| This is how a leader should act. 20:43 - May 31 with 14714 views | peenemunde |
Well done president Trump, protecting the American steel industry.
Doing what he said he’d do, during election campaign.
A man of his word........  |  | | |  |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:34 - Jun 2 with 2446 views | DJack |
| This is how a leader should act. on 15:45 - Jun 2 by peenemunde |
A couple is two not four.
What green technology do we have that can complete with nuclear ?
The idea that all workers in the coal power stations, refused training, I find laughable.
As for the Republican Party, going against its core values, is nonsense. Trump stood on a platform and was voted in, and now he’s carrying out his promises to the American people.
Great man.👠|
I'll remember to be a pedant towards you when you use a figure of speech.
So...
...Then he picks coal as a winner.
The GOP core values are its core values, any election platform is additional. If you don't trust me ask a yank.
As to which green technologies compete with nuclear... I was referencing coal but pointed out nuclear was included. This is because he was bailing out a private company with taxpayers money (FirstEnergy) which also help their biggest coal supplier, Murray Energy, who had previously asked for a bailout/support. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:45 - Jun 2 with 2437 views | peenemunde |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:34 - Jun 2 by DJack |
I'll remember to be a pedant towards you when you use a figure of speech.
So...
...Then he picks coal as a winner.
The GOP core values are its core values, any election platform is additional. If you don't trust me ask a yank.
As to which green technologies compete with nuclear... I was referencing coal but pointed out nuclear was included. This is because he was bailing out a private company with taxpayers money (FirstEnergy) which also help their biggest coal supplier, Murray Energy, who had previously asked for a bailout/support. |
Ask a yank you say, well I did when I was in the states not long ago.
They seem happy with the great man.
One particular woman I spoke to said “he got a big mouth, and I’d wish he’d keep it closed at times, but I’m happy with what he’s doing”. | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:52 - Jun 2 with 2426 views | DJack |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:45 - Jun 2 by peenemunde |
Ask a yank you say, well I did when I was in the states not long ago.
They seem happy with the great man.
One particular woman I spoke to said “he got a big mouth, and I’d wish he’d keep it closed at times, but I’m happy with what he’s doing”. |
That's not what I asked though, was it! | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:57 - Jun 2 with 2418 views | peenemunde |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:52 - Jun 2 by DJack |
That's not what I asked though, was it! |
I didn’t say you asked it, did i. | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 18:02 - Jun 2 with 2413 views | DJack |
| This is how a leader should act. on 17:57 - Jun 2 by peenemunde |
I didn’t say you asked it, did i. |
Yes you did..."Ask a yank you say, well I did{/b] when I was in the states not long ago. "
But I asked "The GOP core values are its core values, any election platform is additional. If you don't trust me ask a yank. "
Awkward. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 18:59 - Jun 2 with 2393 views | londonlisa2001 |
| This is how a leader should act. on 21:07 - Jun 1 by Lohengrin |
It’s confusing and if anybody reading this is able to shed further light you’d be more than welcome to do it. Obviously Tata own the lot but when you see the terms Tata UK, Tata Europe, or more broadly Tata in Europe employed there’s more than just semantics at play. It’s my understanding there was administrative separation around the time of the BSPS Pension dispute and limiting liabilities apropos the joint-venture negotiations with ThyssenKrupp.
Orb is at the dotting and crossing stage, I believe. |
Loh, I think you are confusing the arrangements made over the pension scheme with the corporate structure.
In summary, the way it works is:
Prior to the pension reorganisation:
Tata Steel UK Ltd
Wholly owned by
Corus Group Ltd
Wholly owned by
Tata Steel Netherlands BV
Owned by
Tata Steel Europe Ltd
Owned by
Tata Steel Limited
The pension liability for the British Steel Pension sat at Tata Steel UK Ltd which was the participating employer with a statutory liability (a section 75) liability.
Tata Steel UK Limited is (or was) loss making. It was supported financially by Tata Steel Europe Ltd. But Tata Steel Europe Ltd had no legal responsibility for the UK pension scheme and basically refused to continue supporting Tata Steel UK Limited unless it was allowed to restructure the company including its pension liability as a merger it wanted to do with Thyssenkrupp to create a profitable future (it hopes) couldn’t happen without the restructure.
To cut a long story short, Tata Steel Europe said that they would allow the UK company to go bust. So the government / pension regulator / PPF / Tata came to an agreement instead using a technical pension mechanism called a regulated apportionment arrangement where the scheme closed, went into the PPF in return for half a billion quid plus and shares in Tata Steel UK Ltd. So Tata Steel UK Ltd is now owned 33% by the PPF and 67% by Corus Group Ltd (owned by Tata). A new pension scheme was set up instead at Tata Steel UK Ltd and employees could choose whether to transfer to the new scheme or go into the PPF (or get a lump sum I think?)
The merger can now go ahead, without that hanging over their heads. |  | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 19:53 - Jun 2 with 2373 views | A_Fans_Dad |
The majority of the product exportedby Tata to the USA is probably from Trostre Tinplate, as they supply products that the USA do not make. | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 20:11 - Jun 2 with 2368 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| This is how a leader should act. on 00:01 - Jun 2 by DJack |
Shaky, this might shock you...I am gutted that I am unable to up-arrow you repeatedly for this.
I believe, that currently, the green power industries in America are cheaper and more reliant than coal. Clinton (Hilary) had proposed re-training all the coalminers in renewables but they refused to budge as thay are to conservative and think that being a coalminer makes them something...yeah, outdated, outmoded.
Now the Federal Government are going to prop up the coal (and nuclear) industries...free market capitalism, my ass! |
You have the typical rosy outlook on Renewable energy.
You do realise that the demise of Coal in the USA was started by President Obama and the EPA penalising Coal for "Carbon" output while at the same time Subsidising Wind & Solar as we are doing here and across most of the EU.
Add to that the uneven playing field that Renewables do not have to pay for "backup" when they are not producing anything, in fact Wind power is Parasitic when the wind is not blowing.
They also do not contribute anything to the extra costs to the "Grid" that is brought about by being "distributed" generation.
New Wind Generation is already dropping off due to the loss of subsidies and Germany are likely to retire 20GW of wind power due to them not being profitable.
You want to stop listening to the BBC and do some research on both Wind & Solar. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is how a leader should act. on 20:15 - Jun 2 with 2364 views | DJack |
| This is how a leader should act. on 20:11 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have the typical rosy outlook on Renewable energy.
You do realise that the demise of Coal in the USA was started by President Obama and the EPA penalising Coal for "Carbon" output while at the same time Subsidising Wind & Solar as we are doing here and across most of the EU.
Add to that the uneven playing field that Renewables do not have to pay for "backup" when they are not producing anything, in fact Wind power is Parasitic when the wind is not blowing.
They also do not contribute anything to the extra costs to the "Grid" that is brought about by being "distributed" generation.
New Wind Generation is already dropping off due to the loss of subsidies and Germany are likely to retire 20GW of wind power due to them not being profitable.
You want to stop listening to the BBC and do some research on both Wind & Solar. |
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/counting-the-cost-the-hidden-price-of-co
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/black-lung-makes-lethal-comeback-coal-mi
Yeah, Obama's fault. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 20:55 - Jun 2 with 2339 views | phact0rri |
With 75% of all the Iron the US makes coming from scrap, I wouldn't think the iron ore quality steel is going to be able to supply this nation... not even sure sure it'd supply just the government projects for the year.
This idiocy is going to cause everything to get more expensive to subsidize construction costs across the board. |  |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 21:43 - Jun 2 with 2317 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Great change of subject there.
What happened to
" believe, that currently, the green power industries in America are cheaper and more reliant than coal. " | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 23:48 - Jun 2 with 2288 views | DJack |
| This is how a leader should act. on 21:43 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Great change of subject there.
What happened to
" believe, that currently, the green power industries in America are cheaper and more reliant than coal. " |
The first article was from 2012 and highlighted the hidden costs of coal the second is contemporary and shows how poisonous the extraction of coal is forgetting the shit that is released when it is burned. Your point...oh that's right you don't have one. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 07:47 - Jun 3 with 2241 views | Shaky |
| This is how a leader should act. on 20:11 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have the typical rosy outlook on Renewable energy.
You do realise that the demise of Coal in the USA was started by President Obama and the EPA penalising Coal for "Carbon" output while at the same time Subsidising Wind & Solar as we are doing here and across most of the EU.
Add to that the uneven playing field that Renewables do not have to pay for "backup" when they are not producing anything, in fact Wind power is Parasitic when the wind is not blowing.
They also do not contribute anything to the extra costs to the "Grid" that is brought about by being "distributed" generation.
New Wind Generation is already dropping off due to the loss of subsidies and Germany are likely to retire 20GW of wind power due to them not being profitable.
You want to stop listening to the BBC and do some research on both Wind & Solar. |
"You do realise that the demise of Coal in the USA was started by President Obama and the EPA penalising Coal for "Carbon" output".
Not true. CO2 regulations never came into force.
"while at the same time Subsidising Wind & Solar as we are doing here and across most of the EU"
True. But there have also been significant subsidies on nuclear and coal-fired generation, with some of the subsidies on the latter among the most outrageous giveaways to political cronies I have ever seen. Absolutely scandalous.
"Add to that the uneven playing field that Renewables do not have to pay for "backup" when they are not producing anything,"
You clearly don't understand the typical auction process by which electricity grids meet demand, and the hierarchy of types of power tendered for, from black start and up.
"They also do not contribute anything to the extra costs to the "Grid" that is brought about by being "distributed" generation. "
Certainly distributed generation doesn't contribute to the grid. Why would it, that is the whole point. But the total energy output from renewables is increasingly dominated by large scale grid connected facilities, like GW class wind farms.
"New Wind Generation is already dropping off due to the loss of subsidies"
Wrong. Some markets like Denmark are mature, others like the US or the UK are not.
"Germany are likely to retire 20GW of wind power due to them not being profitable"
Likely too? The marginal cost of wind produced energy is close to zero, so if that is in fact true the only financial factor that could actually shut capacity down is that new larger and more efficient turbines could generate a greater return on the same site. |  |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 08:00 - Jun 3 with 2229 views | peenemunde |
| This is how a leader should act. on 23:48 - Jun 2 by DJack |
The first article was from 2012 and highlighted the hidden costs of coal the second is contemporary and shows how poisonous the extraction of coal is forgetting the shit that is released when it is burned. Your point...oh that's right you don't have one. |
So closing all the mines in South Wales was a correct decision. | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 08:05 - Jun 3 with 2226 views | nantywatcher |
| This is how a leader should act. on 08:00 - Jun 3 by peenemunde |
So closing all the mines in South Wales was a correct decision. |
Inevitable a better word than 'correct'? | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 08:31 - Jun 3 with 2219 views | peenemunde |
| This is how a leader should act. on 08:05 - Jun 3 by nantywatcher |
Inevitable a better word than 'correct'? |
No | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 09:43 - Jun 3 with 2192 views | Lohengrin |
| This is how a leader should act. on 18:59 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
Loh, I think you are confusing the arrangements made over the pension scheme with the corporate structure.
In summary, the way it works is:
Prior to the pension reorganisation:
Tata Steel UK Ltd
Wholly owned by
Corus Group Ltd
Wholly owned by
Tata Steel Netherlands BV
Owned by
Tata Steel Europe Ltd
Owned by
Tata Steel Limited
The pension liability for the British Steel Pension sat at Tata Steel UK Ltd which was the participating employer with a statutory liability (a section 75) liability.
Tata Steel UK Limited is (or was) loss making. It was supported financially by Tata Steel Europe Ltd. But Tata Steel Europe Ltd had no legal responsibility for the UK pension scheme and basically refused to continue supporting Tata Steel UK Limited unless it was allowed to restructure the company including its pension liability as a merger it wanted to do with Thyssenkrupp to create a profitable future (it hopes) couldn’t happen without the restructure.
To cut a long story short, Tata Steel Europe said that they would allow the UK company to go bust. So the government / pension regulator / PPF / Tata came to an agreement instead using a technical pension mechanism called a regulated apportionment arrangement where the scheme closed, went into the PPF in return for half a billion quid plus and shares in Tata Steel UK Ltd. So Tata Steel UK Ltd is now owned 33% by the PPF and 67% by Corus Group Ltd (owned by Tata). A new pension scheme was set up instead at Tata Steel UK Ltd and employees could choose whether to transfer to the new scheme or go into the PPF (or get a lump sum I think?)
The merger can now go ahead, without that hanging over their heads. |
I was sunning myself in a beer garden up at Hay yesterday when I read that, love. I showed it to the chap I was with who read it nodding along and reckoned,“yep! Spot-on.”
Thank you for taking the time to do that. Much appreciated. x |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 10:47 - Jun 3 with 2156 views | trampie |
| This is how a leader should act. on 09:43 - Jun 3 by Lohengrin |
I was sunning myself in a beer garden up at Hay yesterday when I read that, love. I showed it to the chap I was with who read it nodding along and reckoned,“yep! Spot-on.”
Thank you for taking the time to do that. Much appreciated. x |
|  |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 11:26 - Jun 3 with 2131 views | Highjack |
| This is how a leader should act. on 10:47 - Jun 3 by trampie |
|
Isn’t that Freddie Starr? |  |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 16:44 - Jun 3 with 2075 views | Shaky |
‘He Pretty Much Gave In to Whatever They Asked For’
Trump says he’s a master negotiator. Those who’ve actually dealt with him beg to differ.
By MICHAEL KRUSE
Politico June 01, 2018
In 1985, Tony Schwartz, a writer for New York magazine, was sitting in Donald Trump’s office in Trump Tower interviewing him for a story. Trump told him he had agreed to write a book for Random House. “Well, if you’re going to write a book,” Schwartz said, recalling this interaction in a speech he gave last fall at the University of Michigan, “you ought to call it The Art of the Deal.”
“I like that,” Trump said. “Do you want to write it?”
These sorts of arrangements typically are not that generous for the writer. “Most writers for hire receive a flat fee, or a relatively modest percentage of any money the book earns,” Schwartz said in the speech. Schwartz, by contrast, got from Trump an almost unheard-of half of the $500,000 advance from Random House and also half of the royalties. And it didn’t even take a lot of haggling.
“He basically just agreed,” Schwartz told me in an email, meaning Schwartz ever since has brought in millions of dollars more of royalties and Trump has brought in millions of dollars less.
It’s a telling example, Harvard Business School negotiating professor Deepak Malhotra said in a recent interview. “What should have been a great deal on a book about negotiation actually is one of the most interesting pieces of evidence that he’s not a good negotiator.” Malhotra, the author of Negotiating the Impossible, pointed out Schwartz even got his name on the cover, and in same-sized text. “I don’t think there’s a better ghostwriting deal out there.”
. . . If the myth of Trump, negotiator par excellence, started in earnest with the publishing of The Art of the Deal, the prime-time television show in which he starred cemented it. And similar to the deal he struck with Schwartz to write his book, the negotiation that birthed “The Apprentice” was lightning-quick. Trump agreed with producer Mark Burnett to a 50-50 split without consulting any advisers, according to Trump Revealed. And when he attempted to get a giant pay raise after the show’s wildly successful first season, he … didn’t get it.
Trump made $50,000 an episode in the first season. In the second season? “He wanted a million dollars an episode,” Jeff Zucker, the current boss of CNN and former head of NBC, told the New Yorker’s David Remnick last year. And what did Zucker give him? “Sixty thousand dollars,” Zucker said.
“We ended up paying him what we wanted to pay him.”
Full story of sad delusion: https://politi.co/2H7qBEZ | |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 19:25 - Jun 4 with 1980 views | Shaky |
Americans Will Pay a High Price to Save Coal
The Trump administration needs to show the math.
By The Editors Bloomberg Opinion EDITORIAL BOARD
June 3, 2018, 2:00 PM EDT
An interesting question raised by President Donald Trump’s misguided order to prop up uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants in the name of national security is: How much is this going to cost?
Not in climate terms, although here the indirect costs could be greatest in the long run. And not in terms of public health, although air pollution from a single coal plant causes hundreds of asthma attacks and dozens of premature deaths every year.
Setting those crucial matters aside, what will it cost in dollars and cents spent on electricity in the U.S.? That's something the Trump administration has neglected to estimate. It should. U.S. coal plants have been closing fast – more than half of them since 2010 – because they have trouble competing with cheaper natural-gas power plants. Keeping these inefficient plants open is going to put utility customers out of pocket.
Could the cost in pollution, premature deaths from particulate emissions, and higher utility bills conceivably be worth it? In his order Friday, Trump said plant closures threaten the nation’s energy mix and the “resilience” of the grid. This, in turn, threatens national security, in part because U.S. Defense Department installations are almost entirely dependent on the commercial power grid, according to an earlier administration memo obtained by Bloomberg News. Theoretically, the grid needs coal to ensure continuous energy in the event natural gas, hydro power, solar and wind can’t do the job.
This not a real problem, however, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission more or less ruled several months ago when it turned down Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s last attempt to prop up coal by rewarding it for its “resilience.” Deregulated power markets in the U.S. already assure a dependable fuel supply by matching prices to demand. FERC might be asked to cooperate again in raising rates to implement this new plan; if so, it should refuse again.
The chief beneficiaries of Trump’s plan would be coal-plant operators and their suppliers, a group that includes some of the president’s top supporters. The losses for everybody else – in higher emissions of carbon, additional premature deaths, and higher outlays on electricity – would be far greater. Dirty energy at higher cost: That’s some deal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-03/americans-will-pay-a-high-pri | |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 13:38 - Jun 8 with 1900 views | Shaky |
| |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 13:44 - Jun 8 with 1890 views | Shaky |
| |
| |
| This is how a leader should act. on 14:30 - Jun 8 with 1860 views | Jacket |
| This is how a leader should act. on 20:11 - Jun 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have the typical rosy outlook on Renewable energy.
You do realise that the demise of Coal in the USA was started by President Obama and the EPA penalising Coal for "Carbon" output while at the same time Subsidising Wind & Solar as we are doing here and across most of the EU.
Add to that the uneven playing field that Renewables do not have to pay for "backup" when they are not producing anything, in fact Wind power is Parasitic when the wind is not blowing.
They also do not contribute anything to the extra costs to the "Grid" that is brought about by being "distributed" generation.
New Wind Generation is already dropping off due to the loss of subsidies and Germany are likely to retire 20GW of wind power due to them not being profitable.
You want to stop listening to the BBC and do some research on both Wind & Solar. |
Have they thought about using the tide, they could have lagoons and everything. I'm telling you that's the future. If only there were proposals for such schemes, I'm sure the government would back them... | | | |
| This is how a leader should act. on 15:51 - Jun 8 with 1812 views | Lohengrin |
| This is how a leader should act. on 13:38 - Jun 8 by Shaky |
|
That was always going to happen sooner rather than later with a country of the size and importance of Russia. Realpolitik was always going to reassert itself in the face of an irreversible fait accompli like Crimea.
I get the feeling if it was Merkel proposing the move rather than Trump it would have passed without comment from you, am I right? | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
