|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 9, 2024 9:06:23 GMT
Between them, Arthur Scargil and Margaret Thatcher destroyed our coal industry. Scargil by stubbornly pursuing an unwinnable strike and Thatcher due to her globalist policies which led her to buy cheaper Chinese coal. Coal would be too expensive to start up again now. All the easy to get at coal has been mined and the deep mines are flooded. A good thing too, coal is a 19th century fuel. It's filthy, poisonous and very unpleasant and dangerous to extract. The age of coal is over. Good riddance. None of which addresses the point. Biomass is even filthier when it is transported half way across the world by diesel trucks and bunker oil powered freighters.
Coal, when mined locally, and then de-sulphurised, is not as bad for the environment. And as a stopgap until SUFFICIENT WATTAGE of alternative renewable power is in the grid, and sufficient hydrogen available to steel making (hydrogen powered steel production is possible), coal mining should have been continued with.
It wasn't, because of the stupidity of both EU and UK politicians who pushed ahead with divestment before there was a viable alternative.
All pretty academic when the future is not biomass but wind and solar. Biomass is a gap filler. Re-opening coal mines is a long term project. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Sept 9, 2024 11:44:25 GMT
Biomass is a mistake.
Closing mines was a mistake.
Wind is intermittent.
Solar is consistent.
Tidal is consistent.
Nuclear is a better option than wind.
And hydrogen is the best option for the steel industry, when we have enough electricity to mass produce it (via electrolysis).
There's another thing you're not considering in your energy policy.
Vehicles.
No way is it possible to get everyone into lithium ion electric vehicles.
There isn't enough lithium on the planet.
You need to be thinking about alternative ways to provide power to vehicles, especially lorries, ships and aircraft.
Batteries are not a viable option for powering them.
Renewable (synthetic) hydrocarbons are.
Many Commonwealth countries have sufficient hot desert land mass for solar power stations to power carbon capture tech.
Some have sufficient coastline to provide hydrogen too.
We need to be working with other Commonwealth countries, if we are to achieve net zero in the established timetable.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 9, 2024 15:38:42 GMT
Biomass makes up just 6% of our power generation and 2/3rds of that is domestic. Straw, waste wood and wood pellets.
So imported biomass makes up just 2% of the supply.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 9, 2024 15:51:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 9, 2024 19:48:50 GMT
Biomass is a mistake. Closing mines was a mistake. Wind is intermittent. Solar is consistent. Tidal is consistent. Nuclear is a better option than wind. And hydrogen is the best option for the steel industry, when we have enough electricity to mass produce it (via electrolysis). There's another thing you're not considering in your energy policy. Vehicles. No way is it possible to get everyone into lithium ion electric vehicles. There isn't enough lithium on the planet. You need to be thinking about alternative ways to provide power to vehicles, especially lorries, ships and aircraft. Batteries are not a viable option for powering them. Renewable (synthetic) hydrocarbons are. Many Commonwealth countries have sufficient hot desert land mass for solar power stations to power carbon capture tech. Some have sufficient coastline to provide hydrogen too. We need to be working with other Commonwealth countries, if we are to achieve net zero in the established timetable. Not sure if I can be bothered to go through all this again for you Vinny. Each point you make above is wrong for various reasons. I will say this, we don't need to make every vehicle electric (Even though their are alternatives to Lithium if needed) we just need to reduce burning fossil fuel burning by enough to allow nature to reverse global warming. The trouble with hydrogen is not production its moving it and storing it. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Sept 10, 2024 12:33:58 GMT
We do need to reduce fossil fuel burning, but we are not reducing fossil fuel burning if we outsource production of steel to other parts of the world and then import it on oil powered freighters.
We are not reducing fossil fuel burning if we use carbon intensive production of non recyclable rapidly worn out power generation machinery.
We are kidding ourselves.
We need better solutions including tidal generation.
And in order to continue to produce high grade steel, hydrogen.
Electric furnaces are not good enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 10, 2024 16:12:00 GMT
We do need to reduce fossil fuel burning, but we are not reducing fossil fuel burning if we outsource production of steel to other parts of the world and then import it on oil powered freighters. We are not reducing fossil fuel burning if we use carbon intensive production of non recyclable rapidly worn out power generation machinery. We are kidding ourselves. We need better solutions including tidal generation. And in order to continue to produce high grade steel, hydrogen. Electric furnaces are not good enough. Again. Coal production in this country has not disappeared because we don't did our own coal. Its disappeared because China can produce it cheaper and our government stopped subsidising its production here. Interestingly steel works are looking at storing heat in salt bricks using cheap overnight electricity. The heat from these salt bricks is used to keep furnaces up to background temperatures and then those temperatures raised during the day using gas. Thus much reducing the carbon footprint. www.solarreviews.com/blog/tidal-energy-pros-and-consTidal has many problems, the greatest being limited places you can use them effectively |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 16:13:11 GMT
The way things are going England will be lucky to be sent a lump of coal for Christmas from Scotland  |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Sept 10, 2024 22:35:38 GMT
Our government was subject to EU subsidy rules for many years and banned from protecting the steel industry, the ship building industry and many other industries.
The rules no longer apply but unless Labour reverse inherited policy and protect those industries there's still a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 11, 2024 8:53:04 GMT
Our government was subject to EU subsidy rules for many years and banned from protecting the steel industry, the ship building industry and many other industries. The rules no longer apply but unless Labour reverse inherited policy and protect those industries there's still a problem. So the question is not about coal, its about whether we should shore up unprofitable British steel 1970's style. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 11, 2024 9:37:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 11, 2024 15:48:01 GMT
Yes, that's how I remember it. |
|
