PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

COAL
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Hydrocarbons
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ballard



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 826
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:07 am    Post subject: COAL Reply with quote

Ok,

Nukes are comming to an end, with 7 years plus before more can be commisioned.

Renewables are strangely unpopular with the government

Gas, it's going up in a puff of smoke.

And dont even mention the reduction word.

I'm convinced that Coal will be used to fill the energy gap in the UK, and damn the Global Warning Issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coal provided 50% of electricity over the last 5 months according to The Times.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
oobers



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Hebden Bridge

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was a piece on 'You and Yours' yesterday about the re-opening of the Hatfield Colliery in S.Yorks. Ex coal miner, Richard Budge took on the colliery in 2002, mothballed it in 2004 and is now re-opening it with ?100M finance, partly from Russia. He reckons there is in excess of 100m tonnes of coal in the pit and because coal prices have followed gas and oil, it is profitable to mine it again. He intends to build a ?800M gasification power plant on the site and 'capture the CO2 to use for enrichment of oil reserves in the North Sea'. (Quite how the CO2 will be transported from S. Yorks to North Sea oil fields, I'm not sure. Can anyone help with the geography and logistics of this?) What he doesn't use in the power station on site, he reckons he has sold whatever he mines for the next 6 years

The power station is planned for completion by 2009, generating by 2010.
He also quoted the stat of 50% of our power from coal over last 6 months and he is hopeful that the Energy Review will bring about new support for clean coal power stations as part of a diverse energy mix including nuclear. Wind power is a no no for the coal man. "What would you buy in your life, for your home that works one day in three and you don't know which day? - Because that is a wind farm."

A chap from Europcoal then confirmed that Britain has working and mothballed collieries that could provide 10's of millions of tonnes and last at least 20 years. What is needed, he says, is a commitment from the Energy Review that helps give confidence to investors to support deep mining projects. 1/3 of our electricity came from coal last year. 40% of the coal was from the UK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blue Peter



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1936
Location: Milton Keynes

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does deep-mined coal require a lot of oil to run all the drilling equipment?


Peter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Peter wrote:
Does deep-mined coal require a lot of oil to run all the drilling equipment?

Mostly electric I expect but I don't know for sure.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joe



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 596
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
Does deep-mined coal require a lot of oil to run all the drilling equipment?

Mostly electric I expect but I don't know for sure.


Also, either direct coal liquefaction or coal gassification with subsequent application of the Fisher-Tropsch process can be used to create synthetic crude from the coal.

This will obviously have a negative impact on the overall EROEI of the blah blah blah...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
oobers



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Hebden Bridge

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
Does deep-mined coal require a lot of oil to run all the drilling equipment?

Mostly electric I expect but I don't know for sure.


Our good friend Energy Ant provides a clue. On a recent visit to a coal mine in Pennsylvania, he discovered that...

Quote:
In fact, the mine itself uses quite a bit of electricity, between $150,000 and $200,000 worth every month.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy_fungames/energyant_trips/coalvisit.html

Now, given that average daily output from the mine is 19,000 tonnes, so monthly = 570,000 tonnes and industrial sector price for leccy in Pennsylvania is currently 6.2 cents/kWh, I make that 2823 MWh per month and 5kWh per tonne of coal. 1 tonne of coal can produce approx 7300 kWh electricity so that doesn't look too bad. If the power station is on site, transport isn't a great issue. What might I have missed, apart from the fact that I am deriving my information from an insect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Billhook



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 820
Location: High in the Cambrian Mountains

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oobers -

one point the ant appears to have missed is that a tonne of good quality coal has a potential energy of 9,000 kwhrs,
and is converted at around 32% efficiency to power, giving 2,880 kwhrs/tonne.

Thus 5kwhrs/T is still very small beer, (surprisingly so to my mind).

The problem comes with sequestering the CO2 emissions, which I'm told by the technology's proponents will take about 25% of the energy yield.

This would effectively be a large hike in Coal power's costs, with no additional profits untill we have an international treaty to set a discouraging price per Tonne of CO2 emissions.

regards,

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know where that 50% of electricity from coal over the last 5/6 months came from... the latest data from the DTI is for January and although the coal burn is up more than 21.1% up between Nov04/Dec04/Jan05 and Nov05/Dec05/Jan06 it's still only 46% compared with 39% the year before.

See table 5.4 here
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand most mining equipment is/could be electric because diesal driven DODGY would fill the mine with fumes?

Im no miner so I could be wrong (which is quite a lot!). Makes sense though? Wink
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ballard



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 826
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just finished 'Coal: A Human History' by Barbara Freese,

Chapter Ten, she raises some very valid points regarding Carbon Sequestration. Not only has it taken decades to achieve partial success in the capture of sulphur dioxide (a tiny fraction of coal content). But because carbon is the essence of the millions of tonnes of coal that is burnt every day, capturing carbon dioxide presents technical challenges of a much higher order of magnitude.

She also takes about the MASSIVE quantities of CO2 that need to be disposed of, and the effect of this on the EROEI of coal. Researchers apparently think that the deep ocean may be the only place big enough (not good for the ecology of this zone however).

Look up the issues with this (The lake Nyos tragedy in Cameroon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_tragedy

However the best point in my opinion is this;-
Quote:
To have any faith at all in carbon sequestration, though, it appears we would have to set up a tremendous system of international governmental oversight to ensure compliance. Every company and every country would be faced with a strong, ongoing economic incentive simply to vent the CO2 to the air instead of the expense of, say, hauling it to the nearest ocean or salt mine and pumping it to the depths. Since CO2 mixes so thoroughly in the global environment, cheating this way would be incredibly hard to detect absent near-constant oversight by some (incorruptible) regulatory authority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neily at the peak



Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 353
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I seem to remember reading somewhere that 60% carbon capture is the best that can be hoped for! can anyone comment on this?


Neil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've written some notes on coal here: http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/23/6050/44818

Here's a graph:


_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GD



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1099
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

leaner Coal Is Attracting Some Doubts

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 ? Within the next few years, power companies are planning to build about 150 coal plants to meet growing electricity demands. Despite expectations that global warming rules are coming, almost none of the plants will be built to capture the thousands of tons of carbon dioxide that burning coal spews into the atmosphere.

Environmentalists are worried, but they put their faith in a technology that gasifies the coal before burning. Such plants are designed, they say, to be more adaptable to separating the carbon and storing it underground.

Most utility officials counter that the gasification approach is more expensive and less reliable, but they say there is no need to worry because their tried-and-true method, known as pulverized coal, can also be equipped later with hardware to capture the global warming gas.

But now, influential technical experts are casting doubts on both approaches.

?The phrases ?capture ready? and ?capture capable? are somewhat controversial,? said Revis James, the director of the energy technology assessment center at the Electric Power Research Institute. ?It?s not like you just leave a footprint for some new equipment.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
snowdrift



Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:27 pm    Post subject: No coal users? Reply with quote

I've been heating the house almost exclusively on coal, and it's been going quite well so far. The ?/BTU of hardwood is about he same as coal, but I don't see burning wood as remotely sustainable.

I'm currently using a simple iron stove, but I'd be interested in modern domestic coal furnances. Has anyone had experience of them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Hydrocarbons All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group