Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Been good news for the Green`s this month
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Falstaff



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 15 3:29 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

Bebo wrote:
Falstaff wrote:


It's also common knowledge that the US of A hoilds the voiew that self-sufficiency in Energy is not only desireable, but essential !


Was that a New Jersey accent?


New Jersey ? Yessiree - I'm following the principle of "Buying my straw hats in the fall" ! (Just in case we DO decide to close all those power stations and buy gas ! )

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10309

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 15 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Yes, the main reason I prefer using British coal is political instability in gas providing countries and being held to ransom. As far as carbon is concerned, I don't think there is a lot to choose between them, but coal contains other impurities which make it less 'efficient' and produces things that have to be scrubbed out.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34729
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 15 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

so does gas ,h2s being a good example however that gets flared off at the point of extraction (so it dont count )

radon is also found in some gas (from natural radioactive decay in the rocks)

coal has a variety of stuff ranging from complex organic chems,sulfur compounds etc etc and some even has enough uranium family nucleotides to make it worth using the ash as uranium ore.

both are finite and have a big downside compared to moving water etc etc but could be well used to fill a need until safe ,sustainable power is online.

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5345
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 15 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Mistress Rose wrote:
Yes, the main reason I prefer using British coal is political instability in gas providing countries and being held to ransom. As far as carbon is concerned, I don't think there is a lot to choose between them, but coal contains other impurities which make it less 'efficient' and produces things that have to be scrubbed out.


I'm pretty sure that you have a much larger effect in terms of greenhouse gas emissions when you burn coal, than when you burn natural gas. (let alone all the other nasties like sulfur and mercury that come with coal)

This site suggests just a bit under twice as much carbon dioxide for every million btus produced with coal rather than gas....
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

Clearly that's not the only aspect of the choice to consider, but it weighs heavily for me.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34729
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 15 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

you are correct but the uk situation needs fossil fuels to keep it going until sustainable is online.

i recon a 30 yr plan would be sensible ,the current situation is a mess and needs sorting

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10309

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I am surprised at those figures Slim, but have no reason to doubt them. Of course coal is made up of more complex hydrocarbons as well as other things, so burning it will not produce the same amount of heat as a simple molecule like methane.

It is very complex subject and depends on what you take into account as to which fuel causes the least pollution.

Agree with you Dpack; we need fossil fuel until we get renewable sources. Sadly this has been the case the whole of my adult life. I supported the use of nuclear power when I was in my 20s because I saw the chaos that would cause if we didn't have a stop gap before renewable came on line. Now in my 60s I rather despair that we will ever get there, and a new generation of nuclear power stations are needed to fill the stop gap.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Nuclear is not an alternative or a stop gap.
The time it takes to get a nuclear station online is about 15 years.
Uranium is more scarce than gas & coal, & the sources are in areas just as politically volatile as gas supplies.
Renewables are the only alternative with gas turbines to fill the slack periods.

Falstaff



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Coal is a viable and plentiful resource in the uk.

Rather than closing coal power stations on a whim, they should be put to good and economical use.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 44206
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
i recon a 30 yr plan would be sensible


We're not German, long term planning is not British, everything is geared towards the next election.

Having said which coal burning is not the answer, ensuring all new builds are energy efficient would be a start but even latest regs do no such thing. Reducing demand is at least as important as sustainable supply

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

tahir wrote:
dpack wrote:
i recon a 30 yr plan would be sensible


We're not German, long term planning is not British, everything is geared towards the next election.


We do have a 25 year plan for bTB, though. First metrication, now this, we must be becoming more German.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34729
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

anglo SAXON and the real names of the incumbent royalty hints at how german ukplc is ,at least in part.the falling out 14/18 led to a serious denial of how german the uk is and the 39/45 unpleasantness reinforced that.

however ukplc is also quite french /celtic which does even things up by adding a shrug and a bucket of tribalism

add in the profit motives of the energy supply companies and we have little chance of a sensible and achievable secure sustainable energy supply .

using less is obvious to everyone except politicians ,capitalists and the public.

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5345
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Since we're getting idealistic:

I think I'd like to see low GHG (greenhouse gas) fuels like gas be used as the modulating power generation (for lulls in renewables, etc...) and as a bridge to the time in the near future when advanced nuclear options can go online (thorium reactors in the short term, and nuclear fusion plants in the long term). All of this with the continuing advance of renewables like solar, wind, tide, wave, etc....

I completely understand wanting to protect local employment, and self-sufficiency for energy, but I think that coal is one of the worst ways to go about it, and extremely short-sighted. You might be better off in the long run spending money to educate those workers, and invest in research to create advanced nuclear options, etc.... (which will certainly require workers to build and maintain)

Coal just brings too much carbon to the surface, and far too many unwanted elements tagging along.

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4145
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Well that cover`s power generation,what about Steel and Cement manufacture,are these run on Gas in the US?
As far has i know they are both coal fired in the UK.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 34729
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

both use coal based stuff in the uk,bought in now.

iirc the coking plant in south yorks closed a while back so the dragon does not happen locally but fuel is brought in pre coked.

a lot of cement is bought in as is most steel,there are a few steel makers left but they mostly work from imported metal rather than from ore and coke.iirc the south wales place (port talbot?)imports both fuel and ore

of big construction stuff aggregate is the only stuff done locally(big hole in scotland etc etc )

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5345
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 15 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Ty Gwyn wrote:
Well that cover`s power generation,what about Steel and Cement manufacture,are these run on Gas in the US?
As far has i know they are both coal fired in the UK.


I'm no expert, and I can't find sources that are more recent than 2013, but I did find this claiming that gas will replace coke: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4190319-u-s-steel-natural-gas-process-will-soon-replace-coke/

Other things I googled make it look like cement producers are looking alternative fuel sources as well (gas, biomass, tires, etc...), but I didn't find anything that says any real numbers concisely and don't have that much time to do a thorough reading! Plenty of info out there though

Again, not an expert in this area!

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright 2004 marsjupiter.com