End of coal by rail?

[chrisf]

To stop the lights going out perhaps we should all be issued with exercise bikes connected to the grid.

 

Chris

[APOLLO]

Rather than repeat posting there are a lot of relevant posts in the Didcot thread.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69666-the-end-of-didcot-power-station-a-look-at-the-trains-that-served-it/page-1

 

Also  in a recent thread about the recent National Grid power emergency, can't find the link.

 

Brit15

Edited November 19, 2015 by APOLLO

[GordonC]

I really cant see this current 'dash for gas' doing much for our energy security either ... what happens if the Russians decides to turn off the tap of the big pipe???

 

Coal must give much more security

[PenrithBeacon]

2025 gives plenty of time for alternatives to be brought on line and coal is truly nasty stuff. We should be going for nuclear and renewables.

 

I know that nuclear brings with it it's very own issues, but there are a lot more manageable than the consequences of global warming.

 

Regards

[PhilH]

2025 gives plenty of time for alternatives to be brought on line and coal is truly nasty stuff. We should be going for nuclear and renewables.

 

I know that nuclear brings with it it's very own issues, but there are a lot more manageable than the consequences of global warming.

 

Regards

 

Surely it has to be a situation where everybody stops using the stuff to be of any use?

 

I can't for the life of me see what there is to be gained if we unilaterally stop using it..and no big oaks from little acorns, someone has to be the first etc. nonsense either please, we are far too small on our own to make much difference.

[Reorte]

Surely it has to be a situation where everybody stops using the stuff to be of any use?

 

I can't for the life of me see what there is to be gained if we unilaterally stop using it..and no big oaks from little acorns, someone has to be the first etc. nonsense either please, we are far too small on our own to make much difference.

Conversely even if stopping something is a good idea if no-one does because no-one else is then nothing happens. One of those areas where the political can make more difference than the practical, so don't necessarily dismiss the "big oaks from little acorns" and so on as nonsense.

 

2025 gives plenty of time for alternatives to be brought on line and coal is truly nasty stuff. We should be going for nuclear and renewables.

 

I know that nuclear brings with it it's very own issues, but there are a lot more manageable than the consequences of global warming.

2025 isn't very long at all, perhaps a few gas plants could get built in that time but I'll be very, very surprised if more nuclear capacity can be created in that time (what's the timescales for the ones actually planned and supposedly going ahead?)  And it's not just about maintaining supplies, if we want exapansion of things like electric trains and electric cars we'll need more on top of just replacement.

 

A big expansion of nuclear renders (most) renewables largely pointless IMO, other than perhaps hydroelectric in Scotland and a few small-scale local installations. I've ignored biomass there because I've not got a clue about the plausible scope for it. Nuclear at least generates some rail traffic

 

The real issue isn't too much coal being burned but simply too many people around but unfortunately I see no chance whatsoever of the human race having enough self-control to be sensible there.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Reorte

[Talltim]

Babble, babble, babble. Germany is going back to coal, India and China never left it, the Russians use it while they export oil and gas for hard currency. Our emissions don't even register on the global scale.

 

Just like littering

[mcowgill]

An issue with the timescale and plans announced yesterday is that we need to build new gas power stations which will then be at risk of early closure before they have paid for themselves to meet future carbon emissions targets.

 

I would have thought it better to push for more biomass and renewables power generation while winding down coal rather than switching to short term imported fossil fuels.

 

Martin 

[Kenton]

Did I miss something? Who threw the bucket of green paint over the conservatives? The world is going mad, just wait till the anarchists take over, they will find a new way of controlling energy use. (beyond the obvious one of making it unaffordable)

[JeffP]

Never mind, we can import our leccy via the under channel link, paying the French top wack for it.......just like we do for most stuff, import it, that is.

THEN we moan about balance of payments.

 

If coal is such nasty stuff, how on earth are the Germans getting their plans for a whole host of new coal-fired power stations past the Green Police in the EC??????

[jjb1970]

Germany is in a particular problem because of their kneejerk response to the Fukushima incident and as much as their greens might hate coal they hate nuclear even more.

[Rivercider]

From Weston seafront we can see Aberthaw, one of the remaining coal fired power stations.

On regular occasions there is a layer of smog that forms over the Severn Estuary which looks, to me, as though it originates at Aberthaw.

 

Steep Holm in the middle of the Severn Estuary, and to the right, just visible, the chimney at Aberthaw, 13/4/2015.

 

If I had turned left about 90 degrees from the same spot I can see Hinkley Point on a clear day where the new nuclear 'C' station will be built,

 

cheers

[D1059]

2025 gives plenty of time for alternatives to be brought on line and coal is truly nasty stuff. We should be going for nuclear and renewables.

 

I know that nuclear brings with it it's very own issues, but there are a lot more manageable than the consequences of global warming.

 

Regards

 

 

No - its nowhere near enough time to build new capacity to compensate for nearly a quarter of our total existing capacity going offline

 

Nuclear - we should have taken the decision to build new nuclear plants 10-15 years ago, but Blair and co fudged those decisions and delayed them and then the financial crisis hit, by which time it was clear that it would be 'someone else's problem' following the next election

 

It makes absolutely NO difference what we do emissions wise if the USA, India, China et al don't play - other than give us the moral high ground, which they don't give a toss about anyway

 

The only reasonably short term solutions I can see to stop the lights going out are a) import electricity (new project just announced this week to lay a cable under the Channel from France for just that) and b ) start fracking, big time, now

Edited November 19, 2015 by D1059

[jjb1970]

With vision and political leadership I think the time frame could be achievable. Many of the delays to major programs in the UK is the planning and consenting process, if the government is serious about a ten year target to phase out coal they could do something about that and drive projects through. You can build a big CCGT very quickly, ditto biomass and wind farms etc once you have all of the consents in place. The big question to me is not whether it can be done technically but whether the political will and money is available.

[Kenton]

 

whether the political will and money is available.

With our democracy the political will, will never exist as it is all change again in 5 4 years. As the flavour of the month changes so does any semblance of really long term strategy (and so will the statistics and new "science" based facts fiction to back such changes.

 

The one thing no government has invented is a crystal ball all they have at their disposal is hindsight - which tends to be what drives policy - and also drives the voting that places them in that position.

 

As for money that is something that is available in some pot at the end of the rainbow. Magicians don't get elected (or perhaps they do, then we complain about the illusionists because we see through their tricks).

 

Who once said "it is a good time to release bad news" or "to let the feral members announce their off the wall policies/ideas" ... when the general public/press is not paying attention and distracted by other events.

 

Come 2030 we will still be debating the proposal and where to site the new coal burning power station.

[Revolution Mike]

The absolutely bonkers thing is that, as far as I can make out, it looks like they will have shut the last coal fired plant before the gas ones are on stream.

 

Why do you say that? Gas plants are quick to build - you could easily replace 25% of the UK's generating capacity with gas in that time.

 

So our government in its wisdom has announced closure of all coal fired power stations by 2025 or earlier (2023).

 

The announcement seems a lot more nuanced than that (about non-carbon capture and storage fitted plants only albeit there is nothing on a commercial scale in the UK) and not clear what it means for some of the large scale biomass plants (which I can only see increasing).

 

The choice then is either new Gas or Nuclear. Several mega plants with a generating capacity like Drax. Cost £MANY billions.

 

Gas plant is pretty cheap (compared to nuclear).

 

Despite the doom and gloom predicted by some it is more than feasible (and sensible).  It is actually more far-sighted than many give credit for in terms of the medium-long term implications of CO2 emissions (and associated emission costs).

 

Cheers, Mike

[PhilH]

Why do you say that? Gas plants are quick to build - you could easily replace 25% of the UK's generating capacity with gas in that time.

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers, Mike

Do you seriously believe that the decision making/ planning/ financing is going to be a speedy, straightforward process given both the financial constraints and prevarication prevalent in the UK?

 

I don't.

[rockershovel]

Never mind, we can import our leccy via the under channel link, paying the French top wack for it.......just like we do for most stuff, import it, that is.

THEN we moan about balance of payments.

 

If coal is such nasty stuff, how on earth are the Germans getting their plans for a whole host of new coal-fired power stations past the Green Police in the EC??????

Same way they get everything else past the EC, they just DO IT and stick two fingers up. Of course, having your people in most of the key jobs does no harm..

[Revolution Mike]

Do you seriously believe that the decision making/ planning/ financing is going to be a speedy, straightforward process given both the financial constraints and prevarication prevalent in the UK?

 

I don't.

Fine that is your perogative. I prefer to believe actual experience based on recent history of gas plants being built.

 

Same way they get everything else past the EC, they just DO IT and stick two fingers up. Of course, having your people in most of the key jobs does no harm..

 

What does the European Commission (or European Union) have to do with it?  The EU hasn't said that burning coal is illegal, just that if you do then you must stop killing people by pumping out masses of SOx and NOx (ie reduce your emissions with lean NOx burners and apply FGD) and that you must pay for your CO2 emissions to help internalise your external costs. 

 

Germany has chosen to use incredibly dirty lignite as a transition fuel while they close nuclear plants and transition to more renewables (already way, way ahead of the UK) and alternatives eg gas etc. There is no problem with that provided they comply with the relevant legislation.  Germany has (or at least had) a reasonable sized CCS demonstrator at Schwarz Pumpe - it will be interesting to see if CCS starts to gain more traction in the future though at the moment there is no incentive with gas prices so low.

[jjb1970]

The issue with CCGT construction is not time to manufacture and build. They are modular constructs and go together on site quickly and easily, even big ones. The time is in the business case and finance, preparation and consent stages. If the political will is there to expedite the pre-construction phases you could get the required capacity from a range of technologies (CCGT, biomass, wind etc) within ten years.

[APOLLO]

Ladies and Gents, I fear it will be far worse than any of us predict if all coal plant closes within 10 years..

 

Last night, when I wrote my previous thread, Coal was 19%, Wind was 22%. That was 41% of the UK's electricity generation. It was a windy night so rightly wind generation was at or near max I imagine.. As per this site.

 

http://www.scotsrenewables.com/neta.html

 

Right now is peak daily load, around 6pm. Currently (!!!) the UK's electricity generation is 24% coal, 10% wind. That's 34% by these two alone. And it's net freezing yet, so loads are not at a yearly peak yet.

 

Fast forward 10 years to a typical mid winters freezing cold spell with a dominant high pressure weather system. You know, when its very cold but sunny blue sky in the day, no wind and sub zero in the evening. There will be NO wind power, and coal gone. I don't know the % of mothballed / non running alternative plant that will exist in 10 years (non coal / wind), but I'm sure it won't compensate.

 

Within 10 years we should / will all have smart meters that will charge you more (a lot more) for gas and electricity consumed in peak times by then. Also there will be (mains) frequency microchips in certain (high load) appliances (such as washing machines) that simply shut the machine down and render it inoperable when the mains frequency falls below a set figure (which it does at peak). The grid / loads will be self regulating by these two methods, along with many others not yet common knowledge.

 

And just how "green" is biomass ?, Burning wood pellets still gives off CO2 and other nasty products. There is also the CO2 given off by shipping it 1/3 the way round the world also. Burning natural gas (Methane) gives CO2 & water vapour. What we need is a dependable, affordable mix of all types of generation, switchable to allow for weather, lack of wind etc.

 

With the current type of clowns in power, of any party, what we will get in 10 years is chaos.

 

Brit15

[Baby Deltic]

and we'll be able to see by the light of our burning drinking water eventually if widescale fracking gets going.....

Laced with uranium, ethyl benzene, lead and other heavy metals, toluene etc, etc from the polluted water tables, plus the toxic fracking fluid.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Baby Deltic

[Pacific231G]

 

And just how "green" is biomass ?, Burning wood pellets still gives off CO2 and other nasty products. There is also the CO2 given off by shipping it 1/3 the way round the world also. Burning natural gas (Methane) gives CO2 & water vapour. What we need is a dependable, affordable mix of all types of generation, switchable to allow for weather, lack of wind etc.

 

Brit15

The CO2 it gives off is the same CO2 that the plants making up the biomass absorbed from the atmosphere while it was growing using solar energy to drive the process. So the cycle is in ther same balance as when you eat something you've grown. Looking at the whole cycle environmental impact does make sense so yes it may be pointless to ship wood pellets half way round the world- then again it might not. If we've used vast amounts of oil derived fertilisers and fuel to grow the biomass then it probably doesn't.

 

The reason why natural gas produces less greenhouse gas than coal per energy unit is that most of the energy in coal is in the form of carbon - there is some hydrogen and a few other things but it's mostly carbon- and the burnt carbon almost all emerges as CO2. With hydrocarbons you're burning both hydrogen and carbon, generally about four hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom, so though it does produce CO2 a lot more of the combustion products are H2O.

 

I agree about having multiple forms of generation but a far larger proportion of that needs to be renewable- which mostly means ultimately derived from solar energy-  if we're not to make the planet far less habitable for us.

 

It's not about "Saving the Planet", the planet couldn't care less what crawls around on its surface,  it is about not artifically creating a radical departure from the climatic conditions that enabled us and the species we've evolved to cohabit with to evolve and thrive.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Pacific231G

[phil-b259]

Ladies and Gents, I fear it will be far worse than any of us predict if all coal plant closes within 10 years..

 

 

 

With respect you and several others are failing to understand that phasing out of burning coal AS A FUEL doesn't necessary mean the power station itself shuts.

 

I refer you to Drax - have any of the existing coal fired plants been obliterated ? - NO they have been successfully converted to burning biomass using much of the same fixed infrastructure and producing just as much electricity as their coal fired predecessors - the big changes needed being largely to do with dry storage / handling for the fuel and revised boilers. No need for expensive planning enquiries etc.because the power station is still there.

 

As such it is entirely possible to convert ALL our coal burning power plants to burn Biomas - WHICH IS NOT COAL - within 10 years without compromising the amount of energy output. Whether that results in increased emissions is rather irreverent given the stated policy which focuses on the fuel, not the pollutants coming from the chimney.

 

The bottom line is this - no Government is going to let the continuity of our electricity supply be disrupted by party politics because they know we, the voters won't forgive them for it. As such a solution* will be found to 'keep the lights on' and people need to stop being scaremongering.

 

*Of course that doesn't mean the methods taken are necessarily the best from an economic, financial, or even environmental point of view, but a solution WILL be found.

Edited November 19, 2015 by phil-b259

[RJS1977]

 

 

The reason why natural gas produces less greenhouse gas than coal per energy unit is that most of the energy in coal is in the form of carbon - there is some hydrogen and a few other things but it's mostly carbon- and the burnt carbon almost all emerges as CO2. With hydrocarbons you're burning both hydrogen and carbon, generally about four hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom, so though it does produce CO2 a lot more of the combustion products are H2O.

 

 

Which is actually a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2!