Cumbria coal mine go-ahead

al

Member
I can't really see this happening, not when all the issues are aired. I should imagine it's yet another diversion chucked out by a desperate government trying to change the subject.
 

Wayland Smith

Active member
I seem to remember a lot of discussion of this in the past. Not sure if it was here or in the mining forum.
People with knowledge of the area seemed sceptical that it could be profitable.

This is where the real money is made though, by consultations and planning reports.
Actually digging minerals is the last resort!
 

Fjell

Well-known member
I thought people here liked mines?

It’s a bit hypocritical to use primary steel made with coal and then complain about coal production. We are several decades away from having enough non fossil fuel power generation to enable us to make steel with minimal emissions. It’s a vast amount of power the UK doesn’t have, and there are large transmission/efficiency losses going from burning gas in a power station to heating ore (let alone burning coal, which is likely to be the case now). You might as well burn coal in a furnace.

Nothing is solved until we have more power, vastly more. At least double.
 

LJR

Member
As I have said before on AN, I have worked with some of the folk on this project. They some of the last of a nearly extinct breed. I hope they really do get a permanent green light to do what they were trained to do and can do well.
 

al

Member
Apparently neither British Steel nor Tata want this coal because of impurities, so most of it will need to be exported - if it ever happens. The main reason for the local enthusiasm for the mine is, of course, jobs - but the tories, who sought to close down the coal mining industry across the UK back in the 80s, have had four decades of doing nothing to support the local workforce. I still think that this is yet another dead cat, aimed at keeping the media busy not talking about the abject failure of the present government - and, I suppose, it is working!
 

Cantclimbtom

Well-known member
I'm not exactly Great Thunberg!!! But carbon footprint is a concern. So what are the choices?

* Continue to import lower quality coal (or already coked) large distances, perhaps from Russia
(yes I'm aware that we can greatly reduce coke use in Steel production, but it is a reducing agent as well as heating, so it can't be totally avoided?)

* Not produce steel in UK , depend on China and India who release CO2 in probably filthier ways

Just from an environmental view, there is an argument that having a specialist coal for cokeing mine might be a lesser evil than not having one

Edit: My post crossed with al post above. Will need to look into that because the whole justification is the suitability of the coal
 

Cantclimbtom

Well-known member
Well it'll keep heritage steam train enthusiasts happy at least because the supply of steam (thermal) coal from South Wales is pretty much down to last lumps
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
al said:

"Apparently neither British Steel nor Tata want this coal because of impurities"

They might change their minds if future geopolitical deterioration produces a situation whereby there is no other option.
 

Cantclimbtom

Well-known member
al said:

"Apparently neither British Steel nor Tata want this coal because of impurities"

They might change their minds if future geopolitical deterioration produces a situation whereby there is no other option.
Unfortunately not sure if Tata would be greatly persuaded by that, because they can just mothball UK and produce steel in other regions :(
 

Fjell

Well-known member
This is in the right direction for both North Africa and Europe. Biggest obstacles in general are political stability and security of supply. Pretty ballsy. Equivalent to about one large new nuclear station, so similar cost.


Really we should be building steel plants next to power supply. All other inputs are imported to the UK anyway.
 

alanw

Well-known member

Fjell

Well-known member
I thought coking coal was used as a chemical input to the steelmaking process, so not burned at all?

Chris.
Both heat and chemical. It’s still not so straightforward to make high grade steel without it. All of the stuff I used to buy is made with coke still.
 

AR

Well-known member
Both heat and chemical. It’s still not so straightforward to make high grade steel without it. All of the stuff I used to buy is made with coke still.
I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to it having too much sulphur, the whole point of the coking process is to remove sulphur, so that in the partial burn of a blast furnace, you only get carbon monoxide generated and no/negligible sulphur dioxide.
 
Top