Coal

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Wonder how our post industrial economy will fare if China turns off the taps?

Paul.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I suspect this GWR locos and Welsh steam coal was an excuse dreamed up when GWR didn’t shine in interchange trials. LMS and BR standard locos steamed on any decent coal. Not rubbish obviously.

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

We burn anthracite beans in a room heater.  Amused to see it described as “low ash” – definitely a relative term!  Bane of our life in the winter.  Our supplier is happy to deliver in 25kg bags at £17.50 a time, slightly less if you buy enough.  Last time I asked if there were any problems getting it and he has no trouble.

[Stuart Smith 5]

On Stuart Smith 5 Said:

Dave

Michael makes a very good point.

If the UK produced no Co2 of its own, it would make virtually no difference to the whole world situation.

Instead we import everything from other countries .( mainly China) so in effect we have exported our pollution.

 

 

Exactly so, and we are richer as a result.  Rather than bogging the UK down with low paid artisan jobs and polluting industry that knocks out cheap stuff,  we’ve exported the mess, buy in cheap goods and make our labour available for more profitable work.   We do not live in a perfect world.

The UK is only the first to reduce CO₂.  Others are active too, just slower off the mark.  Fossil fuels aren’t sustainable.  Politicians know it, their problem is how to change without crashing their national economies or making themselves unelectable.

Post-industrial society works because it’s absolutely not necessary to earn a living by making physical things. Services are big earners. Bad mistake to believe British industry can profit by making ordinary items against stiff competition.   British industry makes as much money today as it ever did, but the outputs and methods are different.   Had to go up market, and did.   Realistically, it’s not advantageous to compete with foreigners enjoying manufacturing advantages like cheap labour, materials, and development opportunities.  We know what industries don’t make money for the UK, because they fail!  And if they do, switch to something else.

Nothing new in these challenges.  At various times in the 19th century the UK was the world’s largest exporter of Lead, Tin, Arsenic, Brass, Copper, Iron, Steel, Coal, and Slate.  All gone, plus most of the industries that depended on them.  Odd that people accept the demise of Tin and Slate, but not Coal and Steel. I think it’s an age thing – Tin was done long before I was born, whereas I grew up with coal.  Incidentally, though most British Tin has been extracted, the flooded mines contain nearly enough Lithium to be worth pumping out.   More change…

I agree there’s a problem with China and the West’s loss of industrial muscle.  But China is very vulnerable, facing mass unemployment in the billions if tariffs are applied.  Far more worrying than buying coal for model locos.

Dave

 

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

While we no longer use coal for power generation. A programme on the the TV recently, A Year From Space, stated that coal is still the most mined Ore. Clearly our not burning it has made little impact on the rest of the world.

Regards

Gray,

[Bazyle]

On Bazyle Said:

Conversion of a Simplex to gas firing might be a good article for ME. About 30 years ago I was driven round the LALS track (Los Angeles Live Steamers) behind a propane fired loco. I think they might have already banned solid fuel because of the fire risk back then. That track is currently under threat from the current conflagration.

There was an article in SMEE journal on this some time ago, write by a chap from NZ. An approach to SMEE might facilitate a reprint

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Sometimes we live above our station in the context of the world. As Graham has said if we stopped making Co2 it would make little difference to world Co2 levels. Unless the rest of the world and particularly the developing nations take the matter seriously there is little point in us trying. Our industries are being closed or made no longer viable, as Dave has said, we’ve just exported the Co2 production.  My car is on a renewable fuel and so is my heating.        A 5″ loco on coal will make a difference ? Ah well. Noel.

[noel shelley]

On noel shelley Said:

Sometimes we live above our station in the context of the world. As Graham has said if we stopped making Co2 it would make little difference to world Co2 levels. Unless the rest of the world and particularly the developing nations take the matter seriously there is little point in us trying. Our industries are being closed or made no longer viable, as Dave has said, we’ve just exported the Co2 production.  My car is on a renewable fuel and so is my heating.        A 5″ loco on coal will make a difference ? Ah well. Noel.

And sometimes you have to be the change you wish to see in others. Changing our CO2 footprint will not solve the problem but demonstrating that an advanced economy can decarbonise successfully is powerfull and gives us the right to call on others to do likewise.

[noel shelley]

On noel shelley Said:

Sometimes we live above our station in the context of the world. As Graham has said if we stopped making Co2 it would make little difference to world Co2 levels. Unless the rest of the world and particularly the developing nations take the matter seriously there is little point in us trying. Our industries are being closed or made no longer viable, as Dave has said, we’ve just exported the Co2 production.  My car is on a renewable fuel and so is my heating.        A 5″ loco on coal will make a difference ? Ah well. Noel.

If every country takes that attitude, no-one does anything and Greenland melts. Then you can say goodbye to large areas of the UK, especially the bits where we grow our food and central London.

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

On noel shelley Said:

Sometimes we live above our station in the context of the world. As Graham has said if we stopped making Co2 it would make little difference to world Co2 levels. Unless the rest of the world and particularly the developing nations take the matter seriously there is little point in us trying. Our industries are being closed or made no longer viable, as Dave has said, we’ve just exported the Co2 production.  My car is on a renewable fuel and so is my heating.        A 5″ loco on coal will make a difference ? Ah well. Noel.

If every country takes that attitude, no-one does anything and Greenland melts. Then you can say goodbye to large areas of the UK, especially the bits where we grow our food and central London.

Interesting statement made there about Greenland melting. If this affair is truly down to man’s carbon production. A few things spring to mind. The first why are governments not calling out to stop the burning of the rain forests. Secondly. Was the formation of the English Channel and other geographical areas caused by over production of carbon by the animals at the time?. And why isn’t the movement of the trade winds being talked about, this is of course due to the magnetic fields of the earth moving which is why wild life who use the magnetic fields to navigate are getting lost. This of course is due to the earths orbit moving which it has done every few million years or so. But of course that doesn’t fit into the nonsensical narrative of green.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Loco firing|: I’m fairly sure one of the members of St Albans club has steamed his Polly on a form of briquette at least up and down his garden though it might not do for a bigger express on passenger duties.
It is quite likely that the product Paul had problems with is designed to specifically not burn fast and hot as that is not what you want in most domestic applications. Too hot a fire would have most inexperienced occasional users complaining the firebars had melted of burned through because they left the draught control open expecting a real fire to behave as cooperatively as an electric heater.
I think lot of things are doctored to be fire retardant these days. When lighting the living room fire daily I find newspaper doesn’t burn like it used to, envelopes and card packaging is reluctant and even wax from candle ends (eg nightlights) does not like to burn freely.

The OP’s problem with the coal merchant might have been more due to the attitude of the shop staff being ‘clever’. Since most customers wouldn’t know or care about legal definitions of ‘house coal’ they would use the term to refer to the stuff they bought and used all last year in their house fire. A sensible salesman would have have piped up with “We have this wonderful new product Homefire Briquette that is well worth the premium price……..”

Finally the problem with relying on new tech jobs instead of manufacturing is that only 10% of the population has the intelligence to be able to work in these fields and for the last 40 years have had to carry the remainder of the (over) population living beyond their means.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Why aren’t governments calling out to stop burning rain forests? They are

Animals eat plants, which absorb CO2, so no nett increase. I know a minority are carnivores, but they are still eating what started out as a plant

Magnetic fields affect trade winds? You’ll have to give us a reference for that one, it’s new to me

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 said

Animals eat plants, which absorb CO2, so no nett increase. I know a minority are carnivores, but they are still eating what started out as a plant

Not sure what the first part of that question was so I may be a bit off message, but it’s not a straight trade with herbivores. Some are quite good at converting plants into methane which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Sheep are low emitters but cows are high. Hill sheep are particularly useful in converting vegetation in areas useless for any other sort of farming into high grade protein. (They are also handy for mowing the grass between the panels on Solar Farms too.)

Best to grow trees and convert the timber into high value furniture so the carbon gets locked up for a fair while.

[howardbParticipant @howardb]

“Magnetic fields affect trade winds? You’ll have to give us a reference for that one, it’s new to me”

“The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

[howardb]

On howardb Said:

“Magnetic fields affect trade winds? You’ll have to give us a reference for that one, it’s new to me”

“The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

Interesting report.  It says ‘Although these strands of evidence are intriguing, they remain very controversial, while there is no clear mechanism to explain the relationship between magnetic field variations and climate variability. ‘

The case against Greenhouse gases is far more solid!

Dave

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

It also seems to be suggesting a mechanism for regional variations rather than global heating or cooling.

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

While I offered my little snippet above purely as an observation. I in no way was advocating doing nothing.

However the same programme mentioned the amount of carbon in tons emitted by a certain aircraft during elections in America, also the same sort of data for a Pop singer using her personal jet on a world tour. The latter would require a phenomenal amount of trees to be planted, (in the Millions), to offset this carbon emission. The former does not believe in Global warming.

I do not know if we in the UK are still burning wood pellets for power generation. These were being shipped from America, (carbon is being produced for this transportation). They are considered Green because they replant the trees and thus they are renewable. I for one do not think the carbon would be reabsorbed that quickly by saplings. Unless the ratio of trees felled to those being replanted was massive.

Another snippet which I did no know, is that there are 1,350 active volcanoes on the planet. On any given day there are 30 erupting.

When I was much younger, I well remember the scientists of the day telling us that things were not harmful, (the likes of DDT), as it was only one or several parts per million. I think in the interim years as I have grown old, that the millionth part is about to be used up, as all the other parts of that million are now polluted.

Regards

Gray,

 

 

 

 

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Graham,

Worth noting that burning wood (including pellets) produces more CO2 per joule of heat output I understand than other more energy dense fuels.  It seems the argument for using them is the CO2 released in the whole process from harvest to end use is recaptured by the new growth.  Like you, no idea if the sums add up.

Think of it though perhaps as bit like short term finance but in terms of redistributing carbon in the short term (10 years maybe).  Tree grows and absorbs CO2, tree contains carbon, tree burnt and a compound (oxide) is released again.  It’s no different to coal except the coal that has been dug and burned took a lot longer to get from when it absorbed CO2 to the point where the CO2 was released.  So the consideration is release of CO2 with respect to time.

My chemistry is pretty poor but I believe that most ‘fuels’ contain carbon which will be released during combustion, there are only really two viable ones that do not, Hydrogen and Ammonia and even Ammonia to get it to a convenient form of fuel results in a carbon based emission during the process (CO).

If we want energy then the thinking is we must have it from a zero carbon fuel or one where CO2 emitted within a short period is reabsorbed from the atmosphere and stored somewhere else like in trees or under the ground.

I mentioned accounting because CO2 accounting is interesting.  A lot of other substances are given a CO2e value (carbon dioxide equivalent).  It’s a bit like converting all other currencies to USD although the exchange rate doesn’t float!

Paul.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Yes ruminants produce methane, but that degrades quite quickly into CO2 and water, so if the number of animals and proportion of ruminants doesn’t change, they don’t change levels of atmospheric methane. In modern times the number of cattle has increased markedly, so I would advocate eating less meat, but managed grazing (probably at a lower level than now) encourages grass to convert CO2 to soil. According to James Redbanks if we increased the amount of soil in the world by 0.5% we would take atmospheric  CO2 back to pre-industrial levels. He claims to have increased soil on his farm by 2%. Not sure how you measure that. Ploughing to produce cereal crops releases CO2 from the soil, so veggy isn’t all good. Complicated stuff this climate change isn’t it. My simple mind says that scientists predict increased CO2 levels will cause warming and more violent weather, we are seeing warming and more violent weather, so there is probably something in it.

On burning trees, if you planted a load of trees, waited for them to grow, then harvested, processed and transported them using carbon neutral power, then there would be no nett CO2 increase. What we do now by chopping down existing trees and then using lots of non green power to process etc results in a big spike in atmospheric CO2, which would only be recouped, slowly, if you planted more replacement trees and never cut them down. Can’t see that happening. According to journalists the tale about only using wood waste is not aligned with the truth

 

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

One factor which no one seems to mention, is that world population has increased, as has the animal population, probably. We all breathe so with every passing minute, every one of us contributes to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

How many if our ardent politicians would be prepared to set an example by giving up breathing?

Since UK only contributes about 1% to global emissions, only effective thing that we can do, nationally, is to set an example.  Not that that has achieved much so far.

Also,how do we differentiate between man made climate change and the natural cycle on which the earth cats? And how do we determine the extent to which our actions influence that?

What caused the Thames to freeze over in the 1700s, was that somehow man made?

There is no simple answer.  Maybe the various axes that are being ground, so furiously, contribute a lot to the emissions?

Howard

Howard

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

There was a programme on some time back about the Winds circulating the planet and the Jet Stream. It was showing the effects this has on the extreme weather. One snippet of information contained in this programme was the fact that CO2 would not normally get to the altitude where the airlines operate.

Apparently the CO2 here has an effect on the Jet Stream making it more volatile. Plus this planet has evolved in coping with CO2 at lower levels.

Also did you know there are now 300 Cruise ships? to me that is a staggering number. The latest of which is supposed to be as green as grass, 5 times larger than the Titanic. Yet the boffins have worked out that per person it is 5 times more polluting than air travel per person.

I also question whether these pollution figures actually take into account the manufacturing process of said vessel or aircraft. Or do they just concentrate on the operating cycle of the vessel or aircraft. Do they also include the travel of holiday makers too and from the pick-up point. The infrastructure required for the car-parks while they are away, etc, etc.

Over 50 years ago, my dear old Mum, bless her, used to say all this bad weather is because of these airplanes and rockets going up. It appears there was an element of truth in her belief.

Regards

Gray,

 

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

One factor which no one seems to mention, is that world population has increased, as has the animal population, probably. We all breathe so with every passing minute, every one of us contributes to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not mentioned because the sums reveal the amount of CO₂ produced by humanity is small compared with the 37 billion metric tons released by burning fossil fuels per year. 8 billion humans do not exhale 4.6 billion tons of CO₂ each.   The problem is extracting and burning huge quantities of fossil fuels

Since UK only contributes about 1% to global emissions, only effective thing that we can do, nationally, is to set an example.  Not that that has achieved much so far.

I used to justified my stupid teenage antics by saying my friends all did it.  Mum said, ‘would you jump off a bridge just because your idiot friends think it’s clever?    Actually, the UK has made a difference: plenty of countries are adopting similar measures.  The big problem is the widespread belief is that the only way to stay rich is by burning fossils.

Also,how do we differentiate between man made climate change and the natural cycle on which the earth cats? And how do we determine the extent to which our actions influence that?

Trust the scientists.  There are many clues, and they all consistently point in the same direction.  Proceed to local library and swot up!   Start by checking if there’s anything in that natural cycle that explains what’s happening – I doubt anything will be found.

What caused the Thames to freeze over in the 1700s, was that somehow man made?

Unlikely to be man made I feel.    Cause unknown, but dust in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions is a possibility. The mini-ice age was local, not a global change as we are currently experiencing.

There is no simple answer.

True, the logic has to be studied.  Doing that reveals a complex answer based on a chain of rather simple and well-established scientific facts that do explain what’s going on.   Using established knowledge, climate scientists have modelled what’s happening and here’s the bad news:  over a 40 year period the models have successfully predicted what’s going to happen next.  Forty years plus of evidence strongly suggest the science is correct and nothing has emerged to gainsay it, despite a lot of vested interests looking.

 

Maybe the various axes that are being ground, so furiously, contribute a lot to the emissions?

 

Howard

Sigh.   This isn’t a debate…

The ten hottest years known all occur between 2015 and 2024, with 2024 holding the record , 1.5°C above the average 1850 to 1900.

Los Angeles is in the news; huge fire damage and some loss of life.  Although the region is known for wildfires, this one was extra bad because it occurred during a period of unusually high temperatures and unusually low rainfall. The city was unable to protect it’s citizens.  No proof this is due to global warming, but it’s statistically more likely than not – the model predicts unusual weather events.

Insurance companies indirectly believe LA’s problem is due to global warming – now they are declining to insure properties against fire in that region because they think the risk of it happening again is too high. Unusual weather causing high payouts to become normal, and insurers won’t support that.  Doesn’t matter if the homeowner believes in climate change or not, it’s the risk assessment that decides insurance rates, and the Laws of Physics that decide how weather behaves.

The amount of Carbon Dioxide produced by burning coal in small locomotives is trivial.  No need to worry about it.  It’s burning fossils on a gigantic scale as the cheapest way of producing energy that’s doing the damage.

Dave

[Bill DawesParticipant @billdawes]

I’m old enough to remember Nutty Slack.

My dad mixed it up with water and a dash of cement to make briquettes. Seemed to work.

Bill D.

[Cyril BonnettParticipant @cyrilbonnett24790]

Casually watching Youtube last night I came across a video about steam barges, there are it seems only about 6 steam barges left on British canal now, when it came to lighting the fire,, he started the fire with firelighters a few pieces of wood then started tossing compressed wood logs broken in half on the fire, when they were alight he started to shovel on small coal, saying the coal, in closed bags came from Azerbaijan, he said it was nearly as good as Welsh steam coal which was now unavailable, produced a lot of dirty smoke, it did.

He also said that steam powered barges were exempt from the rules and regulations regarding the use of coal.

Our World, in the UK, is going mad it seems with rules and regulation, we are buying wood chips from Canada and America to burn in the now privatised Drax power station and LNG from America and Bahrain, Scotland’s long overdue ferry the Glen Sannox engines are duel fuel and can burn LNG.

The LNG shipped from the middle east  for the Glenn Sannox is currently transported by 20 HGV at a time from the south of England to the Troon!

Who’s being taken for a ride?

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

The answer my dear Cyril is ALL OF US ! As to why so many fall for it is less easy, for example your reference to the Glen Sannox, most people will have only heard of it’s so called green credentials. The same is true of wind, solar, tide Etc, only the good bits are being told. Some people are making a lot of money from green. For most of us it just cost a lot of money !  Noel.

[Author]

Posts