When is black, white?

1966_and_all_that

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Answer: when it's the stupid, unnecessary and environmentally irresponsible new coal mine, planned for Cumbria. Yes, it is a white elephant of a desperate attempt by the Tory Government to hold onto votes in the North (Whitehaven), whilst trying to placate its backbenchers who are desperate to block the reintroduction of on-shore windfarm developments.

It makes NO rational sense. The mine will cost £165m, create 500 new jobs and produce an estimated 2.8m tonnes of coking coal a year for steel-making. However two UK steel companies have already said they will not need its coal. There is an abundance on the open market. In any case, UK steel production is required to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2035. Most leading European steel-makers are adopting green production methods and the British steel industry needs green investment in electric arc furnaces and hydrogen if it is to protect jobs and make the UK competitive. Those 500 jobs probably won't materialise.

Add to that, the unavoidability of a General Election within two years in which Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP all oppose the move back to coal and this project begins to look dead before a spade has even touched the Earth. As one Shadow minister said it's akin to opening a Betamax factory.
 
I'm pretty sure I read last week that the Swedes have a carbon free steel making process. Unnecessary in the current climate.
 
Having been to Whitehaven a few times in the last couple of years (caravan in Cumbria) it’s as deprived as Blackpool is unemployment is way above the national average so I don’t think bringing 500 jobs to the area is such a bad thing at all.

The day America and China except their guilt in pumping out harmful gasses and pollution into the atmosphere I don’t think one coal mine opening up in Cumbria (the first in 30 years) is hardly going to put us back into the dark ages.

There are far more important environmental things to address in this country than opening one coal mine like the constant polluting of our rivers and ultimately the sea, fly tipping, millions of diesel guzzling trucks/buses/cars, thousands of airliners polluting the skies daily, so one coal mine doesn’t come anywhere near any of these issues and it’s creating 500 jobs in a shockingly deprived area.

And let’s not forget this coal mine is producing a burning coke for the steel industry which is currently being imported at great cost so it’s being mined in another country so the planet is saving nothing here at all as the pollution is coming from the making of the Steel not getting the fuel out of the ground so what next close all the steel plants down?
 
Wizaard said:
I'm pretty sure I read last week that the Swedes have a carbon free steel making process. Unnecessary in the current climate.
Click to expand...

Sadly, not due to happen until 2026, shortly after the loons who are currently in office have been told to feck off by the right thinking, (ironically), general public

 
you really are obsessed by monarchy aren’t you though, to be fair, I do have the queen’s head on my toilet paper
 
funny you say that. I've just this minute used my last lot of Martin McGuinness bog roll but not to worry, I've still got plenty of Gerry Adams bog roll to wipe my arse with. Couple of IRA murdering scumbags wouldn't you agree?
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Having been to Whitehaven a few times in the last couple of years (caravan in Cumbria) it’s as deprived as Blackpool is unemployment is way above the national average so I don’t think bringing 500 jobs to the area is such a bad thing at all.

The day America and China except their guilt in pumping out harmful gasses and pollution into the atmosphere I don’t think one coal mine opening up in Cumbria (the first in 30 years) is hardly going to put us back into the dark ages.

There are far more important environmental things to address in this country than opening one coal mine like the constant polluting of our rivers and ultimately the sea, fly tipping, millions of diesel guzzling trucks/buses/cars, thousands of airliners polluting the skies daily, so one coal mine doesn’t come anywhere near any of these issues and it’s creating 500 jobs in a shockingly deprived area.

And let’s not forget this coal mine is producing a burning coke for the steel industry which is currently being imported at great cost so it’s being mined in another country so the planet is saving nothing here at all as the pollution is coming from the making of the Steel not getting the fuel out of the ground so what next close all the steel plants down?
Click to expand...
Whitehaven and Workington are great though, if deprived.
 
Philbfctrois said:
What's not to like hundreds of new jobs in a poor area and producing are own energy instead of having to import
Click to expand...
We do need to develop new jobs - of course we do. But this is not the way to do it. We need to be creating green jobs, developing our ability to thrive off our own green energy instead of importing coal. We need to clean up our act but this move shows how backwards the Government is being. The world has just sat around the tables at COP27 and no sooner have those tables been stowed than this contradictory policy comes out.

Not only that but our two biggest steel producers - Tata and British Steel - say they will not be using this coal. Apparently the world market is flush with coking coal and no matter what patriotic signals this mine might give out, orders for coal will be made on a commercial basis. So, it's looking like some 80% of coal produced at Whitehaven will be exported. Think about it, one of the world's leading economies wanting to send out regressive signals to the world that carbon-heavy coal is the way to go. It's madness.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Having been to Whitehaven a few times in the last couple of years (caravan in Cumbria) it’s as deprived as Blackpool is unemployment is way above the national average so I don’t think bringing 500 jobs to the area is such a bad thing at all.

The day America and China except their guilt in pumping out harmful gasses and pollution into the atmosphere I don’t think one coal mine opening up in Cumbria (the first in 30 years) is hardly going to put us back into the dark ages.

There are far more important environmental things to address in this country than opening one coal mine like the constant polluting of our rivers and ultimately the sea, fly tipping, millions of diesel guzzling trucks/buses/cars, thousands of airliners polluting the skies daily, so one coal mine doesn’t come anywhere near any of these issues and it’s creating 500 jobs in a shockingly deprived area.

And let’s not forget this coal mine is producing a burning coke for the steel industry which is currently being imported at great cost so it’s being mined in another country so the planet is saving nothing here at all as the pollution is coming from the making of the Steel not getting the fuel out of the ground so what next close all the steel plants down?
Click to expand...
Did you read the OP? Our two big steel producers do not want this coal. See my recent post at #16.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Having been to Whitehaven a few times in the last couple of years (caravan in Cumbria) it’s as deprived as Blackpool is unemployment is way above the national average so I don’t think bringing 500 jobs to the area is such a bad thing at all.

The day America and China except their guilt in pumping out harmful gasses and pollution into the atmosphere I don’t think one coal mine opening up in Cumbria (the first in 30 years) is hardly going to put us back into the dark ages.

There are far more important environmental things to address in this country than opening one coal mine like the constant polluting of our rivers and ultimately the sea, fly tipping, millions of diesel guzzling trucks/buses/cars, thousands of airliners polluting the skies daily, so one coal mine doesn’t come anywhere near any of these issues and it’s creating 500 jobs in a shockingly deprived area.

And let’s not forget this coal mine is producing a burning coke for the steel industry which is currently being imported at great cost so it’s being mined in another country so the planet is saving nothing here at all as the pollution is coming from the making of the Steel not getting the fuel out of the ground so what next close all the steel plants down?
Click to expand...
I know there's a balance to be had, but 35 years ago, this same Government were hellbent on destroying the coal mining industry as it was uneconomic and environmentally disastrous. What's changed? This is reopening an uneconomic mine for coking coal the British steel industry doesn't want, and has said as much.

It will be interesting to see where this coke goes, and who profits from its sale.
 
20togo said:
funny you say that. I've just this minute used my last lot of Martin McGuinness bog roll but not to worry, I've still got plenty of Gerry Adams bog roll to wipe my arse with. Couple of IRA murdering scumbags wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Don't disagree but once the power-sharing Executive got underway McGuinness worked closely with Ian Paisley to make a go of it.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Having been to Whitehaven a few times in the last couple of years (caravan in Cumbria) it’s as deprived as Blackpool is unemployment is way above the national average so I don’t think bringing 500 jobs to the area is such a bad thing at all.

The day America and China except their guilt in pumping out harmful gasses and pollution into the atmosphere I don’t think one coal mine opening up in Cumbria (the first in 30 years) is hardly going to put us back into the dark ages.

There are far more important environmental things to address in this country than opening one coal mine like the constant polluting of our rivers and ultimately the sea, fly tipping, millions of diesel guzzling trucks/buses/cars, thousands of airliners polluting the skies daily, so one coal mine doesn’t come anywhere near any of these issues and it’s creating 500 jobs in a shockingly deprived area.

And let’s not forget this coal mine is producing a burning coke for the steel industry which is currently being imported at great cost so it’s being mined in another country so the planet is saving nothing here at all as the pollution is coming from the making of the Steel not getting the fuel out of the ground so what next close all the steel plants down?
Click to expand...
Absolutely banging night out around carnival / fair time.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I did yes but someone will buy it otherwise it’s a pointless exercise.
Click to expand...
Pointless, disruptive and environmentally negative. If it is sold mostly overseas then where is the notion that it is intended to help Britain's energy self-sufficiency? If it's aimed at securing votes in Whitehaven then it's a bloody expensive and wrongheaded bribe. Just cast your mind back to the Thatcher years and her Governments falling over themselves to close mines. This current move shows up the Thatcher closures for what they really were, a political strategy to remove the NUM and disempower trade unions.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Pointless, disruptive and environmentally negative. If it is sold mostly overseas then where is the notion that it is intended to help Britain's energy self-sufficiency? If it's aimed at securing votes in Whitehaven then it's a bloody expensive and wrongheaded bribe. Just cast your mind back to the Thatcher years and her Governments falling over themselves to close mines. This current move shows up the Thatcher closures for what they really were, a political strategy to remove the NUM and disempower trade unions.
Click to expand...
It’s going to be a long time yet before it actually comes out of the ground so let’s pass judgement then and not now.
 
I've met the bloke who is in charge of this development whilst at a meeting of CoRWM.

He was interesting.

I thought it was interesting when he was talking about using Tees Port to export coal - so it's not just domestic consumption.

And, Ben Houchen's dream of sequestering CO2 under the North Sea is an energy intensive business and the plant plans have a power station attached; which is coal fired.

Now the equation is the release of CO2 during the process is less than the amount that which is captured - but as it stands - it's not that good.

I do think they are going to struggle to get people to work down the pit; must young people wasn't too work from home with a latte - and who can blame them.

Edited to add: It was about a year ago say things may have changed.
 
TSSeasider said:
I've met the bloke who is in charge of this development whilst at a meeting of CoRWM.

He was interesting.

I thought it was interesting when he was talking about using Tees Port to export coal - so it's not just domestic consumption.

And, Ben Houchen's dream of sequestering CO2 under the North Sea is an energy intensive business and the plant plans have a power station attached; which is coal fired.

Now the equation is the release of CO2 during the process is less than the amount that which is captured - but as it stands - it's not that good.

I do think they are going to struggle to get people to work down the pit; must young people wasn't too work from home with a latte - and who can blame them.

Edited to add: It was about a year ago say things may have changed.
Click to expand...
The power station at Tees Port utilises a revolutionary new process using supercritical CO2 as feed. The Gas Turbines are highly efficient and the flue gas is only CO2, so not needing an energy intensive separation process.
I’m in energy transition and have been following this exciting technology for years.
 
Rotterdam+Sussex_Seasider said:
The power station at Tees Port utilises a revolutionary new process using supercritical CO2 as feed. The Gas Turbines are highly efficient and the flue gas is only CO2, so not needing an energy intensive separation process.
I’m in energy transition and have been following this exciting technology for years.
Click to expand...
I'm not even going to pretend I have a clue what that means, but it shows the breath of knowledge amongst Blackpool fans! It sounds good though

My interest with them was a discussion around deep storage of radioactive waste and what a consent based process should look like; the other stuff came up in conversation.
 
TSSeasider said:
I'm not even going to pretend I have a clue what that means, but it shows the breath of knowledge amongst Blackpool fans! It sounds good though

My interest with them was a discussion around deep storage of radioactive waste and what a consent based process should look like; the other stuff came up in conversation.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of pessimism about reaching Net Zero, but I know there are many technologies that will help us to get there. The UK is playing a big part in this, but it does concern me when I read that we are returning to the dark days of coal.

Personally, my favourites are heat pumps (for heating homes) and geothermal. Don't get me started on hydrogen!
 
Rotterdam+Sussex_Seasider said:
The power station at Tees Port utilises a revolutionary new process using supercritical CO2 as feed. The Gas Turbines are highly efficient and the flue gas is only CO2, so not needing an energy intensive separation process.
I’m in energy transition and have been following this exciting technology for years.
Click to expand...

You are close in describing the technology, but not quite right. Carbon dioxide is not “the feed” - it’s quite unreactive.
The new process combusts natural gas with oxygen, rather than air, in the “oxyfuel combustor” (similar to a gas turbine I expect) and uses the resulting combustion gas of supercritical (high temperature) carbon dioxide as a working fluid to drive the next turbine.

In a conventional Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) station, after the gas turbine there is a steam turbine on the same generator shaft. In the Teesside station the s/c carbon dioxide will drive the turbine instead. The advantage of the CO2 turbine over a steam turbine is that steam cools as it passes through the steam turbine and eventually condenses, losing its motive power. However if the CO2 is at high enough pressure it can drive the turbine through all its rotor stages. But it’s only a 300 MW unit.

Furthermore, after the carbon dioxide has passed through the turbine, it can be passed into a pipeline for subsequent injection into rock strata offshore. In fact, it may be possible to use pipelines previously used for offshore gas production if they are in good enough condition. So, although a fossil fuel power station it could emit minimal CO2 into the atmosphere. It will be the UK’s first carbon capture power station.
 
Last edited:
Archibald Knox said:
You are close in describing the technology, but not quite right. Carbon dioxide is not “the feed” - it’s quite unreactive.
The new process combusts natural gas with oxygen, rather than air, in the “oxyfuel combustor” (similar to a gas turbine I expect) and uses the resulting combustion gas of supercritical (high temperature) carbon dioxide as a working fluid to drive the next turbine.

In a conventional Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) station, after the gas turbine there is a steam turbine on the same generator shaft. In the Teesside station the s/c carbon dioxide will drive the turbine instead. The advantage of the CO2 turbine over a steam turbine is that steam cools as it passes through the steam turbine and eventually condenses, losing its motive power. However if the CO2 is at high enough pressure it can drive the turbine through all its rotor stages. But it’s only a 300 MW unit.

Furthermore, after the carbon dioxide has passed through the turbine, it can be passed into a pipeline for subsequent injection into rock strata offshore. In fact, it may be possible to use pipelines previously used for offshore gas production if they are in good enough condition. So, although a fossil fuel power station it could emit minimal CO2 into the atmosphere. It will be the UK’s first carbon capture power station.
Click to expand...
I was just trying to oversimplify for the target audience. I know that CO2 replaces air (less O2 combusted) as the expansion gas.
Also, it is possible to produce hydrocarbons utilising the excess CO2 and the Fischer-Tropsch process (I think).
At my previous company, we had meetings with that company, but I was unhappy that we didn’t proceed further. Hopefully, I can convince my new employers to look into it.
 
Rotterdam+Sussex_Seasider said:
I was just trying to oversimplify for the target audience. I know that CO2 replaces air (less O2 combusted) as the expansion gas.
Also, it is possible to produce hydrocarbons utilising the excess CO2 and the Fischer-Tropsch process (I think).
At my previous company, we had meetings with that company, but I was unhappy that we didn’t proceed further. Hopefully, I can convince my new employers to look into it.
Click to expand...
The CO2 does not replace the air. It is pure oxygen that replaces air in the combustion of natural gas (methane). That’s the method to produce much hotter burning to give the supercritical CO2 which is the combustion product.

It is also uneconomic to try and make hydrocarbons from CO2 since CO2 is more thermodynamically stable than hydrocarbons, so you would need to put in more energy, even if the CO2 was hot. That’s why they plan to simply inject the CO2 into rock strata to accomplish carbon capture.
 
There is some misunderstanding over the technology of steel-making here.
Electric arc furnaces are not used for making raw iron/steel (or “pig iron”) and so they do not use coke or coal - they cannot replace blast furnaces which use coke (carbon) to extract the oxygen from ground iron oxide to make raw steel.

Electric arc furnaces use raw steel as the feed, to which they add chromium and nickel to make stainless steel such as AISI 304L (“kitchen grade” SS) which is 18% chromium, 8-10% nickel and the 72% balance of iron. Put 3% molybdenum and a bit more nickel into it and you get 316L (“marine grade” SS).

Electric arc furnaces are an expensive way to make reliably high quality steel alloys, not to make crude steel. The UK steel industry tends to focus on high value alloys and we leave bulk carbon steel production to other countries with a lower cost base.

So the high quality coal from Cumbria will be used to make raw steel with iron oxide with the coke burning and combining with the oxygen in the iron oxide to produce carbon dioxide leaving behind molten iron (raw steel) which is then tapped off the bottom of the blast furnace. That’s if we have any blast furnaces reliably operating in the UK these days. If not, the coke will be exported to those countries that do have BFs.
 
Last edited:
If we want an active steel industry in the UK, making raw steel as well as higher alloys such as stainless steels, then high quality coal mined within the UK is a good idea IMHO. That saves on transport costs.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The CO2 does not replace the air. It is pure oxygen that replaces air in the combustion of natural gas (methane). That’s the method to produce much hotter burning to give the supercritical CO2 which is the combustion product.

It is also uneconomic to try and make hydrocarbons from CO2 since CO2 is more thermodynamically stable than hydrocarbons, so you would need to put in more energy, even if the CO2 was hot. That’s why they plan to simply inject the CO2 into rock strata to accomplish carbon capture.
Click to expand...
I did not say that it replaced the air in the combustion process. I said that it effectively replaced the nitrogen (and depleted oxygen) in the expansion process that drives the turbine.
 
The “expansion process” in a conventional CCGT station is that natural gas plus air when combusted produces steam which drives the secondary steam turbine (after the primary gas turbine). Of course the nitrogen in air is non-combustible and contributes no energy but still maintains pressure.

The new process with pure oxygen feed means that all the natural gas is burnt to produce 100% CO2 at high temperature which cannot condense as steam can. There is still some steam though as burning natural gas is CH4 + 2.O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. The lack of nitrogen is helpful but fairly peripheral to the main process development. If the steam can be stripped out then the turbine driving can be with pure S/C CO2 but I am not sure why you would want to spend the energy to do that.
 
Last edited:
Rotterdam+Sussex_Seasider said:
The power station at Tees Port utilises a revolutionary new process using supercritical CO2 as feed. The Gas Turbines are highly efficient and the flue gas is only CO2, so not needing an energy intensive separation process.
I’m in energy transition and have been following this exciting technology for years.
Click to expand...
Don’t suppose anyone has managed to upscale that invention from that British bloke who generated power from compressed fresh air in his shed?!

Could the coal from this new mine be used in our power stations the EU made us convert to burn wood chip pellets and assume (for a higher cost) it can be made relatively clean?
 
Archibald Knox said:
The “expansion process” in a conventional CCGT station is that natural gas plus air when combusted produces steam which drives the secondary steam turbine. Of course the nitrogen in air is non-combustible and contributes no energy but still maintains pressure.

The new process with pure oxygen feed means that all the natural gas is burnt to produce 100% CO2 at high temperature which cannot condense as steam can. There is still some steam though as burning natural gas is CH4 + 2.O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. The lack of nitrogen is helpful but fairly peripheral to the main process development.
Click to expand...
I don't know where to start with that, so I won't bother. Some things are not correct and a lack of detail means that some points needed to understand the overall process are lost.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The “expansion process” in a conventional CCGT station is that natural gas plus air when combusted produces steam which drives the secondary steam turbine. Of course the nitrogen in air is non-combustible and contributes no energy but still maintains pressure.

The new process with pure oxygen feed means that all the natural gas is burnt to produce 100% CO2 at high temperature which cannot condense as steam can. There is still some steam though as burning natural gas is CH4 + 2.O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. The lack of nitrogen is helpful but fairly peripheral to the main process development.
Click to expand...
Could I ask what authority you have in this area please?
 
Archibald Knox said:
Go on then. Inform us. Or slink away.
Click to expand...
Well, you have just slunk away by telling us you are not allowed to tell us due to the nature of your employment.

I do not have to justify myself by giving a highly detailed technical description of this technology. Not on a bloody football message board!

It is not even my specific area of Net Zero expertise, merely one of a few technologies which I believe will help us to decarbonise the planet.
 
I am serious about my employment.
We are not allowed to register with LinkedIn or Facebook etc. Only anonymous social media.
So AVFTT is perfect !
 
I do agree that the Teesside plant will help us develop fossil electricity generation with carbon capture fairly quickly. We are going to need that as an interim measure because it will take too long to build enough nuclear capacity.

And expect more wind turbines too. There should a law that all new build houses are fitted with solar panels too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top