3 ms·

Actually it was for economic reasons. The UK lost comparative advantage for coal production. The way they mine coal in the UK is positively archaic compared t

by brc 11y ago

Actually it was for economic reasons. The UK lost comparative advantage for coal production. The way they mine coal in the UK is positively archaic compared to monster open cut mines which out produce the UK deep pits by a wide margin.

orf 11y ago
> Actually it was for economic reasons. Well, a bit of both. True it was not economically sound, but the NUM (coal miners union) had a lot of leverage. All coal power plants had to buy British coal for example, which in turn meant that the government had to capitulate to their demands or face a shutdown. Thatchers decision to shut the mines was incredibly unpopular and to this day large swathes of the north despise her (somewhat unduly), but in combination with a wave of privatization managed to break the union stranglehold. Without the Iron Lady taking that step the mines would have been open for far far longer. Some of the mines she closed would actually be profitable now though, due to the rising cost of coal.
- brc 11y ago
  Yeah the way they were kept open and then shut down was purely political, no argument there. But they were doomed in an era of free trade. Arguably the UK should have moved to free trade earlier and reaped the benefits instead of arguing about coal mining. I don't have a lot of hope for people to ever agree on that though. It's true that old mines can reopen during periods of high demand, but they'd be shutting again now as the coal price has plummeted again, probably due to the energy glut especially in gas. In an ideal world the mines would be owned by someone who would open them when it made sense, and close them again when it no longer made sense.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
This isn't always a fair comparison. Some of the UK pits were high quality anthracite. Also some cost savings could surely have been made if the two political sides had been able to actually make meaningful compromises.

by brc 11y ago

orf 11y ago

> Actually it was for economic reasons. Well, a bit of both. True it was not economically sound, but the NUM (coal miners union) had a lot of leverage. All coal power plants had to buy British coal for example, which in turn meant that the government had to capitulate to their demands or face a shutdown. Thatchers decision to shut the mines was incredibly unpopular and to this day large swathes of the north despise her (somewhat unduly), but in combination with a wave of privatization managed to break the union stranglehold. Without the Iron Lady taking that step the mines would have been open for far far longer. Some of the mines she closed would actually be profitable now though, due to the rising cost of coal.

brc 11y ago
Yeah the way they were kept open and then shut down was purely political, no argument there. But they were doomed in an era of free trade. Arguably the UK should have moved to free trade earlier and reaped the benefits instead of arguing about coal mining. I don't have a lot of hope for people to ever agree on that though. It's true that old mines can reopen during periods of high demand, but they'd be shutting again now as the coal price has plummeted again, probably due to the energy glut especially in gas. In an ideal world the mines would be owned by someone who would open them when it made sense, and close them again when it no longer made sense.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

This isn't always a fair comparison. Some of the UK pits were high quality anthracite. Also some cost savings could surely have been made if the two political sides had been able to actually make meaningful compromises.