To be sad and angry at the coalmine decision

[SusiePevensie]

It's insane. How? Why?

Pythonese · Today 07:40

How are you going to make steel without coal ?

Hydrogen reduction is being used increasingly and it's much cleaner. The coking process is absolutely filthy and causes huge pollution, with oils and tars etc, not just carbon dioxide.

I'm from a coal mining area and mourned the loss of it, in the 80s and 90s, but see that it's probably better left in the ground.

Steel industry or not - there will be an impact on CO2 emissions.
Somewhere.

We need steel. Steel needs coal or hydrogen. To make hydrogen, you need to use fossil fuels or electricity. Electricity can be made from fossil fuels or renewables.

It's all very complicated.

I think people would be very surprised how much energy (and by definition, fossil fuels, renewables or nuclear) are used for industry to make things we need. Steel, aluminium etc.

And hydrogen is made from either fossil fuels or electricity. Hydrogen production can involve a lot of CO2 emissions.

I live quite close to the area , and don't think it's a good idea ( when say quite close talking 20 miles or so ) so I'm not against it as a nimby.
getting it up will cost millions , they say it will be very eco friendly , which obviously is a good thing. Once going could employ 500 ( according to the Major of the town - Mr. Starkie ) He is also saying the miners could earn £50,000 a year and they will be driven to the coal face in electric Land Rovers .
All sounds good .
But here's the rub. Unfortunately the majority is for export as it is not coal that is used in homes, it's for the steel industry , which the UK doesn't really have. So we hope to export it to places that already have coal from places like China & Poland who are not eco friendly when it comes to extracting their coal , who are not driving the miners to the coal face in electric Land Rovers ( how many miners can you get in a Land Rover / how many would be needed ? )
Are chinese & polish miners paid £50,000 equivalent ?
So will we be competitive in our cost of the coal compared to their usual suppliers ?
I think the answer will be no.

It’s a good thing, closing the pits caused huge economic consequences for families in the mining areas. We need to use the resources we have and not be so reliant on import’s.

You didn’t want fracking or nuclear so this is the consequence. Bad winters literally kill ppl, loads more than a hot summer so what do you expect?

I completely agree, much needed jobs in areas that never recovered when the pits closed. If you are really worried about the planet campaign for a world wide change, don't expect the UK low income population to go green when the likes of china are pumping huge amount of emissions. If you can afford to spend the extra to save the planet then good for you x

cakeorwine · Today 08:25

And hydrogen is made from either fossil fuels or electricity. Hydrogen production can involve a lot of CO2 emissions.

Everything has a cost, obviously, but electricity can be generated by wind, solar, hydro etc. And all of them have ultimate environmental costs.

But coking is a really filthy process, I used live right across the Tyne from the Monkton coke works. After it was closed, the bioremediation operation of the site and surrounding area was absolutely massive.

It sounds to me like they are gambling on further political unrest and perhaps conflict with China :(

I'd love to know who the individuals who stand to benefit from this are. The money is coming from a private equity fund located in the Cayman Islands.

I buy steel tube and only ever purchase from Europe when timescales are too tight to import from further afield. The prices are incomparable. A simple way to reduce reliance on China and other countries with poor environmental and working conditions would be to impose import taxes on steel. I'm not sure why this has not been done.

Why does Europe do this to themselves?

Deindustrialise and then depend on other countries for essentials, then whine when the price goes up.

Read the government's statement.

can you link it @Hobbi
i only know what i heard on the news last night and read in the guardian this morning.

Deindustrialise and then depend on other countries for essentials, then whine when the price goes up.

They are phasing out coke fired smelting plants, in favour of cleaner operations, not de-industrialising.

Not all coal is used for fuel. A great deal is used in the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors for medicines and fertiliser. So, just because we have a coal mine, it doesn’t mean it is going to be used in a coal power plant to generate electricity or burned in homes for heat.

We all live in the same planet

We are sitting on 50 million tons of untapped shale gas which will provide cheap fuel for a long time but the government caved in to the carrot munchers so we can freeze our bits off with crippling energy bills. Well done everyone!!

@Georgeskitchen
The shale gas wouldn't reduce your bills by one penny. Renewables might, but not gas.

My mum lives a few miles away. On the whole I welcome the decision. West Cumbria is a really really poor area. It desperately needs jobs.

The UK still has coal power stations and they need fuel. We need the coal stations as we haven't invested in nuclear.

Something has to keep the lights on when the days are foggy and windless as renewables won't.

@Georgeskitchen
Fracking is the most expensive way to drill for natural gas, it’s far from cheap. And that’s not even counting the trillions of litres of polluted radioactive wastewater it produces and then has to be disposed of. Or the costs of remediating the inevitable leaks of the radioactive wastewater into the local ground water and streams and tackling environmental devastation to both plants and animals (and humans).

Really tricky. I come from coal mining stock and have first hand knowledge of death by emphesimia and other coal related issues. Not to mention the green argument for not having coal. So on that basis it's a bad idea.

However it also seems crazy that were sitting on a massive resource that isn't used and reliant on imports, particularly in light of Russia. Would prefer to be self sufficient. Surely in this day and age there could be a way to reduce to effect of mining and its emissions or is that too naive?

It obviously makes a complete joke of all their climate pledges, but no-one expected any better from them I suppose. We should have given the go-ahead to a more nuclear years ago.

It’s not good enough. Like the way the government has fucked up the NHS. We shouldn’t stand for this level short term stupid thinking. We need a new government.

if and when labour get in, they will close it,
or will they?

If the coal is for export, how will it compete against other suppliers whose costs of production like wages will be lower? Unless the wages being talked about right now don’t materialise …..