Defra stance on coal burning. Have your say now ....

At least there will not be any arguements about colour

 

I remember hearing on the News during the 1980's miners strike that the NUM had declared the coal from one particular colliery to be "black".

 

Could FEDECRAIL be an active support in this case to prevent this happen?
I am not an expert of this (not even British) but isn`t one of the reasons for using coal to show the traditional way this heritage steam engines was operated ? This has NOTHING to do with pollution, that argument is completele idiotic! In the hole perspective the "pollution" from heritage steam locos is like a drop in the ocean. Heritage railways operated with steam locomotives creates a massive tourist attraction creating places to work and a huge income for the community, as well preserving this very important history of british engineering. Since all politics in the end turn up on just money, this should be a heavy argument.

This case remind me back in the 1997, when it here in Norway was a stir ,regards the new extra C02 taxes that would affect (the extreme little, but very important) part of the norwegian steam heritage using coal. At the end the financial comittee of the Parliament abandoned this taxes to the heritage industry, and gave them exempt form the new C02 taxes.
As the parliament wrote themselves "an important reason for this taxes, is to change the industry to other forms of energy supply with less pollution". "This can by natural reasons NOT pleading the heritage use for coal in steam engines and ships". "In this case it is on the contrary and a gist that the opeariton of these heritage vehicles is based on use of coal" "In addition to this, the the exempt from the C02 taxces in this case will only have minimal disapperanc of income for the Government".

kind regards

Knut

 

Oh really !

 

This, as far as I can see, is more about keeping civil servants workdays full occupied!
Most pollution comes from motor vehicle it is said and what about all those lethal* gasses emitted by the millions by central heating boilers which for many people have replaced coal fires?
* If not lethal why is it advised to have carbon monoxide alarms?

 

Carbon monoxide is produced from burning Coal too - as evidenced by all those gas works all over the country up until the switch to Methane , so you may want to revisit your knowledge of Chemistry. The key factor influencing Carbon Monoxide production is Oxygen levels - too little and it CM will be produced regardless of the fuel type.

Pollution also depends on what you are looking at - a decade ago when Carbon Dioxide emissions were the big area of concern, there was a big swing towards diesel engined cars for the very sensible reason that they produce less CO2 than petrol. Unfortunately when you look at toxic particulates, diesel engines are far worse than petrol so people living alongside busy roads or in urban areas found their health declining with responsary illness increasing at an alarming rate. Hence recent outrage a 'fixed' diesel emission testing and a desire by authorities to clamp down on diesels.

Coal (or wood burning), like the burning of diesel fuel produces lots of particulate pollution and can have the same effect on peoples health - as we saw in the 1950s. To achieve popper combustion and minimise pollution, such fuels need to be burnt in state of the art static power plants were oxygen levels and furnace temperatures can be precisely controlled, adjusted and monitored. Domestic open hearths, wood burners, etc are far too crude - and as with diesel cars, while they may not be a problem out in the countryside, using them (particularly in large numbers) in urban areas creates problems for residents.

So in summery, its got nothing to do with keeping civil servants 'fully occupied' and everything tp do with trying to address one of the sources of urban pollution which causes genuine heath problems in big cities like London. Whether it is the most effective way of addressing the issues, is of course up for debate.

 

It's not a question of addressing cars OR coal fires. All potential sources of pollution should be assessed.

 

One of the main bodies within Defra, are the LEP's who amongst many areas they choose to promote, is Tourism.

It would be counter productive to take a stance on Coal, when it would damage the Tourism offering around the Country.

However I would suggest any Railway look at the funding that the LEP's have on offer, as a knock on of Brexit, all of the European Money has to be spent by December 2019, or given back.

They are backing a whole host of Tourist based projects, and any railway could easily think up a project to fulfil the criteria for a 40% contribution.

 

Are you sure about that..?? I'm certain there are those members on this forum who, like me, remember with a smile a certain loco with whitewashed coal, Shildon, August 1975.

 

Absolutely. All gaseous hydrocarbons are "greenhouse gases" to one degree or another. Methane is far worse than carbon dioxide in this respect .... and there are unimaginable amounts of that gas locked up in the permafrost of arctic and sub arctic tundra which will be released into the atmosphere in increasing quantities as global temperatures rise. Getting CO2 levels from human (and bovine) activities under control is a critical part of this equation - whatever certain people with a vested interest and their chosen mouthpieces may say.

Cement production has already been mentioned as a massive contributor and if any one thing away from the transport sector could be done to make a significant reduction in CO2 production, this is the one which needs to be addressed. Ditto generation of electricity for distribution grids.

Another consideration is water vapour being released into the upper atmosphere in the form of aircraft con-trails. Here, it's worth noting that when the French TGV network got into gear, internal short haul flights in France dropped off significantly in very short order. We're not at the stage when trans-oceanic tunnels are a practical proposition, but rail is certainly one technology which has a significant role to play, for both passenger and long distance freight traffic.

Although Chinese developments have proved MagLev technology works in service, I'm uncertain as to it's economic viability. There's also MagVac, or Hyperloop waiting in the wings. Evacuated tubes permit far higher velocities than achievable in the open air at land levels and though widely touted in the media as permitting travel over distance measured in minutes rather than hours, their application to freight is just as vital. The obvious issues are surface installations are unavoidably intrusive and tunnel installations prohibitively expensive.

Next to all this, my previous bangings-on elsewhere concerning development of torrified biomass fuels to keep our beloved steam locos alive into the future (and yes, to produce electricity at need), is peanuts, though to quote the famous advert, every little helps.

On the bright side, a debatable figure of 99.99% of all terrestrial life has always been just one gamma ray burst away from extinction, which if it were to happen (as possibly implicated in the mysterious Permian extinction event of around 252 million years ago) would solve the issue of climate change for a good few million years. In case that's given anyone the screaming heebie-jeebies, keep in mind if that hadn't happened, we almost certainly wouldn't be here now.

It all rather puts livery froth into perspective, doesn't it?

 

That is not what my post suggests.
However, I stand by what I wrote. We have more pressing issues as far as I am concerned. Motor vehicle pollution, nuclear waste and processes, large quantities of electronic waste and not least rivers, lakes, watercourses and beaches littered with plastics and other synthetic waste. Most of the foregoing take a very long time to decompose and are finding their way, in one manner or another, into the human food chain. So why this particular debate? After all coal and wood has been burned for some centuries now. A question of a soft target? Or what the eye doesn't see etc. etc.

 

Potential new coal mine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-47629731

Can anyone explain the difference between coking coal and the stuff burned in locomotives, please?

 

Gas appliances, and indeed wood/solid fuel stoves shouldn't produce CO if they are working properly. They can do so when broken, however, and as CO can kill pretty quickly, an alarm isn't a bad precaution to take.

 

Coking coal is heated in a retort to drive off certain impurities and create... Coke.

 

Up to a point. That describes how you make coke (which is what the steel industry wants) but doesn't explain the difference between "coking coal" as mined and any other.

My understanding (but I am sure @Steve would correct me if wrong) is that when you heat coal to drive off the volatiles, what is left behind is a mixture of the pure carbon, ash and any sulphur (in the form of iron sulphide), which together are referred to as coke. So if you want good quality coke (i.e. high purity carbon) then you need to start with low percentage of ash and sulphur, and that is essentially what a coking coal is - it's simply a coal (which is a variable product) that is low in ash and non-volatile impurities such as sulphur.

Tom

 

Could be wrong but I think a decent coking coal would probably make for decent steam loco fuel, assuming that the lump size is suitable.

 

Its putting the coal into coking ovens to release the sulpher content and coal tar ammonia and light oils to make the coke have more calorific value thats why its used in steel making cos of low ash and sulpher content.

 

Does coke burn hotter than coal anyone on this thread?

 

I would say burning coke on locos would be the way foreward but i would presume does it burn faster than ordinary bitoumus coal and be more expensive to extract the impurities out putting it in coke ovens thats the only downside i see with using coke.

 

Coke is what the very earliest locomotives ran on, I believe.