Cosmo Smallpiece
Member
I'd read that the coal mine is go under the Irish Sea. I hadn't realised the plan to also extract fish from it! 😆
Cumbria coal mine go-ahead
- Thread starter Cantclimbtom
- Start date
pwhole
Well-known member
Another alternative idea to this would be to fill all those giant warehouses along the motorways with cannabis instead of parcels, grown for the burgeoning medicinal (and vast recreational) markets, powered from the Moroccan solar grid (just add more panels if necessary, there's plenty more sun) and offshore wind. Every three months there's tons of useful waste biomass to burn too (that probably could be used at Drax), and even natural super-strong fibres if you can be bothered with the hassle of extracting them, but they'd really be too short to be useful. Large-scale cultivation of tall hemp strains that will easily grow outdoors in the UK, will produce useful fibre that can then be used to build cheap non-cement housing materials:
https://hempblock.co.uk/
As for the economics, this is for the US, so divide the numbers by five, but still...how much profit are they expecting from the coal?
https://mjbizdaily.com/us-cannabis-sales-estimates/
https://hempblock.co.uk/
As for the economics, this is for the US, so divide the numbers by five, but still...how much profit are they expecting from the coal?
https://mjbizdaily.com/us-cannabis-sales-estimates/
Last edited:
Cantclimbtom
Well-known member
Maybe that's a fallback employment scheme if the mine doesn't pay off?
Lots of Albanians ready and willing
al
Member
“The UK steel industry has been clear that the coal from the West Cumbria mine has limited potential due to its high sulphur levels,” said Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute, which serves as the UK’s national centre for steel research. “This, combined with the industry’s drive to decarbonise, means that by the time the mine opens, only one of the UK’s current four blast furnaces is likely to be able to use this coal, meaning that more than 90% of production will be exported. The situation is the same in Europe with even tighter sulphur controls and a faster drive to green steel, meaning that some companies will have moved away from coal completely by the mid 2030s.”
Segments — H2 Green Steel
www.h2greensteel.com
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
What with everybody using "fossil-free energy" all the electricity generated using gas, oil, coal must be building up in the system somewhere. That can't be safe, surely?
Until we stop using fossil fuels to generate power then no transport system or industrial process is “green”. Every additional process using power is adding to demand. If you build your own wind farm that is still power that could be fed to the grid, it is just displacement. At the moment we are burning coal for power (double the emissions of gas per kW.hr), so every new electric car is coal fired.
I can’t be bothered with the maths (have to paint), but I somehow doubt that the emissions per mile of an electric car power by coal are better than a petrol/hybrid car by the time you add up the efficiency losses. I already thought gas fired was suspect, and that has many decades to go at this rate.
A whole generation of electric cars will be bought and worn out before having any meaningful impact on emissions. And we are encouraging people to switch to heat pumps. And air source at that, which is a bad idea. We should be mandating ground source which is twice as efficient, especially in the North. I have looked at it and the bill for me would be prob about £60k by the time the mods are done. That is without any more work on insulation, which would be the same again. There is no possibility of getting payback without a massive grant, but then that’s just a tax displacement activity, it still has to be paid for. There are millions of older properties in the same position.
It’s not a coherent approach.
gridwatch.co.uk
I can’t be bothered with the maths (have to paint), but I somehow doubt that the emissions per mile of an electric car power by coal are better than a petrol/hybrid car by the time you add up the efficiency losses. I already thought gas fired was suspect, and that has many decades to go at this rate.
A whole generation of electric cars will be bought and worn out before having any meaningful impact on emissions. And we are encouraging people to switch to heat pumps. And air source at that, which is a bad idea. We should be mandating ground source which is twice as efficient, especially in the North. I have looked at it and the bill for me would be prob about £60k by the time the mods are done. That is without any more work on insulation, which would be the same again. There is no possibility of getting payback without a massive grant, but then that’s just a tax displacement activity, it still has to be paid for. There are millions of older properties in the same position.
It’s not a coherent approach.
GB Fuel type power generation production
GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output
But someone has to buy them now to fund the development, & what damage will we eventually discover caused by heat pumps? (or maybe sucking the heat out of air will ameliorate climate change...)
Due to the weather, solar & wind power have recently only been supplying 3 or 4% of our requirements (poor conditions for generating & higher than average demand). Currently about 6%, coal is only 3% (majority is gas):
grid.iamkate.com
Due to the weather, solar & wind power have recently only been supplying 3 or 4% of our requirements (poor conditions for generating & higher than average demand). Currently about 6%, coal is only 3% (majority is gas):
National Grid: Live
Shows the live status of Great Britain’s electric power transmission network
grid.iamkate.com
Last edited:
We have a heat pump air conditioning minisplit for our large (35m^2) living room. Currently it is using 800W to produce 3.5kW heating and is keeping the room toasty warm - It's -6C outside. The unit cost just over £2000 to install. We will shortly be adding further units to cover the rest of the house.Until we stop using fossil fuels to generate power then no transport system or industrial process is “green”. Every additional process using power is adding to demand. If you build your own wind farm that is still power that could be fed to the grid, it is just displacement. At the moment we are burning coal for power (double the emissions of gas per kW.hr), so every new electric car is coal fired.
I can’t be bothered with the maths (have to paint), but I somehow doubt that the emissions per mile of an electric car power by coal are better than a petrol/hybrid car by the time you add up the efficiency losses. I already thought gas fired was suspect, and that has many decades to go at this rate.
A whole generation of electric cars will be bought and worn out before having any meaningful impact on emissions. And we are encouraging people to switch to heat pumps. And air source at that, which is a bad idea. We should be mandating ground source which is twice as efficient, especially in the North. I have looked at it and the bill for me would be prob about £60k by the time the mods are done. That is without any more work on insulation, which would be the same again. There is no possibility of getting payback without a massive grant, but then that’s just a tax displacement activity, it still has to be paid for. There are millions of older properties in the same position.
It’s not a coherent approach.
GB Fuel type power generation production
GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output
We also have 15kWh usable house batteries and 5kW solar which was installed on 18th Jan this year. To end of November we had saved £2145 when compared to last year's energy costs calculated at current horrifying UK average electricity and gas rates per kWh.
At current rates we will have paid for the whole system in about 7-8 years, less if prices rise further. Our energy costs are trivial and all anxiety about further rises is for other people. Air-to-air heat pumps is the the way to go but they are not grant supported.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Thanks for this information Graham.
You wrote: "We have a heat pump air conditioning minisplit for our large (35m^2) living room. Currently it is using 800W to produce 3.5kW heating and is keeping the room toasty warm - It's -6C outside. The unit cost just over £2000 to install".
Could you point readers at a link to a website which sells the specific unit you installed?
Also, who installed it for you?
You're clearly delighted with it - can you tell us a bit about how well insulated your house is? (This obviously affects how well these things maintain a comfortable temperature.)
You wrote: "We have a heat pump air conditioning minisplit for our large (35m^2) living room. Currently it is using 800W to produce 3.5kW heating and is keeping the room toasty warm - It's -6C outside. The unit cost just over £2000 to install".
Could you point readers at a link to a website which sells the specific unit you installed?
Also, who installed it for you?
You're clearly delighted with it - can you tell us a bit about how well insulated your house is? (This obviously affects how well these things maintain a comfortable temperature.)
We used a nationwide company called Boxt who organised the installer and supplied the equipment. The Samsung heat pump AC (HPAC) was installed within a week of the initial order. Boxt will only usually supply minisplits i.e. a heat pump with a single indoor unit as this keeps their process simple. If you can find an installer yourself (they are very busy), I think that the cost could be much lower as no doubt Boxt will take a considerable cut. One thing to beware of is that Boxt recommended a 5kW unit which was far too large for our needs. The installer told us that this is rife in the industry as the installers do not want people to be disappointed with the heating performance.
Boxt's website has a form which will provide a total price once filled in.
Installation was very easy but has to be done by someone with gas safe and electrician qualifications. The process took 4 hours of which a couple of hours was needed to check for leaks and clear the lines of any possible moisture content by use of a vacuum pump.
At the typical winter temps of around 4C, the HPAC only needs about 200 to 300W to maintain the temperature of the room once it has reached the required temperature. We have cavity wall insulation and some new heat retaining windows but I suspect that the unreachable sections of the roof space are very poorly insulated. This is a 1970s build which has an old 30kW combi boiler which is barely adequate. That's £3.03 per hour of continuous operation at current kWh gas rates i.e. VERY expensive. Last years energy bill at today's rates would be over £3000.
Hope that's useful. Let me know if any more info is needed.
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
Getting hard info on heat pumps from manufacturers is like pulling teeth.
We have a 13 year old combi that is going to be replaced by something in the next couple of years and I have been thinking about an air source heat pump.
The house has solid 9 inch brick walls, but with 25/50mm insulation on all external walls.
Googling Samsung HPAC didn't produce anything useful.
That COP with outside temperature -6C (and low 20s inside?) is very high for an air to water system with existing radiators!
You mention air con, so is it an air to air system?
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
That would be potentially carbon-neutral, but no. Plans are to use hydrogen, e.g. https://www.thyssenkrupp-steel.com/...-concludes-first-test-phase-successfully.html
Cantclimbtom
Well-known member
The more I Google this the more I think my original thoughts about the logic on the West Cumbria mine wasn't right.
As far as I can understand it... our Primary Steel production must have coke because of its action as a reducing agent (removing oxygen from what's a bunch of sandy rust, to obtain the raw iron to be used in the later steel making process). Using hydrogen instead of coal to reduce the iron (striping the oxygen off the ore making steam) is unproven and needs more development so in the short term at least it is not an option, nobody is producing steel with hydrogen, yet...
Until late March this year we were heavy users of Russian coal, for example Tata Port Talbot almost exclusively used Russian coal but they announced they were switching over to (more expensive) American coal due to sanctions against Russian war.
Coke can be produced separately from steel production but that's less efficient because the "town gas" (or rather "COG" Coal Oven Gas) made during coking can be burnt during raw iron/steel production and also the heat can be re-used. We used to have coke works such as Monckton that were separate from steelworks we and even exported coke to places like South Africa (who have low grade coal).
The reason Monckton and anywhere else became uneconomic was in 2013 China started exporting coke cheaply, so people who'd use Monkton's coke started buying it from China
From an environmental point of view this is probably neutral as we'd end up using coal from abroad and coking at steel works or buying Chinese coke if we didn't mine in UK, possibly??? carbon neutral of perhaps a tiny carbon benefit to produce locally. (Nobody wants to share any hard data, only give partisan opinions, so I can't quote real figures there), anyone who bought this coal when exported would just not buy some other coal, so again it shows up badly on the bean counting of one country but not so clear cut globally, it's a mess of misinformation on both sides
So if it is not a clear economic benefit to approve the mine, not a clear environmental benefit to approve the mine, perhaps even based on tick-box bean counting carbon economics many seems to find so attractive: it is slightly embarrassing.. the question is WHY was it approved. Or should I say Cui Bono? (who benefits from this?)
Those of you with a keen interest in security might have noted the 2 big things this year in terms of security and repercussions are
1) Russian war
2) UK's changed attitude to be publicly very cautious of China (announced at almost the same time as this decision!)
So if you don't want to be dependant on Russian coal or Chinese coke and want to protect critical national infrastructure like Steel production capability in UK... you have to secure a UK supply of metallurgical coal.
I think all the environmental and economic discussion in the previous posts in the thread aren't the reason it became favourable to government to approve the mine this year.
(although very interested in the other posts here, especially the heat pump)
As far as I can understand it... our Primary Steel production must have coke because of its action as a reducing agent (removing oxygen from what's a bunch of sandy rust, to obtain the raw iron to be used in the later steel making process). Using hydrogen instead of coal to reduce the iron (striping the oxygen off the ore making steam) is unproven and needs more development so in the short term at least it is not an option, nobody is producing steel with hydrogen, yet...
Until late March this year we were heavy users of Russian coal, for example Tata Port Talbot almost exclusively used Russian coal but they announced they were switching over to (more expensive) American coal due to sanctions against Russian war.
Coke can be produced separately from steel production but that's less efficient because the "town gas" (or rather "COG" Coal Oven Gas) made during coking can be burnt during raw iron/steel production and also the heat can be re-used. We used to have coke works such as Monckton that were separate from steelworks we and even exported coke to places like South Africa (who have low grade coal).
The reason Monckton and anywhere else became uneconomic was in 2013 China started exporting coke cheaply, so people who'd use Monkton's coke started buying it from China
From an environmental point of view this is probably neutral as we'd end up using coal from abroad and coking at steel works or buying Chinese coke if we didn't mine in UK, possibly??? carbon neutral of perhaps a tiny carbon benefit to produce locally. (Nobody wants to share any hard data, only give partisan opinions, so I can't quote real figures there), anyone who bought this coal when exported would just not buy some other coal, so again it shows up badly on the bean counting of one country but not so clear cut globally, it's a mess of misinformation on both sides
So if it is not a clear economic benefit to approve the mine, not a clear environmental benefit to approve the mine, perhaps even based on tick-box bean counting carbon economics many seems to find so attractive: it is slightly embarrassing.. the question is WHY was it approved. Or should I say Cui Bono? (who benefits from this?)
Those of you with a keen interest in security might have noted the 2 big things this year in terms of security and repercussions are
1) Russian war
2) UK's changed attitude to be publicly very cautious of China (announced at almost the same time as this decision!)
So if you don't want to be dependant on Russian coal or Chinese coke and want to protect critical national infrastructure like Steel production capability in UK... you have to secure a UK supply of metallurgical coal.
I think all the environmental and economic discussion in the previous posts in the thread aren't the reason it became favourable to government to approve the mine this year.
(although very interested in the other posts here, especially the heat pump)
Last edited:
