play their false economic growth to plug the black hole in the stock market game and so they tricked her into introducing the Poll Tax after which she was compelled to resign.  Just as soon as Major got elected in his own right the false economic growth regulations were trotted out regularly.  As far as personal experience was concerned we were hit by new sheeting regulations at the quarries, Tilcon must have know it was in the pipeline as they had sold the majority of their road haulage sector to Fewston, a company set up by the banks and profit based on sub letting haulage work to smaller haulage contractors.  Tilcon had always bought several new British built Foden eight-wheelers every year but Fewston switched to Swedish Scania, the haulage rates never went up to cover the costs of sheeting, many experience drivers left due to the health implications ( including myself with back problems ).  The net result was the Sowerby Bridge Disaster in which several people lost their lives after a Fewston wagon ran away down the steep hill, caused by an inexperienced incompetent ex-police just passed HGV test driver " pumping " the air brakes.  Of course Tilcon escaped any vicarious liability at the time but the ministry of transport came in and got the haulage rates increased, after which Tilcon was subsequently taken over.  All to prevent a bit of harmless dust getting onto the yuppies who had moved into the Dales new BMW's.
 
Then came Traffic Calming, and it in not simple coincidence that Hyndburn ( the first local authority to introduce widespread traffic calming ) was one of the first local authorities forced to sell its corporation bus fleet.  One first rate coachbuilder I knew left ( Stagecoach ) Ribble Blackburn depot to become top man at Hyndburn Transport, only to leave after a couple of weeks later because the urgent repair workload ( due to running over traffic calmed streets ) was impossible to keep up with, he was such a good man that Ribble instantly gave him his old job back.  Corporate Stagecoach picked up Hyndburn Transport on the cheap in a bent deal arranged with the bent Labour leader of the council who pushed the traffic calming in the first place, the first class engineering depot ( on a prime site ) was asset striped and sold.  Other corporation transport operations have fallen to the corporates since due to being unable to even break even, and not being able to access new investment for more modern vehicles.  Another false economic growth investment scam was " disabled access to public transport ", the corporates were all for it after sorting a bent deal with the minister in charge who's son was employed in a top management position by one of them.  Just for the extra interest payments alone it would have been possible to provide a 24/7 dial up free taxi service to anywhere in the UK for anybody claiming DLA.  Perhaps this prime example of politically correct lunacy is the main reason why its far cheaper per mile to run your car than use public transport because the fares are so high now in many areas.  We have now reached a point where local authorities are forced to subsidise the majority of bus services using the council tax, the corporate bus operators taking the angle that if they can't turn a fat profit they wont run the service.   Thatcher's bus privatisation plan has been amply proven an abject failure, short of total re-nationalisation the way forward now is efficient regulation with the bus operators turned into virtual road haulage contractors to the local council, who would collect all the fares and organise all the timetables.
 
Both the above false economic growth generating scams come via the EU but more recently motor industry funded alleged charities have been set up to demand legislation on the grounds of " road safety ", but their impact has been nothing compared to the influence of environmental NGO's on government policy.  Perhaps their first major victory was when Ken Clarke introduced the Road Fuel Tax Escalator, of course big business said nothing perhaps because they were prepared to run with anything which could prevent the top rate of income tax being increased and the resultant drop in funds to their " stock market parasites ", hedge funds and the like.   It didn't have any real impact at first but Labour was favourite to win the 1997 election and if there was a working brain between them they must have realised the RFTE made particularly northern manufacturing industry uncompetitive.  However, Brown just carried on with it and by 1998 I can recall that hundreds of once well secure " household name " manufacturing jobs were being lost every week.   This continued until the Farmers For Action fuel protests and ending of the RTFE in 2000, but by this time the " stock market parasites " had got it into their DNA that asset stripping British industry was far more profitable in the short term than actually trying to run it efficiently.  By this time global big business had organised itself into a virtual Corporate Multinational Cartel ( CMC ) which prevented any real competition in an alleged " free market ", with direct services to the public contracted out to franchise holders in many cases.   I suspect that the general public have no idea what the vast majority of FTSE listed companies actually do anymore, and therefore it is impossible for members of the public to take any direct action against them by withholding their trade.  Take the toxic waste dumping in Africa more recently, it is impossible to decipher which major company was actually responsible, almost everyone in the chain escapes vicarious liability with the investment in the " shell company " which probably goes bust to pay the fines being insured by credit default swaps.  The sting in the tail is that if it was not for alleged environmental groups bleating about non existent toxic pollution with the latest technology we could have created well paid sustainable jobs in the UK.
 
That neatly brings us onto the next eco scam, household / industrial waste incineration or lack of it as far as the UK is concerned.  Eco groups have bleated so loud over the last 20 years about toxic emission that most brain dead politicians ( at least where engineering or science is concerned ) have done everything they can to appease them.  Many councils are now contracted to mega expensive " waste treatment plants ", which probably cause anyone local far more noxious smell than any incinerator could ever do.   The most logical way to dispose of waste is to incinerate and generate electricity, in rural areas where the potential smell is well away from residential areas but also to allow the construction of glasshouses in order to use any waste heat in order to grow the exotic fruit and vegetables currently imported by environmentally damaging air freight.  Of course the UK is not allowed to do this because it hits the CMC in two areas, the energy sector ( electricity from incineration could reduce market prices ) and the airlines which indirectly hits the oil section of the cartel.   Environmentalists have made a big noise about disposable carrier bags and other alleged excess packaging but if they were burnt to generate electricity we could reduce demand on other fuels.  The UK has 300 years supply of good quality coal in the ground yet the environmentalists say we should not use it because there would appear to be doubts about the practicality of the most expensive option for capture of CO2.  CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants can be significantly reduced growing Chlorella, a fast growing Chinese pond slime which itself can be used as fuel, yet no UK research as I believe Shell hold the rights and they would prefer investment in gas ?
 
Despite all the environmentalist's rhetoric about standing up against big business it would appear that most of the policy they promote is in actual fact increasing the influence of the CMC over the UK economy, oil companies want an alleged low carbon economy in order to force up the market price of gas.  Similarly the alleged environmentalists pushed for the introduction of traffic calming in towns which probably increases road transport pollution emissions by at least 10% on a national basis.   The main question is how have the alleged environmentalists managed to get Carbon Dioxide classed as a pollutant in the first instance, the man made global warming theory is based on dubious science to say the least, but like most science I expect that research is skewed to reflect the interest of the CMC.   Meanwhile its likely that implementing the Climate Change Act will result in the mass asset stripping of UK manufacturing industry on a scale not seen since the RFTE before 2000, it doesn't help that foreign aid money is allegedly being used to buy up mothballed UK machine tools on the cheap for export via third world countries.
 
Meanwhile UK citizen stakeholders are being sold short by the politicians for the benefit of the " stock market parasites " and false economic growth which continually increases the " financial apartheid " between rich and poor.  Within the next 10 years the energy industry will fall to the same fate as Railtrack after the Hatfield crash in 2000, wind farms are a pointless waste of scarce investment.  Evidence from Denmark and Germany shows that they have not closed a single fossil fuel plant, in fact Germany has had to open new fossil fuel plants to prevent power cuts.  ( probably not helped by the fact that Germany also backs up Denmark )  The UK faces the real possibility of regular power cuts which could precipitate total anarchy in our larger towns and cities, the situation is not helped by the fact that if anyone dare open a new power station or gas storage facility the alleged environmentalists are round there quick sharp with a fleet of corporate lawyers demanding a public enquiry.   It would appear that the primary focus of mainstream alleged environmental groups has nothing to do with protecting the ecology of our planet ( export pollution to China and India ) and everything to do with inflating the cost of living in the UK, false economic growth which can be expressed as an increasing number on stock market indices.

linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]