End of coal by rail?

[RANGERS]

I wonder if the lack of electricity by 2025 is one reason why the Govt is so keen to slow the progress in rail electrification?

 

It struck me some time back that with increased rail consumption, a desire for plug-in electric cars and the ULEZ in London driving an increase in plug-in electric buses and taxis, there's bound to be an increase in consumption. If this is destined to coincide with a reduction in capacity in the period 2020 to 2025, it's maybe just as well that our hobby is in decline, by the look of things, we're gonna need a resurgence in clockwork. 

[APOLLO]

Well, have I got it right. I'm a retired gas engineer not a biologist.

 

Plants and animals lived and died millions of years ago, over the ages their fossils formed coal, oil, natural gas - fossil fuels.(rich in carbon that burns to give CO2 and other products of combustion.

 

Plants lived and were cut down whilst alive recently, made into other products (timber etc) and the waste is now called biomass. It's carted a third of  the way round the planet then burned, it's still giving off CO2 and other products of combustion. And this is GREEN compared with the fossil fuels above ?. Both fossil fuels and biomass represent a store of carbon originally CO2 from the atmosphere, one from millions of years ago, one more recently.

 

phil-b259 I sure hope and pray your correct that "a solution will be found". I know a couple of very senior energy engineers (not politicians) who think otherwise. I'm out of the frame now, but peak winter tea-time loads and cold winters nights are ingrained in my psyche. 40 odd years of keeping the gas flowing.

 

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the forthcoming Paris climate conference. Wonder what The USA, India and the big one, China, will do ?.   Sod all I suspect, just more hot air.

 

Brit15

Edited November 19, 2015 by APOLLO

[Reorte]

Which is actually a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2!

 

 Water recycles itself out of the atmosphere pretty rapidly (sounds like it's doing so right now, putting me off going to the pub) so the large amounts thrown out by industry at present don't really make much difference.

 

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.

How much farmland will that take up? (genuine question, I've no idea if it'll have a large or negligable impact on food production).

[phil-b259]

 

Plants lived and were cut down whilst alive recently, made into other products (timber etc) and the waste is now called biomass. It's carted a third of  the way round the planet then burned, it's still giving off CO2 and other products of combustion. And this is GREEN compared with the fossil fuels above ?.

 

 

 

This is indeed a big issue that applies to every sector though and trying to vilify Biomas compared to any other source of fuel is nonsense. If you are going to factor in transport emissions etc for Biomas then you have to do the same for Coal.

 

Coal production in the UK for example  is expensive and requires much specialised kit to extract or has a big impact on the landscape in the case of open cast mining. You also need to remember that virtually all coal we burn in the UK now comes from overseas, which means transport costs (both monetary and environmental) are just as much of a factor as they are for Biomas.

 

Nuclear energy may be cheap and clean at point of use - but safe storage and handling of the waste is expensive and just as much of an environmental hazard as fosel fuels

 

Gas / Oil is expensive to extract and transporting is not cheap either.

 

 

phil-b259 I sure hope and pray your correct that "a solution will be found". I know a couple of very senior energy engineers (not politicians) who think otherwise. I'm out of the frame now, but peak winter tea-time loads and cold winters nights are ingrained in my psyche. 40 odd years of keeping the gas flowing.

 

 

 

Put it this way do you honestly think any politician will press ahead if it is going to get them chucked out of office? - how many of us on this forum would turn round and cut them some slack in such a situation.

 

No a solution WILL be found - even if it is simply a case of pushing back the end date so as to give more time for more nuclear to come on stream.

[phil-b259]

 

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the forthcoming Paris climate conference. Wonder what The USA, India and the big one, China, will do ?.   Sod all I suspect, just more hot air.

 

 

I take it you are not aware of recent offical policy changes in China then? Scepticism as to whether the objectives will be achieved is not surprising (and given past performance something I tend to agree with), but IF China can do it then its the UK that should be ashamed of itself for not being more ambitious.

 

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/08/06/beijing-ditch-coal-use-2020

Edited November 19, 2015 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

 

 

How much farmland will that take up? (genuine question, I've no idea if it'll have a large or negligable impact on food production).

 

Lots - which is why we have to import it from places like the USA.

 

Don't get me wrong there are lots of issues around whether Biomas is a sustainable option as it takes land out of cultivation for food, but on the other hand I recently saw an article about how vast quantities of veg were being discarded here at home (If its a good harvest the supermarkets get very picky about the shape and size of items they will accept from farmers) which suggests that Biomas is not quite as bad as is assumed for the food supply.

 

However given the policy seems to be "you can burn anything other than coal" it does provide a means of keeping traditional power stations operating in the future whilst at the same time making the Government sound and look good.

Edited November 19, 2015 by phil-b259

[Pacific231G]

Which is actually a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2!

Water vapour may have a stronger immediate greenhouse effect but it's far shorter lived, it tends to fall as rain,  whereas carbon dioxide is cumulative. Because warm air will hold more water vapour it may tend to amplify the warming caused by CO2 emissions but they're still the real problem. That's for water vapour released at or near the ground. Injecting it directly into the upper atmosphere may be far more significant and the water vapour released by jet aircraft at high altitude may be as much of a problem in terms of global warming as the CO2 they release.  

 

That doesn't make increased use of hydrocarbons on the ground in any way harmless, especially when used in very inefficient ways such as road transport, it's just not as harmful as the same energy generated from burning coal. 

[stovepipe]

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.

 

I'm aware of a couple of CCGT power plants in my region that were ready to go in 2008, but weren't invested in at the time following the global crash and the consequent forecast reduction in energy consumption. I think around 6 - 7 years from start to finish would be achievable.

[stovepipe]

Well, have I got it right. I'm a retired gas engineer not a biologist.

 

Plants and animals lived and died millions of years ago, over the ages their fossils formed coal, oil, natural gas - fossil fuels.(rich in carbon that burns to give CO2 and other products of combustion.

 

Plants lived and were cut down whilst alive recently, made into other products (timber etc) and the waste is now called biomass. It's carted a third of  the way round the planet then burned, it's still giving off CO2 and other products of combustion. And this is GREEN compared with the fossil fuels above ?. Both fossil fuels and biomass represent a store of carbon originally CO2 from the atmosphere, one from millions of years ago, one more recently.

 

Brit15

 

Short-cycle CO2 versus stored CO2. The short cycle CO2 is happening anyway as plants grow taking up CO2 from the atmosphere, and then die/rot/burn releasing it. Burning long stored fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the atmosphere. Transport of fuel is necessary in both cases, but the biomass does less harm overall. But growing too many energy crops will eventually restrict food production. Since October 2015 biomass has to pass a sustainability test - I think better than a 60% reduction on the fossil fuel equivalent.

[rockershovel]

It might usefully be remembers that a core driver of the industrial revolution was the general conversion to coal as an energy source. The earlier preferred source - charcoal - is so far behind it in terms of specific energy content and bulking ratio that it could not have provided the necessary energy.

 

Anyway, biomass is just carbon combustion by another name.

 

The truth is (and this is all in tne public domain) the government are making money by trading UK's emission quotas to places like India and China who care enough to pay lip service to the principle. Why do you think Cameron runs over there every so often? The stated reasons make no sense (usually vague claims about "deals worth billions of pounds"). Remember, this is a man so subordinate to foreign interests as to fly the flag half mast to mark the passing of a minor Saudi royal.

[Revolution Mike]

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

Most fracking fluid in the UK is not that bad. At least one of the fracking companies used to publish on their website the contents and there was nothing so terrifying (in the concentrations they were talking about).

 

The trace elements and compounds you refer to many will already exist in traces in water (uranium, lead and other heavy metals) - the key issues are the concentration and the cumulative dose. So although saying something contains lead sounds scary unless you know how much lead it is fairly meaningless.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Sorry most of this is nonsense without context eg how much reserve capacity was available to call on? If you don't know that then any other statement on the generation capacity is meaningless. No one denies that things have been very tight and that at times we have had to reduce industrial energy consumption, but your constant scare mongering does no one any favours if it is based on incomplete data/knowledge. You can't just say the wind won't blow and there will be no coal so therefore 34% of capacity won't be available - for all you know half the nuclear plants could have been in maintenance and you have no idea of how much gas capacity was not being used. You have no idea of what capacity will be built in the next 10 years. Furthermore even if we phase out the use of coal in primary generation it does not necessarily mean some of the plants won't be kept as reserve capacity.

 

If you are really interested in biomass sustainability then it is not difficult to find lots of very good research which will give you answers (mostly along the lines of it varies depending on the type of biomass).

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[The Stationmaster]

With 'biomass' it's far more than the transport cost in CO2.  Much of the biomass now consumed in the UK is 'rubbish' left over from or created during various wood based processing procedures in North America or simply surplus material smashed up.  Some of it contains carcinogens because of the adhesives used during the manufacture of board materials, much of it has a hazardous dust content which can also contain carcinogens and some of it is positively explosive if not handled correctly or 'turned' regularly while in storage.  In other words it is an industrial product and not necessarily a nice one.

 

Some of it which has been used in the UK is perfectly natural such as olive remains after the oil has been extracted but on a tonnage scale that is almost insignificant.

 

Coal might not give the purest exhaust gases in the world but I bet biomass isn't much better and some of it is a lot nastier than coal before it is burnt.

[Revolution Mike]

With 'biomass' it's far more than the transport cost in CO2.  Much of the biomass now consumed in the UK is 'rubbish' left over from or created during various wood based processing procedures in North America or simply surplus material smashed up.  Some of it contains carcinogens because of the adhesives used during the manufacture of board materials, much of it has a hazardous dust content which can also contain carcinogens and some of it is positively explosive if not handled correctly or 'turned' regularly while in storage.  In other words it is an industrial product and not necessarily a nice one.

 

Some of it which has been used in the UK is perfectly natural such as olive remains after the oil has been extracted but on a tonnage scale that is almost insignificant.

 

Coal might not give the purest exhaust gases in the world but I bet biomass isn't much better and some of it is a lot nastier than coal before it is burnt.

 

Half correct Mike.  Some waste wood can be biomass and as you say can contain some hazardous components but then it is classified as hazardous waste (and can't therefore go to the same plant for combustion as cleaner biomass). The exhaust gases of an incinerator are put through considerably more sophisticated flue gas cleaning systems than say a coal plant.  There is no technical reason you can't dramatically improve the emissions from a coal plant except it costs you money (in lost energy, more sophisticated equipment and reagents).

 

Dust in general can be very explosive hence why you still get explosions in places like flour mills (and biomass is more difficult to handle).

 

I'm afraid that biomass is considerably better than coal (which contains huge amounts of impurities).

[D1059]

I'm aware of a couple of CCGT power plants in my region that were ready to go in 2008, but weren't invested in at the time following the global crash and the consequent forecast reduction in energy consumption. I think around 6 - 7 years from start to finish would be achievable.

 

Its just taken 3 years for developers to gain planning permission for a 150 home estate at the bottom of my garden - there were major objections from all the local councils as its against the intended Local Plan and extra traffic will just contribute to the local road network going into meltdown

 

Do you honestly think, under any planning regime, that permission for a major industrial plant like a power station can be railroaded through in under 4 years ?

[Arthur]

 

In this week's The Life Scientific, Radio 4, Jim Al Khalili interviewed Prof. Paul Younger, geologist, Director of a Sustainability Research Institute, world class expert on managing post mining pollution and geothermal energy pioneer.

 

Well worth a listen either on iPlayer here;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7/episodes/player

 

Or podcast here;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7/episodes/downloads

 

Amongst much else, he clearly believes that there is good fracking practice and bad fracking practice, Cowboys in the US as he puts it. He seems confident that fracking can be, and eventually will be, safely carried out in the UK.

 

He also discusses the possibility of the remote, underground, gassification of coal reserves to release hydrocarbons for the plastics industry.

[stovepipe]

Its just taken 3 years for developers to gain planning permission for a 150 home estate at the bottom of my garden - there were major objections from all the local councils as its against the intended Local Plan and extra traffic will just contribute to the local road network going into meltdown

 

Do you honestly think, under any planning regime, that permission for a major industrial plant like a power station can be railroaded through in under 4 years ?

Believe it or not there are areas of the country that are designated for industrial development in the local plan, and these are where power stations can be built. Your example sheds no light on the planning process for the sites I'm aware of.

[phil-b259]

 

Do you honestly think, under any planning regime, that permission for a major industrial plant like a power station can be railroaded through in under 4 years ?

 

Firstly power stations (as with trunk road, railway improvements) are generally the domain of the national planning authority the Government have set up to try and get round / speed up the process where local residents can effectively block things that are deemed to be "in the national interest"

 

Secondly you can always do what they have done with nuclear or the Biomas conversion at Drax - namely reuse an existing site, which has the added benefit of keeping those employed at the previous installation in work - something councils in unemployment blackspots are only too well aware of.

Edited November 20, 2015 by phil-b259

[Dava]

Away from the UK, coal fired power generation looks set for growth in the Philippines where 23 new ones are apparently planned, despite extreme vulnerability to climate change.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900312

 

Just seen Jon Snow's C4 report from Bangladesh on the impact of rising sea levels from climate change is having on populations. How much difference does the UK's remaining 10 or so coalfired stations have on this?

 

Dava

[jjb1970]

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2015/11/23/developing-economies-take-lead-in-clean-energy-investments/

 

For those who think we are the only country investing in renewables.

[PenrithBeacon]

Away from the UK, ...

Just seen Jon Snow's C4 report from Bangladesh on the impact of rising sea levels from climate change is having on populations. How much difference does the UK's remaining 10 or so coalfired stations have on this?

 

Dava

It would be best to remember that rising sea levels will not just impact in far away places. Most British cities have a river flowing through them and the water level of rivers is by definition at sea level. The centre of Manchester, for example, is almost all pretty well at sea level and much of Lancashire would end up under water. Here at Harrow I'm a comfortable 300' above sea level, but I tremble at the thought of all those bedraggled gorillas in suits from Canary Wharf migrating.

 

Regards

[Arthur]

 

Somewhat alarmist David.

 

The water levels of rivers are not at sea level, they flow down hill to the sea. The Manchester Ship Canal, from Salford, flows through several sets of locks, roughly 20' drops, before entering the Mersey at Ellesmere Port. The River Irwell and the Canal are one and the same in Manchester. Manchester city centre is about 140' above sea level, way, way, above any predictions of sea level rise.

 

Here's a topographic map, click any point to see it's elevation.

 

http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Lancashire-35499/

[APOLLO]

This is an interesting map. Put the predicted sea level rise in at the top and zoom in to see the affected areas. Works worldwide.

 

60m and I'm swimming in the garden !!

 

Just 1m and most of the Fens have gone, along with its farmland and food production.

 

http://flood.firetree.net/

 

Brit15

[Reorte]

This is an interesting map. Put the predicted sea level rise in at the top and zoom in to see the affected areas. Works worldwide.

 

60m and I'm swimming in the garden !!

 

Just 1m and most of the Fens have gone, along with its farmland and food production.

Not necessarily, some of the Fens are already below sea level and not under water (there's even a trig point with a negative altitude). It would probably be expensive to prevent large levels of flooding but not utterly impossible and catastrophic. Best not to need to of course.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Reorte

[The Stationmaster]

 

This is an interesting map. Put the predicted sea level rise in at the top and zoom in to see the affected areas. Works worldwide.

 

60m and I'm swimming in the garden !!

 

Just 1m and most of the Fens have gone, along with its farmland and food production.

 

http://flood.firetree.net/

 

Brit15

S*d it - 60 metres and not only is the local Tesco underwater but it would be the long way round to get to Wycrail (but we're alright Jack ).

Edited November 24, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[PenrithBeacon]

Somewhat alarmist David.

 

The water levels of rivers are not at sea level, they flow down hill to the sea. The Manchester Ship Canal, from Salford, flows through several sets of locks, roughly 20' drops, before entering the Mersey at Ellesmere Port. The River Irwell and the Canal are one and the same in Manchester. Manchester city centre is about 140' above sea level, way, way, above any predictions of sea level rise.

 

Here's a topographic map, click any point to see it's elevation.

 

http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Lancashire-35499/

I had the impression that the Ship Canal was at sea level throughout its length. Clearly that impression is wrong, thanks for the correction.

 

The map doesn't work on my computer.

 

The general thrust of my post that rising sea levels will be an issue in the UK too is still valid. We, or rather our grandchildren, will not be immune to its effect.

 

Regards

 

Regards